CAR_Public/150210.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, February 10, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 29


                             Headlines

317 AMSTERDAM CORP: Sued for Failing to Remove Barriers Under ADA
412 AMSTERDAM CORP: Violates Disabilities Act, N.Y. Suit Claims
AFA NYC: Faces "Girotto" Suit Alleging Disabilities Act Violation
ALLIANCE HOSPITALITY: Faces Class Suit Alleging FCRA Violations
AMAZON.COM: Faces False Advertising Class Action in California

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Judge Tosses Securities Class Action
ANTHROPOLOGIE INC: Discriminates Against Paraplegic, Suit Claims
AUDIO VISUAL: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Service Charge Suit
AUSTRALIA: Finance Company to Pay Sydney Tar Pond Legal Costs
BHP BILLITON: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standard Act

BIRMINGHAM, AL: Jury Trial in Pepper Spray Class Action Begins
CALAVO GROWERS: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action
CALAVO GROWERS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
CGM 13 LLC: Fails to Provide Safe Access to 2nd Level, Suit Says
CH ROBINSON: Judge Denies Motion to Compel OT Suit Arbitration

CHATTEM INC: Judge Set to Dismiss Mouthwash Class Action
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Settles Gas Royalty Class Action for $119 Mil.
CHINA NATIONAL: Seeks Dismissal of Antitrust Class Action
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Faces Toothpaste False Ad Class Action
CORE MANAGEMENT: Faces "Todd" Suit Alleging Age Discrimination

CREDIT MANAGEMENT: 8th Circuit Overturns Interlocutory Appeal
CRUSADER SERVICING: Settles Foreclosure Class Action
CVS PHARMACY: Faces "Parenteau" Suit Alleging Violations of ADA
DISH NETWORK: Judge Amends Order in TCPA Class Action
DONNA KARAN: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in New York

ELEPHANT INSURANCE: Faces Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Sales
EMAGIN CORPORATION: "Macdonald" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Wages
EPPING FOREST: "Brown" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
FEIN SUCH: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.J.
FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces Class Action Over Engine Rust Issue

FLAIR HOME: Faces "Girotto" Suit Over Disabilities Act Violations
FORWARD FOODS: Falsely Marketed Protein Bars, "Eisan" Suit Claims
FRANK FRANK: Sued in N.J. for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
FREDERIC WEINBERG: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
GASTROMARKET LTD: Sued in New York for Disabilities Act Violation

GLOBAL TEL*LINK: "Martin" Suit Moved From S.D. to N.D. California
GOHEALTH LLC: Faces "Jones" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
GOLDEN ISLES: "Markov" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
GOOGLE INC: Fights Consumers' Bid to Amend Android App Suit
GVN MICHIGAN: Sued in Ill. Over Illegal Telemarketing Practices

H & F SHOJI: Fail to Provide Safe, Accessible Entrance, Suit Says
HILL COUNTRY: Violates Disabilities Act in New York, Suit Claims
HOME DEPOT: Has Until July to Respond to Data Breach Class Action
INVENSENSE INC: Faces "Davis" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
IT'S HUGE: Settles Theft-Protection Package Class Action

JEFFERSON STREET BAKERY: Recalls Amana Dinner Rolls Due to Milk
KARAVAS FOOD: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in New York
LONGUEUIL, CANADA: Residents Want to Revoke Water Crisis Suit
LOS ANGELES, CA: DWP Faces Two Class Actions Over Billing System
MARIO'S WELDING: Faces "Guajardo" Sued Over Failure to Pay OT

MARYLAND: Riders With Disabilities File Class Action v. MTA
MEDBOX INC: Overstates Financial Reports, "Domino" Suit Claims
MEDBOX INC: Johnson & Weaver Files Class Action in California
MERMAID 88 LLC: Fails Remove Barriers Pursuant to ADA, Suit Says
MONTGOMERY, AL: Board of Education Sued Over Violation of FLSA

MTD PRODUCTS: Sued Over Injury Due to Explosion of Snow Blower
MUSCLEPHARM CORP: Faces "Durnford" Sued Over Product Misbranding
NEW MIAMI, CA: Judge Unlikely to Order Speed Camera Fine Refund
NICKEY GREGORY: Removes "Cuevas" Suit to Florida District Court
NILE RESTAURANT: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

OCWEN FINANCIAL: "Fox" Suit Moved From New Jersey to New York
OLIPHANT FINANCIAL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
PACIFIC INVESTMENT: Sued Over Violation of Securities Laws
PACIFIC SEAFOOD: Fishermen Sue for Violating Antitrust Settlement
PANDORA JEWELRY: Sued for Denying Equal Access to Paraplegic

PICHARDO 2230 RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, Suit Says
PIPE PROS: "Gonzales" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
PLOY DEE: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
PLUMBERS AND PIPEFITTERS: Faces Class Action Over Pension Issues
RMB INC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, New Jersey Suit Says

SEADRILL LIMITED: Grant Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
SEAWORLD PARKS: Seeks Dismissal of Auto Renew Ticket Class Action
SEVEN FOR ALL: New York Suit Seeks Relief Under Disabilities Act
SINGING RIVER: Court Wants Bids for Lead Counsel Appointment
SONY CORP: Settles PSN-SOE Hacking Class Suit; May 1 Hearing Set

SPICE MILL: Recalls Cajun Seasoning Products Due to Peanuts
SUPER TAXI: Faces "Diossa" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TRAVEL OPTIONS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Eikov" Suit Says
UNITED AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Over "Low Fare" Guarantee
UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA: Faces 2nd Class Action Over Fake Classes

VAN'S INT'L: Faces Class Suit Alleging Deceptive Trade Practices
VFG USA: Accused of Denying Equal Access to Goods and Services
VIACOM: Judge Tosses Children's Privacy Rights Class Action
VICTORY YACHT: "Zelaya" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Raw Macadamia Nuts Due to Salmonella

XOOM ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Bait-and-Switch Tactic

* Ascertainability Curtails "All Natural" Consumer Class Actions


                            *********


317 AMSTERDAM CORP: Sued for Failing to Remove Barriers Under ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Linda I. Slone v. 317 Amsterdam Corp., a New York corporation,
d/b/a Tolani Wine Restaurant, and 200 West 80th St. Corp., a New
York corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-00732-RA (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 30,
2015) alleges that the Defendants have discriminated against the
Plaintiff, and others who are similarly situated, by denying full
and equal access to goods, services and accommodations at their
property by failing to remove architectural barriers pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Ms. Slone, a resident of New York, suffered from a "qualified
disability" described as post-polio with quadriplegic involvement
requiring the use of a motorized wheelchair for mobility.

317 Amsterdam Corp., LLC, doing business as Tolani Wine
Restaurant, and 200 West 80th St. Corp., are New York corporations
conducting business within the state of New York.  Amsterdam is
the lessee and operator of the real property where the Tolani Wine
Restaurant is located.  200 West is the owner, lessor and operator
of the Property.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben-Zion Bradley Weitz, Esq.
          Robert Jonas Mirel, Esq.
          THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          Bank of America Building
          18305 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 214
          Aventura, FL 33160
          Telephone: (305) 949-7777
          Facsimile: (305) 704-3877
          E-mail: bbw@weitzfirm.com
                  rjm@weitzfirm.com


412 AMSTERDAM CORP: Violates Disabilities Act, N.Y. Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Linda I. Slone v. 412 Amsterdam Corp., a New York corporation,
d/b/a Bettola, and 200 West 80th St. Corp., a New York
corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-00734-KPF (S.D.N.Y., January 30,
2015) is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act.

412 Amsterdam Corp., a New York corporation doing business as
Bettola, and 200 West 80th St. Corp., a New York corporation, are
authorized to conduct, and are conducting business within the
state of New York.

Ms. Slone, a resident of New York, suffered from a "qualified
disability" described as post-polio with quadriplegic involvement
requiring the use of a motorized wheelchair for mobility.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben-Zion Bradley Weitz, Esq.
          Robert Jonas Mirel, Esq.
          THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          Bank of America Building
          18305 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 214
          Aventura, FL 33160
          Telephone: (305) 949-7777
          Facsimile: (305) 704-3877
          E-mail: bbw@weitzfirm.com
                  rjm@weitzfirm.com


AFA NYC: Faces "Girotto" Suit Alleging Disabilities Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Luigi Girotto v. AFA NYC, LLC, a New York limited liability
company, d/b/a AFA, and 54 Greene Street Realty Corp., a New York
corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-00752-ALC (S.D.N.Y., January 30,
2015) is brought for injunctive relief, attorney's fees and costs
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York City
Human Rights Law, and the New York State Human Rights Law.

Mr. Girotto, a resident of the state of New York, is a paraplegic
and uses a wheelchair for mobility.

AFA NYC, LLC, is a New York limited liability company, while 54
Greene Street Realty Corp., is a New York corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben-Zion Bradley Weitz, Esq.
          Robert Jonas Mirel, Esq.
          THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          Bank of America Building
          18305 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 214
          Aventura, FL 33160
          Telephone: (305) 949-7777
          Facsimile: (305) 704-3877
          E-mail: bbw@weitzfirm.com
                  rjm@weitzfirm.com


ALLIANCE HOSPITALITY: Faces Class Suit Alleging FCRA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cory Groshek And all others, similarly situated v. Alliance
Hospitality Management, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-00065 (W.D. Wis.,
January 30, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Modl, Esq.
          AXLEY BRYNELSON, LLP
          Two East Mifflin Street, Suite 200
          P.O. Box 1767
          Madison, WI 53701
          Telephone: (608) 257-5661
          Facsimile: (608) 257-5444
          E-mail: mmodl@axley.com

               - and -

          Robert John Gingras, Esq.
          GINGRAS, CATES & LUEBKE, S.C.
          8150 Excelsior Dr.
          Madison, WI 53717
          Telephone: (608) 833-2632
          Facsimile: (608) 833-2874
          E-mail: gingras@gcllawyers.com


AMAZON.COM: Faces False Advertising Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a class action lawsuit against online
retailer Amazon.com alleges the company falsely advertised that
its products were lower in cost than its competitors.

Andrea Fagerstrom and Allen Wiseley filed the lawsuit against
Amazon on Dec. 29. It alleges the company's practice of comparing
a product's "listed price" to its price misled customers into
believing they were saving money.  The suit was originally filed
in San Diego Superior Court but was removed to U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California on Jan. 16.

Amazon displays a list price, which is supposed to be a product's
normal retail value; its lower price; and the savings based on the
difference between the two. The lawsuit alleges the savings are
"illusory and/or grossly overstated."

Amazon's "list price" is taken from the highest price that the
product has sold for in the past, and not the current market
retail price, the lawsuit alleges.

"Simply stated, Defendant cherry-picks the highest price it can
find for the item and uses it to create a significant price
discrepancy and the impression of considerable savings for its
customers," the lawsuit said. "The reality is that the Amazon
price is no different than the price of competitors, and no
discount is provided over Amazon.com's everyday pricing."

The lawsuit goes on to allege that customers may pay more for
products than at retail stores due to shipping fees.

Ms. Fagerstrom said she purchased a blender for $299 from
Amazon.com.  The listed price was for $329, but Ms. Fagerstrom
said other retail websites listed the blender for $299 as well.

Mr. Wiseley purchased an analog audio converter from the website
for $21 in 2013.  The lawsuit alleges the listed price was $59 and
that this price was from 2010.

The lawsuit asks the court to allow class members to return
products purchased from Amazon within the last year.

Ms. Fagerstrom and Mr. Wiseley are represented by Jeffrey Krinsk,
Mark Knutson, William Restis and Trenton Kashima of Finkelstein &
Krinsk LLP.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California case
number 3:15-cv-00096


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Judge Tosses Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Sharp, writing for Law360, reports that a Virginia federal
judge on Jan. 20 tossed a proposed class action alleging American
International Group Inc. deliberately misled investors over
publicly traded securities after hearing that the plaintiff never
read the 2007 prospectus over which she was suing.

In her ruling, U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema rejected
claims brought by Kathryn Lynn Campbell that AIG's equity units
prospectus breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing
through allegedly confusing language and ran afoul of the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission's "plain English" regulations.


ANTHROPOLOGIE INC: Discriminates Against Paraplegic, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Luigi Girotto v. Anthropologie, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation,
d/b/a Anthropologie, and Alexander 375 West Broadway, L.L.C., a
Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 1:15-cv-00739-LTS
(S.D.N.Y., January 30, 2015) alleges that the Defendants' facility
is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and is
discriminating against the Plaintiff as a result of their failure
to provide a safe, accessible entrance.

Mr. Girotto, a resident of the state of New York, is a paraplegic
and uses a wheelchair for mobility.

Anthropologie, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation doing business as
Anthropologie, and Alexander 375 West Broadway, L.L.C., a Delaware
limited liability company, are authorized to conduct, and are
conducting business within the state of New York.  Anthropologie,
Inc., is the lessee and operator of the real property where the
Facility is located.  Alexander 375 is the owner, lessor and
operator of the real property where the Facility is located.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben-Zion Bradley Weitz, Esq.
          Robert Jonas Mirel, Esq.
          THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          Bank of America Building
          18305 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 214
          Aventura, FL 33160
          Telephone: (305) 949-7777
          Facsimile: (305) 704-3877
          E-mail: bbw@weitzfirm.com
                  rjm@weitzfirm.com


AUDIO VISUAL: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Service Charge Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Ofgan, writing for Metropolitan News, reports that a City
of Los Angeles ordinance requiring hotels near Los Angeles
International Airport to pass along service charges to employees
only applies to workers who would normally expect to receive a
gratuity for the service, the Court of Appeal for this district
ruled on Jan. 21.

Div. Three granted a writ of mandate to Audio Visual Services
Group, Inc., which does business as PSAV Presentation Services.
The company provides audio-visual services to various hotels
within the Century Corridor Property Business Improvement District
adjacent to LAX.

Former employee Juan Solares brought a putative class-action
complaint alleging that the company violated the Hotel Service
Charge Reform Ordinance by not passing along to audio-visual
technicians the "service charge" that the company collected each
time it provided services at hotels within the BID.  Those
violations constituted unfair business practices under the state
Unfair Competition Law, the plaintiff alleged.

Demurrer Overruled

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge William Highberger overruled the
company's demurrer, concluding that the company was a "hotel
employer" and that the service charge was covered by the ordinance
because it was collected by the employer "for services by Hotel
Workers," as those terms are used in the ordinance.

But Justice Richard Aldrich, writing for the Court of Appeal,
focused on another part of the ordinance, which applies the pass-
along requirement to a charge that is for a specific service and
is "described in such a way that customers might reasonably
believe that the amounts are for those services."

The enactment of the ordinance, Justice Aldrich explained, was a
response to workers' complaints that hotels were increasingly
imposing charges that customers thought were being used to pay
employees, resulting in a fall-off in tips.

"When read as a whole, the Ordinance applies to a specific class
of hotel workers who rely on gratuities as part of their wages,"
the justice wrote.  "Therefore, the 'hotel workers' covered by the
Ordinance are those hotel workers who would have received a
gratuity paid by customers over and above the actual amount due
for services but for the imposition of a service charge that hotel
customers believed was in lieu of a gratuity."

Justice Aldrich rejected the plaintiff's contention that the
ordinance was intended to ensure "decent compensation for service
workers at LAX-area hotels," regardless of whether they work for
tips.  The argument is plainly inconsistent with both the
legislative language and legislative history, he said.

Specific Complaints Cited

He cited specific complaints, in testimony before the City
Council's Trade, Commerce and Tourism Committee while it was
considering the ordinance, that the hotels were charging service
fees, such as a 20 percent fee added to banquet charges, and that
patrons were assuming that the fees were in lieu of a gratuity and
thus leaving no gratuity.

Justice Aldrich rejected the defendant's contention that the
ordinance should be interpreted even more narrowly, and applied
only to food and porterage services.  But he agreed that the
plaintiff had not shown, and could not show, that audio-visual
technicians traditionally received gratuities and that the
demurrer should have been sustained without leave to amend.
Eric M. Schiffer of Schiffer & Buus represented PSAV on appeal.
Randy Renick and Cornelia Dai of Hadsell Stormer Richardson &
Renick, along with Elizabeth Ann Lawrence -- eal@dcbsf.com -- and
Paul L. More -- pmore@dcsbsf.com -- of Davis, Cowell & Bowe,
represented the plaintiff.

The case is Audio Visual Services Group, Inc. v. Superior Court
(Solares), B256266.


AUSTRALIA: Finance Company to Pay Sydney Tar Pond Legal Costs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Shannon, writing for Cape Breton Post, reports that legal
and court costs associated with a failed class action on
contaminated properties near the former Sydney tar ponds and coke
ovens sites will not have to be paid by the plaintiffs that
launched the suit more than a decade ago.

Neila MacQueen sits in the living room of her Dorchester Street,
Sydney home recently after learning that the Supreme Court of
Canada wouldn't hear an appeal of the decision to quash a class-
action lawsuit related to contamination spewed into the
environment by a century of steelmaking just a stone's throw away
from her front door.

North end Sydney resident Neila MacQueen could only breathe a deep
sigh of relief as one of the plaintiffs in the case.

"I was happy because it meant I didn't have to sell my home," she
said on Jan. 22.

"I don't like to have to lose my home, and I have a boy in a
wheelchair. I'd like to have some money for him because he's going
to college."

The Supreme Court of Canada decided it would not hear the case.
The federal and provincial governments successfully overturned the
certification on the plaintiff's lawsuit at the Nova Scotia Court
of Appeal in December 2013.

The case was dismissed with court costs to be paid by the
plaintiffs.

The Court of Appeal ordered the plaintiffs to pay AU$737,876.62 to
the federal and Nova Scotia governments for their costs associated
with fighting the certification motion, the appeal and the
reconsideration motion.

The plaintiffs were represented by Halifax-based lawyer
Ray Wagner, and Scott Ritchie -- scott.ritchie@siskinds.com -- of
the London, Ont., firm of Siskinds LLP.  It had been the first
environmental class action certified in Nova Scotia.

A third-party financing company, BridgePoint Global Litigation
Services Inc., was brought in to protect the plaintiffs with a
$500,000 indemnity to help offset any order made against them to
pay the defendants' costs.

As well, their law firms, Wagners and Siskinds LLP, will pay
approximately $240,000 to satisfy the defendants' cost award as
well as any costs ordered by the Supreme Court of Canada.

In a release issued on Jan. 22, Wagners, Siskinds, and BridgePoint
stated they were "proud to stand by the citizens of Sydney, Nova
Scotia," and wanted to protect their clients from the "financial
consequences" of losing the case.

The original lawsuit was filed by local residents Ms. MacQueen,
Joe Petitpas, Ann Ross and Iris Crawford, who were seeking
compensation and a medical monitoring fund for contamination
resulting from the operation of the steel plant between 1967 and
2000.  To date, about 400 people have signed on for the suit.

The plaintiffs alleged that airborne emissions from the steel
plant and coke ovens caused damage to themselves and their
properties.

Through the entire process, Ms. MacQueen has learned the "average
Joe" can't afford the costs associated with fighting an injustice
in court system.

"We live in a rich man's world," she said.


BHP BILLITON: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standard Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael August, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated employees and former employees of Defendants v. BHP
Billiton Petroleum (Americas) Inc., Petrohawk Energy Corporation,
and Link Oil & Gas Professionals, Inc. f/k/a Link Project
Services, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-00269 (S.D. Tex., January 29,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate mining, metals and petroleum
company with principal place of business in Houston, Harris
County, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      G Scott Fiddler, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF G. SCOTT FIDDLER, P.C.
      1004 Congress, Ste 200
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 228-0070
      Facsimile: (713) 228-0078
      E-mail: scott@fiddlerlaw.com


BIRMINGHAM, AL: Jury Trial in Pepper Spray Class Action Begins
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kent Faulk, writing for AL.com, reports that a federal judge on
Jan. 21 heard from several students who say they were directly or
indirectly hit with pepper spray by School Resource Officers
breaking up fights at Birmingham high schools.

"I thought I went blind.  It was burning real bad," said one
Woodlawn High School graduate identified only by the initials
T.L.P. "I was screaming and I couldn't breathe," she said.

T.L.P. is one of eight students in a 2010 class action lawsuit
filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center seeking to stop the use
of pepper spray by Birmingham police officers assigned as SROs in
city high schools.

The non-jury trial began on Jan. 20 before U.S. District Court
Judge Abdul Kallon.  The lawsuit also seeks money damages for six
of the students directly doused with pepper spray.

T.L.P. is among the students seeking money damages.  She testified
on Jan. 21 that she was hit with pepper spray twice during her
years at the school.

The first time was on Nov. 17, 2008, T.L.P. said.  She said she
was in a hallway talking with a friend when she fell against
another girl.  The other girl shoved her and told her to watch
what she was doing and called her a "B . . . . ." .  She said she
called the other girl the same thing and the incident escalated
into a physical confrontation and T.L.P. said she didn't who threw
the first punch.

Two coaches arrived to pull the girls apart as a crowd gathered,
T.L.P said.  One of the coaches was holding her around the waist
and off the ground when two SROs arrived and began using pepper
spray, she said.

A woman SRO sprayed her just inches from her face as the coach
held her off the ground, T.L.P. said.

T.L.P. was still on the witness stand after lunch on Jan. 21.

The names of the students are not being used in the courtroom
because they were juveniles when the incidents happened.

Another former student said she had hair fall out after being hit
with pepper spray.  A couple of students said they were not
involved in fights but were hit when the pepper spray was aimed at
the crowd.

J.W. said he was in the 10th grade a Woodlawn High School in April
2010 during a class change when a fight happened in a hallway
between three or four students.  He said half the students in the
school were gathered around.

Two SROs came in and one used pepper spray on those fighting and
the other sprayed into the crowd, J.W. said.  "Everybody started
running different ways and yelling," he said.

J.W. said he was at the back of the crowd and was hit with pepper
spray in his face. It felt like a "burning wind" and he was
choking and his eyes and nose were also burning.  He said he
didn't stop coughing until that night.

The SROs could have yelled at the students to get back and shoved
them back, J.W. said.

Michael Choy, an attorney for Birmingham Police Chief A.C. Roper
and six officers, asked J.W. whether he could have gone around the
fight and whether J.W. was actually trying to see what was
happening.  J.W. denied it and said the crowd was blocking his way
to his next class.

"Mr. Choy was never in high school apparently," Judge Kallon joked
during that line of questioning.

Judge Kallon also has asked questions during the trial. At a
couple of points he said that pepper spray was not appropriate for
dealing with students who were simply cursing.

During the break for lunch Mr. Choy said that the SROs will tell a
different story when they testify.  He denied that SROs
indiscriminately doused crowds of students with pepper spray.

Judge Kallon during testimony on Jan. 21 denied Mr. Choy's attempt
to ask questions about J.W.'s suspensions and criminal record.

Southern Poverty Law Center attorneys Ebony Howard, Maria Morris,
and Brooke Menschel are representing the students.

Attorneys Frederic L. Fullerton II, Nicole E. King, and Elizabeth
Shirley also represent Roper and the officers.


CALAVO GROWERS: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of Calavo
Growers, Inc., on Jan. 21 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of a class comprising purchasers
of Calavo securities between March 5, 2012 and January 14, 2015,
inclusive.

Please contact Lesley Portnoy at (888) 773-9224 or (310) 201-9150,
or at shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this matter.  If you
inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone
number and number of shares purchased.

Calavo markets and distributes avocados, prepared avocados, and
other perishable foods to food distributors, produce wholesalers,
supermarkets, convenience stores and restaurants worldwide.  The
Complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
earn-out payments provided under an agreement for the acquisition
of Renaissance Food Group, LLC, including that: (1) Calavo failed
to maintain an accurately valued contingent consideration pursuant
to its acquisition of Renaissance Food Group; (2) the Company
overstated its non-cash operating expenses; (3) the Company lacked
adequate internal controls over financial reporting; and (4), as a
result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On January 15, 2015 Calavo announced it will record a non-cash
charge -- which the Company will treat as amortization expense --
totaling $88.9 million before tax ($54 million net of tax) related
to the misstatement in its treatment of contingent consideration.
Following this news, shares of Calavo dropped $4.72 per share, or
more than 9%, to close at $43.07 per share on January 15, 2015.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later March 23, 2015, to serve as lead plaintiff, if you
meet certain legal requirements.  To be a member of the Class you
need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of
your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley
Portnoy, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1925 Century
Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, at (310)
201-9150, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our
website at http://www.glancylaw.com

If you inquire by email, please include your mailing address,
telephone number and number of shares purchased.


CALAVO GROWERS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., a global investor rights firm, on
Jan. 21 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on
behalf of investors who purchased common stock of Calavo Growers,
Inc. (CVGW) between March 9, 2012 and January 15, 2015.  The
lawsuit seeks to recover investors' losses by asserting claims
under the federal securities laws.

To join the Calavo class action, visit the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-480.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.  The case is pending the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.

According to the lawsuit, the Company made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) it failed to
maintain accurately valued contingent consideration in connection
with an acquisition; (ii) it overstated its non-cash operating
expenses; (iii) it lacked adequate internal controls over
financial reporting; and (iv) as a result of the above, the
Company's financial statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On January 15, 2015, the Company announced it will record a non-
cash charge which it will now treat as an amortization expense
totaling $88.9 million before tax related to the misstatement in
its treatment of contingent consideration.  On this news, shares
of Calavo Growers fell $4.72 per share or over 9% to close at
$43.07 per share on January 15, 2015, damaging investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than March 23, 2015.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to join the litigation go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-480.htmlor to discuss your rights
or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip
Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or
via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


CGM 13 LLC: Fails to Provide Safe Access to 2nd Level, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Luigi Girotto v. CGM 13, LLC, a New York limited liability
company, d/b/a All'Onda, and 22 East 13th St Trevi LLC, a New York
limited liability company, Case No. 1:15-cv-00741-RJS (S.D.N.Y.,
January 30, 2015) alleges that the Defendants' New York City
facility is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act as
a result of their alleged failure to provide safe access to second
level dining area.

Mr. Girotto, a resident of the state of New York, is a paraplegic
and uses a wheelchair for mobility.

CGM 13, LLC, a New York limited liability company doing business
as All'Onda, and 22 East 13th St Trevi LLC, a New York limited
liability company, are authorized to conduct, and are conducting
business within the state of New York.  CGM 13, LLC, is the lessee
and operator of the real property where the Facility is located.
22 East is the owner, lessor and operator of the property.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben-Zion Bradley Weitz, Esq.
          Robert Jonas Mirel, Esq.
          THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          Bank of America Building
          18305 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 214
          Aventura, FL 33160
          Telephone: (305) 949-7777
          Facsimile: (305) 704-3877
          E-mail: bbw@weitzfirm.com
                  rjm@weitzfirm.com


CH ROBINSON: Judge Denies Motion to Compel OT Suit Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------------
Blumenthal Nordrehaug and Bhowmik on Jan. 21 disclosed that on
January 12, 2015, Honorable Christina Snyder denied C.H. Robinson
Company's motion to compel arbitration in a class action lawsuit
alleging that C.H. Robinson improperly classified Account Managers
and Transportation Representatives as exempt from California
overtime requirements.  The Account Manager class action overtime
lawsuit against C.H. Robinson Company is currently pending in the
United States District Court in the Central District of
California, Case No. 2:12-CV-06654-CAS.  The class action was
originally filed in June of 2013 by the Los Angeles employment law
attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug and Bhowmik.

The Los Angeles employment law lawyers at Blumenthal Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik filed a motion opposing C.H. Robinson's motion to compel
arbitration, arguing that C.H. Robinson's arbitration provisions
contained in the Agreement signed by the Plaintiff were clearly
unconscionable under Cal. Civil Code Section 1670.5.  The
Honorable Christina Snyder agreed with Plaintiff's argument and
refused to compel arbitration of Plaintiff's claims.

Judge Christina Snyder wrote in her decision "[i]nstead of
attempting to sever or reform all five unconscionable provisions
and fill any resulting gaps, the Court finds that the arbitration
agreement is unenforceable, and that defendants' motion to compel
arbitration should be denied."

When asked about the court's ruling, managing partner of
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, Norman Blumenthal, stated, "Per
the Court's Order we will proceed with litigating the class-wide
claims against C.H. Robinson Company as alleged in the Complaint."

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is an employment law firm with
offices located in San Diego, San Francisco and Los Angeles.  The
firm dedicates its practice to contingency fee employment law work
for issues involving overtime pay, wrongful termination,
discrimination and other California labor laws.


CHATTEM INC: Judge Set to Dismiss Mouthwash Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Laura Castro, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a
federal judge is preparing to dismiss a proposed class action that
accuses Chattem Inc. of falsely claiming its ACT mouthwash
rebuilds tooth enamel because the claims in the case appear to
fall "millions of dollars short" of a $5 million threshold
required for jurisdiction.

"Based on the current record, the court is satisfied that this
action does not satisfy [the Class Action Fairness Act's] amount
in controversy requirement and the claims are due to be
dismissed," said Judge Roy B. Dalton of the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida in Orlando.

The Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) of 2005 was enacted to expand
federal diversity jurisdiction over class actions, Judge Dalton
said.  "One of the requisites of original jurisdiction under CAFA
is that 'the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of
$5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs.'"

However, Judge Dalton said he would give the consumer health-
products company and lead plaintiff Lauren Foster an opportunity
to show why her unjust enrichment and Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act claims shouldn't be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction.  In a Jan. 16 order, Dalton gave the parties a Jan.
30 deadline to comply.

Ms. Foster seeks to certify a class of Florida purchasers of ACT
mouthwash from 2010 to the present.  In her complaint, Ms. Foster
alleges it isn't possible to "rebuild" tooth enamel and contends
ACT Restoring Mouthwash only strengthens weak spots in tooth
enamel via "remineralization."

Chattem disputes this allegation, claiming ACT Restoring does
"rebuild" tooth enamel.  Chattem argues that plaintiff
Lauren Foster's motion for class certification should be denied
because "neither plaintiff nor any other member of the putative
class has suffered injury as a result of purchasing the product."

In his order, Judge Dalton said the "plaintiff asserts only state
law claims, and the most generous award of purchase price damages
would result in a recovery for her of only $4.12 plus tax."
Nonetheless, Foster alleges the court may exercise subject matter
jurisdiction over the case because she claims all of the
requisites of original jurisdiction under CAFA are satisfied.

However, Judge Dalton said that despite these initial pleadings,
"the evidence submitted by the parties in relation to plaintiff's
motion for class certification indicates that the actual amount in
controversy falls far short of $5,000,000."


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Settles Gas Royalty Class Action for $119 Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Monies, writing for NewsOK, reports that a unit of Chesapeake
Energy Corp. will pay $119 million to royalty owners under a
preliminary settlement that will go before a Beaver County judge
in April.

The settlement would resolve royalty claims dating to 2004 that
Chesapeake Operating LLC improperly deducted expenses for
marketing, processing, compression and other midstream services
for more than 11,800 natural gas wells in Oklahoma.

"We are pleased to reach this fair and reasonable agreement and
look forward to further strengthening our relationships with our
Oklahoma royalty owners," said Chesapeake spokesman Gordon
Pennoyer.

The case started in 2010 when Kansas resident John Fitzgerald sued
Chesapeake, claiming the company underpaid oil and natural gas
royalties owed to him from its Oklahoma wells.

Mr. Fitzgerald sought class-action status, which was granted by a
Beaver County district judge in February 2013.

Chesapeake opposed the class-action status and appealed to the
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals.  The court reversed the class-
action status in February and sent the case back to district
court.

As the case continued, the parties met several times with a
mediator last year to broker a settlement.

The proposed settlement now covers all royalty owners in
Chesapeake's Oklahoma natural gas wells from 2004 to the end of
2014. It doesn't include federal agencies, tribes or royalty
owners covered in several previous settlements.

In 2013, Chesapeake settled with the Oklahoma Commissioners of the
Land Office, which manages leases and royalty interests for school
land.  The company paid $18 million to settle that matter, which
involved similar allegations of underpayments as the Fitzgerald
case.

Settlements top $1.2 billion

The cases are the latest in a long list of royalty claims against
Oklahoma oil and gas operators.  More than $1.2 billion has been
paid out in dozens of settlements since the late 1990s.
"Oklahoma royalty owners have recovered over $1 billion in unpaid
royalties and interest from producers through class actions, and
that amount is before the current $119 million that Chesapeake has
agreed to pay," said Terry Stowers, executive director of the
Coalition of Oklahoma Surface and Mineral Owners.

Mark D. Christiansen -- mark.christiansen@mcafeetaft.com -- an
energy litigation attorney at McAfee & Taft in Oklahoma City, said
there is a need for judicial clarification of Oklahoma royalty
law.

"I think the uncertain status of Oklahoma royalty law has been a
major factor in the reality that these class-action lawsuits
virtually always settle rather than proceeding to trial and
through the appellate process," Mr. Christiansen said in an email.

He said much of the confusion stems from a 1998 court decision
that oil and gas lessees are to bear the costs of making the gas
"marketable," not the royalty owners.  The court didn't define
"marketable," leading to many different interpretations from
companies and royalty owners.

"Widely conflicting views have developed between the royalty owner
plaintiff lawyers and the oil and gas companies as to exactly what
is needed in order for gas to reach the point of being
'marketable' so that further costs can be proportionately shared
with the royalty owners," Mr. Christiansen said.

Oklahoma District Judge Jon K. Parsley has set a fairness hearing
on the proposed Chesapeake settlement April 17 at the Beaver
County Courthouse.


CHINA NATIONAL: Seeks Dismissal of Antitrust Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Vehling and Dan Prochilo, writing for Law360, report that
China-based manufacturers of magnesite on Jan. 20 urged a New
Jersey federal judge to again dismiss an antitrust suit brought by
buyers of the mineral who accused the group of producers of
engaging in a price-fixing cartel, saying the plaintiffs' amended
complaint still fails to resolve their lack of standing.

The magnesite makers said that the second amended class complaint
from indirect buyer Animal Science Products Inc. and direct-
purchaser plaintiff Resco Products Inc. does not fix the concerns
raised by U.S. District Judge Kevin McNulty when he dismissed the
suit in July.  Judge McNulty had questioned Resco's standing to
bring an antitrust suit that seeks damages, and gave Animal
Science and Resco leave to amend to fix problems with issues of
standing, arbitration and the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements
Act.

"Plaintiffs have failed once again to provide sufficient factual
allegations supporting their purported purchases or a causal
connection between their alleged injury and defendants' alleged
unlawful foreign conduct," the makers said.

The magnesite makers said that aside from adding an additional,
unauthorized plaintiff, Intersource Inc., the second amended
complaint is nearly "line by line" identical to the dismissed
complaint that does not address Judge McNulty's order.  They said
the invoices offered as evidence to support Intersource's claims
did not show it had purchased magnesite from the defendants.

The producers urged Judge McNulty to compel arbitration if he
didn't dismiss the complaint altogether.  When he dismissed the
previous complaint, the judge had declined to rule on the
arbitration issue until the directly purchased items were
clarified in the subsequent complaint.

Judge McNulty's July decision to toss the antitrust proposed class
action rested on the relationship between Resco and a company
called Possehl, which allegedly bought magnesite directly from the
Chinese companies and Resco, to which Possehl assigned its claims.
At the time, Judge McNulty said the complaint failed to allege a
single, specific purchase that Possehl made.

Animal Science and Resco filed suit against 17 overseas companies
-- 16 of which were based in China -- in September 2005, alleging
they plotted to maintain or fix the prices of magnesite and
magnesite products sold to U.S. buyers.

Resco and Animal Science motioned for default judgment against the
16 Chinese defendants in December 2007, prompting seven of them --
China Minmetals Corp., China National Minerals Co. Ltd., Sinosteel
Corp., China Metallurgical Import & Export Corp., Liaoning Jiayi
Metals & Minerals Co. Ltd., Haicheng Houying Corp. Ltd. and
Haicheng Huayu Group Import & Export Co. Ltd. -- to fight the
motion and ask the court to send the case to arbitration, arguing
the buyers were contractually bound to arbitrate the dispute.  The
nine other Chinese companies remained in default.

That 2008 motion to compel went unresolved after the case was
administratively closed during a Third Circuit appeal by the
suppliers in April 2010, challenging the lower court's right to
hear the case under the FTAIA.  The appeals court, however, denied
that effort to derail the suit in late 2011, issuing a ruling that
raised the burden on foreign defendants trying to kill U.S.
antitrust litigation.

The case was reopened in April 2012, and in August 2013, Judge
McNulty said that while he was preparing his decision on the
arbitrability of the dispute, the parties should "supplement their
discussions of the antitrust standing issues with an eye to
whether they require the dismissal of the claims.

The seven China-based magnesite suppliers told the court in
September 2013 that although Resco inherited its claims from
Possehl, a U.S.-based broker of the allegedly overpriced
transactions, there was no evidence the broker had actually bought
the product from any of the alleged co-conspirators. Animal
Science had not produced evidence of injury either, they said.

But Resco and Animal Science said at the time that the defendants
never filed a motion to dismiss their suit for lack of standing,
that the pleadings adequately established the existence of a
conspiracy and that the companies were among its victims. The
defendants' arguments that the buyers couldn't bring their claims
were based on "theoretical defenses" that would collapse once
discovery began, Resco and Animal Science had said.

In July, Judge McNulty said he did not want to move forward to the
"expensive course" of discovery proceedings in a lawsuit whose
claims don't meet the Twombly pleading standards, established by a
2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision that called for a higher burden
of proof when making claims.

The second amended complaint, filed in November and corrected in
December, added Intersource, saying that the company purchased
magnesite from two Haicheng City Xiyang Import & Export Co. and
Haicheng Xiyang Refractories Materials Corp., two of the
defendants.

But on Jan. 20 the magnesite producers said that, according to the
evidence, Intersource purchased Chinese magnesia carbon bricks and
not magnesite.

They also said that the plaintiffs failed to show they qualify for
an exception to the FTAIA placing foreign parties outside of the
Sherman Act's reach, arguing that the new complaint features the
same "conclusory" statements as the previous one.

The plaintiffs are represented by Robert A. Magnanini --
RMagnanini@stonemagnalaw.com -- David S. Stone --
DStone@stonemagnalaw.com -- and Amy Walker Wagner of Stone &
Magnanini LLP, by William A. Isaacson -- wisaacson@bsfllp.com --
and Jennifer Milici of Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, and by August
T. Horvath -- ahorvath@kelleydrye.com -- of Kelley Drye & Warren
LLP.

The defendants are represented by Leda Dunn Wettre of Robinson
Wettre & Miller LLC, by Jonathan S. Caplan --
jcaplan@kramerlevin.com -- Mark A. Baghdassarian --
mbaghdassarian@kramerlevin.com -- and Geoffrey G. Hu --
ghu@kramerlevin.com -- of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, and
by Shepard Goldfein -- shepard.goldfein@skadden.com -- Thomas Pak
and Sean M. Tepe -- sean.tepe@skadden.com -- of Skadden Arps Slate
Meagher & Flom LLP.

The case is Animal Science Products Inc. et al. v. China National
Metals & Minerals Import & Export Corp. et al., case number 2:05-
cv-04376, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.


COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Faces Toothpaste False Ad Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a class action lawsuit against a
toothpaste brand claims the company falsely advertised how well
its toothpaste removes stains.

Jacqueline Dean filed the lawsuit on Jan. 15 against Colgate-
Palmolive Co., alleging the company's "Optic White toothpaste"
doesn't "deeply whiten" teeth.

Colgate advertises that the toothpaste's peroxide "goes beyond
surface stain removal to deeply whiten" teeth, according to the
lawsuit.  However, Ms. Dean claims the toothpaste only removes
surface stains by "abrading teeth."

"Plaintiff and the members of the Class purchased Colgate Optic
White because they were deceived into believing that Optic White
goes beyond surface stains to deeply whiten teeth," the lawsuit
said.  "In fact, toothpastes cannot go beyond surface stains to
deeply whiten teeth because peroxide in toothpaste does not
function as a whitening agent on intrinsic stains."

Ms. Dean claims she has purchased Colgate Optic White toothpaste
since January 2013, but has not noticed any whitening of her
teeth.

The lawsuit seeks class status for those that purchased Colgate
Optic White and is looking for more than $5 million in damages.

Ms. Dean is represented by L. Timothy Fisher, Annick M. Persinger
-- apersinger@bursor.com -- and Yeremey O. Krivoshey of Bursor &
Fisher, P.A.

United States District Court for the Central District of
California case number 5:15-cv-00107.


CORE MANAGEMENT: Faces "Todd" Suit Alleging Age Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Todd v. Core Management Services, LLC and Anthony Maione,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00211 (N.D. Ohio, January 30, 2015) alleges that
the Defendants treated the Plaintiff differently from other
similarly situated employees based on his age, in violation of,
among other laws, the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Todd is a resident of the city of Chagrin Falls, Cuyahoga
County, Ohio.  Core hired him on February 12, 2007, to be a senior
consultant for the Company.  He was 62 years old when Core
terminated his employment on January 16, 2015.

Core Management Services, LLC is a foreign limited liability
company with its principal place of business in the city of
Endicott, New York.  Anthony Maione, a resident of New York, is
the Owner or President of Core.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian D. Spitz, Esq.
          Fred M. Bean, Esq.
          THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC
          4620 Richmond Road, Suite 290
          Warrensville Heights, OH 44128
          Telephone: (216) 291-4744
          Facsimile: (216) 291-5744
          E-mail: Brian.Spitz@SpitzLawFirm.com
                  Fred.Bean@SpitzLawFirm.com


CREDIT MANAGEMENT: 8th Circuit Overturns Interlocutory Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brent Dwerlkotte, Esq. of Shook Hardy & Bacon LL, in an article
for Lexology, reports that on January 13, 2014, the Eighth Circuit
overturned, on interlocutory appeal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(f), a district court's order certifying four classes of
Nebraska consumers, who alleged that Credit Management Services
Inc. ("CMS") and its in-house counsel violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.  This is notable not only for the fact
that the Eighth Circuit granted review. Writing for the panel,
Judge Loken revoked the district court's certification order,
finding that the district court abused its discretion in
certifying the class without conducing a "rigorous analysis . . .
of what the parties move prove" and that Rule 23 requires.

The plaintiffs alleged that CMS and four in-house lawyers violated
the FDCPA, by sending standard-form collection complaints and
discovery requests.  Plaintiffs alleged that the standard-form
pleadings violated various provisions of the FDCPA, making them
unfair or deceptive or practices that also violate Nebraska
consumer protection laws.

The court started its analysis by noting that a preliminary
inquiry at the class certification stage may require the district
court to resolve factual disputes, even when the disputes overlap
with the merits of the case.  Thus, class certification was only
appropriate here if the standard-form complaints and discovery
requests that CMS sent to putative class members were violative of
the FDCPA and Nebraska consumer protection laws "on their face,"
as the plaintiffs had alleged.  The district court erred, the
court said, when it concluded that the predominant common question
was whether the defendants sent each putative class member a
standard-form complaint and discovery request, which violated the
FDCPA and Nebraska law.  Rather, the court failed to conduct a
"rigorous analysis" of what the plaintiffs must prove in order to
prevail on their facial invalidity theories, the panel said. "Our
task, then, is to fill this void which requires separate analyses
of the legal theories attacking the standard form complaints and
discovery requests."

The court noted that it had recently "surveyed the complex
question of FDCPA liability for litigation activities in a non-
class action" and found that a debt collector's fact allegations
in state court are not false and misleading, in violation of the
FDCPA, simply because the claims were not adequately supported in
the collection action.  Instead, this analysis depends on a number
of particularized factors.  In the class certification context,
however, "these complexities -- ignored by the plaintiffs and not
addressed by the district court -- are highly relevant to a
rigorous analysis of the well-traveled Rule 23 inquiries into
commonality, typicality, adequate representation of the class,
predominance, and superiority."

The court went on to explain that two scenarios were possible.
First, if plaintiffs' theory of liability proved wrong under the
FDCPA and Nebraska law, then plaintiffs would lose on the theory
attacking the standard-form complaints, and prompt resolution on
summary judgment motions would have obviated the need for class
certification.  Second, if plaintiff's theory of state law was
correct, many individualized issues would be required in order to
solve class members' claims.  As a result, the court held, the
"records pertaining to every state court collection suit must be
reviewed. . . ."

Finally, the panel ruled that the district court erred in ruling
that plaintiffs' separate claims against the in-house lawyers did
not affect class certification.  The court noted that (1) only one
in-house lawyer singed the standard-form pleadings, and that (2)
these "debt-ridden young lawyers" have little net worth.  The
court indicated that the class members may have had a stronger
claim against the individual attorney who actually singed the
pleadings in that consumer's collection lawsuit.  "Thus, by
alleging that impecunious individual defendants are jointly and
severally liable to all members of the largest possible classes,
plaintiffs created an issue of class action superiority that
cannot be ignored at the class certification stage."

Some helpful takeaways for federal court practitioners: At the
class certification stage, raising only a few "common questions"
is not enough to certify a class, particularly when the answers to
those common questions do not generate common answers capable of
resolving the litigation.   In addition, where individual issues
appear, it may be necessary for the court to resolve factual
disputes at or before the class certification stage, even though
they overlap the merits of the case.  As was shown in the Powers
decision, often times those individualized inquires make class
certification untenable.


CRUSADER SERVICING: Settles Foreclosure Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Lillian Shupe, writing for Hunterdon County Democrat, reports that
foreclosures in N.J. are up nearly 63 percent over a year ago,
according to RealtyTrac, with more than 85,000 properties in some
stage of foreclosure across the state.

But Jeanne Lang Boyer fought foreclosure on her home here, and won
the battle.  That means she'll be staying in her Musconetcong
River Road home.

Ms. Boyer's foreclosure headaches began when she missed property
tax payments.  When that happens, under state rules, the
municipality where the property is located may attach a lien for
the amount of the unpaid taxes. If the taxes remain unpaid after a
waiting period, the lien may be sold at auction.

That's what happened to Boyer, whose lien was purchased by
Crusader Servicing Corp.  It purchased the tax lien at the highest
interest allowed by law -- 18 percent.  The debt quickly
ballooned.

In October, 2008, Crusader started foreclosure proceedings in
Superior Court against Boyer.

But Robert W. Stein, who was president of Crusader Servicing and
several other companies, was charged along with several other
individuals with conspiring to rig tax lien auctions throughout
the state.

Ms. Boyer joined with other homeowners in the same situation and
filed a class-action suit in early 2012.  The case was the
transferred to federal court.

Mr. Stein pleaded guilty in February, 2012.  Crusader pleaded
guilty on Sept. 26, 2012 to participating in the conspiracy.  By
May, 2014 a total of 15 individuals or companies had pleaded
guilty to federal charges of violating the Sherman Act.

According to the Department of Justice, Crusader Servicing Corp.
of Jenkintown, Pa. and the others participated in a conspiracy to
rig bids at auctions for the sale of municipal tax liens in New
Jersey by agreeing to allocate among certain bidders which liens
each would bid on.  The department said that Crusader submitted
bids in accordance with its agreements and purchased tax liens at
collusive and non-competitive interest rates.

"The conspirators agreed to not compete with one another at these
tax lien auctions, depriving struggling homeowners of a
competitive interest rate," said Scott D. Hammond, Deputy
Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division's criminal
enforcement program.

The Department of Justice said that the conspiracy limited
competition in public auctions for municipal tax liens so the
liens could be purchased at higher interest rates, many at the
maximum 18 percent rate.

State law requires that investors bid on the interest rate
delinquent homeowners will pay upon redemption.  By law, the bid
opens at 18 percent interest and, through a competitive bidding
process, can be driven down to zero percent.

A violation of the Sherman Act carries a maximum penalty of $100
million criminal fine for corporations.  The maximum fine for a
Sherman Act violation may be increased to twice the gain derived
from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victims if either
amount is greater than the statutory maximum.

A trial in Boyer's foreclosure case was scheduled for Jan. 12.
Instead a settlement was reached and the suit has been dismissed.
The details of the settlement were not available.

While the foreclosure case proceeded, another suit was filed in
Superior Court in Flemington disputing the amount of taxes that
Boyer owes. In that suit, filed in September, 2014, Ms. Boyer
claims she was misled by the former township tax collector and
wrongfully denied the senior citizen's tax freeze.

That suit is still currently active.

Meanwhile, the federal class action suit also appears to be
nearing an end.  Settlements have been reached with all but one
individual defendant according to a Jan. 16 letter to the court
from attorney Bruce Greenberg.  A mediator is working with that
individual and an agreement is expected soon, according to the
letter.  The court issued an order that an update should be
provided by Feb. 20.


CVS PHARMACY: Faces "Parenteau" Suit Alleging Violations of ADA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Parenteau v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., a Rhode Island
corporation, d/b/a CVS, and Central Rug and Carpet Mart, LLC, a
New York limited liability company, Case No. 1:15-cv-00745-PAC
(S.D.N.Y., January 30, 2015) is an action for declaratory and
injunctive relief pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Mr. Parenteau, a resident of the state of New York, is a
tetraplegic, having suffered from Guillain-Barre syndrome, and
uses a wheelchair for mobility.

CVS Pharmacy, Inc., a Rhode Island corporation, and Central Rug
and Carpet Mart, LLC, a New York limited liability company, are
authorized to conduct, and are conducting business within the
state of New York.  CVS is the lessee and operator of the real
property where the facility commonly referred to as CVS is
located.  Central Rug is the owner, lessor and operator of the
Property.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben-Zion Bradley Weitz, Esq.
          THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          Bank of America Building
          18305 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 214
          Aventura, FL 33160
          Telephone: (305) 949-7777
          Facsimile: (305) 704-3877
          E-mail: bbw@weitzfirm.com


DISH NETWORK: Judge Amends Order in TCPA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Emily Field, writing for Law360, reports that an Ohio federal
magistrate judge on Jan. 20 amended an order in a class action
alleging Dish Network LLC violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act by making unsolicited calls to cellphones, finding
that the company isn't entitled to summary judgment for an
additional 19 calls.

In November, U.S. District Judge S. Arthur Spiegel had ruled that
Dish may be liable for only five calls to plaintiff Benjamin
Maraan's minor grandson's cellphone, saying that there wasn't a
paper record of the other calls.  Mr. Maraan, however, asked the
judge to amend the ruling to include the other calls since during
discovery Dish had produced a list of calls made by its
prerecorded message system that included them.  On Jan. 20, U.S.
Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman, who took over the case after
Judge Spiegel's death, made the change.

"There is a paper record of those calls, and that list was an
exhibit and was referenced in plaintiff's memorandum," Mr. Maraan
said in his December motion. "Therefore, the order's holding in
this regard constitutes clear error."

Mr. Maraan said that the list also noted that Mr. Maraan's
grandson's number had been placed on the satellite company's
internal do-not-call list in August 2012, but he had continued to
receive calls from Dish.

Mr. Maraan subscribes to a family plan from AT&T Inc., which
includes a number used by his grandson, according to court
documents.

In March 2012, a new Dish customer -- not included in the suit --
gave the company permission to call him at his number for any
reason, according to court documents.  This customer's number was
one digit off from Mr. Maraan's grandson's number.

The new customer quickly fell behind in his payments, according to
court documents, and received an "indeterminate" number of calls.

Less than two months later, the customer called Dish to change his
number in its records to the grandson's number, "presumably to
avoid receipt of any additional dunning calls," according to court
documents.

Dish argued that it was it was legitimately trying to reach a
customer to get him to pay his bill and it was simply a mistake
that Mr. Maraan's grandson was called.

"Based on the evidence before us, it does appear to the court that
-- initially -- Dish was, for lack of a better word, 'duped' by
its delinquent client, with the aggravation he avoided being borne
instead by plaintiff's grandson," Judge Spiegel said in his
November ruling.  "Nevertheless, plaintiff's son testified that,
on Aug. 7, 2012, he spoke with a Dish Network representative, who,
having been told of the mix-up, assured him that his son's cell
phone number would be placed on their internal do-not-call list."

According to court documents, the grandson began receiving calls
from Dish in January or February 2012 even though Dish's records
weren't changed until May 2012, and they lasted until May 7, 2013.

Mr. Maraan filed suit against Dish in June 2013, seeking to
represent a class of consumers who had received unsolicited calls
from Dish in the previous four years.

Mr. Maraan is represented by Charles T. Lester Jr.

Dish is represented by Benjamen Kern -- bkern@beneschlaw.com --
and Eric Larson Zalud -- ezalud@beneschlaw.com -- of Benesch
Friedlander Copeland & Aronoff.

The case is Maraan v. Dish Network LLC, case number 1:13-cv-00436,
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.


DONNA KARAN: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Luigi Girotto v. The Donna Karan Company LLC, a New York limited
liability company, d/b/a DKNY, and 420 West Broadway Corporation,
a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-00748-JGK (S.D.N.Y.,
January 30, 2015) is an action for declaratory and injunctive
relief pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Mr. Girotto, a resident of the state of New York, is a paraplegic
and uses a wheelchair for mobility.

The Donna Karan Company LLC, a New York limited liability company
doing business as DKNY, and 420 West Broadway Corporation, a
Delaware corporation, are authorized to conduct, and are
conducting business within the state of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben-Zion Bradley Weitz, Esq.
          Robert Jonas Mirel, Esq.
          THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          Bank of America Building
          18305 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 214
          Aventura, FL 33160
          Telephone: (305) 949-7777
          Facsimile: (305) 704-3877
          E-mail: bbw@weitzfirm.com
                  rjm@weitzfirm.com


ELEPHANT INSURANCE: Faces Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Sales
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robin Alexander Williams, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Elephant Insurance Company and Elephant
Insurance Services, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00119-GBL-TCB (E.D. Va.,
January 30, 2015) arises from alleged unsolicited telephone sales.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ray McVeigh Shepard, Esq.
          THE SHEPARD LAW FIRM, LLC
          1406B Crain Highway South, Suite 102
          Glen Burnie, MD 21061
          Telephone: (443) 354-3651
          E-mail: rshepard@shepardlf.com


EMAGIN CORPORATION: "Macdonald" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ellen Macdonald, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. eMagin Corporation, Case No. 7:15-cv-00645 (S.D.N.Y.,
January 29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

eMagin Corporation is a Foreign corporation that manufactures
field emitter devices and organic light emitting diodes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas Adam Milch, Esq.
      PAUL B. WEITZ & ASSOCIATES
      233 Broadway 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10279
      Telephone: (212) 346-0045
      Facsimile: (212) 346-0897
      E-mail: doug.milch@weitzkleinick.com

         - and -

      Todd Jamie Krakower, Esq.
      KRAKOWER DICHIARA LLC
      77 Market Street, Suite 2
      Park Ridge, NJ 07656
      Telephone: (201) 746-6333
      Facsimile: (347) 765-1600
      E-mail: tk@kdlawllc.com


EPPING FOREST: "Brown" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Brown, on his own Behalf and others similarly situated v.
Epping Forest Yacht Club, Inc. and Gate Petroleum Company, Inc.,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00099 (M.D. Fla., January 29, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a country club located in Duval
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eddie Easa Farah, Esq.
      FARAH & FARAH, PA
      3rd Floor, 10 W Adams St
      Jacksonville, FL 32202
      Telephone: (904) 807-3180
      Facsimile: (904) 358-5300
      E-mail: efarah@farahandfarah.com


FEIN SUCH: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alexis Picciotto, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Fein, Such, Kahn & Shepard, P.C., and John Does 1-25,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00662-PGS-TJB (D.N.J., January 30, 2015) accuses
the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS LAW LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 660-8169
          E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com


FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces Class Action Over Engine Rust Issue
--------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a class action lawsuit is alleging the
parameters of a recall of Chrysler Pacificas that prematurely rust
in the engine cradles, which could cause the engines to fall out
while on the road, were fraudulently limited.

John Dell, Brenda Baldwin, Anthony Soto, Darrell Holland and
James Morales all joined in the lawsuit against Chrysler owner
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA).  The suit alleges 2004-2008
Pacificas' engine cradles "rust, corrode or perforate"
prematurely.

The company extended the warranty for 2004 and 2005 Pacificas due
to a report of vibrations and shaking in the engines from the
rust.  A service bulletin was issued in October 2010 that said the
problem applied to vehicles purchased on the Canadian market and
in 19 U.S. states, mainly in the Midwest and Northeast, referred
to as "salt belt states."

The lawsuit alleges Chrysler only applied the extended warranty to
about 7,000 Pacificas that were manufactured between Feb. 23,
2004, and March 31, 2004.  However, about 322,000 Pacifica
vehicles were sold between 2004 and 2008 that had similar
problems, the lawsuit said.

Approximately 300 complaints have been filed with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration over the engine cradles in
the Pacifica vehicles.

"Despite acknowledgment of the defect, and actual or constructive
knowledge of these complaints, FCA has fraudulently withheld
information about the defect, has fraudulently denied the
existence of the defect, and it has failed to adequately address
the engine-cradle defect," the lawsuit said.

The plaintiffs are represented by D. Andrew List of Clark Perdue &
List Co., L.P.A.

United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio-
Eastern Division case number 2:15-cv-00103.


FLAIR HOME: Faces "Girotto" Suit Over Disabilities Act Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Luigi Girotto v. Flair Home Collection, LLC, a New York limited
liability company, d/b/a Flair, and 33 Greene Street Corp., a New
York corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-00737-JMF (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 30,
2015) is brought for injunctive relief, attorney's fees and costs
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York City
Human Rights Law, and the New York State Human Rights Law.

Mr. Girotto, a resident of the state of New York, is a paraplegic
and uses a wheelchair for mobility.

Flair Home Collection, LLC, a New York limited liability company
doing business as Flair, and 33 Greene Street Corp., a New York
corporation, are authorized to conduct, and are conducting
business within the state of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben-Zion Bradley Weitz, Esq.
          Robert Jonas Mirel, Esq.
          THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          Bank of America Building
          18305 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 214
          Aventura, FL 33160
          Telephone: (305) 949-7777
          Facsimile: (305) 704-3877
          E-mail: bbw@weitzfirm.com
                  rjm@weitzfirm.com


FORWARD FOODS: Falsely Marketed Protein Bars, "Eisan" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Eisan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Forward Foods, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-00422 (N.D. Cal.,
January 29, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's misleading
labeling of Detour Lean Muscle Whey Protein Bar that indicates
that there are 32 grams of protein per serving in the Nutritional
Facts.

According to scientific testing, the actual total content per
serving of protein is approximately 25.875 grams as opposed to 32
grams of protein claimed.

Forward Foods, LLC is a company that manufactures and markets high
protein, snack, energy and meal replacement bars.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tina Wolfson, Esq.
      AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C.
      1016 Palm Avenue
      West Hollywood, CA 90069
      Telephone: (310) 474-9111
      Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
      E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com


FRANK FRANK: Sued in N.J. for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Susinno, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Frank, Frank, Goldstein & Nager, P.C., and John Does
1-25, Case No. 3:15-cv-00669-MAS-LHG (D.N.J., January 30, 2015)
seeks relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS LAW LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 660-8169
          E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com


FREDERIC WEINBERG: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Morello, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Law Offices of Frederic I. Weinberg & Associates,
P.C., and John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:15-cv-00688-RBK-KMW (D.N.J.,
January 30, 2015) seeks relief for alleged violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GASTROMARKET LTD: Sued in New York for Disabilities Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Luigi Girotto v. GastroMarket Ltd., a New York corporation, d/b/a
GastroMarket, and Pradera Realty Corp., a New York corporation,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00743-JMF (S.D.N.Y., January 30, 2015) is an
action for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

Mr. Girotto, a resident of the state of New York, is a paraplegic
and uses a wheelchair for mobility.

GastroMarket Ltd., doing business as GastroMarket, and Pradera
Realty Corp., are New York corporations conducting business within
the state of New York.  GastroMarket Ltd. is the lessee and
operator of the real property where the facility commonly referred
to as GastroMarket is located.  Pradera is the owner, lessor and
operator of the Property.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben-Zion Bradley Weitz, Esq.
          Robert Jonas Mirel, Esq.
          THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          Bank of America Building
          18305 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 214
          Aventura, FL 33160
          Telephone: (305) 949-7777
          Facsimile: (305) 704-3877
          E-mail: bbw@weitzfirm.com
                  rjm@weitzfirm.com


GLOBAL TEL*LINK: "Martin" Suit Moved From S.D. to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Martin v. Global Tel*Link
Corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-02877, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (Oakland).
The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-00449-
DMR to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patric Alexander Lester, Esq.
          PATRIC LESTER & ASSOCIATES
          5694 Mission Center Road, #385
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 665-3888
          Facsimile: (314) 241-5777
          E-mail: pl@lesterlaw.com


GOHEALTH LLC: Faces "Jones" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tonice Jones, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown v. GoHealth, LLC, Case No.
1:15-cv-00932 (N.D. Ill., January 29, 2015), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages based on the
correct regular rate of pay.

GoHealth, LLC is a Chicago-based company that operates a private
health insurance agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
      Maureen Ann Salas, Esq.
      Sarah Jean Arendt, Esq.
      Zachary Cole Flowerree, Esq.
      WERMAN SALAS P.C.
      77 West Washington, Suite 1402
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 419-1008
      Facsimile: (312) 419-1025
      E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
              msalas@flsalaw.com
              sarendt@flsalaw.com
              zflowerree@flsalaw.com


GOLDEN ISLES: "Markov" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Stoymi Markov, Gerry G. Sebastian, and Zorica Zukic, Individually
and on Behalf of Other Similarly Situated v. Golden Isles Cruise
Lines Inc., and Apex Entertainment Management LLC.., Case No.
2:15-cv-00018 (S.D. Ga., January 29, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants are Georgia enterprises that are engaged in
commerce.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rita C. Spalding, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF RITA SPALDING
      1522 Richmond Street
      Brunswick, GA 31520
      Telephone: (912) 261-8686
      Facsimile: (912) 261-8689
      E-mail: rspaldinglaw@bellsouth.net

         - and -

      W. Douglas Adams, Esq.
      W. DOUGLAS ADAMS, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      P.O. Box 857
      Brunswick, GA 31521-0857
      Telephone: (912) 265-1966
      Facsimile: (912) 267-0777
      E-mail: wdadams@wdalaw.biz


GOOGLE INC: Fights Consumers' Bid to Amend Android App Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Emily Field and Lance Duroni, writing for Law360, report that
Google Inc. on Jan. 20 urged a California federal judge to again
deny a group of consumers' bid to amend their class action
alleging the technology giant violated privacy laws by disclosing
personal information to third parties via an Android app, saying
the motion comes too late in the "endlessly morphing case."

Google told U.S. District Judge Paul Singh Grewal that he should
deny plaintiffs' motion to amend their suit because not only was
the motion filed too late, but the proposed amendment is just as
futile as their abandoned claim.  According to Google, the
consumers had argued that downloading an Android app through
Google Play depleted battery life on their Android smartphones and
"surreptitiously" sent personal information to third-party app
developers.

The plaintiffs now seek to keep only their claims based on paid
apps, according to Google.  While app developers of free apps
don't receive any information about users, paid app developers can
access some limited information about consumers, such as names and
zip codes, Google said.

Google said that developers can access the information from Google
servers, if they choose, and not from transmissions from
smartphones, as the plaintiffs claim.

"But again, this is pure invention, without a shred of evidence to
support it and uncontroverted sworn testimony to rebut it," Google
said.  "There is no secret transmission. There is no trigger."

Google said that the plaintiffs in the case -- consolidated from
multiple complaints lodged across the country after it changed its
privacy policy in March 2012 without obtaining users' consent --
have offered and discarded "one theory after another" without
making any attempt to develop a factual record, "instead standing
pat on factual allegations they know to be false, without a shred
of evidence of any injury."

"Now they ask this court, at the close of discovery, to allow them
to start over yet again, with a new theory with no more factual
basis than its predecessors," Google said.  "Enough is enough."

Google also said that the plaintiffs filed their motion on the
last day that an amended complaint could be filed according to the
court's scheduling order.

Granting the motion, Google said, "would severely prejudice Google
by forcing us to -- yet again -- work up a new case based on new
allegations, this time after the discovery cutoff has come and
gone."

The consolidated suit alleges that Google violated the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act and other federal and state laws after
it changed its privacy policy.

The policy shift allowed the tech giant to merge customer data
from all its products and services leading to the unauthorized use
of customers' likenesses for advertisements, added drain on
smartphone battery life and disclosure of their personal
information to third parties, according to the plaintiffs.

In July, Judge Grewal threw out most of the class action, finding
that various claims fell short of pleading standards.

Judge Grewal allowed the plaintiffs to proceed on one breach of
contract claim and another claim for fraud under California's
unfair competition laws.

Google is represented by Michael H. Page -- mpage@durietangri.com
-- Joshua H. Lerner and Sonali D. Maitra --
smaitra@durietangri.com -- of Durie Tangri LLP.

The plaintiffs are represented by Mark C. Gardy --
mgardy@gardylaw.com -- James S. Notis -- jnotis@gardylaw.com --
Kelly A. Noto and Charles A. Germershausen of Gardy & Notis LLP;
James J. Sabella -- jsabella@gelaw.com -- of Grant & Eisenhofer
PA; and L. Timothy Fisher -- ltfisher@bursor.com -- and Sarah N.
Westcot of Bursor & Fisher PA, among others.

The case is In re: Google Inc. Privacy Policy Litigation, case
number 5:12-cv-01382, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California."


GVN MICHIGAN: Sued in Ill. Over Illegal Telemarketing Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Johansen, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. GVN Michigan, Inc., d/b/a Global Vacation Network, Case No.
1:15-cv-00912 (N.D. Ill., January 29, 2015), seeks to stop the
Defendant's telemarketing practice using an automated equipment
and pre-recorded technology.

GVN Michigan, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that owns and
operates travel membership clubs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian K. Murphy, Esq.
      MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP
      1114 Dublin Road
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 488-0400
      Facsimile: (614) 488-0401
      E-mail: murphy@mmmb.com

         - and -

      Lauren E. Snyder, Esq.
      1350 N. Wells Street, Apt. A214
      Chicago, IL 60610
      Telephone: (419) 344-1146
      E-mail: lauren.elizabeth.snyder@gmail.com

         - and -

      Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE
      1 South Ave, Third Floor
      Natick, MA 01760
      Telephone: (508) 655-1415
      E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net


H & F SHOJI: Fail to Provide Safe, Accessible Entrance, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Linda I. Slone v. H & F Shoji, Inc., a New York corporation, d/b/a
Mana, and Eljo Company, LLC, a New York  limited liability
company, Case No. 1:15-cv-00736-PGG (S.D.N.Y., January 30, 2015)
accuses the Defendants of failing to provide a safe, accessible
entrance, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Ms. Slone, a resident of New York, suffered from a "qualified
disability" described as post-polio with quadriplegic involvement
requiring the use of a motorized wheelchair for mobility.

H & F Shoji, Inc., is a New York corporation doing business as
Mana.  Eljo Company, LLC, is a New York limited liability company.
H & F is the lessee or operator of the real property where the
facility commonly referred to as the Mana is located.  Eljo is the
owner, lessor and operator of the Property.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben-Zion Bradley Weitz, Esq.
          Robert Jonas Mirel, Esq.
          THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          Bank of America Building
          18305 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 214
          Aventura, FL 33160
          Telephone: (305) 949-7777
          Facsimile: (305) 704-3877
          E-mail: bbw@weitzfirm.com
                  rjm@weitzfirm.com


HILL COUNTRY: Violates Disabilities Act in New York, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Parenteau v. Hill Country New York LLC d/b/a Hill Country
Barbecue Market, a New York limited liability company, and 30W26
Land, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, Case No. 1:15-cv-
00744-LGS (S.D.N.Y., January 30, 2015) alleges violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

Mr. Parenteau, a resident of the state of New York, is a
tetraplegic, having suffered from Guillain-Barre syndrome, and
uses a wheelchair for mobility.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben-Zion Bradley Weitz, Esq.
          THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          Bank of America Building
          18305 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 214
          Aventura, FL 33160
          Telephone: (305) 949-7777
          Facsimile: (305) 704-3877
          E-mail: bbw@weitzfirm.com


HOME DEPOT: Has Until July to Respond to Data Breach Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Carman, writing for SC Magazine, reports that Home Depot
has until July to respond to lawsuit allegations surrounding the
retailer's major data breach this past summer, a judge determined
in a Georgia court hearing.

During the initial court hearing on Jan. 16, which consolidated
multiple class-action lawsuits into one federal court case, U.S.
District Court Judge Thomas Thrash sorted cases into consumer and
financial institution tracks. The deadlines vary depending on
which track a suit falls under.

Consumer track and financial institution track complaints must be
filed by April 1 and April 15, respectively.

"While many of the legal issues and much of the discovery are
common to the claims of both, the cases present significant,
distinct factual and legal issues," Judge Thrash wrote.

Accordingly, Home Depot has until July 1 to reply to consumer
track allegations and until July 15 to respond to financial
institution complaints.


INVENSENSE INC: Faces "Davis" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
William B. Davis, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Invensense, Inc., Behrooz Abdi and Alan
Krock, Case No. 5:15-cv-00425 (N.D. Cal., January 29, 2015),
alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Invensense, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that designs, develops,
markets, and sells MEMS gyroscope for motion-tracking devices in
consumer electronics.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sherrie R. Savett, Esq.
      Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      E-mail: ssavett@bm.net
              elechtzin@bm.net


IT'S HUGE: Settles Theft-Protection Package Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Tim Knauss, writing for Syracuse.com, reports that Billy
Fuccillo's auto business and 18 of its New York state dealerships
agreed to pay $1.6 million to settle a class-action lawsuit that
claimed the dealerships sold car buyers an over-priced and illegal
theft-protection package years ago.

Some 5,320 car buyers who bought the $295 theft-protection package
from Fuccillo dealerships -- including Fuccillo Hyundai of
Syracuse -- are entitled to payments of $160 each, according to a
settlement approved in November by U.S. District Judge Lawrence
Kahn in Albany.

The class-action lawsuit covered consumers who bought cars between
2003 and 2012, but Fuccillo dealerships stopped selling the "Auto
Theft Security Discount" package in 2007, according to court
papers filed by company lawyers.

The lead plaintiff, car buyer Heidi Seekamp, of the Albany area,
was awarded $10,000 from the settlement.  The plaintiffs'
attorneys will get $750,000, Judge Kahn ruled in December.

Mr. Fuccillo's company, It's Huge Inc., did not admit any
wrongdoing as part of the settlement.  The company and the 18
Fuccillo dealerships named in the lawsuit agreed not to market the
Auto Theft Security Discount anymore.

The litigation attorney for Mr. Fuccillo's company referred
questions to another company lawyer, who did not respond to a
request for comment on Jan. 21.

Ms. Seekamp, who bought a 2007 Hyundai Elantra from a Fuccillo
dealership in Schenectady, filed the lawsuit in January 2009.

Ms. Seekamp's car came with the $295 theft-protection package,
which included two components: The car's vehicle identification
number was etched into the window; and Ms. Seekamp was entitled to
a 10 percent discount toward the purchase of a new car, or $2,000,
if the Elantra was stolen and not recovered.

Ms. Seekamp's class-action suit claimed that the theft-protection
package was an illegal insurance policy, because it was
administered by a company that was not a licensed insurer,
Universal Automotive Services, of New Jersey.

The lawsuit also claimed that the theft-deterrent value of the
service was exaggerated and over-priced, because the cost of
etching the VIN into the window was only $20 to $50.  New cars by
law already have VINs installed in 18 locations on the vehicle,
according to the lawsuit.

According to court papers, the Auto Theft Security Discount was
sold to roughly 16,200 customers, who were notified in August
about the settlement.  Of those, 5,320 submitted claim forms by
the Oct. 31 deadline and will be paid, court records show.


JEFFERSON STREET BAKERY: Recalls Amana Dinner Rolls Due to Milk
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Jefferson Street Bakery of Burlington, IA, is recalling all
"Amana Dinner Rolls" produced with lot number "834J364" because
they may contain undeclared milk. People who have allergies to
milk run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction
if they consume these products.

The recalled products were distributed to retail stores in Iowa,
Illinois, Nebraska, Minnesota, and South Dakota.

Bulk product is received in a cardboard case containing 10
individual units and is marked with lot number "834J364" on the
case label. Individual units are packaged in 1 LB. 2 OZ. (510g)
bread bags marked with lot number "834J364" on the bread clip.

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

The recall was initiated after it was discovered by quality
control personnel at the Jefferson Street Bakery that the milk
containing product was distributed in packaging that did not
reveal the presence of milk by its common name. This was due to a
breakdown of labeling controls during a packaging redesign.
Information gathered during our recall investigation shows that
all of the product has been accounted for and disposed of, but due
to the serious nature of this problem we have decided to issue
this public notice for any consumers that could have potentially
purchased this product.

We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause our customers
and consumers. The Jefferson Street Bakery takes great pride in
producing safe, quality bread products and will make all necessary
corrective actions to ensure this problem does not re-occur in the
future.

Consumers that may have purchased "Amana Dinner Rolls" marked with
lot number "834J364" are urged to return them to the place of
purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact
the company 8 am to 4:30 pm CST Monday through Friday at 1-319-
752-6315.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm432944.htm


KARAVAS FOOD: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Parenteau v. Karavas Food Ltd., a New York corporation,
d/b/a Karavas Place, and 162 West Realty LLC, a New York limited
liability company, Case No. 1:15-cv-00742-LGS (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 30,
2015) is brought for injunctive relief, attorney's fees and costs
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York City
Human Rights Law, and the New York State Human Rights Law.

Mr. Parenteau, a resident of the state of New York, is a
tetraplegic, having suffered from Guillain-Barre syndrome, and
uses a wheelchair for mobility.

Karavas Food Ltd., a New York corporation doing business as
Karavas Place, and 162 West Realty LLC, a New York limited
liability company, are authorized to conduct, and are conducting
business within the state of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben-Zion Bradley Weitz, Esq.
          THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          Bank of America Building
          18305 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 214
          Aventura, FL 33160
          Telephone: (305) 949-7777
          Facsimile: (305) 704-3877
          E-mail: bbw@weitzfirm.com


LONGUEUIL, CANADA: Residents Want to Revoke Water Crisis Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tina Tenneriello, writing for CJAD News, reports that not everyone
in Longueuil thinks it's a good idea to file a C$29 million class-
action lawsuit against the City of Longueuil for its handling of
tainted tap water crisis.  Some residents are getting together to
argue that winning the lawsuit would actually be losing.

Longueuil residents Yves Theriault and Nathalie Roy have written
to the lawyer filling the class-action asking him to revoke it.
They've also started a Facebook page for the cause that has close
to 200 residents supporting them.  They say the class-action is an
abuse of the legal system.

"This is completely not useful, who's going to pay at the end of
the day?  It's the citizens, it's the people who pay taxes in
Longueuil, it's like we are suing ourselves, the only people who
will benefit are the lawyers involved," Mr. Theriault explained.

The lawyer filling the class-action, Jackie-Eric Salvant, says he
got their letter but it won't change a thing, he says he will not
drop the case.

"If there are damages to pay, it will be paid by the city's
insurance, people don't have to worry, that's not what's going to
make taxes go up," Mr. Salvant said.  He says he will request that
his legal fees be covered by the provincial group that funds
class-action lawsuits.

Mr. Theriault admits the city did mismanage the situation, but
says the class-action is exaggerated and residents were not overly
inconvenienced.  "We have to put things in perspective, it's not a
major crisis," he said.

Mr. Theriault also says he has lawyers willing to go to court with
him Pro Bono to block the class-action, if they have to.  The
class-action would get the 300 000 residents that were affected by
the water ban $100 each.


LOS ANGELES, CA: DWP Faces Two Class Actions Over Billing System
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Reicher, writing for Los Angeles Daily News, reports that Los
Angeles Department of Water and Power customers have filed two
class-action lawsuits claiming they were overcharged by the DWP's
troubled computer billing system.

Together, the lawsuits, which could represent thousands of
customers, seek system repairs, refunds plus interest and other
damages.

DWP officials have scrambled to fix one problem after another ever
since the customer service computer system's launch in 2013.  From
inaccurate bills to long telephone hold times, customers were
saddled with the fallout.  Now some are fed up.

"DWP's new billing system is highly dysfunctional," said
Tim Blood, an attorney representing clients in one of the cases.
"The refunds, in the correct amounts, should simply be paid back
and the billing system should be fixed so these types of problems
no longer occur."

Customer Daniel Morski filed suit against the DWP Jan. 7. A group
of ratepayers, Sharon Bransford, Steven Shrager and Rachel Tash,
filed against the city Dec. 4.  Ms. Bransford received an
electricity bill of $909 in April 2014, her suit says.

The suits allege fraud, breach of contract, unjust enrichment and
other violations.

At the heart of their claims are glitches in the new software.
For some months, the system estimated bills instead of using
actual meter readings, a problem exacerbated by a dearth of meter
readers.  Those bills were usually too high or too low.

If underestimated, the department later sent a corrected bill with
the actual meter reading.  But those one-time corrections often
pushed residents into a higher rate tier or a higher seasonal
rate, as if they used all the power or water in a single billing
cycle.  That's where the overbilling occurred, they say.

The same thing happened for residents who simply didn't receive
bills, then received a high bill covering past months, the suits
allege.

Nearly 1.5 million estimated bills were distributed between
September 2013 and October 2014, according to one suit.  While
some bills were marked "estimated," others were not, it alleges.

Department officials say they have re-billed customers who
received estimated readings.

"We have been very forthright about the problems with our new
customer billing system and we have taken significant steps to fix
them," spokesman Joe Ramallo said in a statement.

The DWP hired more than 200 people -- meter readers and customer
service representatives -- to cut down on estimated bills and
lower call hold times, Mr. Ramallo said. Estimations dropped from
21 percent of bills to 5 percent, according to department records.

Both suits were filed in Los Angeles Superior Court. No hearings
have been scheduled yet, according to court records.

Class-action claims take a very long time to work their way
through the courts, said Lisa Klerman, a USC law professor and
director of the Judge Judith O. Hollinger Alternative Dispute
Resolution Program.  First, a judge would have to certify the
cases, which could be combined.  That alone could take six months,
Ms. Klerman said.

It could take a year and a half before any potential settlement,
she said.  Customers would be notified by mail if they qualified;
typically ratepayers wouldn't have to take any proactive steps to
join in a settlement, she said.

One of the suits estimates that thousands of customers would
qualify for the class-action.


MARIO'S WELDING: Faces "Guajardo" Sued Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Guajardo, individually and for others similarly situated v.
Mario's Welding, Case No. 5:15-cv-00077 (W.D. Tex., January 29,
2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

Mario's Welding is a welding company located at 501 Saddlebrook
Dr., San Antonio, TX 78245.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MARYLAND: Riders With Disabilities File Class Action v. MTA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Rector, writing for The Baltimore Sun, reports that a class-
action lawsuit has been filed against the Maryland Transit
Administration on behalf of thousands of riders with disabilities,
alleging the agency's federally mandated paratransit service is
woefully unreliable and inaccessible.

Users with serious illnesses and other physical and mental
disabilities are routinely picked up and dropped off late for
critical medical appointments by MTA's Mobility/Paratransit
Service, the lawsuit says.  They are often put on hold for long
periods of time when trying to make service appointments by phone
and some have been denied service or had their access revoked with
little explanation, the lawsuit says.

Under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, people with
disabilities must be accommodated with paratransit options if
their disabilities prevent them from using other mass transit
options.

The failings of the MTA's paratransit program have caused "major
hardship and disruption" in the lives of four plaintiffs listed on
the complaint and potentially tens of thousands of others who use
the service, according to attorneys with the Maryland Disability
Law Center and the AARP Foundation, who filed the complaint in
federal court in Baltimore.

"People need reliable access to paratransit to get to work, life-
saving medical appointments, and other critical life activities,"
said Lauren Young, the law center's litigation director, in a
statement.

"Without access to paratransit, older people may become isolated
instead of remaining active and engaged in their communities,"
said Julie Nepveu, a senior attorney with the AARP Foundation.

The attorneys cited a Federal Transit Administration report
released in December that gave the MTA 60 days to address dozens
of similar administrative and operational "deficiencies" it found
with the MTA's Mobility service.  During one sample week, for
instance, the report found Mobility users were dropped off late
for appointments nearly 30 percent of the time.

Paul Shepard, an MTA spokesman, declined to comment on the
lawsuit, which he said is "under legal review" by the attorney
general's office.  He also declined to comment on the FTA report,
which said more than 1.5 million Mobility passenger trips were
conducted in fiscal 2014.

The MTA charges users $1.85 for each one-way trip, which cost it
an estimated $43.30 each in 2013.

Audit: MTA did not properly vet applicants for Mobility program
The federal report credited the MTA with providing the service 24
hours a day, seven days a week, and for its ability to offer most
pickups or drop-offs within 30 minutes of requested times.  But
the report also found the MTA lacks clear standards for on-time
drop-off performance and relies on administrative judges without a
clear understanding of disability law to make decisions on
individual users' program eligibility.

The lawsuit does not seek financial payouts by the state, other
than to cover the plaintiffs' attorney and court fees, but demands
the MTA take immediate steps to broaden access to its service and
ensure reliability.

It also calls on the agency to stop denying or removing "Mobility"
access from individuals based on what it says are flawed
assessments of their ability to use standard bus and transit
services -- as allegedly happened to the lead plaintiff,
Phillip Freeman, a 51-year-old Baltimore resident who has gout and
is in end-stage renal failure.

Mr. Freeman, who requires dialysis three times a week, received
Mobility services from 2011 through 2014, but his eligibility was
questioned last year after he acknowledged using standard bus
routes at times when he felt well enough to do so, the lawsuit
says.

In August, Mr. Freeman was required by MTA officials to perform a
"functional assessment" in which he had to perform tasks "that
replicate traveling to or boarding and disembarking" from fixed
bus routes.  During that assessment, he immediately began to feel
ill.

His blood pressure spiked and the assessor eventually stopped the
assessment, calling paramedics in to attend to Mr. Freeman.
Nonetheless, he later was denied continued access to Mobility
services for failing to "present sufficient evidence" that his
disability prevented him from using standard transit services, the
lawsuit says.

In an interview, Mr. Freeman said the system has failed him, and
that MTA officials have treated him with little compassion or
respect.

"I just had the impression that they gave me a look and treated me
like I wasn't sick at all, like I was just playing or acting," he
said.

Another plaintiff in the case, Deborah Benaderet, a 64-year-old
Baltimore resident with psychiatric disabilities, received
Mobility services for 10 years before being denied recertification
in 2013, the lawsuit says.

Both the other named plaintiffs -- Danielle Phelps, a 38-year-old
Towson resident who has a neurological disability, and Floyd
Hartley, a 63-year-old Baltimore resident who has juvenile-onset
rheumatoid arthritis -- use wheelchairs and rely on Mobility
services to get around, but say they have had difficulty
scheduling appointments through the call center, the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit claims the inadequacy of Mobility services amounts to
discrimination under the ADA and other federal laws, and names
outgoing Maryland Transportation Secretary James T. Smith Jr., MTA
Administrator Robert L. Smith and MTA Mobility Director Daniel
O'Reilly as defendants.

The MTA contracts its Mobility service out to three different
companies, none of which could be reached for comment on Jan. 21.

A 2012 audit of the service by the state Office of Legislative
Affairs found the program failed to properly vet many users of the
program, finding inadequate documentation for all 30 participants
reviewed.

Mr. Freeman said he hopes his taking a stand will quell the fear
he and other patients feel due to uncertainty as to whether
Mobility services will get them to their medical appointments.

"It's like they're saying, 'If we feel like giving [Mobility
services] to you, we'll give it to you, but if we don't feel like
you fit the grade or you don't need it, we'll kick you out,'" he
said.  "That's not what you want to hear when your life depends on
it."


MEDBOX INC: Overstates Financial Reports, "Domino" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Donnino, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Medbox, Inc., Pejman Vincent, Mehdizadeh,
Bruce Bedrick, Thomas Iwanski, Guy Marsala, and Douglas Mitchell,
Case No. 2:15-cv-00683 (C.D. Cal., January 29, 2015), alleges that
the Defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's financial results for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2013. Specifically by, overstating the
Company's revenues by recognizing revenue on customer contracts
before it had been earned.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jon A. Tostrud, Esq.
      TOSTRUD LAW GROUP PC
      1925 Century Park East Suite 2125
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 278-2600
      Facsimile: (310) 278-2640
      E-mail: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com


MEDBOX INC: Johnson & Weaver Files Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson & Weaver, LLP on Jan. 21
disclosed that a class action has been commenced in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
behalf of purchasers of Medbox, Inc. common stock during the
period between November 20, 2013 and December 29, 2014.

If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than 60 days from January 21, 2015.  If you wish to
discuss this action, have any questions concerning this notice, or
your rights or interests, please contact lead analyst Jim Baker --
jimb@johnsonandweaver.com -- at 619-814-4471.  If you email,
please include your phone number. If you are a member of this
class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this
class action online at http://www.johnsonandweaver.com

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Medbox
overstated the Company's revenues by recognizing revenue on
customer contracts before it had been earned.  As a result, the
complaint alleges that Medbox's stock traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching an intra-day
Class Period high of $93.50 on January 8, 2014.  The complaint
further alleges that while Defendants kept the full extent of
their fraud concealed throughout the Class Period, the market
learned bits of the truth through several partial disclosures.
Finally, on the morning of December 30, 2014, before the opening
of trading, Medbox issued a press release disclosing that it would
be forced to restate the past five quarters of financial reports
and potentially its "financial statements for 2012 and for the
first two quarters of 2013 . . . as well."  The Company further
disclosed that the earnings restatement had triggered a default on
its debt covenants that had forced it to seek forbearance from
lenders.  As the market learned the truth, Medbox stock was
hammered by massive sales, sending its stock down more than 95%
from its Class Period high to trade as low as $4.50 per share in
intra-day trading on December 30, 2014.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Medbox's common stock during the Class Period.

                 About Johnson & Weaver, LLP

Johnson & Weaver, LLP -- http://www.johnsonandweaver.com-- is a
national shareholder rights law firm with offices in California,
New York and Georgia. The firm represents individual and
institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities
class action lawsuits.


MERMAID 88 LLC: Fails Remove Barriers Pursuant to ADA, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Linda I. Slone v. Mermaid 88 LLC, a New York limited liability
company, d/b/a The Mermaid Inn, and Wineve Realty Corp., a New
York corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-00731-GBD (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 30,
2015) accuses the Defendants of failing to remove architectural
barriers pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Ms. Slone, a resident of New York, suffered from a "qualified
disability" described as post-polio with quadriplegic involvement
requiring the use of a motorized wheelchair for mobility.

Mermaid 88 LLC is a New York limited liability company doing
business as The Mermaid Inn.  Wineve Realty Corp. is a New York
corporation.  Both are authorized to conduct, and are conducting
business within the state of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben-Zion Bradley Weitz, Esq.
          Robert Jonas Mirel, Esq.
          THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          Bank of America Building
          18305 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 214
          Aventura, FL 33160
          Telephone: (305) 949-7777
          Facsimile: (305) 704-3877
          E-mail: bbw@weitzfirm.com
                  rjm@weitzfirm.com


MONTGOMERY, AL: Board of Education Sued Over Violation of FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mary T. Sweeney v. Montgomery County Board Of Education, et al.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-00068 (M.D. Ala., January 28, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Montgomery County Board Of Education is a separate county school
system organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Alabama, operating in Montgomery County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Candis Annette McGowan, Esq.
      Lacey K. Danley, Esq.
      WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN & PANTAZIS
      The Kress Building
      301 - 19th Street North
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 314-0513
      Facsimile: (205) 214-1500
      E-mail: cmcgowan@wigginschilds.com
              ldanley@wigginschilds.com


MTD PRODUCTS: Sued Over Injury Due to Explosion of Snow Blower
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Bungert v. MTD Products Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-10408-DPH-
DRG (E.D. Mich., January 30, 2015) arises from alleged injuries
caused by the negligent design, manufacture, marketing and
distribution of the Defendant's snow blower product.

Mr. Bungert, a resident of Brighton, Michigan, owns an MTD snow
blower bearing brand name "Yard Machines by MTD," model number
31AS3DDE729, 7hp with a 24 inch clearing width.  On January 12,
2014, he was inflating the tire of the Snow Blower when it
exploded, causing him injuries.

MTD Products, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Cleveland, Ohio.  MTD designs, manufactures, markets and
distributes the Snow Blower.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey T. Meyers, Esq.
          Justin J. Hakala, Esq.
          MORGAN & MEYERS, PLC
          3200 Greenfield, Suite 260
          Dearborn, MI 48120-1802
          Telephone: (313) 961-0130
          Facsimile: (313) 961-8178
          E-mail: jmeyers@morganmeyers.com
                  jhakala@morganmeyers.com


MUSCLEPHARM CORP: Faces "Durnford" Sued Over Product Misbranding
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tucker Durnford, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Musclepharm Corp., Case No. 3:15-cv-00413
(N.D. Cal., January 28, 2015), alleges that the Defendant makes a
false and misleading label claim regarding the amount and source
of protein in its Muscle Plasma Protein Technology Product.

Musclepharm Corp. is a Nevada corporation that owns and operates a
nutritional supplement company located at 4721 Ironton St.,
Building A, Denver, CO 80239.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael F. Ram, Esq.
      Matt J. Malone, Esq.
      Susan S. Brown, Esq.
      RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP
      555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 433-4949
      Facsimile: (415) 433-74311
      E-mail: mram@rocklawcal.com
              mjm@rocklawcal.com
              sbrown@rocklawcal.com

         - and -

      Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
      Mary B. Reiten, Esq.
      TERRELL, MARSHALL, DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC
      936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
      Seattle, WA 98103-8869
      Telephone: (206) 816-6603
      Facsimile: (206) 350-3528
      E-mail: bterrell@tmdwlaw.com
              mreiten@tmdwlaw.com


NEW MIAMI, CA: Judge Unlikely to Order Speed Camera Fine Refund
---------------------------------------------------------------
Denise G. Callahan, writing for Dayton Daily News, reports that
the Butler County judge who declared the village of New Miami's
speed camera hearing process unconstitutional says it could be a
long time, maybe never, before ticketed motorists see the
estimated $1.8 million in fines collected.

Judge Michael Sage, whose last day on the bench is Feb. 6, said he
likely won't be ordering fines returned because of his imminent
departure, and the higher courts still need to rule on his finding
that New Miami violated the drivers' right to due process.
According to budget documents, the village collected about $1.8
million on 44,993 citations.

Last March, Judge Sage wrote a 15-page decision on the speed
camera case, ruling the village ordinance violated Ohio
Constitution due process rights.  He also ordered the village to
stop using the speed cameras and dismissed the former police chief
from the lawsuit.  The judge agreed to hold off on returning fine
money until after the Ohio Supreme Court ruled on a Toledo case,
which the high court did in December.

Two Butler County and two Cincinnati residents sued New Miami over
the virtually automatic $95 speeding tickets, and Sage approved
establishing the plaintiffs' case as a class action.  The case was
appealed to the 12th District only on the class-action order.
That court sent it back saying Sage had to more clearly state his
reasons for approving the class.

"I am going to put the due process question back to them , because
I can't see deciding the returning of the fees until I know that
the Ohio 12th District and, perhaps, the Supreme Court believe
that my decision on due process is appropriate," Judge Sage said.
"It will go on beyond my term."

Attorneys for both sides have been peppering Judge Sage's and the
12th District's docket in the wake of high court ruling in Walker
v. Toledo. Wilson Weisenfelder, who represents the village, filed
a motion in December saying since none of the plaintiffs in the
local case went through the administrative hearing process, they
don't have standing -- based on the Supreme Court ruling -- to
challenge the cameras.  The high court ruled that the
administrative hearings many jurisdictions use as opposed to
municipal court hearings are fine, but also said the
administrative hearings must be exhausted before judicial remedies
can be pursued.

Mr. Weisenfelder also asked the 12th District to reconsider its
ruling, and the plaintiffs have answered both reconsideration
requests by saying the administrative hearing process closes out
constitutional guarantees such as the right to face your accuser.
They maintain higher court rulings -- the Walker decision didn't
discuss due process -- are still needed on the due process claims
Sage said were trampled by the New Miami law.

"It (Walker) is not even close to being dispositive of our claims
at all . . . ," said Mike Allen, the plaintiff's attorney.  "It
truly is and it's not hyperbole; it truly is guilty until proven
innocent."

Mr. Weisenfelder, who asked Sage for another oral argument on his
request to close the case and lift the injunction on use of the
cameras, said the high court did, in a way, dispose of the
constitutional claims.

"When the Supreme Court says you can have this administrative
hearing, it changes the whole ballgame," Mr. Weisenfelder said.
"All those things, the rules of civil procedure, rules of
evidence, Ohio traffic rules, everything, they don't apply in
administrative hearings. So if you can do the administrative
hearing, it's without all these other rules."


NICKEY GREGORY: Removes "Cuevas" Suit to Florida District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Cuevas v. Nickey Gregory Company
Miami LLC, et al., Case No. 15-000277CA01, was removed from the
Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit for Miami Dade County,
Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida (Miami).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-
cv-20363-RNS to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff's Complaint contains allegations against the
Defendants for purported violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
          Brody Max Shulman, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com
                  bshulman@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Todd C. Alley, Esq.
          Ronald G. Polly, Jr., Esq.
          Matthew A. Boyd, Esq.
          HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG LLP
          303 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 4000
          Atlanta, GA 30308
          Telephone: (404) 614-7400
          Facsimile: (404) 614-7500
          E-mail: talley@hptylaw.com
                  rpolly@hptylaw.com
                  mboyd@hptylaw.com


NILE RESTAURANT: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tomas Martinez, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Nile Restaurant II, Inc., and Abed
Moughrrbi, Case No. 1:15-cv-00971 (N.D. Ill., January 29, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located 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


OCWEN FINANCIAL: "Fox" Suit Moved From New Jersey to New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Meghan Fox v. Ocwen Financial
Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-06404, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn).
The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-00464-
DLI-MDG to the proceeding.

The action involves a classic bait and switch scheme allegedly
perpetrated by two groups of entities: (a) Defendants Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC and Ocwen Financial Corporation on the one hand,
and (b) Defendant Cross Country Home Services, Inc., on the other.
Ms. Fox, like the similarly situated consumers she seeks to
represent, has a home mortgage that is serviced by Ocwen,
according to the complaint.  She contends that even after she
discovered an inconspicuous and unauthorized monthly fee she paid
to the Defendants -- after having paid it for approximately one
year -- the Defendants inexplicitly still refused to refund these
unauthorized payments.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq.
          Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
          Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
          CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
          One Haverford Centre
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Telephone: (610) 642-8500
          Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
          E-mail: Nick@chimicles.com
                  BFJ@chimicles.com
                  JBK@chimicles.com

Defendants Ocwen Financial Corporation and Ocwen Loan Servicing
LLC are represented by:

          Amy Robin Brandt, Esq.
          WEIR & PARTNERS LLP
          457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 420
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08043
          Telephone: (856) 662-1018
          E-mail: abrandt@weirpartners.com

               - and -

          Carolyn C. Lindheim, Esq.
          LEVY, ANGSTREICH, FINNEY, BALDANTE, RUBENSTEIN
          & COREN, P.C.
          1616 Walnut Street, 18th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 735-1616

Defendant Cross Country Home Services, Inc. is represented by:

          Peter J. Leyh, Esq.
          BRAVERMAN KASKEY P.C.
          One Liberty Place, 56th Floor
          1650 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-7334
          Telephone: (215) 575-3800
          Facsimile: (215) 575-3801
          E-mail: pleyh@braverlaw.com


OLIPHANT FINANCIAL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Adams, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Oliphant Financial, LLC, a Florida limited liability
company; and JH Portfolio Debt Equities, LLC, a foreign limited
liability company, Case No. 1:15-cv-20373-JLK (S.D. Fla.,
January 30, 2015) accuses the Defendants of violating Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Andrew Meyer, Esq.
          LEAVENGOOD, DAUVAL, BOYLE & MEYER, P.A.
          3900 First Street North, Suite 100
          St. Petersburg, FL 33703
          Telephone: (727) 327-3328
          Facsimile: (727) 327-3305
          E-mail: ameyer@leavenlaw.com


PACIFIC INVESTMENT: Sued Over Violation of Securities Laws
----------------------------------------------------------
William T. Hampton, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Pacific Investment Management Company LLC,
PIMCO Investments LLC, and PIMCO Total Return Fund, Case No. 8:15-
cv-00131 (C.D. Cal., January 28, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act and  Securities Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5,
specifically by misleading its investors in the PIMCO Total Return
Fund and investing in risky derivatives beyond the amounts allowed
under the funds' restrictions.

Pacific Investment Management Company LLC is a global investment
management firm headquartered at 650 Newport Center Drive, Newport
Beach, CA 92660.

PIMCO Investments LLC is the PIMCO Total Return Fund's distributor
located at 1633 Broadway, New York, New York 10019.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel A. Osborn, Esq.
      OSBORN LAW PC
      295 Madison Avenue 39th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 725-9800
      Facsimile: (212) 725-9808
      E-mail: dosborn@osbornlawpc.com


PACIFIC SEAFOOD: Fishermen Sue for Violating Antitrust Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Manning, writing for The Oregonian, reports that after a
two-year armistice, the legal warfare has resumed between Pacific
Seafood Group and a handful of Oregon commercial fishermen who
claim the large Clackamas company abuses its market power.

The fishermen sued Pacific Seafood on Jan. 22 claiming the company
violated terms of the 2012 settlement of an earlier class-action
anti-trust lawsuit.  The fishermen are seeking a temporary
restraining order to block Pacific Seafood's pending acquisition
of a Westport, Wash.-based fish processing company.

Pacific Seafood had agreed in the settlement to not renew a
marketing arrangement it had in place with Ocean Gold.  The
fishermen filed the new suit after they learned Pacific Seafood
was on the verge of closing a deal to buy a controlling stake in
the company, perhaps as early as Friday, Jan. 23, said Mike
Haglund, the Portland attorney representing the fishermen.

Though Ocean Gold owns a single processing plant, it is one of the
largest processors of whiting on the Northwest coast.  "This deal
would give (Pacific Seafood CEO) Frank Dulcich 90 percent control
of Ocean Gold," Mr. Haglund said.  "Under no circumstance should
he end up as the owner of Ocean Gold."

Pacific Seafood dismissed the lawsuit as a "frivolous retread" of
the earlier complaint.  "We expect this complaint will be
dismissed in short order," said Dan Occhipinti, the company's
general counsel.  "The same attorneys initiating this stunt are
standing in the way of new investments and new opportunity for the
community of Wesport.  More processing capacity in whiting, shrimp
and crab means more boats in the port, opportunities for fishermen
and good things for the community."

From a single seafood retail shop in Southeast Portland, Mr.
Dulcich has built the company into one of the largest, integrated
seafood companies in the country with sales approaching $1
billion.  Over the years, the company has purchased 18 seafood
processing plants in Northern California, Oregon and Washington.
It is the sole buyer of seafood in seven coastal cities and has
made substantial inroads into the Alaska market as well.

Pacific Seafood has also assembled its own fishing fleet.  It has
purchased 13 vessels active in the West Coast market as well as
seafood harvest permits.

The company now employs more than 2,500 people at 35 locations.

Since the settlement, Pacific Seafood has continued to grow.  It
bought 100 percent of a food processor in Ucluelet on the west
coast of Vancouver Island and completed work on a new processing
plant at the site in 2014.

Brookings fisherman Todd Whaley and his father Lloyd were the
first plaintiffs in the earlier lawsuit.  They claimed Pacific
used its immense market clout to suppress the price it paid for
groundfish, Dungeness crab, shrimp, and whiting, four of the
biggest markets for Oregon fishermen.

Mr. Haglund and his partner, Mike Kelley, have a history of
handling successful anti-trust lawsuits.  They initially sought
more than $500 million in damages and the forcible break-up of
Dulcich's company.

U.S. District Court Judge Owen Panner granted the fishermen's
complaint class-action status, a key legal victory.

Pacific Seafood fought back and enjoyed some big wins of its own.
It argued the company's rapid growth and deep pockets were
invaluable to the well-being of the commercial industry in the
Northwest.  The company has invested millions of dollars in
modernizing its plants and has the financial wherewithal to
survive the fishing industry's ups and downs, it points out.

The plaintiffs dropped Dungeness crab from its complaint after the
company showed its market share was insufficient for it to have
the muscle alleged by the plaintiffs.  They eventually dropped the
suit altogether after Pacific agreed to a series of conditions
intended to make for a more competitive market.

Among those conditions, Mr. Haglund said, were that Pacific cut
its ties with Ocean Gold.

The Whaleys are again listed as plaintiffs.  This time, they are
joined by three other Northwest counterparts, Jeff Boardman, a
Depoe Bay shrimp fisherman, Dennis Rankin of Astoria and Robert
Seitz.


PANDORA JEWELRY: Sued for Denying Equal Access to Paraplegic
------------------------------------------------------------
Luigi Girotto v. Pandora Jewelry LLC, a Maryland limited liability
company, d/b/a Pandora, and 412 WB, LLC, a New York limited
liability company, Case No. 1:15-cv-00749-NRB (S.D.N.Y., January
30, 2015) alleges that the Defendants have discriminated against
the Plaintiff, and others who are similarly situated, by denying
full and equal access to goods, services and accommodations at
their New York property, as prohibited by the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Mr. Girotto, a resident of the state of New York, is a paraplegic
and uses a wheelchair for mobility.

Pandora Jewelry LLC, a Maryland limited liability company doing
business as Pandora, and 412 WB, LLC, a New York limited liability
company, are authorized to conduct, and are conducting business
within the state of New York.  Pandora is the lessee and operator
of the property.  412 WB is the owner, lessor and operator of the
property.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben-Zion Bradley Weitz, Esq.
          Robert Jonas Mirel, Esq.
          THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          Bank of America Building
          18305 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 214
          Aventura, FL 33160
          Telephone: (305) 949-7777
          Facsimile: (305) 704-3877
          E-mail: bbw@weitzfirm.com
                  rjm@weitzfirm.com


PICHARDO 2230 RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Lopez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Pichardo 2230 Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Caridad
Restaurant, Lazaro Pichardo, and Ruben Pichardo, Case No. 1:15-cv-
00648 (S.D.N.Y., January 29, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in excess of 40 hours
per week.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 2230 Grand
Concourse, Bronx, NY 10457.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PIPE PROS: "Gonzales" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Johnny Gonzales, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Pipe Pros, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00065 (S.D.
Tex., January 29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Pipe Pros, LLC is Texas Energy Service Company focused on the
installation of casing and tubing for new oil and natural gas well
construction and the provision of tubing maintenance services for
producing oil and natural gas wells.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PLOY DEE: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Montiel Lopez, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Ploy Dee Inc. (d/b/a Wondee Siam V) and
Worrawallun Cormack, Case No. 1:15-cv-00647 (S.D.N.Y., January 29,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a Thai restaurant located at
969 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, New York 10025.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PLUMBERS AND PIPEFITTERS: Faces Class Action Over Pension Issues
----------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Gale, writing for The Western Star, reports that Alton
Benoit of Kippens can't understand why the union representing him
is holding out from paying retired workers money he feels is owed
to them.  He is heading up a group of 30 welders who have hired
lawyer Michael Cabot of St. John's to sue the Plumbers and
Pipefitters of Newfoundland union over pension issues.

Mr. Benoit retired in 2005, but kept on working when called to
jobs in this province, Alberta and British Columbia.  After paying
into a pension all his life, in order to do the same work as a
retiree he said he was required to pay into the Plumbers and
Pipefitters Union's health benefits and pension fund.  But for
retirees, he said, there are no benefits to be accrued from those
payments.

Mr. Benoit said the way the pension is set up, a worker can't draw
from it and pay into it at the same time.  He said recently their
union, the United Association of Journeyman and Apprentices of the
Plumbing and Pipefitting Association Local 740, sent out a Re-
Employed Pensioner Notice of Election, which gives retired members
two options.

The first option amounts to cutting off the pension, he said,
while the second is keeping the pension but not accruing any money
paid.  He doesn't know of any members who would want to have their
pensions cut off, and he said the second option amounts to exactly
what the current retirees are suing for.

Mr. Benoit said approximately $6 from every hour he worked went to
the fund and, when he was paid time-and-a-half, that rose to $9
and $12 for double time.

"Not one cent of that money was contributed by the union," he
said.  "It's all ours and I think we're entitled to it."

Mr. Benoit can't see why members of the union, which falls under
an umbrella national union, are being treated differently than in
the rest of Canada.  He said in other jurisdictions across the
country, 90 per cent of locals have settled out of court on this
same issue.  He said it amounts to a substantial amount of money
for retired members.

Collectively, retired members are owed in the millions, he said.
He would like to know where that money is going, a question he
said he has been unable to get an answer to so far.  While Mr.
Benoit is hoping the issue will be settled out of court like it
has in other jurisdictions, he said the retirees who have signed
on to this class-action suit are willing to see it though in court
if there's no settlement.

The lawsuit is expected to be certified in the coming weeks, but
no dates have been set for it to be heard in court.

Jim Myers, business manager with Local 740, said this is a legal
issue and something that the lawyers will be dealing with for a
resolution.


RMB INC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, New Jersey Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Smolucha, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. RMB, Inc., and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:15-cv-00673-
MAS-TJB (D.N.J., January 30, 2015) seeks relief from alleged
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS LAW LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 660-8169
          E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com


SEADRILL LIMITED: Grant Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
TheGrantLawFirm, PLLC on Jan. 21 disclosed that it has filed a
class action suit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Seadrill
Limited American Depository Receipts ("ADRs") during the period of
May 28, 2014 to November 25, 2014 (the "Class Period").

Bermuda-based Seadrill is the world's largest offshore drilling
contractor.  The complaint alleges that Seadrill and certain of
its senior executives violated federal securities laws by making
false and misleading statements about the strength of the
Company's business prospects, repeatedly misleading investors
regarding the sustainability of the Company's dividend. As a
result of defendants' Class Period statements, Seadrill ADRs
traded at artificially inflated prices, reaching a high of over
$38 per ADR by July 2014.  On November 26, 2014, as further
alleged, Seadrill disclosed that it was indefinitely suspending
its dividend, causing the price of its stock to plummet.

If you would like more information about this action and our
investigation, please contact plaintiffs' counsel, Lynda J. Grant
at 212-292-4441/lgrant@grantfirm.com or Jorge Amador at 212-292-
4449/jamador@grantfirm.com

Lynda J. Grant has been representing wronged investors for over 30
years, and was recently selected as a New York Metro Superlawyer.
Jorge Amador is a forensics accounting expert, and class action
attorney.


SEAWORLD PARKS: Seeks Dismissal of Auto Renew Ticket Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Chiem, writing for Law360, reports that SeaWorld Parks &
Entertainment Inc. on Jan. 20 asked a Florida federal judge to
toss a putative class action alleging it wrongfully renewed and
automatically charged customers for annual passes to its parks
without their permission, saying the plaintiff's single breach of
contract claim is "nonsensical."

SeaWorld pressed for a dismissal of plaintiff Jason Herman's suit
alleging that the theme park giant breached its EZpay Plan
contract by automatically renewing and charging customers for
annual passes to its parks for the upcoming year, before the
current 12-month period was even up and without getting
authorization from the customers.

In a motion to dismiss, SeaWorld argues that its practices were
fully in line with the contract terms and that Mr. Herman's
"nonsensical" interpretation of the contract only zeroes in on a
single clause in the EZpay Plan contract that Mr. Herman claims
barred SeaWorld from continuing to charge him for his annual
passes on a month-to-month basis after his 12-month contractual
commitment had been met.

The clause specifically states, "Except for any passes paid in
less than 12 months, this contract will renew automatically on a
month-to-month basis following the payment period until I
terminate it.  I hereby authorize [SeaWorld] to charge my credit
card . . . for future payments."

"Reading the contract as a whole, there can be no question that
SeaWorld's conduct was authorized by, and not in breach of, the
contract," SeaWorld said.  "The plain language of the contract
simply does not permit plaintiff's strained reading to the
contrary."

Mr. Herman had bought two adult passes good for one year's worth
of unlimited admission to Busch Gardens Tampa and SeaWorld Orlando
on March 18, 2013.  But he opted to pay for the passes through
SeaWorld's EZpay Plan instead of paying for them in full upfront,
according to court documents.

Pursuant to the terms of the contract, SeaWorld charged Herman the
initial payment of $35.40 on March 18, 2013, and then charged 11
additional payments of $35.40 on the 18th of each month from April
2013 until February 2014, for a total of 12 monthly payments,
according to SeaWorld's motion to dismiss.

Following the 12th monthly payment in February 2014, Mr. Herman's
contract renewed automatically on a month-to-month basis pursuant
to its terms and he continued to make the monthly payments up
until September to keep his annual pass valid and he never
canceled his EZpay Plan, SeaWorld said in its motion to dismiss.

"Plaintiff alleges that, although he selected the EZpay Plan
requiring 12 monthly payments to purchase his annual passes, and
in fact paid for the annual passes by making 12 monthly payments,
he was not covered by the month-to-month automatic renewal
provision that applies to all passes 'except for any . . . paid in
less than 12 months,'" SeaWorld said.  "Reading the contract as a
whole, this is nonsensical."

In his December complaint, Mr. Herman alleged that the contract
language wasn't on his purchase receipt, the emailed tickets or
the physical pass, according to the complaint.

Mr. Herman's attorney Paul R. Fowkes of Disparti Law Group PA said
Jan. 21 that he will be filing a response to SeaWorld's motion and
declined to comment further.

Mr. Herman is represented by Paul R. Fowkes and Ryan C. Hasanbasic
of Disparti Law Group PA.

SeaWorld is represented by Colin C. Deihl --
colin.deihl@FaegreBD.com -- and Ann E. Prouty of Faegre Baker
Daniels LLP and by Christopher T. Hill -- chill@hrkmlaw.com -- of
Hill Rugh Keller & Main.

The case is Herman v. SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment Inc, case
number 8:14-cv-03028, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida.


SEVEN FOR ALL: New York Suit Seeks Relief Under Disabilities Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Luigi Girotto v. Seven For All Mandkind, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, d/b/a 7 For All Mankind, and Scan Enterprises
Corp., a New York corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-00740-JPO
(S.D.N.Y., January 30, 2015) is an action for declaratory and
injunctive relief pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Mr. Girotto, a resident of the state of New York, is a paraplegic
and uses a wheelchair for mobility.

Seven For All Mandkind, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
doing business as 7 For All Mankind, and Scan Enterprises Corp., a
New York corporation, are authorized to conduct, and are
conducting business within the state of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben-Zion Bradley Weitz, Esq.
          Robert Jonas Mirel, Esq.
          THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          Bank of America Building
          18305 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 214
          Aventura, FL 33160
          Telephone: (305) 949-7777
          Facsimile: (305) 704-3877
          E-mail: bbw@weitzfirm.com
                  rjm@weitzfirm.com


SINGING RIVER: Court Wants Bids for Lead Counsel Appointment
------------------------------------------------------------
Anita Lee, writing for Sun Herald, reports that a lead counsel is
needed in order to determine if current and former Singing River
Health System employees will be granted class-action status to sue
over the health system's failed pension.

Two groups of attorneys have each filed federal lawsuits seeking
class-action status, but in a conference call on Jan. 21 they were
unable to agree on who lead counsel would be.

Magistrate Judge Robert Walker, who presided over the conference
call, told each set of attorneys to file motions in their
respective cases that address consolidation of the two cases
and/or appointment of lead counsel, an entry filed in the cases
says.


SONY CORP: Settles PSN-SOE Hacking Class Suit; May 1 Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Worthplaying.com reports that a settlement has been reached with
the Sony Entities about the illegal and unauthorized attacks in
April 2011 on PSN, Qriocity, and SOE services.  The Sony Entities
deny any claims of wrongdoing in this case, and the settlement
does not mean that the Sony Entities violated any laws or did
anything wrong.

The Class includes everyone in the US (including its territories)
who had a PSN account, a Qriocity account, or an SOE account at
any time before May 15, 2011.

There are various benefits, depending in part on what type of
account(s) you had.  Benefits you could get (if you qualify)
include:

Payment equal to paid wallet balances (if $2 or more) in PSN or
SOE accounts that have been inactive since the Intrusions,

One or more of the following: a free PS3 or PSP game, 3 free PS3
themes, or a free 3-month subscription to PlayStation Plus (once
valid claims exceed $10 million, class members will still be
eligible for one free month of PlayStation Plus),

A free month of Music Unlimited for Qriocity accountholders who
did not have a PSN account,

$4.50 in SOE Station Cash (amounts will be reduced proportionally
if valid claims exceed $4 million).

If you had out-of-pocket charges due to actual identity theft, and
have documentation proving that the theft was caused by the
Intrusion(s), you can submit a claim for reimbursement up to
$2,500.  Reimbursements will be reduced proportionally if the
total amount payable on all valid claims would exceed $1 million.

To get benefits, you must file a claim form.  You can also request
claim forms from the Claims Administrator by writing to PSN-SOE
Settlement, PO Box 1947, Faribault, MN 55021 or by calling 1-877-5
52-1284.  The earliest deadline to file a claim is August 31,
2015, or 60 days after the settlement becomes final and effective.
Visit the website for more details on submitting a claim online or
by mail.

Even if you do nothing, you will be bound by the Court's
decisions.  If you want to keep your right to sue the Sony
Entities yourself, you must exclude yourself from the Settlement
Class by April 10, 2015.  If you stay in the Settlement Class, you
may object to the settlement by April 10, 2015.

The Court will hold a hearing in this case on May 1, 2015, to
consider whether to approve the settlement, and a request by Class
Counsel for fees, costs, and expenses up to $2,750,000.  You or
your own lawyer may appear and speak at the hearing at your own
expense.


SPICE MILL: Recalls Cajun Seasoning Products Due to Peanuts
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Spice Mill of Manchester, CT is voluntarily recalling ground
cumin and Cajun Seasoning products because they may contain
undeclared peanut proteins. People who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to peanuts run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume these products.

The product is sold at local markets in CT and through The Spice
Mill's website and retail store in Manchester, CT.

This recall affects the following products:

   Consume     Size       Description    Best By Date    Lot #
   UPC #      (Net wt.)   -----------    ------------    -----
   -------    ---------
811267012008   2.75 oz.   Ground Cumin    11/16, 12/16,  55996
                                          1/17
811267011735   4 oz.      Cajun Seasoning 12/16, 1/17    1432421

These products we packaged in November, December and January and
are packaged in plastic bottles with a black flip-top lid. The Lot
number is printed directly on the bottle in black ink.
No illnesses have been reported to date. This recall was initiated
after it was discovered that ingredients from a single supplier
used in the affected products were contaminated with peanut
proteins. This allergen was not declared on the products'
ingredient statement.

Consumers who have purchased the recalled products are urged to
return them to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers
with questions may contact The Spice Mill at 860-645-3853 from 9am
to 5pm EST Monday-Friday, or email at info@espicemill.com for
additional information.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm432763.htm


SUPER TAXI: Faces "Diossa" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
John E. Diossa v. Super Taxi Corp., Time Corp., Champion Car
Services, Corp., Planet Corp., and Jose Miguel Rodriguez,
Individually, Case No. 2:15-cv-00614 (D.N.J., January 29, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a taxi /car service business and is
headquartered in West New York, Hudson County, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP PA
      Lawrence Office Park
      Building 2, Suite 220
      168 Franklin Corner Road
      Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
      Telephone: (201) 687-9977
      Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
      E-mail: aglenn@jaffeglenn.com


TRAVEL OPTIONS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Eikov" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Benjamin Eikov, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Travel Options, Inc., Case No. 0:15-cv-60177
(S.D. Fla., January 29, 2015), seeks to stop Defendant's practice
of making unsolicited phone calls to the telephones of consumers
nationwide.

Travel Options, Inc. is a Florida corporation that sells discounts
vacation packages to consumers nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stefan Louis Coleman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, PLLC
      201 S Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor
      Miami, Fl 33131
      Telephone: (877) 333-9427
      Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
      E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com


UNITED AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Over "Low Fare" Guarantee
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lipkin, writing for Law360, reports that United Airlines
Inc. was hit with a putative class action in Texas federal court
on Jan. 21, alleging it routinely violates its website's "low fare
guarantee" when passengers buy multiple tickets on a flight at the
same time, often charging more than if the tickets were purchased
separately.

Plaintiff Scott Coulier alleged that if a customer is trying to
buy several tickets at once, but only a few seat are available at
a relatively low price, United.com will offer all the tickets at a
higher price instead of letting users buy the outstanding cheaper
tickets and as many higher priced tickets as they need.

United doesn't disclose that its system only sells multiple
tickets if they have the same price, or that it deletes the lower
priced tickets it skips overs, according to the complaint.  The
deletion is key, Mr. Coulier claimed, because United's guarantee
will only refund customers if the airline's employees can find the
lower priced fares after the transaction.

"The result of this systematic policy is the lower fare class
tickets which actually exist at the time of purchase are not
disclosed to the consumer and are systematically bypassed at the
point of purchase in favor of higher fare class ticket,"
Mr. Coulier said.

United's guarantee says that if customers can find lower fares for
the same flight, itinerary and cabin after they buy a ticket
through United.com, the company will refund the difference and
hand out a $100 credit if the difference is $10 or more.  But the
terms do not properly define "itinerary" and are impossible to
satisfy because United does not allow customers to use screenshots
taken before their purchase to prove there were less expensive
options, according to the complaint.

"United Airlines broke its promise and charged a lot families more
money for flights than competitors charged," Caleb Marker of
Ridout Lyton + Ottoson LLP, representing Mr. Coulier, said in a
statement.  "United failed to sell the lowest fares despite their
guaranty to the contrary."

United told Law360 it believed the suit was meritless.

Mr. Coulier claimed he bought three tickets from Peoria, Illinois,
to Orlando Florida, for his family for $182 per seat, but believes
he could have paid less if he bought the tickets individually.  He
alleged United's policies artificially restrict low class fares
when bought together.

"Defendant engages in this deceptive and unfair practice as a way
to profiteer from unsuspecting consumers, such that plaintiff and
the putative class paid more than the lowest available price for
the same tickets," Mr. Coulier said.  "Such conduct is a bait-and-
switch sales practice."

Mr. Coulier is represented by Jeffrey S. Edwards, Scott Medlock
and Sean Flammer of The Edwards Law Firm, Christopher P. Ridout
and Caleb Marker of Ridout Lyton + Ottoson LLP and Hart L.
Robinovitch -- hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com -- of Zimmerman Reed
PLLP.

The case is Scott Coulier v. United Airlines Inc., case number
4:15-cv-00190, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas.


UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA: Faces 2nd Class Action Over Fake Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Kane, writing for News & Observer, reports that attorneys for
two former UNC-Chapel Hill athletes filed a class-action lawsuit
against the university and the NCAA on Jan. 22 with the goal of
ensuring athletes at all major college sports programs receive the
education they are promised in exchange for playing sports.

The lawsuit is the second class-action case against UNC involving
the scheme that for 18 years helped keep athletes eligible before
it was exposed in 2011.  But the attorneys in this case say they
have set their sights wider, on big-money college sports programs
and the institution that monitors them.

"This suit not only focuses on the specific fraud at UNC, but says
that fraud was nothing more than an integral, foreseeable part of
the entire enterprise of big-time contemporary college athletics,
in which academics is truly the stepchild to athletics, and the
meaningful education that the NCAA promises and commits to is
nothing more than an illusion," said Michael Hausfeld, a
Washington, D.C., lawyer.

The suit calls for monetary damages for athletes harmed by the
fake classes, and for the creation of an independent commission to
"review, audit, assess, and report on academic integrity in NCAA-
member athletic programs and certify (the colleges provide)
comparable educations and educational opportunities to athletes
and non-athletes alike."

The suit identifies former women's basketball player Rashanda
McCants and former football player Devon Ramsay as directly harmed
by the fake classes.  Ms. McCants was enrolled in two fake
classes, while Ramsay took one.

Ms. McCants is the younger sister of Rashad McCants, a starter on
the 2005 UNC men's basketball team that won the national
championship.  He appeared on ESPN last year to disclose that the
fake classes made up a high percentage of his classes at UNC.

Mr. Ramsay was wrongly kicked off the football team in 2010 over
improper help from a former tutor.  His attorney, Robert Orr,
convinced the NCAA that Ramsay had done nothing wrong.  Mr. Ramsay
returned to the team but then suffered a career-ending knee
injury.  Mr. Orr, a former state Supreme Court justice, is co-
counsel for the athletes.

A class-action suit must be certified by a judge to allow multiple
defendants to sue at the same time.  UNC and NCAA officials said
they could not comment on the suit because they had not seen it.

Pursuing other schools

Hausfeld represented former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon and
other athletes in an antitrust case against the NCAA, is
representing former UNC athletes in the new lawsuit, which was
filed in state Superior Court in Durham.  Last summer, the federal
judge who heard the O'Bannon case found that athletes should
receive some money for the use of their names, images and
likenesses. The NCAA has appealed that decision.

The 100-page lawsuit filed on Jan. 22 cites numerous academic
fraud cases involving athletes at colleges across the country,
including independent study controversies at Auburn University and
the University of Michigan that drew little NCAA action.  The
lawyers contend colleges are so focused on winning and bringing in
more money that athletes have little time for school, creating a
motive for academic fraud.

The suit is the second filed after former federal prosecutor
Kenneth Wainstein released a report in October finding that
athletes were steered to the classes for at least 18 years.  The
first was filed in federal court by Michael McAdoo, a former
football player who had been kicked off the team in 2010 after the
NCAA found he had received improper help from a former tutor. His
lawsuit is open to UNC football players who had received athletic
scholarships.

Mr. Wainstein found that roughly 3,100 students took at least one
fake class from 1993 to 2011.  About half of those students were
athletes, with the revenue-generating football and men's
basketball teams having sizable representations in the classes.
The report said pressure from the Academic Support Program for
Student-Athletes led Deborah Crowder to create the fake classes.

Several academic support employees knew the classes had no
instruction.  They and others in the program told Mr. Wainstein
that they viewed their jobs as keeping athletes eligible to play
sports.  The NCAA is re-investigating the case and the Southern
Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Accreditation
has started a second investigation.

The UNC scandal has caused numerous schools around the country to
examine the educations their athletes are receiving, including the
top two ranked schools in the Associated Press men's college
basketball poll -- the University of Kentucky and the University
of Virginia.

Academic fraud investigations by the NCAA also appear to be on the
rise.  NCAA officials told The Chronicle of Higher Education in a
report that they have opened academic fraud investigations at 20
college campuses.  They did not identify the schools.


VAN'S INT'L: Faces Class Suit Alleging Deceptive Trade Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Frei, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Van's International Foods, a California Corporation,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00209-KLM (D. Colo., January 30, 2015) is brought
over alleged deceptive trade practices.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven Lezell Woodrow, Esq.
          WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
          3900 East Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80210
          Telephone: (720) 213-0675
          Facsimile: (303) 927-0898
          E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com


VFG USA: Accused of Denying Equal Access to Goods and Services
--------------------------------------------------------------
Luigi Girotto v. V.F.G. USA, Inc., a New York corporation, d/b/a
M-Missoni, and SF Acquisition II LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Case No. 1:15-cv-00751-PAE (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 30, 2015)
alleges that the Defendants have discriminated against the
Plaintiff, and others who are similarly situated, by denying full
and equal access to goods, services and accommodations at the
Defendants' property.

Mr. Girotto, a resident of the state of New York, is a paraplegic
and uses a wheelchair for mobility.

V.F.G. USA, INC., a New York corporation, doing business as M-
Missoni, and SF Acquisition II LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, are authorized to conduct, and are conducting business
within the state of New York.  V.F.G. USA, INC., is the lessee and
operator of the real property where the facility commonly referred
to as M-Missoni is located.  SF is the owner, lessor and operator
of the Property.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben-Zion Bradley Weitz, Esq.
          Robert Jonas Mirel, Esq.
          THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          Bank of America Building
          18305 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 214
          Aventura, FL 33160
          Telephone: (305) 949-7777
          Facsimile: (305) 704-3877
          E-mail: bbw@weitzfirm.com
                  rjm@weitzfirm.com


VIACOM: Judge Tosses Children's Privacy Rights Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Zambito, writing for NJ.com, reports that a federal judge
has tossed out a lawsuit accusing Viacom and Google of violating
children's privacy rights by tracking their Internet activity
after they went on Nickelodeon's website.

At issue was Viacom's habit of collecting information like gender
and birthdays from the profiles of children who went on its
Nick.com to stream videos and play video games, the decision said.

The information, along with more detailed data, was passed on to
Google so the company could target its advertising, according to
the decision.

In a ruling issued on Jan. 20, U.S. District Court Judge Stanley
Chesler, sympathized with parents who filed lawsuits in several
states on behalf of children under the age of 13.

"It is, of course, apparent to the Court that children do indeed
warrant special attention and heightened protections under our
laws and social norms," Judge Chesler wrote.  "To be sure,
however, the Court's role in this decision is not to pass on the
morality nor the wisdom of companies tracking the anonymous web
activities of children for advertising purposes. The Court does
not, by way of its opinion, find defendants' conduct beneficial."

But, Judge Chesler noted, the class-action lawsuit failed to
overcome the legal hurdles necessary to sustain a privacy
violation challenge.

"Although plaintiffs have identified conduct that may be worthy of
further legislative and executive attention, they have not cited
any existing and applicable legal authority to support their
claims," he wrote.

In July, Judge Chesler dismissed most of the plaintiff's claims
but allowed their lawyers a chance to amend their complaint. The
January 20 ruling dismissed all pending claims in a case that was
filed in 2012.

Lawyers for several of the plaintiffs could not immediately be
reached for comment.

In addition to keeping a record of gender and birthdays, Viacom
sent Google information stored in text files or "cookies" gleaned
from users who went on its Nick.com website, the ruling said.

The cookies allowed Google to track the user's Internet usage,
which both companies used to target advertising.

In its defense Viacom said it did not disclose any "personally
identifiable information" about users since it attaches a code
name, not the actual name, to information it forwards, Judge
Chesler noted.

The plaintiffs claimed, however, that Google could get at the
actual identities of users when they registered for another Google
service, he noted.

Google does not, however, allow children under the age of 13 to
register for its services, the judge noted.

"At bottom, (the amended complaint) simply includes no allegation
that Google can identify the individual plaintiffs in this case,
as opposed to identifying people generally, nor any allegation
that Google has actually done so here," Judge Chesler wrote.


VICTORY YACHT: "Zelaya" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Saul Zelaya, and other similarly situated individuals v. Victory
Yacht Painting Services, Inc., a Florida profit corporation and
Pedro Leyva, Case No. 1:15-cv-20301 (S.D. Fla., January 28, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Victory Yacht Painting Services, Inc. is a Florida Profit
Corporation that is engaged in interstate commerce having its main
place of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Raw Macadamia Nuts Due to Salmonella
---------------------------------------------------------
Whole Foods Market is recalling packaged raw macadamia nuts due to
possible Salmonella contamination. Salmonella is an organism which
can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young
children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune
systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience
fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and
abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella
can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and
producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e.,
infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

The product was labeled as "Whole Foods Market Raw Macadamia Nuts"
and was packaged in 5.6 oz. plastic tubs. The recalled products
have sell-by dates of 4/22/15, 5/4/15 and 5/6/15 and a UPC code of
7-23055-21415-3. The recalled product was distributed to Whole
Foods Market, Greenlife Grocery, and Harry's Farmers Market stores
in AL, GA, MS, NC, SC and TN.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

Based upon routine testing conducted by an FDA-contracted
laboratory, it was determined that the raw macadamia nuts products
tested positive for Salmonella.

Customers who have purchased this product at Whole Foods Market,
Greenlife Grocery or Harry's Farmers Market stores in the affected
states should discard it and may bring in their receipt for a full
refund.

Consumers with questions may contact Whole Foods Market Customer
Service, 512-477-5566 ext. 20060 Monday to Friday 9:00am to 5:00pm
CDT.

Picture of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm432872.htm


XOOM ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Bait-and-Switch Tactic
-----------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a class action lawsuit filed against
an energy provider on Jan. 16 alleges the company used a "bait and
switch" tactic when getting customers to sign up.

Oladipupo Adesina and Michael Todd filed the lawsuit against XOOM
Energy.  They said the company advertised it would cut customers'
energy bills if they signed up, but after signing up, the company
raised its rates.

Mr. Adesina, a resident of Laurel, Md., switched to XOOM Energy
from Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGE) in June.  He alleged the
rates were reasonable for the first two months of service.
However over the following three months, his bills were more than
35 percent higher than what BGE would have cost him, he says.

Mr. Todd, a resident of West Orange, N.J., switched to XOOM in May
2013.  He alleged the costs increased each month, and his energy
bill was 86 percent higher in January 2014 and 128 percent higher
in February than what his original energy supplier Public Service
Electric & Gas would have charged him over the same period.

The lawsuit seeks class status for all XOOM customers and more
than $5 million in damages.

Messrs. Adesina and Todd are represented by Beatrice Yakubu,
Charles J. LaDuca and Taylor Asen of Cuneo Gilber & LaDuca, LLP;
Richard D. Greenfield of Greenfield & Goodman, LLC; and Gary E.
Mason -- gmason@wbmllp.com -- of Whitfield Bryson & Mason, LLP.

United States District Court for the District of Maryland case
number 8:15-cv-00154.


* Ascertainability Curtails "All Natural" Consumer Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vivian M. Quinn and Anthony J. Galdieri of LJN's Product Liability
Law & Strategy, in an article for Corporate Counsel, report that
the filing of a consumer class action is a significant event in
the life cycle of a consumer product.  The widespread publicity
such a lawsuit draws often has an immediate adverse impact on the
product, its brand, and its manufacturer.  Taking control of these
class actions early, containing them through appropriate corporate
messaging, and ending them quickly at the class certification
stage is therefore imperative, particularly in the food and
beverage industry, where maintaining consumer trust and confidence
is of the utmost importance.

In recent years, numerous consumer class actions have challenged
the labeling of food and beverage products as "All Natural," "100%
Natural" or some variant. The phrase "All Natural" has never been
defined by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and judicial
requests to the FDA for guidance on what the term means have been
largely ignored.  Courts themselves have struggled to define the
label. But this quest may be largely academic in light of the
recent trend to deny certification in consumer class actions on
ascertainability grounds.

Ascertainability is an essential prerequisite to maintaining a
Rule 23 class action. See, e.g., Marcus v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 687
F.3d 583, 592-94 (3d Cir. 2012); Little v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 691
F.3d 1302 (11th Cir. 2012); John v. Nat'l Sec. Fire & Cas. Co.,
501 F.3d 443, 445 (5th Cir. 2007); In re Initial Pub. Offerings
Sec. Litig. , 471 F.3d 24, 30 (2d Cir. 2006); Crosby v. Social
Sec. Admin.of the U.S., 796 F.2d 576, 580 (1st Cir. 1986). It
means that the proposed class must be "currently and readily
ascertainable based on objective criteria." Marcus, 687 F.3d at
593.  It requires that the plaintiff demonstrate at the class
certification stage that some reliable, administratively feasible
way of identifying class members exists. Carrera v. Bayer Corp.,
727 F.3d 300, 307-08 (3d Cir. 2013).  The process proposed must be
"manageable" and must "not require much, if any, individual fact
inquiry." Id.  In other words "[i]f class members are impossible
to identify without extensive and individualized fact-finding or
'mini-trials,' then a class action is inappropriate." Id. at 305;
see Marcus, 687 F.3d at 593.

Ascertainability serves several important objectives: 1) "it
eliminates serious administrative burdens that are incongruous
with the efficiencies expected in a class action"; 2) "it protects
absent class members by facilitating the best notice practicable
under Rule 23(c)(1) in a Rule 23(b)(3) action"; and 3) "it
protects defendants by ensuring that those persons who will be
bound by the judgment are clearly identifiable." Id. at 305-06
(quoting Marcus, 687 F.3d at 593).  Ascertainability also
"provides due process by requiring that a defendant be able to
test the reliability of the evidence submitted to prove class
membership." Id at 307.

Consumer class actions "fall on a continuum of ascertainability
dependent upon the facts of the particular case or product." In re
POM Wonderful, LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40415, at *22-23 (C.D.
Cal. March 25, 2014).  "While no single factor is dispositive,
relevant considerations include the price of the product, the
range of potential or intended uses of the product, and the
availability of public records." Id. at *23.  "In situations where
purported class members purchase an inexpensive product for a
variety of reasons, and are unlikely to retain receipts or other
transaction records, class actions may present such daunting
administrative challenges that class treatment is not feasible."
Id.

Indeed, countless consumer class actions predicated on the
labeling or advertising of low-cost, consumable products have
failed precisely for these reasons. See, e.g., In re Clorox
Consumer Litig., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104183, at *12-14 (no
reliable, administratively feasible way to determine when
customers purchased Fresh Step cat litter and how much they
purchased); Stewart v. Beam Global Spirits & Wine, Inc., 2014 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 87487, at *45-46 (D.N.J. June 26, 2014) (no reliable,
administratively feasible way to determine who purchased
Skinnygirl Margarita within the relevant timeframe); Bruton v.
Gerber Prods. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86581, at *24-25 (N.D.
Cal. June 23, 2014) (no reliable, administratively feasible way to
determine who purchased various different types of baby food
during the class period); Weiner v. Snapple Beverage Corporation,
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79647 at *41-42(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2010) (no
reliable, administratively feasible way to determine who purchased
Snapple iced tea drinks labeled "All Natural").

In many cases, plaintiffs propose ascertaining class members
through individual consumer affidavits.  While some courts have
permitted this method at the certification stage, see Werdebaugh
v. Blue Diamond Growers, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71575 (N.D. Cal.
May 23, 2014); Ries v. Arizona Beverages USA LLC, 287 F.R.D. 523,
535 (N.D. Cal. 2012), the vast majority of courts have rejected it
because it is inherently unreliable, invites fraud and inaccuracy,
and deprives defendants of their due process right to challenge
the qualifications of individual class members. See, e.g.,
Carrera, 727 F.3d at 309 (holding that use of affidavits to
determine class membership is unaceptable because "it does not
address a core concern of ascertainability: that a defendant must
be able to challenge class membership"); Karhu v. Vital Pharms.,
Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26756, at *9 (S.D. Fla. March 3, 2014)
(use of affidavits to determine class membership would violate the
defendant's due process rights, invite fraud and inaccuracy, and
"could dilute the recovery of genuine class members"); Xavier v.
Philip Morris USA Inc., 787 F. Supp. 2d 1075, 1090-91 (N.D. Cal.
2011) (declining to permit affidavits to ascertain class members
because it invites fraud and inaccurate claims).

These newly refined, broadly accepted principles of
ascertainability strongly suggest that "All Natural" consumer
class action litigation will face an uphill battle at the class
certification stage.  "All Natural" consumer class actions often
involve low-cost, consumable products for which consumers do not
typically keep receipts.  The defendants in these cases typically
do not sell the product directly to consumers and thus possess no
records of who purchased the product.  Retailers who sell the
product may be able to identify some consumers through their
records, but typically cannot identify all of them.

Two Recent Examples

Two recent federal district court cases illustrate these points.
In Stewart v. Beam Global Spirits & Wine, Inc., supra, the
defendant sold a "low-calorie, pre-mixed alcoholic beverage
product known as 'Skinnygirl Margarita'" that it marketed as "all
natural" and a "healthy alternative to other commercial Margarita
products." 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87487, at *2.  The plaintiffs
filed a class action lawsuit asserting that these representations
were misleading and moved for class certification, arguing in
their reply brief that their proposed class could be ascertained
using affidavits. Id. at *18-19.  The court denied the motion on
ascertainability grounds finding that there was no "independently
verifiable proof of purchase through receipts, retail records, or
otherwise . . ." Id. at *23.

In In re Clorox Consumer Litigation, the federal district court
reached a similar conclusion. 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104183.
Defendant marketed its Fresh Step cat litter as "more effective at
eliminating cat odors" than other products. Id. at *6.  Plaintiffs
filed a class action lawsuit asserting that this representation
was misleading and moved to certify five subclasses. Id.  The
court denied certification in part on ascertainability grounds,
stating: "The problem plaintiffs face is figuring out exactly who
purchased Fresh Step during the class period." Id. at *10. None of
the named plaintiffs kept receipts, nor did they necessarily
"remember when they bought cat litter, or which sizes, types, or
even brands of cat litter they purchased." Id.  Additionally, one
of the plaintiffs could not remember whether she purchased the cat
litter during the class period. Id .  The court remarked, "That is
precisely why affidavits from consumers are insufficient to
identify the class." Id. at *11.

Nonetheless, the plaintiffs proposed ascertaining the consumer
class through records "from the retailers who sell Fresh Step."
Id. at *11. To support their proposal, "plaintiffs contacted
sixteen Fresh Step retailers, which accounted for about 85 percent
of Fresh Step sales nationwide." Id.  Some of these retailers
failed to respond or provide information. Id.  Other retailers
could provide information through credit card purchases or the use
of store loyalty cards, but those identifiable purchases did not
represent all of the Fresh Step purchases made. Id. at *11-13. The
court concluded that "[p]laintiffs' evidence demonstrates quite
clearly that there is no administratively feasible method for
ascertaining the plaintiff classes." Id. at *13.

Though the issue was not raised in In re Clorox Consumer
Litigation, relying solely on retail credit card or store loyalty
card records to determine class membership is likely unreliable
for several reasons.  First, these records do not capture
individual monetary transactions, which are highly prevalent in
commercial transactions for low-cost, consumable goods.  Second,
store loyalty cards usually entitle the holder to a discount or
permit the holder to acquire points that can be applied to
discount future purchases.  Simply because a store loyalty card
has been swiped and a discount has been applied during a
particular transaction does not necessarily mean that the consumer
ultimately purchased the product or did not return the product at
a later date.  The same concern with regard to returning purchases
applies equally to individual consumer credit card data. Thus, how
a retailer stores customer purchase data and what that data
actually reveals about a particular transaction is important for
defense attorneys to know and understand so they can effectively
oppose class certification.

In re Clorox Consumer Litigation and Stewart illustrate how
defendants can use the ascertainability requirement to dismantle
consumer class actions at the certification stage . They also
dispel the fundamental misconception that ascertainability
requires plaintiffs to prove the identity of all class members at
the class certification stage. See Ries , 287 F.R.D. at 535. It
does not.  What the ascertainability requirement demands is
actually much less; it simply requires plaintiffs to show that a
reliable, administratively feasible way of identifying class
members actually exists.  Plaintiffs can do this in a number of
ways, by, for example, pointing to a database in the defendant's
possession that contains electronic records of all consumer
purchases, or by pointing to a contract or warranty issued in
connection with the product that consumers are likely to have
retained.  But class plaintiffs cannot rely solely on the "say-so"
of individuals to establish class membership without converting
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 into a tool to eviscerate the
due process rights of defendants. See Carrera, 727 F.3d at 306.

Conclusion

Although ascertainability has long been a prerequisite to class
certification, it has only recently emerged as tool to curtail
unwieldy consumer class actions.  Cases like Stewart and In re
Clorox Consumer Litigation illustrate precisely why "All Natural"
consumer class action litigation should almost always fail at the
class certification stage on ascertainability grounds.  Absent
some preliminary showing that a reliable, administratively
feasible way to identify class members exists, defendants simply
should not be forced into a costly pretrial discovery process
where the risks in terms of reputational and monetary harm in
going to trial are so great as to effectively force defendants to
settle regardless of the validity of claims against them.


                             *********

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  * * *