CAR_Public/150203.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, February 3, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 24


                             Headlines

ABBOTT LABS: Faces False Ad Class Action Over Protein Drink
ADOBE SYSTEMS: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Tech Workers' Wages
AFNI INC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Claims
ALBUQUERQUE, NM: Car of Plaintiff in DWI Class Action Seized
APPLE INC: 2011 Class Action Over MacBook Pro Graphics Expands

ARCH SPECIALTY: Removes American Western Suit to C.D. California
BAXALTA INCORPORATED: Baxter Paid $64MM to Settle Class Action
BONEH FIDE: Faces "Garcia-Sanchez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
BORGATA HOTEL: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Parking Vouchers
CAMBRIDGE, NY: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action

CANADA: Supreme Court Won't Hear Class Action Over Steel Plant
CAR CARE: Faces "Marchan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CHANNELADVISOR CORPORATION: Sued Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Plaintiff Voluntary Dismisses Derivative Suit
COMPASS GROUP: Faces "Macias" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

CONVERGENZ LLC: Faces "Jallow" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CORNELL WIRELINE: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CORRECT CARE: "Moore" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
CVS PHARMACY: Sued Over Eye Nutritional Supplement Fraud Claims
DESTRIER CONSULTING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

DISH NETWORK: Faces Class Action Over Bait-and-Switch Scheme
DOLLAR TREE: Chancery Court Bars Bid for Interlocutory Appeal
DORIS INC: Sock Commercial Prompts False Advertising Class Suit
EBAY INC: Settles Recurring-Fee Class Action for $6.4 Million
FAIRWAY CAPITAL: Has Invaded Class Member's Privacy, Suit Claims

FAMILY DOLLAR: No Schedule Set for Adjudication of Claims
FIVEFINGERS: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
FLOWERS FOODS: Recalls Original English Muffins Due to Milk
GASSEARCH DRILLING: Judge Curtails Claims in Gas Drilling Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Misled Investors About Safety, NYSTRS Claims

GENERAL MOTORS: Seeks Dismissal of Musician Royalty Class Action
GEORGIA, USA: Bid to Junk Suit Over Same-Sex Marriage Ban Denied
GLOBAL CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
GOODYEAR TIRE: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Heating Hose Suit
GRILL-PHORIA LLC: Recalls Beef Jerky Treats Due to Salmonella

HAMCHOROM INC: Recalls HAITAI Tayo & Gyeran Crackers
HILTON GRAND: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Mey" Suit Claims
J & S SHEET: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
KMART CORP: Scott & Scott Comments on Data Breach Class Action
LAWRENCE LIVERMORE: Retirees Set to Receive Class Action Notice

LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
MANORCARE: Seeks Certification of Hepatitis C Class Action
MASSAGE ENVY: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Practices
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Accused of Misrepresentation in New York
MICHAEL'S STORES: Faces Class Action Over Background Checks

MICROSOFT CORP: September 2015 Trial in British Columbia Case
MICROSOFT CORP: Argument in US Cell Phone Case Appeal in May 2015
MICROSOFT CORP: Canadian Cell Phone Class Action Not Yet Active
MR. PAPA'S: Faces "Delgado-Soto" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
NYC HEALTH AND HOSPITALS: Has Harassed Black Worker, Suit Claims

O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Graham" Suit Says
PARAMOUNT PICTURES: Faces Class Action Over Credit Reports
PENNSYLVANIA: Faces Class Action Over Delayed Health Coverage
PEPSICO INC: Judge Casts Doubt on Cancer-Warning Class Action
PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says

PROJECT HEALTHY: Recalls Chocolate & Vanilla Protein Powder
PUBLIC SERVICE ENTERPRISE: Faces Class Alleging FMLA Violations
QUEBEC, CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Liquor Monopoly
ROCK CREEK: Judge Dismisses Class Suit Over Anatabloc Supplement
RV TRANSPORT: Faces "Castillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

SAFWAY SERVICES: Sued for Violating Fair Labor Standards Act
SAKS FIFTH: Sued for Retaliating Against Then-Pregnant Employee
SAQ: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Price Mark-Ups
SCHNUCK MARKETS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Data Breach Suit
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL: Trial Begins in Suit Alleging Forced Labor

SINGING RIVER: Judge Delays Pension Plan Termination for 90 Days
STATE FARM: Judge Dismisses TCPA Class Action
STONE MOUNTAIN: Recalls 8oz. Packs Pecanettes Due to Salmonella
SYNGENTA CORP: Faces "Heath Hill" Suit Over Viptera Corn
SYNGENTA CORP: Scott+Scott Files Class Action Over GMO Corn Seed

SYNGENTA SEEDS: Faces "Michael Hill" Suit Over Contaminated Corn
TD BANK: Sued Over Improper Collection of Overdraft Fees
TOYOTA MOTOR: Urges Jury to Decide on Evidence in Crash Suit
TPG CAPITAL: Judge Tosses Shareholder Class Action
TRACFONE WIRELESS: Settles False Advertising Claims for $40MM

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Charges Fictitious LAX Airport Fees, Suit Says
UNITED STATES: Judge Strikes Down Minimum Wage Regulation
UNITY DISPOSAL: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
UNIVERSAL WINDOWS: Faces "Alba" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA: Hockey Team Scraps Season Amid Class Action

VECTOR TRANSPORTATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
WALGREEN CO: Falsely Marketed Dietary Supplements, Suit Claims
WALMART STORES: Faces False Ad Class Suit Over Arm & Hammer Sale
WARNER MUSIC: Court Awards $2 Million to Musicians' Attorneys
WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Action in Washington Over Foreclosure

WET SEAL: Faces Class Action Over Store Closures


                            *********


ABBOTT LABS: Faces False Ad Class Action Over Protein Drink
-----------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a class action lawsuit filed on
Jan. 13 against a protein drink manufacturer alleged the company
falsely advertised the amount of protein in its products.

Sara Hawes and Clarice Chavira filed the lawsuit against Abbott
Laboratories, alleging the amount of protein in Abbott's EAS
Myoplex Original and EAS AdvantEdge Carb Control ready-to-drink
protein products didn't contain the amount of protein that was
advertised on their labels.  Abbott allegedly reduced the protein
content in its products in order to reduce costs.  The EAS Myoplex
Original label advertises 42 grams of protein per serving, but lab
tests allegedly found the product only contains 38.085 grams of
protein.  Likewise, the EAS AdvantEdge Carb Control product states
it contains 17 grams of protein per serving, but it allegedly
contains 14.164 grams.

The plaintiffs are seeking more than $5 million in damages and
believe there could be tens of thousands of class members.

Ms. Hawes and Ms. Chavira are represented by Joseph J. Siprut and
Gregory W. Jones of Siprut, PC; Nick Suci III of Barbat, Mansour &
Suciu, PLLC; and Tina Wolfson and Bradley King of Ahdoot &
Wolfson, PC.

United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois-Eastern Division case number 1:15-cv-00308


ADOBE SYSTEMS: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Tech Workers' Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonny Bonner, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Adobe, Apple, Google and Intel have agreed to settle a high-stakes
dispute over tech workers' wages, attorneys said on January 13.

Software engineers, on behalf of an estimated class of 64,000,
sued the tech giants, plus Intuit and Walt Disney subsidiaries
LucasFilm and Pixar, in 2010, over illegal "no cold-call
agreements" that restricted or eliminated competition for high-
tech employees, which "disrupted the normal price-setting
mechanism that apply in the labor setting."

The poaching ban, workers claimed, maintained internal salary
structures at the companies from 2005 to 2009, and involved
"gentleman's agreements" via CEO-to-CEO emails between the late
Steve Jobs and other leading Silicon Valley CEOs.

Five cases underlying the consolidated action were filed in
California Superior Court and removed to Federal Court.

In August 2014, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh rejected workers'
request for preliminary approval of a $325 million settlement.
Koh found the offer too low: outside "the range of
reasonableness."

Koh also ruled that although "ample evidence" showed an
overarching conspiracy between the defendants, the proposed
settlement was "proportionally lower" per class member than that
of a separate $20 million settlement with Lucasfilm, Pixar and
Intuit, in 2013.

Adobe, Apple, Google and Intel called Koh's rejection of the
proposed settlement a "clear legal error," in September 2014.

Google attorney Robert Van Nest, of Keker & Van Nest, said Koh's
"formulaic approach" in deciding that the offer was short by 16
percent went against precedent that values negotiation and
mediation over benchmarking.

The tech companies called on the 9th Circuit to use the case as an
opportunity to set "the proper standard for preliminary approval
of class settlements," claiming that Koh potentially doomed the
tech employees to "the very real chance that they and the absent
class members will receive nothing" by rejecting the deal -- the
highest ever in an employment antitrust case.

Koh released separate emails, one by a Google employee and
shareholder, in response to the companies' petition.

"Real choices and opportunities were taken away from these
employees due to lack of recruiting among the companies," the
worker said.  "No amount of money can fix that now."

The lawsuits followed a Justice Department investigation into the
seven companies' employment and recruitment practices, in 2009 and
2010.  The DOJ filed a suit against the companies in 2010,
alleging they agreed to restrict the mobility of their skilled
employees.

The companies settled with the government, without admitting
wrongdoing, and agreed not to enforce any agreement that kept them
from soliciting, cold calling or competing for employees from one
another.

Attorney Donald Falk, with Mayer Brown, announced the tech
quartet's unspecified settlement to the 9th Circuit on Jan. 13.

"The parties have reached a new settlement agreement that is
subject to district court approval," Falk wrote.  "The plaintiffs
imminently are expected to file a motion for preliminary approval
with the district court.  After that filing, petitioners will make
a submission to this court regarding the mandamus proceeding."


AFNI INC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shari L. Kavalin, an individual; on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. AFNI, Inc., an Illinois Corporation,
Case No. 0:15-cv-60143-WJZ (S.D. Fla., January 23, 2015) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Peerce Howard, Esq.
          John Allen Yanchunis, Sr., Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          One Tampa City Center, 7th Floor
          201 North Franklin Street
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 221-6590
          Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
          E-mail: bhoward@forthepeople.com
                  jyanchunis@forthepeople.com


ALBUQUERQUE, NM: Car of Plaintiff in DWI Class Action Seized
------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Thoren, writing for KOAT Albuquerque, reports that an
Albuquerque attorney suing the city over its DWI vehicle seizures
policy just had his car seized after he was arrested on a DWI
charge.

Attorney Colin Hunter said the city's policy of seizing the cars
of suspected drunken drivers before they're convicted is
unconstitutional.  He called it policing for profit.

"It pays the salaries of the attorneys, the salaries of the people
who deal with forfeiture, buys new vehicles for the people who
administer this program," Mr. Hunter said in a February 2014
interview with Action 7 News.

Mr. Hunter was arrested after police said he was driving drunk.
His Nissan sports car was seized.  Sheriff's deputies said it was
not a normal DWI stop because the car had been in an accident and
the airbags were deployed. Deputies also said they found eight
open containers in the car.

The official report said Hunter refused a field sobriety test and
instead told deputies, "Just take me to jail."

It wasn't MR. Hunter's first DWI arrest.  He's been arrested twice
before for DWI.  He was convicted in one of those cases, and
because of that history, his sports car was seized after last
month's arrest.  He's since pleaded guilty to DWI.  No word if
he'll eventually get his car back.

Mr. Hunter's class action lawsuit against the city policy is still
pending.


APPLE INC: 2011 Class Action Over MacBook Pro Graphics Expands
--------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Hughes, writing for Apple Insider, reports that members of
the 2011 MacBook Pro graphics failure class-action lawsuit were
updated on the latest developments in the case, which has expanded
to include multiple states and lodges new complaints against
Apple, accusing the company of deliberately concealing problems.

In an email sent out to members of the suit, the law firm of
Whitfield, Bryson & Mason LLP revealed that its complaint now
includes California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Puerto
Rico, and Vermont.  The complaint has also been updated to accuse
Apple of taking steps to hide the problems from consumers.

"Specifically, we allege that between early- and late-2011, Apple
released a software update that dramatically reduced the graphical
performance of the GPUs in order to prevent them from reaching
temperatures that would cause the GPUs to effectively self
destruct," the note reads.

The law firm said that some members of the class-action suit have
volunteered their faulty MacBook Pros for testing, and a computer
hardware expert has been hired to perform tests on the hardware.
The complainants hope to use this information to explain the
technical side of the case to the court, and offer ways that Apple
could have fixed the alleged problems.

It's expected that Apple will file a motion to dismiss the case on
Jan. 29, and Whitfield, Bryson & Mason plan to respond to that
motion with their own filing on behalf of the class on March 5.
The case is expected to be heard before Judge Edward J. Davila of
the Northern District of California in early April.

The 2011 MacBook Pro graphics case is not to be confused with a
separate lawsuit over allegedly defective logic boards which was
recently dismissed by a California judge.

The graphics-related issues found in some 2011 MacBook Pro models
led to the class-action lawsuit being filed last October, seeking
compensation for apparent hardware failures experienced by
customers. Initially, the lawsuit covered only residents of
California and Florida.

The complaint was filed on behalf of plaintiffs Zachary Book,
Donald Cowart, and John Manners. The lawsuit alleges that Apple
failed to reimburse owners for out-of-pocket repairs that could
cost anywhere from $350 to $600.

Some owners of those devices have vocally complained for years
that they have experienced graphical distortions and system
crashes. Complaints from out-of-warranty MacBook Pro owners first
began to gain steam in early 2013.

People familiar with Apple's internal repair network informed
AppleInsider in August that the company had no immediate plans to
initiate a replacement program for early-2011 15-inch and 17-inch
MacBook Pro models suffering from systematic crashes and graphics
failures.  The issues are seemingly related to the laptops'
discrete AMD-built graphics cards.

The GPU issue might present itself onscreen as visual artifacts,
banding or a blank screen.  What triggers the failure is unknown,
though a common thread seems to be graphics-intensive operations
like watching high-definition videos and performing processor-
intensive operations in digital media programs.


ARCH SPECIALTY: Removes American Western Suit to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled American Western Door & Trim v.
Arch Specialty Insurance Company, et al., Case No. RIC1412316, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Riverside to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (Eastern Division - Riverside).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-00153-BRO-SP to the
proceeding.

The case is brought on behalf of builders and contractors or sub-
contractors that have purchased policies of insurance from Arch to
be insured and indemnified from third party claims of construction
defects or similar claims of liability in connection with work
done.  The Plaintiff accuses the Defendants of bad faith conduct
by, among other things, denying defense following tender.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian S. Kabateck, Esq.
          Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
          Terry Robert Bailey, Esq.
          KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP
          Engine Company No 28 Building
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 217-5000
          Facsimile: (213) 217-5010
          E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com
                  jhh@kbklawyers.com
                  trb@kbklawyers.com

               - and -

          Aaron Bernard Booth, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF AARON B. BOOTH
          445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2210
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 228-0330
          Facsimile: (213) 489-2204
          E-mail: abooth@aaronbooth.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gregory J. Newman, Esq.
          Hee Sung Yoon, Esq.
          SELMAN BREITMAN LLP
          11766 Wilshire Boulevard, 6th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90025-6538
          Telephone: (310) 445-0800
          Facsimile: (310) 473-2525
          E-mail: gnewman@selmanbreitman.com
                  Hyoon@selmanbreitman.com


BAXALTA INCORPORATED: Baxter Paid $64MM to Settle Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
According to an exhibit to Baxalta Incorporated's Amendment No. 1
to Form 10 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 26, 2015, Baxter International Inc. is a defendant, along
with others, in a number of lawsuits combined for pretrial
proceedings in the U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of Illinois
alleging that the Company and certain of its competitors conspired
to restrict output and artificially increase the price of plasma-
derived therapies since 2003. Some of the complaints attempt to
state a claim for class action relief and some cases demand treble
damages. In January 2012, the court granted the Company's motion
to dismiss certain federal claims brought by indirect purchasers
and returned the remaining indirect purchaser claims to the court
of original jurisdiction (U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of
California) in August 2012. The indirect purchaser complaint was
amended to remove class action allegations in May 2013. The
Company settled with the direct purchaser plaintiffs for $64
million, which was paid during the first quarter of 2014, and
final court approval of the settlement was obtained in April 2014.
As of December 31, 2013, the Company has a litigation reserve to
cover the settlement.


BONEH FIDE: Faces "Garcia-Sanchez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Javier Garcia-Sanchez, individually and on behalf of other
employees similarly situated v. Boneh Fide Building Service, Inc.,
and Karina Meza, Case No. 1:15-cv-00726 (N.D. Ill., January 24,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BORGATA HOTEL: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Parking Vouchers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Bricketto and Natalie Rodriguez, writing for Law360, report
that Borgata Hotel Casino and Spa has been hit with a putative
class action from reward members who claim the Atlantic City, New
Jersey, casino violated the state Consumer Fraud Act by providing
them false and misleading parking vouchers.

Two New Jersey residents who are members of Borgata's loyalty
program contended in a Jan. 12 complaint in Bergen County Superior
Court that one such voucher states "Unlimited Free Parking" for a
particular month, but the casino won't allow users to redeem the
voucher more than once in a single month.

"The voucher is therefore 'limited' and not 'unlimited' as it
claims," the complaint said.

In another example of alleged deception, Borgata provided
consumers with what seems like two parking vouchers on a single
sheet that were separated by perforations, which each voucher
stating "Free Parking One Time Per Month," according to the
complaint.  But the use of one of the connected vouchers voids the
other, and the casino won't allow patrons to use both, the
complaint said.

"[T]he Borgata has distributed these and other like false,
misleading and deceptive parking vouchers to hundreds or thousands
of its 'reward members' on a monthly basis," the complaint said.
"Consequently, patrons of the Borgata and routinely and uniformly
have been injured and continue to be injured by Borgata's
fraudulent and unlawful trade practices."

The named plaintiffs -- Ravi Motwani of Westfield, New Jersey, and
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey-resident Barry Cassell -- hope to
represent a class of those who received the disputed parking
vouchers from Borgata within the past six years and attempted to
use them.

The suit claimed Borgata not only violated the CFA but also the
Truth-in-Consumer Contract Warranty and Notice Act and further
accused the casino of common law fraud and negligent
misrepresentation.

"The Borgata knew or should have known that its representations
that reward members would be permitted to park for free at the
Borgata were material to plaintiffs, and were false when made,"
the complaint said.  "Plaintiffs relied upon these
misrepresentations to their detriments and were injured by driving
to Atlantic City and visiting the Borgata, rather than any of the
many other casino resorts based upon the Borgata's claim that they
could come and go as they pleased without having to incur the
expense of paying for parking."

Borgata has been viewed as a bright spot for Atlantic City amid a
rash of casino closures.

In September, MGM Resorts International got the greenlight from
New Jersey gambling regulators to take back its 50 percent stake
in the casino after previously giving it up over corruption
concerns.

In a unanimous vote, the New Jersey Casino Control Commission
approved MGM to retake control of a 50 percent ownership interest
in the Borgata that the casino company had previously put into
trust in 2010 after regulators raised concerns about the
suitability of a Macau joint venture partner.

Motwani and Cassell are represented by Bruce H. Nagel of Nagel
Rice LLP.

Counsel information for Borgata was not immediately available.

The case is Motwani et al v. Marina District Development Company,
LLC d/b/a Borgata Hotel Casino and Spa, case number L-276-15 in
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County.


CAMBRIDGE, NY: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP on Jan. 16 disclosed
that it has filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of
the City of Cambridge Retirement System against Altisource Asset
Management Corporation and certain of the executive officers and
directors of the Company.  The action, which was filed in the
United States District Court of the Virgin Islands, asserts claims
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of investors
in AAMC common stock during the period of April 19, 2013 to
January 12, 2015, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants
misrepresented and/or concealed the Company's relationship with,
and conflicted transactions with, a group of related companies,
including Ocwen Financial Corporation, all of which were founded
by Defendant William Erbey.  On December 22, 2014, the Company
announced that as part of the terms of a settlement that Ocwen had
reached with the New York Department of Financial Services,
Defendant Erbey would be stepping down as chairman of AAMC's board
and from his positions at each of the related companies.  As part
of its investigation, the New York DFS indicated that it had
uncovered "serious conflicts of interest between the Related
Companies."  As a result of this announcement, AAMC's stock price
declined over 23% from a closing price of $465.30 per share on
December 19, 2014 to close at $356.50 per share on December 22,
2014, on high trading volume. Then, on January 13, 2015, the
California Department of Business Oversight announced that it was
seeking to revoke Ocwen's license to operate in the state.  On
this news, the price of AAMC's stock fell over 33% from a closing
price of $321.81 per share on January 12, 2015 to close at $214.27
per share on January 13, 2015, on high trading volume.

If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must
file a motion with the Court no later than 60 days from
January 16, 2015.  Accordingly, the deadline for filing a motion
for appointment as Lead Plaintiff is March 17, 2015.  Any member
of the proposed Class may move the Court to serve as Lead
Plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain a member of the proposed Class.

If you wish to discuss this Action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
Avi Josefson of BLB&G at 212-554-1493, or via e-mail at
avi@blbglaw.com

Since its founding in 1983, BLB&G -- http://www.blbglaw.com--
specializes in securities fraud, corporate governance,
shareholders' rights, employment discrimination, and civil rights
litigation, among other practice areas, BLB&G prosecutes class and
private actions on behalf of institutional and individual clients
worldwide.


CANADA: Supreme Court Won't Hear Class Action Over Steel Plant
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cape Breton Post reports that Cape Breton residents who launched a
class-action lawsuit claiming the operation of the Sydney Steel
plant and coke ovens exposed them to contaminants will not have
their case heard by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal overturned the certification of a
class-action lawsuit in December 2013.  The appeal court decision
came after lawyers for the provincial and federal governments
argued that the provincial Supreme Court judge erred in certifying
the case because there are too many differences in the individual
cases for the matter to be heard as a class-action lawsuit.

The appeal court judges agreed, finding that there was too much
variance in the issues affecting the class members and that a
class-action suit was not the best way to proceed.

The original lawsuit was filed by local residents Neila MacQueen,
Joe Petitpas, Ann Ross and Iris Crawford, who are seeking
compensation and a medical monitoring fund for contamination
resulting from the operation of the steel plant between 1967 and
2000.

As is customary, the Supreme Court did not give reasons for its
decision not to hear the case.  It was dismissed with costs.


CAR CARE: Faces "Marchan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jose Marchan, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Car Care Center V LLC and Ahmed Chergui,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00722 (N.D. Ill., January 24, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants owns and operate an auto body repair and
maintenance services company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Erik Stevens, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 624-8958
      E-mail: Dave@StevensLawLLC.com


CHANNELADVISOR CORPORATION: Sued Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Dice, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ChannelAdvisor Corporation, Scot Wingo, David Spitz,
and John Baule, Case No. 1:15-cv-00506 (S.D.N.Y., January 23,
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.

ChannelAdvisor Corporation is a Delaware corporation that provides
cloud-based e-commerce solutions that enable retailers and
manufacturers to increase global sales.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM
      PA 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 686-1060
      E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Plaintiff Voluntary Dismisses Derivative Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
This notice relates to a proposed voluntary dismissal of a
shareholder derivative action and is being given pursuant to an
order of The U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma.  The purpose of the notice is to advise Chesapeake
shareholders that plaintiff, M. Lee Arnold, in the action wishes
to voluntarily dismiss the case. Additional information on the
action and right to intervene can be found below.

On September 6, 2011, M. Lee Arnold filed a purported shareholder
derivative complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma, Arnold v. McClendon et al., Case No. CIV-11-
986, against members of the Company's board of directors (the
"Derivative Action").  The Derivative Action alleges a cause of
action for breach of fiduciary duty and failure to exercise
oversight responsibilities against all defendants for alleged
violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
in connection with disclosures and alleged failures to disclose
information in the registration statement and prospectus for the
Company's July 2008 common stock offering, which was the subject
of an earlier-filed securities class action, United Food and
Commercial Workers Union v. Chesapeake Energy Corporation et al.,
Case No. CIV-09-1114 (the "Securities Class Action").

Because the disclosure claims in the Securities Class Action were
based on the same essential facts and issues, the parties to the
Derivative Action agreed to stay proceedings pending resolution of
the Securities Class Action.  On February 13, 2013, the Securities
Class Action was dismissed on summary judgment, and on August 8,
2014 the dismissal of the Securities Class Action was affirmed by
the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In light of the dismissal of the Securities Class Action,
Plaintiff has sought leave to voluntarily dismiss the Derivative
Action.  On November 20, 2014, the parties filed a Joint
Stipulation Voluntarily Dismissing the Action Without Prejudice.
This notice of the proposed voluntary dismissal of the Derivative
Action will be posted in the Investor Relations section of
Chesapeake's website for two weeks.  Chesapeake shareholders are
hereby advised:

Chesapeake shareholders may intervene and continue prosecution of
the Derivative Action.  Any shareholder who wishes to intervene
must file a motion with the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma, 200 NW 4th Street, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma,
73102, not later than February 9, 2015.  Any motion to intervene
must be filed in writing, and must include: (i) the caption of the
Derivative Action; (ii) the name of the shareholder; (iii) proof
or certification of the date the intervening shareholder purchased
Chesapeake stock, and that the intervening shareholder has held
its shares continuously since the date of purchase; and (iv) a
statement of the basis for the intervention.


COMPASS GROUP: Faces "Macias" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Macias, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Compass Group USA, Inc., CVS, Inc. and
Robert W. Carqueville, Case No. 1:15-cv-00721 (N.D. Ill., January
24, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a foodservice management and
support services company in North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Erik Stevens, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 624-8958
      E-mail: Dave@StevensLawLLC.com


CONVERGENZ LLC: Faces "Jallow" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Latonya Jallow, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Convergenz, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-00219 (S.D. Tex.,
January 23, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
week.

Convergenz, LLC is a staffing company with its principal office
located at 8260 Greensboro Dr. Ste. 575, McLean, Virginia 22102.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES LLP
      711 W Alabama Street
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      E-mail: gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com


CORNELL WIRELINE: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Martinez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Cornell Wireline Services, LLC d/b/a CWES, LLC, Case
No. 5:15-cv-00050 (W.D. Tex., January 23, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Cornell Wireline Services, LLC is a Texas limited liability
company that provides oil and gas well perforation services to
customers in the oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremi K. Young, Esq.
      Rachael Rustmann, Esq.
      THE YOUNG LAW FIRM, P.C.
      1001 S. Harrison, Suite 200
      Amarillo, Texas 79101
      Telephone: (806) 331-1800
      Facsimile: (806) 398-9095
      E-mail: jyoung@youngfirm.com
              rachael@youngfirm.com


CORRECT CARE: "Moore" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Janetta Webster Moore, Susan Jane Craun, Nancy Maria Broadhurst,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Correct Care Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00202 (D. Md.,
January 23, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
as well as attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

Correct Care Solutions, LLC owns and operates a correctional
healthcare company within the State of Maryland, Kansas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mary Craine Lombardo, Esq.
      STEIN SPERLING BENNETT DE JONG DRISCOLL AND GREENFEIG PC
      25 W Middle Ln
      Rockville, MD 20850
      Telephone: (301) 340-2020
      Facsimile: (301) 354-8126
      E-mail: mlombardo@steinsperling.com


CVS PHARMACY: Sued Over Eye Nutritional Supplement Fraud Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bailey & Glasser LLP on Jan. 15 disclosed that two consumers with
age-related macular degeneration (AMD), a progressive eye disease
that accounts for more than half of all blindness in America,
claim that CVS makes false claims about the effectiveness of its
Advanced Eye Health product.  Dr. Larry Meredith and David Gumner,
the plaintiffs in a California state court class action, say CVS's
claims that its Advanced Eye Health supplement is comparable to a
formula that the National Institutes of Health found effective in
slowing AMD's progression are false and deceptive.

Two NIH Age Related Eye Disease Studies ("AREDS") found a specific
formula of nutritional supplements effective in slowing AMD's
progression.  The second study, called AREDS2, found two effective
substitutes for betacarotene, an AREDS formula ingredient that may
increase cancer risk for smokers.  CVS markets its Advanced Eye
Health supplement by calling it "comparable to" the AREDS2
formula, but it only contains ingredients that the NIH found
ineffective at slowing the progression of AMD (omega-3 fatty
acids), and the two ingredients that NIH said could substitute for
betacarotene.  NIH's study did not find that these two substitute
ingredients have any independent effect on AMD.

In 2004, about 10 million Americans had intermediate or advanced
AMD, and scientists expect this number to double in the next 20
years.  Although the CVS product does not contain the ingredients
NIH found effective in fighting AMD, CVS places its Advanced Eye
Health supplement next to Bausch+Lomb's PreserVision supplements,
that do contain the AREDS2 formula.  This placement of the CVS
product further deceives consumers, by making the two products
appear interchangeable, but for the CVS product's ostensibly lower
price.

John Roddy and Elizabeth Ryan of Bailey & Glasser's Boston office
represent Dr. Meredith and Mr. Gumner.  They have allied with
Amanda Howell of the Center for Science in the Public Interest and
Stephen Gardner, Marc Stanley, Martin Woodward, and Matthew Zevin,
of the Stanley Law Group, as co-counsel.

Founded by Ben Bailey and Brian Glasser in 1999 in Charleston,
West Virginia, Bailey & Glasser LLP --
http://www.baileyandglasser.com-- has grown to include nearly 50
lawyers, with offices in seven states and the District of
Columbia.  The firm's complex litigation practice focuses on high-
stakes commercial litigation; class actions for consumers,
insureds, investors, and retirement plan participants;
catastrophic injury and defective product cases; antitrust; and
whistleblower lawsuits.  The firm has extensive experience in
energy law, and litigates energy cases in trial courts, bankruptcy
courts, regulatory agencies, and appellate courts.  It has a major
corporate practice, and handles business matters ranging from
assisting Chinese investors in acquiring US assets, to IPOs, to
the negotiation and execution of billions of dollars in commercial
transactions.


DESTRIER CONSULTING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jayla Carter, Stephen Albert, Nicholas Howells, Tonia Lewis,
Preston Mack and all others similarly-situated v. Destrier
Consulting Service LLC d/b/a Fresh Student a Florida limited
liability company and Casey Cochran, Case No. 9:15-cv-80074 (S.D.
Fla., January 23, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, and attorney's fees under the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Cathleen Ann Scott, Esq.
      CATHLEEN A. SCOTT & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
      250 South Central Boulevard
      Jupiter Gardens Suite 104
      Jupiter, FL 33458
      Telephone: (561) 653-0008
      Facsimile: 653-0020
      E-mail: CScott@floridalaborlawyer.com


DISH NETWORK: Faces Class Action Over Bait-and-Switch Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
Drew Foster, writing for Tri-City Herald, reports that an appeals
court judge from the Tri-Cities is suing Dish Network in federal
court, launching a class-action lawsuit that claims the national
satellite TV provider is deceptive in its pricing.

Judge George Fearing's lawsuit also names two companies that work
with Dish-Easy Connect, of Delaware and Kentucky, and Columbia
Basin Satellite Company, headquartered in Kennewick.

The number of plaintiffs could climb into the hundreds, and
damages being sought could total millions, according to court
documents.

Two matters are at the heart of the lawsuit -- that Dish Network
and the other companies are "willfully operating a 'bait and
switch' sales scheme" where actual services cost more than
customers had originally been quoted, and that telephone
conversations between consumers and employees are unlawfully
recorded without consumers' consent.

The recorded telephone calls are a violation of a consumer's right
to privacy and the state's criminal code, according to the
lawsuit.  The lawsuit asks that damages include three times the
price difference between the cost of services quoted and the cost
of services as presented in the in-person contract for each
affected customer. Plaintiffs also are seeking $100 for each time
phone conversations were improperly recorded by the defendants.

The lawsuit would cover Washington consumers who after Nov. 1,
2012, were quoted and agreed to pay a price for satellite
television at the time the services were ordered that was lower
than the price presented in a written contract at the time of
installation.

Also included are Washington consumers who at any time after
Nov. 1, 2012, had a telephone conversation with the defendants
that was recorded without the consumer's knowledge or consent.

"Our hope, and the reason you bring a class action, is you want to
see them cease to behave in the way (that's been) complained
about," said Richland attorney Douglas McKinley Jr., who is
representing Judge Fearing.

"There may be a huge number of people who have been harmed in a
small way," Mr. McKinley added.

Dish has faced similar lawsuits in recent years.  In April, the
state Attorney General's office ordered Dish to refund about $2
million to Washington customers and provide additional benefits to
consumers that could total $3 million, including a $10 credit, two
free pay-per-view movies or two months of free access to the Epix
movie channel.

The Attorney General's office found that Dish had been charging
its Washington customers an unlawful monthly line-item surcharge
beginning in May 2012, netting the company more than $2 million.
The state determined that "hundreds of thousands of Washington
consumers were illegally charged a dollar per month for up to
eight months."

In July 2009, Dish Network was ordered to pay nearly $6 million
across 46 states to settle allegations that it and third-party
retailers engaged in deceptive and unfair sales practices.  The
company denied any wrongdoing, but agreed to terms that limited
how it marketed services and to provide restitution or relief to
eligible consumers.

The states had accused Dish of, among other things, making
telemarketing calls in violation of Do Not Call Registry rules,
representing to consumers that Dish isn't responsible for the
conduct of its third-party retailers and installers, failing to
disclose all terms and conditions of its customer agreements and
charging customer credit cards and debiting bank accounts without
providing adequate notice and obtaining appropriate authorization.

"This is not the first time this has happened in the state of
Washington," Mr. McKinley said.

The class-action lawsuit was filed in December in Benton County
Superior Court, but was moved to federal court after an attorney
representing Dish Network filed a notice of removal last week.

The notice of removal hinges on three areas of the federal Class
Action Fairness Act -- that the punitive class has at least 100
members, that at least one member of the class could reside in a
state different from the location of the defendant, and that the
total damages in question exceeds $5 million.

Easy Connect schedules installations on behalf of Dish, and
Columbia Basin Satellite installs the equipment.  The suit
includes an unnamed Easy Connect employee who took Judge Fearing's
order over the phone and presumably knew the conversation was
being recorded, according to the lawsuit.  And it includes another
unnamed employee at Easy Connect who recorded the conversation.

Conor Adriance is listed in court documents as the sales manager
at Easy Connect who allegedly knew of conversations being
recorded. And an unnamed worker with Columbia Basin Satellite
allegedly knew the conversations were being recorded.

Eric Gillett of the Seattle law firm Preg, O'Donnell and Gillett
is representing Dish Network.  Easy Connect is represented by
Cheryl Rani Guttenberg Adamson of the Kennewick law firm Rettig
Osborne Forgette.  Columbia Basin Satellite Company is represented
by Eric Butterworth of the Butterworth Law Office in Kennewick.

Calls to Butterworth, Gillett and Adamson were not returned.

Anyone who wants to join the class-action case can call McKinley
at 509-628-0809 or email doug@mckinleylaw.com


DOLLAR TREE: Chancery Court Bars Bid for Interlocutory Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Current
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 26, 2015, that Family Dollar, its directors, Dollar Tree
and Merger Sub are named as defendants in three putative class
action lawsuits, which have been consolidated under the caption In
re Family Dollar Stores, Inc. Stockholder Litig., C.A. No. 9985
CB., brought by purported Family Dollar shareholders challenging
the proposed merger, seeking, among other things, to enjoin
consummation of the Acquisition. The parties conducted document
discovery relating to the motion for a preliminary injunction and
a hearing was held on December 5, 2014. On December 19, 2014, the
Court of Chancery issued an opinion and order denying plaintiffs'
preliminary injunction motion. The plaintiffs sought from the
Court of Chancery certification of an interlocutory appeal of that
order to the Delaware Supreme Court, but on January 2, 2015, the
Court of Chancery denied that request. No schedule has yet been
set for the adjudication of the plaintiffs' remaining claims for
relief. If the plaintiffs are successful in their remaining
claims, there could be an adverse effect on Dollar Tree and Family
Dollar's business, financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows.


DORIS INC: Sock Commercial Prompts False Advertising Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a class action lawsuit filed on
Jan. 12 against a maker of speciality socks alleged the company
falsely advertised the benefits of purchasing its product -- and
part of that advertising was a commercial featuring a woman
experiencing "orgasmic" pleasure.

Meng Wang filed the lawsuit against Doris, Inc. and Gildan
Activewear in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York.


EBAY INC: Settles Recurring-Fee Class Action for $6.4 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Lowrey, writing for Law360, reports that EBay Inc. agreed
to pay $6.4 million on Jan. 15 in California federal court to
settle a fraud and breach of contract class action brought by more
than a million sellers alleging the massive auction website
charged them hidden, recurring listing fees.

The proposed settlement would let eBay out of a lawsuit over more
than $50 million in "Good 'Til Canceled" fees, putting the end in
sight after more than three years of litigation.  The deal would
put $4.5 million in the hands of class members and $1.6 million to
class counsel, according to the motion.

The class includes users behind nearly 1.2 million accounts,
though the number of actual users represented by those accounts
was unclear as one person could have multiple accounts.  The
proposed settlement doesn't provide for a claims process and says
most sellers will receive an automatic credit to their accounts.

Plaintiff Richard Noll filed suit in September 2011, saying eBay
suggested that the Good 'Til Canceled listings, which
automatically renew every 30 days until the seller cancels the
listing or the item is sold, came "at no extra cost" when fees
were actually charged monthly.

About a year later, Rhythm Motor Sports LLC filed a separate suit,
and the cases were ultimately consolidated.  The lawsuit alleged
breach of contract, unfair competition, false advertising,
violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, unjust enrichment
and fraud.

Over the course of the litigation, eBay won the dismissal of two
of the plaintiffs' complaints, but the court granted the
plaintiffs leave to amend except as to claims involving insertion
fees during times when eBay's fee schedules explicitly said they
those fees would be charged every 30-day period.

During the discovery process, eBay produced more than 90,000 pages
of documents and 2 gigabytes of data, according to the motion.

The settlement fund would be nonreversionary, with uncashed or
returned checks split between the nonprofits National Cyber-
Forensics & Training Alliance and the National Consumer Law
Center.

The class is represented by Keith R. Verges --
keith.verges@figdav.com -- Parker D. Young --
parker.young@figdav.com -- and Raymond E. Walker of Figari &
Davenport LLP, Vera Brooks of Thompson & Brooks and Shawn T.
Leuthold.

EBay is represented by John C. Dwyer, Whitty Somvichian and
Candace Jackman -- cjackman@cooley.com -- of Cooley LLP.

The case is Noll et al. v. eBay Inc. et al., case number 5:11-cv-
04585, in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


FAIRWAY CAPITAL: Has Invaded Class Member's Privacy, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Matlock, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Fairway Capital Recovery, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00521
(C.D. Cal., January 23, 2015), arises out of the Defendants'
illegal action of willfully employing and causing to be employed
certain recording equipment in order to record to the telephone
conversations of the Plaintiff without consent, thereby invading
the Plaintiff's privacy.

Fairway Capital Recovery, LLC is a consumer debt collection agency
doing business within the State of Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FAMILY DOLLAR: No Schedule Set for Adjudication of Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K
Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on January 26, 2015, that no schedule has yet been set for the
adjudication of the plaintiffs' remaining claims for relief in the
three putative class action lawsuits that have been filed against
Family Dollar, its directors, Dollar Tree and merger sub in the
Delaware Court of Chancery.


FIVEFINGERS: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------
Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly reports that a federal judge has
approved a proposed agreement to settle a class action against a
footwear manufacturer. Consumers who purchased FiveFingers
"barefoot" footwear alleged that the manufacturer misrepresented
in its advertising and marketing that the footwear provides
certain health benefits to wearers.  The plaintiff purchasers
moved for approval of the proposed settlement agreement.


FLOWERS FOODS: Recalls Original English Muffins Due to Milk
-----------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods (NYSE: FLO) is voluntarily recalling Market Basket
Fork Split 6 count Original English Muffins with the UPC code 0
49705 82137 4 and best by dates of November 27, 2014 through
February 6, 2015 because they contain undeclared milk. People who
have allergies to dairy products run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. No
illnesses have been reported to date.

The recalled product was distributed through Market Basket
Supermarkets in Massachusetts, Maine, and New Hampshire.

The recall was initiated after Flowers discovered that product
containing milk was distributed in packaging that did not reveal
the presence of milk.

Flowers has alerted Market Basket, which has removed this product
from its stores. Flowers is recovering the product involved to
ensure the continued safety of those consumers who may be impacted
by this issue. The recall is being made with the knowledge of the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The company also has reported
the recall to FARE (Food Allergy Research & Education).

Consumers who have purchased Market Basket Fork Split 6 count
Original English Muffins with the UPC and dates noted are urged to
return it to a Market Basket Supermarket for product replacement
or refund. No other Market Basket brand products are included in
this recall.

Consumers with questions may call Flowers' Consumer Relations
Center at 1-866-245-8921. The center is open Monday through Friday
from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern. Consumers also may contact
the center via e-mail by visiting the Contact Us page at
www.flowersfoods.com.

Photo of the Recalled Products available at
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm432565.htm


GASSEARCH DRILLING: Judge Curtails Claims in Gas Drilling Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Journal reports that a federal judge has
significantly curtailed the claims in a suit over allegations oil
and gas drilling led to the contamination of a township's water
supply in Susquehanna County, Pa.

U.S. District Judge John Jones III dismissed defendant GasSearch
Drilling Services from the case and he narrowed the claims against
Cabot Oil & Gas to only a private nuisance claim and a negligence
claim.

The case was filed in 2009 when 44 plaintiffs sued the two
natural-gas drilling companies to recover damages for property
damage from drilling operations in Dimock Township, Pa.  A number
of the plaintiffs settled, leaving 10 plaintiffs still in the
case.


GENERAL MOTORS: Misled Investors About Safety, NYSTRS Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Ridley, writing for MLive, reports that General Motors is
accused of misleading investors about safety and financial
liabilities connected to potentially life-threatening ignition
switch defects that led to widespread recalls, according to a new
class action complaint.

The complaint was filed Jan. 15, in Flint U.S. District Court by
The New York State Teachers' Retirement System on behalf of anyone
who purchased or acquired GM common stock between November 2010
and July 2014.  The complaint alleges GM made a series of
"material misstatements and omissions" about the company's
liabilities, internal controls and commitment to customer safety.

Nearly 2.6 million vehicles have been recalled by the company
after it was discovered ignition switch defects could cause the
vehicles to shut down on their own, even when traveling at high
speeds.  The defects have been linked to at least 45 deaths.

"The shutdown occurred even at highway speed, and power brakes and
power steering would no longer function, making the cars
dangerously unsafe to control," the complaint alleges.

Attorney Salvatore Graziano -- sgraziano@blbglaw.com -- of New
York-based Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossman, which was
appointed as the lead attorney in the case, filed the Jan. 15
complaint.  He declined to comment on the new complaint.

The retirement system initially filed its complaint against GM in
March 2014.  However, the Jan. 15 new complaint combines
allegations from other plaintiffs, including the Arkansas Teacher
Retirement System and Menorah Mivtachim Insurance.

The plaintiffs allege when GM disclosed the problems with ignition
switches to the government in February 2014, years after it
learned of the potentially-dangerous defect, its stock price
dropped more than 3 percent.  The drop allegedly caused plaintiffs
to lose millions of dollars, according to court records.

"GM knew of or recklessly disregarded dangerous safety defects in
the ignition switches contained in millions of its cars that
should have led to a recall many years earlier," the complaint
alleges.

General Motors has not yet filed a response to the complaint, but
spokesman James Cain said the company would file a motion seeking
to dismiss the case.


GENERAL MOTORS: Seeks Dismissal of Musician Royalty Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Ryan, Allissa Wickham and Aebra Coe, writing for Law360,
report that General Motors Co. on Jan. 15 urged a D.C. federal
judge to side with the automaker in a proposed class action filed
by the Alliance of Artists and Recording Cos. Inc. over allegedly
unpaid music royalties, arguing it doesn't even manufacture or
sell devices that fall under the Audio Home Recording Act.

The automaker's motion for judgment echoed a similar October
filing from co-defendant Ford Motor Co., which also said its
accused navigation devices fall outside the scope of the act.
Both GM and Ford are seeking to escape the row, claiming their
vehicles contain music systems that are covered by the act, yet
the companies, as well as the systems' manufacturers, Denso
International America Inc. and Clarion Corp. of America, have
refused to pay royalties to artists.

"There is no allegation that GM's systems can be used to promote
further reproductions from music stored on the hard drives.  AARC
has not pleaded, and cannot plead, any set of facts that plausibly
establish that the AHRA applies to GM's systems or that GM has
violated any provision of the AHRA," GM said in its motion.

The suit was filed in July on behalf of a proposed class of tens
of thousands of copyright owners and featured recording artists
and organizations that represent them, including the AARC, which
is a nonprofit organization that collects and distributes
royalties.  The complaint alleges the companies ran afoul of the
AHRA by distributing music-copying car devices that aren't
registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, aren't equipped with
the serial copy management system and for which they hadn't paid
royalties.

The devices at the heart of the litigation are marketed as a 10GB
digital Jukebox that can hold up to 2,400 songs and an
"infotainment system" in which music from CDs can be recorded and
stored on a hard drive.  Michigan-based Denso manufactures the
hard drive device for GM and Clarion, with headquarters in Japan,
makes Ford's Jukebox system.

Ford and audio company Clarion urged the judge to dismiss the suit
in October, arguing the navigation systems produced by Clarion and
installed in Ford's vehicles merely allow consumers to copy CDs to
a hard drive, and do not reproduce "digital music recordings"
under the plain meaning of the AHRA.

"Because [the navigation system] records CDs only to its own hard
drive, any music fixed on the hard drive is not a digital musical
recording as the statute defines that term," Ford argued.  "The
Ninth Circuit has previously reached this precise conclusion."

Ford pointed out that under the AHRA, "digital music recordings"
do not include material objects that have fixed computer programs,
or material objects that include fixed, nonaudio data. Because its
navigation systems have hard drives containing both programs and
nonsound data, cars with these systems are not capable of making
copies of digital musical recordings as defined by the act, Ford
argued.

In its Jan. 15 filing, GM said that the complaint establishes that
it doesn't manufacture devices that fall under the act for the
same reason.

Linda R. Bocchi, the executive director of the AARC, told Law360
on Jan. 16 that the automaker's motion "fundamentally
misconstrues" the statute and asks the court to "second guess" the
policy decisions made by Congress when passing the act.

"At the heart of this suit is the fact that GM is refusing to pay
music creators the royalties that are clearly required under the
law, and it is AARC's obligation to collect what these music
creators are owed," Ms. Bocchi said.

GM is represented by Andrew P. Bridges -- abridges@fenwick.com --
David L. Hayes -- dhayes@fenwick.com -- and Mary E. Milionis of
Fenwick & West LLP.

Ford and Clarion are represented by Van H. Beckwith, Paul J.
Reilly -- paul.reilly@bakerbotts.com -- and Joshua H. Packman --
joshua.packman@bakerbotts.com -- of Baker Botts LLP.

AARC is represented by Dustin Cho and Jonathan Sperling of
Covington & Burling LLP.

The case is Alliance of Artists and Recording Cos. Inc. v. General
Motors Co. et al., case number 1:14-cv-01271, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia.


GEORGIA, USA: Bid to Junk Suit Over Same-Sex Marriage Ban Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Same-sex couples seeking to wed in Georgia may pursue a challenge
to the state's gay marriage ban, reports Iulia Filip at Courthouse
News Service, citing a federal court ruling.

U.S. District Judge William Duffey refused to dismiss a lawsuit
filed last year on behalf of four Georgia-based same-sex couples
and the surviving partner of a fifth couple.  The lawsuit, which
claimed that the state's refusal to marry same-sex couples, or
recognize gay marriages from other states, violated the couples'
constitutional rights, is one of many such class actions filed
nationwide.

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review appeals from other states
in October, but is expected to rule on the issue in the near
future due to a split among federal appellate courts.

Georgia is one of 14 states that limit marriage to the legal union
between a man and a woman and refuse to recognize gay marriages
from other states.  Several states reversed similar bans following
legal challenges, with Florida being the last to join that group
earlier in January.

Georgia voters approved a constitutional ban on gay marriage in
2004. Gay rights groups challenged the wording of the ballot in
state court, but the Georgia Supreme Court found the vote valid in
2006.

The 2014 federal lawsuit challenged the ban itself, as opposed to
the wording of the amendment.

Lead plaintiffs Christopher Inniss and Shelton Stroman, of
Snellville, Ga., have lived together since 2004 and adopted a son
who is now 9, according to the lawsuit.  The couple sought to
legalize their union, but the state denied them a marriage
license, they claimed in the complaint.

Their co-plaintiffs claimed the state's refusal to recognize them
as legal spouses deprived them of health insurance and survivor
benefits available to legally married couples.

Moreover, the couples cannot jointly adopt the children they are
raising together, according to the lawsuit.

Co-plaintiff Jennifer Sisson, whose same-sex partner died in 2014,
sought to be added as the legal wife on her partner's death
certificate.

The state tried to dismiss the claims, arguing that the ban
furthered its legitimate interest in providing family stability
and child welfare.

But Duffey ruled on January 8 that the state could not show how
the ban advanced such interests.

In addressing the plaintiffs' arguments, the court noted that the
right to marry a person of the same sex is not among the rights
"deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition."

U.S. Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage a fundamental
right did not extend to same-sex marriage, according to the
January 8 ruling.

As for the couples' equal-protection claims, Georgia's marriage
laws prohibit same-sex marriage, but do not discriminate against
men or women as a class, the 49-page ruling states.

However, the state failed to address "how Georgia's asserted
interests in child welfare and procreation are advanced by the
state's prohibition on same-sex marriages, and the state's refusal
to recognize lawful marriages performed in other states," Duffey
wrote.

The court lifted a previous stay, allowing the case to proceed to
trial.

"We are delighted that the court will allow this case to
continue," Tara Borelli, an attorney for Lambda Legal, the
organization that filed the lawsuit, told The Atlanta Journal-
Constitution.  "We look forward to our day in court to demonstrate
Georgia's marriage ban is unconstitutional and relegates the
state's same-sex couples to a second-class status that keeps them
and their families vulnerable."

Lauren Kane, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Samuel Olens, said
the state will continue to enforce its laws pending a final
decision on this issue.  "The district court issued a preliminary
ruling on a motion to dismiss on a pressing legal issue working
its way through the higher courts," Kane said in an email to
Courthouse News.  "We look forward to further clarification
regarding the ability of states to decide these questions.  The
United States Supreme Court has an opportunity to review this
issue and will likely announce its intent in the coming weeks.
There are other cases pending in front of the 11th Circuit that
will provide a similar opportunity.  As the issue remains pending,
the office will continue to pursue its constitutional obligation
to defend the laws as passed by the legislature and the citizens
of the state of Georgia."

The case is Christopher Inniss, et al. v. Deborah Aderhold, et
al., Case No. 1:14-cv-01180-WSD, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division.


GLOBAL CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Yekutiel Bassul v. Global Credit & Collection Corporation, Case
No. 1:15-cv-00390 (E.D.N.Y., January 25, 2015) accuses the
Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Palace, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID PALACE
          383 Kingston Avenue, #113
          Brooklyn, NY 11213
          Telephone: (347) 651-1077
          Facsimile: (347) 464-0012
          E-mail: davidpalace@gmail.com


GOODYEAR TIRE: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Heating Hose Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck, by Vin Gurrieri, Kira Lerner, Juan Carlos Rodriguez
and Gavin Broady, writing for Law360, report that a Colorado
federal jury on Jan. 9 favored Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. in a
class action by Colorado homeowners alleging the manufacturing
giant made faulty heating hoses, saying plaintiffs hadn't provided
enough evidence to show the hose is defective in its design as
alleged.

The jury delivered its verdict after deliberating for less than a
day in a trial that began Jan. 5, according to the case docket.
Because the jury found insufficient evidence of the alleged
defects, it wasn't required to decide whether there was enough
evidence Goodyear improperly installed a hose in lead plaintiff
David Helmer's home or to apportion fault in damages Mr. Helmer
allegedly accrued.

The decision came after the Tenth Circuit in May unanimously
affirmed U.S. District Judge R. Brooke Jackson's certification of
a single-issue class of Colorado homeowners to determine whether
Goodyear's Entran 3 hoses used in radiant heating systems have a
design defect that caused significant damage to the class members'
property.

Gary E. Mason -- gmason@wbmllp.com -- of Whitfield Bryson & Mason
LLP, which is representing the plaintiffs, told Law360 on Jan. 15
that they are very disappointed in the verdict, are reviewing the
record and might appeal.

"Our clients now have no choice but to replace their Entran 3
radiant heating systems at their own expense," Mr. Mason said.

He added that the verdict, once reduced to a final judgment, will
only apply to homeowners in Colorado.  Class actions against
Goodyear involving the Entran 3 radiant heating systems are also
under way in New Mexico and New England, according to Mr. Mason.

A spokesman for Goodyear told Law360 that they are pleased with
the verdict and that it "vindicated the design of the Entran 3
hose."

The suit, filed in March 2012, concerned allegedly defective pipe
that Goodyear manufactured between 1992 and 1996 and that is
included in 8,000 to 16,000 home heating systems, according to
court documents.

Judge Jackson's order said that the common defect issues in the
suit would predominate because claims made by all class members
would be resolved if Goodyear prevailed on the claim.  The same
order nixed a certification bid by a group of homeowners in
Wisconsin, where the pipe was also installed, because the number
of affected homeowners was too small.

The judge also said that class treatment was superior because, if
the hose was found nondefective, any litigation from the entire
class would be eliminated, according to court documents.

In its April petition to review the order, Goodyear slammed Judge
Jackson's ruling, saying that the case requires a site-by-site
analysis of each home to determine if any damage to each
individual home was caused by the faulty hose or an unrelated
component of the heating system.

The Tenth Circuit in May rejected the argument that the damages
that may have been caused were unique to each home.

In July, Judge Jackson granted Goodyear's motion for summary
judgment on all claims brought by two Wisconsin plaintiffs, ruling
they were barred by the state's six-year statute of limitations on
noncontract actions.

The jury received its instructions on Jan. 14.

The homeowners are represented by Seth A. Katz, Rick D. Bailey and
David K. Te Selle of Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine PC;
Charles J. LaDuca, Michael J. Flannery and Katherine Van Dyck of
Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP; Michael McShane of Audet & Partners
LLP; Gary E. Mason and Jason S. Rathod of Whitfield Bryson & Mason
LLP; and Robert K. Shelquist and Rebecca A. Peterson --
rapeterson@locklaw.com -- of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP.

Goodyear is represented by Roger P. Thomasch and David M. Stauss
of Ballard Spahr LLP, L. Michael Brooks Jr. of Wells Anderson &
Race LLC, and David L. Lenyo and Chad J. Schmit of Garfield &
Hecht PC.

The case is David Helmer et al. v. the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.,
case number 1:12-cv-00685, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado.


GRILL-PHORIA LLC: Recalls Beef Jerky Treats Due to Salmonella
-------------------------------------------------------------
Grill-Phoria LLC of Loveland, Colorado is recalling approximately
200, 3.5 oz bags of Big Bark All Natural Beef Jerky Treats for
Dogs because they have the potential to be contaminated with
Salmonella. These bags were distributed and manufactured between
September 20, 2014 through January 2, 2015, and do not have lot
codes.

Salmonella can affect animals eating the products and there is
risk to humans from handling contaminated pet products, especially
if they have not thoroughly washed their hands after having
contact with the products or any surfaces exposed to these
products. Most people recover from salmonellosis in four to seven
days without treatment, but some groups are at higher risk of
developing more severe symptoms. These high-risk groups are:
children under 5 years of age, the elderly, pregnant women, people
with weakened immune systems.

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

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

Big Bark All Natural Beef Jerky Treats for Dogs was distributed in
Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and Oklahoma through Nor-Sky Pet Supply
LLC through independent pet stores. The product is under the Big
Bark label and is in a standup pouch that is 3.5 oz in weight
labeled as All Natural Beef Jerky Treat. No illnesses have been
reported to date.

The recall is a result of a routine sampling program by the
Colorado Department of Agriculture which revealed that the
finished tested positive for Salmonella.  Grill-Phoria has ceased
the production and distribution of the product as the company
continues their investigation as to what caused the problem.

Consumers who have purchased Big Bark All Natural Beef Jerky
Treats for Dogs (3.5 oz Bag) are urged to return the bag to the
store that you purchased it from and get a full refund. Consumers
with questions may contact Grill-Phoria at between the hours of
9:00 am to 5:00 pm (MST) Monday through Friday at 970-663-4561.

Photo of the Recalled Products available at
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm432562.htm


HAMCHOROM INC: Recalls HAITAI Tayo & Gyeran Crackers
----------------------------------------------------
Hamchorom, Inc. of Buena Park, CA is recalling 1,200 boxes of
HAITAI Tayo Crackers 2014.08.26 2015.08.25 and 1,000 boxes of
HAITAI Gyeran Crackers 2014 06.12 2015 06.11 because it may
contain undeclared milk and egg. People who have an allergy or
severe sensitivity to milk and egg run the risk of serious or
life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.

The products were distributed in CA, TX, WA and AZ directly to
grocery stores.

HAITAI Tayo Crackers 140g are packaged in blue, yellow, and red
boxes with a school bus image. There are 24 boxes per carton.
HAITAI Gyeran Crackers 70g are packaged in yellow boxes with an
"Angry Birds" logo. There are 20 boxes per carton.

There have been no reports of illness or injury.

The recall was initiated when a label review of the products was
conducted during an FDA inspection, and discovered to have
undeclared allergens of milk and egg.

Consumers who have purchased these products should return them to
the grocery store that they purchased them from. Consumers with
questions may contact Hamchorom, Inc. at 714-522-8886.

The recall was initiated when a label review of the products was
conducted during an FDA inspection, and discovered to have
undeclared allergens of milk and egg.

Photo of the Recalled Products available at
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm432568.htm


HILTON GRAND: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Mey" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Diana Mey, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons
and entities similarly situated v. Hilton Grand Vacations Company,
LLC, Case No. 6:15-cv-00109 (M.D. Fla., January 23, 2015), seeks
to redress the Defendant's alleged practice of making unsolicited
phone calls to the cellular telephones of consumers nationwide.

Hilton Grand Vacations Company, LLC a subsidiary of Hilton
Worldwide and is based in Orlando, Florida. It develops, manages,
markets, and operates a system of brand-name vacation club
ownership resorts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert W. Murphy, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT W. MURPHY
      1212 SE 2nd Ave
      Ft Lauderdale, FL 33316
      Telephone: (954) 763-8660
      Facsimile: (954) 763-8607
      E-mail: rphyu@aol.com

          - and -

      John W. Barrett, Esq.
      BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
      209 Capital Street
      Charleston, WV 25301
      Telephone: (304) 345-6555
      E-mail: jbarrett@baileyglasser.com

         - and -

      Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
      Anthony Paronich, Esq.
      BRODERICK LAW, PC
      125 Summer St., Suite 1030
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (617) 738-7080
      E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com
              anthony@broderick-law.com

         - and -

      Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE
      1 South Avenue, Suite 3
      Natick, MA 01760
      Telephone: (508) 655-1415
      Facsimile: (508) 319-3077
      E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net


J & S SHEET: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Hernandez, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. J & S Sheet Metal Work Corporation and Juan
Rodriguez, Case No. 1:15-cv-00724 (N.D. Ill., January 24, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

J & S Sheet Metal Work Corporation is a manufacturer and importer
of metals and other building supplies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Erik Stevens, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 624-8958
      E-mail: Dave@StevensLawLLC.com


KMART CORP: Scott & Scott Comments on Data Breach Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
First NBC Bank, Louisiana, filed a class action complaint in U.S.
District Court, Illinois,(Case: 1:14-cv-10088) against Kmart Corp
and its parent company, Sears Holdings Corporation, demanding a
jury trial for injuries the bank and other financial institutions
suffered as a result of a data breach on or about September 14.
Robert J. Scott, Managing Partner, of technology law firm, Scott &
Scott, LLP, says: "This is an interesting case that has widespread
implications for data breach litigation."

The lawsuit alleges that Kmart failed to install proper software
security measures to protect customers' credit and debit card
information and negligently relied on outdated anti-virus
technology which allowed hackers to breach Kmart's point-of-sale-
systems.  Plaintiff alleges that the defendants failed to take
steps to employ adequate security measures despite recent well-
publicized data breaches at other large national retail and
restaurant chains including Target, Home Depot, Sally Beauty, and
PF Chang's.

"I think this is a sound theory of liability for a data breach
case," Mr. Scott said.

The case also seeks recovery of damages for lost revenue as a
result of a decrease in card usage after the breach was disclosed
to the public.  "I think the lost revenue component of damages
will be more difficult to prove than the claims for re-issuing
costs and monitoring fees," Mr. Scott said.

The Plaintiff claims Kmart's failure to adequately secure their
data networks was particularly inexcusable because the breach
involved mostly the same techniques used in other data breaches
including Target and Home Depot. The Plaintiff alleges that the
defendants failed to properly defend sensitive payment card
information from what is now a well-known preventable breach. "The
outcome of this case will be followed closely especially by large
national retailers and restaurants," said Mr. Scott.

                   About Scott & Scott, LLP

Scott & Scott, LLP -- http://www.scottandscottllp.com-- is an
intellectual property and technology law firm representing
businesses in matters involving software licensing.  Scott &
Scott, LLP Scott's legal and technology professionals provide
software audit defense and software compliance solutions, all
protected by attorney-client and work-product privileges.


LAWRENCE LIVERMORE: Retirees Set to Receive Class Action Notice
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Independent reports that retirees and surviving beneficiaries
from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory will soon receive a
notice offering a one-time-only chance to opt out of a class
action lawsuit aimed at reinstating them to the University of
California health care system.

The notice is part of the class action procedure.  It was approved
by Superior Court Judge George Hernandez, who last fall ruled that
an estimated 4,500 Laboratory retirees and surviving beneficiaries
had enough issues in common to justify their forming a class while
pursuing their suit.

UC health programs were available to the retirees from the time of
the Laboratory's founding in 1952 until 2008, when a for-profit
consortium took over for the University as manager of the national
defense laboratory.

The contract change led to industrial style health care coverage,
which many retirees said they have found to be less reliable, more
difficult to arrange and generally a violation of promises made
during their careers at the Laboratory.  They formed a grass roots
organization called UC Laboratory Retiree Group that collected
money, hired attorneys and filed suit on behalf of named
individual retirees in 2010.

UC has contested the suit from the beginning, and argued last year
against recognition of the LLNL retirees as a class.  Court
rulings to date have tended to support the retiree arguments.
However, the final resolution of the suit is unclear and possibly
far in the future, given the drawn out pace of legal proceedings
and appeals.

Last year, the parties entered into mediation, a process which is
not binding but which can sometimes lead to agreement and save
disputing parties time and money.  The process appears to have
broken off, at least for the time being.

In a recent email, the president of the UC Laboratory Retiree
Group, Marty Crowningshield, wrote, "Although UC has asked us to
return to mediation, we have made it clear that we will not return
unless their minimum offer is one allowing us to rejoin the UC
Retiree System from which we were separated."

Mr. Crowningshield also said that the Group is paying about $8,000
for the forthcoming notice, which will give retirees a choice of
removing themselves from the lawsuit class.  "Unless retirees opt
out, they will remain part of the class," he added.


LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
------------------------------------------------------------
Abere Newett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc., John Barbour, and Raymond
L. Arthur, Case No. 3:15-cv-00347 (N.D. Cal., January 23, 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.

Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. is a developer of educational
entertainment for children. Its product portfolio consists of
multimedia learning platforms and related content, and learning
toys.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MANORCARE: Seeks Certification of Hepatitis C Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
KXNews reports that attorneys representing several victims of the
Minot Hepatitis-C outbreak have officially asked the federal court
to certify their lawsuit as a class-action case.

Two law firms are hoping to gain class-action status for the cases
as a way to move forward with their lawsuits against ManorCare, to
which the first 45 patients found to have the disease were
connected, according to the state health department.

There is no timetable for when a judge will rule on the class
action request.  The outbreak now numbers 51, including several
patients who had no contact with ManorCare.  Health investigators
have been unable to pinpoint the exact method of transmission of
the blood-borne disease, making the Minot Hepatitis-C outbreak is
the largest unsolved outbreak in U.S. history.


MASSAGE ENVY: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a recently filed class action lawsuit
filed against a national massage chain alleged the company's
business practices were unfair and deceptive because it won't
honor prepaid massages for customers who cancel their memberships.

Fumiko Robinson filed the lawsuit against Massage Envy Franchising
on Nov. 26 in Broward County Circuit Court in Florida.  It was
removed to U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on Jan. 5.

Patrons pay $59 per month to Massage Envy for one massage per
month, the lawsuit said.  The prepaid massages that can't be
scheduled during the month roll over to the next month.  However,
if the customer cancels the membership, they can't receive those
rolled over massages, the complaint says.

Mr. Robinson is seeking less than $5 million in damages, as well
as class status for anyone who prepaid for massages at Massage
Envy in Florida.

The $5 million figure is a threshold for removal under the Class
Action Fairness Act, which, the defendant argues, prevents the
plaintiffs from artificially structuring their lawsuits to avoid
federal jurisdiction.

Mr. Robinson is represented by Joshua H. Eggnatz, of The Eggnatz
Law Firm, P.A.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida case no.
0:15-cv-60017


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Accused of Misrepresentation in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Claiming that MetLife's "shadow insurance" practices have put the
public in peril, a federal class action calls for its New York
subsidiary to refund premiums, reports Barbara Leonard at
Courthouse News Service.

The subsidiary, Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., is the only
defendant to the complaint Andrew Yale, of New York, filed on
January 12.

Yale says he bought a life insurance policy from Metropolitan Life
in 2009, and wants to represent a class who obtained life
insurance from Metropolitan Life between Jan. 12, 2009, and
January 12, 2015.

The lawsuit comes less than a month after the Financial Stability
Oversight Council "issued an ominous warning" about MetLife,
proclaiming on Dec. 18, 2014, that there is a range of possible
alternatives in which financial distress at MetLife would threaten
U.S. financial stability.

Lurking behind that scenario, Yale notes, is the June 2013 report
by the New York State Department of Financial Services on "shadow
insurance" practices.

"The NYDFS investigation revealed that, by using shadow insurance,
at least seventeen of New York's eighty life insurance companies
were making their 'capital buffers -- which serve as shock
absorbers against unexpected losses or financial shocks -- appear
larger and rosier than they actually are,'" the 31-page complaint
states.  "These misrepresentations, according to the NYDFS report,
'potentially put the stability of the broader financial system at
greater risk' and are 'reminiscent of certain practices used in
the run up to the financial crisis.'"

Yale says life insurers must maintain capital buffers to
complement strong assets and reserve liabilities for expected
benefits claims, "so they are able to pay claims arising from not
only the expected but also unexpected events -- such as the
massive, instantaneous loss of life that would take place in a
pandemic, a terrorist attack, or other disaster."

"This lawsuit is ultimately about how Metrpolitan Life, in
conjunction with its parent, MetLife, Inc., is engaging in conduct
that imperils the financial future of Metropolitan Life's
policyholders, their beneficiaries, and the public at large," the
complaint states.

Yale says New York's tough laws can hold the company accountable
unlike certain other states that "have been in a race to the
bottom in terms of regulating insurers."

Indeed "the relevant language of New York Insurance Law Section
4226 has remain largely unchanged" since 1939, when the state
Legislature gave policyholders a right of action against offending
life insurance companies, the complaint states.

"The right of action for the recovery of premiums paid due to
misrepresentation of financial condition continues in the law as a
deterrent to New York insurance companies that may be tempted to
skimp on statutory reserve requirements, thereby misleading the
public regarding their financial security," Yale says.

"Metropolitan Life's use of shadow insurance constituted a
misleading representation or a misrepresentation of the financial
condition of Metropolitan Life and the adequacy of the reserves
and reserve system upon which Metropolitan Life operates," he
added.

The class seeks a penalty in the form of all premiums paid for the
alleged misrepresentation.

MetLife sued the Financial Stability Oversight Council on
January 13.  It is represented by Eugene Scalia, son of the
Supreme Court justice, with Gibson Dunn.

The class is represented by:

          Keith Miller, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          30 Rockefeller Plaza, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10112-0085
          Telephone: (212) 262-6900
          Facsimile: (212) 977-1641
          E-mail: KeithMiller@perkinscoie.com

MetLife is represented by:

          Eugene Scalia, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN LLP
          1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20036-5306
          Telephone: (202) 955-8206
          Facsimile: (202) 530-9606
          E-mail: escalia@gibsondunn.com


MICHAEL'S STORES: Faces Class Action Over Background Checks
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Crotty, Esq., and Michael Vanesse, Esq., of Parker Poe
Adams & Bernstein LLP, in an article for JDSupra Business Advisor,
report that the arts and crafts retailer Michael's Stores, Inc.
received notice of a new class action lawsuit challenging its use
of applicant background checks.  The lawsuit alleges that the
retailer failed to provide applicants with adequate advance notice
of the criminal and other checks as required under the federal
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).  FCRA requires any party that
uses a consumer reporting agency to obtain a background report to
provide certain advance notices and receive consent from the party
subject to the search.  If the applicant is rejected based on the
search, the employer must provide additional notices and
opportunities to challenge the report.  In the employment context,
this includes applicant and employee criminal background and
credit histories.

The FCRA class action lawsuits seek fines, punitive damages and
attorneys' fees.  As with many class actions, the damages to any
one individual may be small, but can be cumulatively significant
when the full class of potential plaintiffs is included.  The
attorneys' fee remedy provides plaintiffs' class action law firms
with a significant incentive to investigate and bring such claims.
The Michael's claim adds to a rapidly growing list of employers
facing these class action claims.

Employers that use outside agencies (including commercial on-line
databases) to conduct background checks of employees and
applicants should take several measures to avoid these claims.
First, they should ask the credit reporting service for detailed
information regarding its FCRA compliance measures.  This should
include reviewing and maintaining copies of disclosure and consent
forms used in the review process. In some cases, the employer may
use its own FCRA forms.  These should be periodically reviewed by
legal counsel, and audited by human resource staff to make certain
that the FCRA consent information is provided and maintained as
required under law.

Plaintiffs' law firms with experience in FLSA and other areas have
clearly identified FCRA lawsuits as a new frontier for large class
action claims.  These suits are separate from a growing number of
EEOC and private claims alleging disparate impact discrimination
through use of background checks.  The combination of these
concerns may lead employers to take a comprehensive look at their
use of background checks, and the safeguards in place to ensure
legal compliance.


MICROSOFT CORP: September 2015 Trial in British Columbia Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 26, 2015, for the
Quarterly Period Ended December 31, 2014, that a British Columbia
class action case is scheduled for trial in September 2015.

"A large number of antitrust and unfair competition class action
lawsuits were filed against us in various state, federal, and
Canadian courts on behalf of various classes of direct and
indirect purchasers of our PC operating system and certain other
software products between 1999 and 2005," the Company said.

"We obtained dismissals or reached settlements of all claims made
in the United States. Under the settlements, generally class
members can obtain vouchers that entitle them to be reimbursed for
purchases of a wide variety of platform-neutral computer hardware
and software. The total value of vouchers that we may issue varies
by state. We will make available to certain schools a percentage
of those vouchers that are not issued or claimed (one-half to two-
thirds depending on the state). The total value of vouchers we
ultimately issue will depend on the number of class members who
make claims and are issued vouchers. We estimate the total
remaining cost of the settlements is approximately $300 million,
all of which had been accrued as of December 31, 2014.

"Three similar cases pending in British Columbia, Ontario, and
Quebec, Canada have not been settled. In March 2010, the court in
the British Columbia case certified it as a class action. After
the British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the case, in
October 2013 the Canadian Supreme Court reversed the appellate
court and reinstated part of the British Columbia case, which is
now scheduled for trial in September 2015. The other two cases
were inactive pending action by the Supreme Court on the British
Columbia case."


MICROSOFT CORP: Argument in US Cell Phone Case Appeal in May 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 26, 2015, for the
Quarterly Period Ended December 31, 2014, that the appeal in the
U.S. cell phone litigation is scheduled for argument in May 2015.

Nokia, along with other handset manufacturers and network
operators, is a defendant in 19 lawsuits filed in the Superior
Court for the District of Columbia by individual plaintiffs who
allege that radio emissions from cellular handsets caused their
brain tumors and other adverse health effects.

"We have assumed responsibility for these claims as part of the
NDS acquisition and have been substituted for the Nokia
defendants. Nine of these cases were filed in 2002 and are
consolidated for certain pre-trial proceedings; the remaining 10
cases are stayed," Microsoft said.

In a separate 2009 decision, the Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia held that adverse health effect claims arising from
the use of cellular handsets that operate within the U.S. Federal
Communications Commission radio frequency emission guidelines
("FCC Guidelines") are pre-empted by federal law. The plaintiffs
allege that their handsets either operated outside the FCC
Guidelines or were manufactured before the FCC Guidelines went
into effect. The lawsuits also allege an industry-wide conspiracy
to manipulate the science and testing around emission guidelines.

In September 2013, defendants in the consolidated cases moved to
exclude plaintiffs' expert evidence of general causation on the
basis of flawed scientific methodologies. The motion was heard in
December 2013 and January 2014. In March 2014, defendants filed a
separate motion to preclude plaintiffs' general causation
testimony on the ground that it is pre-empted by federal law
because the experts challenge the safety of all cellular handsets,
including those that comply with the FCC Guidelines.

In August 2014, the court granted in part defendants' motion to
exclude plaintiffs' general causation experts. The court granted
an order permitting an interlocutory appeal of its decision in
October 2014. In December 2014, the District of Columbia Court of
Appeals agreed to hear en banc defendants' interlocutory appeal
challenging the standard for evaluating expert scientific
evidence. The appeal is scheduled for argument in May 2015. Trial
court proceedings are stayed pending resolution of the appeal.


MICROSOFT CORP: Canadian Cell Phone Class Action Not Yet Active
---------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 26, 2015, for the
Quarterly Period Ended December 31, 2014, that the Canadian cell
phone class action is not yet active as several defendants remain
to be served.

Nokia, along with other handset manufacturers and network
operators, is a defendant in a 2013 class action lawsuit filed in
the Supreme Court of British Columbia by a purported class of
Canadians who have used cellular phones for at least 1,600 hours,
including a subclass of users with brain tumors. Microsoft was
served with the complaint in June 2014 and has been substituted
for the Nokia defendants. The litigation is not yet active as
several defendants remain to be served.


MR. PAPA'S: Faces "Delgado-Soto" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Delgado-Soto, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Mr. Papa's Inc. and Gladys Santana, Case No.
1:15-cv-00723 (N.D. Ill., January 24, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours in a week.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Erik Stevens, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 624-8958
      E-mail: Dave@StevensLawLLC.com


NYC HEALTH AND HOSPITALS: Has Harassed Black Worker, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Martinez v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation
(NYCHHC) and individually and jointly, Loretta Gallagher, Case No.
1:15-cv-00515-ALC (S.D.N.Y., January 23, 2015) alleges that the
Defendants harassed and retaliated against the Plaintiff because
of her race, color, ethnicity or national origin.

Ms. Martinez is a resident of Bronx County, New York.  She is a
woman with a medium to dark-skinned complexion.  She is a Black
American and is also of Hispanic descent.  During all times
relevant to this action, Ms. Martinez worked in the Company's New
York City Office.

York City Health and Hospitals Corporation is a domestic not for
profit corporation that provides healthcare services to clients in
New York state.  Loretta Gallagher is a resident of New Jersey and
was the Plaintiff's former supervisor.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurie Elene Morrison, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LAURIE E. MORRISON
          30 Broad Street, 35th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 785-7835
          Facsimile: (646) 651-4821
          E-mail: morrison@lemorrisonlaw.com


O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Graham" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tammy L. Graham, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
00023 (S.D. Ind., January 23, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a week.

O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc. is a specialty retailer of auto
parts and accessories.

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


PARAMOUNT PICTURES: Faces Class Action Over Credit Reports
----------------------------------------------------------
Courtney Coren, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that
Paramount Pictures Corporation was hit with a class action
lawsuit, alleging that it improperly performed consumer reports
for the purpose of employment in violation of federal law.

California resident and plaintiff Michael Peikoff filed the class
action lawsuit against Paramount in a California federal court on
Jan. 7, alleging the film production company violated the Fair
Credit Reporting Act when it obtained a consumer report about him
illegally.

"Paramount, as standard practice, routinely procures or causes to
be procured 'consumer reports' from consumer reporting agencies
about its employees or prospective employees for employment
purposes," the Paramount class action lawsuit explains.

Mr. Peikoff alleges that Paramount violated the Fair Credit
Reporting Act by not disclosing and obtaining consent from the
employee or potential employee to obtain the credit report.  He
claims in the FCRA class action lawsuit that he applied for a job
with Paramount in February 2011.

Mr. Peikoff alleges that on his job application it stated: "I
authorize the reference listed above, as well as other individuals
whom Paramount contacts, to provide Paramount with any and all
information concerning my previous employment and any other
pertinent information.  Further, I release all parties and persons
from all liability from any damages that may result from
furnishing such information to Paramount as well as from any use
or disclosure of such information by Paramount of any of its
agents, employees or representatives."

Mr. Peikoff alleges in his class action lawsuit that Paramount
used this language as permission to obtain a credit report about
him, which he says is a in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.

According to the federal law, "a consumer reporting agency may
furnish a consumer report for employment purposes only if . . . a
clear and conspicuous disclosure has been made in writing to the
consumer at any time before the report is procured or caused to be
procured, in a document that consists solely of the disclosure,
that a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes."

This means that the consent form may not be attached or hidden
with any other forms, such as on a job application.

In addition, the employer must obtain "authorization in writing"
by the individual in order to procure a report about an employee
or prospective employee.

According to Mr. Peikoff's Fair Credit Reporting Act class action
lawsuit, "Paramount knew or should have known about its legal
obligations under the FCRA.  Paramount obtained or had available
substantial written materials that apprised it of its duties under
the FCRA."

He added in the Paramount class action lawsuit that "Paramount
intentionally and/or recklessly acted consciously in breaching its
known duties and depriving plaintiff and other class members their
rights under the FCRA."

Mr. Peikoff is proposing a nationwide class of individuals who had
a consumer report obtained by Paramount for employment purposes
"without first providing a clear and conspicuous disclosure in
writing to the consumer at any time before the report was procured
or caused to be procured, in a document that consists solely of
the disclosure, that a consumer report may be obtained for
employment purposes."

If Paramount is found liable for the FCRA violations, it will have
to pay $100 to $1,000 for each violation.  Mr. Peikoff is also
asking for punitive damages and attorneys' fees.

Mr. Peikoff is represented by Peter Roald Dion-Kindem of The Dion-
Kindem Law Firm and Lonnie C. Blanchard III of The Blanchard Law
Group APC.

Counsel information for Paramount isn't yet available.

The Paramount FCRA Class Action Lawsuit is Peikoff v. Paramount
Pictures Corporation, Case No. 3:15-cv-00068, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.


PENNSYLVANIA: Faces Class Action Over Delayed Health Coverage
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nina Liss-Schultz, writing for RH Reality Check, reports that two
women's health groups along with a state resident on Jan. 13 filed
a class action lawsuit against the Pennsylvania Department of
Human Services (DHS), alleging that the department systematically
delayed enrolling low-income women for comprehensive health
coverage.

The case, Planned Parenthood Southeastern Pennsylvania v.
Mackereth, alleges that 85,000 women are affected by the
department's delay.

Those thousands of women currently receive limited health coverage
through SelectPlan, a public program that covers only family
planning care for low-income women, most of whom did not
previously qualify for Medicaid.  Pennsylvania administers 14
other limited Medicaid programs for low-income people who, like
the women in SelectPlan, didn't qualify for full coverage.  Those
programs include one called General Assistance, which covers very
low-income individuals who have short-term disabilities, are
survivors of domestic violence, or are in treatment programs for
drug and alcohol abuse.

Last year the state expanded the eligibility criteria for
Medicaid, allowing anyone with an income up to 138 percent of the
federal poverty level to qualify starting January 1, 2015.
Thousands of the Pennsylvanians receiving limited Medicaid
coverage before the new year now qualify for comprehensive
coverage through the expansion.

Due to the expanded eligibility criteria, the DHS automatically
transferred people receiving limited coverage, except the women in
SelectPlan, into full coverage Medicaid.  But instead of the
automatic and timely transfer into comprehensive coverage that the
other groups received, the DHS decided to have caseworkers
manually review each woman's case file over a period of several
months.

The beneficiaries of SelectPlan were the only group not
automatically given full coverage by the DHS.  SelectPlan was
originally set to expire completely at the end of 2014, but local
advocates were able to get the expiration of the program pushed
back until the end of June 2015.

Still, the delay could leave thousands of women in a health-care
gap, according to the suit.  The women in SelectPlan who qualify
for Medicaid will be without comprehensive coverage for the
several months during which their applications are being reviewed.
And the women whose incomes are still too high to qualify them for
Medicaid might be out of coverage altogether after February 15,
the last day of open enrollment for private insurance.

"DHS never told these women they would qualify for full health
coverage starting January 1, and they never mentioned the February
15 open enrollment deadline," Women's Law Project staff attorney
Susan Frietsche, who is helping represent the plaintiffs in the
suit, said in a statement.  "Instead, DHS told them it was
evaluating what coverage to offer them and if they want timelier
help, they should call the Helpline or fill out another
application."

About 70,000 women currently on SelectPlan are now eligible for
coverage under Medicaid, according to the suit.  The remaining
15,000 would be eligible for private health insurance.

The suit, filed by Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania
and New Voices Pittsburgh, a reproductive justice organization,
alleges that women on SelectPlan are being unlawfully delayed from
full coverage by the DHS.  Under federal law, states are required
to provide Medicaid "with reasonable promptness to all eligible
individuals" and to "timely screen those individuals not eligible
for full Medicaid and timely refer them to the Marketplace for
subsidized health insurance through the Affordable Care Act
without requiring a separate application," according to the suit.

"This is discrimination against low-income women and it has very
real consequences for the Black women and women of color in
Pennsylvania," said La'Tasha D. Mayes, founder and executive
director of New Voices Pittsburgh, in a statement.  "As states
surrounding Pennsylvania expanded their Medicaid program over the
last year, these women were denied full Medicaid simply because of
their zip code.  Now that a new plan is finally in place, they are
still being denied coverage, this time because they are women.
This is unacceptable."


PEPSICO INC: Judge Casts Doubt on Cancer-Warning Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Beth Winegarner, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge cast doubt on Jan. 15 on a proposed class action
seeking to force PepsiCo Inc. to provide medical monitoring to
consumers after failing to warn them that its drinks contain a
chemical linked to bronchioloalveolar cancer, saying the
plaintiffs haven't offered evidence the chemical causes cancer in
humans.

U.S. District Court Judge Edward Chen said that in medical-
monitoring cases, the controlling case appears to be a California
appeals court's ruling in Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.,
which found that to obtain medical monitoring, plaintiffs have to
show that a chemical is significantly likely to cause serious
disease.  They also must rely on the testimony of medical experts
to get there, he said.

"Here, there's not much dispute that lung cancer is serious, but
the other factors are problematic," Judge Chen said.  For example,
consumers' exposure to the chemical at issue, 4-methylimidazole,
varies from person to person, and the toxicity level of the
chemical isn't clear with respect to bronchioloalveolar cancer, he
said.

"This is a pretty thin claim, in terms of a causal relationship
between [4-methylimidazole] and this form of cancer," Judge Chen
said.  "I have no idea whether the exposure level causes
significant risks . . . and I don't see any studies that have to
do with humans."

Plaintiffs Paul R. Riva and Danielle Ardagna said in an amended
complaint that the National Toxicology Program has found 4-
methylimidazole to cause lung tumors in laboratory rats and mice,
based on two-year studies of exposure.

In addition, they claim that Urvashi Rangan, a toxicologist and
Executive Director of the Consumer Reports division that focuses
on food safety, said that exposure to more than 4 micrograms of 4-
methylimidazole is an "unnecessary risk."  Consumer Reports tested
Pepsi products and reported in late 2013 that Pepsi, Diet Pepsi
and Pepsi One sold in California contain between 29 and 39.5
micrograms of 4-methylimidazole per can, according to the
complaint.

According to the suit, 4-methylimidazole is among the chemicals
that California's Proposition 65 requires "clear and reasonable
warning" about.  Pepsi failed to warn consumers about the
chemical, particularly in Pepsi One and Diet Pepsi, and should
provide medical monitoring of class members "so as to account for
the increased risk of cancer," the complaint said.

Pepsi moved to dismiss the amended complaint in November, saying
Mr. Riva's suit was one of nine filed after the Consumer Reports
piece, all of which the soda company called "a misguided
overreaction to that article."

Plaintiffs' attorney Roy Katriel of the Katriel Law Firm argued
during the Jan. 15 hearing that the Potter ruling required a trier
of fact to determine the risks of a chemical based on expert
medical testimony. Using that approach at the pleading stage is
premature, although the Consumer Reports piece was based in expert
medical findings, he said.

"These are fair points to debate, but it doesn't mean it's
speculative," Mr. Katriel argued.

Pepsi's attorney, Christopher Chorba -- cchorba@gibsondunn.com --
of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, argued that the court in Potter
said the standards it set were necessary to "avoid opening the
floodgates of litigation."

"All the plaintiffs have alleged here is that the products contain
some unacceptable level of [4-methylimidazole]," Mr. Chorba said.
"What we have here is a complaint that's really in search of a
theory."

Judge Chen took the arguments under submission and didn't indicate
how he would rule.

The plaintiffs are represented by Roy A. Katriel of the Katriel
Law Firm and by Ralph B. Kalfayan of Krause Kalfayan Benink &
Slavens LLP.

Pepsi is represented by Andrew Tulumello, Christopher Chorba,
Sapna D. Pandya and Laren M. Blas of Gibson Dunn and by Trenton H.
Norris -- Trent.Norris@aporter.com -- and Sarah Esmaili --
Sarah.Esmaili@aporter.com -- of Arnold & Porter LLP.

The case is Riva et al v. PepsiCo, Inc., case number 3:14-cv-
02020, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shimon Gottlieb, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Professional Claims Bureau, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-00370-ILG-LB (E.D.N.Y., January 23, 2015) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PROJECT HEALTHY: Recalls Chocolate & Vanilla Protein Powder
-----------------------------------------------------------
Project Healthy Living, Inc. of New York, New York (d/b/a Aloha,
Inc.) is voluntarily recalling all packages of Premium Protein
powder in chocolate and vanilla blends because it has the
potential to be contaminated with Staphylococcus enterotoxin. The
presence of Staphylococcus enterotoxins may be injurious to health
and may result in staphylococcal food poisoning. Nausea, vomiting,
retching, abdominal cramping, and prostration may occur. In more
severe cases there may be headache, muscle cramping, and transient
changes in blood pressure and pulse.

The Aloha Premium Protein products were distributed nationwide
from November 2014 through January 2015 directly to consumers
through online sales and in New York through a very limited number
of retail stores. All sizes of Aloha's Vanilla and Chocolate
Premium Protein blends are being voluntarily recalled. This
product is packaged and sold in both 14-serving sized steel tins
and single-serving sized pouches. The single serving pouches may
be in kits that contain other products not affected by the
voluntary recall.

To date, Aloha has received 17 complaints from customers who have
reported transient gastrointestinal symptoms consistent with
staphylococcal food poisoning. This voluntary recall is a result
of an extensive testing program, which Aloha began immediately
following individual customer complaints of gastrointestinal
issues. Aloha is working closely with its manufacturer, co-
packers, ingredient suppliers and distribution partners to
determine the source and cause of the contamination.

Aloha has temporarily ceased production and distribution of the
Premium Protein products until further analytical testing can
confirm the specific source of the contamination. Aloha has
already notified customers via direct e-mail correspondence and
created a dedicated website regarding the voluntary recall. In
addition, Aloha is offering 24/7 customer support through Monday,
February 2nd and then will resume regular customer support hours
(Monday - Friday 10am-9pm EST).

All customers who have purchased Aloha's Premium Protein products
are instructed to discontinue use and complete the refund form
found online at Aloharecall.com. Customers with product remaining
are also asked to return the product and its original packaging
for further examination.

Customers who have purchased Aloha's Premium Protein products will
receive a refund and a store credit. In addition, Aloha will cover
100% of the cost of return shipping. For more information on the
recall, please visit www.aloharecall.comdisclaimericon   No other
Aloha products are affected by this recall.


PUBLIC SERVICE ENTERPRISE: Faces Class Alleging FMLA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Boatwright, James Caldwell, Dayne Clark, Joshua Keyes,
Nicholas J. Kuhar, III, and Antonio Marabito, individually & on
behalf of all similarly situated current & former employees v.
Public Service Enterprise Group, Inc. & its Subsidiary and PSEG
Nuclear LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00481-JBS-AMD (D.N.J., January 23,
2015) seeks relief under the Family and Medical Leave Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Emma Rebecca Rebhorn, Esq.
          WILLIG WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON
          1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 656-3600
          E-mail: erebhorn@wwdlaw.com


QUEBEC, CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Liquor Monopoly
-------------------------------------------------------
Pierre Couture, writing for QMI Agency, reports that a Quebec City
lawyer is considering relaunching a class-action lawsuit against
the province's liquor monopoly despite twice striking out in
court.

Lawyer David Bourgoin is planning a third run at the SAQ agency
using the Consumer Protection Act.  At issue is the liquor
monopoly's pricing policy.  He says the agency marks up the cost
of some bottles of wine and spirits by 400% and Quebecers have
been known to travel to Ontario to get cheaper booze.

"We believe the SAQ's profit margins in certain product categories
are simply unfair and unreasonable and go against the Consumer
Protection Act," Mr. Bourgoin told QMI Agency.

One of Mr. Bourgoin's clients previously lost two bids to file a
class-action suit against the SAQ.

The latest defeat came on Jan. 14 before the Quebec Court of
Appeal.  However, the appeals court said the liquor board has no
immunity from consumer laws.

The apparent opening gives new ammunition to Bourgoin, who's a
class-action specialist.


ROCK CREEK: Judge Dismisses Class Suit Over Anatabloc Supplement
----------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin reports that an Illinois federal judge has dismissed
a class action complaint filed against the makers of the dietary
supplement Anatabloc, ruling that the plaintiff failed to
adequately plead his state-law claims of fraud, breach of warranty
and unjust enrichment.

In a Jan. 13 order, Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois explained
that she is not required to first decide whether the plaintiff has
standing to pursue his claims under the laws of states other than
Illinois because his individual claims were not sufficiently pled.


RV TRANSPORT: Faces "Castillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maykor Castillo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. RV Transport, Inc. and Ringo Valenzuela, in his
individual and professional capacities, Case No. 1:15-cv-00527
(S.D.N.Y., January 23, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of delivering
merchandise in the greater New York City area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander Todd Coleman, Esq.
      Michael John Borrelli, Esq.
      Mindy L. Kallus, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES
      1010 Northern Blvd., St. 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com
              mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com
              mlk@employmentlawyernewyork.com


SAFWAY SERVICES: Sued for Violating Fair Labor Standards Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Sergio Escobedo and Jose Valdez, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. Safway Services, LLC, Case No. 1:15-
cv-00065-KBM-KK (D.N.M., January 23, 2015) is brought for alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Caren Sencer, Esq.
          WEINBERG ROGER & ROSENFELD
          1001 Marina Village Parkway, #200
          Alameda, CA 94501-1091
          Telephone: (510) 337-1001
          Facsimile: (510) 337-1023
          E-mail: csencer@unioncounsel.net

               - and -

          James A. Montalbano, Esq.
          YOUTZ & VALDEZ, PC
          900 Gold Avenue SW
          Albuquerque, NM 87102
          Telephone: (505) 242-1200
          Facsimile: (505) 242-9700
          E-mail: james@youtzvaldez.com


SAKS FIFTH: Sued for Retaliating Against Then-Pregnant Employee
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jodie Breece v. Saks Fifth Avenue, Inc.; Saks, Incorporated;
Hudson's Bay Company; and Rebecca Jobo, Case No. 1:15-cv-00524-KBF
(S.D.N.Y., January 23, 2015) seeks compensatory and punitive
damages, as well as costs and attorneys' fees, based on the
alleged discriminatory and improper actions undertaken by
Defendants in their harassment of; creation of a hostile work
environment with regard to; retaliation against; and termination
of the Plaintiff; all based upon her age, disability, pregnancy
and her seeking the protections of the Family and Medical Leave
Act and in retaliation for that availment and her complaints about
the discriminatory behavior.

Ms. Breece is a 42-year-old female resident of New York City.  She
asserts that within the relevant period, she was forced to go on
disability leave to address problems concerning her ectopic
pregnancy and was also being medicated for the same medication
that had material side-effects requiring reasonable
accommodations, which were not afforded to her.

Saks Fifth Avenue, Inc. is a Foreign (Massachusetts) corporation
duly authorized to conduct business in the state of New York and
Ms. Breece's employer while operating its primary business
location in New York City.  Saks Incorporated is a Foreign
(Tennessee) corporation duly authorized to business in New York,
and is SFAI's direct parent corporation.  Rebecca Jobo was an
officer of SFAI, who was hired as a General Manager in the late
summer of 2012, who had direct supervisory authority over Ms.
Breece.

Hudson's Bay Company is a Foreign (Ontario, Canada) corporation,
which conducts business in the United States through a variety of
stores with multiple retail outlets in New York and across the
United States, including Hudson's Bay, Lord & Taylor, Saks Fifth
Avenue, and Saks Fifth Avenue Off Fifth.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ethan Leonard, Esq.
          Neal Brickman, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF NEAL BRICKMAN
          317 Madison Avenue, 21st Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 986-6840
          Facsimile: (212) 986-7691
          E-mail: ethan@brickmanlaw.com
                  neal@brickmanlaw.com


SAQ: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Price Mark-Ups
--------------------------------------------------
CJAD News reports that a class action suit against the SAQ is
taking aim at what it calls unfair price mark-ups.  The suit,
launched by Quebec City lawyer David Bourgoin, alleges that the
liquor commission often sells its most popular products at well
over twice what it paid for.

Mr. Bourgoin says the SAQ is gouging customers, especially on its
less expensive wines and liquors.  The suit in particular is
looking at "the biggest volume of products -- wine under $25," he
said.  "In this category there's a higher volume of profit, and a
higher rate of profit.  So for us, it's most abusive in this
category."  He says outrageous markups - sometimes up to 400 per
cent -- are flagrant violations of the Consumer Protection Act.

An earlier class action suit was deemed too broad, so by focusing
on the SAQ's most popular products, Mr. Bourgoin believes he has a
better chance at making his case.  If successful, he thinks the
SAQ could be on the hook for over a hundred million dollars.  He
is hoping to launch the new suit within the next few weeks.


SCHNUCK MARKETS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Data Breach Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Barker, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports that
Schnuck Markets scored a victory on Jan. 15 in its legal battle
against two credit card payment processors in the aftermath of a
massive data breach two years ago.

U.S. District Judge John Ross sided with Schnuck and its argument
that the Maryland Heights-based supermarket chain was liable only
for $500,000 in damages to the two processors -- First Data
Merchant Services and Citicorp Payment Services. Schnuck sued the
processors in late 2013, claiming they were withholding too much
money to cover losses resulting from the breach.

The data theft started in December of 2012 and ran through March
of 2013 and exposed an estimated 2.4 million credit and debit
cards.

In his ruling, the judge cited a 2011 agreement between the grocer
and the card processors that limited Schnuck's liability to
$500,000 -- unless it failed to comply with "an industry-imposed
network security framework." The judge rejected claims by
processors that a clause mentioning "third party fees" and "fees,
fines or penalties" allowed them to shift more liability onto the
grocer.

The judge ordered the processors to return to Schnuck any extra
money that's been withheld. The amount was not specified but was
called "substantial" by Schnuck.

Schnuck and Citicorp decline to comment. First Data could not be
reached.

Last year, the chain agreed to a $2.1 million settlement of a
class action lawsuit on behalf of customers. The money is to be
used to pay for a variety of inconveniences, including up to $200
in out-of-pocket expenses for things like unreimbursed bank fees,
long distance and cellphone charges incurred while dealing with
the fallout, credit monitoring services and time spent working
with banks, merchants and creditors.

The settlement also called for the class action attorneys to be
paid up to $635,000, plus expenses.


SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL: Trial Begins in Suit Alleging Forced Labor
----------------------------------------------------------------
As opening arguments began January 13 in a case highlighting
serious flaws in the nation's guest worker program, a few things
were beyond dispute, reports Sabrina Canfield at Courthouse News
Service.

In late 2006, pressed by a backlog of contracts to repair oil
platforms and vessels damaged by Hurricane Katrina, Signal
International began recruiting workers from India. The first
arrived in November 2006, and soon, nearly 600 Indian workers were
put to work at Signal's plants in Pascagoula, Miss., and Orange,
Texas.

Two years later, the workers began filing what grew to be more
than a dozen lawsuits, claiming they were lured to the U.S. with
false promises of green cards only to find themselves confined to
a crowded, unsanitary camp.

But as the trial on these claims got underway at the federal
courthouse in New Orleans, attorneys representing four separate
interests gave conflicting accounts of how the workers wound up
living together in several tiny trailers, whether the men were
promised permanent citizenship, and if they were allowed to leave.

Alan Howard, representing the Indian workers, said officials at
Signal International thought the Indian workers would be happy to
live together in tiny trailers with just two toilets each because
they were coming from India, and anything provided to them would
be better than living back home.

Howard quoted from an email from an American worker at Signal
International upon seeing the camp of trailers.  With indoor
plumbing and lots of space between the beds, the man reportedly
said the Indian workers would think the camp was like the "Taj
Mahal" and would be happy to just roll out of bed and go to work.

That same man later told attorneys he only thought this because of
what he'd heard about the living conditions in India -- stories
that recounted their digging ditches for sanitation, and about how
bad Indians smelled.

Although the first of the workers began to arrive only in late
2006, by early 2007 the men were already falling ill due to the
overcrowded, unsanitary conditions at the camp, Howard said.

Howard quoted from the private journal entry of the same American
worker who had made the "Taj Mahal" remark.

An entry from February 2007 notes the horrid conditions and the
Indians' resulting sickness: "Our men have been dropping with
sickness like blocks," he wrote, going on to say that shoddy
plumbing had resulted in pools of standing water "everywhere" that
created a "bacterial breeding" camp.

Howard said one of the Indian workers became so sick he had to be
hospitalized.

Howard said the Indian workers were lured to the United States
with promises of permanent residency, and that they had paid
Signal recruiters as much as $20,000 apiece, for which they'd sold
their valuables and took out high-interest loans.

Signal International acknowledges the Indians came to the United
States with their own money and on false promises, but insists the
untruths and unfair payments were the work of their own lawyers
and of "unscrupulous" third party recruiters.

Signal has brought cross claims against the lawyers and
recruiters, saying they promised permanent visas without Signal's
knowing; but Howard said that even while Signal publically blamed
the other parties, it continued to work with those parties and
continued to make false promises to recruit cheap labor.

Howard pointed to an internal email from Signal about recruitment
that instructs that the "permanent status" will continue.

Howard said that after the first Indians began to arrive in 2006,
one of the company's recruiters wrote an email to Signal: "One of
us needs to be with the candidates" as they enter customs coming
into the country, "they say the dumbest things and need to be
coached."

The email went on to complain about one worker who told officials
he was getting a green card from Signal and referred to the man as
a "goner."

Howard showed a portion of deposition from Signal CEO Dick Marler,
who was asked why company officials didn't give back the fees
workers paid or stop offering green cards when they knew the
promises were false.

"We needed workers," Marler replied.

Erin Casey Hangartner, appearing on behalf of Signal
International, told the jury they had heard many emotionally
charged statements over the course of day, statements that
repeatedly raised the specter of "cheap labor, expendable labor."

Hangartner thought the jury needed to see the situation in a
different light.

"This is a case about a company bringing the Gulf Coast up from
its knees," she said. "It's not a case about 'cheap labor.'"

Hangartner emphasized the need for workers after Hurricane
Katrina, and said the work required skilled pipefitters, not just
anybody "off the street."

She said the trailers at the camp weren't doublewide trailers but
doublewide prefab housing units, and that Signal international
contracted with the owner of a New Orleans Indian restaurant to
provide the workers with three Indian meals a day.

"There were complaints" about housing, Hangartner said.  She
acknowledged that Signal CEO Marler himself said the housing units
were too small the first time he walked through.'  We need more
beds, more toilets,'" Marler had said.

But Hangartner said even though there were just two sinks and two
toilets in each bunk house, there were entire trailers that were
just sinks and just toilets.

"Signal went above and beyond to make its workers happy," she
said.

"Don't think that everything was those bunk rooms," Hangartner
said. Buses were hired to take the men on outings, to Wal-Mart and
to do other shopping, she said.  Also, they were taken on weekend
trips to a bar.

She also noted that at the shipbuilding facility itself, Signal
provided a prayer room and a TV room with an Indian station.

Hangartner said the workers' claims they were forced to live at
the camp wasn't quite true, but it was true that the camp was the
best place for them to live.  The workers came from India without
drivers' licenses or bank accounts or any paperwork that would
have helped them to find a better place to live, she said.

"The bottom line," she said, was at the time there just weren't
enough available houses for 290 extra people in Pascacoula,
Mississippi.

The workers complained about having $1,000 deducted every month
from their checks to cover rent, but Hangartner said that amount
covered everything: rent, food, utilities.

Two hundred of the workers were direct hires by Signal and
received the same benefits as any other Signal employee, including
health insurance and a 401K, Hangartner said.

As for Signal's promises the workers would receive permanent
status, Hangartner said the company was new to hiring foreign
workers and "didn't understand" how it was done, so it hired an
immigration attorney, New Orleans-based Malvern Burnett, and he
explained the method.

You cannot enter the United States with the intention of staying
in the United States, Hangartner said.  So Burnett explained to
Signal the way immigration needed to be handled, and Signal took
his word.

The method was H2B temporary visa, then "extension, extension,
green card," Hangartner said.

The extensions on the H2B visa can only be applied for by the same
company that originally granted the work visa, so employees have
to stay at the same job if they want to stay in the United States.

"You hear: 'They were tied to their employer!' They were,"
Hangartner said.  "The law is you have to work for the same
employer that sponsored you for the H2B visa. . . .  Signal
International did not bind these workers to Signal.  The law
binded them."

Hangartner said Signal trusted its attorney, and that Burnett was
the one calling all the shots with regard to immigration promises
and paperwork.

"Are you supposed to hire an attorney to make sure your attorney
tells the truth?" Hangartner asked.  "That defies logic."

"Malvern Burnett led the workers to believe [getting a green card]
was an easy process," Hangartner said.

She said one of the recruiters, Michael Pol, was fired after
Signal found out that money was being taken from the workers
before they left India and that false promises were being made.
Signal "compromised," Hangartner said, by helping some of the
workers' families to come over.

"Do you cut them off?  Do you leave them in India?  Do you leave
them in India knowing they cannot make a fraction of the money
they could make in the United States?" Hangertner asked.

She said Signal did what it thought was most beneficial for the
workers after it found out they'd paid thousands of dollars to
come over.

Next, Tim Cherniglia, representing Malvern Burnett, said "Signal
knew exactly what they were doing."

The opening statements concluded with Steve Shapiro appearing on
behalf of Sachin Dewan, a former recruiter for Signal
International.  Shapiro told jurors: "Signal is undoubtedly trying
to blame everyone for their own problems."

He said Dewan was hired to recruit workers in India on behalf of
Signal, and that the arrangement was well understood by both
parties: fees were to be charged to workers themselves, not
signal, and signal would deduct fees for food and housing from
workers' wages.

This is the first of many trials Signal International faces in
Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi after class action certification
was denied by a federal judge last year.  Allegations are the
company brought over as many as 500 Indian workers, took the
workers' money on the false promise they would become permanent
U.S. residents and forced them to work at Signal's Pascagoula
shipyard.

The federal jury trial continued on January 14 and is slated to
last five weeks.


SINGING RIVER: Judge Delays Pension Plan Termination for 90 Days
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anita Lee, writing for Sun Herald, reports that U.S. District
Judge Louis Guirola Jr. has prohibited Singing River Health System
trustees from terminating the employee pension plan for at least
90 days from the date of Dec. 15.

Judge Guirola entered the order in a potential class-action
lawsuit filed by five current and former health system employees
against the health system, its Board of Trustees and several
former executives.  Attorneys for both sides reached the agreement
before Judge Guirola entered the order to enforce it.

The agreement also provides that during the 90-day period:

  -- Retirees will continue to receive their pensions.

  -- No retirement contributions will be deducted from employees'
checks.

  -- SRHS will continue to accrue liabilities for funding the
retirement plan.

  -- SRHS will pay no attorneys' fees or legal expenses from the
plan,

  -- No action will be taken that affects the plan's operation or
status.

All health system documents related to the retirement plan and the
lawsuit will be preserved.

Attorneys Jim Reeves and Stephen Nicholas, representing the
employees, and Brett Williams, representing the hospital, signed
the agreement before Judge Guirola entered an order Jan. 15.  The
definition of "documents" to be preserved consumes 1 1/2 pages of
the five-page order.

"This should hold everything in place," Mr. Reeves said on Jan.
15.  "I think this lets us catch our breath."

The Dec. 15 date is significant because that is when the Jackson
County Board of Supervisors and the county-owned health system
signed an agreement that prohibits termination of the pension
plan. But their agreement runs "90 days or shorter if agreed
between the parties . . ."

Judge Guirola's order does not allow for a shorter time but does
include the potential for extension.

SRHS employees contributed a mandatory 3 percent of pay to the
pension, but the health system stopped funding its share after
2009 without informing employees.

Employees learned from media reports in October the pension was in
trouble.  They learned in March, after former CEO Chris Anderson
departed for Baptist Health Systems in Jackson, that SRHS is
having major financial problems.  The Board of Trustees voted in
secret Nov. 20 to terminate the pension plan.

Retirees and employees have filed at least nine lawsuits over the
failed pension, including two potential class-action suits in
federal court and emergency state court action that prohibited
pension plan termination for 10 days at a time.

"I think this will calm people down," Reeves said.  "They're
locked down.  They won't be able to do anything with this plan for
90 days."

Health system communications director Richard Lucas said, "A
similar stay agreement was offered to the plaintiffs' attorneys
involved in the individual lawsuits filed in state court, but was
refused by those attorneys. These multiple lawsuits are very
costly to an organization trying diligently to restore its
financial health."


STATE FARM: Judge Dismisses TCPA Class Action
---------------------------------------------
Emily Field and Allison Grande, writing for Law360, report that an
Illinois federal judge on Jan. 13 dismissed a plaintiff from a
proposed Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action alleging
that State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. is vicariously
liable for telemarketing calls made by a third party, saying that
he hadn't alleged sufficient facts to back his claims.

U.S Judge Amy St. Eve granted State Farm's motion to dismiss
plaintiff Josh Friedman, saying that he hadn't stated sufficient
facts to link the calls he allegedly received to the insurer, but
nixed the attempt to escape class allegations.  The judge rejected
State Farm's argument that plaintiffs' class definition is an
improper fail-safe class and that it would be impossible to find
out who belongs in the class without investigating each alleged
call made on the insurer's behalf by Variable Marketing LLC.

The judge said that it would be premature to strike class
allegations before the plaintiffs had a chance to conduct more
discovery.

"Simply put, plaintiffs need additional discovery to determine the
extent to which they can link calls made by Variable to State
Farm," the judge said.  "Further, even if plaintiffs' current
class definition is potentially 'fail-safe,' the Seventh Circuit
has held that the fail-safe problem 'can and often should be
solved by refining the class definition rather than by flatly
denying class certification on that basis.'"

The judge said that the proposed class is defined as anyone in the
U.S. who received an autodialed call on their cellphone from
Variable while it was acting on State Farm's behalf.

Judge St. Eve's ruling marks the second time that the insurer has
failed to escape the consolidated class action complaint filed by
seven named plaintiffs alleging violations of the TCPA.

In August, the judge dismissed claims against Nationwide Mutual
Insurance Co., Farmers Insurance Exchange, Fire Insurance
Exchange, Truck Insurance Exchange and Mid-Century Insurance Co.
to dismiss the suit, but said that the plaintiffs had alleged
sufficient facts to support holding State Farm vicariously liable
for telemarketing calls made by lead generator marketing company
Variable under a subagency theory.

The plaintiffs had contended in their second amended complaint
that Variable kept track of the leads sent to State Farm and had
argued that they might be able to obtain records of calls Variable
made for State Farm, according to the ruling.

The judge also denied State Farm's motion to dismiss another
plaintiff, Matt Clark, saying that he sufficiently alleged his
claim by stating the phone number that placed the call and linking
it to another plaintiff's more detailed allegations.

Plaintiffs' counsel Jonathan Selbin of Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein LLP told Law360 that "we are pleased with the court's
thoughtful analysis and ruling and look forward to pressing ahead
with discovery."

Plaintiffs Jennifer Smith and four others filed an amended
complaint on Sept. 4 alleging that they had received prerecorded
phone calls on their cellphones advertising auto insurance quotes
from State Farm without their consent.

Two of the plaintiffs placed their cellphone numbers on the
National Do Not Call Registry, according to the complaint.

The plaintiffs are represented by Jonathan D. Selbin, Douglas I.
Cuthbertson and Daniel M. Hutchinson of Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein LLP and Alexander H. Burke of Burke Law Offices LLC.

State Farm is represented by Ronald S. Safer, Joseph A. Cancila
Jr., James P. Gaughan and Virginia O. Hancock of Schiff Hardin
LLP.

The case is Smith v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.,
case number 1:13-cv-02018, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.


STONE MOUNTAIN: Recalls 8oz. Packs Pecanettes Due to Salmonella
---------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia Agriculture Commissioner Gary W. Black is alerting
Georgians to the recall of certain pecan products for potential
health risk. The products were distributed only in the State of
Georgia, directly to consumers at the retail level from the Stone
Mountain Pecan Company, located in Monroe.

The Stone Mountain Pecan Company is recalling 540 packages of the
"Pecanettes" sold in 8-ounce packages, because the product has the
potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism that can
cause serious infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems.

Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever,
diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal
pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result
in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more
severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected
aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

Based upon random sampling conducted by the GDA, it was determined
the "Pecanettes" products tested positive for Salmonella.  The
products were sold in 8-ounce clear plastic packages, Lot code
4032A, with a "sell by date" of 12/30/15.

At this time, Pecanettes with lot number 4032A are the only
products affected by this recall. To date, there have been no
reports of illnesses associated with this recall.

Consumers who have purchased the Pecanettes are encouraged to
return the product for a full refund. Consumers with questions or
concerns may contact the company at 770-207-6486 between the hours
of 8 a.m.-4 p.m. (EST), Monday through Friday.

This is one of several recalls impacting the State of Georgia this
month. To view a comprehensive list of food and feed recalls
affecting Georgia, please visit www.agr.georgia.gov/recalls.aspx
If this recall expands or additional details become available, the
website will provide the most up-to-date information. Also follow
the GDA on Twitter @GDAFoodSafety for recall alerts and food
safety tips.

Photo of the Recalled Products available at
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm432485.htm


SYNGENTA CORP: Faces "Heath Hill" Suit Over Viptera Corn
--------------------------------------------------------
H. Heath Hill, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Syngenta Corporation, Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC,
and Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-02243 (D. Kan., January
23, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
provide an adequate warning to farmers, grain elevators, grain
exporters, and the general public regarding the dangers of
planting, growing, harvesting, transporting, or otherwise using
Viptera corn at the time Viptera corn was sold.

The Defendants are engaged in commercial seed business,
developing, producing, and selling, through dealers and
distributors or directly to growers, a wide range of agricultural
products throughout the United States, including corn seed with
certain genetically modified traits.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Renae D. Steiner, Esq.
      HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
      310 Clifton Avenue
      Minneapolis, MN 55403
      Telephone: (612) 338-4605
      Facsimile: (612) 338-4692
      E-mail: rsteiner@heinsmills.com

         - and -

      John G. Felder Jr., Esq.
      MCGOWAN HOOD & FELDER
      1517 Hampton Street
      Columbia, SC 29201
      Telephone: (803) 779-0100
      Facsimile: (803) 256-0702
      E-mail: jfelder@mcgowanhood.com

         - and -

      John G. Felder Sr., Esq.
      Bates N. Felder
      THE FELDER FIRM, LLP
      641 N.F.R. Huff Drive
      St. Matthews, SC 29135-0346
      Telephone: (803) 874-1430
      Facsimile: (803) 655-7167


SYNGENTA CORP: Scott+Scott Files Class Action Over GMO Corn Seed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP on Jan. 15 disclosed that it
has filed a case on behalf of farmers who planted corn during the
2013/14 and 2014/15 crop years and suffered losses due to the drop
in corn prices, which the complaint alleges occurred when China
closed its market to U.S. corn imports in November 2013 as a
result of the actions of Syngenta Corp., Syngenta Crop Protection,
LLC, and Syngenta Seeds, Inc. in commercializing its genetically
modified corn trait MIR162 and allowing MIR162 to contaminate the
U.S. corn supply.

Syngenta is in the business of developing and selling corn seed
with certain genetically modified traits. At issue here is
Syngenta's genetically modified corn trait MIR162, branded as
Agrisure Viptera ("Viptera corn").  China is currently the third
largest export market for U.S. corn, and it requires prior
government approval for genetically modified commodities and
products to be imported.  When Syngenta commercialized Viptera
corn in 2012, China had not authorized the importation of MIR162-
traited corn into China and would ban corn imports contaminated
with MIR162.  According to the complaint, Syngenta nevertheless
enticed farmers to grow its genetically modified MIR162 corn,
while promoting practices virtually guaranteed to result in
commingling of MIR162 with the rest of the corn supply.  Syngenta
allegedly misinformed farmers, grain elevators, grain exporters,
and the general public into believing that approval from China was
imminent.

China, however, did not approve MIR162 for importation. Starting
in November 2013, China rejected shipments of corn containing
MIR162.  While recent reports state that the Chinese government
has now approved the import of MIR162, this announcement has not
restored the trade in U.S. corn to levels they would otherwise
have been.  Thus, plaintiffs claim that Syngenta's premature
release of Viptera corn caused sales of U.S. corn to China to be
banned, which, in turn, created an excess of corn on the U.S.
market, depressing U.S. corn prices and causing billions of
dollars of damages to U.S. corn exporters.

Scott+Scott has filed a legal action on behalf of farmers injured
by this conduct to hold Syngenta accountable for the loss of the
Chinese export market for U.S. corn, and all other resultant
damages.  If you have suffered losses due to the drop in U.S. corn
prices during the 2013/14 and 2014/15 crop seasons, please contact
Scott+Scott (scottlaw@scott-scott.com (800) 404-7770, (860) 537-
5537) to discuss your legal options or visit the Scott+Scott
website for more information: http://www.scott-scott.com

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and consumer rights actions throughout the
United States.  The firm represents pension funds, foundations,
individuals, and other entities worldwide.


SYNGENTA SEEDS: Faces "Michael Hill" Suit Over Contaminated Corn
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Hill v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc., and Syngenta AG, Case No.
2:15-cv-02244-JWL-JPO (D. Kan., January 23, 2015) arises from the
alleged contamination of the U.S. corn supply with Syngenta's
unapproved genetically modified corn.

Mr. Michael Hill is a citizen of the state of Missouri.  He grew
corn in Randolph County, Missouri, in the 2013-2014 growing
season.

Syngenta Seeds, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in Minnetonka, Minnesota.  Syngenta develops and
produces agricultural seeds, including corn and soybean seeds, and
in particular Viptera and Duracade.  Syngenta AG is a Swiss
company headquartered in Basel, Switzerland.  Syngenta AG is the
world's largest crop chemicals company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
          Eric D. Barton, Esq.
          Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
          Thomas J. Preuss, Esq.
          Christopher L. Schnieders, Esq.
          WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
          4740 Grand Ave., Suite 300
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 701-1100
          Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
          E-mail: tcartmell@wagstaffcartmell.com
                  ebarton@wagstaffcartmell.com
                  thudson@wagstaffcartmell.com
                  tjpreuss@wcllp.com
                  cschnieders@wagstaffcartmell.com


TD BANK: Sued Over Improper Collection of Overdraft Fees
--------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that four people filed a class action
lawsuit against New Jersey-based TD Bank, N.A., alleging fraud and
breach of contract on Jan. 9.

Frederick Klein, of Marlton, N.J.; Ronald Ryan, of Boca Raton,
Fla.; Geoffrey Grant, of Wilmington, N.C.; and Tashina Drakeford,
of Bronx, N.Y., alleged that the bank improperly assessed and
collected overdraft fees between Aug. 15, 2010 and the present.
The suit alleges that TD Bank utilized and misrepresented improper
practices by assessing overdraft fees when accounts were not
actually overdrawn.

TD Bank operates branches in Connecticut, Delaware, Florida,
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
Vermont, Virginia and Washington, D.C.

The plaintiffs seek to be appointed representatives of the class
and to be awarded compensatory damages in an as yet unspecified
amount.

The plaintiffs and proposed class are jointly represented by
Joseph G. Sauder -- JosephSauder@chimicles.com -- and Matthew D.
Schelkopf -- MatthewSchelkopf@chimicles.com -- of Chimicles &
Tikellis LLP in Haverford, Pa.; Richard D. McCune and Jae K. Kim,
of McCuneWright LLP, in Redlands, Calif.; and Taras Kick and
Thomas A. Segal, of The Kick Law Firm, APC, in Santa Monica,
Calif..

U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in Camden case
no. 1:15-cv-00179


TOYOTA MOTOR: Urges Jury to Decide on Evidence in Crash Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a Toyota Motor Corp. lawyer has
told a Minnesota jury deciding whether the automaker is
responsible for a crash that killed three people that the car
couldn't have accelerated so quickly if the driver hit the brakes
as he claimed.

David Graves said in his closing argument on Jan. 28 the 2006
accident was a tragedy but jurors should decide on the evidence,
not on sympathy for the victims.

Mr. Graves said the science shows there's no way Koua (KOO'-uh)
Fong Lee's Camry could have accelerated from 55 to 60 mph on a
freeway off-ramp to 70 mph at the point of impact unless Lee had
the throttle wide open.

Lee spent 2 1/2 years in prison for the crash before being
released after reports suggested that some Toyota cars had sudden
acceleration problems.


TPG CAPITAL: Judge Tosses Shareholder Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck and Daniel Siegal, writing for Law360, report that
a California state judge has axed a consolidated shareholder class
action alleging TPG Capital LP's $394 million purchase of Delaware
corporation Arden Group Inc.'s luxury supermarket chain Gelson's
stiffed shareholders to enrich Arden's board, ruling the
transaction appeared to be entitled to safe harbor protection
under Delaware state law.

Judge Jane L. Johnson decided on Jan. 14 that the transaction was
entitled to safe harbor because Arden CEO, President and Chairman
Bernard Briskin -- who controlled 56.5 percent of Arden's common
stock -- agreed to sell his shares for the same price as what
shareholders were due to receive. She thus sustained Arden and
TPG's demurrers to the complaint's single cause of action, for
breach of fiduciary duty, despite having tentatively decided to
the contrary at the time of oral arguments in October.

The complaint contended the purchase was done for a "mere" $126.50
per share because Mr. Briskin, who is in his 80s, wanted to cash
his shares out to the tune of $219 million, regardless of whether
competing bids could have provided more overall value for
shareholders.

The judge on Jan. 14 ruled that the Delaware Supreme Court has
held that enhanced scrutiny review is triggered only in situations
where the sale shifts aggregate control from a fluid body of
public shareholders to a single controlling shareholder -- which
isn't the case in the instant dispute.

"These types of lawsuits are expensive, distracting and time
consuming, interfering with the company's business on a going-
forward basis," Judge Johnson wrote.  "Many are well taken and
deserve to be fully litigated.  On the basis of the facts alleged
and cases cited, this transaction appears entitled to safe harbor
protection."

Shareholder the George Leon Family Trust filed suit in December
2013, shortly after TPG announced its cash purchase of Gelson's --
a luxury market chain founded in 1951, with 17 stores in Southern
California -- under which TPG would maintain Arden as a
subsidiary.

In October, plaintiffs' attorneys told Judge Johnson that
Mr. Briskin simply didn't fulfill his duty to the shareholders
because of his desire for liquidity, as evidenced in Arden's Jan.
29 information statement filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, which revealed that the board had given TPG a
"tip" to keep it in the bidding despite its initial bid being low.

Arden countered that boardmembers got sole-bidder TPG to pay more
than market value and that plaintiffs did not allege any facts to
show that the board was doing anything but seeking the highest
price reasonably available when it signed off on the deal.

Judge Johnson said during oral arguments in October that given the
standard on demurrer, she had to give deference to what was pled
in the complaint but she would be reviewing the arguments raised,
and she took the matter under submission.

On Jan. 14, the judge said it was her intention to sustain the
demurrer without leave to amend unless plaintiffs could show how
they could amend the complaint and how it would change the legal
effect of the pleading.

Christopher G. Green -- Christopher.Green@ropesgray.com -- of
Ropes & Gray LLP, which is representing TPG, told Law360 on
Jan. 16 that they are very gratified by Judge Johnson's decision.

"This is an all-out victory on an important trend in Delaware
shareholder law class actions, because there are so many cases
that are being pursued in non-Delaware jurisdictions. This is
another example of defendants getting a good result in a difficult
area of law, we are really gratified."

Eric S. Waxman -- eric.waxman@skadden.com -- of Skadden Arps Slate
Meagher & Flom LLP, which is representing Arden, expressed similar
sentiments to Law360 on Jan. 16.

"Judge Johnson carefully reviewed and analyzed relevant cases and
applied that case law to the admitted facts in plaintiffs'
complaint about how the board handled the transaction," he said.

The plaintiffs are represented by Randall J. Baron, A. Rick Atwood
Jr., David T. Wissbroecker and Edward M. Gergosian of Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Arden is represented by Eric S. Waxman and Richard S. Horvath Jr.
of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP. TPG is represented by
Christopher G. Green and Rocky C. Tsai -- Rocky.Tsai@ropesgray.com
-- of Ropes & Gray LLP.

The case is the George Leon Family Trust v. Arden Group Inc. et
al., case number BC531846, in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles.


TRACFONE WIRELESS: Settles False Advertising Claims for $40MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer C. Kerr, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
the nation's largest prepaid mobile provider, TracFone Wireless,
will pay $40 million to settle government claims that it misled
millions of smartphone customers with promises of unlimited data
service.

The Federal Trade Commission said on Jan. 28 that TracFone's
advertising promised unlimited data, but the company then
drastically slowed down consumers' data speeds -- a practice known
as throttling -- when they had used a certain amount of data
within a 30-day period.  In some cases, the FTC said, the company
cut off customers' data service when they ran over the limit.

TracFone's prepaid wireless service is sold under various brands,
including Straight Talk, Net10, Simple Mobile and Telcel America.

Throttling will slow down the ability to open Web pages or stream
video.  According to the commission, TracFone generally throttled
the data flow when a customer used about 1 gigabyte to 3
gigabytes.  Data service was sometimes suspended at 4 gigabytes to
5 gigabytes, the FTC said.

"The issue here is simple: Unlimited means unlimited," said
Jessica Rich, director of the FTC's consumer protection bureau, in
a call with reporters.  "This case is about false advertising."

In a statement, TracFone said it worked with the commission to
"reach an amicable settlement, and we have no further comment at
this time."

The prepaid monthly plans were sold at Walmart, Best Buy, Target
and other retailers across the country as well as online.

Consumers who had a Straight Talk, Net10, Simple Mobile, or Telcel
America unlimited plan before January 2015 can file a claim for a
refund.  Refunds will vary depending on several factors, including
how long a consumer had the TracFone plan and how many consumers
request refunds.

The FTC charges that TracFone has been throttling consumers or
cutting unlimited service since 2009.  The commission's complaint
says there was no technical reason for TracFone to limit the data
plans, such as slowing speeds because of network congestion.
Internal documents, the FTC says, suggest the throttling was done
to "reduce the high costs associated" with providing unlimited
data.

In September 2013, TracFone began making some disclosures about
throttling unlimited plans, but they were usually not clear or the
print was too small for a consumer to notice them, the FTC said.

The commission sued AT&T late last year over the same issue. AT&T
has denied misleading customers over its unlimited data plans.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Charges Fictitious LAX Airport Fees, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that Uber charged
tens of thousands of customers "fictitious" LAX airport fees,
though its drivers don't pay anything to the airport, a class
action claims in California Superior Court.

Lead plaintiff Cy R. Brown sued Uber Technologies on Jan 6,
alleging breach of contract, fraudulent concealment, conversion,
unjust enrichment and other counts.

Brown claims that licensed taxis pay Los Angeles International
Airport more than $3 million in fees, and that Uber is not
authorized to operate at the airport but nonetheless charges
passengers a $4 fee.

Brown says he paid $73 for an Oct. 16, 2013 trip to the airport
after finding a rideshare driver through the Uber smartphone app.

Included in his receipt was the $4 charge for the LAX airport fee,
he says.

"Uber has imposed the fictitious 'LAX airport fee' upon tens of
thousands of passengers," Brown says in his 16-page complaint.

In December, San Francisco District Attorney George Gascon and Los
Angeles County District Attorney Jackie Lacey settled a civil
consumer protection claim against rideshare company Lyft.

The San Francisco based-company is required to tighten background
checks and seek permission from airports where the service
operates.  Lyft also agreed to pay $500,000 in civil penalties.

The same day, the prosecutors announced a lawsuit against Uber,
claiming that the service was charging a fraudulent $4 fee at San
Francisco International Airport, and taking shortcuts on
background checks.

"Unfortunately, Uber, unlike Lyft, has refused to comply with
reasonable regulations as required by California law," District
Attorney Lacey said on Dec. 9.  "As a result, Uber continues to
put consumers at risk by misleading the public about the
background checks of its drivers and its unwillingness to ensure
that correct fares are charged."

Brown seeks compensatory and statutory damages, and costs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com


UNITED STATES: Judge Strikes Down Minimum Wage Regulation
---------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Journal reports that a federal judge for the
second time in a month struck down a piece of U.S. Department of
Labor regulations intended to expand minimum-wage and overtime
protections for home care workers. Home care provider companies
argued the department unlawfully narrowed the definition of
"companionship services" eligible for exemptions from minimum-wage
and overtime requirements.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon on Jan. 14 agreed, finding
Congress had already clearly spoken on the scope of "companionship
services."

The previous regulation defined "companionship services" as the
provision of "fellowship, care and protection" for individuals
unable to care for their needs.  The revised regulation placed
limits on the amount of "care" -- activities such as dressing,
feeding or preparing meals -- a worker could provide before
minimum-wage and overtime protections kicked in.


UNITY DISPOSAL: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Santos Flores, Francisco Javier Fuentes, Jose Novoa, Anthony
Taylor, Juan Luis Valerio Olivares, and Damion West, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Unity Disposal and
Recycling, LLC, Case No. 8:15-cv-00196 (D. Md., January 23, 2015),
is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

Unity Disposal and Recycling, LLC is a Maryland corporation that
provides trash collection services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark Hanna, Esq.
      MURPHY ANDERSON PLLC
      1701 K St NW Ste 210
      Washington, DC 20006
      Telephone: (202) 223-2620
      Facsimile: (202) 223-8651
      E-mail: mhanna@murphypllc.com


UNIVERSAL WINDOWS: Faces "Alba" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Alba and Jacob Hahn, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Universal Windows Direct Of Wisconsin, Inc.,
d/b/a Universal Windows Direct and Roofing of Milwaukee, Erik
Beste, and John J. Lambrecht, Jr., Case No. 2:15-cv-00090 (E.D.
Wis., January 23, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40
hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a company that manufactures home
improvement products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
      HAWKS QUINDEL SC
      222 E Erie St-Ste 210, PO Box 442
      Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
      Telephone: (414) 271-8650
      Facsimile: (414) 271-8442
      E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com


UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA: Hockey Team Scraps Season Amid Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Mehta, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that the
University of Ottawa announced on Jan. 16 that its men's varsity
hockey team, which was suspended last year in connection with a
sexual assault investigation, will not take to the ice in the
2015-2016 season.

Instead, the university said, the team will "make the most of the
coming year" to implement new measures that will provide student
athletes with "better guidance."

Two students who were on the team, and are not part of the class
action, were charged last summer with sexually assaulting a female
student at Lakehead University in Thunder Bay, Ont., in February.

Almost a month after the alleged incident, the entire hockey team
was suspended for the season.  That suspension will now continue
at least until the 2016-2017 season, which is when the university
says it aims to relaunch its men's hockey program.

"The university does not wish to field a less-than-competitive
team whose performance would not meet the expectations of the
university community," the university said in a statement.

Following the initial suspension of the team, the school launched
an internal investigation and said it would implement new behavior
guidelines.  That probe was in addition to a wider report on
respect and equality on campus, which the university said it was
looking forward to.

"Even though we have reviewed some of our practices and
procedures, we feel it is essential to wait for the Task Force on
Respect and Equality to submit its report, which is expected
shortly," University President Allan Rock said in a statement on
the team's extended suspension.

"Given these circumstances, we feel that this is the best
decision."

The announcement came as a shock to team members who were part of
the class action against the university, their lawyer said.

"It's a vindictive decision which adds more damage to the injuries
they've already caused to these young men's lives and careers,"
said Lawrence Greenspon.

"There's a number of the players who stayed at the University of
Ottawa on the understanding and on the word of Mr. Rock that there
would be a 2015-2016 hockey season. And the university has now
gone back on its word."

Mr. Greenspon added that he thought the university's reasons for
not allowing the team to play for another season were "spurious at
best."

The results of the university's internal investigation into the
team were not made public last year but did prompt the university
to fire the team's head coach, Real Paiement.  Mr. Rock said the
coach was not involved in the misconduct but should have notified
authorities about the allegations.

The university said it is now looking for a new coach and will
also need to recruit more than 20 "high-caliber" student athletes
in order to perform well.  The suspension of the team has been a
controversial matter ever since it was first announced.

Rock has acknowledged that innocent members of the team have been
tarred by the scandal which rattled the university community.

"The shadow cast by the allegations of misconduct has affected all
members of the team, some unfairly," he said in June.

It was that sweeping tarnishing of reputations that led to the
class-action lawsuit being launched, Mr. Greenspon has said.

The suit is seeking $6 million in damages and, if certified, could
take years to be settled.

Meanwhile, the case of the two team members who were charged is
working its way through the legal system.  Guillaume Donovan, 24,
and David Foucher, 25, both of Gatineau, Que., were each charged
last August with one count of sexual assault.

Police said the alleged assault of a 21-year-old woman took place
in a hotel early on Feb. 2, but authorities were only informed of
the incident on Feb. 25, when a third party came forward with a
complaint.


VECTOR TRANSPORTATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Bret Johnson, Margaret Yeldell, and Marnecio Duff, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Vector
Transportation Co. and Joseph D. Estess, Case No. 1:15-cv-00020
(N.D. Miss., January 23, 2015), seeks to recover to unpaid
overtime wages and  damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Defendants own and operate a freighting brokering company that
arranges transportation drivers for shipping needs of its
customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert N. Norris, Esq.
      WATSON & NORRIS, PLLC
      1880 Lakeland Drive, Suite G
      Jackson, MS 39216
      Telephone: (601) 968-0000
      Facsimile: (601) 968-0010
      E-mail: nick@louiswatson.com


WALGREEN CO: Falsely Marketed Dietary Supplements, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Reynolds and Robert Mason, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Walgreen Co., Case No. 4:15-cv-00324 (N.D.
Cal., January 23, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's false and
highly misleading advertisement and product label of its Well
CoQ10 softgel dietary supplement as an Enhanced Absorption
Formula.

Accoridng to the U.S. Pharmacopeial Convention (USP), for a
supplement to exhibit reasonably effective bioavailability through
absorption it needs a minimal threshold of rupture within 15
minutes, and 75% dissolution. The Defendant's laboratory tests
demonstrate that the Well CoQ10 softgels fail to timely rupture,
and exhibit substantially less than the 75% dissolution that USP
considers necessary in order to provide sufficient absorption for
reasonably effective bioavailability.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
      Trevor M. Flynn, Esq.
      Tran Nguyen, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC
      Hillcrest Professional Building
      3636 4th Ave., Ste. 202
      San Diego, CA 92103
      Telephone: (619) 692-3840
      Facsimile: (619) 362-9555
      E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
              trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
              tran@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com

         - and -


      Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
      Skye Resendes, Esq.
      Alexis M. Wood, 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
              alexis@consumersadvocates.com


WALMART STORES: Faces False Ad Class Suit Over Arm & Hammer Sale
----------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a class action lawsuit filed against
Walmart on Jan. 12 alleges that the company falsely advertised a
popular baking soda brand on its website.

Roque Hernandez filed the suit alleging Walmart advertised Arm &
Hammer Fresh-N-Natural Baking Soda as a three-pack for $2 on its
website. When Hernandez purchased the product, he allegedly
received only a single one-pound box.

Mr. Hernandez said he purchased the baking soda because of the
price. He said when he called Walmart's customer service, he was
informed that the purchase price was for only one package.

The lawsuit alleges Walmart violated the federal Food, Drug &
Cosmetic Act and seeks class status for anyone who purchased the
product online while it was advertised as a three-pack. Hernandez
is seeking more than $5 million in the suit.

Mr. Hernandez is represented by Robert L. Kraselnik of the Law
Office of Robert L. Kraselnik and Anne Seelig of Lee Litigation
Group, PLLC.


WARNER MUSIC: Court Awards $2 Million to Musicians' Attorneys
-------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Proctor, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that attorneys for Sister Sledge and Ronee Blakley were awarded $2
million in fees for a class action royalties complaint against
Warner Music Group.

The musicians claimed that Warner cheats artists on royalties for
digital downloads.

Warner miscalculated the royalties by treating downloads of MP3
files and ringtones as sales of physical records, rather than as
licenses, according to the lawsuit.

Warner agreed in April 2014 to pay an $11.5 million settlement.

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg on January 12 awarded
plaintiffs' attorneys $2 million in fees, plus $97,400 in
expenses.

Seeborg also granted incentive awards of $10,000 each to class
representatives Sister Sledge (Kathy Sledge Lightfoot), Ronee
Blakley and Gary Wright, and the same awards to three former class
representatives.

The case is In Re: Warner Music Group Corp. Digital Downloads
Litigation, Case No. 3:12-cv-00559-RS, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.


WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Action in Washington Over Foreclosure
--------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a class action lawsuit filed recently
alleges Wells Fargo Bank went into a couple's home, changed the
locks and took out its possessions after the property went into
foreclosure.

David and Rhonda Huber filed the lawsuit against the bank in the
Snohomish Superior Court in Washington.  The defendant removed the
case to U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
on Jan. 13.

The couple purchased a vacant lot in 2007 with a loan from Wells
Fargo.  In 2009, the bank entered into a non-judicial foreclosure
after the Hubers became delinquent on their mortgage payments.

The Hubers' suit alleged Wells Fargo agents went into the home
that was built on the lot, changed the locks and removed their
property without permission.  The mortgage agreement does specify
that the bank is permitted to enter the home for "property
preservation measures," if the borrower breaches the contract, the
lawsuit said.

The Hubers contacted the bank and demanded an explanation, but the
bank allegedly failed to respond to them.  The couple believes
that the bank has done this to other borrowers and is seeking
class status in the suit.

The suit alleged that Wells Fargo owes borrowers the implied
duties of good faith and fair dealing.

The Hubers are represented by Clay M. Gatens, of Jeffers,
Danielson, Sonn & Aylward, P.S.; and Michael D Daudt --
mdaudt@tmdwlaw.com -- of Terrell, Marshall, Daudt & Willie, PLLC.

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington case
number 2:15-cv-00051


WET SEAL: Faces Class Action Over Store Closures
------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Randles and Matt Chiappardi, writing for Law360, report
that The Wet Seal Inc., which announced on Jan. 16 it will file
for bankruptcy, has been hit with a proposed class action in
California accusing it of violating a federal law by keeping
workers in the dark before the troubled teen apparel retailer
shuttered most of its stores.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of two of the nearly 3,700 Wet
Seal employees who lost their jobs when the company announced
earlier this month that it would shutter most of its stores.  The
complaint was filed a day before Wet Seal, which for months had
been struggling to stay afloat, filed for Chapter 11.

Named plaintiffs Katelin Pruitt, who worked at a store in North
Carolina, and Lalaine Ortega, who worked in Georgia, say the
company never informed them about the retailer's precarious
financial situation.

"Despite strong evidence that Wet Seal was in steep decline, it
continued to keep its employees uninformed right up until they
abruptly fired 3,695 of their employees," the lawsuit said.

Ms. Pruitt and Ms. Ortega seek to represent a class of former Wet
Seal employees who lost their jobs as a result of the layoffs the
company announced January 7.  The complaint claims Wet Seal
violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act by
not giving employees proper notification of the layoffs, and seeks
60 days pay and benefits for class members.

California-based Wet Seal blamed its bankruptcy filing in part on
a shift in its operating strategies after company chief Ed Thomas
left as CEO in late 2011, and major shifts in the so-called fast
fashion industry -- clothing and apparel based on the latest
fashion trends.

Thomas had returned to head the company in September, aiming to
reestablish the profitable model Wet Seal says he produced during
his first tenure from 2007 to 2011, but the debtor was already
facing a liquidity crisis and didn't have enough time to get the
turnaround going, according to a bankruptcy declaration from Chief
Financial Officer Thomas R. Hillebrandt.

The plaintiffs are represented by John Gomez, John Fiske and
Stephanie Poli of Gomez Trial Attorneys; Joseph Sauder, Matthew
Schelkopf, Benjamin Johns -- BenJohns@chimicles.com -- and Joseph
Kenney -- JosephKenney@chimicles.com -- of Chimcles & Tikellis
LLP; and Richard Maniskas of Ryan & Maniskas LLP.

The case is Katelin Pruitt et al. v. The Wet Seal Inc., case
number 2:15-cv-00312, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.


                             *********

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  * * *