CAR_Public/150217.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, February 17, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 34


                             Headlines

ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Sued in E.D. Mich. Over Violation of FDCPA
AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE: Sued in Cal. Over Automatic Renewal Policies
ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Faces Lime-A-Rita Deceptive Labeling Class Action
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Garson" Suit in Ind. Over Alleged Data Breach
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Juliano" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach

ANTHEM INC: Faces "Kirby" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Morris" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach
B&D PIZZERIA: Faces "Ojeda" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BANK LEUMI: Shareholders Mull Class Action Over Tax Evasion Probe
BANK OF AMERICA: Supreme Court Reviews LIBOR Antitrust Appeal

BEER STORE: Finance Minister Balks at Not-for-Profit Argument
BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT: Sued Over Automatic Renewal Policies
BURGER KING: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Roman" Suit Says
CAJMANT LLC: "Lopez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
CHANNELADVISOR CORP: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action

CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls Dodge Ram Trucks Over Steering System
CONSOLIDATED WORLD: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Says
FACEBOOK INC: European Privacy Class Suit Hearing Set for April 9
FERGUSON CITY, MO: Illegally Imprisons Class Members, Suit Claims
FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective Transmissions

GENERAL NUTRITION: Sued in Ark. Over Herbal Products Misbranding
GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action Over ReCAPTCHA Program
GUAM: Ancestral Landowners Meet to Discuss Class Action
ILLINOIS: May Face Class Suit Over Sex Offender Housing Shortage
INDUSTRIAL BAKERY: Faces "Alvarez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

JENNINGS CITY, MO: Illegally Imprisons Class Members, Suit Claims
KAISER FOUNDATION: Judge Must Face Home Care Nurses' Wage Suit
LOVE HONEY: Falsely Marketed Pleasure Gel Products, Action Says
MEDBOX INC: Founder Comments on Shareholder Class Action
METROPOLITAN JANITORIAL: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Suit Says

MORGAN STANLEY: Faces Class Action Over 2004-07 High Risk Loans
MORGAN STANLEY: Judge Set to Rule on Mortgage Loan Class Action
NASDAQ OMX: Sued in Pa. Over Illegal Manipulation of Dividends
NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: Class Action Refund Deadline Passes
NATURE MADE: Falsely Marketed Ginkgo Biloba Products, Suit Claims

NEFF & SON: Faces "Diaz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
NESTLE PURINA: Sued Over Dog Deaths Caused by Toxins in Pet Food
NEW DOMINION: High Court to Hear Prague Earthquake Suit
NEW JERSEY: Child Welfare System Shows Progress, Judge Says
NEW ORLEANS, LA: Settles Landfill Class Action for $8 Million

NEW YORK: Denies Class Member's Rights to Vote, Action Claims
ON TIME COURIER: Faces "Bucio" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
PALMS GENTLEMENS: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
PATINELLA'S CHICKEN: "Craig" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Tips
PATTERSON-UTI DRILLING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

PEACE FOOD: "Santiago" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
PINNACLE RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
REGENCY ENERGY: Accuses of Wrongful Conduct Over Company Sale
REGIONS FINANCIAL: Settles Suit Over Morgan Keegan Funds' Collapse
SAKUMA BROTHERS: Class Action May Affect Mid-Columbia Farmers

SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims
SIRIUS XM: Courtroom Setbacks Spur Copyright Lawsuits
SOUTH PALAFOX: 300+ People Join Class Action Over Landfill Odor
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Sued in N.D. Texas Over Rapid Reward Program
STANDARD & POOR'S: Settles Inflated Ratings Suits for $1.38BB

STAPLES INC: Faces "McCutcheon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
STRATASYS LTD: Sued in D. Minn. Over Misleading Financial Reports
TAAG INDUSTRIES: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Action Claims
TACONAZO INC: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "McFarland" Suit Over Defective Airbags

TARGET CORP: Judge Allows Data Breach Class Action to Proceed
TARGET CORP: Faces "Dela Torre" Suit Over Product Misbranding
TIME WARNER: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Consumer Reports
TURNBERRY ON THE GREEN: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
UTZ QUALITY: Faces Class Action Over "All Natural" Product Label

WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Dela Torre" Suit Over Product Misbranding
WALGREEN CO: Faces "Dela Torre" Suit Over Product Misbranding
WALGREEN CO: Faces "Hale" Suit in Ill. Over Product Misbranding
WEGMANS FOOD: Faces Class Action Over Fresh Bread Advertising
YELLOWSTONE CAPITAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Mey" Suit Says

ZERO OTTO: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

* Foreign Teachers File Class Action v. Recruitment Firm


                            *********


ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Sued in E.D. Mich. Over Violation of FDCPA
------------------------------------------------------------
Michele Marie Cassale, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Accretive Health, Inc. d/b/a Medical Financial
Solutions, Case No. 2:15-cv-10496 (E.D. Mich., February 6, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Accretive Health, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that is engaged
in debt collection on behalf of third party health care providers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michelle E. Vocht, Esq.
      ROY, SHECTER & VOCHT, P.C.
      707 S. Eton St.
      Birmingham, MI 48009
      Telephone: (248) 540-7660
      Facsimile: (248) 540-0321
      E-mail: vocht@rsmv.com


AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE: Sued in Cal. Over Automatic Renewal Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Gee and Joseph Anthony Montegna Sr., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Automobile
Association, Case No. 3:15-cv-00246 (S.D. Cal., February 6, 2015),
seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making automatic renewal
offers and continuous service offers, without first obtaining the
consumer's affirmative consent to the agreement containing the
automatic renewal offer terms or continuous service offer terms.

American Automobile Association is a federation of motor clubs
throughout North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      Sara Khosroabadi, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108-3551
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
              sara@westcoastlitigation.com

         - and -

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Mona Amini, 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
              mona@kazlg.com


ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Faces Lime-A-Rita Deceptive Labeling Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reg Wydeven, writing for PostCrescent.com, reports that Anheuser-
Busch finds itself in court over its beer-margarita hybrid.

Sheila Cruz filed a class action lawsuit against the beer maker
alleging it was deceptive in labeling its products.  According to
her suit, Anheuser-Busch claims Bud Light Lime-A-Rita is low in
calories, but actually has more calories than any of its other
products.

Ms. Cruz's court papers show that an eight-ounce can of Lime-A-
Rita has about 220 calories and 21.9 grams of carbohydrates.  A
12-ounce can of Budweiser, though, has about 145 calories and 10.6
grams of carbohydrates.  A can of Bud Light has about 110 calories
and 6.6 grams of carbohydrates, while a can of Bud Light Lime has
about 116 calories and 8 grams of carbohydrates.

According to the suit, Anheuser-Busch deceptively concealed,
omitted and misrepresented the calories in the products.
Ms. Cruz's suit is seeking class action status for any consumer
who purchased any flavor of Bud Light Lime-A-Rita since it was
first introduced in 2008.  Ms. Cruz originally filed in state
court in Los Angeles, but as expected, Anheuser-Busch successfully
requested to have the case removed to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California under the Class Action Fairness
Act.

Just based on the fact that a smaller can of Bud Light Lime-A-Rita
contains about 50 percent more calories than a regular can of
Budweiser and twice as many calories as a can of Bud Light,
Ms. Cruz's chances seem promising.  But compared to a typical
margarita that has about 450 calories, a Bud Light Lime-A-Rita
certainly seems "light."


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Garson" Suit in Ind. Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Garson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Anthem, Inc. and Blue Cross of California, Case No.
1:15-cv-00180 (S.D. Ind., February 6, 2015), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to provide adequate security and
protection for its computer systems containing patient's
personally identifiable information and personal health
information.

Anthem Inc. is an Indiana corporation that owns and operates a
managed health care company.

Blue Cross of California is a California corporation that offers
family Health insurance.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. Duff, Esq.
      INDIANA CONSUMER LAW GROUP
      THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT E. DUFF
      P.O. Box 7251
      Fishers, IN 46037
      Telephone: (800) 817-0461
      Facsimile: (800) 817-0461
      E-mail: robert@robertdufflaw.com

         - and -

      Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
      Ari J. Scharg, Esq.
      Benjamin S. Thomassen, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Telephone: (312) 589-6370
      Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
      E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
              ascharg@edelson.com
              bthomassen@edelson.com


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Juliano" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
Danny Juliano, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Anthem Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00219 (N.D. Ala.,
February 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
provide adequate security and protection for its computer systems
containing patient's personally identifiable information and
personal health information.

Anthem Inc. owns and operates a managed health care company that
routinely conducts business in Alabama.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Donald W. Stewart, Esq.
      STEWART & STEWART PC
      1000 Quintard Avenue, Suite 500, PO Box 2274
      Anniston, AL 36202
      Telephone: (256) 237-9311
      Facsimile: (256) 237-0713
      E-mail: donaldwstewart5354@yahoo.com

         - and -

      Greg William Foster, Esq.
      T. Dylan Reeves, Esq.
      STEWART AND STEWART PC
      The Realty Building Suite 300
      1826 3rd Avenue North, PO Box 721 (35021)
      Bessemer, AL 35020
      Telephone: (205) 425-1166
      Facsimile: (205) 425-5959
      E-mail: greg@stewartandstewart.net
              dreeves@stewartandstewart.net


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Kirby" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Kirby, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00820 (C.D.
Cal., February 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to provide adequate security and protection for its
computer systems containing patient's personally identifiable
information and personal health information.

Anthem Inc. owns and operates a managed health care company that
routinely conducts business in Alabama.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Ahdoot, SBN 172098
      Tina Wolfson, SBN 174806
      Theodore W. Maya, SBN 223242
      Bradley K. King, SBN 274399
      AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
      1016 Palm Avenue
      West Hollywood, CA 90069
      Telephone: (310) 474-9111
      Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
      E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
              twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
              tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
              bking@ahdootwolfson.com
         - and -

      John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
      201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 223-5505
      Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
      E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Morris" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Morris, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Anthem Inc., et
al., Case No. 8:15-cv-00196 (C.D. Cal., February 5, 2015), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to provide adequate
security and protection for its computer systems containing
patient's personally identifiable information and personal health
information.

Anthem Inc. owns and operates a managed health care company that
routinely conducts business in Alabama.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aashish Y. Desai, Esq.
      Adrianne De Castro, Esq.
      DESAI LAW FIRM, P.C.
      3200 Bristol St., Ste. 650
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (949) 614-5830
      Facsimile: (949) 271-4190
      E-mail: aashish@desai-law.com
              adrianne@desai-law.com


B&D PIZZERIA: Faces "Ojeda" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Constantino Serrano Ojeda, Leonardo Cano, Vinicio Silva, Victor
Lima Elizalde, and Fernando Arellanes-Jimenez, on behalf of
themselves, and other similarly situated employees v. B&D Pizzeria
& Restaurant Corp., d/b/a  Luigi's Pizzeria & Restaurant, Salvador
Romano, Louis Romano, and Rosa Brusca, Case No. 1:15-cv-00861
(S.D.N.Y., February 5, 2015), seeks to recover minimum wages,
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,  prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate multiple pizza restaurants in New
York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BANK LEUMI: Shareholders Mull Class Action Over Tax Evasion Probe
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ari Rabinovitch, writing for Reuters, reports that shareholders in
Israel's Bank Leumi are seeking to file a class action lawsuit
worth about 475 million shekels ($119 million) against the bank
over its handling of a U.S. probe into alleged tax evasion, Bank
Leumi said on Jan. 25.

Leumi, Israel's second largest lender, said the lawsuit argues
that the bank hurt its stock price when it announced in March 2012
that it was setting aside money for a possible settlement with the
U.S. authorities over tax evasion.

Leumi shares lost about 29 percent in the five months following
the announcement, hitting a low of 8.44 shekels in August 2012,
although they have since rebounded.  The stock was down 1.3
percent in midday trade in Tel Aviv at 13.13 shekels.

In a statement to the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange, Leumi said the suit
alleges that "the conduct of the bank and the directors on matters
regarding the investigation of U.S. authorities caused damage to
the bank's shareholders."

The petitioner estimates the class action to be worth about 475
million shekels, Leumi said.

A Tel Aviv district court must approve whether it will allow the
class action suit to proceed.

A Leumi spokesman said the bank was obligated to issue the
statement under the rules of the bourse and declined to make any
further comment.

Leumi in December agreed to pay $400 million to the U.S.
Department of Justice and New York state to settle two separate
investigations into whether the bank helped its U.S. clients evade
taxes through its Swiss offices.


BANK OF AMERICA: Supreme Court Reviews LIBOR Antitrust Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer A. Dixon, Esq. -- jdixon@pbwt.com -- Deirdre A. Mcevoy,
Esq., and Harry Sandick, Esq. -- hsandick@pbwt.com -- of Patterson
Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, report that on January 21, 2015, the
Supreme Court of the United States issued a highly anticipated
decision in a LIBOR-based antitrust class action suit allowing a
plaintiff to immediately take a direct appeal from an order
dismissing that plaintiff's complaint in its entirety even when
that case has been consolidated by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation and other cases remain pending in the
consolidated action.

The decision in Gelboim et al. v. Bank of America Corp. et al.
arises out of a multidistrict litigation that consolidates all
cases involving allegations that defendant banks understated their
borrowing costs and suppressed LIBOR, thereby allowing the banks
to pay lower interest rates on financial instruments sold to
investors.  One complaint in the consolidated litigation -- the
Gelboim-Zacher complaint, filed on behalf of purchasers of bonds
with LIBOR-linked interest rates -- alleged but a single federal
antitrust claim under Sec. 1 of the Sherman Act.  Specifically,
the putative class action complaint alleged that the defendant
banks colluded to suppress LIBOR for two reasons: (1) to
understate their borrowing costs and portray themselves as
economically healthier than they actually were and (2) to pay
lower interest rates on LIBOR-based financial instruments sold to
investors.

According to the complaint, defendants engaged in highly anomalous
behavior by consistently submitting uniformly low LIBOR rates,
which, plaintiffs claimed, would be unusual absent collusive and
illegal communications.  Plaintiff investors claimed that
defendants' conduct impacted interstate commerce within the United
States by reducing the amount of interest paid on debt securities
and other obligations, and that plaintiffs suffered injury because
absent defendants' collusion, plaintiffs and class members would
have earned more interest.  This Sherman Act claim was dismissed
by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
which concluded that no plaintiff could assert a cognizable
antitrust injury.  The district court emphasized that the "process
of setting LIBOR was never intended to be competitive," and that
even if defendants conspired to submit artificial estimates as
alleged by plaintiffs, plaintiffs' injuries "would have resulted
from defendants' misrepresentation, not from harm to competition."

Their only claim having been dismissed, the plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal, and the district court also granted partial
final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b), thereby permitting other
plaintiffs to appeal the dismissal of antitrust claims while their
other claims remained pending in the district court.  The Second
Circuit, however, dismissed the Gelboim-Zacher appeal on the
grounds that the "orde[r] appealed from did not dispose of all
claims in the consolidated action."

Before the Supreme Court, the bank defendants argued that the
consolidated cases should be treated as a single unit: until all
claims brought by all plaintiffs are dismissed, there is no right
to appeal.  The plaintiffs contended that once their case was
dismissed in its entirety, they had a right to file a direct
appeal under Title 28, United States Code, Section 1291, which
permits an immediate appeal from a final decision of a district
court. This question had divided the Courts of Appeals prior to
the ruling.

The Supreme Court ruled for the plaintiffs. Justice Ginsburg wrote
that Section 1407, which permits the consolidation of cases in a
multidistrict litigation, does not create a monolithic
multidistrict action. Each case retains its own identity and is
not "meld[ed] . . . into a single unit."  The decision here ended
entirely the plaintiffs' case and therefore "had the hallmarks of
a final decision" by "terminat[ing] their action."  A contrary
rule, the Court explained, would leave plaintiffs "in a quandary
about the proper timing of their appeals."  Should an appeal be
filed immediately upon the order dismissing their action, or must
it await the conclusion of consolidated pretrial proceedings? The
Court's rule provides certainty to plaintiffs about the timing of
their appeal and does not require them to wait until some
uncertain point, far into the future.

The Second Circuit will now address the merits of the plaintiffs'
investors antitrust claim that the defendant banks' purported
artificial suppression of LIBOR to pay lower interest rates on
LIBOR-based financial instruments sold to investors during the
class period constituted a per se violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act.  Issues on appeal will concern whether or not
plaintiffs can demonstrate injury stemming from an
"anticompetitive" aspect of defendants' conduct with respect to
LIBOR rates.


BEER STORE: Finance Minister Balks at Not-for-Profit Argument
-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard J. Brennan, writing for Toronto Star, reports that Finance
Minister Charles Sousa says he's not buying the foreign-owned Beer
Store's argument that it's a not-for-profit operation.

"They will argue that they are a not-for-profit organization and
we argue that there is some profit in there so we want to make
sure that's distributed accordingly," he told reporters on Jan. 23
in Toronto where he launched his pre-budget consultations on
Jan. 23.

Beer Store spokesperson Jeff Newton insists it operates on a
break-even basis and that the premier's special council on
government assets has confirmed this.

"The government continues to recognize that the Beer Store is a
highly efficient system that has benefits for consumers.  And the
premier's council on government assets has confirmed the Beer
Store operates on a 'break-even basis.'  We look forward to more
discussions that will help retain those elements of the current
system," Mr. Newton said in an email statement.

Premier Kathleen Wynne has said Ontario consumers should expect a
rethink of the government's relationship with the 448-outlet Beer
Store owned by the foreign parent companies of Labatt, Molson and
Sleeman.

Former TD Bank chair Ed Clark, who was at Queen's Park on Jan. 23,
is leading Wynne's advisory council on government assets.  He has
recommended the province charge the Beer Store a "franchise fee,"
a cost the companies would not be allowed to pass on to consumers
in the form of higher prices.

Should these giant brewers refuse, Mr. Clark says the province
could strip them of their monopoly.  As well, he says the
government-owned LCBO should be allowed to sell 12-packs

Under the terms of a secret 2000 deal between the LCBO and the
Beer Store, which was revealed by the Star in December, the more
lucrative 12-packs and 24-packs cannot be sold at liquor stores.
That accord, which is subject of a complaint to the federal
Competition Bureau by Restaurants Canada, also dictates that bars
and restaurants must buy directly from the brewers at higher
prices than ordinary consumers pay.

Besides that, the private monopoly is facing two court challenges.
The Beer Store issued a press release on Jan. 23 arguing that some
of the efficiencies realized from its 448 outlets Beer Store are
offset by taxes and lower prices to consumers.

It noted that in 2013 Ontario had a $3.58 higher tax per case,
plus a 65 cent lower average retail price per case than Quebec.
"That means that on average brewers collected $4.23 less per case
on beer sold through the Beer Store than through Quebec corner and
grocery stores, an amount that is greater than the Beer Store's
lower costs," the release stated.

"These data illustrate that the Beer Store's efficiencies are not
flowing to brewers as higher profits -- they are flowing to
government as high taxes and consumers as lower prices."

In December, amidst Ms. Wynne's threats to dismantle the beer
monopoly unless more money pours into the treasury and small
brewers are given greater access, the Beer Store opened up its
ownership to Ontario craft brewers.

The major breweries will still control the company's board of
directors with Molson and Labatt, which each own 46 per cent,
having five seats apiece, Sleeman, an 8 per cent owner, with two
seats, the larger craft brewers getting two seats, and the small
brewers one.


BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT: Sued Over Automatic Renewal Policies
------------------------------------------------------------
Abel Abrego, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00230
(S.D. Cal., February 5, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's
practice of making automatic renewal offers and continuous service
offers without first obtaining the consumer's affirmative consent
to the agreement containing the automatic renewal offer terms or
continuous service offer terms.

Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that
develops and publishes video games.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Mona Amini, 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
              mona@kazlg.com

         - and -

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      Sara Khosroabadi, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108-3551
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
              sara@westcoastlitigation.com


BURGER KING: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Roman" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Joseph Torres Roman, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Burger King Corporation, Case No.
1:15-cv-20455 (S.D. Fla., February 5, 2015), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Burger King Corporation is a Florida For Profit Corporation that
owns and operates all Burger King Restaurants in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mitchell Lloyd Feldman, Esq.
      FELDMAN MORGADO, P.A.
      501 North Reo Street
      Tampa, FL 33609
      Telephone: (813) 639-9366
      Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
      E-mail: mfeldman@ffmlawgroup.com


CAJMANT LLC: "Lopez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eduardo Maldonado Lopez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Cajmant LLC, John Schmidt, Rose Schmidt,
Wheatfield Distributors LLC, and Marcelo Cajamarca, Case No. 1:15-
cv-00593 (E.D.N.Y., February 6, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Defendants own and operate a delivery business that contracts
with bakeries in and around New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Wisniewski, Esq.
      ROBERT WISNIEWSKI & ASSOCIATES P.C.
      225 Broadway, Suite 1020
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 267-2101
      Facsimile: (212) 267-8115
      E-mail: rw@rwapc.com


CHANNELADVISOR CORP: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights firm, on Jan. 24
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of ChannelAdvisor Corporation securities between
November 6, 2014 and January 12, 2015.  The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for ChannelAdvisor investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the ChannelAdvisor class action, go to the website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-475.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.  The suit is pending in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

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

According to the lawsuit, ChannelAdvisor and certain of its
officers and directors issued materially false and misleading
statements about the Company's true financial condition and
prospects.  On January 12, 2015, the Company lowered its fourth
quarter 2014 revenue guidance to $23.7 million from its prior
revenue guidance of $25.6 to $26.1 million.  The Company
attributed the revision to lower variable subscription revenue due
to a shift to larger customers.  On this news, shares of
ChannelAdvisor fell $11.32 per share or over 53% from its previous
closing price to close at $9.83 per share on January 13, 2015,
damaging investors.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
March 24, 2015. If you wish to join the litigation go
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-475.htmlor to discuss your rights
or interests regarding this class action, please contact,
Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll
free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com.

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

Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Kevin Chan, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827


CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls Dodge Ram Trucks Over Steering System
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that
it's one thing to implement a recall when a product is found to be
defective.  It's quite another when the recall so ordered is
alleged to be more problem than it's worth.  Such are the
allegations over the Chrysler Dodge Ram Recalls after owners of
the venerable trucks characterize the recall effort as "bungled."

The Dodge Ram is a hallmark of the Dodge brand -- a tough truck
with a persona of strength and ruggedness.  And yet a plethora of
owners have complained they lose steering control simply driving
down the highway.

The problem is alleged to be defective tie rods and tie rod studs
that are too weak to withstand everyday driving conditions -- the
basis for the defective steering system tie rods recall.  Affected
Dodge Ram owners, however, note that not only has it been
difficult to schedule an appointment to have their trucks
repaired, replacement parts were hard to come by and plaintiffs
allege replacement parts are no better than the allegedly
defective parts.

A defective products class-action lawsuit based out of California
stands by allegations that not only are the affected parts - and
therefore the affected trucks -- defective, but that the defective
automotive recall was riddled with deficiencies.

The class action was responding to Chrysler's attempt, in November
of last year, to have the lawsuit dismissed.  A month later, in
the waning days of 2014, plaintiffs shot back.

"Chrysler's purported recall process has done more harm than good
-- effectively lulling consumers into a false sense of safety and
leaving them without a proper remedy," the plaintiffs said in
their filing.  "The recalls have been grossly inadequate because
they failed to properly address all impacted vehicles, and the
replacement parts from Chrysler were themselves defective,
presenting identical failures."

Well over 1,000 complaints were filed since the start of 2014,
related to the unavailability of parts intended to fulfill the
mandate of the defective automotive recall.  Last October the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) opened an
investigation into allegations over lack of parts.

The plaintiffs also had a response to Chrysler's claim that any
promises of vehicle safety in promotion and advertising are merely
an implied warranty or, put another way, "corporate puffery."
Thus, according to the defendants, any claim to a breach of
implied warranty remains barred by its express warranty.

The plaintiffs are having none of it, pointing to various
statements the company has made in its marketing about the safety
of its vehicles as well as the fact that Chrysler's motto is
"Safety first.  Safety always."

Well, maybe not -- as ongoing problems with the Chrysler Dodge Ram
Recalls appear to show.

The case is Shaun Sater et al. v. Chrysler Group LLC, case number
5:14-cv-00700, in the US District Court for the Central District
of California.


CONSOLIDATED WORLD: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Wiederhold, individually and on behalf of all others
Similarly situated v. Consolidated World Travel Inc. d/b/a Holiday
Cruise Line, Case No. 2:15-cv-00828 (C.D. Cal., February 5, 2015),
seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of sending text message to
the person's cellular telephone through the use of any automatic
telephone dialing system or with an artificial or prerecorded
message.

Consolidated World Travel Inc. is a national cruise sales company
doing business in the State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Matthew M. Loker, 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
              ml@kazlg.com

         - and -

      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: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


FACEBOOK INC: European Privacy Class Suit Hearing Set for April 9
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TechCrunch.com reports that Europe vs. Facebook, the group leading
the suit now with 25,000 claimants in tow, has had its first
hearing set for April 9, in a court in Vienna, marking the first
time Facebook will appear in court over the case.

The class action covers a number of areas ranging from data use
policy under EU law to PRISM surveillance support and the unlawful
introduction of "Graph Search."

According to Europe vs. Facebook, the social network refutes the
claims, arguing that the lawsuit is inadmissible because it cannot
be sued by its users.

The purpose of the April 9 hearing is for the court to decide
whether Facebook has valid objections about the admissibility of
the lawsuit.

Contacted for a response, Facebook says it has nothing more to add
right now.

So far, the class action has been limited to 25,000 who can claim
up to EUR500 each in damages, resulting in a case that could cost
Facebook $14 million.  The claimants are also demanding a
"suspension of data usage" by the social network. Perhaps most
importantly, if won -- or even if simply prolonged in the public
arena -- the case could do a lot in PR damage.  And if Facebook
actually loses the case, it could result in orders for Facebook to
change its practices in the region.

While Facebook will likely continue to try to get the class action
suit thrown out of court, the group is still pressing on. "We have
reviewed all objections from Facebook in great detail and came to
the conclusion that they lack any substance. It seems that they
try to delay the procedure with partly really bizarre arguments,"
Dr. Proksch, the lawyer representing the users, said in a
statement.

This class action suit was first filed last year, and was quickly
oversubscribed with people applying to join it, getting over
60,000 users to sign up in the first month, partly by making it
easy to do so through different channels like mobile.  The group
said on Jan. 26 that in addition to the 25,000 named as claimants,
there are now 50,000 signed up waiting to see if the suit expands
to cover more people.  It claims to be the largest-ever class
action filed in Europe.

The conflict that led to the suit in the first place stretches
back much longer than last summer.

Europe vs. Facebook, the Austria-based group headed up by law
student Max Schrems, has been filing privacy complaints against
the social network for years, taking his case to Dublin, Ireland
-- where Facebook's international HQ is based, giving the
complaints potentially wide-reaching ramifications.

But those complaints have had mixed success, which is why this
class action is significant: it demonstrates a bigger will of the
people behind the privacy group's claims, and it shifts the center
of gravity away from Dublin to the continent, where Facebook has
been given a harder ride where data protection and user privacy
are concerned -- for example in Austria's neighbor, Germany.

The longer list of complaints highlights not only new features
introduced by Facebook in recent years, but also touches on bigger
themes such as how the government co-opts Internet services to
gather information, the rise of big data and their potentially
creepy role in ad-based revenue models.

-- Data use policy which is invalid under EU law

-- The absence of effective consent to many types of data use
Support of the NSA's 'PRISM' surveillance programme
Tracking of Internet users on external websites (e.g. through
'Like buttons')

-- Monitoring and analysis of users through 'big data' systems

-- Unlawful introduction of 'Graph Search'

-- Unauthorized passing on of user data to external applications


FERGUSON CITY, MO: Illegally Imprisons Class Members, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Keilee Fant, Roelif Carter, Allison Nelson, Herbert Nelson Jr.,
Alfred Morris, Anthony Kimble, Donyale Thomas, Shameika Morris,
Daniel Jenkins, Ronnie Tucker, Tonya Deberry, et al., v. The City
Of Ferguson, Case No. 4:15-cv-00253 (E.D. Mo., February 8, 2015),
is brought on behalf of all impoverished people who were jailed
indefinitely and none was afforded a lawyer or the inquiry into
their ability to pay by the City of Ferguson because they were
unable to pay a debt owed to the City from traffic tickets or
other minor offenses.

City of Ferguson is a municipal corporation, organized under the
laws of the State of Missouri.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander G. Karakatsanis, Esq.
      EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW
      916 G St., NW, Suite 701
      Washington, DC
      Telephone: (202) 681-2409
      E-mail: alec@equaljusticeunderlaw.org

         - and -

      Brendan D. Roediger, Esq.
      John J. Ammann, Esq.
      ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
      100 N. Tucker Blvd.
      St. Louis, MO 63101
      Telephone: (314) 977-2778
      Facsimile: (314) 977-1180
      E-mail: broedige@slu.edu

             ammannjj@slu.edu

         - and -

      Thomas B. Harvey, Esq.
      7751 Carondelet, Suite 201
      Clayton, MO 63105
      Telephone: (314) 482-3342
      Facsimile: (314) 932-2702
      E-mail: tbh1910@gmail.com


FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective Transmissions
-----------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Ford
Fiesta and Ford Focus transmission lawsuit has been filed after
numerous reports of transmissions that slip, jerk, shudder and
perform a host of other unwanted problems.

The class-action lawsuit was filed by plaintiffs Omar Vargas,
Robert Bertone, Michelle Harris and Sharon Heberling who want the
alleged transmission problems fixed in the 2011-2013 Ford Fiesta
and the 2012-2013 Ford Focus.

The lawsuit alleges the $1,095 dual clutch transmission
(powershift transmission) is marketed as an advanced automatic
transmission offering the fuel economy of a manual transmission
with the easy operation of an automatic transmission.

However, the lawsuit alleges the transmission was manufactured
defective and is causing Fiesta and Focus owners nothing but
headaches.  Owners complain about vehicles that lurch forward,
experience delayed acceleration, delayed downshifting and vehicles
that have trouble stopping.

Owners of the Ford Fiesta and Ford Focus have complained to
CarComplaints.com about the same problems mentioned in the
transmission lawsuit.

"Huge problem that Ford knows about and continues to ignore.  They
replaced it with the same stock parts, meaning that this issue
will come up again after the warranty.  I've had problems with
this car multiple times regarding the transmission and have
visited the dealership over and over again due to this problem."

     - 2011 Ford Fiesta owner / Toronto, Canada

"First attempt of repair, shuddering in acceleration, delay in
acceleration, grinding in shifting. Had 3 other attempts of the
repair from continuous issues. Reported to ford for lemon law."

     - 2011 Ford Fiesta owner / Lemon Grove, California

"FORD has manufactured a terrible automatic transmission. Took it
in today was told there is no fix.  Personally, I think FORD has
its dealers denying problems and not properly documenting
complaints to avoid a tremendous recall.  The Assistant Service
manager told me that they get a tremendous amount of complaints on
this, And are kept busy all the time."

     - 2012 Ford Focus owner / Tampa, Florida

The Ford transmission lawsuit alleges Ford knew or should have
known as early as 2010 the powershift transmissions had serious
problems.  The plaintiffs claim the alleged defect causes
premature wear to transmission clutch plates and other components,
leading to early failure and costly repairs.

The Ford Fiesta / Ford Focus transmission lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court of the Central District of California, Western
Division - Vargas et al. vs. Ford Motor Company.

The plaintiffs are represented by Capstone Law APC.


GENERAL NUTRITION: Sued in Ark. Over Herbal Products Misbranding
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alyssa Clemmons, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. General Nutrition Corporation, General
Nutrition Centers, Inc., and GNC Holdings, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-
05036 (W.D. Ark., February 5, 2015), alleges that the Defendants
mislabeled its Herbal dietary supplement products because they
failed to contain the medical herbs represented by the label.

The Defendants are Pennsylvania corporations focused on the retail
sale of health and nutrition related products, including vitamins,
supplements, minerals, herbs, sports nutrition, diet, and energy
products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth R. Shemin, Esq.
      SHEMIN LAW FIRM, PLLC
      3333 Pinnacle Hills Parkway, Suite 603
      Rogers, AR 72758
      Telephone: (479) 845-3305
      Facsimile: (479) 845-2198
      E-mail: ken@sheminlaw.com

         - and -

      Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
      Marcus N. Bozeman, Esq.
      THRASH LAW FIRM, PA
      1101 Garland, Street
      Little Rock, AR 72201
      Telephone: (501) 374-1058
      Facsimile: (501) 374-2222

         - and -

      Dewitt M. Lovelace, Esq.
      Valerie Lauro Nettles, Esq.
      LOVELACE AND ASSOCIATES, PA
      12870 US Hwy 98 West Suite 200
      Miramar Beach, FL 32550
      Telephone: (850) 837-6020
      Facsimile: (850) 837-4093


GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action Over ReCAPTCHA Program
-----------------------------------------------------
Clinton Nguyen, writing for BostInno, reports that Gabriela Rojas-
Lozano of Williamstown, Mass., has filed a lawsuit against Google
accusing the company of unlawful use of free labor in its
reCAPTCHA program.

The lawsuit seeks class-action status on behalf of "all persons
who have responded to a reCAPTCHA prompt in order to access a
website or certain features of a website while they were United
States residents."

The program -- which satisfies major websites' needs to close
their gates to spam bots and Google's need to digitize its
physical stores of literature, newspapers and academic articles --
requires users to transcribe distorted words and numbers to prove
they're human.

The reCAPTCHA software works by combining a control word, which
the program can decipher, with a word from printed material that
it can't decipher.  Users need to transcribe the control word
correctly to pass, but the indecipherable word isn't part of its
security requirements, according to the Boston Business Journal.
The program determines what that indecipherable word is by drawing
the most frequently submitted answer. That ends up transcribing
part of a book or address numbers on Google Maps piecemeal.

The lawsuit alleges that Google unfairly profits from reCAPTCHA by
co-opting free labor from the many users that have to use it to
access and perform regular tasks on sites.  In addition, companies
like The New York Times pay Google to digitize their archives.

"Google, in essence, operates a highly profitable transcription
business built upon free labor, which it deceptively and unfairly
obtains from unwitting websites users, in violation of their
rights as consumers, who are offered no choice but to transcribe
words for the sole purpose of enriching Google," the lawsuit says.

And the lawsuit's central allegation is Google's nondisclosure of
its profits.

"Although Google derives substantial profit from the
transcriptions of images generated by users of websites that
employ reCAPTCHA, Google does not disclose to website users that
Google is profiting from their time and effort," the lawsuit says.
"Nor does Google compensate users for such time and effort."


GUAM: Ancestral Landowners Meet to Discuss Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Malorie Paine, writing for Pacific Sunday News, reports that
Bertha Carriaga Cruz, an ancestral landowner, said she's afraid
she'll become her family's third generation not to receive
compensation for land long held under government control.

Ms. Cruz was one of nearly 100 ancestral landowners who gathered
on Jan. 24 at Harvest Christian Academy in Mongmong-Toto-Maite to
discuss a recent class-action complaint filed against the
government of Guam.

She was attending the meeting in hopes of bringing awareness to
the issue of receiving compensation for ancestral lands, Ms. Cruz
said.  Her father, Albert J. Carriaga, and her grandfather,
Juan P. Carriaga, died before receiving compensation owed to them.

"I'm looking at not being compensated, either," she said.  "I'm
afraid I'll be an heir who won't get compensated.  It's been three
generations without compensation.  I don't think a lot of people
know this is happening."

Island landowners had almost 1,000 acres of property in Tiyan,
according to Pacific Daily News files.  The land has been under
the control and use of the government-run airport agency for
decades.

Vicente "Benny" Crawford, an ancestral landowner, said on Jan. 24
the purpose of the meeting was to provide an update on details of
the formal complaint that had been filed.

Mr. Crawford, through attorneys, filed a class-action complaint
against GovGuam, including the governor and the A.B. Won Pat Guam
International Airport Authority.

The complaint requests a jury trial and asks that the ancestral
landowners receive compensation for land being used by the
airport, Mr. Crawford said.

The land, formerly used as Naval Air Station Agana, is currently
used as part of the runway, terminals and other facilities of the
A.B. Won Pat Guam International Airport.  The land is in use and
can therefore not be returned to the ancestral owners.

"We are no longer asking for the land, but for money," Mr.
Crawford said.

Some of the landowners in attendance at the Jan. 24 meeting have
fought for compensation since 2001, he said.

Legal matters

San Francisco-based law firm Girard Gibbs LLP and the Guam Law
Offices of Ignacio Cruz Aguigui will provide legal representation
for the landowners.

Mr. Crawford said on Jan. 24 he was going to let the lawyers
handle the legal end because he feels confident in their
abilities.

The complaint cites several local laws that have been passed
during the past two decades, which require GovGuam to make good-
faith efforts to compensate ancestral landowners.

"The government of Guam, the GALC and the GIAA have deprived class
members of the enjoyments of their rights to their ancestral
property and have continued to deprive them of their
compensation," according to the complaint.

The lawsuit also questions whether GovGuam violated due process
rights of the ancestral landowners and the Equal Protection Clause
by compensating some ancestral landowners but not others.

The lawsuit aims to determine whether the airport has been
unjustly enriched by its use of the ancestral lands.

The Ancestral Lands Commission, which returns excess federal
property to its original owners, has collected more than $3
million through lease payments that is available to compensate
landowners, according to news files.

Despite the airport receiving millions in revenue from its
tenants, the landowners "remain empty-handed," the complaint
states.

Ms. Cruz said she has hopes that by bringing attention to the
issue, something will be done for her family and others in similar
situations.


ILLINOIS: May Face Class Suit Over Sex Offender Housing Shortage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Mills, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that state
prison officials hold close to 1,250 inmates beyond their release
dates every year -- not because they pose a threat to the public
but because they cannot find a place to live that parole officers
find suitable, according to court papers and interviews.

For Illinois taxpayers, the extended stays add as much as $25
million a year in prison costs, compared with the far lower tab
for parole.

It's a practice commonly known as "violating at the door" because
guards at one time walked inmates who had completed their
sentences to the prison gates, only to return them to their cells
for failing to find a suitable home -- considered a parole
violation.

Now, according to prison officials, such dramatic "turnarounds"
rarely if ever take place, yet hundreds of inmates continue to be
held every year for months or even years beyond their release
dates.  They must be set free by the time their terms of parole
end, sometimes as long as three years later.

The practice, which mostly affects convicted sex offenders, raises
a host of concerns, most notably that inmates released only after
their parole has ended will miss out on those benefits on their
sudden return to the outside world.

"It defeats the very purpose of parole by putting the inmate back
in prison instead of in that transition period where you are
supposed to receive rehabilitation," said E. King Poor, a Chicago
attorney who has represented inmates affected by the practice.
"It's bad for the inmate, it's bad for society."

Exacerbating the problem is the woefully limited space for sex
offenders in the state's halfway houses.  According to state
prison officials, only nine beds are reserved for sex offenders
throughout the state -- none of them in Cook County, where the
largest number of parolees go to live.

Critics charge that the turnaround practice -- as it is also known
-- has an outsized impact on the poor because they already face
many obstacles in finding housing.  Add to that the fact that
convicted sex offenders face housing restrictions unlike other
inmates, and finding a suitable home becomes an even greater
challenge.  Critics allege, too, that parole officers sometimes
act arbitrarily in ruling out a home as suitable, a charge prison
officials dispute.

Illinois Department of Corrections officials admit frustration
over the hundreds of inmates whose releases are delayed but say
their hands are tied by restrictions that prohibit some sex
offenders from living near schools, parks and other places where
children congregate.  Inmates who miss out on probation can pose
more of a threat to the public once they're finally released than
inmates who were able to transition back into society,
acknowledges the department, which also handles parolees.

"They're going to get out eventually, so here's the key: Do you
want to discharge somebody after they've gone through parole and
been helped and assisted, or without those services and without
the state having a legal right to supervise anything you do?" said
Tom Shaer, a department spokesman.  "We believe it's better to go
back to society in a supervised fashion.  We believe in the parole
mission."

According to Mr. Shaer, about 1,000 convicted sex offenders are
held each year beyond their release date -- a rate that officials
have said has been fairly consistent over about the past decade.
The same fate befalls about another 250 inmates without a sex
crime background, mostly because their potential homes are not
suitable for electronic monitoring, a requirement of their parole,
he said.

Prison costs almost $22,000 a year for each inmate, compared with
about $2,000 a year for those on parole, according to Mr. Shaer.

Officials have said the convicted sex offenders are not held
beyond their release dates because they pose a danger to the
public.  If they were regarded as still a threat, authorities
could seek to have them deemed a sexually violent person under the
law and committed indefinitely, according to Mr. Shaer.

"There's no determination of risk in this," said Alexa van Brunt,
an attorney at the MacArthur Justice Center at Northwestern
University's law school who has worked on the issue.

According to corrections officials, the practice began about a
decade ago under Roger Walker, then the department's director.  It
is a byproduct of state laws and parole rules that require inmates
to have a suitable place to live before they are released on
mandatory supervised release, also known as parole.  Inmates can
be held for the duration of their parole, often three years, if a
parole officer finds their housing unsuitable.  In those cases,
they'd receive none of the services they would get on parole by
the time they finally are set free.

For a department with an annual budget exceeding $1.25 billion but
struggling with overcrowding and money woes, the turnarounds
appear to be a drain in many ways.

"It makes no sense from a financial, legal or moral perspective,"
said Alan Mills, executive director of Uptown People's Law Center,
which represents the poor on prison and other issues.

Mr. Shaer insisted the department's officers work hard to try to
find suitable housing for parolees, but he acknowledged, "We have
budget issues and we have legal issues on this."

Inmates have challenged the practice in court but have been
unsuccessful.  Most recently, inmate Johnny Cordrey asked the
Illinois Supreme Court to rule the practice unconstitutional,
saying it violated his equal protection and due process rights.
Mr. Cordrey, who in 1993 was sentenced to 36 years in prison for
kidnapping and rape, claimed he was imprisoned beyond his parole
date because he was indigent and could not find housing.

Mr. Cordrey was scheduled to be paroled for three years beginning
in April 2013, but he could not find a home that met requirements.
On the day he was to be released, he instead was served with a
parole violation and kept locked up at Menard Correctional Center
downstate.

He remained there for another 11/2 years before he was finally set
free in October 2014.

"The guy had no support, no tools, so we just threw him out on the
streets," said Mr. Poor, who represented Mr. Cordrey before the
state's highest court.  "I said, 'Johnny, what are you going to
do?' He said, 'I don't know.' That same story gets repeated over
and over with other inmates."

Mr. Cordrey was given a one-way bus ticket, traveling to Peoria in
hopes of finding space at a Salvation Army shelter, Mr. Poor said.

While Mr. Cordrey had already been released, the state supreme
court took the case because it determined it was a matter of
public interest.  In the end, though, the court, while noting the
policy appeared to present a genuine issue, concluded the state
legislature might be a better forum to deal with it.

Mr. Poor said he hoped to work with the state attorney general's
office to find a solution without returning to court, but he said
a class-action lawsuit was also a possibility.  He said the state
could "buy lots of therapy and halfway houses" with the money
spent on the extended prison stays.

A spokesman for Attorney General Lisa Madigan said the office was
open to taking part in discussions to resolve the issue.

"Ultimately, any discussion would need to include legislators and
people who play a critical role in the criminal justice system,"
said the spokeswoman, Maura Possley.

Herman Townsell, who spent 71/2 years in prison for a 1994 home
invasion, kidnapping and sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl and
has been in and out of prison since for various offenses, was set
to be released from state prison in October 2013, but he could not
find a place to live that a parole officer deemed suitable.  He
ended up spending another year in prison, according to documents.

Now he moves between his mother's South Side residence or the
homes of friends and relatives when he isn't homeless and sleeping
on the train or wherever he can stay warm. He said he works when
he can.

"I don't know what they want me to do.  I really don't.  The
restrictions are impossible," said Mr. Townsell, 47.  "I get tired
of going back to prison.  But it's almost impossible to find a
place to live.  Murderers don't have it as hard."


INDUSTRIAL BAKERY: Faces "Alvarez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosa Maria Carrato Alvarez and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Industrial Bakery Inc., Jorge E. Castillo,
Patricia F. Castillo, Case No. 1:15-cv-20465 (S.D. Fla., February
5, 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 bakery in Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JENNINGS CITY, MO: Illegally Imprisons Class Members, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Jenkins, Edward Brown, Keilee Fant, Byeon Wells, Meldon
Moffit, Allison Nelson, Herbert Nelson Jr., Tonya Deberry, et al.
v. The City of Jennings, Case No. 4:15-cv-00252 (E.D. Mo.,
February 8, 2015), is brought on behalf of all impoverished people
who were jailed indefinitely and none was afforded a lawyer or the
inquiry into their ability to pay by the City of Jennings because
they were unable to pay a debt owed to the City from traffic
tickets or other minor offenses.

City of Jennings is a municipal corporation, organized under the
laws of the State of Missouri.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander G. Karakatsanis, Esq.
      EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW
      916 G St., NW, Suite 701
      Washington, DC
      Telephone: (202) 681-2409
      E-mail: alec@equaljusticeunderlaw.org

         - and -

      Brendan D. Roediger, Esq.
      John J. Ammann, Esq.
      ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
      100 N. Tucker Blvd.
      St. Louis, MO 63101
      Telephone: (314) 977-2778
      Facsimile: (314) 977-1180
      E-mail: broedige@slu.edu

             ammannjj@slu.edu

         - and -

      Thomas B. Harvey, Esq.
      7751 Carondelet, Suite 201
      Clayton, MO 63105
      Telephone: (314) 482-3342
      Facsimile: (314) 932-2702
      E-mail: tbh1910@gmail.com


KAISER FOUNDATION: Judge Must Face Home Care Nurses' Wage Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Siegal, writing for Law360, reports that a California judge
on Jan. 23 rejected Kaiser Foundation Hospitals' bid for a quick
win in a putative class action alleging the company pressured
unionized home care nurses to underreport their hours worked,
rejecting Kaiser's argument that the dispute should be handled by
the plaintiff's union.

Kaiser had argued in a summary judgment motion that home care
nurse Antonio Gonzalez cannot bring a putative class action
against Kaiser because, under California Labor Code Section 514,
the state's statutory overtime requirements do not apply when an
employee is covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement
that otherwise delineates wage and hour practices and provides a
regularly hourly pay rate more than 30 percent over the state
minimum wage.

On Jan. 23, Thomas R. Kaufman -- tkaufman@sheppardmullin.com -- of
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, representing Kaiser, urged
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge John Shepard Wiley Jr. to reverse
his tentative ruling denying the motion.  Kaiser argued that
Section 514 rendered Mr. Gonzalez's overtime claim as something
better addressed in a union grievance, and said that Mr.
Gonzalez's claim that he wasn't paid straight time can only be
pursued as a claim for breach of the collective bargaining
agreement -- a claim Gonzalez didn't bring.

"If you have this collective bargaining agreement and your union
has bargained in protections that include overtime for every hour
worked . . . then your redress is to sue under your collective
bargaining agreement," he said.  "No one's suggesting that he
should have to work without pay or that he's not entitled to
redress."

Judge Wiley, however, disagreed, noting in his written tentative
ruling, and again in court, that although the court must reference
the union agreement to determine what Gonzalez should have been
paid for any purported off-the-clock work, that does not mean his
claims are preempted.

"Thank you for your excellent oral argument.  I fear I have not
convinced counsel that I'm correct, so we're going to have to
agree to disagree," the judge said.

Mr. Gonzalez filed suit against Kaiser Foundation Hospitals,
Kaiser Permanente and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc. in
California court in September 2012, alleging Kaiser had a practice
of requiring home care nurses to work "off the clock" before and
after their shifts.

Mr. Gonzalez alleges that when he was employed in Kaiser's hospice
and home health palliative care department from January 2007 into
2012, he was regularly required to work more than the hours
specified as the official start and end of his shifts, but Kaiser
refused to pay him for those hours.

Kaiser required Mr. Gonzalez to record his time using a "daily
activity record," and Mr. Gonzalez then used that record to
complete a paper time sheet that he submitted for payroll
processing, according to Judge Shepard's Jan. 23 ruling.
According to the ruling, Gonzalez contends that under pressure
from his supervisors, he did not record all the hours he worked on
the daily records or his time sheets.

Mr. Gonzalez sought to represent a class of all nonexempt home
health care nurses who were subject to similar labor law
violations from August 2008 onward.

On Jan. 23, Judge Shepard noted that certifying a class in the
case might be "more difficult" than surviving a motion for summary
judgment, and asked the parties to set a schedule for class
certification proceedings.

The plaintiffs are represented by Thomas W. Falvey, J.D. Henderson
and Daniel O'Neil-Ortiz of the Law Offices of Thomas W. Falvey;
and Timothy B. Sottile, Michael F. Baltaxe and Wendy K. Marcus of
Sottile Baltaxe APLC.

Kaiser is represented by Thomas R. Kaufman and Kathryn A. Visosky
-- kvisosky@sheppardmullin.com -- of Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP.

The case is Gonzalez v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals et al., case
number BC492725, in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles.


LOVE HONEY: Falsely Marketed Pleasure Gel Products, Action Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tania Warchol f/k/a Tania Racha, on behalf of herself, all others
similarly situated and the general public v. Love Honey, Inc.,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00238 (S.D. Cal., February 5, 2015), alleges that
the Defendants falsely market an over-the-counter Fifty Shades of
Grey Come Alive Pleasure Gel for Her product as having beneficial
and aphrodisiac properties to increase pleasure and enhance
orgasms, despite that none of the ingredients in the Product,
individually or in combination, provide such benefits.

Love Honey, Inc. is Delaware Corporation that operates an online
shop that sells sex toys and sexy lingerie.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MEDBOX INC: Founder Comments on Shareholder Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
P. Vincent Mehdizadeh -- Founder and Majority Shareholder of
Medbox, Inc. -- commented on the recent lawsuit commenced in
California Central District Court (2:15-cv-00426-BRO-JEM) by a
shareholder rights law firm.

Based on information provided to Mehdizadeh by his attorney, after
a complaint has been filed, the plaintiffs must petition the court
and ask that the case be certified as a class action lawsuit.  In
order to be certified as a class action case, there must be enough
plaintiffs to make joinder of individual cases impractical and
there must be common issues among the plaintiffs.  Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
provide specific details about when a case qualifies for class
action designation.

"I just wanted to clarify that one lawsuit was filed and announced
on the company's ticker without, to my knowledge, obtaining the
company's consent.  Thereafter, 8 different Plaintiff's firms, or
potentially just referral services, announced that same lawsuit,
again without seeking the company's permission in citing the
company's ticker symbol, in an effort to further solicit clients.
It's a shame that we live in a 'sue first and get clients later'
type of world but that is the reality," stated Vincent Mehdizadeh,
Founder and Majority Shareholder at Medbox.  "I was personally
sued in the lawsuit and I can safely say that the allegations
contained in the complaint are not accurate.  During my tenure
with the company I personally witnessed a very supportive
shareholder base and I still believe the same holds true to this
day.  In addition, I will be personally engaging an independent
public company accounting firm, on my own, to review prior periods
as stated and address GAAP compliance, materiality, and fight this
suit vigorously.  Although this is not a formal company response
on the matter, I needed to set the record straight and now I
have."

                   About P. Vincent Mehdizadeh

P. Vincent Mehdizadeh founded Medbox's main subsidiary, Medicine
Dispensing Systems, in February 2008.  He commenced operations for
that company in 2010, and in December of 2011 sold that company to
what became Medbox, Inc.  Mr. Mehdizadeh served as senior
consultant from December 2012 until May 10, 2013 for Medbox, Inc.
and then transitioned to Chief Operations Officer and Board
Chairman for Medbox, Inc. through May of 2014.  Mr. Mehdizadeh was
responsible for creating the 2 main patents behind the company's
technology, helping to assemble the talented management team at
Medbox, and also developing the concept behind the business models
driving revenue for the company.


METROPOLITAN JANITORIAL: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Gomez and Elizabeth Gomez, individually and on behalf of
other employees similarly situated v. Metropolitan Janitorial
Services, Inc., and Patricia Douglas, Case No. 3:15-cv-50025 (N.D.
Ill., February 6, 2015), is brought against the Defendants failure
to pay the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees at
least the Illinois mandated minimum wages for all hours worked in
a workweek.

Metropolitan Janitorial Services, Inc. is an Illinois-based
commercial and residential cleaning company.

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


MORGAN STANLEY: Faces Class Action Over 2004-07 High Risk Loans
---------------------------------------------------------------
DeadlineDetroit.com, citing Free Press' John Gallagher, reports
that newly disclosed e-mails and documents give the clearest
evidence yet that high-level banking officials pushed subprime
mortgage loans knowing some Detroiters couldn't pay them. And that
sparked a foreclosure crisis in Detroit.

The new documents were revealed in a potential class action by
African-American Detroit homeowners against Morgan Stanley, one of
the nation's largest Wall Street investment firms.  The lawsuit,
Adkins et al vs. Morgan Stanley, alleges the high-risk loans in
2004-07 were racially discriminatory because they
"disproportionally impacted" thousands of metro Detroit black
borrowers.

Lawyers for five Detroit plaintiffs say the internal bank
documents show officials encouraged New Century, a now-bankrupt
lender, to push the loans and that Morgan Stanley ignored its
normal credit standards so it could pool the mortgages as
investments for lucrative fees. The lawsuit seeks unspecified
damages.

A Morgan Stanley spokesman declined to comment on the lawsuit,
which was filed in 2012.  But in its written responses to the
suit, the firm denies backing racially discriminatory predatory
loans.  Morgan Stanley has already agreed in settlements with U.S.
government regulators to pay about $1.5 billion for its role in
the larger subprime scandal.


MORGAN STANLEY: Judge Set to Rule on Mortgage Loan Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Detroit Free Press reports that U.S. District Judge Harold Baer
Jr. has yet to decide whether to certify the case as a class
action a suit filed against Morgan Stanley.  Expect that sometime
in the next several months.

The case at a glance.

Plaintiffs: Five named Detroit plaintiffs -- Beverly Adkins,
Charmaine Williams, Rebecca Pettway, Rubbie McCoy and William
Young -- plus Michigan Legal Services.

Defendant: Morgan Stanley and several of its affiliates.

At issue: Whether Morgan Stanley, one of the nation's leading
investment firms, encouraged the proliferation of predatory
subprime mortgage loans among African-American residents in
Detroit in 2004-07.

First key issue: Whether African-American residents in Detroit
were "disproportionately impacted" by Morgan Stanley's actions.

Second key issue: Whether the case should be certified as a class
action involving at least 4,000 African-American homeowners in the
Detroit area.

Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
in Manhattan.

Plaintiffs seeking: An injunction barring future such action and
undetermined damages.


NASDAQ OMX: Sued in Pa. Over Illegal Manipulation of Dividends
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Rabin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. John Doe Market Makers, Nasdaq OMX PHLX LLC, and
Nasdaq OMX Group, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00551 (E.D. Pa., February
5, 2015), alleges that the Defendants manipulated options in
advance of dividend payments on underlying stock and exchange
traded funds for their personal benefit to the detriment of all
other options investors during the Class Period.

Nasdaq OMX PHLX LLC is a Self-Regulatory Organization, which owns
and operates the PHLX Exchange, which focuses on options trading,
trading more than 3,000 classes of equity options.

Nasdaq OMX Group, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that owns and
operates several securities exchanges.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lawrence Deutsch, Esq.
      Robin B. Switzenbaum, Esq.
      Phyllis M. Parker, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, PC
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, P A 19103
      Telephone:  (215) 875-3000
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      E-mail: ldeutsch@bm.net
              rswitzenbaum@bm.net
              pparker@bm.net

         - and -

      Jeffrey H. Squire, Esq.
      Lawrence P. Eagel, Esq.
      BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
      885 Third Ave., Suite 3040
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 308-5858
      E-mail: squire@bespc.com
              eagel@bespc.com


NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: Class Action Refund Deadline Passes
-------------------------------------------------------
News.com.au reports that National Australia Bank customers seeking
to reclaim "unfair" exception fees had until Jan. 27 to register.

The company managing a series of class actions on behalf of bank
customers, Financial Redress, says the deadline for those seeking
to reclaim "potentially millions of dollars in unfairly charged
exception fees" is Jan. 27.

Financial Redress managing director James Middleweek on Jan. 26
said that any NAB customer who believes they have been hit by
excessive exception fees in the past should complete the
registration process on www.financialredress.com.au by 4:00 p.m.
AEDT on Tuesday, Jan. 27, so as not to miss out on possible
compensation.

NAB exception fees were on average around $30 before the bank
reduced or eliminated them altogether in 2010.

More than 40,000 NAB customers have so far joined the NAB Class
Action, which is part of a wider group of legal actions relating
to exception fees launched against eight of the major banks in
Australia.

The lead case, against ANZ, is awaiting judgment in the Court of
Appeal after class action members won a Federal Court case on late
fees.

"When we launched the registration process for the Class Actions
back in May 2010 the response was overwhelming.  I commend NAB for
its willingness to seek a settlement leading to compensation for
its customers.  It's high time that the other banks followed
suit," Mr. Middleweek said.

Financial Redress Pty Ltd specializes in recovering compensation
from financial institutions for excessive charges or mis-selling.
Financial Redress joined forces with IMF Bentham Limited ("IMF")
in 2010, and is now a subsidiary of IMF which is a public company
listed on the Australian Securities Exchange.  IMF provides
funding for significant and large-scale litigation, including the
Bank Fees Class Actions relating to exception fees.


NATURE MADE: Falsely Marketed Ginkgo Biloba Products, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Lisa Gara and Melanie Barber, on behalf of themselves, all
others similarly situated and the general public v. Nature Made
Nutritional Products, Inc., and Pharmavite, LLC, Case No. 8:15-cv-
00209 (C.D. Cal., February 6, 2015), arises from the Defendants
false and misleading advertising campaign that the Nature Made
Ginkgo Biloba Products provide a variety of health benefits
centered around improving mild memory problems, supporting mental
alertness, and supporting healthy brain function.

Nutritional Products, Inc. is a California corporation that
provides domestic and international product manufacturers with the
sales, marketing, and product distribution services.

Pharmavite, LLC is a California corporation, the maker of Nature
Made vitamins and nutritional supplements.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
      CARPENTER LAW GROUP
      402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 756-6994
      Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
      E-mail: todd@carpenterlawyers.com


NEFF & SON: Faces "Diaz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elio Diaz, Christian Aguilar, Siloe Verduo and Mariano Diaz, each
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Neff &
Son, Inc. t/a Chester River Landscaping, and Morton Gibbons-Neff
III, Donna P. Gibbons-Neff, and Morton Griffin-Neff IV, Case No.
1:15-cv-00337 (D. Md., February 5, 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 landscaping service company
located in Chestertown, Maryland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alvaro Augusto Llosa, Esq.
      Roberto N. Allen, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF ROBERTO ALLEN LLC
      11002 Veirs Mill Rd, Ste 700
      Wheaton, MD 20902
      Telephone: (301) 861-0202
      Facsimile: (410) 864-8895
      E-mail: allosa@robertoallenlaw.com
              rallen@robertoallenlaw.com


NESTLE PURINA: Sued Over Dog Deaths Caused by Toxins in Pet Food
----------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Lucido, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Nestle Purina Petcare Company, a Missouri corporation;
and Does 1 through 200, inclusive, Case No. 4:15-cv-00569 (N.D.
Cal., February 5, 2015), alleges that the Defendant's Beneful dog
food product contains substances that are toxic to animals and
that have resulted in the serious illness and death of thousands
of dogs.

Nestle Purina Petcare Company is a Missouri corporation that
manufactures, distributes, markets, and sells pet foods.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey B. Cereghino, Esq.
      Michael F. Ram, Esq.
      Matt J. Malone, Esq.
      Susan Brown, Esq.
      RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP
      555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 433-4949
      Facsimile: (415) 433-7311
      E-mail: jbc@rocklawcal.com
              mram@rocklawcal.com
              mjm@rocklawcal.com
              sbrown@rocklawcal.com

         - and -

      John Yanchunis, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX, LITIGATION GROUP
      201 N Franklin Street, Floor 7
      Tampa, FL 33602-5157
      Telephone: (813)275-5272
      Facsimile: (813)275-9295
      E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com


NEW DOMINION: High Court to Hear Prague Earthquake Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Oklahoma's highest court has
decided to hear a lawsuit that alleges two oil companies are
liable for injuries a Prague woman suffered during a 2011
earthquake.

The lawsuit by Sandra Ladra of Prague is among dozens of lawsuits
filed in the past several years that allege oil and gas companies
are responsible for earthquakes.  Similar lawsuits seeking class-
action status have been filed against energy companies in Arkansas
and Texas.

A Lincoln County judge dismissed Ms. Ladra's case, but the
Oklahoma Supreme Court decided on Dec. 2 to hear her appeal
instead of referring it to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals,
the Tulsa World reported on Jan. 25.

An attorney for one of the companies warned that the lawsuit, if
successful, would cause energy companies to abandon wastewater
disposal wells across the state.

"These wells will become economic and legal-liability pariahs,"
Robert Gum, who represents Tulsa-based oil and gas company New
Dominion LLC, told a Lincoln County judge during an October
hearing in the case.

Spess Oil Co., based in Cleveland, Oklahoma, is also named as a
defendant. Gum and attorneys for Spess have denied the companies
are responsible for triggering earthquakes.

Numerous scientific studies and the U.S. Geological Survey have
linked wastewater injection wells to "induced" earthquakes.  The
wastewater is a mixture of saltwater and toxic chemicals produced
by oil and gas operations.

Studies published in Science magazine and elsewhere have found the
waste pumped deep into faulted zones causes pressure to build up,
triggering earthquakes miles away.  Oklahoma recorded 567
earthquakes last year of 3.0 magnitude or greater, more than in
the previous 30 years combined.

The U.S. Geological Survey cited a study by one of its
seismologists and other scientists that found the Prague quake was
triggered by three wastewater injection wells nearby.

Ms. Ladra's lawsuit alleges that New Dominion and Spess operated
wastewater disposal wells that triggered the Nov. 5, 2011,
earthquake -- a 5.6 magnitude quake that was the largest in state
history.


NEW JERSEY: Child Welfare System Shows Progress, Judge Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Warrant Reporter's Emily Cummins, citing NJ Advance Media,
reports that New Jersey's child welfare system received its 15th
report card in nine years, evaluating its progress and improvement
following a 1999 class-action lawsuit that alleged neglect of
thousands of foster children.

"Federal monitor Judith Meltzer and her team at the Center for the
Study of Social Policy, a Washington D.C. think tank, concluded
the department met 19 of 43 requirements from January 2014 to June
2014, showed progress in eight areas, and missed the mark on 16
others," it reported.

In her 200-page report, Ms. Meltzer said that the Department of
Children and Families and its Division of Child Protection and
Permanency (formerly the Division of Youth and Family Services,
DYFS), is "light-years" better than it once was.

"Although there remain important . . . outcomes still to be
achieved, the Department of Children and Families has demonstrated
it is a system that is continually trying to improve itself,"
according to the report submitted to U.S. District Court Judge
Stanley R. Chesler in Newark.

The release of the report follows the Federal District Court
determination by Judge Freda F. Wolfson that a Phillipsburg mom
has the right to sue department heads and individual employees of
the state Department of Children & Families, its Division of Child
Protection and Permanency and the Watchung Police Department.

Michelle Mammaro, who was the victim of an assault by her husband
in 2011, claims that while delaying her case for months, state
child services workers attempted to "manufacture" evidence against
her.

It took more than a year for a Warren County Family Court judge to
rule that Ms. Mammaro was not guilty of child abuse, according to
her attorney Ken Rosellini, and during that time, Ms. Mammaro
alleges that caseworkers and police violated her parental rights
and went "beyond their constitutional bounds."

A management conference is scheduled for March, after which,
Mr. Rosellini said, he plans to question the state employees under
oath.

The state Attorney General's Office, representing the state
agency, did not immediately respond to request for comment and
state Department of Children & Families declined to comment
because of the pending litigation.


NEW ORLEANS, LA: Settles Landfill Class Action for $8 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Russell, writing for The New Orleans Advocate, reports that
the city of New Orleans and the operators of a New Orleans East
landfill that opened after Hurricane Katrina and quickly became
the region's busiest dump have agreed to pay $8 million to settle
a long-running lawsuit with a group of people who actually own the
property on which the landfill sits.

The settlement agreement -- which was filed in Civil District
Court on Jan. 22 -- will make the city the owner of record of the
land.

It also will absolve the old property owners from any
environmental liabilities that might arise from the millions of
cubic yards of waste that have been dumped on the site, according
to Joel Waltzer, lead attorney for the plaintiffs.

The suit was filed in November 2007, roughly two years after the
hastily permitted Old Gentilly Landfill opened its doors and began
taking in as much as 100,000 cubic yards of debris on busy days.

The suit's central claim was a startling one: that most of the
land under the dumping site -- which the city of New Orleans
purported to own -- actually belonged to hundreds of private
landowners, who had purchased lots in three residential
subdivisions that had been platted, but never built, decades
earlier.

Many of the landowners were unaware that the city had taken over
their land for a dump until Mr. Waltzer, who had been filing suits
against the Old Gentilly Landfill on environmental grounds, began
investigating.  He discovered that about 80 percent of the dump
site was in private hands and that the city was still mailing
property tax bills to all of the landowners each year.

One of them, Doretha Walker, then 77, became the lead plaintiff in
Mr. Waltzer's lawsuit.  She recalled paying $6,000 in 1981 for
four adjoining lots in a subdivision with the optimistic moniker
Flowerdale.  Ms. Walker paid her modest property tax bill each
year, hoping that one day Flowerdale might become a reality or at
least that her land might become more valuable.  She never
actually laid eyes on the property.

While neither Flowerdale nor its neighbors, christened Lichentag
and Forestlawn, ever got built, the land did become more valuable,
after a fashion.  After Katrina, the otherwise unremarkable,
desolate area off Old Gentilly Road suddenly had immense value as
a dumpsite.

The operators of the landfill -- the AMID/Metro Partnership, a
joint venture between construction company owner Stephen Stumpf
and trash hauler Jimmie Woods -- were charging about $3.50 per
cubic yard for waste, meaning the site was generating hundreds of
thousands of dollars a day on busy days.

How much the landfill has taken in since 2005 is unclear, but the
figure likely is in the tens of millions of dollars.

Under a favorable deal it had with the city, AMID/Metro was
allowed to keep 97 percent of the money it generated, while the
city, the purported landowner, got the other 3 percent as a
"royalty."

It's not clear when the city helped itself to the land, but it
apparently was decades ago.  The post-Katrina Old Gentilly
Landfill actually sits atop an older city dump that had been
closed in the 1980s.  On all the paperwork filed with the state
Department of Environmental Quality, the city was listed as the
owner.

While people who win civil settlements against the city of New
Orleans often never get paid, or at best have to settle for
partial payment years after the verdict, Mr. Waltzer said a fund
already has been set up to pay the plaintiffs in this case.  He
said a maximum of 25 percent of the $8 million settlement would go
to attorneys' fees and costs and the costs of claims
administration, with the remainder going to the claimants.

The settlement calls for each property owner to receive about $1
per square foot, plus a flat payment per owner, which works out to
about $12,000 for the owner of a typical subdivision lot.
Mr. Waltzer said that amount "represents a premium price for the
land in the area."

In a prepared statement, he added: "While hurricane debris had to
go somewhere, the landowners here were clearly mistreated. They
clearly deserve the premium the settlement provides for their
ruined land."

The defendants have filed a motion seeking to keep confidential
the terms of how the settlement is being funded.

The suit is a class action, which means the court must hold a
fairness hearing to ensure the settlement is fair to the class.
The hearing is set for April 13 before Judge Sidney Cates IV.

Ms. Walker said she thinks the sum she'll get for her four lots
will be a "decent return on my investment" of $6,000, more than 30
years ago.

"I'm very, very pleased," Walker, who's now 84, said in a brief
phone interview. "I'm happy we've come to a settlement. I never
thought I would be receiving the money before I passed."


NEW YORK: Denies Class Member's Rights to Vote, Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Rossito-Canty, Diana Sepulveda, Frank Morano, Matthew J.
Mari, Erik Pistek, Lawrence Gilder, David Pascarella, Michael
Reilly, and for all similarly situated voters of the Eleventh
Congressional District in the State of New York v. Andrew M.
Cuomo, in his official capacity as Governor of The State of New
York, Case No. 1:15-cv-00568 (E.D.N.Y., February 5, 2015), is
brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated,
who are being denied the right to vote for a Representative in the
vacant Eleventh Congressional District of New York.

Andrew M. Cuomo is a citizen of the United States and a resident
of the State of New York, serving in an official capacity as
Governor of The State of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ronald Castorina Jr., Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF RONALD CASTORINA, Jr.
      1336 Clove Road
      Staten Island, NY 10301
      Telephone: (718) 701-3100
      Facsimile: (718) 701-3133
      E-mail: roncastorina@gmail.com


ON TIME COURIER: Faces "Bucio" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gloria Bucio, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. On Time Courier Corp. d/b/a Papa Philly and
Food and Asif Mirza, Case No. 1:15-cv-01196 (N.D. Ill., February
8, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate Papa Philly and Food restaurant in
Cook County, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Erik Stevens, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 307-0766
      E-mail: Dave@StevensLawLLC.com


PALMS GENTLEMENS: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. The Palms Gentlemens Club, and Does 1 to 10,
Case No. 2:15-cv-00898 (C.D. Cal., February 6, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Palms Gentlemens Club owns and operates adult entertainment
clubs with locations in Anaheim and Santa Ana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam Morris Rose, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT STARR
      23277 Ventura Blvd
      Woodland Hills, CA 91364
      Telephone: (818) 225-9040
      Facsimile: (818) 225-9042
      E-mail: adam@starrlaw.com


PATINELLA'S CHICKEN: "Craig" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Tips
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Craig, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Patinella's Chicken Grill College Parkway, LLC and
Shelly Patinella, Case No. 2:15-cv-00072 (M.D. Fla., February 6,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid tips, an additional equal amount of
liquidated damages and reasonable attorney's fees and costs under
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located in Lee County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bill B. Berke, Esq.
      BERKE LAW FIRM, PA
      4223 Del Prado Blvd. S.
      Cape Coral, FL 33904
      Telephone: (239) 549-6689
      Facsimile: (239) 549-3331
      E-mail: Berkelaw@yahoo.com


PATTERSON-UTI DRILLING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth W. Mercer and James Hanks, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Patterson-UTI Drilling Company, LLC,
Case No. 4:15-cv-00346 (S.D. Tex., February 6, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

Patterson-UTI Drilling Company, LLC is a Texas limited liability
company that operates a land based drilling rigs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Allen Ryan Vaught, Esq.
      BARON BUDD PC
      3102 Oak Lawn Ave, Ste 1100
      Dallas, TX 75214
      Telephone: (214) 521-3605
      E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com


PEACE FOOD: "Santiago" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Santiago, Gustavo Galindo-Diaz, and Nabor Reyes-Megia, on
behalf of themselves, and other similarly situated employee v.
Peace Food Cafe, Inc., Peacefood Cafe Too, Inc, and Eric H. Yu,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00860 (S.D.N.Y., February 5, 2015), seeks to
recover minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees
and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate 2 Peacefood Cafe restaurants in New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PINNACLE RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Danielle McCutcheon and Geoffrey Needham, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pinnacle Recovery,
Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00261 (S.D. Cal., February 7, 2015), seeks
to stop the Defendant's unfair debt collection practice of failing
to properly identify the original creditor of the alleged debt and
illegally demanding payment of miscellaneous costs despite
providing no information as to the origin or basis.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Tara D. Newberry, Esq.
      7854 W. Sahara Avenue
      Las Vegas, NV 89117
      Telephone: (702) 608-4232
      Facsimile: (702) 946-1830
      E-mail: tnewberry@cnlawlv.com

         - and -

      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: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


REGENCY ENERGY: Accuses of Wrongful Conduct Over Company Sale
-------------------------------------------------------------
Edwin Bazini, on behalf of himself and 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-00389 (N.D. Tex., February 6, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for breaching their fiduciary
duties in connection with the proposed acquisition of all Regency
common units in an unfair price and process.

The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of Energy
Transfer Partners, L.P.

Regency Energy Partners LP is Delaware and maintains its principal
executive offices in Dallas, Texas. It is an independent midstream
energy partnership involved in the gathering, processing,
marketing, and transportation of natural gas and natural gas
liquids.

Regency GP LP and Regency GP LLC are the limited partners Regency
Energy Partners LP

Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. is a Delaware limited partnership
with its principle executive offices located in Dallas, TX. It
owns and operates a diversified portfolio of energy assets.

Energy Transfer Partners GP, L.P. and Energy Transfer Equity, L.P.
are Delaware limited partnerships and the general partners of
Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Balon B. Bradley, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF BALON B. BRADLEY
      5473 Blair Road, Suite 100
      Dallas, TX 75231
      Telephone: (972) 991-1582
      Facsimile: (972) 755-0424
      E-mail: balon@bbradleylaw.com

         - and -

      Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
      James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
      Miles D. Schreiner, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      369 Lexington Ave., Tenth Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone:  (212) 983-9330
      E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com
              jwilson@faruqilaw.com
              mschreiner@faruqilaw.com


REGIONS FINANCIAL: Settles Suit Over Morgan Keegan Funds' Collapse
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that Regions
Financial Corp has agreed to $125 million of settlements to
resolve lawsuits accusing it of mismanaging three Morgan Keegan
bond mutual funds that collapsed in 2007 after investing heavily
in subprime mortgages and other risky debt.

The preliminary settlements call for $110 million of cash to be
paid to investors in Morgan Keegan's Short Term Bond, Select
Intermediate Bond and Select High Income funds, and $15 million of
cash to go directly to the funds, less any legal fees.

Papers outlining the settlements, which resolve two class-action
lawsuits by the funds' shareholders, were filed on Jan. 22 in the
federal court in Memphis, Tennessee, where Morgan Keegan has
offices.  Regions, a southeast U.S. regional bank, is based in
Birmingham, Alabama.

The settlements require court approval.  Regions sold Morgan
Keegan to Raymond James Financial Inc in 2012.

Regions had no immediate comment on the settlements.  It has said
it would indemnify Raymond James for legal matters involving
Morgan Keegan, and that its indemnification obligation was valued
at $193 million as of Sept. 30, 2014.

The settlements follow Regions' agreement in June 2011 to pay $210
million to settle charges by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission and other regulators that Morgan Keegan fraudulently
misled investors about the risks of several funds.

These funds included bond funds marketed as conservative
investments for older investors, but which nonetheless lost more
than half of their value in 2007 as credit conditions worsened.

According to Morningstar Inc, the Select Intermediate Bond A fund
fell 50.3 percent that year, while the riskier Select High Income
A fund tumbled 59.7 percent.

The SEC claimed that Morgan Keegan hid the falling value of some
funds between January and July 2007, and "recklessly" sold shares
at inflated prices.

James Kelsoe, a Morgan Keegan portfolio manager, accepted a
securities industry ban as part of the SEC settlement.

The three mutual funds in the Jan. 22 settlements now carry the
Helios name, and are being liquidated, court papers show.

Lawyers for the funds' shareholders plan to seek fees of up to 30
percent of the settlement amounts.  Shareholders had, in 2011,
proposed partial settlements, but the court never ruled on their
motion.

The case is In re: Regions Morgan Keegan Securities, Derivative
and ERISA Litigation, U.S. District Court, Western District of
Tennessee, No. 09-md-02009.


SAKUMA BROTHERS: Class Action May Affect Mid-Columbia Farmers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kristi Pihl, writing for Tri-City Herald, reports that the
Washington Supreme Court will take up a case this spring with
potential ramifications for many Mid-Columbia farmers and
farmworkers.

The court is being asked to decide whether farmers are required to
pay farmworkers who earn wages based on how much they pick
additional, separate pay for rest breaks.

Farmworkers may earn a wage based on how much they pick for a
number of crops, such as blueberries, cherries or asparagus. They
are guaranteed to earn the state's minimum wage, but skilled, fast
harvesters can earn quite a bit more.

The argument is coming out of a class-action lawsuit filed by
farmworkers Ana Lopez Demetrio and Francisco Eugenio Paz against
Sakuma Brothers Farms, a berry farm in Burlington, Wash.

The farmworkers and Sakuma Brothers Farms finalized a settlement
agreement resolving most of the claims in November.  The farmers
did not admit any wrongdoing, but did agree to pay $850,000 to
settle claims and avoid the time and expense involved with a
lengthy lawsuit.

However, the workers and the farm did not come to an agreement
over claims made by the workers that they should receive extra pay
for the 10-minute break they can take every four hours, according
to court documents.

Seattle attorneys for the workers -- Daniel Ford of Columbia Legal
Services and Marc Cote of Terrell Marshall Daudt & Willie -- said
in court documents that pay earned while a worker is working can't
be used to compensate them for rest breaks.

They also assert that employers should be required to pay workers
for rest breaks based on the average hourly earnings from piece
work or the minimum wage, whichever is more.

Adam Belzberg, a Seattle attorney representing the farmers, argues
that the pay for rest breaks already is part of the piece rate
calculation.  The state Department of Labor and Industries decided
against requiring separate and additional pay for rest breaks when
developing state rules in 1990.

The plaintiffs are asking for a retroactive change, meaning
farmers would have to pay additional pay for work breaks to piece
rate workers for several of the previous seasons.  The Washington
Farm Labor Association and Washington State Tree Fruit Association
estimate that it could cost tens of millions of dollars.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in the case at
1:30 p.m. March 17 at Heritage University in Toppenish.

In the meantime, the associations have advised growers to make
sure they are telling their workers that the piece rate
compensation is meant to cover the breaks they take.

The industry groups also are raising money to support the cost of
writing a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of growers who pay
piece rate to workers. They have hired Jeffers, Danielson, Sonn &
Aylward of Wenatchee and Stokes Lawrence of Yakima.  They are
asking their members to contribute $1 per piece rate worker to pay
for the fund.


SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Stone, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The San Diego Union-Tribune, LLC, and Does 1 through
10, Case No. 3:15-cv-00237 (S.D. Cal., February 5, 2015), seeks to
stop the Defendant's practice of calling consumers' cellular
telephone numbers using an automatic telephone dialing system
without first obtaining prior express consent of the called party.

The San Diego Union-Tribune, LLC is Delaware media/newspaper
publisher.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      G. Thomas Martin III, Esq.
      Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq.
      MARTIN & BONTRAGER, APC
      6565 W. Sunset Blvd., Ste. 410
      Los Angeles, CA 90028
      Telephone: (323) 940-1700
      Facsimile: (323) 238-8095
      E-mail: Tom@mblawapc.com
              Nick@mblawapc.com


SIRIUS XM: Courtroom Setbacks Spur Copyright Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that
courtroom setbacks for Sirius XM Radio Inc. helped spawn a fresh
wave of copyright lawsuits, with new plaintiffs targeting online
music services over older recordings that were once considered
beyond the reach of artists' and record companies' royalty
demands.

But Sirius could still salvage its defenses -- and begin to
reverse the plaintiffs' momentum -- if a California appeals court
grants the company's pending plea for intervention.

In a mandamus petition now before California's Second Appellate
District, Sirius' lawyers at O'Melveny & Myers argue that a state
court judge in Los Angeles committed "clear error" when she ruled
last fall that record companies can claim performance rights to
pre-1972 songs under state law. (Musical compositions have been
protected under federal copyright for nearly 200 years, but
federal copyright law only protects sound recordings made after
1972.) The decision -- in a case brought by Capitol Records, Sony
Music Entertainment, UMG Recordings, Warner Music Group and ABKCO
Music & Records -- came sandwiched in between similar rulings by
federal judges in California and New York considering Sirius'
broadcasts of pre-1972 recordings by the rock band The Turtles.

"Until now, no court has ever held that ownership of a recording
made before 1972 includes the exclusive right to publicly perform,
or authorize others to publicly perform, that recording once it
has been published," O'Melveny's Daniel Petrocelli --
dpetrocelli@omm.com -- wrote in the Dec. 15 petition.  "To the
contrary, since the dawn of radio broadcasting in the 1920s,
plaintiffs have urged radio stations to freely and widely perform
their recordings to promote their sale."

Sirius tapped O'Melveny late last year to replace Weil, Gotshal &
Manges, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton and Kramer Levin
Naftalis & Frankel as defense counsel in nationwide litigation
over pre-1972 recordings.  The switch came after U.S. district
judges in Los Angeles and New York ruled against Sirius in
lawsuits brought by The Turtles' founding members, concluding that
owners of pre-1972 sound recordings have performance rights to
their songs outside of federal copyright law.  Both judges have
since refused to reconsider those decisions; Judge Philip
Gutierrez in L.A. declined to allow an immediate appeal, and
Judge Colleen McMahon in Manhattan ruled that she'll consider next
whether to certify the New York case as a class action.

Emboldened by those decisions, on Jan. 22 Zenbu Magazines LLC,
which owns the copyrights to sound recordings like The Flying
Burrito Brothers song "Sin City," filed a series of putative class
actions in Northern California federal court.  The suits seek
royalties on pre-1972 songs from streaming music services
including Google Play Music and Apple's iTunes Radio.

The newly launched cases may serve to underline one of O'Melveny's
arguments in the California appellate petition -- namely, a
warning that Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mary Strobel opened
the floodgates when she sided with the record companies last year.

"[Strobel's] ruling imposes huge, immediate costs not only on
Sirius XM and its listeners, but on thousands of other
nonparties," Sirius asserted.  "That includes every AM and FM
('terrestrial') radio station, retail store, restaurant, and bar
in California that performs pre-1972 recordings. . . . Similar
lawsuits have already been filed against Sirius XM and Pandora
Media.  And commentators have predicted that lawsuits against
terrestrial and Internet radio stations will soon follow."

The record companies, of course, are fighting Sirius XM's
petition.  The companies' lawyers, including Jon Eisenberg --
jeisenberg@horvitzlevy.com -- of Horvitz & Levy and Russell
Frackman of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, argued in a Dec. 26 brief
that it would be premature for the appeals court to consider
Sirius' arguments.

Judge Strobel's ruling, which pertained to jury instructions,
"does not require Sirius XM to do or refrain from doing anything,"
the record labels maintain.  And, they argue, an immediate appeal
wouldn't save time or money, and would instead lead to "piecemeal
appellate litigation."

Mr. Petrocelli and other lawyers for Sirius XM had the last word
in the briefing.  In a Jan. 2 reply brief, they disputed the
notion that an immediate appeal would unnecessarily fracture the
litigation.

"The time for the court to resolve this issue is now," they wrote.


SOUTH PALAFOX: 300+ People Join Class Action Over Landfill Odor
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Robinson, writing for Pensacola News Journal, reports that
more than 300 people have joined a civil lawsuit against the
owners of a controversial Pensacola landfill.

The class-action suit, filed in Nov. 21 against South Palafox
Properties, seeks damages for roughly 325 Wedgewood residents who
allege they have suffered loss of property use, discomfort and
annoyance as a result of odors emanating from the Rolling Hills
landfill on 6990 Rolling Hills Road.  They are currently awaiting
a response from South Palafox Properties legal counsel.

Wedgewood residents have complained that emissions from the
landfill are causing them respiratory problems and eye irritation,
as well as creating lingering, offensive odors.  The Florida
Department of Health in Escambia County issued an air quality
health alert between July and August for the area around the
landfill, asserting that hydrogen sulfide levels had reached a
minimal level of concern for long-term exposure to humans.

The 166-acre construction and debris landfill had its permit
revoked by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection in
late July on allegations of code violations including failure to
contain odors, contaminating surface water and accepting
unauthorized materials.  The landfill has been allowed to continue
operating while a state administrative judge reviews the DEP's
allegations.

South Palafox Properties' legal team has argued the validity of
several of the DEP's claims, and well as asserted they are in the
process of mitigating others.

An attorney representing South Palafox Properties in the civil
suit, Eric Pellenbarg -- eric.pellenbarg@phelps.com -- of Tampa-
based firm Phelps Dunbar, LLP, said he could not comment on
pending litigation.

Zakariah Johnson of Jacksonville firm Zakariah Johnson, PLLC, is
representing lead plaintiffs Ronnie and Wanda Shakir and roughly
170 other households in the suit.

Circuit Judge Michael Jones is presiding over the case, according
to court records.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Sued in N.D. Texas Over Rapid Reward Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cory Couch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Southwest Airlines Co., 3:15-cv-00367 (N.D. Tex.,
February 6, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to award Companion Passes to its customers in accordance with the
Rapid Reward Program's Terms and Conditions. Specifically, the
Program's terms state that points for Companion Passes will be
earned on credit card purchases made during the calendar year,
without disclosing that points earned on purchases after the close
of the customer's billing cycle in December will actually be
applied only towards the next calendar year.

Southwest Airlines Co. owns and operates a low-cost air carrier
with its corporate headquarters located at Dallas Love Field
Airport, 2702 Love Field Drive, Dallas, TX 75235.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Robert B. Kleinman, Esq.
       KLEINMAN LAW FIRM PLLC
       404 W. 7th Street
       Austin, TX 78701
       Telephone: (512) 299-5329
       Facsimile: (512) 628-3390
       E-mail: robert@kleinmanlawfirm.com

         - and -

       Reid Elkus, Esq.
       ELKUS, SISSON & ROSENSTEIN, P.C.
       501 South Cherry St., Suite 920
       Denver, CO 80246
       Telephone: (303) 567-7981
       Facsimile: (303) 431-3753
       E-mail: relkus@elkusandsisson.com

          - and -

       Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
       Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
       WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
       3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
       Denver CO, 80210
       Telephone: (720) 213-0675
       Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
       E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
               ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com


STANDARD & POOR'S: Settles Inflated Ratings Suits for $1.38BB
-------------------------------------------------------------
RJR News reports that ratings agency Standard & Poor's (S&P) has
agreed to pay a US$1.38 billion settlement to US regulators over
allegations it knowingly inflated its ratings of risky mortgage
bonds.

The deal with the US Justice Department also resolves 19 other
lawsuits.

In a statement, McGraw Hill -- the parent company of S&P -- said
the settlement contains no findings of violations of law.

S&P is the first credit agency fined over financial crisis-era
violations.

The settlement covers mortgage bond ratings between 2004 and 2007.
The bonds, which included sub-prime mortgages, were blamed for the
collapse of the US property market and subsequent global financial
crisis.


STAPLES INC: Faces "McCutcheon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James McCutcheon, And All Other Similarly Situated Under 29 USC
216(B) v. Staples, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00365 (N.D. Tex.,
February 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Staples, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation that owns and operates
office supply chain stores throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack Lewis Siegel, Esq.
      SIEGEL LAW GROUP
      Meadow Park Tower
      10440 N. Central Expy., Suite 1040
      Dallas, TX 75231
      Telephone: (214) 706-0834
      Facsimile: (469) 339-0204
      E-mail: jsiegel.esq@gmail.com


STRATASYS LTD: Sued in D. Minn. Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Albert Smelko, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Stratasys Ltd., David Reis and Erez Simha,
Case No. 0:15-cv-00455 (D. Minn., February 5, 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.

Stratasys Ltd. is a foreign corporation that manufactures three-
dimensional printers and describes itself as a leading global
provider of additive manufacturing solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carolyn G. Anderson, Esq.
      Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP
      1100 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 341-0400
      Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
      E-mail: Carolyn.Anderson@zimmreed.com
              Brian.Gudmundson@zimmreed.com

         - and -

      Jack Reise, Esq.
      Robert J. Robbins, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 750-3000
      Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
      E-mail: JReise@rgrdlaw.com
              RRobbins@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


TAAG INDUSTRIES: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
G.M. Sign, Inc., an Illinois corporation, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. Taag
Industries Corp. and John Does 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-01143 (N.D.
Ill., February 5, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of
sending unsolicited facsimiles.

Taag Industries Corp. is a manufacturer and distributor of
industrial machineries and equipment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
      Ross Michael Good, Esq.
      Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
      ANDERSON & WANCA
      3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
      Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
      Telephone: (847) 368-1500
      E-mail: buslit@andersonwanca.com
              rgood@andersonwanca.com
              rkelly@andersonwanca.com


TACONAZO INC: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arturo Flores, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Taconazo, Inc., Inocencio Arceo, and Maria
Socorro Arceo, Case No. 1:15-cv-01171 (N.D. Ill., February 6,
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 in Cook County,
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Valentin Tito Narvaez, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 878-1302
      Facsimile: (888) 270-8983
      E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "McFarland" Suit Over Defective Airbags
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Janet McFarland, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:15-
cv-00153 (W.D. Pa., February 5, 2015), alleges that the Defective
Vehicles contain airbags manufactured by the Defendant that,
instead of protecting vehicle occupants from bodily injury during
accidents, they violently explode and expel vehicle occupants with
lethal amounts of metal debris and shrapnel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
      Edwin J. Kilpela Jr., Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA LLP
      PNC Park
      115 Federal Street, Suite 210
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Telephone: (412) 322-9243
      E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
              ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com

         - and -

      Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq.
      Brant D. Penney, Esq.
      REINHARDT, WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
      E-1250 First National Bank Bldg.
      332 Minnesota St.
      St. Paul, MN 55101
      Telephone: (651) 287-2100
      Facsimile: (651) 287-2103


TARGET CORP: Judge Allows Data Breach Class Action to Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Heidi Turner, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that
a federal judge has given the okay for Target data breach lawsuits
to go ahead as a class action.  The lawsuits allege Target
customers were harmed by a data breach from November 27 to
December 15, 2013, that made their personal information
vulnerable.  Approximately 110 million Target customers may have
been affected by the data breach.

According to Legal Newsline, Judge Paul A. Magnuson ruled that the
class action could go ahead, although some of the claims made
against Target were dismissed.  The defendants had filed a motion
to dismiss the class-action lawsuit.

Judge Magnuson wrote in the 46-page ruling that the data breach
was "one of the largest breaches of payment-card security in
United States retail history."  The lawsuits were filed by
consumers who used either their credit or debit cards at Target
during the weeks in question and whose personal information was
compromised.

One hundred and fourteen plaintiffs have been named in the lawsuit
so far, alleging they incurred unauthorized charges, lost access
to their accounts, and/or had to pay fees including card-
replacement fees and costs associated with credit monitoring
because of compromised personal financial information.  Lawsuits
have also been filed by financial institutions affected by the
data breach.

In filing a motion to dismiss the consumers' complaints, Target
argued that the plaintiffs could not show they were injured.  The
judge ruled, however, that the plaintiffs alleged injury --
including unlawful charges and inability to pay other bills.
Target's arguments "gloss over the actual allegations made and set
a too-high standard for Plaintiffs to meet at the motion-to-
dismiss stage," the judge wrote, finding that the plaintiffs had
made plausible allegations that could be reasonably traced to
Target's conduct, which is enough to allow the lawsuit to proceed
at this stage.

Lawsuits filed against Target allege the company failed to use
reasonable security practices.  The judge dismissed a claim of
breach of contract against Target.

Other companies have also faced lawsuits alleging they failed to
properly protect consumer information.  Home Depot also faces
lawsuits concerning a data breach that allegedly exposed its
customers' private information.  The company also faces
allegations that it did not alert consumers to the data breach in
a timely manner.

The Target lawsuit is In re: Target Corporation Customer Data
Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 14-2522, in US District Court,
District of Minnesota.


TARGET CORP: Faces "Dela Torre" Suit Over Product Misbranding
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paul De La Torre and Joshua Ogden, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Target Brands, Inc. and Target
Corporation, Case No. 5:15-cv-00559 (N.D. Cal., February 5, 2015),
alleges that the Defendant mislabeled its Herbal dietary
supplement products because they failed to contain the medical
herbs represented by the label.

The Defendants own and operate a retailing company with its
principal place of business in Minneapolis, Minnesota doing
business in the State of Arkansas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq.
      PRATT & ASSOCIATES
      1871 The Alameda, Suite 425
      San Jose, CA 95126
      Telephone: (408) 429-6506
      Facsimile:  (408) 369-0752
      E-mail: pgore@prattattorneys.com

         - and -

      Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 810
      Bethesda, MD 20814
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      Facsimile: (202) 589-1813
      E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com

         - and -

      Taylor Asen, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      16 Court Street, Suite 1012
      Brooklyn, NY 11241
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      Facsimile: (202) 589-1813
      E-mail: tasen@cuneolaw.com

         - and -

      Dewitt M. Lovelace, Esq.
      Valerie Lauro Nettles, Esq.
      LOVELACE AND ASSOCIATES, PA
      12870 U.S. Hwy 98 West, Suite 200
      Miramar Beach, FL 32550
      Telephone: (850) 837-6020
      Facsimile: (850) 837-4093
      E-mail: dml@lovelacelaw.com

         - and -

      Richard R. Barrett,Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD R. BARRETT, PLLC
      2086 Old Taylor Road, Suite 1011
      Oxford, MS 38655
      Telephone: (662) 380-5018
      Facsimile: (866) 430-5459
      E-mail: rrb@rrblawfirm.net

         - and -

      Don Barrett, Esq.
      DON BARRETT, P.A.
      P.O. Box 927, 404 Court Square North
      Lexington, MS 39095
      Telephone: (662) 834-2488
      Toll Free: (877) 816-4443
      Facsimile:  (662) 834-2628
      E-mail: donbarrettpa@gmail.com

         - and -

      Kenneth R. Shemin, Esq.
      SHEMIN LAW FIRM, PLLC
      3333 Pinnacle Hills Parkway, Suite 603
      Rogers, AR 72758
      Telephone: (479) 250-4764
      Facsimile: (479) 845-2198

         - and -

      Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
      THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A.
      1101 Garland Street
      Little Rock, AR 72201
      Telephone: (501) 374-1058
      Facsimile: (501) 374-2222


TIME WARNER: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Consumer Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cory Groshek, and all others, similarly situated v. Time Warner
Cable Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00157 (E.D. Wis., February 6, 2015),
is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act. Specifically by procuring a consumer report for
employment purposes without first providing a clear and
conspicuous written disclosure, in a document consisting solely of
the disclosure, that a consumer report may be obtained for
employment purposes.

Time Warner Cable Inc. provides cable television, high speed
internet and home phone service to consumers with its principal
place of business is located at 290 Harbor Drive, Stamford,
Connecticut 06902.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael J. Modl, Esq.
      AXLEY BRYNELSON, LLP
      2 E. Mifflin Street, Suite 200
      Madison, WI 53703
      Telephone: (608) 257-5661
      Facsimile: (608) 257-5444
      E-mail: mmodl@axley.com

         - and -

      Robert J. Gingras, Esq.
      Heath P. Straka, Esq.
      GINGRAS, CATES & LUEBKE
      8150 Excelsior Drive
      Madison, WI 53717
      Telephone: (608) 833-2632
      Facsimile: (608) 833- 2874
      E-mail: gingras@gcllawyers.com
              straka@gcllawyers.com


TURNBERRY ON THE GREEN: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mirtha Michalski and other similarly situated individuals v.
Turnberry on the Green Condominium Association, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-20475 (S.D. Fla., February 6, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Turnberry on the Green Condominium Association, Inc. owns and
operates a real estate company having its main place of business
in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ruben Martin Saenz, Esq.
      SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
      20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Suite 800
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (305) 503-5131
      Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
      E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


UTZ QUALITY: Faces Class Action Over "All Natural" Product Label
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bob McGovern, writing for Boston Herald, reports that two Bay
Staters are accusing potato chip giant Utz Quality Foods of
mislabeling its products as "all natural," alleging in a complaint
that some of them are made from genetically modified ingredients.

Matt DiFrancesco and Angela Mizzoni filed a federal class-action
lawsuit against the Hanover, Pa.-based company earlier this month.
The suit claims they and others have suffered financial losses
because Utz's "'All Natural' representations are deceptive, false,
misleading, and unfair to consumers," according to the complaint.


WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Dela Torre" Suit Over Product Misbranding
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Dela Torre and Joshua Ogden, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Case No.
5:15-cv-00557 (N.D. Cal., February 5, 2015), alleges that the
Defendant mislabeled its Gingko Biloba and Ginseng Herbal dietary
supplement products because they failed to contain the medical
herbs represented by the label.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of discount department stores and warehouse
stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq.
      PRATT & ASSOCIATES
      1871 The Alameda, Suite 425
      San Jose, CA 95126
      Telephone: (408) 429-6506
      Facsimile:  (408) 369-0752
      E-mail: pgore@prattattorneys.com

         - and -

      Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 810
      Bethesda, MD 20814
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      Facsimile: (202) 589-1813
      E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com

         - and -

      Taylor Asen, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      16 Court Street, Suite 1012
      Brooklyn, NY 11241
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      Facsimile: (202) 589-1813
      E-mail: tasen@cuneolaw.com

         - and -

      Dewitt M. Lovelace, Esq.
      Valerie Lauro Nettles, Esq.
      LOVELACE AND ASSOCIATES, PA
      12870 U.S. Hwy 98 West, Suite 200
      Miramar Beach, FL 32550
      Telephone: (850) 837-6020
      Facsimile: (850) 837-4093
      E-mail: dml@lovelacelaw.com

         - and -

      Richard R. Barrett,Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD R. BARRETT, PLLC
      2086 Old Taylor Road, Suite 1011
      Oxford, MS 38655
      Telephone: (662) 380-5018
      Facsimile: (866) 430-5459
      E-mail: rrb@rrblawfirm.net

         - and -

      Don Barrett, Esq.
      DON BARRETT, P.A.
      P.O. Box 927, 404 Court Square North
      Lexington, MS 39095
      Telephone: (662) 834-2488
      Toll Free: (877) 816-4443
      Facsimile:  (662) 834-2628
      E-mail: donbarrettpa@gmail.com

         - and -

      Kenneth R. Shemin, Esq.
      SHEMIN LAW FIRM, PLLC
      3333 Pinnacle Hills Parkway, Suite 603
      Rogers, AR 72758
      Telephone: (479) 250-4764
      Facsimile: (479) 845-2198

         - and -

      Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
      THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A.
      1101 Garland Street
      Little Rock, AR 72201
      Telephone: (501) 374-1058
      Facsimile: (501) 374-2222


WALGREEN CO: Faces "Dela Torre" Suit Over Product Misbranding
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paul De La Torre and Joshua Ogden, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Walgreen Co., Case No. 5:15-cv-
00556 (N.D. Cal., February 5, 2015), alleges that the Defendant
mislabeled its Herbal dietary supplement products because they
failed to contain the medical herbs represented by the label.

Walgreen Co. is a Chicago corporation that owns and operates a
drug retailing chain throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq.
      PRATT & ASSOCIATES
      1871 The Alameda, Suite 425
      San Jose, CA 95126
      Telephone: (408) 429-6506
      Facsimile:  (408) 369-0752
      E-mail: pgore@prattattorneys.com

         - and -

      Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 810
      Bethesda, MD 20814
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      Facsimile: (202) 589-1813
      E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com

         - and -

      Taylor Asen, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      16 Court Street, Suite 1012
      Brooklyn, NY 11241
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      Facsimile: (202) 589-1813
      E-mail: tasen@cuneolaw.com

         - and -

      Dewitt M. Lovelace, Esq.
      Valerie Lauro Nettles, Esq.
      LOVELACE AND ASSOCIATES, PA
      12870 U.S. Hwy 98 West, Suite 200
      Miramar Beach, FL 32550
      Telephone: (850) 837-6020
      Facsimile: (850) 837-4093
      E-mail: dml@lovelacelaw.com

         - and -

      Richard R. Barrett,Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD R. BARRETT, PLLC
      2086 Old Taylor Road, Suite 1011
      Oxford, MS 38655
      Telephone: (662) 380-5018
      Facsimile: (866) 430-5459
      E-mail: rrb@rrblawfirm.net

         - and -

      Don Barrett, Esq.
      DON BARRETT, P.A.
      P.O. Box 927, 404 Court Square North
      Lexington, MS 39095
      Telephone: (662) 834-2488
      Toll Free: (877) 816-4443
      Facsimile:  (662) 834-2628
      E-mail: donbarrettpa@gmail.com

         - and -

      Kenneth R. Shemin, Esq.
      SHEMIN LAW FIRM, PLLC
      3333 Pinnacle Hills Parkway, Suite 603
      Rogers, AR 72758
      Telephone: (479) 250-4764
      Facsimile: (479) 845-2198

         - and -

      Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
      THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A.
      1101 Garland Street
      Little Rock, AR 72201
      Telephone: (501) 374-1058
      Facsimile: (501) 374-2222


WALGREEN CO: Faces "Hale" Suit in Ill. Over Product Misbranding
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robin Chrystal Hale and Kaitlyn Pirtle, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Walgreen Co., GNC Holdings,
Inc., Target Corporation and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-01182 (N.D. Ill., February 6, 2015), alleges that the
Defendants manufactured and sold the Herbal Supplements which
failed to contain the ingredients advertised and contained
ingredients not disclosed on the packaging.

Walgreen Co. is a Chicago corporation that owns and operates a
drug retailing chain throughout the United States.

GNC Holdings, Inc. is Pennsylvania-based commercial enterprises
focused on the retail sale of health and nutrition related
products.

Target Corporation owns and operates a retailing company with its
principal place of business in Minneapolis, Minnesota doing
business in the State of Arkansas.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of discount department stores and warehouse
stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Jason Zweig, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 752-5455
      Facsimile: (917) 210-3980
      E-mail: jasonz@hbsslaw.com

         - and -

      J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
      HUDSON, MALLANEY, SHINDLER & ANDERSON, P.C.
      5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
      West Des Moines, IA 50265
      Telephone: (515) 223-4567
      Facsimile: (515) 223-8887
      E-mail: jbgoplerud@hudsonlaw.net


WEGMANS FOOD: Faces Class Action Over Fresh Bread Advertising
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Craig, writing for Democrat & Chronicle, reports that Wegmans
Food Markets is one of three supermarket chains being sued by
several New Jersey shoppers who claim the supposedly fresh bread
they bought wasn't truly fresh.

At seven Wegmans stores in New Jersey, the lawsuit alleges, the
breads advertised as freshly baked include bread pre-baked
elsewhere, brought to the stores, frozen, then reheated for sale.

The lawsuit was brought in state court in New Jersey, but on
Jan. 21 the case against Wegmans moved to a New Jersey federal
court since Wegmans is headquartered in Gates.

"We have not deceived or misled our customers in any way," Wegmans
spokeswoman Jo Natale said in a statement on Jan. 24.

The lawsuit is filed as class-action litigation, seeking to
represent those who bought the baked bread from a Wegmans in New
Jersey after Dec. 14, 2008.

The plaintiffs claim the baked bread advertising violates the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.


YELLOWSTONE CAPITAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Mey" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Mey, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons
and entities similarly situated v. Yellowstone Capital, LLC, Case
No. 1:15-cv-00854 (S.D.N.Y., February 5, 2015), is brought against
the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, specifically by placing an auto-dialed, pre-recorded
telemarketing call to her cellular telephone number without her
prior express written consent.

Yellowstone Capital, LLC is a New York corporation that provides
cash advances to small and mid-size businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin W. Barrett, Esq.
      John W. Barrett, Esq.
      Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq.
      BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
      209 Capitol Street
      Charleston, WV 25301
      Telephone: (304) 345-6555
      Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
      E-mail: kbarrett@baileyglasser.com
              jbarrett@,baileyglasser.com
              jmarshall@bailevglasser.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE
      1 South Avenue, Suite 3
      Natick, MA 01760
      Telephone: (508)655-1415
      Facsimile: (50S) 319-3077
      E-mail: mmccue@massattornevs.net


ZERO OTTO: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Camilo Martinez and Zanatiel Flores, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. Zero Otto Nove Inc., Trattoria Zero
Otto Nove II, LLC, Restaurant Zero Otto Nove III, LLC,
Roberto Paciullo, and Tony Dorma, Case No. 1:15-cv-00899
(S.D.N.Y., February 6, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


* Foreign Teachers File Class Action v. Recruitment Firm
--------------------------------------------------------
Chris Joyner, writing for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution,
reports that Georgia school districts have spent at least $52.5
million in the last five years importing foreign teachers, mostly
to teach math, science and special education, but the districts
have not hired a single one.

Instead they use recruitment firms, which can provide a buffer for
school districts who fear running afoul of federal laws governing
the H-1B visa system.  Yet districts elsewhere have faced
investigations and lawsuits over their involvement in visa
schemes.  Here are several:

Prince George's County, Md.

In November, the U.S. Department of Labor ordered the county
schools to pay $4.2 million in back wages and $1.7 million in
penalties for "willful" violation of H-1B rules between 2005 and
2001.

The district got into trouble when Filipino teachers said they
were charged fees for their visas and were paid less than their
American colleagues.  Federal law requires employers to bear the
fees for an H-1B visa and pay their foreign teachers at least as
much as they would an American worker.

Louisiana

Filipino teachers in parish districts across the state said a Los
Angeles-based recruitment firm charged them immigration fees and
threatened them with deportation if they did not pay.

One parish district agreed to reimburse their teachers for the
fees and set aside $400,000 for future settlements.  The teachers
filed a class action suit against the firm and the school
districts.  In December 2012, a California jury awarded the
teachers $4.5 million and ordered the recruitment firm to pay.

Garland, Texas

For more than a year, the Garland Independent School District has
been embroiled in a scandal involving the importation of Filipino
teachers between 2008 and 2013.

Several teachers claimed they were required to pay a lawyer
thousands in immigration fees for their visa.  A district
investigation determined the personnel director benefited from the
misuse of the visa program by pocketing fees, taking recruiting
trips abroad and funneling the immigration work and housing to
family members.

The district offered refunds totaling more than $500,000 to
immigrant teachers.  The investigation is ongoing.


                             *********

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  * * *