CAR_Public/150211.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, February 11, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 30


                             Headlines

466 AMAZECORP: "Shen" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
AAA SALES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA
AARON'S INC: Couple Urges 3rd Cir. to Let Them Represent Class
ADVANCED TECH-CABLE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
AIRPORT CONCESSIONS: Atty. Fees Motion in O'Brien Suit Ruled On

ALIBABA GROUP: Faces "Khunt" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
ALIBABA GROUP: Faces "Klein" Suit Over Securities Law Violations
AMERICAN PROFIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
AMSPEC LLC: Class Suit Seeks to Recover Compensation and Damages
ARUBA NETWORKS: Judge Quashes Securities Fraud Claims

ASTRAZENECA AB: 1st Circuit Upheld Class Status for Nexium Suit
AVALON COMMUNITIES: Suit Seeks Reimbursement for Property Damages
AVILA SOUTH: Sued Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages Under FLSA
AZ CHILD SAFETY DEP'T: Faces Suit by Kids in Foster Care Custody
B-B OIL: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Okay

BIRMINGHAM, AL: Police Chief Defends Use of Pepper Spray
BOSTON ROAD AUTO: Used Car Customer Wins Judgment on TILA Claim
BP PLC: Atty. Criticizes Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Settlement
BRIGHT STAR: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Ramirez" Suit Says
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: "Danner" Class Action May Proceed

CALIFORNIA: Judge Recommends Dismissal of "Butler" Petition
CATERPILLAR INC: Ex-Employees Reinstated in Insurance Plan
CENTRAL GARDEN: Falsely Marketed Food Products, Action Claims
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE: Accused of Sex Discrimination in W.D. Texas
CGG LAND: "Sharp" Claim Wins Conditional Certification

CHYRONHEGO CORPORATION: Sued in N.Y. Over Illegal Company Sale
CKL T TRADING: "Rojas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
CLEANNET USA: "Sanchez" Plaintiffs Ordered to Arbitration
COURTESY CAR: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
COVELLI ENTERPRISES: Faces "Mielo" Suit Over Violation of ADA

CVA INC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Class Suit Claims
D.R. HORTON: Rancho De Paz Homeowners' Class Allegations Tossed
DRESSMAN BENZINGER: Class Deal in "Lavelle" Suit Gets Final OK
DRUG-FREE WORKFORCE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Suit Claims
ELIASEN ENVIRONMENTAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

FINANCIAL RECOVERIES: Faces Class Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations
FLEXXRAY LLC: Faces "Viveros" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
FLINT, MI: Water Treatment Issues May Spur Class Action
GEM PAVER: Refuses to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Suit Claims
GLOBAL STRUCTURES: Faces "Kernes" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

GOLD RESOURCE: 10th Cir. Affirms Securities Class Action Dismissal
GOVSIMPLIFIED LLC: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Practices
HARVARD DRUG: Offer of Judgment Doesn't Moot Case, 11th Cir. Says
HOME DEPOT: Alcoa Community Suit Included in Security Breach MDL
HOME LOAN SERVICING: Sued in SDNY Over Misleading Fin'l Reports

HORIZON HEALTHCARE: Faces "Luparello" Class Suit in New Jersey
IMAGEONE INDUSTRIES: Faces "Bolstridge" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
INOVASI RESTAURANTS: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Suit Claims
INVENSENSE INC: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action
JP MORGAN: Attempts to Abusively Collect a Debt, Class Claims

KARYN'S FRESH: Violates FLSA and IMWL, "Henriquez" Suit Claims
KPMG LLP: 1,000+ Female Employees Join Pay Discrimination Suit
LA FOGATA: Removes "Somarriba" Suit to Florida District Court
LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action
LIFELOCK INC: Faces "Ebarle" Action Over Deceptive Advertising

LHR INC: Sued in N.J. for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
LS IMPORT: Recalls Push Toys Due to Chocking Hazard
M&G POLYMERS: S.C. Tossed Contribution-Free Health Care Benefits
MANHATTAN BANCORP: Faces Class Suit Over Sale to Plaza Bancorp
MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP: Sued in California Over Points Timeshare Plan

MB FINANCIAL: "McCue" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
MERCER CANYONS: Must Face Migrant Wage Class Action
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces Insurance-Related Class Suit in New York
MF GLOBAL: NY Judge Rules on Document Production Bid
MRS BPO: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y., Suit Says

MUAK BABY: Recalls 3-in-1 High Chairs Duet to Injury Risk
NAGOYA JAPANESE: "Liong" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: EA Sports Judges to Hear Antitrust Class Action
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Judge Suggests Changes to Concussion Settlement
NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING: Court Limits Claims Against APAC & Chang

NEW JERSEY: Fathers Sue Over Child Custody Proceedings
NEWFOUNDLAND, CANADA: Moose Class action Appeal Hearing Wraps Up
NITE LIGHT: "Lopez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
OMEGA FLEX: Negligence/Strict Liability Dichotomy Repudiated
PANTRY INC: Being Sold for Too Little to Couche-Tard, Suit Claims

PFIZER INC: Sued for Keeping Celebrex Generics From Consumers
PFIZER INC: Plaintiffs Fails to Keep Expert Witness in Zoloft MDL
PRANNATH INC: Sued in Illinois Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Plaintiffs' Causation Expert Can't Testify
PUNCHGINI INC: "Kumar" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

REAL AWNING: Faces "Veiga" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
REGENCY ENERGY: Being Sold to ETP for Too Little, Suit Claims
SAN DIEGO GAS: Lower Court Ruling on "Guerra" Class Reversed
SARA J HAMILTON: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
SEA GULL LIGHTING: Recalls Light Chandeliers Due to Injury Risk

SHEBOYGAN CITY, WI: Removes "Gilbertson" Suit to E.D. Wisconsin
STONELEIGH RECOVERY: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
STRATEGIC FUNDRAISING: Illegally Terminates Employees, Suit Says
TGI FRIDAY'S: Wage Theft Suit Gets Conditional Certification
THOMPSON CREEK: Case Venue of "Aronstein" Suit Moved to Colorado

TOYOTA MOTOR: Must Pay $11 Million to 1996 Camry Crash Victims
USA BABY: Labor Dept. Wins Summary Judgment in ERISA Suit
USA WATER POLO: Accused of Failing to Manage/Treat Head Injuries
VAN'S INTERNATIONAL: Sued on Cal. Over Misleading Product Label
VELTI PLC: $9.5MM Class Action Settlement, Counsel Fees Approved

WADE ELBO: Faces "Mowery" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
YELLOWJACKET OILFIELD: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages


                            *********


466 AMAZECORP: "Shen" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yu Ling Shen, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated v. 466 AmazeCorp. d/b/a Amaze Fusion& Lounge,
Xue Mei Chen, John (first name unknown) Huang, John Does and Jane
Does # 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-00663 (S.D.N.Y., January 29, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 466
Amsterdam Ave., New York, NY 10024.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AAA SALES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Sanchez v. AAA Sales & Service, Inc., and William
Gendler, Case No. 1:15-cv-00775 (S.D.N.Y., February 2, 2015)
alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendants: (1) unpaid
minimum wages and compensation due to time shaving, (2) liquidated
damages and (3) attorneys' fees and costs.

AAA Sales & Service, Inc., is a New York domestic business
corporation with a principal place of business located in New York
City.  William Gendler is the president of AAA Sales.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465-1180
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


AARON'S INC: Couple Urges 3rd Cir. to Let Them Represent Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
A couple suing Aaron's Inc. over spyware hidden on its computer
rentals urged the 3rd Circuit on January 23 to let them represent
a class, reports Andrew Thompson at Courthouse News Service.

Crystal and Brian Bird filed suit over a computer they leased in
2010 at a Wyoming-based franchise of Aaron's.  On 11 different
days between Nov. 16 and Dec. 20 that year, the spyware program
installed on the computer that the Birds had rented accessed their
web activity and keystrokes 347 times, even taking pictures of
Brian while played a game of Internet poker, the complaint
alleges.

While the franchisee, Aspen Way Enterprises, allegedly collected
the data in this case, the Byrds say Aaron's franchisees across
the country have been secretly installing spyware on their rent-
to-own computers since 2009.

The couple sought to represent a class all customers and their
"household members" who had used computers with the spyware.

A federal judge handling the case in Pittsburgh shot down the
motion for class certification last year, however, based on a
magistrate's finding that the class was defined too broadly and
that its members were not "ascertainable," or objectively
identifiable.

Urging the federal appeals court to reverse on January 23, the
Byrds' attorney, Frederick Longer, said that figuring out who the
alleged spying affected is not so hard.

"There's a hard drive in the District Court clerk's office that
has every single captured spying session," Longer said.

"Pictures of people?" asked Judge Marjorie Rendell.

"Yes.

"In every instance?"

"In every instance, there is a packet of information from the
computer the person is operating, shipped to wherever Aaron's
corporate server is."

Christie Brown, the attorney for Aaron's Inc., meanwhile lobbied
the three-judge panel to affirm.

"This class is drafted so broadly that it unquestionably
encompasses people who don't have a claim," Brown said.

Judge D. Brooks Smith replied that broadness was not an obstacle
at the trial stage, citing 3rd Circuit precedent that says "you
don't need to know how many" members of a class there are to
define the class.

Brown emphasized the lower court's finding that "household
members" included a group of people for whom proving harm would be
impossible in most cases.

Longer, the plaintiff's attorney, said his experience dictates a
different outcome.

"I've been doing for this for a long time," he said, "and I
thought this was the perfect class action, the paradigm class
action."

Aaron's entered into a settlement with the Federal Trade
Commission in March 2014 and agreed to cease all of its spying.


ADVANCED TECH-CABLE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Melgar, Jose Alfredo Guradado, Jose Antonio Blanco, Luis
Cruz Vasquez, and all others similarly situated v. Advanced Tech-
Cable Corporation, & Dan Ganea, Case No. 0:15-cv-60194 (S.D. Fla.,
January 30, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Advanced Tech-Cable Corporation is a Florida corporation enaged in
ground cable installation business with its principal place of
business listed as 2839 Dewey Street, Hollywood, Florida 33020.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew S. Sarelson, Esq.
      Matthew Seth Sarelson, P.A.
      1000 Brickell Avenue, Suite 920
      Miami, FL 33141
      Telephone: (305) 773-1952
      E-mail: msarelson@sarelson.com


AIRPORT CONCESSIONS: Atty. Fees Motion in O'Brien Suit Ruled On
---------------------------------------------------------------
In O'BRIEN v. AIRPORT CONCESSIONS, INC., a Colorado district court
entered an order granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's
renewed motion for attorney fees, costs and an incentive award for
the Class Representative.  Specifically, District Judge Christine
M. Arguello awards attorney fees in the amount of $73,266, costs
in the amount of $2,252.93, and an incentive award for the Class
Representative in the amount of $2,500.

A copy of the District Court's Jan. 16, 2015 Order is available at
http://is.gd/8Z87SXfrom Leagle.com.

The action is captioned ROBERT O'BRIEN, Individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AIRPORT
CONCESSIONS, INC., a Colorado corporation, d/b/a CONNECTIONS MADE
EZ, Defendant, Civil Action No. 13-CV-01700-CMA-BNB, (D. Co.).

Robert O'Brien, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Michael Tamburelli,
Zimmerman Law Offices, P.C., Frank James Stretz, Zimmerman Law
Offices, P.C., Todd Elliott Mair, Peters Mair Wilcox & Thomas A.
Zimmerman, Jr., Zimmerman Law Offices, P.C..

Airport Concessions, Inc., Defendant, represented by Hubert A.
Farbes, Jr. -- hfarbes@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber
Schreck, LLP & Jonathan George Pray -- gpray@bhfs.com --
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP.


ALIBABA GROUP: Faces "Khunt" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Manishkumar Khunt, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Alibaba Group Holding Limited, Jack Yun Ma,
Joseph C. Tsai, Jonathan Zhaoxi Lu and Maggie Wei Wu, Case No.
1:15-cv-00759 (S.D.N.Y., January 30, 2015), alleges that the
Defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the soundness of the Company's business operations, the
strength of its financial prospects and concealing substantial
ongoing regulatory scrutiny.

Alibaba Group Holding Limited is a China-based on line and mobile
commerce company in retail and wholesale trade, as well as cloud
computing and other services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
      HOLZER & HOLZER LLC
      1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410
      Atlanta, GA 30338
      Telephone: (770) 392-0090
      Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
      E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com


ALIBABA GROUP: Faces "Klein" Suit Over Securities Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Devorah Klein, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Alibaba Group Holding Limited, Jack Yun Ma, Joseph C.
Tsai, Jonathan Zhaoxi Lu and Maggie Wei Wu, Case No. 1:15-cv-
00811-UA (S.D.N.Y., February 3, 2015) is a securities class action
brought on behalf of persons, who purchased or otherwise acquired
the securities of Alibaba between October 21, 2014, and January
28, 2015, against Alibaba and certain of its officers and
directors for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Alibaba is a China-based online and mobile commerce company in
retail and wholesale trade, as well as cloud computing and other
services.  The Company hosts an online sales platform for third
parties and does not engage in any direct sales, compete with
merchants or hold inventory.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


AMERICAN PROFIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Esther Frankel, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. American Profit Recovery, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-00503 (E.D.N.Y., February 2, 2015) accuses the Defendant
of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


AMSPEC LLC: Class Suit Seeks to Recover Compensation and Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Vaden, Ernesto Fausto and Luis Martinez, Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Amspec, L.L.C. f/k/a
Amspec Services, L.L.C., Case No. 2:15-cv-00074 (S.D. Tex.,
February 3, 2015) seeks to recover compensation, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

AmSpec, L.L.C., formerly known as Amspec Services, L.L.C., is a
New Jersey limited liability company, doing business in the state
of Texas.  AmSpec provides, among other things, laboratory
testing, laboratory outsourcing, cargo inspection, and
certification services for the petrochemical industry on a global
basis.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Craig M. Sico, Esq.
          SICO, WHITE, HOELSCHER, HARRIS & BRAUGH LLP
          802 N. Carancahua, Suite 900
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 653-3300
          Facsimile: (361) 653-3333
          E-mail: calexander@swhhb.com
                  csico@swhhb.com

               - and -

          Timothy D. Raub, Esq.
          RAUB LAW FIRM, P.C.
          814 Leopard Street
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 880-8181
          Facsimile: (361) 887-6521
          E-mail: timraub@raublawfirm.com


ARUBA NETWORKS: Judge Quashes Securities Fraud Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal
judge quashed securities fraud claims against a Silicon Valley
wireless provider on Feb. 2, ruling there is no evidence the
company or its executives made false or misleading statements to
shareholders.

The ruling is a win for Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati lawyers,
who represent Aruba Networks Inc.

Plaintiffs lawyers had claimed executives at the Sunnyvale company
concealed the threat posed by rival Cisco Systems Inc.  But after
giving plaintiffs two chances to amend their complaint, U.S.
District Judge Vince Chhabria of the Northern District of
California dismissed the suit with prejudice.

"The statements made by Aruba's executives, while perhaps a bit
squirrely, were not nearly as nefarious or misleading as the
plaintiffs contend," he wrote in a five-page order.

Plaintiffs lawyers with Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener had accused
defendants of hiding the success of Cisco's sales campaign, which
included cutting prices, bundling its wired and wireless products
and offering data center upgrades.  Aruba, which doesn't sell
wired products, couldn't compete with the full-package deal Cisco
promoted.  Nevertheless, the plaintiffs lawyers wrote, Aruba
executives maintained their company was "the technology leader"
over Cisco, and said "we're winning almost every deal we see."

But Judge Chhabria wrote that plaintiffs provided no evidence
those boasts were false and that Aruba was losing market share to
Cisco.

Furthermore, "it was no secret Cisco was a formidable competitor,"
Judge Chhabria wrote. Aruba executives told shareholders they
expected competition to "intensify in the future," and listed
Cisco as one of the company's "large and well-established"
competitors.

Wilson Sonsini partner Ignacio Salceda -- isalceda@wsgr.com -- and
counsel Diane Walters -- dwalters@wsgr.com -- represent Aruba.


ASTRAZENECA AB: 1st Circuit Upheld Class Status for Nexium Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Union health funds alleging that AstraZeneca paid generic
drugmakers not to challenge its Nexium patents were properly
certified as a class, reports Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News
Service, citing a 1st Circuit ruling.

AstraZeneca owns several patents related to its blockbuster
heartburn drug Nexium, which made $3.8 billion for the company in
2013.

When three generic drug companies sought to market a generic
version of the drug, AstraZeneca sued them for patent
infringement, and eventually settled with each, agreeing to pay
the generic makers a significant about of money in exchange for
not challenging the validity of the Nexium patents.

The deal has kept any generic substitute for Nexium from reaching
the market even though AstraZeneca's patents expired in May 2014.

Several union health funds that reimburse members for prescription
drug costs sued AstraZeneca in Massachusetts, alleging that the
Nexium patents would have been held invalid but for the
pharmaceutical company's unlawful noncompete agreements with
generic manufacturers.

The patents were invalidated in both Europe and Canada as obvious
in light of earlier AstraZeneca patents.

Claiming that a generic version of Nexium could have been
available in 2008, the complaint by the union funds says they paid
an inflated price for the drug for the last seven years.

The 1st Circuit affirmed class-action status for the case last
week, despite claims that the lack of a generic alternative has
not injured all class members.

In support of this argument, AstraZeneca had pointed out that
brand-loyal consumers would have kept buying Nexium even if a
generic were available.

But the Boston-based federal appeals court called it "difficult to
understand why the presence of uninjured class members at the
preliminary stage should defeat class certification."

"Ultimately, the defendants will not pay, and the class members
will not recover, amounts attributable to uninjured class members,
and judgment will not be entered in favor of such members," Judge
Timothy Dyk, sitting by designation from the Federal Circuit,
wrote for a three-member panel.

It does not harm the defendants to include plaintiffs who are
potentially ineligible to recover damages, and Supreme Court
precedent does not require every putative class member to show
injury before class certification, the court found.

"We think that a certified class may include a de minimis number
of potentially uninjured parties," Dyk said.  "We need not decide
whether it is ever permissible to define a proper class including
more than a de minimis number of uninjured parties since we
conclude that it has not been shown that the class here includes
more than a de minimis number of uninjured parties."

The consolidated case is captioned Astrazeneca AB, et al.,
Defendants-Appellants v. United Food and Commercial Workers Unions
and Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund, et al., Plaintiffs-
Appellees, Case Nos. 14-1521 and 14-1522, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.  The consolidated case is
also captioned In re Nexium Antitrust Litigation.


AVALON COMMUNITIES: Suit Seeks Reimbursement for Property Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alessandro Demarco and Amanda Bayer, husband and wife, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Avalon
Communities, Inc., ABC Corporations 1-10, and John Does 1-10, Case
No. 2:15-cv-00628 (D.N.J., January 29, 2015), seeks to recover all
property damages and reimbursement of individual losses situated
by the Plaintiffs, as a result of the Defendant's negligent
conduct, specifically by failing to have adequate sprinklers in
the attic and concealed spaces and for using material made of
lightweight wood construction that may have accelerated the fire.

Avalon Communities, Inc. is a Maryland corporation that operates a
real estate investment trust engaging in the development,
redevelopment, acquisition, ownership and operation of multifamily
communities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel R. Lapinski, Esq.
      WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER, PC
      90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900
      Woodbridge, NJ 07095
      Telephone: (732) 636-8000
      E-mail: dlapinski@wilentz.com


AVILA SOUTH: Sued Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wallace Boota v. Avila South Condominium Assocation, Inc., a
Florida for-profit corporation, and Juan Delgado, an individual,
Case No. 1:15-cv-20424-JLK (S.D. Fla., February 3, 2015) is
brought for alleged unpaid minimum wage compensation, unpaid
overtime wage compensation, unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and
other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Avila South Condominium Association, Inc. is a Florida for-profit
company that owns and operates Avila South Condominium located in
Sunny Isles Beach, Miami-Dade County, Florida.  Juan Delgado was
the president of Avila South.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert W. Brock II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN
          17 East Flagler Street, Suite 223
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 358-6800
          Facsimile: (305) 358-6808
          E-mail: robert@kuvinlaw.com


AZ CHILD SAFETY DEP'T: Faces Suit by Kids in Foster Care Custody
----------------------------------------------------------------
B.K. by her next friend Margaret Tinsley; C.P. and B.T. by their
next friend Jennifer Kupiszewski; A.A.; A.C-B; M.C-B; J.C-B; D.C-
B; J.M. and J.C. by their next friend Susan Brandt, for themselves
and those similarly situated v. Charles Flanagan, in his official
capacity as Director of the Arizona Department of Child Safety;
and William Humble, in his official capacity as Director of the
Arizona Department of Health Services, Case No. 2:15-cv-00185-ROS
(D. Ariz., February 3, 2015) is a civil rights action brought on
behalf of a general class of children, who are or will be placed
in foster care custody following reports that they have suffered
child abuse or neglect, and certain subclasses of these children.

The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to end
certain child welfare policies and practices exposing them to yet
further physical and emotional harm and unreasonable risk of harm
while in the State's care.

Charles Flanagan, the Director of Department of Child Safety, and
William Humble, the Director of the Department of Health Services,
are sued solely in their official capacity.  DCS is legally
responsible for managing the state's child welfare system.  DHS is
responsible for providing mental and behavioral health services to
children in Arizona state foster care custody.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Keith Beauchamp, Esq.
          Roopali H. Desai, Esq.
          Shelley Tolman, Esq.
          COPPERSMITH BROCKELMAN PLC
          2800 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: (602) 381-5478
          Facsimile: (602) 224-6020
          E-mail: kbeauchamp@cblawyers.com
                  rdesai@cblawyers.com
                  stolman@cblawyers.com

               - and -

          William Kapell, Esq.
          Julia L. Davis, Esq.
          CHILDREN'S RIGHTS, INC.
          330 Seventh Avenue, Fourth Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 683-2210
          Facsimile: (212) 683-4015
          E-mail: wkapell@childrensrights.org
                  jdavis@childrensrights.org

               - and -

          Anne C. Ronan, Esq.
          Timothy M. Hogan, Esq.
          ARIZONA CENTER FOR LAW IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
          514 West Roosevelt Street
          Phoenix, AZ 85003
          Telephone: (602) 258-8850
          Facsimile: (602) 258-8757
          E-mail: aronan@aclpi.org
                  thogan@aclpi.org


B-B OIL: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Okay
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Horn Aylward & Bandy, LLC, Walters Bender
Strohbehn & Vaughan, P.C., Korein Tillery LLC, and Girardi & Keese
announce that a federal district court in Kansas overseeing a
multidistrict litigation proceeding (MDL No. 1840) has given
preliminary approval to settlements with 28 different defendants
in a consumer class action lawsuit concerning how gasoline and
diesel motor fuel are sold at retail gas stations.  The
settlements may affect the rights of any person who bought motor
fuel on or after January 1, 2001.

The settling defendants are B-B Oil Company, Inc.; BP Products
North America Inc. and BP West Coast Products LLC (together,
"BP"); Casey's General Stores, Inc.; Chevron U.S.A. Inc. ("CUSA");
CITGO Petroleum Corporation; ConocoPhillips Company; Coulson Oil
Company, Inc.; Dansk Investment Group, Inc. (f/k/a USA Petroleum
Corporation); Diamond State Oil, LLC; ExxonMobil Corporation, Esso
Virgin Islands, Inc., and Mobil Oil Guam, Inc. (together,
"ExxonMobil"); E-Z Mart Stores, Inc.; Flash Market, Inc.; G&M Oil
Company, Inc., and G&M Oil Co., LLC (together, "G&M"); J&P Flash,
Inc.; Love's Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc.; Magness Oil
Company; M. M. Fowler, Inc.; Port Cities Oil, LLC; Sam's Club;
Motiva Enterprises LLC and Equilon Enterprises LLC d/b/a Shell Oil
Products US ("Shell"); Sinclair Oil Corporation; Sunoco, Inc.
(R&M); Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company, LLC; Thorntons Inc.;
United El Segundo, Inc.; Valero Marketing and Supply Company;
World Oil Corp.; and W.R. Hess.

The settlements cover persons and entities who purchased motor
fuel after January 1, 2001 (for 24 settlements), or after January
1, 2004 (for 4 settlements), in the following states and
jurisdictions: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Delaware,
Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,
Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North
Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, DC., Guam, and the
Virgin Islands.  There is a separate proposed settlement for each
company, and each settlement may not cover all of the states and
jurisdictions.

Under the settlements with 6 of the companies (BP, CUSA,
ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Shell, and Sinclair), the companies
will collectively pay $22.925 million into funds (i) to reimburse
retailers for the costs of installing equipment that corrects for
the effects of temperature on motor fuel, and (ii) to help state
officials who oversee the retail sale of motor fuel make sure that
any changes in how motor fuel is sold are done lawfully.

Settlements with 18 companies, which total $1,577,500, fund only
the second activity.  A portion of the settlement funds may be
used to cover costs, including the costs of providing notice to
class members, and legal fees.  The other 4 settling companies
(Casey's, Dansk, Sam's Club, and Valero) have agreed to gradually
convert a portion of their existing and new stations, where
permitted by state law, to fuel pumps that can adjust for the
effects of temperature.

The proposed settlements provide no money directly to consumers
who have purchased retail motor fuel.  The court has scheduled a
hearing for Tuesday, June 9, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., to determine
whether to give final approval to the settlements.

For more information about the settlements -- including
instructions about how to exclude yourself from one or more of the
settlements and preserve your right to sue the settling defendants
on your own, and how to object to the settlement(s) -- visit
www.HotFuelSettlements.com or call 1-888-384-7228.  You can also
contact the notice administrator by writing to Hot Fuel
Settlements, c/o Dahl Administration, PO Box 3614, Minneapolis, MN
55403-0614.


BIRMINGHAM, AL: Police Chief Defends Use of Pepper Spray
--------------------------------------------------------
Kent Faulk, writing for AOL.com, reports that birmingham Police
Chief A.C. Roper, in testimony on Jan. 23, defended the officers
who serve at School Resource Officers -- or SROs -- and the
policies that give them the option to use pepper spray on a
student if necessary.

SROs are selected for their desires and skills in mentoring and
coaching children and unlike a beat officer can ask to be
transferred off their assignment at any time, Mr. Roper said.
"And they do an amazing job," he said.

Mr. Roper testified in the non-jury trial for 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 or require more officer training and
supervision.

The trial is being held before U.S. District Court Judge Abdul
Kallon, who will decide whether the SROs should be allowed to use
the pepper spray -- or Mace -- on campus.

The lawsuit names Mr. Roper and six Birmingham Police Officers who
serve as SROs inside city high schools.  Attorneys for the
officers have said that there were only a few incidents where
pepper spray was used in Birmingham school each month from 2006 to
2011.

Mr. Roper had been called to the witness stand to testify for the
Southern Poverty Law Center.  But his attorneys plan to call him
back to the witness stand after the law center finishes its case.

Birmingham's police department has been accredited since 1988 and
undergoes re-accreditation every three years.  "Our policies have
met those standards," he said.

Under its department policies there is a force continuum in which
officers can use the appropriate force in order to control
suspects or crowds.  That range starts with an officer simply
appearing at a scene to verbal commands, followed by use of soft
hand controls, hard hand controls, pepper spray, batons, tasers
and finally guns.

The officer has the discretion to use any one of those options,
Roper said.

While SROs don't carry tasers in the schools, being an SRO does
not "supersede" their responsibilities and authority as a police
officer, Roper said.

The police department signed a 2009 agreement to place SROs in the
school, Mr. Roper said.  That agreement was signed by the
Jefferson County District Attorney's Office, the county's family
court, and the school system, he said.  A lawyer from the Southern
Poverty Law Center also was at a meeting to discuss the agreement,
he said.

But nowhere in the agreement does it supersede state law regarding
the authority of police officers, Roper said.

Mr. Roper testified that other police chiefs around the country
have told him at conferences about incidents where their police
officers have had to use Mace in schools, including one in
California.  But when pressed to recall a specific police chief or
city, he couldn't.

A University of Maryland professor had testified that other than
Birmingham he hadn't heard of incidents involving police using
pepper spray on students.

Mr. Roper said he hadn't met a police chief yet who would take
something, like pepper spray, off an officer's belt.

Judge Kallon asked Roper if an SRO arrived at the scene of a
shouting match between a student and teacher and the student began
yelling obscenities at the officer if the use of pepper spray
would be allowed to use pepper spray. If that happened, Roper
said, "the SRO would have to justify it."

The Southern Poverty Law Center issued a statement following the
Jan. 23 testimony.

"The Court heard from all eight plaintiffs in this case about
their experience being maced in Birmingham City Schools," said
Ebony Howard, senior staff attorney for the Southern Poverty Law
Center.  "It was truly empowering for these former students to be
able to step forward and call out this injustice in front of the
officers who sprayed them with mace while attending school."

The trial was set to continue on Jan. 26 with two experts who will
testify on behalf of the Center. Dr. Daphne Glindmeyer, a
psychiatrist, will testify about the psychological effects of
pepper spray on students in school environments.  Chief Daniel
Coulombe, a law enforcement expert, will discuss the appropriate
use of chemical spray in schools, as well as proper
decontamination procedures.


BOSTON ROAD AUTO: Used Car Customer Wins Judgment on TILA Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Jager sued Boston Road Auto Mall, Inc. (BRAM) for violation
of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. sec. 1601 et seq.,
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. sec. 2301 et seq., and
the New York Lemon Law, NY. Gen. Bus. Law sec. 198-b; for
deceptive business practices, NY. Gen. Bus. Law sec. 349; and for
fraud.

BRAM sells used cars and arranges financing for those sales.  In
late 2013, Jager bought a 2007 Chrysler Pacifica from BRAM and the
purchase was financed by BRAM.

In a Jan. 15, 2015 Opinion & Order available at
http://is.gd/2XVUhvfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Louis L.
Stanton ruled that:

  (1) Plaintiff Peter Jager's motion for partial summary judgment
      on the TILA claim (count I of the complaint) is granted to
      the extent of $2,000 and attorneys' fees.

  (2) Defendant Boston Road Auto Mall, Inc.'s cross-motion for
      partial summary judgment is granted to the extent that the
      Magnuson-Moss claims (counts II, III, and IV of the
      complaint) and the remaining state Lemon Law and common law
      claims (counts V, VI, and VII of the complaint) are
      dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter
      jurisdiction.

Peter Jager, Plaintiff, represented by David Michael Kasell,
Kasell Law Firm.

Boston Road Auto Mall Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeanette
Marie Westphal, Law Office of Jeannette M. Westphal.


BP PLC: Atty. Criticizes Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Barnett, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports that
Daniel Becnel is a longtime attorney working out of his offices in
sleepy St. John the Baptist Parish, a rural suburb of New Orleans,
where he has over the past 45 years built a thriving plaintiffs'
firm that has increasingly been involved in class action lawsuits,
most notably the Deepwater Horizon oil spill class action which he
now considers to be deeply flawed.

The self-proclaimed "King of Torts" has been a representative in
several notable class actions including the Tobacco Master
Settlement in 1998 that saw tobacco companies pay $365 million to
a class of smokers.  He also has been involved in the ongoing
Chinese drywall class action, in which New Orleans Saints head
coach Sean Payton is one of his clients.  Mr. Becnel also leads
cases against Toyota over the alleged sudden acceleration of
certain vehicles.

However, none of those issues have come close to that of the
massive Deepwater Horizon litigation, the largest class action
lawsuit in history with tens of billions of dollars in damages
that is supposed to make whole hundreds of thousands of
plaintiffs.

Mr. Becnel was the attorney who initially filed suit in federal
court only eight days after the oil rig exploded in the Gulf of
Mexico, killing 11 crew members and setting off the largest
accidental oil spill in history that went on for 87 days, and
which significantly impacted those who make their living off the
coast of Louisiana and other nearby states.

Just over a month after the oil spill was contained, BP began
making payments through the Gulf Coast Claims Facility (GCCF) --
an organization set up by BP and the U.S. government with $20
billion set aside to pay damages.

Fast forward four and a half years later, and Mr. Becnel bristles
at the mention of the Deepwater Horizon litigation.  After his
initial filing, a group of 19 attorneys from across the country
(now 18 after one of the attorneys dropped out over claims he
filed up to 40,000 fraudulent claims that has resulted in a
federal criminal investigation), a group that did not include
Mr. Becnel, were named to a Plaintiffs' Steering Committee (PSC).
The PSC eventually engineered a settlement that the oil giant
accepted in August 2012, which included a $660 million payday for
the lawyers as well as a percentage of each claim paid out.

Mr. Becnel is unyielding in his criticism of the PSC.  To Mr.
Becnel the goal of the PSC has been obvious in the way he says
they have handled the case from the beginning.  He says their
actions have imperiled the entire settlement and all claimants.

"In the BP case they were out to make money. And not a little bit
of money, a lot of money.  And I think what should happen, when
you appoint a PSC you should not be allowed to solicit additional
cases.  You are fiduciary to all of the other class members, you
are fiduciary to all of the other class counsel who handle the
cases and you should not be able to do that," he said in an
interview with the Louisiana Record last year.

While the Court Supervised Settlement Program apparently worked as
planned for the first few months, soon fissures began to form
between BP and the PSC.  Most notably was what BP challenged as a
miscalculation of payments by court-appointed Claims Administrator
Patrick Juneau.  According to the oil giant, Mr. Juneau has paid
millions of dollars in claims to businesses that could not show
any direct connection between their loss of revenue and the oil
spill.

Mr. Becnel contends the PSC knowingly wrote loopholes into the
settlement agreement and conspired to expand claims to those who
did not deserve them.

After twice being turned down by U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier
in reviewing the payment method, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals agreed with BP that the claims payment calculation was
faulty and ordered Juneau to amend how claimants are paid
resulting in Policy 495, which greatly decreases payments for some
claimants by creating new requirements for businesses seeking
damages from the oil spill.  However, the appeals court has
refused to overturn the settlement, a ruling that was later denied
at the U.S. Supreme Court.

One of the major problems as Mr. Becnel sees it is the
introduction of Policy 495 over two years after the settlement
agreement was made and after billions of dollars in claims paid
out changes the entire process.

According to Mr. Becnel, if there was ever a class action
settlement that begged for reconsideration to be overturned it was
the Deepwater Horizon case.  However, now that the U.S. Supreme
Court has chosen not to rule on the settlement, Becnel and other
attorneys like him -- outside of the PSC and who number in the
hundreds -- have to live with the actions taken by the PSC as the
claims program continues to roll out despite what many are calling
tragic flaws.


BRIGHT STAR: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Ramirez" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Ramirez, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Bright Star Ambulance, Inc. and Maha Khasan,
Case No. 1:15-cv-01041 (N.D. Ill., January 31, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours
worked in excess of 40 in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a private ambulance company doing
business in Cook County, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: "Danner" Class Action May Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York denied the request of Caesars
Entertainment Corp. to dismiss, in its entirety, the purported
class action complaint filed by Frederick Barton Danner.

Judge Scheindlin granted, in part, and denied, in all other
respects, the request of CEC to dismiss the complaint filed by
MeehanCombs Global Credit Opportunities Funds, LP, Relative Value-
Long/Short Debt, A Series of Underlying Funds Trust, SB 4 CF LLC,
CFIP Ultra Master Fund, Ltd., and Trilogy Portfolio Company, LLC.
Specifically, the judge said the MeehanCombs Complaint is
dismissed with respect to the section 316(a) claim, without
prejudice.  The Court gave MeehanCombs et al. until January 29,
2015 to file an amended complaint.

A conference was scheduled for February 3, 2015 at 4:30 p.m.

The MeehanCombs and Danner plaintiffs are holders of notes issued
by Caesars Entertainment Operating Company, Inc., pursuant to
indentures, and -- until the issuance of supplemental indentures
in August 2014 -- guaranteed by CEC.  Plaintiffs allege that the
August 2014 Transaction violated the Trust Indenture Act of 1939
and breached the governing Indentures as well as the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

The Amendments effectively left CEC free to transfer CEOC's assets
without any obligation to back CEOC's debts.  Furthermore, the
purchase price paid for the Notes of the noteholders who approved
the August 2014 Transaction, the Favored Noteholders -- par plus
accrued interest and transactional fees and costs represented an
extraordinary 100% premium over market.  In exchange for receiving
all amounts owed under their Notes, the Favored Noteholders
promised to: (1) support any future restructuring proposed by
Caesars; (2) consent to "the removal and acknowledgment of the
termination of the CEC guarantee of the Securities"; and (iii)
consent to the "modification of] the covenant restricting
disposition of 'substantially all' of CEOC's assets to measure
future asset sales based on CEOC's assets as of the date of the
amendment."

Plaintiffs contend that the August 2014 Transaction removed the
Guarantees given by the asset-rich parent company, CEC, leaving
plaintiffs and the other bondholders with a worthless right to
collect principal and interest from the issuer, CEOC, a company
divesting itself of assets and holding approximately $17 billion
of senior secured debt. The crux of plaintiffs' allegations is
that the release of the Guarantees effected a non-consensual
change to plaintiffs' payment rights and affected plaintiffs'
practical ability to recover payment in violation of section 316
of the TIA and the governing Indentures.

Both defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In view of the filing of an involuntary Chapter 11 petition
against CEOC, this action is stayed as to CEOC pursuant to section
362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. However, this action is not stayed
as to non-debtor defendant CEC.

A copy of the Court's January 15, 2015 Opinion and Order is
available at http://is.gd/OVmgD2from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs MeehanCombs, Global Credit Opportunities, Funds, LP,
Relative Value-Long/Short Debt, A Series of Underlying Funds
Trust, SB 4 CF LLC, CFIP Ultra Master Fund, Ltd., and Trilogy
Portfolio Company, LLC, are represented by:

     James H. Millar, Esq.
     Kristin K. Going, Esq.
     Clay J. Pierce, Esq.
     Tracy S. Combs, Esq.
     DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH, LLP
     1177 Avenue of the Americas, 41st Floor
     New York, NY 10036-2714
     Tel: (212) 248-3140
     Fax: (212) 248-3141
     E-mail: James.Millar@dbr.com
             Kristin.Going@dbr.com
             Clay.Pierce@dbr.com
             Tracy.Combs@dbr.com

Plaintiff Frederick Barton Danner is represented by:

     Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
     James S. Notis, Esq.
     Meagan Farmer, Esq.
     GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
     Tower 56
     126 East 56th Street
     New York, NY 10022
     Tel: 212 905 0509
     Fax: 212 905 0508
     E-mail: mgardy@gardylaw.com
             jnotis@gardylaw.com
             mfarmer@gardylaw.com

          - and -

     Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq.
     Gordon Z. Novod, Esq.
     Elizabeth Shofner, Esq.
     GRANT & EISENHOFFER P.A.
     485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Tel: (646) 722-8505
     E-mail: jeisenhofer@gelaw.com
             gnovod@gelaw.com
             lshofner@gelaw.com

Defendant Caesars Entertainment Corporation is represented by:

     Lewis R. Clayton, Esq.
     Jonathan Hurwitz, Esq.
     PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
     1285 Avenue of the Americas
     New York, NY 10019
     Tel: 212-373-3215
     Fax: 212-492-0215
     E-mail: lclayton@paulweiss.com
             jhurwitz@paulweiss.com

Defendant Caesars Entertainment Operating Company, Inc., is
represented by:

     Eric Seiler, Esq.
     Philippe Adler, Esq.
     Emily A. Stubbs, Esq.
     Friedman Kaplan Seiler & Adelman LLP
     7 Times Square
     New York, NY 10036
     Tel: (212) 833-1103
     Fax: (212) 373-7903
     E-mail: eseiler@fklaw.com
             padler@fklaw.com


CALIFORNIA: Judge Recommends Dismissal of "Butler" Petition
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Bernard Butler, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought
a petition -- RONALD BERNARD BUTLER, Petitioner, v. GARY
SWARTHOUT, Respondent, Case No. 2:13-CV-0662-JAM-CMK-P (E.D. Cal.)
-- for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254,
challenging a decision by the California Board of Parole Hearings
that he is unsuitable for parole.  The Respondent filed a motion
to dismiss on the grounds that the petition is untimely, and in
the alternative, fails to state cognizable grounds for federal
habeas relief and raises a challenge that is the subject of a
pending class action suit.

Among other things, the Respondent sought dismissal of the
petitioner's petition on that ground that petitioner is a member
in the Gilman class action suit addressing the same issue.  The
case at issue, Gilman v. Brown, is an Eastern District of
California case, number 2:05-cv-0830-LKK-CKD.

In Gilman, California state prisoners serving a life term with the
possibility of parole brought a civil rights class action and
alleged that Marsy's Law violated the Ex Post Facto clause.  The
district court granted a preliminary injunction, finding that the
plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits, but the Ninth
Circuit reversed.  The Ninth Circuit found that Proposition 9
"appear[s] to create a significant risk of prolonging plaintiffs
incarceration." At the same time, the Court found that the
availability of advanced hearings "would remove any possibility of
harm to prisoners because they would not be required to wait a
minimum of three years for a hearing." Reversing the injunction,
the Court found that the plaintiffs were not "likely to succeed on
the merits of their ex post facto claim."

The trial court certified the Gilman class in March 2009, then
addressed the definition of the certified class.

On review, Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison finds that
Petitioner Butler satisfies the definition for class membership in
Gilman's certified class as he is (1) a California state prisoner;
(2) sentenced to a term of life in prison with the possibility of
parole; and (3) sentenced before the November 8, 2008, effective
date of Proposition 9.

Petitioner has alleged that he has opted out of the Gilman class,
and that he seeks relief different and beyond that sought by the
class. However, the relief he seeks is not different and beyond
that sought by the class, Judge Kellison opines. Moreover, the
Petitioner failed to provide any indication that he requested
permission from the Gilman court to opt out of that action, the
judge continues.

Accordingly, Judge Kellison recommends that respondent's motion to
dismiss be granted.

Judge Kellison's findings and recommendations dated Jan. 16, 2015,
available at http://is.gd/FZiXqdfrom Leagle.com, were submitted
to the U.S. District Judge assigned to the case.

Ronald Bernard Butler, Petitioner, Pro Se.

Gary Swarthout, Warden, Respondent, represented by Maria G. Chan,
California Attorney General's Office.


CATERPILLAR INC: Ex-Employees Reinstated in Insurance Plan
----------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit JUDITH K. KERNS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CATERPILLAR
INC., Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL UNION,
UAW, et al., Third-Party Defendants, CASE NO. 3:06-CV-1113 (M.D.
Tenn.) is class-action lawsuit brought on behalf of surviving
spouses of former employees of Caterpillar, Inc. who retired on or
after March 16, 1998, and before January 10, 2005.

The case is before a Tennessee district court on cross motions for
summary judgment on the claims brought by eight individual class
members against Caterpillar.

In a Jan. 16, 2015 Memorandum available at http://is.gd/KrXWU4
from Leagle.com, District Judge Aleta Trauger granted the motion
of plaintiffs Beverly Carson, Wilma Farrenholz, Hattie Grace,
Sharon Houser, Laura Mansfield, Florence Miller, Charlotte
Seibert, and Nancy Virden for summary judgment. The court will
enter judgment for each of these plaintiffs and will order
Caterpillar to re-enroll each of them in its insurance plan
without premiums and in keeping with the terms of the 1988 GIP and
the 1992 unilateral implementation.

Judith K. Kerns, Plaintiff, represented by Lisa M. Smith --
lsmith@michworklaw.com -- Klimist, McKnight, Sale, McClow &
Canzano, P.C., Samuel C. McKnight -- smcknight@michworklaw.com --
Klimist, McKnight, Sale, McClow & Canzano, P.C., Samuel Morris,
Godwin, Morris, Laurenzi & Bloomfield, PC, Deborah Godwin, Godwin,
Morris, Laurenzi & Bloomfield, PC & Joseph J. Torres --
jtorres@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn.

Marcia Nalley, Plaintiff, represented by Lisa M. Smith, Klimist,
McKnight, Sale, McClow & Canzano, P.C., Samuel C. McKnight,
Klimist, McKnight, Sale, McClow & Canzano, P.C., Samuel Morris,
Godwin, Morris, Laurenzi & Bloomfield, PC & Deborah Godwin,
Godwin, Morris, Laurenzi & Bloomfield, PC.

Sandra L. Stewart, Plaintiff, represented by Lisa M. Smith,
Klimist, McKnight, Sale, McClow & Canzano, P.C., Samuel C.
McKnight, Klimist, McKnight, Sale, McClow & Canzano, P.C., Samuel
Morris, Godwin, Morris, Laurenzi & Bloomfield, PC & Deborah
Godwin, Godwin, Morris, Laurenzi & Bloomfield, PC.

Caterpillar, Inc., Defendant, represented by Columbus R. Gangemi,
Jr. -- cgangemi@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, Derek Grady
Barella -- dbarella@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, Joseph J.
Torres -- jtorres@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn, Lawrence Slade
Eastwood, Jr. -- leastwood@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker, Donelson,
Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC & Heather S. Lehman --
hlehman@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP.

UAW Local Union No. 1086, Third Party Defendant, represented by
David W. Garrison -- dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com --, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Edmund L. Carey, Jr. --
ecarey@barrettjohnston.com -- Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison,
LLC, Joshua B. Shiffrin, Bredhoff & Kaiser, PLLC, Julia Penny
Clark, Bredhoff & Kaiser, PLLC, W. Gary Kohlman, Bredhoff &
Kaiser, PLLC, Lisa M. Smith, Klimist, McKnight, Sale, McClow &
Canzano, P.C. & Matthew Clash-Drexler, Bredhoff & Kaiser, PLLC.

International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, Counter Plaintiff, represented by
Edmund L. Carey, Jr., Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC,
Joshua B. Shiffrin, Bredhoff & Kaiser, PLLC, Julia Penny Clark,
Bredhoff & Kaiser, PLLC, W. Gary Kohlman, Bredhoff & Kaiser, PLLC,
Lisa M. Smith, Klimist, McKnight, Sale, McClow & Canzano, P.C. &
Matthew Clash-Drexler, Bredhoff & Kaiser, PLLC.

UAW Local Union No. 1086, Counter Plaintiff, represented by Edmund
L. Carey, Jr., Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Joshua B.
Shiffrin, Bredhoff & Kaiser, PLLC, Julia Penny Clark, Bredhoff &
Kaiser, PLLC, W. Gary Kohlman, Bredhoff & Kaiser, PLLC, Lisa M.
Smith, Klimist, McKnight, Sale, McClow & Canzano, P.C. & Matthew
Clash-Drexler, Bredhoff & Kaiser, PLLC.


CENTRAL GARDEN: Falsely Marketed Food Products, Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dylan Obrecht, Shelby Stinson, Mackenzie Stafford and Grace
Gilbert, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Central Garden & Pet Company, Case No. 4:15-cv-00046
(N.D. Fla., January 29, 2015), arises out of the false and
misleading products labeling of AvoDerm Natural as natural pet
food product, when in fact, it contains synthetic and artificial
chemical compounds including but not limited to tocopherols,
ascorbic acid, lecithin, ferrous sulfate, manganese sulfate, and
copper sulfate.

Central Garden & Pet Company is a Delaware corporation that
manufactures, markets and labels pet food products named AvoDerm
Natural.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillip Timothy Howard, Esq.
      HOWARD & ASSOCIATES PA
      2120 Killarney Way, Ste 125
      Tallahassee, FL 32309
      Telephone: (850) 298-4455
      Facsimile: (850) 216-2537
      E-mail: tim@howardjustice.com


CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE: Accused of Sex Discrimination in W.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Bellamy v. Central Intelligence Agency, Case No. 1:15-cv-
00087-SS (W.D. Tex., February 2, 2015) accuses the Defendant of
failing to provide accommodations for the Plaintiff's disabilities
in its recruitment process; discriminated against the Plaintiff on
the basis of his disabilities, as well as on the basis of sex.

The Plaintiff, a resident of Grandville, Michigan, is not
represented by any law firm.


CGG LAND: "Sharp" Claim Wins Conditional Certification
------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit R. DANE SHARP, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v. CGG LAND (U.S.) INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-0614-CVE-TLW (N.D. Okla.), was brought
against the defendant on allegations of violations of 29 U.S.C.
Sec. 207(a) by the failure to pay the correct overtime pay.

CGG Land is a corporation involved in seismic surveying.  Dane
Sharp worked for CGG as a truck driver and a vibe operator for
about four years.

In a Jan. 14, 2015 Opinion and Order available at
http://is.gd/w6WR8ifrom Leagle.com, District Judge Claire V.
Eagan ruled, among others, that:

   (1) Plaintiff's motion for first stage collective action
       certification, for Court authorized notice, and for
       disclosure of the names, addresses and dates of employment
       of the potential opt-in plaintiffs is granted in part and
       denied in part. The motion is granted as to plaintiff's
       requests for first stage conditional certification of a
       class of potential plaintiffs, for notice to potential
       class members, and for production by defendant of the
       contact information of members of that class. The motion
       is denied as to plaintiff's requests that defendant
       include copies of the notice in employees' pay envelopes
       or W-2 mailings.

   (2) Plaintiff's claim is conditionally certified as a
       collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216. The
       class of potential plaintiffs in the collective action
       shall be limited to: All of defendant's current and former
       hourly non-exempt employees who were entitled to be paid
       overtime premiums under the FLSA and who received at least
       one cash "hot shot" payment in the three years (plus 21
       days) preceding the date the collective action is
       certified.

R Dane Sharp, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
employees, Plaintiff, represented by Jess Vince Hightower --
jvh255@aol.com

CGG Land (U.S.) Inc., Defendant, represented by Laurence E Stuart
-- lstuart@stuartpc.com -- Stuart PC & Michael J McDaniel, Coffey
Senger & McDaniel PLLC.


CHYRONHEGO CORPORATION: Sued in N.Y. Over Illegal Company Sale
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Allaria and Jill Allaria, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Chyronhego Corporation, et
al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00471 (E.D.N.Y., January 30, 2015), alleges
that the Defendants disseminate false and misleading proxy
statement in connection with the proposed sale of ChyronHego
Corporation to Vector CH Holdings.

Chyronhego Corporation is a New York corporation that is
considered as a global leader in broadcast graphics creation,
playout, and real-time visualization offering a wide variety of
products and services for live television, news, and sports
production.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Brandon Walker, Esq.
      KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP
      825 Third Avenue, 16th floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 371-6600
      Facsimile: (212) 751-2540
      E-mail: bwalker@kmllp.com


CKL T TRADING: "Rojas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Rojas and Profirio Reyes, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. CKL T Trading Inc., Kwok Keung Cheung, Mei
Kan Cheng, and Mei Ting Cheng, Case No. 1:15-cv-00442 (E.D.N.Y.,
January 29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages prejudgment and post-
judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Defendants own and operate a wholesale food delivery business,
located at 530 63rd Street, Brooklyn, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CLEANNET USA: "Sanchez" Plaintiffs Ordered to Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action JOSE SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CLEANNET USA,
INC. and CLEANNET OF ILLINOIS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 14-C-
2143 (N.D. Ill.), arose out of Plaintiff Jose Sanchez's
participation as a franchisee in a nationwide network of
commercial cleaning franchised businesses.  The 8-count Complaint
alleged that franchisor Defendants CleanNet U.S.A., Inc. and
CleanNet of Illinois, Inc. improperly classified him and other
franchisees as independent contractors instead of employees,
thereby depriving them of the benefits of an employment
relationship under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. sec.
201 et seq., the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, 820 ILCS 105/1 et
seq., and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, 820 ILCS
115/1 et seq. Plaintiff also alleged that Defendants engaged in
fraud in the inducement to entice him to enter into the franchise
agreement, and that Defendants violated the Illinois Franchise
Disclosure Act, 815 ILCS 705/1 et seq.

CleanNet USA is a master franchisor whose brand of commercial
cleaning franchises is represented by area operators, such as
CleanNet IL, that offer unit franchises to investors interested in
owning and operating a commercial cleaning business.

Jose Sanchez is a Spanish speaker with a limited education who,
along with his brother-in-law, purchased a "package" of $2,500 in
monthly billing for a franchise price of $11,800. They paid $6,000
in money they borrowed for the franchise and CleanNet IL financed
the remaining $5,800 at 9%.

The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative,
stay Sanchez's complaint pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act,
9 U.S.C. sec. 1 et seq. ("FAA"), on the ground that his individual
claims are subject to final and binding arbitration pursuant to
the dispute resolution provisions in his franchise agreement.

District Judge James B. Zagel granted the Defendants' motion to
compel arbitration and the case is dismissed.

A copy of the District Court's Jan. 15, 2015 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at http://is.gd/mm3bRMfrom Leagle.com

Jose Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J Williams,
Workers' Law Office, PC, Yolanda Carrillo, Working Hands Legal
Clinic, Alvar Ayala, Workers' Law Office, P.C., Jenee Gaskin,
Workers' Law Office, P.c. & Lydia Colunga-Merchant, Working Hands
Legal Clinic.

Cleannet USA Inc., Defendant, represented by Darren Mason
Mungerson -- dmungerson@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. &
Francis P. Tighe, III -- ftighe@littler.com -- Frank P. Tighe,
III.

Cleannet of Illinois, Inc., Defendant, represented by Darren Mason
Mungerson, Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Francis P. Tighe, III, Frank
P. Tighe, III.


COURTESY CAR: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Schlosser, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Courtesy Car Rental of Minnesota, Inc., Case No. 0:15-
cv-00431-PAM-HB (D. Minn., February 3, 2015) alleges violations of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq.
          CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A.
          367 Commerce Court
          Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
          Telephone: (651) 770-9707
          Facsimile: (651) 704-0907
          E-mail: tommycjc@aol.com


COVELLI ENTERPRISES: Faces "Mielo" Suit Over Violation of ADA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Mielo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Covelli Enterprises d/b/a Panera Bread, Case
No. 2:15-cv-00120 (W.D. Pa., January 29, 2015), is brought against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 12101.

Covelli Enterprises the single largest franchisee of Panera Bread
restaurants and operates more than 250 Panera Bread locations in
Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Florida and Ontario,
Canada. Defendant is headquartered at 3900 East Market Street,
Warren, Ohio 44484.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
      Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
      Stephanie Goldin, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP
      PNC Park
      115 Federal Street, Suite 210
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Telephone: (412) 322-9243
      Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
      E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com
              bsweet@carlsonlynch.com
              sgoldin@carlsonlynch.com
              www.carlsonlynch.com


CVA INC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Class Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marvin A. Ruiz, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. CVA, Inc. d/b/a Charlie's Family Restaurant, Charlie Alevrofas
a/k/a Sakellarious Alevrofas and Victoria Alevrofas, Case No.
8:15-cv-00312 (D. Md., February 3, 2015) is brought on behalf of
this class of potential opt-in litigants -- Individuals, who at
any time during the Collective Action Period:

   (1) were employed by the Defendants at an hourly rate;

   (2) were paid a biweekly salary;

   (3) worked more than 40 hours in at least one work week of the
       Collective Action Period; and

   (4) were not paid for overtime work at the required overtime
       rate.

CVA is a Maryland corporation that operates a restaurant located
in Ft. Washington (Prince George's County), Maryland.  The
Individual Defendants are owners, agents or principals of CVA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roberto N. Allen, Esq.
          Alvaro A. Llosa, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF ROBERTO ALLEN, LLC
          11002 Veirs Mill Rd., Suite 700
          Wheaton, MD 20902
          Telephone: (301) 861-0202
          Facsimile: (301) 861-4395
          E-mail: rallen@robertoallenlaw.com
                  allosa@robertoallenlaw.com


D.R. HORTON: Rancho De Paz Homeowners' Class Allegations Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada District Judge James C. Mahan granted D.R. Horton's motion
to dismiss plaintiff's class action allegations in the case, AZURE
MANOR/RANCHO DE PAZ HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff(s), v. D.R.
HORTON, INC., Defendant(s), Case No. 2:14-CV-2222 JCM (NJK)(D.
Nev.).  A copy of Judge Mahan's January 27, 2015 Order is
available at http://is.gd/9ACe97from Leagle.com.

Azure Manor/Rancho de Paz Homeowners Association, Plaintiff,
represented by Anna Mirijanian, Angius & Terry, LLP, Paul P.
Terry, Jr, Angius & Terry LLP & Scott P Kelsey, Angius & Terry
LLP.

D.R. Horton, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joel D. Odou, Wood
Smith Henning & Berman LLP & Anthony S Wong, Wood, Smith, Henning
& Berman.


DRESSMAN BENZINGER: Class Deal in "Lavelle" Suit Gets Final OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Susan J. Dlott granted final approval of a
settlement agreement reached in the lawsuit JANET GREEN, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DRESSMAN
BENZINGER LAVELLE, PSC, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-CV-00142-
SJD, (S.D. Ohio).

The class complaint asserts class claims under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

The Ohio Court certified, for settlement purposes only, the
lawsuit as a class action on behalf of "All persons throughout the
state of Ohio to whom Dressman Benzinger Lavelle, PSC mailed or
caused to be mailed, between February 13, 2013 and February 12,
2014, in connection with an attempt to collect a consumer debt, a
communication by U.S. mail contained in an envelope with the name
'DBL Collections' on the outside of it."  There are believed to be
401 Class Members.

The Court certifies Plaintiff Janet Green as the Class
Representative. James L. Davidson of Greenwald Davidson PLLC is
certified as Class Counsel. Ronald S. Weiss of the Law Offices of
Ronald S. Weiss is certified as Liaison Counsel.

The Class Settlement provides for a $12,500 settlement fund to be
established by the Defendant.  Each Class Member who has not
excluded himself or herself from the Class will receive a pro rata
share from the Fund.

Plaintiff Janet Green will receive from Defendant the sum of
$1,000 for her work in pursuing these claims and securing a
recovery for the Cilass.  This payment shall be separate and apart
from the Settlement Fund and her pro-rata share of the same.

Defendant will pay Plaintiff's attorneys' fees, costs and expenses
in the amount of $30,000, separate and apart from the Settlement
Fund and the Incentive Award to Plaintiff.

A copy of the Court's Jan. 16, 2015 Final Order and Judgment is
available for free at http://is.gd/NiM8Unfrom Leagle.com.

James L. Davidson, Greenwald Davidson PLLC --
jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com -- Boca Raton, FL, Attorneys for
Plaintiff and Proposed Class Counsel.

Ronald S. Weiss, Law Offices of Ronald S. Weiss, West Bloomfield,
MI, Attorneys for Plaintiff and Proposed Liaison Counsel.

George S. Coakley, Esq. -- george@coakleylammert.com --
Coakley+Lammert Co. LPA, Cleveland, Ohio, Attorneys for Defendant.


DRUG-FREE WORKFORCE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edilma Aguilar v. Drug-Free Workforce, Inc., and Jen F. Yavitz,
Case No. 1:15-cv-20382-DPG (S.D. Fla., February 2, 2015) alleges
that the Defendants failed and refused to pay the Plaintiff
overtime wages calculated at time and one-half of her regular
hourly rate for all hours worked over 40 hours in a given
workweek.

Drug-Free Workforce, Inc., is a for profit Florida company that
has operated its restaurant business here, in Miami-Dade County,
Florida.  Jen F. Yavitz is the owner and operator of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian H. Pollock, Esq.
          FAIRLAW FIRM
          8603 S. Dixie Highway, Suite 408
          Miami, FL 33143
          Telephone: (305) 230-4884
          Facsimile: (305) 230-4844
          E-mail: brian@fairlawattorney.com


ELIASEN ENVIRONMENTAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arlos Mejia, Juan Martinez-Rojas, and Sebastian Perez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Eliasen Environmental, Inc., Florida Landscape Mgt, LLC, Todd
Eliasen Individually, Michelle Eliasen, Individually, and Ronald
D. Webb, Case No. 8:15-cv-00209 (M.D. Fla., January 30, 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 construction and landscape
company in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
      FELDMAN & MORGADO, PA
      501 N Reo St
      Tampa, FL 33609
      Telephone: (813) 639-9366
      Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
      E-mail: mfeldman@ffmlawgroup.com


FINANCIAL RECOVERIES: Faces Class Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Normarily Cruz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Financial Recoveries and John Does 1-25, Case No.
1:15-cv-00753-RMB-AMD (D.N.J., February 2, 2015) alleges
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


FLEXXRAY LLC: Faces "Viveros" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jacinto Viveros, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216 (b) v. Flexxray LLC, and Donald Ernest Forrest, Case No. 3:15-
cv-00294 (N.D. Tex., January 29, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in
excess of 40 per workweek.

The Defendants own and operate an advanced inspection services
company that regularly transacts business within Dallas County,
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FLINT, MI: Water Treatment Issues May Spur Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Ron Fonger and Kurt Nagl, writing for MLive, report that the
problems started after  the push of a button, a toast with Flint
River water and a budget forecast of saving $5 million that had to
be tempting for a city in the midst of a financial emergency.

It was only nine months ago that Flint officials turned off the
flow of already-treated Lake Huron water from the city of Detroit
and started treating their own raw water from the Flint River
instead, calculating that the switch could save roughly $5 million
in less than two years.

But what started as a cost-cutting move for a city in financial
turmoil has turned into a growing demonstration of public unrest,
as customers are rebelling against the most troubled and expensive
public water system in Genesee County.

Well-known environmental activist Erin Brockovich has weighed in
on the saga, and now some City Council members say they're ready
to abandon the use of river water -- regardless of the short-term
savings tied to using it.

Even Mayor Dayne Walling, who pushed the ceremonial button that
changed Flint's water source in late April, said that in
hindsight, he now believes the challenges of treating river water
were "underestimated" by those who made the decision.

He said that the city is paying the price for not having been
prepared to take on the job of turning river water into drinking
water.

"The outside assistance -- (contracting with a water quality
consultant) with experience in river water management -- should
have been (done) months ago in retrospect," Mayor Walling said.
"It should have been part of the plan from the beginning."

The most vocal outcry against Flint water problems began earlier
in January, when the city told customers it was in violation of
the federal Safe Drinking Water Act because of the high level of
total trihalomethanes (TTHM), a byproduct of the large amount of
chlorine needed to kill off bacteria in the river water.

The notice -- sent to customers throughout the city -- has
prompted street protests, meetings, bottled water drives and talk
of a class action lawsuit.  Some residents have presented city
officials at public meetings with jugs of yellow, cloudy water
from their faucets, saying the water is causing health issues.

"A lot of people are moving away.  They are fed up, and the ones
that can afford it will leave the city," said Florlisa Fowler, a
Flint resident who started a Facebook page -- Flint Water Class
Action Group, which now has more than 1,300 members.

"This should never have been allowed to happen," Ms. Fowler said.
"I feel like they knew what was going to happen."

Initially, city documents show Flint officials planned to use that
$5 million short-term savings to make upgrades at the Flint Water
Treatment Plant and to start something that had been ignored for
decades -- replacing some aging water transmission pipes and
valves before connecting to the Karegnondi Water Authority
pipeline sometime in 2016.

Flint's capital improvement plan estimates $50 million in water
infrastructure spending is needed during the next six years --
money the city doesn't have.

Documents posted recently on Flint's Web site say the city
believed it was prepared to deal with the challenges of treating
river water because of its licensed staff, the experience of its
contract engineering company, help from the state Department of
Environmental Quality, and the past investments in equipment at
the city's treatment plant.

At the time of the switch, city and state officials assured
residents they wouldn't notice a difference in the smell or taste
of tap water once the river was tapped.

Instead, citizens began complaining almost immediately about the
smell, color and taste of river water, and within four months,
boil water advisories were issued for parts of the city after
tests showed bacteria, including E.coli, in the water system. The
city cleared up the bacteria problem by upping the level of
disinfectant and implementing other changes.

The city was forced to open fire hydrants in the summer and fall
to keep water from growing stagnant in a system that's twice as
big as it should be for the number of customers using it.

Then in October, the city was dealt another blow when General
Motors said it would no longer use Flint water in one of its
plants because high chloride levels were causing corrosion in
engine parts.

State and local officials have said Flint's water is safe to drink
for most people, but the notices mailed to customers about TTHM
levels this year caused worries.

The notices warn those with "a severely compromised immune system,
(who) have an infant or are elderly" that they "may be at
increased risk and should seek advice about drinking water from
your health care provider."

The same notice says the disinfection byproduct in city water
could -- over many years -- cause liver, kidney or central nervous
system problems and an increased risk of cancer.

At protests, public meetings and on social media, some residents
have blamed the water on ailments ranging from rashes to cancer.
But the county Health Department's chief officer has said he
drinks it and said customers don't have much to be worried about
-- partly because people won't be drinking large amounts of the
water for decades.

Dr. Joan Rose of Michigan State University, told residents that
TTHM isn't the cause of cloudy, discolored water she saw at a town
hall meeting but is more likely related to Flint's old
transmission pipes.

Skin problems could be related to the hardness of Flint's treated
water, Dr. Rose said.

Amid the city's water issues, Flint's colleges told employees and
students they would be independently testing the water to try to
allay concerns. Flint's hospitals also have made adjustments
ranging from offering bottled water to specially treating
equipment that requires softer water.

Flint resident Cindy Marshall, who attended a protest Jan. 21,
said all she wants is "clean, safe water."

"I am paying over $130 in water bills, plus $150 in store-bought
water," she said.  "I won't let my dog drink it or my fish swim in
it.

"I wish Flint officials would give us our Detroit water back," she
added.

The city's water problems have caught the attention of Brockovich,
an environmental activist who says officials from Flint to
Washington, D.C., need to fix the water and stop making excuses.

"Now is not the time for the blame game . . . Detroit has failed
and Flint jumped ship. So much for local control . . . everyone is
responsible from the top down," she said on her Facebook page.

MLive-The Flint Journal could not reach emergency manager Jerry
Ambrose or Department of Public Works Director Howard Croft for
comment on whether they believe the savings tied to using river
water has been worth the resulting fallout.

Dr. Walling said the decision to use river water last year was
made by emergency manager Darnell Earley, but the mayor said he
was involved in the decision for the city to join the Karegnondi
Water Authority in 2013.

"The governor and the (state) treasurer to their credit recognized
it was important for the city's elected representatives to be
included in the decision about the long-term source (of water)
because we would be living with it," he said.  "But once the
decision was made in April 2013, it become an operational issue .
. . and I wasn't directly involved."

"I wasn't directly involved in the city's (decision) to use the
Flint River as a source," he said.  "It's now clear that the
challenge was underestimated."

Ms. Walling blamed the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department for
terminating Flint's contract to purchase Lake Huron water while
the KWA pipeline is under construction.

"I do think it bears repeating that it was DWSD that terminated
the contract with the city of Flint," he said.  "DWSD put the city
of Flint in a difficult position when they terminated that
contract we had for decades and decades . . . My goal had always
been to have a cooperative relationship with DWSD but every
opportunity that was looked at ended with a barrier."

A return to purchasing water from Detroit while the KWA project is
completed is something that City Council President Josh Freeman
said he's willing to consider, but Earley and Ambrose have said
it's too expensive of an option and said a short-term deal might
not even be possible.

DWSD made an offer for a "long-term" deal for water in a Jan. 12
letter to Flint's mayor and emergency manager, but it wasn't
immediately clear whether the arrangement offered by Detroit was
also available for a relatively short-term period.

Flint officials claim the use of Detroit water this year alone
would cost Flint an additional $12 million.

"I'm open to explore going back to Detroit, but it's not as easy
as going and switching a switch," Freeman said.  "I drink the
water.  I shower in it, but I get the smell (issues).  I taste the
difference."

The combination of discoloration, strong smells from water and
boil water and Safe Drinking Water notices from the city have
combined to create both legitimate problems and a crisis in
confidence, Freeman and Walling said.

GM retiree Dale Radford said he doesn't see the difference in his
water with the naked eye but he's recently started buying his
drinking water in 5-gallon jugs.

"I know they say it's safe to drink but I think everybody is kind
of worried about it," Mr. Radford said.  "I don't think the water
tastes the same.  I think the coffee in the morning tastes
different.

"I think they should have worked it so we kept the same water, but
Mr. after all is said and done, we're stuck with what we've got,"
Radford said.


GEM PAVER: Refuses to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nelson Efrain Gomez and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b) v. Gem Paver Systems, LLC, Jorge Fernandez, Case No.
1:15-cv-20425-DLG (S.D. Fla., February 3, 2015) alleges that the
Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay the
Plaintiff's overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Gem Paver Systems, LLC, is a corporation that regularly transacts
business within Dade County.  Jorge Fernandez is a corporate
officer, owner or manager of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865-6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
          E-mail: zabogado@aol.com


GLOBAL STRUCTURES: Faces "Kernes" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Kernes, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Global Structures, LLC and John J. Hildreth, Case No. 1:15-cv-
00659 (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.

Global Structures, LLC is a design to build company that provides
turnkey structural services to the real estate community.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Stedman Clark, Esq.
      LEVINE & BLIT, PLLC
      Empire State Builidng, 350 Fifith Avenue, Suite 6902
      New York, NY 10118
      Telephone: (212) 967-3000
      Facsimile: (212) 967-3010
      E-mail: jclark@levineblit.com


GOLD RESOURCE: 10th Cir. Affirms Securities Class Action Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------------
The US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently affirmed
the dismissal of a class action by investors in Gold Resource
Corp. (GRC) alleging that the company and four of its officers
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5.  The court held that there was insufficient evidence to
draw a strong inference of scienter under the heightened pleading
standard of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA).

The claims against the defendants arose out of GRC's mining
operations in Mexico.  Plaintiffs alleged that GRC and the
defendants intentionally inflated GRC's production statistics by
counting provisional invoices for sales of ore as revenue.  These
invoices were revised when final samples of the ore were taken
and, due to "significant" differences between the provisional
invoices and the final sample, the actual sale price of the ore
was significantly lower than the provisional invoice, forcing GRC
to restate its earnings for the first two quarters of 2012.
Additionally, plaintiffs alleged that the defendants knew of but
"intentionally ignored" infrastructure problems that would affect
production in the second quarter of 2012.  The US District Court
for the District of Colorado dismissed the suit for failing to
plead scienter.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed, concluding that there were other
equally plausible non-fraudulent explanations for the defendants'
conduct.  In regard to the financial restatements, the court,
emphasizing that Section 10(b) requires that the defendants'
statements be made at least recklessly, not merely negligently,
determined that a generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP)
violation alone was not sufficient for an inference of scienter
without other violations or irregularities.  The court regarded
the defendants' explanation, that the discrepancy in measurement
taken in Mexico was not immediately known by the management and
not disclosed until confirmed by an investigation, at least as
plausible as plaintiffs' inference of scienter. Further, the court
rejected plaintiffs' arguments regarding the infrastructure
problems of the mines, emphasizing that mining difficulties were
unforeseen by the defendants and an inherent risk of the industry.

In re Gold Resource Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 13-1323 (10th
Cir. Jan. 16, 2015).


GOVSIMPLIFIED LLC: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Wolf, writing for Law360, reports that GovSimplified LLC, an
online customer service specialist, was hit with a putative class
action in Florida state court on Jan. 21 for allegedly deceiving
consumers into thinking it was a government website and charging a
premium price for something site visitors could otherwise obtain
for free.

An Illinois resident, who allegedly purchased an IRS Employment
Identification Number through GovSimplfied last December, filed
suit against the company in Miami-Dade County, where the business
is located, claiming she was misled into thinking the site was
affiliated with the federal government.

Kelsey O'Brien's complaint alleges the company uses deceptive
domain names, layouts similar to government sites, and hard-to-
read disclaimers to lure in customers.  She is seeking to form a
class of the allegedly thousands of others across the country who
have also been deceived into purchasing EIN numbers through the
site.

"Defendant knew and intended that consumers would pay a price
premium for its product if consumers believed defendant's website
is faster than obtaining an EIN through the United States
government website," the complaint states.  "Defendant also does
not inform consumers that they may apply for an EIN for free over
the Internet, over the phone, or by facsimile."

According to the complaint, Ms. O'Brien purchased an EIN through
the GovSimplified website sometime in December 2014.  Only after
purchasing did she discover that EINs can be obtained through the
IRS website for free and be received immediately after
applications have been fully and accurately filled out.

The complaint states Ms. O'Brien would not have purchased the EIN
through GovSimplified if she had been aware it could be obtained
at no cost from the IRS.

Ms. O'Brien argues that the site's appearance and its URL, which
includes the affix "ein-gov.us," is made to deceive consumers into
thinking it is affiliated with the government.  Her complaint
states the website also makes no mention that an EIN can be
obtained for free.

A subsequent check on the website showed that the disclaimer
actually does say an EIN can be obtained for free from the IRS.

The complaint accuses the company of violating the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for unjust enrichment.
O'Brien and the putative class are seeking an injunction against
GovSimplifed as well as compensation for the money they paid the
company and to cover legal costs.

The GovSimplified website is billed as a service that makes the
process of applying for EINs simpler and faster than going through
a government website.  The company charges either $129, $147 or
$197 depending on how quickly the customer wants the number.

A spokeswoman for GovSimplified told Law360 on Jan. 23 that the
company had not yet been notified of the complaint, but said they
strive to provide 100 percent customer satisfaction for people who
experience errors when applying for EINs directly with the IRS.

She added that the company does maintain a disclaimer on each of
its sites and doesn't understand how its websites could be
mistaken for government websites.

Kelsey O'Brien and the putative class are represented by Andrew B.
Boese -- aboese@leoncosgrove.com -- of Leon Cosgrove LLC and Jana
Eisinger -- eisinger@mlgrouppc.com -- of Martinez Law Group P.C.

The case is Kelsey O'Brien et al v. GovSimplified in Florida's
Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County. The case
number was not immediately available.


HARVARD DRUG: Offer of Judgment Doesn't Moot Case, 11th Cir. Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, ruled that a
putative class action does not become moot when a defendant offers
a judgment in favor of the only named plaintiff and putative class
representative and the plaintiff declines the offer.  Accordingly,
the Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded the district court's
dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint in the case, SCOTT BARR,
DDS on behalf of itself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff-
Appellant, v. THE HARVARD DRUG GROUP, LLC, a Michigan corporation
d.b.a. Expert-Med, Defendant-Appellee, No. 14-13138 (11th Cir.).

A copy of the Eleventh Circuit's January 29, 2015 per curiam
decision is available at http://is.gd/1gG53jfrom Leagle.com.

Scott Barr, DDS, filed a putative class action against The Harvard
Drug Company, LLC (HDC) for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227.


HOME DEPOT: Alcoa Community Suit Included in Security Breach MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Alcoa Community Federal Credit
Union v. Home Depot Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-00039, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
(Atlanta).  The Georgia District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:15-cv-00330-TWT to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known
as In re: The Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach
Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-md-02583-TWT.

The litigation arose from the security breach in Home Depot's data
network in late April or early May 2014.  The data network
contained the personal financial information of hundreds of
thousands, if not millions, of consumers.  The data breach was
first reported on September 2, 2014, by a computer security
blogger.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mike Roberts, Esq.
          ROBERTS LAW FIRM, P.A.
          20 Rahling Circle
          P.O. Box 241790
          Little Rock, AR 72223-1790
          Telephone: (501) 821-5575
          Facsimile: (501) 821-4474
          E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us


HOME LOAN SERVICING: Sued in SDNY Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Oliveira, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., William C. Erbey,
John P. Van Vlack, and, James E. Lauter, Case No. 1:15-cv-00652
(S.D.N.Y., 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.

Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd. is headquartered and
incorporated in the Cayman Islands and engages in the acquisition
of mortgage servicing assets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan Richard Horne, Esq.
      Laurence Matthew Rosen, Esq.
      Phillip C. Kim, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
      New York, NY 00000
      Telephone: (212) 836-8000
      Facsimile: (212) 836-6407
      E-mail: jhorne@rosenlegal.com
              lrosen@rosenlegal.com
              pkim@rosenlegal.com


HORIZON HEALTHCARE: Faces "Luparello" Class Suit in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Luparello, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Horizon Healthcare Services, Inc., d/b/a
Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey, Case No. 2:15-cv-
00759-SDW-SCM (D.N.J., February 3, 2015) is brought on behalf of
all members enrolled in Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New
Jersey Preferred Provider Organization health insurance, who
received covered emergency medical services from out-of-network
providers and were billed for the balance of unpaid benefits to
those services.

Horizon is a not-for-profit health services corporation organized
in New Jersey and headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shelly A. Leonard, Esq.
          Steven Bennett Blau, Esq.
          BLAU LEONARD LAW GROUP, LLC
          23 Green Street, Suite 303
          NEW YORK, NY 11743
          Telephone: (631) 458-1010
          Facsimile: (631) 458-1011
          E-mail: sleonard@blauleonardlaw.com
                  sblau@blauleonardlaw.com


IMAGEONE INDUSTRIES: Faces "Bolstridge" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Bolstridge, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ImageOne Industries, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
00477-JS (E.D. Pa., February 2, 2015) is brought over alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Patrick Murphy, Jr., Esq.
          MURPHY LAW GROUP LLC
          One Penn Center, Suite 1230
          1617 John F Kennedy Blvd.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 375-0961
          E-mail: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com


INOVASI RESTAURANTS: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Raymundo Hernandez, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Inovasi Restaurants, LLC and John Des
Rosiers, Case No. 1:15-cv-01042 (N.D. Ill., January 31, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant within the State of
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INVENSENSE INC: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of
InvenSense, Inc. on Jan. 23 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of a class comprising
purchasers of InvenSense common stock between July 29, 2014 and
October 28, 2014, inclusive.  Investors who have losses of
$100,000 or more are encouraged to contact the firm for more
information.

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.

InvenSense designs, develops and markets micro-electro-mechanical
system gyroscopes for motion tracking devices in consumer
electronics.  The Complaint alleges that defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose to
investors that: (a) the Company had entered into an agreement with
Apple, Inc. to supply sensors for the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 plus
at heavily discounted prices compared to other customers; (b) the
low prices charged to Apple, along with low prices charged to
Samsung, had, and would continue to, negatively impact the
Company's margins; (c) InvenSense encountered manufacturing
problems and inefficiencies which negatively impacted margins; (d)
the Company lacked a reasonable basis to provide its stated near-
term financial guidance or to assure investors that margins would
be consistent with historical levels; (e) the Company's Form 10-Q
for the first quarter of 2015 failed to disclose then-known
trends, events or uncertainties associated with the Company's
sales and margins that were reasonably likely to have a material
effect on InvenSense's future operating results; and (f), as a
result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for
their positive statements about the Company's financial
performance and outlook during the Class Period.

On October 28, 2014, the Company reported disappointing financial
results for its second fiscal quarter ended September 28, 2014,
including net revenue of $90.2 million and a net loss of $6.868
million.  The Company also reported, among other things,
disappointing GAAP gross margins of only 35% and non-GAAP gross
margins of 37%, compared with GAAP gross margins of 47% and non-
GAAP gross margins of 50% in the first quarter of fiscal 2015.

Following this news, InvenSense shares declined 25%, or $5.40 per
share, to a closing price of $16.08 per share on October 29, 2014,
on unusually heavy volume.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later March 9, 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 suffered losses of $100,000 or more and 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.


JP MORGAN: Attempts to Abusively Collect a Debt, Class Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Madeline Montry and Rebecca Burlingame individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.;
National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-1; and the Law Offices
of Patenaude & Felix, A.P.C., Case No. 3:15-cv-00223-H-BLM (S.D.
Cal., February 3, 2015) challenges the alleged actions of the
Defendants with regard to their attempts to unlawfully and
abusively collect a debt allegedly owed by the Plaintiffs.

Patenaude and Felix is located and does business in the City of
San Diego, California.  All defendants, other than JP Morgan Chase
Bank, are persons who use an instrumentality of interstate
commerce or the mails in a business the principal purpose of which
is the collection of debts.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert L. Hyde, Esq.
          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: bob@westcoastlitigation.com
                  josh@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com


KARYN'S FRESH: Violates FLSA and IMWL, "Henriquez" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sonia Henriquez, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown v. Karyn's Fresh Corner Cafe,
Inc., and Karyn Calabrese, individually, Case No. 1:15-cv-01096
(N.D. Ill., February 3, 2015) seeks redress for the Defendants'
alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Karyn's Fresh Corner Cafe, Inc. is an Illinois corporation.  Karyn
Calabrese is the president of the Company.  The Plaintiff worked
for the Defendants as a food preparer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KPMG LLP: 1,000+ Female Employees Join Pay Discrimination Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Cohn, writing for Accounting Today, reports that more than
1,000 former and current KPMG female employees have joined a pay
discrimination class-action suit against the firm.

Notices went out last October about the suit to approximately
9,000 of the firm's former and current women employees.  They were
given 120 days to respond and there is a week left in the opt-in
period, according to the law firm that filed the suit, Sanford
Heisler Kimpel LLP in Washington, D.C.

Of the more than 1,000 women who have joined the pay
discrimination class action against KPMG, over 17 percent are
current employees.

A former KPMG senior manager, Donna Kassman, filed suit against
the Big Four firm in 2011, claiming she was repeatedly denied
promotion after returning from maternity leave (see KPMG Sued for
Gender Discrimination).  Four other female employees -- Linda
O'Donnell, Sparkle Patterson, Jeanette Potter and Ashwini Vasudeva
-- later joined the $400 million class-action lawsuit, and now the
number is in excess of 1,000.  Women comprise approximately half
of KPMG's employees, according to the plaintiffs, but only 18
percent are partners.

"In our experience, having over a thousand women join is a
remarkable response," said Sanford Heisler Kimpel managing partner
Katherine M. Kimpel -- kkimpel@sanfordheisler.com -- in a
statement.  "The Big Four accounting field is filled with
individuals who, even more than the average American, find suing
an employer particularly scary, perhaps because of all the hard
work and long hours they have dedicated to their careers.  That
more than a thousand women have nonetheless taken the step to
stand up against KPMG's discriminatory practices is a testament
not only to their courage but also to how deeply rooted the
problems at KPMG are.  I have no doubt that many more women will
be joining us between now and the January 31, 2015 deadline."

KPMG pointed out that the number of women who have joined the suit
is still relatively low.  "Two facts about the claims made by the
plaintiff speak louder than any others: almost 90 percent of those
eligible to have joined this lawsuit chose not to do so; and
almost 85 percent of the small number that did join are not
current KPMG employees," said KPMG spokesman Manuel Goncalves.
"That is because the allegations that have been made are without
merit, which KPMG confirmed after thoroughly and repeatedly
reviewing the matter.

"KPMG has long been recognized as a great place to work and build
a career, as well as a leader in fostering a diverse and inclusive
culture," he added.  "The firm is deeply committed to the career
advancement of women and confronting the challenges women too
often face in the workplace, and takes very seriously any concern
about discrimination or unfair treatment.  We could not be more
proud of our culture and the fact that KPMG is replete with and
led by many talented and successful women."


LA FOGATA: Removes "Somarriba" Suit to Florida District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Somarriba v. La Fogata Charcoal's
Latin Grill, Inc., et al., Case No. 2015-000282-CA-01, was removed
from the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and 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-20381-DLG to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Florida Minimum Wage Act to recover alleged unpaid minimum
wage compensation and damages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason S. Remer, Esq.
          Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (786) 464-0841
          Facsimile: (954) 790-6722
          E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com
                  bshulman@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Pedro P. Forment, Esq.
          Mendy Halberstam, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3500
          2 South Biscayne Boulevard
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 577-7600
          Facsimile: (305) 373-4466
          E-mail: pedro.forment@jacksonlewis.com
                  mendy.halberstam@jacksonlewis.com


LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of LeapFrog
Enterprises, Inc., on Jan. 22 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of a class comprising
purchasers of LeapFrog securities between May 5, 2014 and January
22, 2015, inclusive.

Please contact Lesley Portnoy or Casey Sadler 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.
LeapFrog is a developer of educational entertainment for children.

The Company's product portfolio consists of multimedia learning
platforms and related content, and learning toys.  The Company has
developed a number of learning platforms, including the LeapPad
family of learning tablets, the Leapster family of handheld
learning game systems, and the LeapReader reading and writing
systems.  The Complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose to investors that:
(1) the Company was experiencing a decline in consumer demand; (2)
the launch and shipment of the Company's new LeapTV video game
system were delayed by developmental issues; (3) retailers were
overstocked with the Company's LeapPad products; (4) as a result,
the Company lacked a reasonable basis for its financial guidance;
and (5), as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On January 22, 2015, after the close of trading, LeapFrog
announced preliminary financial results for its 2014 fiscal third
quarter.  These financial results were significantly below the
Company's stated expectations and financial guidance.  According
to the Company, LeapFrog's disappointing sales results were
related to decreased demand for its products and development
issues with the Company's LeapTV educational video game system.
Following this news, shares of LeapFrog declined nearly 35%, to
close on January 23, 2015, at $2.55 per share, on unusually heavy
volume.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court, no later than 60 days from January 22, 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, or Casey Sadler, 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.


LIFELOCK INC: Faces "Ebarle" Action Over Deceptive Advertising
--------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a class action lawsuit filed on
Jan. 19 against Lifelock, Inc. alleged the identity theft
protection company engaged in deceptive advertising.

Napoleon Ebarle and Jeanne Stamm alleged LifeLock had frequent
service delays, failed to maintain technology capable of
performing the security it advertised and didn't cancel accounts
for customers when requested.  The lawsuit alleged LifeLock's
founder Richard Todd Davis had his identity stolen 13 times after
posting his own Social Security number in advertisements in 2006.

Mr. Ebarle said he began using LifeLock services in 2012 and paid
approximately $40 a month to the company, which was supposed to
protect himself, his wife and two children. Mr. Ebarle alleged he
had suspicious activity on his account, but did not receive
notification from LifeLock as promised.

Ms. Stamm said she has used LifeLock since 2008 because the
company advertised that it would submit fraud alerts to creditors
in her name.  The lawsuit alleged LifeLock doesn't have that
capability.

The suit seeks class status and an undisclosed amount of damages
to the class members.  Mr. Ebarle and Ms. Stamm are represented by
Joseph H. Bates of Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC.

United States District Court for the Northern District of
California case number 3:15-cv-00258


LHR INC: Sued in N.J. for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Gavriel Jerusalem, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated v. LHR, Inc. d/b/a Lewis Hastie Receivables, Inc., Case
No. 3:15-cv-00744-PGS-DEA (D.N.J., February 2, 2015) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON PC
          1669 East 12th Street
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 339-0856
          E-mail: yzelman@sassonlaw.com


LS IMPORT: Recalls Push Toys Due to Chocking Hazard
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
LS Import, of Houston, Texas, announced a voluntary recall of
about 660 airplane and butterfly push toys. Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The wheels of the airplane and the balls at the tip of the
butterfly's antenna can detach, posing a choking hazard to young
children.

This recall involves plastic airplane and butterfly push toys. The
airplane push toy is red and has a blue, yellow and red rotor
above the cockpit's canopy and eyelids on the nose of the airplane
that open and shut when the toy is been pushed on the floor. The
airplane push toy has a pink plastic rod with a handle that
connects to the back of the toy to push it. The butterfly push
toy's body is yellow with pink wings and has a pink plastic ball
at the end of each of two antennas and a pair of wings that flap
up and down when the toy is been pushed on the floor. The
butterfly push toy has a green plastic rod with a handle that
connects to the back of the toy to push it.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/jHrjK2.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at LS
Import stores in Houston, Texas from May 2014 through July 2014
for between $1 and $2.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled toys away from
children and contact LS Import for a full refund.


M&G POLYMERS: S.C. Tossed Contribution-Free Health Care Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Barbara Leonard reports that
retirees failed to persuade the Supreme Court on January 26 that
they and their families deserve permanent contribution-free health
care benefits.

Hobert Freel Tackett led the class action in Columbus, Ohio,
against M&G Polymers USA after its December 2006 announcement that
M&G retirees would need to start making health care contributions.

After a bench trial, a federal judge said the retirees should get
health care for life without contributions and ordered them
reinstated to the post-2007 benefits plans.

The 6th Circuit affirmed the permanent injunction in 2013, but the
Supreme Court vacated that ruling on January 26 after taking up
the case last year.

"We interpret collective-bargaining agreements, including those
establishing ERISA plans, according to ordinary principles of
contract law, at least when those principles are not inconsistent
with federal labor policy," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the
unanimous court, abbreviating the name of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.

The 6th Circuit's ruling for the retirees had relied on the 1983
decision from a union's case against Yard-Man Inc., "to conclude
that, in the absence of extrinsic evidence to the contrary, the
provisions of the contract indicated an intent to vest retirees
with lifetime benefits," Thomas noted.

But the high court now clarified that "those inferences conflict
with ordinary principles of contract law."

"As an initial matter, Yard-Man violates ordinary contract
principles by placing a thumb on the scale in favor of vested
retiree benefits in all collective-bargaining agreements," Thomas
wrote.  "That rule has no basis in ordinary principles of contract
law.  And it distorts the attempt 'to ascertain the intention of
the parties.'  Yard-Man's assessment of likely behavior in
collective bargaining is too speculative and too far removed from
the context of any particular contract to be useful in discerning
the parties' intention."

Thomas also slammed the lower court for misapplying "other
traditional principles of contract law, including the illusory
promises doctrine."

In a concurring opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg clarified
what directions the lower court should take on remand, telling it
to "examine the entire agreement to determine whether the parties
intended retiree health-care benefits to vest."

"Because the retirees have a vested, lifetime right to a monthly
pension, a provision stating that retirees 'will receive' health-
care benefits if they are 'receiving a monthly pension' is
relevant to this examination," the opinion continues.  "So is a
'survivor benefits' clause instructing that if a retiree dies, her
surviving spouse will 'continue to receive [the retiree's health-
care] benefits . . . until death or remarriage.'  If, after
considering all relevant contractual language in light of industry
practices, the Court of Appeals concludes that the contract is
ambiguous, it may turn to extrinsic evidence -- for example, the
parties' bargaining history.  The Court of Appeals, however, must
conduct the foregoing inspection without Yard-Man's 'thumb on the
scale in favor of vested retiree benefits.'"

Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined
Ginsburg.

The case is M&G Polymers USA, LLC, et al. v. Tackett, et al., Case
No. 13-1010, in the Supreme Court of the United States.


MANHATTAN BANCORP: Faces Class Suit Over Sale to Plaza Bancorp
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling
Manhattan Bancorp too cheaply through an unfair process to Plaza
Bancorp, for $5.59 a share or a 1-for-1.2 share stock swap,
shareholders say in a class action in California Superior Court.


MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP: Sued in California Over Points Timeshare Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Norman Abramson and Carreen E. Abramson, individually and as Class
claimants v. Marriott Ownership Resorts, Inc., et al., Case No.
8:15-cv-00135 (C.D. Cal., January 29, 2015), arises out of the
materially false and misleading representation made by the
Defendants in connection with advertisement or promotion of the
points timeshare plan.

Marriott Ownership Resorts, Inc. is a subsidiary of Marriott
Vacations Worldwide Corporation, which operates more than 50
Marriott Vacation Club properties throughout the United States,
Caribbean, Europe, and Asia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
      Jeremy Robinson, Esq.
      CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT &PENFIELD, LLP
      110 Laurel Street
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone:  619-238-1811
      Facsimile: (619) 544-9232
      E-mail: gmb@cglaw.com
              jrobinson@cglaw.com

         - and -

      Joseph M. Matthews, Esq.
      Latoya C. Brown, Esq.
      COLSON HICKS EIDSON
      255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Telephone: (305) 476-7400
      Facsimile: (305) 476-7468
      E-mail: joseph@colson.com
              latoya@colson.com

         - and -

      Seth I. Rubinson, Esq.
      ZABEL FREEMAN LLP
      420 Heights Boulevard
      Houston, TX 77007
      Telephone: (713) 802-9117
      Facsimile: (713) 802-9114
      E-mail: srubinson@zflawfirm.com


MB FINANCIAL: "McCue" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cristin McCue, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. MB Financial, Inc. and MB Financial Bank, N.A., Case
No. 1:15-cv-00988 (N.D. Ill., January 30, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages under the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Defendants own and operate 87 bank branches throughout
Illinois and Indiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Mitchell Swartz, Esq.
      Paul William Mollica, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
      3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 245-1000
      E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com
              pwmollica@outtengolden.com


MERCER CANYONS: Must Face Migrant Wage Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Matthew Bultman, writing for Law360, reports that a Washington
federal judge on Jan. 23 kept alive a putative class action
alleging a southeastern Washington farm failed to inform local
farm workers about the availability of higher-paying H-2A visa
vineyard jobs, saying there are genuine disputes of fact in the
case.

U.S. District Judge Stanley Bastian denied a motion for summary
judgment filed by Mercer Canyons on the workers' claims the farm
violated the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection
Act, the Washington Consumer Protection Act and state wage laws by
not telling them about the higher-paying jobs.

"Viewing all disputed facts in the light most favorable to the
plaintiffs, defendant's motion for summary judgment on all claims
must be denied," Judge Bastian wrote.

Named plaintiffs Bacilio Ruiz and Jose Amador filed suit in March
seeking to represent farm workers in a suit against Mercer
Canyons, a 12,000-acre farm in southeastern Washington that,
according to its website, grows wine grapes and an assortment of
vegetables.

They allege the farm failed to notify prospective and current
workers that it had received a clearance order to employ workers
for vineyard labor under the H-2A visa program, a federal program
that allows employers who meet specific requirements to fill
temporary agricultural jobs with noncitizens.

According to Mr. Amador, who lives in a nearby town, he and two
family members were looking for jobs when they drove to Mercer
Canyons in March 2013 but were told there were no jobs available.

Around that time, however, the company hired 22 workers from
Mexico who had been referred by an employment office, paying each
$12 per hour, the complaint says.

Mr. Ruiz, meanwhile, worked at the farm between January and
September 2013 but was paid only $9.88 per hour and was never told
there were higher-paying jobs available, the complaint says.

The plaintiffs allege the company engaged in a "practice of
deceiving existing and prospective employees regarding [$12-per-
hour] jobs available" and sought class certification.  The class
certification motion was put on hold pending the outcome of the
motion for summary judgment.

In its filing, Mercer Canyon argued, among other things, that it
didn't give Amador false information and that he had no standing
to make a claim under the AWPA because he was not a "seasonal
worker."  It also disputed the idea of a link between the
allegedly deceptive practices and any economic injury the
plaintiffs suffered.

Mr. Amador, they said, declined to leave his contact information
when he visited Mercer Canyon, severing any causal link, and Ruiz
hadn't shown he would have been able to get one of the higher-
paying jobs even if he had known about them.

Judge Bastian sided with the plaintiffs, saying there was genuine
dispute about the information Mercer Canyon provided to Mr.
Amador. There is also dispute as to whether Ruiz was paid at the
proper rate, he ruled.

As for the possible injuries, he said the plaintiffs "have, at the
least, presented facts that raise a genuine dispute as to whether
a causal link exists between any deceptive practices and injury
suffered."

Lori A. Jordan Isley of Columbia Legal Services, one of the firms
representing the workers, said the decision reaffirmed a basic
worker protection under federal and state law.

"Growers have to provide truthful information to workers, and the
court reaffirmed that in dismissing the summary motion," she said.

The plaintiffs are represented by Adam Berger --
berger@sgb-law.com -- and Martin S Garfinkel --
garfinkel@sgb-law.com -- of Schroeter Goldmark & Bender and Lori A
Jordan Isley, Joachim Morrison and David Solis of Columbia Legal
Services.

Mercer Canyons is represented by Michael T Reynvaan --
MReynvaan@perkinscoie.com -- Aurora Rose Janke and Frederick Brian
Rivera -- FRivera@perkinscoie.com -- of Perkins Coie LLP.

The case is Ruiz Torres et al v. Mercer Canyons Inc., case number
1:14-cv-03032, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Washington.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces Insurance-Related Class Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers
District Lodge 15, on behalf of itself and all those similarly
situated v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Case No. 1:15-cv-
00504-ERK-RLM (E.D.N.Y., February 2, 2015) arises from insurance-
related disputes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Domenick Zaremba, Esq.
          ZAREMBA BROWNELL & BROWN PLLC
          40 Wall Street, 27th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 380-6700
          Facsimile: (212) 871-6395
          E-mail: jzaremba@zbblaw.com


MF GLOBAL: NY Judge Rules on Document Production Bid
----------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge James C. Francis, IV granted, in part, the
request of defendants Bradley Abelow, Jon Corzine, David Dunne,
Randy MacDonald, Vinay Mahajan, Edith O'Brien, David P. Bolger,
Eileen S. Fusco, David Gelber, Martin J.G. Glynn, Edward L.
Goldberg, David I. Schamis, Robert S. Sloan, and Henry Steenkamp
to compel the Litigation Trustee of the MF Global Litigation Trust
to search all of the as-yet-unproduced documents of MF Global Inc.
and MF Global Holdings Ltd. and produce those responsive to the
Individual Defendants' First Set of Requests for Production of
Documents.

JOSEPH DeANGELIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JON S. CORZINE, et al.,
Defendants. IN RE MF GLOBAL HOLDINGS LTD. INVESTMENT LITIGATION,
NOS. 11 CIV. 7866 (VM) (JCF), 12 MD 2338 (S.D.N.Y.), is a
consolidated action concerning the events surrounding the collapse
of MF Global.

The Litigation Trustee is the assignee of the rights and interests
of the former Chapter 11 Trustee for MF Global, and has control
over all of the company's documents that were in existence at the
time of its bankruptcy on October 31, 2011. The Litigation Trustee
has produced or agreed to produce millions of pages of documents
to the Individual Defendants, including documents from 33 MF
Global custodians who were identified by certain government
agencies in connection with their investigations and by the
plaintiffs in the putative securities class action that is part of
the consolidated case.

The Individual Defendants contend that this is insufficient and
seek an order compelling the Litigation Trustee to search "all
relevant document file systems" of MF Global, including "all
shared drives, private shared files, custodial files and hard copy
document sources" that might contain material responsive to the
requests for production.

Judge Francis directed the parties to meet and confer to agree on
a reasonable list of additional custodians -- no more than six --
whose files will be produced. In addition, they are to confer to
identify a reasonable subset of file systems likely to contain
relevant documents, which the Litigation Trustee must produce.

A copy of Judge Francis' Memorandum and Order dated January 15,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/Cf28wKfrom Leagle.com.


MRS BPO: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y., Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Friedman, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. MRS BPO, L.L.C., Case No. 1:15-cv-00498
(E.D.N.Y., February 2, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


MUAK BABY: Recalls 3-in-1 High Chairs Duet to Injury Risk
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Muak Baby LLC, of Redondo Beach, Calif., announced a voluntary
recall of about 1470 Mima Moon 3-in-1 High Chairs. Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The high chair seat can loosen and dislodge, allowing the seat and
child to fall. The chair can also fall onto a child crawling
underneath the seat, posing an impact hazard to the child.

This recall includes Moon model 3-in-1 high chairs which adjust to
a newborn, high and junior chair with a unique design consisting
of a base with two feet supporting a single post that holds up the
seat in a clear shell. The shell has a white inner seat with a
removable seat pad in white, camel or black.  The high chair
measures about 3 feet tall when in its highest position. There is
a "Mima" logo where the metal post attaches to the base to the
seat. There is also a "Moon" logo on the inside of the feet that
form the base of the high chair. The serial and model numbers are
located on a sticker on the inside of one of the two feet that
form the base of the high chair.

Serial Numbers included in recall:

MC00147U to MC00282U
MC00283U to MC00313U
MC00315U to MC00316U
MC00318 to MC00419U
MC00420U to MC00556U
MC00557U to MC00576U
MC00577U to MC00586U
MC00587U to MC00596U
MC00597U to MC00606U
MC00607U to MC00616U
MC00617U to MC00636U
MC00636U to MC00655U
MC00657U to MC00659U
MC00707U to MC00756U
MC00757U to MC00796U
MC00798U to MC00806U
MC00807U to MC00906U
MC00907U to MC00956U
MC00957U to MC01006U
MC01007U to MC01031U
MC01032U to MC01056U
MC01057U to MC01059U
MC01061U to MC01095U
MC01096U to MC01115U
MC01116U to MC01125U
MC01126U to MC01135U
MC01136U to MC01170U
MC01171U to MC01175U
MC01176U to MC01265U
MC01266U to MC01295U
MC01296U to MC01305U
MC01306U to MC01325U
MC01326U to MC01415U
MC01416U to MC01623U

The firm has received 14 reports of the high chair seat loosening.
No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/NNyJxy.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and majority of
the high chairs were given away at the May 9, 2014 taping of the
Ellen DeGeneres television show. The remaining chairs were sold at
children's juvenile product stores in California, Colorado,
Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, New Jersey, New York,
Puerto Rico, Texas and Virginia from February 2014 through
September 2014 for about $500.

Consumers should stop using the high chair immediately and contact
Mima to receive a free replacement upper chair section or
instructions on receiving a refund.


NAGOYA JAPANESE: "Liong" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hok Boen Liong and John Doe, on behalf of themselves and FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs v. Nagoya Japanese Restaurant, Inc., Santoso
Wibowo, Noto Wibowo, Melly Wibowo, Ngoto Wibowo, and Zhen Chen,
Case No. 2:15-cv-00626 (D.N.J., January 29, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages,
and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a Japanese Restaurant located at
278 North Avenue East, Westfield, New Jersey 07090.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Louis Kraselnik, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC
      271 Madison Avenue, Suite 1403
      NEW YORK, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 576-1857
      Facsimile: (212) 576-1888
      E-mail: robert@kraselnik.com


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: EA Sports Judges to Hear Antitrust Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Berkowitz, writing for USA Today Sports, reports that The
NCAA's appeal of the Ed O'Bannon class-action antitrust lawsuit is
now under the jurisdiction of the same three judges who ruled 2-1
against one of the NCAA's former co-defendants in what the 9th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has decided is a "related case."

The 9th Circuit's ruling in that case -- which involved video game
manufacturer Electronic Arts and former Arizona State and Nebraska
football player Sam Keller -- was labeled as erroneous by the NCAA
in its opening brief for the O'Bannon appeal.

"I don't think (the O'Bannon plaintiffs) should go out and buy
champagne yet, but this is not a good day for the NCAA," said
University of San Diego law professor Shaun Martin, an expert on
9th Circuit matters.

The developments were announced on Jan. 22 in an order issued on
the court's behalf by its clerk's office a little more than 24
hours after the O'Bannon plaintiffs made a filing that completed
the first round of written arguments to the appellate court.

The Jan. 22 order does not mention the judges by name, and it
lists the prior matter only by its 9th Circuit case number.  But
that case number was assigned to EA Sports' bid to strike a
complaint filed on behalf of Keller, who alleged that EA illegally
used his likeness in the NCAA Football game.

Judges Jay S. Bybee and Gordon J. Quist sent the Keller case back
to a district court, saying that the EA game was not protected
under the First Amendment as an artistic creation.  Judge Bybee
wrote the opinion, Judge Sydney R. Thomas a dissent.

David J. Madden, the assistant circuit executive for the 9th
Circuit, confirmed for USA TODAY Sports on Jan. 23 that "as of
[Fri]day," Judges Bybee, Quist and Thomas "have the case now.
They can make any orders or directives . . . as in any other
case."

The NCAA's interest in the ruling stems from the O'Bannon
plaintiffs' claim that the association violated antitrust law by
limiting what Bowl Subdivision football and Division I men's
basketball players can receive for playing sports and for the use
of the names, images and likenesses in in live television
broadcasts, rebroadcasts of games and video games.

In its initial written argument in support of the O'Bannon appeal,
the NCAA said Judges Bybee and Quist ruled "erroneously" in the
Keller case, contradicting "settled First Amendment doctrine" that
allows expressive use of realistic images.  The NCAA added that it
"preserves this argument for (full 9th Circuit) or Supreme Court
review."

Athletes speak forcefully, vote historically at NCAA convention
The NCAA also argues that the First Amendment -- combined with
various laws and court rulings -- prohibits athletes from claiming
that they are entitled to compensation for the use of their names,
images and likenesses in live telecasts because the telecasts
constitute news coverage.

At the time of the 9th Circuit's ruling against EA, the Keller
case and the O'Bannon case had been consolidated at the district
court level even though the Keller case did not involve antitrust
issues and was progressing at a slower pace than was the O'Bannon
case because of EA's appeal. (The NCAA and the nation's leading
collegiate trademark licensing and marketing firm, Collegiate
Licensing Co., also were defendants in the Keller case, but the
First Amendment issue and others involved in that appeal related
to EA's role, so it pursued the appeal.)

The Keller case and some video game-related issues in the O'Bannon
case eventually reached preliminary settlements, removing EA and
CLC from the action, but the NCAA continued to cite the First
Amendment as a reason it should prevail in the O'Bannon case,
which went to trial this past summer.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken ended up ruling in favor of the
O'Bannon plaintiffs.  She determined that NCAA rules limiting
athletes to scholarships basically comprising tuition, fees, room,
board and books violate antitrust laws and she ordered the
creation of a system under which Bowl Subdivision football and
Division I men's basketball players would be able to receive not
only scholarships covering their full cost of attending school but
also what amounts to deferred compensation in exchange for their
participation and the schools' use of their names, images and
likenesses.

The NCAA submitted a written opening argument to the 9th Circuit
in November and can offer a reply to the O'Bannon plaintiffs' the
Jan. 21 filing by Feb. 11.  In most cases, the 9th Circuit does
not assign judges to a case until after all written filings have
been submitted and does not publicly disclose which judges have
been assigned to a case until even later.

In this case, Mr. Madden said in an e-mail on Jan. 23: "The
O'Bannon case was offered and accepted by the Keller panel as a
comeback case under the court's" general rules.

Mr. Madden wrote that the rules define a comeback case as one
"involving substantially the same parties and issues from which
there had previously been a calendared appeal or opinion."

He added: "The purpose of this practice is to conserve judicial
resources by assigning related cases to a panel already having
substantial understanding of the underlying facts of the case.
O'Bannon and the (NCAA) are parties in both cases, which also
involve the same video games.  The two cases were so closely
related that they were originally consolidated at the district
court for purposes of pretrial proceedings."

Judges Bybee and Thomas are members of the 9th Circuit, with
Thomas the chief judge.  Judge Quist is a senior district judge in
the Western District of Michigan who was temporarily assigned to
the 9th Circuit for the Keller case; such assignments are allowed
when judicial need arises.

Mr. Martin said it is unusual for the court to determine on its
own that one case is related to a prior case and for the same
panel of judges to assume jurisdiction over the subsequent case.
Usually, Mr. Martin said, such determinations are made after a
request by one of the sides.  No such requests have been recorded
in the 9th Circuit's list of filings in the O'Bannon case.

"With run-of-the-mill cases, no one around even remembers (what
might be) a related case," Mr. Martin said.  "This ain't a run-of-
the-mill case."

Mr. Martin said that the NCAA's specific assertions about Judges
Bybee's Keller appeal opinion won't help its cause in the O'Bannon
case, but the bigger issue is that the three judges "already have
expressed their opinions in a related case."

But Mr. Martin also cautioned that the NCAA's appeal of Judge
Wilken's ruling primarily focuses on other issues -- Judge
Wilken's refusal to follow a 1984 Supreme Court ruling that the
NCAA has relied upon to preserve its amateurism system and her
injunction's specific reach into NCAA rules-making.

Thomas, the judge who favored EA in the Keller appeal, wrote as
part of the reason for dissent that for a variety of legal reasons
"an individual college athlete's right of publicity is
extraordinarily circumscribed and, in practical reality, non-
existent."

However, he added in a footnote: "The issue of whether this
structure is fair to the student athlete is beyond the scope of
this appeal, but forms a significant backdrop to the discussion."
He cited the NCAA's hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue and
that vast majority of comes from "television and marketing fees.
However, few college athletes will ever receive any professional
compensation. . . . And participation in college football can come
at a terrible cost.  The NCAA reports that, during a recent five-
year period, college football players suffered 41,000 injuries,
including 23 non-fatal catastrophic injuries and 11 (fatalities)
from indirect catastrophic injuries."


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Judge Suggests Changes to Concussion Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that the federal judge handling the case over concussions in the
National Football League has suggested minor changes to the
settlement before she grants it final approval.

The proposed settlement, which got preliminary approval last July
after the judge rejected the first deal a year ago, has been
maligned by lawyers for some of the former players.

The five suggestions made by U.S. District Judge Anita Brody of
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania don't address the major
criticism of the settlement from some of the plaintiffs' lawyers,
which is that it doesn't compensate players who have chronic
traumatic encephalopathy, or CTE.

The terms of the settlement allow for cash awards to the families
of players who die with CTE before the date of preliminary
approval of the settlement, which was at the beginning of July.

In her three-page order issued on Jan. 2, Judge Brody suggested
that coverage for death with CTE should go through the date of
final approval of the settlement.  She also suggested that the
settlement should include some credit for eligible seasons played
in the World League of American Football, the NFL Europe League,
and the NFL Europa League; it should have reasonable
accommodations for class members who don't have medical records
due to "force majeure-type events"; it should include a hardship
provision for the appeal fee for class members; and it should
ensure that all eligible players who comply with all of the
deadlines should have access to the baseline assessment
examination, which tests former players' neurocognitive functions
to establish whether they have a diagnosis that qualifies for a
recovery under the settlement, regardless of any potential funding
limitations.

The last suggestion has the same tenor as the reason that she
rejected the first agreement last January.

She rejected that deal, which included a $675 million fund from
which injured former players would draw, making clear that she was
troubled by the lack of empirical support for the figure and that
she was unsure that there would be enough money to cover all of
the players with potential claims.

That move drew praise from lawyers for some of the former football
players who alleged that they had been kept in the dark on the
details of the deal.

At the fairness hearing for the settlement held in November, Chris
Seeger, co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs who worked on the deal
with the NFL's lawyers, told Brody that the issue now before her
-- when she is weighing final approval of the settlement -- is
"not whether it's perfect," but, rather, whether it is fair,
reasonable and adequate.  He noted that Third Circuit precedent
entitles the settlement to a presumption of fairness.

He characterized the objecting lawyers as wanting to structure the
settlement their way, by having various subclasses of plaintiffs
rather than the two that are included in the settlement.

Bruce Birenboim -- bbirenboim@paulweiss.com -- of Paul, Weiss,
Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, who is on the NFL's defense team,
framed the issue of deciding which CTE-related ailments to cover
this way: "Is the line that was drawn here fair and reasonable;
given the science and, we think, given the causation issues and
given the infancy of the research in the area, the line is clearly
a fair line."

Seeger, Birenboim and Brad Karp -- bkarp@paulweiss.com -- who is
another Paul Weiss lawyer on the NFL's defense team, all
repeatedly emphasized that players don't have to prove causation
in order to collect for their qualifying injuries under their
proposed settlement.  Proving that the players' neurocognitive
ailments were caused by head injuries they suffered while playing
in the NFL had loomed as one of the major obstacles the plaintiffs
would have to overcome if the case went to litigation.

Mr. Karp characterized the criticisms of the settlement for its
lack of coverage for CTE as a deliberate and fundamental
misunderstanding of the settlement and its scope.  Mood disorders
and depression, both of which some objectors list as symptoms of
CTE, are also distributed across the general population and "have
nothing in the world" to do with football or CTE, Mr. Karp said.
Regarding Judge Brody's suggestions for changes to the settlement,
Seeger said in a prepared statement, "We will work with the
National Football League to promptly address the issues raised in
Judge Brody's order, and remain confident this settlement will
receive final approval.  We are grateful to Judge Brody for her
guidance and continued efforts to protect the rights of all class
members.  We look forward to finalizing this agreement so that
retired players can begin taking advantage of its benefits."


NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING: Court Limits Claims Against APAC & Chang
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Rya W. Zobel granted, in part, and denied, in part,
the request of Advanced Pain & Anesthesia Consultants, P.C. d/b/a
APAC Centers for Pain Management ("APAC") and Randolph Y. Chang,
M.D., for dismissal of all claims against them in the
multidistrict litigation that stemmed from an outbreak of fungal
meningitis caused by contaminated methylprednisolone acetate
manufactured and sold by the New England Compounding Pharmacy,
Inc., d/b/a New England Compounding Center.

APAC and Chang sought dismissal of all claims against them in the
so-called direct-filed actions for lack of personal jurisdiction,
and in the direct-filed and Illinois-filed actions, for failure to
state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (6).

Judge Zobel, in a January 13, 2015 Memorandum of Decision
available at http://is.gd/i7bCuafrom Leagle.com, ruled that:

     -- the direct-filed actions be consolidated into their
corresponding Illinois-filed actions;

     -- Plaintiffs' claims for agency (Count X), civil conspiracy
(Count XI), and battery (Count VII) are dismissed without
prejudice per stipulation of the parties;

     -- Defendants' motion to dismiss is allowed as to plaintiffs'
claim for strict product liability (Count IX) and denied as to all
other claims.


NEW JERSEY: Fathers Sue Over Child Custody Proceedings
------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a group of fathers is moving ahead with its suit claiming they get
short shrift in child custody proceedings before New Jersey's
family court judges.

The group filed an amended complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey in Trenton on Jan. 22, naming five
Family Part judges as defendants.  The latest filing follows a
Jan. 16 ruling from U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson that granted
the defendants' motion to dismiss but dispatched some of the
counts without prejudice.

The amended complaint brings due process and equal protection
claims against Judges Lawrence DeBello and Anthony Massi, both of
Mercer County; John Call Jr. of Burlington County; Nancy Sivilli
of Essex County; and Maureen Sogluizzo of Hudson County in their
official and individual capacities.  The judges signed orders in
the cases of the six plaintiff fathers.  The complaint is brought
on behalf of persons who were deprived of child custody by the
defendants in violation of their constitutional rights.

The six fathers who are named plaintiffs claim that basing custody
decisions on the best interests of the child violates the
plaintiffs' constitutional rights.  Parents who are at risk of
losing a custody or visitation battle should be granted the same
due process rights granted to those whose parental rights are
subject to termination due to abuse or neglect, they claim.

The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief for
deprivation of fundamental rights under color of law, including an
order requiring any parent whose right to care, custody or control
of their child was reduced by state action to be granted a plenary
hearing within 10 days of that action.

The fathers claim they lost custody of their children after being
given short notice of orders to show cause accusing them of
domestic violence or being incompetent parents.  Many of the
plaintiffs claim they had no chance to retain counsel before
losing custody and visitation, and are required to demonstrate a
change in circumstances before they can regain custody.

Among the plaintiffs is Surender Malhan, who cites the proceedings
in which he lost custody of his two children after their mother
filed an order to show cause requesting full custody.
Ms. Sogluizzo gave Mr. Malhan less than two hours' notice of the
proceeding and did not allow him to present evidence to refute the
mother's claims that he was an unfit parent, the suit says.

Mr. Malhan was interviewed on WWOR-TV about the present suit,
prompting Sivilli to issue an order barring him from discussing
the case with the media.  Mr. Malhan claims his First Amendment
rights were violated by the order.

The plaintiffs' lawyer, Jersey City, N.J., solo practitioner Paul
Clark, also has filed a separate suit against Sivilli over the gag
order on behalf of a local blogger, Paul Nichols. Clark notes that
all the plaintiffs in the class action are male, but he says it's
unclear whether the system is biased against fathers.

"We're certainly hoping to get the federal court to review the
situation in the New Jersey Family Court.  In our view, the
Appellate Division has let the lower court do whatever it wants,"
Clark said.

The plaintiffs' claims against the state of New Jersey, Superior
Court Clerk Michelle Smith and several presiding Chancery Division
judges were dismissed by Judge Wolfson on Jan. 16.

Judge Wolfson rejected the state's motion to dismiss the case as
an attempt to appeal state court proceedings.  She cited a 2013
U.S. Court of Appeals for Third Circuit ruling in a similar case,
B.S. v. Somerset County, in which the appeals court ruled that
such grounds did not apply to the case of a mother who claimed she
lost custody of her daughter due to a violation of her due process
rights by a Pennsylvania state court judge.  Judge Wolfson also
rejected the state's sovereign immunity defense, finding that the
plaintiffs' claims against the individual defendants for
injunctive relief involving their custody hearings are not actions
against the state and are not barred by sovereign immunity.

Judiciary spokeswoman Tammy Kendig declined to comment on the
amended complaint.


NEWFOUNDLAND, CANADA: Moose Class action Appeal Hearing Wraps Up
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Telegram reports that a two-day appeal hearing into the moose-
vehicle class action that was dismissed in September wrapped up on
Jan. 23.

More than a hundred class members who have been affected by moose-
vehicle collisions in the province were part of the class action,
led by lawyer Ches Crosbie.  The trial judge dismissed the case in
the fall, saying the presence of moose on the province's highways
is not a result of government activity, and the government doesn't
owe the travelling public a duty of care.

Mr. Crosbie said in a news release the appeal hearing, which
included a panel of three judges, was "full and thorough."  A
decision could take six months or longer, the news release said,
and members of the class action will be notified as soon as the
decision is available.


NITE LIGHT: "Lopez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gilbert Lopez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Nite Light Signs and Balloons, Inc., d/b/a Awesome
Amusements, a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-01022 (N.D.
Ill., January 30, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Nite Light Signs and Balloons, Inc. rents rides, attractions and
concessions for private events and for various community
organizations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Terrence Buehler, Esq.
      TOUHY, TOUHY & BUEHLER, LLP
      55 West Wacker Drive, 14th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 372-2209
      Facsimile: (312) 456-3838
      E-mail: tbuehler@touhylaw.com


OMEGA FLEX: Negligence/Strict Liability Dichotomy Repudiated
------------------------------------------------------------
James M. Beck, writing for Law.com, reports that during the long
reign of Azzarello v. Black Brothers, 391 A.2d 1020 (Pa. 1978), as
the foundation of strict products liability in Pennsylvania, the
strict separation of "negligence" and "strict liability" imposed
by that decision led to a number of secondary exclusions of
evidence and theories.  The first of these involved so-called
"state of the art" evidence, of which there are several subsets:
(1) scientific unknowability; (2) governmental standards; and (3)
industry standards.

In Lewis v. Coffing Hoist Division, 528 A.2d 590 (Pa. 1987), the
court, citing to Azzarello's negligence/strict liability
dichotomy, held that evidence of industry customs and standards
should be inadmissible in strict liability actions.  Discussing
Azzarello, the court said, "We also concluded, if not expressly,
then certainly by clear implication, that negligence concepts have
no place in a case based on strict liability."  Therefore, the
court decided, "evidence of industry standards . . . go to the
reasonableness of the [defendant's] conduct in making its design
choice," and "conclude[d] that such evidence would have improperly
brought into the case concepts of negligence law."

Even before Lewis, however, the Superior Court in Carrecter v.
Colson Equipment, 499 A.2d 326 (Pa. Super. 1985), had held that
Azzarello barred manufacturers from defending on the basis that
either the risk or the curative measure at issue was
scientifically unknowable at the time of the product's
manufacture.  Carrecter rejected any defense based on "the
technological feasibility aspect of state of the art," because "in
the Pennsylvania law of products liability there is no room for a
negligence based defense under the guise of 'state of the art.'"

Last to fall to the negligence/strict liability dichotomy was
compliance with mandatory government standards.  In Hicks v. Dana
Cos., 984 A.2d 943 (Pa. Super. 2009), the en banc court held that
"governmental regulations are inadmissible in strict liability
cases . . . based upon the general premise that the introduction
of such evidence has the effect of shifting the jury's attention
from the existence of a defect to the reasonableness of the
manufacturer's conduct, which is irrelevant in strict liability
actions." Cases that had allowed compliance evidence "were
predicated upon [a] definition of defect . . . which differs from
the one articulated by our Supreme Court in Azzarello."

Governmental and industry standards were indistinguishable.  "In
either situation the use of such evidence interjects negligence
concepts and tends to divert the jury from their proper focus,
which must remain upon whether or not the product, when it left
the control of the manufacturer, was 'lacking any element
necessary to make it safe for its intended use or possessing any
feature that renders it unsafe for the intended use.'"

Another negligence defense fell, in Kimco Development v. Michael
D's Carpet Outlets, 637 A.2d 603 (Pa. 1993), where the court held
that comparative fault did not apply to cases litigated on strict
liability principals.  Relying, in part, on a pre-Azzarello case,
McCown v. International Harvester, 342 A.2d 381 (Pa. 1975), which
had abrogated the common-law defense of contributory negligence in
strict liability, the court held that "the underlying purpose of
strict products liability is undermined by introducing negligence
concepts into it." Kimco quoted Azzarello at length for this
proposition.

Finally, the admissibility of plaintiff fault as bearing on
causation vexed Pennsylvania courts for many years.  In one of the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court's last decisions applying the Azzarello
standard, Reott v. Asia Trend, 55 A.3d 1088 (Pa. 2012), sought to
keep negligence and strict liability separate by restricting such
evidence to a plaintiff's "highly reckless conduct."  Only "highly
reckless conduct" -- not mere "contributory negligence" -- was
admissible in strict liability.  The dichotomy between negligence
and strict liability forced this distinction:

"Under Pennsylvania's scheme of products liability, evidence of
highly reckless conduct has the potential to erroneously and
unnecessarily blend concepts of comparative/contributory
negligence . . .  Without some further criteria, highly reckless
conduct allegations by defendants could become vehicles through
which to eviscerate a Section 402A action by demonstrating a
plaintiff's comparative or contributory negligence."

The conduct at issue in Reott was deemed insufficiently
"unforeseeable and outrageous" to be admissible.

Then the court expressly overruled Azzarello in Tincher v. Omega
Flex, ___ A.3d ___, No. 17 MAP 2013 (Pa. Nov. 19, 2014).
Azzarello "articulate[d] governing legal concepts which fail to
reflect the realities of strict liability practice and to serve
the interests of justice."  Thus, Tincher repudiated the
negligence/strict liability dichotomy upon which the exclusions in
cases such as Lewis was predicated.  Instead of strict separation,
Tincher recognized that "the theory of strict liability as it
evolved overlaps in effect with the theories of negligence and
breach of warranty."

"A strict reading of Azzarello is undesirable," the Tincher court
said.  "Subsequent application of Azzarello elevated the notion
that negligence concepts create confusion in strict liability
cases to a doctrinal imperative, whose merits were not examined to
determine whether such a bright-line rule was consistent with
reason. . .  The effect of the per se rule that negligence
rhetoric and concepts were to be eliminated from strict liability
law was to validate the suggestion that the cause of action, so
shaped, was not viable."

As the court said, "those decisions essentially led to puzzling
trial directives that the bench and bar understandably have had
difficulty following in practice."  Azzarello's "negligence
rhetoric-related doctrinal proscription arising from a peculiar
set of circumstances had long-term deleterious effects on the
development of strict liability law in Pennsylvania."

According to Tincher, a "typical" design defect case involves
foreseeable risks, akin to negligence, and thus approximates the
"alternative design" approach of the Restatement (Third) of Torts:

"[This] claim was essentially premised upon the allegation that
the risk of harm related to [the product's design] was both
foreseeable and avoidable. . . . These allegations, at least, bear
the indicia of negligence. Indeed, in some respects this is the
'typical' case, which explains both the insight that in design
cases, the character of the product and the conduct of the
manufacturer are largely inseparable, and the Third Restatement's
approach of requiring an alternative design as part of the
standard of proof."

The court cautioned, however, that not every case was typical.
"Courts do not try the 'typical' products case exclusively."

Under Tincher's "composite" standard, both "risk/utility" and
"consumer expectation" theories of defect are permitted.  This
duality recognizes that "the theory of strict liability as it
evolved overlaps in effect with the theories of negligence and
breach of warranty."  Manufacturers typically "engage in a risk-
utility calculus" typical of negligence whereas intermediate
sellers "implicitly represent" their products' nondefectiveness
analogously to a warranty.

Tincher refrained from passing on any of the Azzarello-based
restrictions on defenses and evidence, because those questions
were not before it.  As the court stated:

"We recognize -- and the bench and bar should recognize -- that
the decision to overrule Azzarello . . . may have an impact . . .
upon subsidiary issues constructed from Azzarello, such as the
availability of negligence-derived defenses. . . . These
considerations and effects are outside the scope of [this case]."

The court continued: "This opinion does not purport to either
approve or disapprove prior decisional law, or available
alternatives suggested by commentators or the Restatements,
relating to . . . or subsidiary considerations and consequences of
our explicit holdings."

Tincher thus made explicit the court's understanding that, with
Azzarello and its negligence/strict liability dichotomy overruled,
all of the prior restrictions on what were previously considered
"negligence-derived" or "use-related" defenses and evidence are
now fair game for reconsideration.  By no means are any or all of
them defunct, as yet, but these restrictions on how defendants may
try their cases must now be evaluated on their substantive merit,
and can no longer be justified simply because they involve
negligence principles or evidence.

In the new, post-Tincher era, litigants will be required to
preserve for appellate review numerous issues that were previously
thought settled under Azzarello's negligence/strict liability
dichotomy.  Tincher's seismic shift in the fundamental bases for
products liability demands no less.


PANTRY INC: Being Sold for Too Little to Couche-Tard, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling The
Pantry (convenience stores) too cheaply through an unfair process
to Couche-Tard, for $36.75 a share of $1.7 billion, shareholders
claim in Delaware Chancery Court.


PFIZER INC: Sued for Keeping Celebrex Generics From Consumers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charly Himmel at Courthouse News Service reports that Pfizer
fraudulently got its patent for its highly successful arthritis
drug Celebrex reissued so it could wage a war of sham litigation
to keep generic versions of drug from consumers, a class action
claims.

Named plaintiff Allied Services Division Welfare Fund alleges that
Pfizer undertook to scheme after a Federal Court ruled that its
patent relating to the active ingredient in Celebrex, celecoxib,
was invalid.

As a result of its alleged activities, "purchasers of prescription
drugs are now paying, and will continue to pay, supra-competitive
prices for Celebrex, imposing antitrust overcharges on purchasers
of many hundreds of millions of dollars even though the only valid
celecoxib patents have already expired," the complaint says.

The plaintiff claims Pfizer repeatedly submitted false information
to the U.S. Patent and Trade Office in order to obtain continuous
reissue patents.  Patent exclusivity for celecoxib ended on
May 30, 2014.

Pfizer has since attempted to preemptively prosecute other drug
manufacturers who might produce generic versions of the drug, the
complaint says.

"But Pfizer's goal was not to win this sham litigation," the
plaintiffs continue.  "It was simply to use the lawsuit to delay
would-be generic makers' entry efforts, and to have a lawsuit
pending to serve as a vehicle for later settlements that would buy
Pfizer additional exclusivity beyond May 2014."

Allied Services says these efforts were successful.  It points to
Teva Pharmaceuticals as one party, who settled out of court under
the accord that they would not produce their generic version of
the drug until December 2014.

"Protecting our intellectual property is vital to our ability to
develop new medicines that save or enhance patient lives," Senior
Director of Pfizer Media Relations Christine Regan Lindenboom told
Courthouse News.  "Pfizer's good-faith efforts to procure and
enforce its Celebrex patents were at all times proper and lawful,
and the Company believes this case has no merit."

According to Pfizer, more than 33 million US consumers have taken
Celebrex since its inception in 1999.  Celebrex grossed over $2
billion in sales last year alone.


PFIZER INC: Plaintiffs Fails to Keep Expert Witness in Zoloft MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for Law.com, reports that the first
expert offered by plaintiffs to show the antidepressant Zoloft
caused birth defects in babies born to mothers who took it is
still unacceptable, the federal judge handling the case has ruled.

U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania stuck by her June decision to toss Dr. Anick Berard
from the case in an opinion she issued to answer the plaintiffs'
steering committee's motion for reconsideration in the
multidistrict litigation case that covers more than 600
plaintiffs.

In an unusual move earlier this month, Judge Rufe allowed the
plaintiffs to offer a second causation expert to the court over
the forceful objection of Pfizer, which makes the drug.

"Dr. Berard departed from the generally accepted methods and
principles of her field in multiple ways," Judge Rufe said in her
most recent opinion, reaffirming her June decision.  On
reconsideration, the judge did not find that she had "committed an
error of fact or law," she said, or that the court had abused its
discretion.

Zoloft is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) that is
sometimes prescribed to pregnant women.  Mothers who took the drug
while pregnant and had babies with birth defects filed the suit.
Berard had done studies that would have supported their argument
that Zoloft had led to the birth defects.

"Dr. Berard opines that SSRIs, in general, and Zoloft, in
particular, cause a wide range of birth defects when used during
pregnancy," Judge Rufe had said in her original June opinion
rejecting Berard as an expert.  "Other researchers in her field
have concluded that the epidemiological research on which Dr.
Berard relies provides no conclusive evidence of an association
between Zoloft and birth defects."

Some of those other researchers actually recommend Zoloft as a
first-line treatment for depression in pregnant women, the judge
said.

"This does not represent a mere professional difference of
opinion; Dr. Berard's opinions regarding Zoloft are only made
possible by her departure from use of well-established
epidemiological methods," Judge Rufe had said.

Dr. Berard is a professor at the University of Montreal who
researches the effect of medications on pregnancy.  The field is
teratology and drugs that cause birth defects are called
teratogens.

Since traditional epidemiological studies can't ethically be done
on pregnant women, those who study that group calculate risk to
fetuses from drugs in other ways, Judge Rufe explained.

The judge found that Dr. Berard's methods weren't sturdy enough to
pass muster for the court.

That was the outcome of the first Daubert hearing, which allows
parties in a case to challenge expert testimony before the start
of trial and is named for the 1993 U.S. Supreme Court case Daubert
v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals.  It lasted for about a week last
April and focused primarily on Dr. Berard.

Judge Rufe set the stage for a second Daubert hearing when she
allowed the plaintiffs to present a second expert witness.

Mark Cheffo -- markcheffo@quinnemanuel.com -- of Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan, who argued on behalf of Pfizer at that
hearing, had characterized the plaintiffs' motion to introduce a
new expert as highly unusual, calling it a "Daubert do-over,"
using language adapted from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit.

During the hearing, Judge Rufe had fastened on the question of
potential prejudice to Pfizer, saying to Mr. Cheffo, "I want to
really know: How is Pfizer harmed and isn't it just as harmful not
to grant the right to have Dr. Jewell come in?"

Dr. Nicholas Jewell is a professor in the biostatistics division
at the University of California, Berkeley.  His testimony would
seek to prove that Zoloft causes heart defects in babies born to
mothers who take the drug rather than all of the various defects
that Dr. Berard's testimony would have sought to link to the drug.

"Although there is some prejudice to Pfizer, in that it will be
put to the additional expense required to litigate the
admissibility of Dr. Jewell's proposed testimony, this prejudice
is not of a character sufficient to warrant denial of the motion,"
Judge Rufe said when she allowed the plaintiffs to move forward
with Jewell.


PRANNATH INC: Sued in Illinois Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Lara-Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Prannath, Inc., d/b/a Dos Amigos, and Anil
Patel, Case No. 1:15-cv-01043 (N.D. Ill., January 31, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.

The Defendants own and operate Dos Amigos 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


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Plaintiffs' Causation Expert Can't Testify
------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that if
big product liability cases have one thing in common, it's that
they tend to drag on and on for both sides.  Just ask Weil,
Gotshal & Manges, which has spent five years chipping away at
claims that Procter & Gamble's Fixodent denture glue can cause
neurological damage.

P&G hasn't escaped the litigation yet, but it edged closer last
week, convincing a federal judge for the second time to keep the
plaintiffs' causation expert from testifying.

Siding with a Weil team led by Edward Soto, U.S. District Judge
Cecilia Altonaga in Miami ruled on Jan. 29 that plaintiffs lawyers
had offered flawed evidence in their attempts to prove a link
between the zinc in Fixodent and neurological damage among people
who use the product.  The ruling effectively undermines the
plaintiffs' theory of injury in the long-running denture cream
case, which P&G and Weil have been fighting since 2009.

Judge Soto called the ruling a "significant victory" on Feb. 2,
saying it vindicated P&G's arguments that "the science does not
support plaintiffs' causation theory."   We also reached out to
plaintiffs lawyer Eric Chaffin of Chaffin Luhana but didn't hear
back.

The multidistrict litigation had originally targeted
GlaxoSmithKline as well over its similar Super Poligrip product.
GSK announced in 2010 that it would stop using zinc in Poligrip,
however, and it later paid a reported $120 million in a series of
settlements with the plaintiffs.

P&G elected to keep fighting . . . and fighting, and fighting. But
despite successes along the way, it's still waiting to close the
book on the case.  Indeed, the Jan. 29 ruling is the second time
Judge Altonaga has sided with P&G and its lawyers at Weil on the
plaintiffs' causation theory.

In June 2011, Weil convinced Judge Altonaga to throw out causation
expert testimony in one of the MDL suits led by plaintiff Marianne
Chapman.  At the time, Judge Altonaga ruled that the plaintiffs
presented a "superficially appealing hypothesis that prolonged use
of very large amounts of Fixodent" might cause neurological
damage.  She added, however, that the "theory is not ridiculous,
but neither is it necessarily true."

After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit sided
with Weil and upheld Judge Altonaga's ruling last year, lawyers
for the plaintiffs went back to the drawing board, telling
Judge Altonaga they'd uncovered new support for their claim that
Fixodent can cause copper deficiency myeloneuropathy.

Judge Altonaga shut that argument down in an exhaustive, 64-page
ruling on Jan. 29.  Most of the plaintiffs' purported new
evidence, he found, suffered from the same defects as in
Ms. Chapman.

"While promising on its face, the 'new evidence since Chapman'
relies on factually inaccurate data and unsupported assumptions,"
the judge wrote.


PUNCHGINI INC: "Kumar" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Naresh Kumar, on behalf of himself FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and
the Class v. Punchgini, Inc., d/b/a Bukhara Grill, Raja Jhanjee,
Vicky Vij, Bachan Rawat, Dhandu Ram, Paragnesh Desai, and Vijay
Roa, Case No. 1:15-cv-00679 (S.D.N.Y., January 30, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate an Indian restaurant located at 217
East 49th Street, New York, New York 10017.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


REAL AWNING: Faces "Veiga" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Jervis De Armas Veiga, and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. Sec. 216(b) v. Real Awning Corp d/b/a Galaxy Awning Corp.,
Galaxy Awning and Signs Inc., The Golden Awning Co., The Golden
Awning & Sign Corp, David Borrell, Yudisnier Calderon, Case No.
1:15-cv-20354 (S.D. Fla., January 29, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work
performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Defendants own and operate a company that manufacturers of
custom signs, neon and commercial awnings.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


REGENCY ENERGY: Being Sold to ETP for Too Little, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Linda K. Blankman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Michael J. Bradley, James W. Bryant, Rodney
L. Gray, John W. McReynolds, Matthew S. Ramsey, Regency Energy
Partners LP, Regency GP LP, Regency GP LLC, Energy Transfer
Partners, L.P., Energy Transfer Partners, GP, L.P., and Energy
Transfer Equity, L.P., Case No. 3:15-cv-00339-G (N.D. Tex.,
February 3, 2015) is brought on behalf of the unitholders of
partnership units of Regency Energy Partners LP arising out of the
Defendants' alleged attempt to sell Regency to Energy Transfer
Partners, L.P., by means of an unfair process and for an unfair
price.

Ms. Blankman, citizen of Colorado, is the owner of units of
Regency.

Regency is a Delaware limited partnership headquartered in Dallas,
Texas.  Regency GP, a Delaware limited partnership, is the general
partner of Regency.  Regency GP LLC is the general partner of
Regency GP.  Regency is managed by Regency GP, which in turn is
managed by Regency GP LLC's directors and officers.  Regency GP
LLC is a Delaware limited liability company.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of Regency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          Jamie J. McKey, Esq.
          THE KENDALL LAW GROUP, LLP
          3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: (214) 744-3000
          Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
          E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
                  jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com

               - and -

          Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (866) 367-6510
          E-mail: srowley@zlk.com


SAN DIEGO GAS: Lower Court Ruling on "Guerra" Class Reversed
------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, First District, concludes that
the trial court erred in granting San Diego Gas & Electric
Company's (SDG&E) motion for judgment on pleadings for class
certification, without leave to amend, in the putative class
action GUERRA v. SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, Case No.
D065265.

SDG&E is a public utility.  A tariff rule promulgated by the
California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) provides SDG&E can
gain access to SDG&E's facilities located on a customer's private
property and, when the customer has elected to place SDG&E's
facilities behind locked doors, the rule grants SDG&E the
discretion to select the locking mechanism that must be installed
by the customer to enable SDG&E's personnel to obtain access to
those facilities. SDG&E selected the Schlage VTQP Quad Key Section
system (Keyways) as the device its customers must install. Keyways
is a lock and key system.

In 2012, Guerra filed the putative class action against SDG&E
alleging a claim under California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL),
which asserted, in part, that SDG&E engaged in unfair and unlawful
business practices because it distributed keys to the locking
mechanism selected by SDG&E without imposing reasonable controls
to safeguard or track the keys, and Guerra and similarly situated
persons were injured by SDG&E's conduct because persons obtained
and used these keys to obtain entry to private property to commit
burglaries.

On the eve of Guerra's class certification motion, SDG&E sought
judgment on the pleadings asserting, among other grounds, that the
trial court did not have jurisdiction under Public Utilities Code
section 1759. The trial court agreed and granted the motion, and
Guerra timely appealed.

On review, the Appellate Court opines that the trial court erred
in dismissing the Complaint under Section 1759.  Among other
things, the Appellate Court holds that "SDG&E's claim [that] a
ruling in Guerra's favor would impact rates, thereby transgressing
on the PUC's exclusive authority over rates, appears contrary to
established law."

Accordingly, the Appellate Court rules, "The [trial court]
judgment is reversed. Guerra is entitled to costs on appeal."

A copy of the Appellate Court's January 20, 2015 Order is
available at http://is.gd/JfI5xwfrom Leagle.com.

Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, Timothy G. Blood -- tblood@bholaw.com ,
Leslie E. Hurst -- lhurst@bholaw.com ; Law Office of John W. Davis
and John W. Davis of 501 W. Broadway, Suite 800, San Diego, CA
92101, Tel: (619) 400-4870, Fax: (619) 342-7170 for Plaintiff and
Appellant.

Perez & Wilson, Michael J. Perez -- perez@perezwilson.com -- and
Jeffrey A. Feasby for Defendant and Respondent.


SARA J HAMILTON: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sonia Lara, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
The Law Office of Sara J. Hamilton, P.C., and American Express
Bank, FSB, Case No. 3:15-cv-00217-JLS-BLM (S.D. Cal., February 2,
2015) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan Lee, Esq.
          KROHN & MOSS, LTD.
          10474 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 405
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (323) 988-2400
          Facsimile: (866) 385-1408
          E-mail: rlee@consumerlawcenter.com


SEA GULL LIGHTING: Recalls Light Chandeliers Due to Injury Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Sea Gull Lighting Products, LLC, of Skokie, Ill., announced a
voluntary recall of about 8,800 light chandeliers in the United
States and 800 in Canada. Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The chandelier's screw collar that holds the chandeliers to the
ceiling mount can break causing the chandelier to fall and injure
bystanders.

This recall involves seven collections of Sea Gull Lighting
chandeliers including:  Brandywine, Laurel Leaf, New Verona,
Newport, Parkview, Roslyn and Somerton. They are metal with
various finishes and two or three tiers of glass shades. The
chandeliers measure between 27 to 50 inches wide and 26 to 46
inches high, depending on the model. The following product
numbers, located inside the ceiling canopy of the chandelier, are
included in this recall:

   Collection    Product Number    Description
   ----------    --------------    -----------
   Brandywine    31432-71          Nine-light, two-tier
                                   chandelier in an antique
                                   bronze finish with champagne
                                   marble glass shades.

   Brandywine    31432-71          Fifteen-light, three-tier
                 31433-71          chandelier in an antique
                                   bronze finish with champagne
                                   marble glass shades.

   Brandywine    31433-71          Fluorescent nine-light, two-
                 39033BLE-71       tier chandelier in an antique
                                   bronze finish with champagne
                                   marble glass shades.

   Brandywine    39033BLE-71       Fluorescent fifteen-light,
                 39034BLE-71       three-tier chandelier in an
                                   antique bronze finish with
                                   champagne marble glass shades.

   Brandywine    39034BLE-7
   Laurel Leaf   31351-708          Nine-light, two-tier
                                    chandelier in a state bronze
                                    finish with etched ripple
                                    glass shades with estate
                                    bronze bands.

   Laurel Leaf    31351-708         Nine-light, two-tier
                  31351-782         chandelier in an heirloom
                                    bronze finish with etched
                                    ripple glass shades with
                                    heirloom bronze bands.

   Laurel Leaf    31351-782         Nine-light, two-tier
                  31351-965         chandelier in an antique
                                    brushed nickel finish with
                                    etched ripple glass shades
                                    with antique brushed nickel
                                    bands.

   Laurel Leaf    31351-965         Fifteen-light, three-tier
                  31352-708         chandelier in an estate
                                    bronze finish with etched
                                    ripple glass shades with
                                    estate bronze bands.

   Laurel Leaf    31352-708         Fifteen-light, three-tier
                  31352-782         chandelier in an heirloom
                                    bronze finish with etched
                                    ripple glass shades with
                                    heirloom bronze bands.

   Laurel Leaf    31352-782         Fifteen-light, three-tier
                  31352-965         chandelier in an antique
                                    brushed nickel finish with
                                    etched ripple glass shades
                                    with antique brushed nickel
                                    bands.
   Laurel Leaf    31352-965

   New Verona     RC2223/5+5GLOES   Ten-light (five in the bottom
                                    glass base and one each in
                                    the 5 uplight shades), two-
                                    tier chandelier in an olde
                                    English silver finish with
                                    stone alabaster glass shades.

   New Verona      RC2223/5+5GLOES

   Newport         31284-814         Nine-light, two-tier
                                    chandelier in a misted bronze
                                    finish with clear highlighted
                                    satin etched glass shades.

   Newport        31284-814         Nine-light, two-tier
                  31284BLE-814      chandelier in a misted bronze
                                    finish with clear highlighted
                                    satin etched glass shades.

   Newport        31284BLE-814      Nine-light, two-tier
                  31284-965         chandelier in an antique
                                    brushed nickel finish with
                                    clear highlighted satin
                                    etched glass shades.

   Newport        31284-965         Nine-light, two-tier
                  31284BLE-965      chandelier in an antique
                                    brushed nickel finish with
                                    clear highlighted satin
                                    etched glass shades.

   Newport        31284BLE-965      Twelve-light, thee-tier
                  31285-814         chandelier in a misted bronze
                                    finish with clear highlighted
                                    satin etched glass.

   Newport        31285-81          Fluorescent twelve-light,
                  31285BLE-814      three-tier chandelier in a
                                    misted bronze finish with
                                    clear highlighted satin
                                    etched glass shades.

   Newport        31285BLE-814      Twelve-light, three-tier
                  31285-965         chandelier in an antique
                                    brushed nickel finish with
                                    clear highlighted satin
                                    etched glass shades.

   Newport        31285-965

   Parkview       31381-829         Nine-light, two-tier
                                    chandelier in a russet bronze
                                    finish with ginger glass
                                    shades.

   Parkview       31381-829         Fluorescent nine-light, two-
                  39381BLE-829      tier chandelier in a russet
                                    bronze finish with ginger
                                    glass shades.

   Parkview       39381BLE-829      Nine-light, two-tier
                  31381-965         chandelier in an antique
                                    brushed nickel finish with
                                    satin etched glass shades.

   Parkview       31381-965         Fluorescent nine-light, two-
                  39381B LE-965     tier chandelier in an antique
                                    brushed nickel finish with
                                    satin etched glass shades.

   Parkview       39381BLE-965      Fifteen-light, three-tier
                  31382-829         chandelier in a russet bronze
                                    finish with ginger glass
                                    shades.

   Parkview       31382-829         Fluorescent fifteen-light,
                 39382BLE-829       three-tier chandelier in a
                                    russet bronze finish with
                                    ginger glass shades.

   Parkview      39382BLE-829       Fifteen-light, three-tier c
                 31382-965          chandelier in an antique
                                    brushed nickel finish with
                                    satin etched glass shades.

   Parkview      31382-965          Fluorescent fifteen-light,
                 39382BLE-965       three-tier chandelier in an
                                    antique brushed nickel finish
                                    with satin etched glass
                                    shades.

   Parkview      39382BLE-965

   Roslyn        31522-845          Nine-light, two-tier
                                    chandelier in a Flemish
                                    bronze finish with creme
                                    parchment glass shades with
                                    Flemish bronze bands.

   Roslyn        31522-845          Twelve-light, three-tier
                 31523-845          chandelier in a Flemish
                                    bronze finish with creme
                                    parchment glass shades with
                                    Flemish bronze bands.

   Roslyn        31523-845

   Somerton      31377-839          Nine-light, two-tier
                                    chandelier in a blacksmith
                                    finish with cafe tint glass
                                    shades.

   Somerton      31377-839          Fluorescent nine-light, two-
                 31377BLE-839       tier chandelier in a
                                    blacksmith finish with cafe
                                    tint glass shades.

   Somerton      31377BLE-839       Nine-light, two-tier
                 31377-965          chandelier in an antique
                                    brushed nickel finish with
                                    satin etched glass shades.

   Somerton      31377-965          Fluorescent nine-light, two-
                 31377BLE-965       tier chandelier in an antique
                                    brushed nickel finish with
                                    satin etched glass shades.

   Somerton      31377BLE-965       Fifteen-light, three-tier
                 31378-839          chandelier in a blacksmith
                                    finish with cafe tint glass
                                    shades.

   Somerton      31378-839          Fifteen-light, three-tier
                 31378-965          chandelier in an antique
                                    brushed nickel finish with
                                    satin etched glass shades.

   Somerton   31378-965

Sea Gull Lighting has received four reports of the chandeliers
falling from the ceiling. Approximately $1,600 in property damage
has been reported. No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/6IlM0m.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Aztec
Electric Supply, Ferguson, Lowe's, State Electric Supply, Wesco
and other retailers nationwide and online at Amazon.com,
HomeDepot.com and other online retailers from November 2006
through August 2013 for between $250 and $750.

Consumers should prevent people from going into the immediate area
under the chandeliers. Contact Sea Gull Lighting immediately to
receive a free replacement for chandeliers that have fallen,
including shipping, or for free replacement hardware to repair the
chandelier and instructions on being reimbursed for the full cost
of the installation.


SHEBOYGAN CITY, WI: Removes "Gilbertson" Suit to E.D. Wisconsin
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Gilbertson, et al. v. City of
Sheboygan, Case No. 14-CV-0792, was removed from the Circuit Court
of Sheboygan County to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:15-cv-00139-RTR to the proceeding.

The case is brought to seek redress for the Defendants' alleged
failure to pay the full amount of regular and overtime wages
required by law.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Yingtao Ho, Esq.
          THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM, S.C.
          1555 N River Center Dr., Suite 202
          PO Box 12993
          Milwaukee, WI 53212
          Telephone: (414) 271-4500
          Facsimile: (414) 271-6308
          E-mail: yh@previant.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Alan M. Levy, Esq.
          Oyvind Wistrom, Esq.
          LINDNER & MARSACK, S.C.,
          411 E. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1800
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Telephone: (414) 273-3910
          Facsimile: (414) 273-0522
          E-mail: alevy@lindner-marsack.com
                  owistrom@lindner-marsack.com


STONELEIGH RECOVERY: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wajeedah Anderson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Stoneleigh Recovery Associates, LLC and John Does 1-
25, Case No. 3:15-cv-00768-PGS-LHG (D.N.J., February 3, 2015)
alleges 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


STRATEGIC FUNDRAISING: Illegally Terminates Employees, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kody Schmitt, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Strategic Fundraising, Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-03049
(W.D. Mo., January 29, 2015), alleges that the Defendant
unlawfully terminated the Plaintiff and class members without
cause and without giving them 60 days advance written notice.

Strategic Fundraising, Inc. is a direct-response fundraising firm.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Timothy W. Monsees, Esq.
      MONSEES & MAYER PC
      4717 Grand Avenue, Suite 820
      Kansas City, MO 64112-2207
      Telephone: (816) 361-5555
      Facsimile: (816) 361-5577
      E-mail: tmonsees@monseesmayer.com


TGI FRIDAY'S: Wage Theft Suit Gets Conditional Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
Bryce Covert, writing for Think Progress, reports that on Jan. 20,
a New York federal judge granted 42,000 TGI Friday's workers
conditional certification in their collective action lawsuit
alleging wage theft.

U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres ruled that they have shown
common allegations that the chain restaurant violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to pay them at least the
minimum wage and overtime for extra work.  Two class action
lawsuits were filed last year: one by employees in Massachusetts
and another by 17,700 employees in the New York metro area and
Fredericksburg, VA.

Both accuse the company of making employees work off the clock
without giving them extra pay.  In New York and Virginia, workers
say they were required to arrive well before the start of business
hours and work after the restaurants closed without getting
minimum wage and/or overtime pay.  They also accused the chain of
using a centralized time-keeping system that shaved hours of their
work from their records and made them work off the clock doing
non-tipped tasks such as cleaning and preparing food in bulk.  In
Massachusetts, the lawsuit said that workers who put in more than
40 hours a week, the threshold for receiving time and a half in
overtime pay, worked any additional hours off the clock.  They
also say waitstaff were forced to give some of their tips to host
staff, who are paid the full hourly minimum wage, reducing the
waitstaff's pay to below the required minimum wage.

The workers are seeking to recover the wages they say they were
due as well as misappropriated tips.  The company didn't
immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Jan. 20 win comes after the lawyer representing employees
accused TGI Friday's of trying to "pick off" plaintiffs who joined
the class action lawsuit by offering more than $416,000 in
settlements to 19 workers. So far 15 have accepted the offers.
Wage theft, or when employers don't pay the required minimum wage
and overtime through various means, is a huge problem,
particularly for low-wage workers.  The sum of money recovered
from employers who stole from their workers in 2012 was nearly
three times greater than all the money stolen in reported
robberies that year.  Even that is an undercount, however, because
so few people report it; the total sum of money stolen from
employees annually is likely more than $50 billion. It's also a
problem that's increasing: complaints of wage theft rose 400
percent over the last decade.

Those who work in food service are particularly vulnerable.  Nine
out of ten fast food workers say they have experienced wage theft.
And employees at various chain restaurants have also filed
lawsuits, from McDonald's to sandwich store Jimmy John's to
Chipotle to Papa John's to Subway.

Wage theft violates the FLSA and is therefore illegal, but it is
also clearly still widespread and it can be hard for workers to
get justice.  In California, 83 percent of workers who actually
brought a claim and won still never saw a cent of their owed
money.  So to crack down on these practices, some cities and
states have enacted ordinances of their own.


THOMPSON CREEK: Case Venue of "Aronstein" Suit Moved to Colorado
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Connecticut district court ordered for the transfer of venue of
the state-law securities fraud action David Aronstein and Lesley
Stroll brought against Thompson Creek Metals Company Inc., et al.,
to the District of Colorado in a Jan. 16, 2015 ruling available at
http://is.gd/srUV5vfrom Leagle.com.

With the transfer venue ruling, District Judge Michael P. Shea
denied Defendants' other motions as moot.

Plaintiffs, private investors, are citizens of Connecticut who
purchased TCM's stock through a 401(k) plan called Tri-State
Modeling LLC.  Plaintiffs purchased $6,314,303 worth of shares of
TCM common stock in several transactions beginning in March 2011,
and they liquidated their shares in May 2012.

TCM is a publicly traded Canadian mining corporation, with its
principal place of business in the United States in Littleton,
Colorado.

David Aronstein, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Lesley Stroll, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Thompson Creek Metals Company Inc., Defendant, represented by
Allison K Kostecka -- akostecka@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher, LLP, Aric H Wu -- awu@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher, Gregory J Kerwin -- gkerwin@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Michael Alexander King -- mking@goodwin.com
-- Shipman & Goodwin nstPlza & Vaughan Finn -- vfinn@goodwin.com
-- Shipman & Goodwin nstPlza.

Kevin Loughrey, Defendant, represented by Allison K Kostecka,
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Aric H Wu, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher,
Gregory J Kerwin, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Michael Alexander
King, Shipman & Goodwin nstPlza & Vaughan Finn, Shipman & Goodwin
nstPlza.

Pamela Saxton, Defendant, represented by Allison K Kostecka,
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Aric H Wu, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher,
Gregory J Kerwin, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Michael Alexander
King, Shipman & Goodwin nstPlza & Vaughan Finn, Shipman & Goodwin
nstPlza.

Pamela Solly, Defendant, represented by Allison K Kostecka,
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Aric H Wu, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher,
Gregory J Kerwin, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Michael Alexander
King, Shipman & Goodwin nstPlza & Vaughan Finn, Shipman & Goodwin
nstPlza.

James L. Freer, Defendant, represented by Allison K Kostecka,
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Aric H Wu, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher,
Gregory J Kerwin, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Michael Alexander
King, Shipman & Goodwin nstPlza & Vaughan Finn, Shipman & Goodwin
nstPlza.

James P. Geyer, Defendant, represented by Gregory J Kerwin,
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP.

Timothy J. Haddon, Defendant, represented by Allison K Kostecka,
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Aric H Wu, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher,
Gregory J Kerwin, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Michael Alexander
King, Shipman & Goodwin nstPlza & Vaughan Finn, Shipman & Goodwin
nstPlza.

Carol T. Banducci, Defendant, represented by Gregory J Kerwin,
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP.

Thomas J. ONeil, Defendant, represented by Gregory J Kerwin,
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP.

Denis C. Arsenault, Defendant, represented by Gregory J Kerwin,
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP.

Wendy Cassity, Defendant, represented by Allison K Kostecka,
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Aric H Wu, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher,
Gregory J Kerwin, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Michael Alexander
King, Shipman & Goodwin nstPlza & Vaughan Finn, Shipman & Goodwin
nstPlza.

Carol T. Banducci, Defendant, represented by Gregory J Kerwin,
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Must Pay $11 Million to 1996 Camry Crash Victims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Forliti, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
federal jury decided on Feb. 3 that the design of the 1996 Toyota
Camry had a dangerous defect that was partly to blame for a fatal
2006 crash, and the automaker must pay nearly $11 million to
victims.

Jurors said the company was 60 percent to blame for the accident,
which left three people dead and two seriously injured.  But they
also found that Koua Fong Lee, who has long insisted he tried to
stop his car before it slammed into another vehicle, was 40
percent at fault.

Mr. Lee, his family members, the family of a girl who died, and
two people who were seriously injured sued Toyota Motor Corp. in
U.S. District Court in Minneapolis.  The lawsuit alleged the crash
was caused by an acceleration defect in Mr. Lee's vehicle, but
Toyota argued there was no design defect and that Mr. Lee was
negligent.

"No amount of money . . . will bring my life back, my life is not
the same anymore," Mr. Lee said after the verdict, adding that he
wanted the victims and their families to know: "I tried everything
I could to stop my car."

Toyota released a statement saying the company respects the jury's
decision but believes the evidence clearly showed the vehicle
wasn't the accident's cause.  The company said it will study the
record and consider its legal options going forward.

After the 2006 wreck, Mr. Lee was convicted of vehicular homicide
and sentenced to prison.  He won a new trial after reports
surfaced about sudden acceleration in some Toyotas, and questions
were raised about the adequacy of his defense.  Prosecutors opted
against a retrial and he went free after spending 2 1/2 years
behind bars.  He later sued.

The civil trial lasted three weeks, and jurors spent four full
days deliberating.

Under Minnesota law, the way the jury allocated fault means Toyota
is responsible for paying all damages, minus 40 percent of the
amount awarded to Mr. Lee, said Mr. Lee's attorney, Bob Hilliard.
That brings Toyota's total liability to $10.94 million.  Mr. Lee
will receive $750,000 of that total.

During the trial, Mr. Hilliard, told jurors there was a defect in
the car's design.  He said the Camry's auto-drive assembly could
stick, and when tapped or pushed while stuck, it could stick again
at a higher speed.  He also accused Toyota of never conducting
reliability tests on nylon resin pulleys that could be damaged
under heat and cause the throttle to stick.

"This is what makes the car go.  This is what turns it into a
torpedo, a missile, a deadly weapon," Mr. Hilliard said during his
closing argument.

Toyota said there was no defect in the design of the 1996 Camry.
The company's attorney, David Graves, suggested that Mr. Lee was
an inexperienced driver and mistook the gas pedal for the brake.

Toyota also noted that Mr. Lee's car was never subject to the
recalls of later-model Toyotas.

Mr. Hilliard said the verdict means that other 1996 Toyota Camrys
have defects, and perhaps the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration needs to take a look at the car, while owners of
those vehicles need to make sure they are safe.

"I am 100 percent convinced in my heart and mind that there is a
defect in this Camry, and that this defect caused this accident,"
he said.

The crash killed the driver of the other vehicle, Javis Trice-
Adams Sr., and his 9-year-old son, Javis Adams Jr.  They were not
part of this case.

Trice-Adams' 6-year-old niece, Devyn Bolton, was paralyzed and
died in October 2007.  The jury awarded her estate $4 million.

Trice-Adams' daughter, Jassmine Adams, who was 12 at the time, was
seriously injured, as was his father, Quincy Ray Adams.  Jassmine
Adams was awarded $4 million, and Quincy Adams was awarded $1.25
million.  Lesser damages were awarded to Mr. Lee and four family
members who were in his car at the time.

Terrell Damar Adams, a cousin of Javis Adams Sr., called the
verdict a blessing.

"I think it's kind of amazing that they found Toyota at fault," he
said, but added that the monetary award "doesn't bring back our
family."


USA BABY: Labor Dept. Wins Summary Judgment in ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor sued Scott Wallis,
Ronald Eriksen, USA Baby, Inc., USA Baby, Inc. 401(k) Plan, and
USA Baby, Inc. Health Plan for violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1001 et
seq.  In a December 30, 2014 Memorandum Opinion and Order
available at http://is.gd/4R3Xdlfrom Leagle.com, Chief District
Judge Ruben Castillo granted the Secretary's separate motions
seeking summary judgment against Wallis and Eriksen.

In its summary judgment motion, the Secretary seeks a permanent
injunction preventing the Defendants from serving as fiduciaries
to any ERISA-covered employee benefit plan now or in the future.
The Secretary also seeks monetary damages from Defendants
representing losses to the benefit plans.  The Defendants opposed.

The case is, THOMAS E. PEREZ, Secretary of Labor, United States
Department of Labor, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT WALLIS, et al.,
Defendants, NO. 11 C 3019 (N.D. Ill.).

Based in Lombard, Illinois, USA Baby Inc. sold infant and
children's furniture.  USA Baby was formed in 2003 to franchise
stores selling furniture and other products for babies and
children.  It operated no stores of its own.

On Sept. 5, 2008, three creditors, Wallis Kraham of Binghamton,
N.Y., Jack B. Whisler of Arlington Heights, Ill., and Leslie Ruess
of San Diego, filed an involuntary Chapter 11 petition (Bankr.
N.D. Ill. Case No. 08-23564), claiming breach of subscription
agreement and seeking $122,875 in the aggregate.


USA WATER POLO: Accused of Failing to Manage/Treat Head Injuries
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alice Mayall, as parent and guardian of minor H.C., on behalf of
H.C. and all others similarly situated v. USA Water Polo, Inc.,
Case No. 8:15-cv-00171-AG-RNB (C.D. Cal., February 3, 2015) arises
from the alleged failure of USA Water Polo to take steps to
recognize, manage and appropriately treat head injuries and
concussions.

Ms. Mayall is the parent of minor H.C. and is a resident of
Livermore, California.  H.C. has played water polo for the LARPD
Lazers Water Polo Club.

USA Water Polo is the governing body for the sport of water polo
in the United States and regulates every aspect of water polo,
including rules regarding player safety and health.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          301 N. Lake Ave., Suite 203
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (213) 330-7150
          Facsimile: (213) 330-7152
          E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
          Thomas E. Ahlering, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1144 W. Lake Street, Suite 400
          Oak Park, IL 60301
          Telephone: (708) 628-4949
          Facsimile: (708) 628-4950
          E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com
                  toma@hbsslaw.com


VAN'S INTERNATIONAL: Sued on Cal. Over Misleading Product Label
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Campbell, an individual, on her own behalf and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Van's International Foods,
Inc., an Arizona corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-00672 (C.D. Cal.,
January 29, 2015), alleges that the Defendant falsely and
misleadingly advertised, marketed, and labeled its food products
as totally natural and/or all natural when, in fact, they contain
the synthetic chemical Sodium Acid Pyrophosphate.

Van's International Foods, Inc. is an Arizona Corporation that
makes and markets specialty frozen waffles, including Belgian,
mini, organic, and wheat-free varieties.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David C. Parisi, Esq.
      Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq.
      PARISI & HAVENS LLP
      212 Marine Street, Suite 100
      Santa Monica, CA 90405
      Telephone: (818) 990-1299
      Facsimile: (818) 501-7852
      E-mail: dcparisi@parisihavens.com
              shavens@parisihavens.com


VELTI PLC: $9.5MM Class Action Settlement, Counsel Fees Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William H. Orrick granted the motions of plaintiffs
Bobby Yadegar/Ygar Capital LLC, St. Paul Teachers' Retirement
Association, Newport News Employees' Retirement Fund, and Oklahoma
Firefighters Pension and Retirement System for final approval of a
partial class action settlement and for an award of attorney's
fees and costs.

The settlement creates a fund of $9.5 million to be distributed
among a class consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired Velti plc securities between January 27, 2011 and August
20, 2013.  In light of Velti's bankruptcy and the limited
financial resources of the individual defendants, the District
Judge finds that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate,
and that plaintiffs' counsel's requested award for fees and costs
is appropriate.

The District Judge also held that the release of the unserved
defendants is appropriate under the circumstances of this case,
and that fairness dictates that the Court decide now that the
nonsettling defendants are entitled to a Section 78u-4(f)(7)(B)
reduction on all Securities Act claims pending against them.

Plaintiffs' counsel seek an award of $2,375,000 in attorney's
fees, or 25% of the $9,500,000 settlement fund.  In addition,
plaintiffs' counsel request $219,469.67 in expenses.

The resulting lodestar is $1,914,221.25, meaning that plaintiffs'
counsel are asking for a multiplier of approximately 1.25.

Plaintiffs' counsel do not seek an incentive award for the class
representatives.

The case is, ANIKA R. RIECKBORN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. VELTI PLC,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-CV-03889-WHO (N.D. Cal.).  A copy
of the Court's February 3, 2015 Order is available at
http://bit.ly/1M5Tsb3from Leagle.com.


WADE ELBO: Faces "Mowery" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Annette Mowery, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Wade Elbo LLC d/b/a Elbo Room and Marcie Wade, Case
No. 3:15-cv-00190 (N.D. Ohio, January 29, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours
worked in excess of 40 per workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a pizza restaurant and bar located
at 3515 W. Alexis Road in Toledo, OH.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
      SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
      Ste. 1325, 815 Superior Avenue, E
      Cleveland, OH 44114
      Telephone: (440) 498-9100
      Facsimile: (216) 621-1094
      E-mail: rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com


YELLOWJACKET OILFIELD: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Fausnight, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Yellowjacket Oilfield Services, L.L.C., Case
No. 2:15-cv-00066 (S.D. Tex., January 30, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours
worked in excess of 40 per workweek.

Yellowjacket Oilfield Services, L.L.C. is an oilfield services
company providing a variety of services to the oilfield, including
pressure control services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP
      1150 Bissonnet St
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com


                             *********

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

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

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

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

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

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



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *