CAR_Public/150224.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, February 24, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 39


                             Headlines

AD DELIVERY: Faces "Sagardia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
AEGON USA: Bailey & Glasser Files 401(k) Plan Class Action
AGREE LIMITED: Sued in Pa. Over Wheelchair-Inaccessible Facility
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Heaton" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Ifversen" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach

ANTHEM INC: Faces "Immerman" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Meer" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Mitchel" Suit in Ind. Over Alleged Data Breach
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Napoleon" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Nicoll" Suit in N.Y. Over Alleged Data Breach

ANTHEM INC: Faces "Slater" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Weinberger" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Zand" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach
ANTHEM INC: Faces Class Action Over Customer Data Breach
APPLE INC: Accused of Illegal Streaming of Pre-1972 Recordings

APPLE INC: Removes "Jacobson" Suit to California District Court
ARS NATIONAL: Sued Over Violations of Fair Debt Collection Act
AT&T CORP: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Wexler" Suit Claims
AURORA LOAN: Gets Final Court Nod on "Chao" Class Settlement
AUSNET: Faces Class Action Over Black Saturday Fire

AUSTRALIA: Court Hearing in ASIC Class Action Set for May
BIOSECURITY NZ: Group Posts Kiwifruit Class Action Claim
BINCKBANK: Customer Class Action Likely
BIRMINGHAM, AL: Trial Begins in Pepper Spray Class Action
BLUE BELL: Removes "Mejia" Suit to Middle District of Florida

BRAZOS ROCK: Fails to Give WARN Act Notice to Class, Suit Claims
CALIFORNIA: "Thomas" Lawsuit Can't Proceed as Class Action
CAMDEN COUNTY, NJ: Judge Seeks Explanation for High Jail Turnover
CANADA: Merchant Law Firm Launches 60s Scoop Class Action
CANADA: Aboriginal Elder Reacts to Suit v. Merchant Law Firm

CAPSTONE CORPORATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
CROSSMARK INC: May 27 Final Hearing to Approve "Tripp" Settlement
DIVERSIFIED SERVICES: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
DRIVEN SPORTS: Judge Enters Order on Insurer Lawsuit
DYCKMAN LIQUORS: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

EAGLE MATERIALS: Discovery in Wallboard Antitrust Suit Ongoing
ELECTRONIC ARTS: May 14 Hearing on Final Settlement Approval
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Seeks Dismissal of Claims in Shareholder Action
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Seeks Further Review of Ruling in "Davis" Suit
F&T MANAGEMENT: Faces "Zhao" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

FERGUSON, MO: Faces Class Action Over Municipal Court Practices
FIDELITY & GUARANTY: Class Certified in "Cressy" Lawsuit
FOX SEARCHLIGHT: Court Hears Oral Arguments in Intern Class Suit
FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Commenced Mailing of Settlement Notice
FRIENDLY'S ICE CREAM: Faces "Zartman" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Securities Suit Goes to ND Georgia
GALION, OH: Customers Mull Suit Over Electricity Overcharges
GENERAL MOTORS: 108 Class Actions Pending Through Jan. 30
GENERAL MOTORS: 156 Cases Consolidated as Part of MDL
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces 2 Actions Over Diminished Value of Vehicles

GENERAL MOTORS: NYSTRS File Consolidated Shareholder Action
GENERAL MOTORS: Awaits Ontario Court Decision on Dealers' Claim
GENERAL MOTORS: Estimates $511MM Loss in Korea Wage Litigation
GENERAL MOTORS: Paid $93MM Related to Ignition Switch Recall
GENERAL MOTORS: Ignition-Switch Payment Fund to Exceed $400MM

GLOBAL TEL*LINK: Accused of Violating Telecommunications Act
HANBIT ENTERPRISES: Recalls Soybean Sprouts Due to Health Risks
HANSEN NATURAL: Final Judgment Entered in "Cunha" Class Suit
HOME DEPOT: Illegally Procures Consumer Reports, "Albu" Suit Says
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces "Coss" Suit Over Subscription Services

HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces "Coss" 2nd Suit Over Subscription Services
ILLINOIS: "Brown" Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge for Pre-Trial
IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Motion to Dismiss Nasyrova Suit Fully Briefed
INVENSENSE INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Calif.
JCAHO SURVEYOR: Fails to Pay Overtime Wage Under FLSA, Suit Says

KEURIG GREEN: 2nd Cir. Heard Oral Argument in Fraud Suit Appeal
KEURIG GREEN: JBR's Brief in Antitrust Suit Appeal Due March 3
KEURIG GREEN: Plaintiffs' Opposition Briefs Due April 10
KEURIG GREEN: Balks at Club Coffee's Statement of Claim
KEURIG GREEN: Recorded $10MM Net Charge in 2014 on Product Recall

KOHL'S CORPORATION: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
LLOYD'S OF LONDON: Underwriters Can Sell Insurance in Arkansas
LOVE HONEY: Faces Class Action Over Ineffective Lubricant
MAPLEBEAR INC: Removes "Cobarruviaz" Suit to N.D. California
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

MASSAGE ENVY: Not Liable for Wage Violations to T. Vann.
MERCER CANYONS: Must Face Farmworkers' Class Action
MICHIGAN: Faces Class Action Over Teen Inmate Sexual Assault
MICHIGAN: District Court Junks "Reed" Class Complaint vs. MDOC
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: J. Rock Can File 3rd Amended Antitrust Suit

NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Judge Recuses Self in "Rock" Antitrust Suit
NETHERLANDS INSURANCE: "Addison" Action Remanded to State Court
MONARCH TRANSPORTATION: Judge Certifies "Colbert" Class Suit
NORTHLAND GROUP: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
OKLAHOMA: DHS to Close Emergency Shelters as Part of Settlement

PASTA LA VISTA: "Alvarado" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
PETROBRAS: Situation Gets Worse After Fraud Probe, Class Actions
PIZANO'S PIZZA: Faces "Laplaca" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
PLANET BEAUTY: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Overtime Class Action
PRIVATE LABEL: Falsely Marketed Green Coffee Products, Suit Says

RE SPEC CORP: Class Works in Excess of 40 Hours w/o OT, Suit Says
REAL FOODS: Recalls Strawberry Trays Due to Misbranding
REXNORD CORPORATION: Paid Class Action Plaintiff Attorneys' Fees
RIDGEBROOK INVESTMENTS: Minn. Landlords Can Bill Add-on Fees
SAN DIEGO COUNTY: Sued Over Failure to Have Blind-Accessible ATM

STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE: "Sewell" Class Deal Gets Court OK
STRAUSS GROUP: Agrees to Change Label of Product Under settlement
SYNGENTA CORP: "Hahn" Class Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
T. MARZETTI CO: Recalls Garlic Dressing Due to Milk & Eggs
TAKATA CORP: Faces "Boyd" Class Suit Over Defective Airbags

TAKATA CORP: Former Engineer Talks to Plaintiffs' Attorneys
TAURUS FLAVORS: Sued in Ill. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
TIPP FLOOR: Faces "Palaguachi" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
UTAH: Citizens Seek Class Action Status for DUI Arrest Suit
VITAMIN COTTAGE: Recalls Organic Garlic Powder Due to Salmonella

WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Shahrashian" Suit Over Misbranding
WALGREEN CO: Faces "Cintron" Suit Over Product Misbranding
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Faces Class Action Over Landfill Odor
WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Divine Treasures 100000 Smooches
WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Chocolate Cakes Due to Undeclared Eggs

* Consumers Lose Class-Actions Due to Failure to Read Fine Print


                            *********


AD DELIVERY: Faces "Sagardia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wilson Sagardia, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AD Delivery & Warehousing Inc., and Amrit
Dabie, Case No. 1:15-cv-00677 (E.D.N.Y., February 10, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

AD Delivery & Warehousing Inc. is engaged in the business of
storing and distributing automobile parts and accessories received
from suppliers in several states across the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abdul Karim Hassan, Esq.
      ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
      215-28 Hillside Avenue
      Queens Village, NY 11427
      Telephone: (718) 740-1000
      Facsimile: (718) 740-2000
      E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com


AEGON USA: Bailey & Glasser Files 401(k) Plan Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
On February 6, 2015, Bailey & Glasser LLP filed a class action
lawsuit against AEGON USA, the U.S. subsidiary of Dutch insurance
giant AEGON NV.  The class action complaint says that AEGON forced
its employees' retirement savings accounts into high-priced AEGON
investments and retirement programs.  AEGON routinely charged its
employees unnecessary and exorbitant fees in their 401(k) plan.
AEGON's employees pay much higher average costs than employees of
other billion-dollar retirement plans.  Thus the class action
complaint concludes that AEGON and its officers violated federal
pension law by putting their profit motive ahead of the interests
of their employees' retirement savings.  The plaintiffs estimate
that AEGON has taken millions of dollars in excessive fees from
its employees' retirement savings.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Los Angeles, California,
where many AEGON subsidiaries operate.  Gregory Y. Porter --
gporter@baileyglasser.com -- a partner at Bailey & Glasser's
Washington, D.C. office, leads the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

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


AGREE LIMITED: Sued in Pa. Over Wheelchair-Inaccessible Facility
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Mielo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Agree Limited Partnership, Case No. 2:15-cv-
00186 (W.D. Pa., February 11, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to remove the excessive slopes in a parking
space, and an excessively sloped curb ramp that projected into
building entrance that makes the facilities not fully accessible
to, and independently usable by individuals who use wheelchairs.

Agree Limited Partnership owns and operates a shopping mall
located at 31850 Northwestern Highway, Farmington Hills, MI 48334.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Heaton" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Heaton, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00656 (N.D.
Cal., February 11, 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.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
      FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
      One California Street, Suite 900
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 398-8700
      Facsimile: (415) 398-8704
      E-mail: rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Ifversen" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
David Ifversen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Anthem, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00209 (S.D. Ind.,
February 11, 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.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hamish Cohen, Esq.
      Sean P. Burke, Esq.
      MATTINGLY BURKE COHEN BIDERMAN LLP
      3646 N. Washington Blvd.
      Indianapolis, IN 46205
      Telephone: (317) 614-7320
      E-mail: Hamish.Cohen@MBCBLaw.com
              Sean.Burke@MBCBLaw.com

         - and -

      Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
      Cari Campen Laufenberg, Esq.
      Amy N. L. Hanson, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
      Seattle, WA 98101-3052
      Telephone: (206) 623-1900
      Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
      E-mail: gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
              claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com
              ahanson@kellerrohrback.com


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Immerman" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
Richard Immerman and Brian Weinstock, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
00208 (S.D. Ind., February 11, 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.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert J. Schuckit, Esq.
      SCHUCKIT & ASSOCLATES, PC
      4545 Northwestern Drive
      Zionsville, IN 46077
      Telephone: (317) 363-2400
      Facsimile: (317) 363-2257
      E-mail: rschuckit@schuckitlaw.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Daniel R. Karon, Esq.
      KARON, LLC
      700 W. Saint Clair Avenue, Suite 200
      Cleveland, OH 441 13
      Telephone: (216) 622-1 851
      Facsimile: (216) 241-8175
      E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.c0m


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Meer" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Jo Meer, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00289 (S.D.
Cal., February 11, 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.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David S. Casey Jr., Esq.
      Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
      Wendy M. Behan, Esq.
      Jason C. Evans, Esq.
      CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT &PENFIELD, LLP
      110 Laurel Street
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 238-1811
      Facsimile: (619) 544-9232
      E-mail: dcasey@cglaw.com
              gmb@cglaw.com
              wbehan@cglaw.com
              jevans@cglaw.com


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Mitchel" Suit in Ind. Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Mitchel, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Anthem Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00207 (S.D.
Ind., February 11, 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.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan Charles Little, Esq.
      SAEED & LITTLE, LLP
      1433 N. Meridian Street, Suite 202
      Indianapolis, IN 46202
      Telephone: (812) 320-3367
      Facsimile: (888) 422-3151
      E-mail: jon@sllawfirm.com

         - and -

      Richard M. Paul III, Esq.
      Ashlea G. Schwarz, Esq.
      PAUL McINNES LLP
      601 Walnut, Suite 300
      Kansas City, MO
      Telephone: (816) 984-8100
      Facsimile: (816) 984-8101
      E-mail: paul@paulmcinnes.com
              ashlea@paulmcinnes.com


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Napoleon" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Napoleon, for herself and all others similarly situated v.
Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00293 (S.D. Cal., February
11, 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.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas E. Glynn, Esq.
      GLYNN LAW GROUP
      10200 Willow Creek Road, Suite 170
      San Diego, CA 92131
      Telephone: (858) 271-1100
      Facsimile: (858) 876-1530
      E-mail: tom@glynnlawgroup.com

         - and -

      John G. Emerson, Esq.
      EMERSON POYNTER LLP
      830 Apollo Lane
      Houston, TX 77058
      Telephone: (281) 488-8854
      Facsimile: (281) 488-8867
      E-mail: jemerson@emersonpoynter.com


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Nicoll" Suit in N.Y. Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Nicoll, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Anthem, Inc. and Does 1- 25, Case No. 2:15-cv-00704
(E.D.N.Y., February 11, 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.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul C. Whalen, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF PAUL C. WHALEN, P.C.
      768 Plandome Road 3
      Manhasset, NY 11030
      Telephone: (516) 426-6870
      Facsimile: (212) 658-9685
      E-mail: pcwhalen@gmail.com


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Slater" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Slater, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00279 (S.D.
Cal., February 10, 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.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark P. Robinson Jr., Esq.
      Daniel S. Robinson, Esq.
      Wesley K. Polischuk, Esq.
      ROBINSON CALCAGNIE ROBINSON SHAPIRO DAVIS, INC.
      19 Corporate Plaza Drive
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Telephone: (949) 720-1288
      Facsimile: (949) 720-1292
      E-mail: mrobinson@rcrsd.com
              drobinson@rcrsd.com
              wpolischuk@rcrsd.com

         - and -

      Steve W. Berman, Esq.
      Thomas E. Loeser, 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
              toml@hbsslaw.com


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Weinberger" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael S. Weinberger, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00201
(S.D. Ind., February 10, 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.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Danyel Struble, Esq.
      THE CROSS LAW FIRM, P.C.
      Historic Riley-Jones House
      315 East Charles Street
      Muncie, IN 47305
      Telephone: (765) 747-1953
      Facsimile: (765) 747-1991
      E-mail: dstruble@thecrosslawfirm.com

         - and -

      William B. Federman, Esq.
      FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
      10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue
      Oklahoma City, OK 73120
      Telephone: (405) 235-1560
      Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
      E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Zand" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fazi Zand, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Anthem, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00638 (N.D.
Cal., February 10, 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.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steve W. Berman, Esq.
      Thomas E. Loeser, 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
              toml@hbsslaw.com

         - and -

      Mark P. Robinson Jr., Esq.
      Daniel S. Robinson, Esq.
      Wesley K. Polischuk, Esq.
      ROBINSON CALCAGNIE ROBINSON SHAPIRO DAVIS, INC.
      19 Corporate Plaza Drive
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Telephone: (949) 720-1288
      Facsimile: (949) 720-1292
      E-mail: mrobinson@rcrsd.com
              drobinson@rcrsd.com
              wpolischuk@rcrsd.com


ANTHEM INC: Faces Class Action Over Customer Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
An Anthem customer has filed a class-action lawsuit against Anthem
Inc. for allegedly failing to protect customer data and not
immediately and accurately informing customers whose data was
compromised in a recent massive data breach, according to
attorneys at Hagens Berman.  The recent hack compromised the
personal information of about 80 million U.S. citizens presently
or previously insured or employed by Anthem, the complaint states.
The law firm's investigation also recently revealed that the
nation's second largest insurer did not encrypt the data that was
stolen.

"Data encryption is the touchstone of any reasonable approach to
protecting personal information," said Thomas Loeser, a former
federal cyber-prosecutor and Hagens Berman partner.  "We consider
this the smoking gun of this investigation.  Anthem knew the
importance of encryption, as it encrypted data that was sent
outside of its databases.  But it did not take this basic step for
data that it kept within its systems, leaving vulnerable a gold
mine for cyber-criminals."

The 32-page complaint states that named plaintiff and current
Anthem customer under Blue Cross Blue Shield, David Liu of Tustin,
California, was harmed in having his personal, health, and
financial information associated with his health insurance
compromised as a result of the Anthem data breach and Anthem's
failure to provide timely and accurate notice.  The complaint
states that, "Plaintiff would not have given his personal health
and financial information to Anthem for his health insurance had
Anthem informed him that it lacked adequate computer network and
data security to secure his and other Anthem customers' personal,
health and financial information."

"Anthem's lack of data encryption is not only alarming in its
negligence but also means that hackers hit the jackpot,"
Mr. Loeser added.  "Once they had infiltrated Anthem's systems,
this sensitive personal information belonging to millions of
Anthem customers was plainly visible and ready to use.  On the
'dark-web,' where cyber-thieves trade the fruits of crime, credit
card information routinely sells for $10-$25 per account.  But
Social Security numbers, especially when paired with name,
address, emails and birthdates, are exponentially more valuable.
Such 'complete identities' can sell for upwards of $250-$400.
That makes the Anthem breach conservatively worth more than $20
billion to criminals."

The data breach affects individuals' names, addresses, Social
Security numbers, emails, employment information and income,
causing what Loeser considers "likely irreversible damage" to
those affected by the breach.  "Moreover," Mr. Loeser said, "the
harm could last for years because unlike credit card numbers which
can be reissued, Social Security numbers are held for life and are
extremely difficult to replace."

Has Your Data Been Stolen? Here's What You Should Do

Anthem has stated it may be weeks before it contacts all data
breach victims.  Since Anthem reports about 80 million records of
past and present customers and employees were stolen, and Anthem
has about 38 million current customers, you should assume that if
you are or were an Anthem customer or employee, it is likely that
your information was stolen.

Hagens Berman suggests that concerned consumers who are or were
insured by Anthem and Anthem employees take immediate steps to
prevent identity theft.  You can contact Hagens Berman by emailing
Anthem@hbsslaw.com or by calling 206-623-7292 to find out the
steps you can take.  Additional information about the
investigation is available at www.hbsslaw.com/Anthem

The proposed class-action seeks to represent all persons in the
United States whose personal information was compromised as a
result of the data breach first disclosed by Anthem on February 4,
2015.

To protect your identity and personal information, Hagens Berman
suggests individuals notify credit agencies, request credit alerts
and take other precautions to keep damage to a minimum. More
information on these best practices can be found here.

Mr. Loeser said he is particularly concerned that Anthem customers
and employees could be subject to tax return fraud due to the
breadth of information stolen, including name, address, Social
Security numbers, birthdates and employment information.

"When personal information, along with Social Security numbers and
birthdates are stolen, it can lead to false state and federal tax
returns and result in millions of dollars in stolen, fraudulent
tax refunds," Mr. Loeser said.

Hagens Berman continues to investigate Anthem and seeks any
anecdotes or information from those who believe they have been
affected by the data breach.

"We're continuing to closely monitor this massive breach of highly
sensitive information and the sheer lack of data protection on the
part of Anthem," said Steve Berman, managing partner at Hagens
Berman.  "With so much of customers' information now out in the
open, we hope to move quickly to help remedy this widespread
damage."

                     About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a
consumer-rights class-action law firm with offices in nine cities.
The firm has been named to the National Law Journal's Plaintiffs'
Hot List seven times.


APPLE INC: Accused of Illegal Streaming of Pre-1972 Recordings
--------------------------------------------------------------
Beach Road Music LLC, individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Apple Inc., and Beats Electronics, LLC, Case
No. 3:15-cv-00700-MEJ (N.D. Cal., February 13, 2015) involves all
musical performances that were originally "fixed" -- recorded --
prior to February 15, 1972, that are subject to California, New
York, or Florida law.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' streaming of Pre-1972
Recordings without a license violates the California Civil Code
and California's Unfair Competition Law, and constitutes
misappropriation and conversion under California, New York and
Florida law.

Beach Road is an El Segundo, California-based, international
multimedia rights-management firm formed by Raphael Tisdale and
Seth Berg, two former senior executives of a major record label.
Beach Road manages over 3,000 musical copyrights, recorded music
rights, name and likeness rights, trademarks, video assets, and
life rights for the estates of Nat King Cole, Peggy Lee, and Bing
Crosby.

Apple is a California corporation headquartered in Cupertino,
California.  In June of 2013, Apple introduced a streaming music
service called iTunes Radio, which it makes available both in the
United States and abroad.  The service allows listeners to access
many thousands of songs and permits the user to create
customizable "radio stations."

Beats is a Delaware limited liability company headquartered in
Cupertino, California.  Beats offers a streaming service with over
20 million songs in its music catalog.  Beats has been a
subsidiary of Apple since August 1, 2014.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
          Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
          Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
          Bruce J. Wecker, Esq.
          Stephanie Y. Cho, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          44 Montgomery St.
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 633-1908
          Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
          E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeld.com
                  clebsock@hausfeld.com
                  bsweeney@hausfeld.com
                  bwecker@hausfeld.com
                  scho@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
          James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
          Nathaniel C. Giddings, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street, N.W., Suite 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
          E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com
                  jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
                  ngiddings@hausfeld.com


APPLE INC: Removes "Jacobson" Suit to California District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Jacobson v. Apple, Inc., et al.,
Case No. BC572077, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Western
Division - Los Angeles).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:15-cv-01099 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff purports to bring the action on behalf of all
purchasers of Apple's iPhone, iPod or iPad devices with 16 GB or
less of storage and on which Apple's iOS 8 operating system (which
was made available starting September 17, 2014) came pre-installed
or was later installed as an upgrade.  The Plaintiff alleges that
Apple "employs false, deceptive and misleading practices in
connection with marketing, selling, and distributing the
Device[s]" because (according to Plaintiff) iOS 8 consumes more
storage space on the Devices than customers "reasonabl[y]
expect[]."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian S. Kabateck, Esq.
          Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
          Peter Klausner, Esq.
          Jennifer Duffy, Esq.
          KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP
          644 S. Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 217-5000
          Facsimile: (213) 217-5010
          E-mail: bsk@kbklaywers.com
                  jhh@kbklawyers.com
                  pk@kbklawyers.com
                  jld@kbklawyers.com

Apple is represented by:

          Matthew D. Powers, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3823
          Telephone: (415) 984-8700
          Facsimile: (415) 984-8701
          E-mail: mpowers@omm.com


ARS NATIONAL: Sued Over Violations of Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sima Isaacson, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. ARS National Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-00762 (E.D.N.Y., February 13, 2015) is brought over alleged
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AT&T CORP: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Wexler" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eve Wexler, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. AT&T Corp., Case No. 1:15-cv-00686 (E.D.N.Y., February 11,
2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making calls
using an automatic telephone dialing system or to call cell phones
with an artificial and prerecorded voice.

AT&T Corp. is a New York Based Telecommunication company with
headquarter located at 208 South Akard Street, Dallas, TX 75202.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shimshon Wexler, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF SHIMSHON WEXLER, PC
      216 West 104th Street, #129
      New York, NY 10025
      Telephone: (212) 760-2400
      Facsimile: (917) 512-6132
      E-mail: shimshonwexler@yahoo.com


AURORA LOAN: Gets Final Court Nod on "Chao" Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong granted final approval of
the $5,250,000 class settlement in the lawsuit MAUDER and ALICE
CHAO; DEOGENESO and GLORINA PALUGOD; And MARITZA PINEL,
individually and on behalf all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. C-
10-3118 SBA (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Mauder and Alice Chao (husband and wife); Deogeneso and
Glorina Palugod (husband and wife), and Maritza Pinel, are
appointed as representatives of the Settlement Class.

The Settlement Class is certified as:

1. The "Rosenthal Act Settlement Class," which consists of "all
    California residential mortgage customers to whom Aurora sent
    the "Workout Agreement," later called the "Foreclosure
    Alternative Agreement," or substantially identical
    correspondence on or after June 8, 2009." And

2. The "Restitution Settlement Class," which consists of "All
    California residential mortgage customers to whom Aurora sent
    the "Workout Agreement," later called the "Foreclosure
    Alternative Agreement," or substantively identical
    correspondence on or after June 8, 2006, who made the trial
    payments required by their final Workout Agreement, did not
    thereafter enter into a repayment plan or HAMP trial payment
    plan, were not thereafter offered a loan modification by
    Aurora, and were thereafter foreclosed upon."

There is also the "Excess Payment Settlement Subclass" which
contains: "All members of the Restitution Settlement Class who
made additional payments to Aurora after the term of the Workout
Agreement had expired."

The Court approves incentive awards in the amount of $7,500 to
Plaintiff Mauder Chao, $7,500 to Plaintiff Alice Chao, $7,500 to
Plaintiff Deogeneso Palugod, $7,500 to Glorina Palugod, and $7,500
to Plaintiff Maritza Pinel, for their services as class
representatives in accordance with the Settlement Agreement.

Plaintiffs' attorneys (a) Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, (b) the
Law Office of Andrew Oldham, (c) Abtahi Thigpen, LLP and (d)
Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook & Brickman, LLC are approved and
appointed as Class Counsel.   Class Counsel are awarded attorneys'
fees of 30% of the Gross Settlement Fund ($1,575,000) plus expense
reimbursements of $185,833.00.

The Court further approves the Claims Administrator's fees and
costs not to exceed $85,000 to be paid promptly from the Gross
Settlement Fund as they are incurred.

A copy of the Court's Jan. 21, 2015 Order is available at
http://is.gd/6yNe85from Leagle.com.

Maritz Pinel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ali Abtahi --
aabtahi@abtahilaw.com -- Abtahi Thigpen LLP, Andrew Michael
Oldham, Law Offices of Andrew Oldham, Idene Saam, Abtahi Thigpen
LLP, Shana E. Scarlett -- shanas@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, T. Christopher Tuck -- ctuck@rpwb.com --
Richardson Patrick Westbrook & Brickman, LLC & Thomas Eric Loeser
-- toml@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Alice Chao, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ali Abtahi, Abtahi Thigpen
LLP, Andrew Michael Oldham, Law Offices of Andrew Oldham, Idene
Saam, Abtahi Thigpen LLP, Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, T.
Christopher Tuck, Richardson Patrick Westbrook & Brickman, LLC &
Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Mauder Chao, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ali Abtahi, Abtahi Thigpen
LLP, Andrew Michael Oldham, Law Offices of Andrew Oldham, Idene
Saam, Abtahi Thigpen LLP, Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, T.
Christopher Tuck, Richardson Patrick Westbrook & Brickman, LLC &
Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Deogeneso Palugod, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ali Abtahi, Abtahi
Thigpen LLP, Andrew Michael Oldham, Law Offices of Andrew Oldham,
Idene Saam, Abtahi Thigpen LLP, Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, T. Christopher Tuck, Richardson Patrick Westbrook & Brickman,
LLC & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Glorina Palugod, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ali Abtahi, Abtahi Thigpen
LLP, Andrew Michael Oldham, Law Offices of Andrew Oldham, Idene
Saam, Abtahi Thigpen LLP, Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, T.
Christopher Tuck, Richardson Patrick Westbrook & Brickman, LLC &
Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Aurora Loan Services LLC, Defendant, represented by David B.
Bergman -- David.Bergman@aporter.com -- Arnold & Porter LLP, Ian
S. Hoffman -- Ian.Hoffman@aporter.com, Arnold and Porter LLP &
Tiffany M. Ikeda -- T.Ikeda@aporter.com -- Arnold and Porter LLP.


AUSNET: Faces Class Action Over Black Saturday Fire
---------------------------------------------------
Mark Russell, writing for The Age, reports that the alleged
negligence of power company AusNet will be the focus of a class
action for the victims of the devastating Black Saturday fire at
Marysville which is due to begin in the Supreme Court on Jan. 28.

The Marysville fire claimed 40 lives on Black Saturday in 2009.

The lead plaintiff in the class action, 66-year-old Kathy Rowe, is
suing power company AusNet Electricity Services, formerly known as
SP AusNet, the Department of Environment and Primary Industries,
the Country Fire Authority and the state government for damages
over alleged negligence.

Mrs. Rowe's husband, Dr Ken Rowe, 63, who led the national inquiry
into the teaching of literacy, died after the fire swept through
his family's holiday home on Hull Road, Marysville, on February 7,
2009.

The fire is believed to have started in Murrindindi, behind the
Murrindindi Saw Mill, about 2:45 p.m. on Black Saturday. It was
threatening Marysville by 3:30 p.m., but the CFA allegedly failed
to issue any warnings until 5:34 p.m.

In a statement of claim, Maurice Blackburn Lawyers allege a break
in an electrical conductor, which was the result of deficiencies
in the construction and configuration of a power pole, sparked the
fire.

AusNet Electricity Services has denied its powerlines were to
blame, saying a 'human act' may have contributed to the fire.  The
blaze spread rapidly, killing 40 people and destroying more than
500 homes.

The class action was briefly mentioned before Justice John Dixon
on Jan. 26 to determine how the case would be argued.

Dr. Rowe left his Surry Hills home about 3:00 p.m. on February 6
bound for the family's Marysville timber cottage.  He had wanted
to make the cottage as "fire ready" as possible.

"The fire plan of the plaintiff [Mrs Rowe] and her husband was
dependent on the information available to them on the day," the
statement of claim says.

"The plan was to prepare the property, but leave early, if based
on the information they received, they would not be able to
manage."

Mrs. Rowe phoned her husband about 5.20pm. He told her he had
hosed down the house and had his backpack ready if he had to leave
suddenly.  The 63-year-old sounded calm and gave no hint that he
was at risk of being caught in a bushfire, according to the claim.

Mrs. Rowe tried calling her husband about an hour later, but there
was no answer.  The bushfire reached Hull Road at 6:46 p.m.  The
claim alleges the CFA failed to sufficiently warn people about the
bushfire, which at one stage was "very, very intense", with flames
up to 20 metres high.

"From approximately 3:30 p.m. on February 7, 2009, the CFA was
aware that Marysville was at serious risk of being impacted by the
Murrindindi bushfire, but this was not communicated in any
warnings until 5:34 p.m.," the claim reads.

"At 4:07 p.m., the CFA caused an 'Awareness Warning' to be
announced on ABC 774, which indicated that the Murrindindi
bushfire was not currently posing a threat to communities, when it
had information that Marysville was clearly under threat.

"No warnings issued by the CFA conveyed the size, intensity,
ferocity, speed or destructive capacity of the Murrindindi
bushfire or, after 4pm, that it was completely out of control."

The Murrindindi bushfire was the second most lethal blaze on Black
Saturday and eventually merged with the Kilmore East-Kinglake
fire, burning through 168,542 hectares.

In December last year, the Supreme Court formally approved a
record $494 million non-fault class action settlement for nearly
5000 Victorians over the Kilmore East fire, which claimed the
lives of 119 people and destroyed or damaged 1772 homes and
properties.


AUSTRALIA: Court Hearing in ASIC Class Action Set for May
---------------------------------------------------------
John Kavanagh at BankingDay reports that proceedings in a class
action against the Australian Securities and Investments
Commission over its involvement in the Storm Financial failure in
2008 have been held over after until May, to allow the plaintiffs
to make Freedom of Information applications for ASIC files.

The parties attended a directions hearing in the Federal Court in
Sydney on Feb. 4, before Justice Lindsay Foster.

The class action, which was launched in December, is being run by
Levitt Robinson, which is also representing plaintiffs in several
other class actions arising from the Storm failure.  The case
against ASIC is based on claims that, long before Storm went into
administration in January 2009, ASIC officers were aware of
"substantial risks" faced by Storm clients and that Storm's
clients would not receive financial advice appropriate to their
circumstances.

"ASIC failed to have regard to the investors, notwithstanding
their duty to do so," according to the amended statement of claim.

The claimants also argue that ASIC has a policy of "improperly"
preferring the interests of the Commonwealth Bank (and its wealth
management subsidiary Colonial) ahead of consumer interests.  This
policy resulted in a delay in taking action against Storm and a
failure to investigate the bank's involvement in the matter.

According to the claim, if ASIC had exercised its powers "lawfully
and in good faith" the plaintiffs and group members would have
been made aware of the risks they faced much earlier and would
have been in a position to take action.  The plaintiffs' decision
to undertake an FOI process rather than the usual legal discovery
process was based on a view that FOI would result in a wider
investigation of ASIC files.


BIOSECURITY NZ: Group Posts Kiwifruit Class Action Claim
--------------------------------------------------------
Elaine Fisher, writing for Sunmedia, reports that the group
fronting the Kiwifruit Claim class action have posted its
statement of claim on its website, together with explanatory
material approved by the High Court at Wellington.

The plaintiffs claim Biosecurity NZ, now part of the Ministry for
Primary Industries, breached its duty of care when it "negligently
allowed kiwifruit-vine-killing-disease Psa to be introduced into
New Zealand, costing the country at least $885 million according
to Biosecurity NZ's own independent study".

The case will focus strongly on Biosecurity NZ allowing
importation into New Zealand by Te Puke-based Kiwi Pollen Ltd of
kiwifruit flowers sourced from China in June 2009.

The claim states that a study by Otago University scientists,
published in November 2013, confirms that the strain of Psa which
spread "originated in the Shaanxi Province, China, from where the
anthers were imported in June 2009".

The claim's media spokesperson, Matthew Hooton, says the combined
losses of those who have already signed up are approximately $250
million.

Seeka Kiwifruit Industries estimates it sustained losses in the
region of $53 million due to the reduction in supply of kiwifruit
because of the impact of the disease.

The class action, launched on September 29 last year and filed in
the High Court at Wellington on November 28, is about "official
accountability and just compensation for the destruction of so
many kiwifruit growers' livelihoods" says its chairman, John
Cameron.

Only growers and post-harvest operators that sign up to the action
can benefit from any settlement or award of damages.

John says all kiwifruit growers are invited to become plaintiffs
for a one-off fee of $500, $1000 or $1500 depending on the size of
their orchard. Post-harvest operators have been invited to join
the class action for a one-off fee of $10,000.

Applications filed with the statement of claim have asked the High
Court to approve the representative action and litigation funding
arrangements and, amongst other things, to set a deadline for
other growers and post-harvest operators to join the claim.

The next step in the process is a first call of the proceedings on
February 23.  Mr. Hooton says the defendant (MPI) has been ordered
to file a notice of opposition and/or a statement of defense or an
application to strike out the claim together with an application
for extension of time by March 6.

Further information on The Kiwifruit Claim and a forum where
growers can lodge their questions about the claim can be found at:
www.thekiwifruitclaim.org

Growers and post-harvest operators are strongly recommended to
read the statement of claim together with the explanatory material
approved by the High Court at Wellington, and to seek their own
independent legal advice before signing up to the claim, Matthew
says.


BINCKBANK: Customer Class Action Likely
---------------------------------------
Toby Sterling, writing for Reuters, reports that Dutch discount
broker BinckBank has postponed a plan to return excess capital to
shareholders after its asset management arm failed to meet
targets, it said on Feb. 2, and also warned of potential lawsuits.

BinckBank's Alex Asset Management business aims to profit from
market rises and limit losses in a downturn, but it misread some
large movements and underperformed in 2014, prompting the dividend
rethink.

"The policy pursued by Alex Asset Management in 2014 led to
disappointing results for many customers," Chairman Vincent
Germyns said on Feb. 2.

In a statement of "risks and uncertainties", the bank also noted
the possibility of class action by customers.

Funds at Alex Asset Management dropped by more than 9 percent year
on year to 1.95 billion euros ($2.21 billion) at the end of 2014
and Binck said it has pushed back its target for 3.5 billion euros
by three years to 2018.

"Based on an assessment of its business prospects, BinckBank does
not consider it would be prudent to distribute the available
capital in excess of 200 million euros at this time," the bank
said, citing European economic weakness as a factor.

Instead, the bank will continue to pay out 50 percent of net
profit as a dividend, it said.

ING analysts were caught off guard by the move.

"We are negatively surprised by this decision, especially as Binck
positioned itself as a capital-return story last year," ING's
Albert Ploegh in a note, though it continues to rate the bank as a
"hold".

The company, which appointed Germyns as acting executive chairman
after Koen Beentjes stepped down on Jan. 1, reported fourth-
quarter adjusted net profit of 12.7 million euros.  That compared
with 22.7 million euros a year earlier and was in line with
analysts' expectations.


BIRMINGHAM, AL: Trial Begins in Pepper Spray Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Shelley Connor, writing for World Socialist Web, reports that a
federal trial began on January 20 in Birmingham, Alabama over the
widespread use of pepper spray in Birmingham City Schools by the
Birmingham Police Department's School Resource Officers (SROs).

The plaintiffs, represented by Southern Poverty Law Center's
attorney Ebony Howard, assert that they were sprayed with pepper
spray, and in some cases tear gas, as a means of controlling
behavior that could have been handled otherwise.  The SPLC
contends that the SROs are essentially untrained police officers
within the schools and that their practices amount to excessive
force against students.

Within a five-year period between 2006 and 2011, SROs used pepper
spray or tear gas against Birmingham City Schools students some
300 times.  While sobering, that number is even more staggering
when contrasted with a single recorded use of the spray in a
suburban school district in that same five-year span.

The SPLC has identified several, varied instances of pepper spray
being used against students who posed no threat to themselves or
others.  One of the pupils, identified as K.B. in the suit, was
pregnant when she was sprayed.  According to the SPLC's Motion for
Class Certification, K.B. was handcuffed after being sprayed; she
was then transported to Cooper Green Hospital (which serves
indigent county residents) by the SRO who had sprayed her and was
made to sign medical release forms despite being unable to read
them due to the pepper spray's effects on her vision.

Others had already been restrained by teachers when the SROs
sprayed them.  In addition, two students in the complaint were
mere bystanders when they were sprayed.  At least one of the
plaintiffs dropped out of school after the spraying incident.

The SPLC initially brought the suit in 2010.  In August of 2012,
the case gained significant impetus when federal Judge Abul Kallon
declared that it could be filed as a class action lawsuit, as the
Birmingham Police Department's policies and training for SROs
affected all Birmingham City School students.

As noted in the Memorandum Opinion and Order filed by the SPLC in
2012, the Birmingham Police Department has "no specific policy
regarding SRO's use of chemical spray."  The guidelines that they
are given are general, without consideration given to the nature
of an educational institution serving minors.  The only policy put
forth by the BPD is its general policy on "Chemical Spray Subject
Restraint," which addresses the uses of pepper spray within crowds
or against suspects.  The SPLC contends that this policy is
"constitutionally defective" in a school setting.

For its part, the BPD defends its use of the spray in the schools,
and upholds the presence of SROs as necessary to the safety of
students and staff.  A.C. Roper, chief of the Birmingham Police
Department, has stated that, contrary to the SPLC's contentions,
the SROs are trained daily on the use of pepper spray and other
weapons during roll-call.  He also contends that the spray was
only used a handful of times during the timeframe given in the
case, though he has not publicly given a figure.

Mr. Roper states that his department has a force continuum within
its policies, which gives officers a guideline for escalating
through a number of suspect or crowd controlling methods,
including the use of chemical spray.  Importantly, he states that
the use of any of the methods on the continuum is at the
discretion of the officer.

Mr. Roper's arguments hinge upon the fact that the use of pepper
spray has not been deemed unconstitutional anywhere else in the
country, though the use of pepper spray against students within a
school has not been reported elsewhere in the country.

The alarming use of pepper spray against students does not take
place within a vacuum.  This case is set against a backdrop of
increasing poverty, joblessness and lack of economic growth within
Birmingham.  In 2011, within the timeframe of the suit, Birmingham
City Schools could only boast a graduation rate of 55 percent,
with some of its schools mustering only 47 percent. Woodlawn High
School, attended by one of the plaintiffs, is flanked by housing
projects.

Birmingham City Schools serve primarily black, impoverished
students, many living in housing projects or slums.  Both
Birmingham Mayor William Bell and Police Chief Roper are African
American.  Yet Mr. Bell has made no statements to the media
regarding these events, while Chief Roper has offered nothing but
unwavering support for the SROs and their use of chemical weapons
against students.

In the wake of the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner at the
hands of police officers, Bell's silence and Roper's intransigence
illustrate the point that these black, middle class leaders are
the class enemies of working class youth and their communities.


BLUE BELL: Removes "Mejia" Suit to Middle District of Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Mejia v. Blue Bell Landscaping,
Inc., et al., Case No. 05-2015-CA-012254, was removed from the
Brevard County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida (Orlando).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 6:15-cv-00225-GKS-KRS to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brody Max Shulman, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          44 W Flager St., Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 415-5005
          E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Andrew S. Hament, Esq.
          Louis Donlan Wilson, Esq.
          FORD & HARRISON, LLP
          1901 S Harbor City Blvd., Suite 501
          Melbourne, FL 32901
          Telephone: (321) 724-5633
          Facsimile: (321) 541-1468
          E-mail: ahament@fordharrison.com
                  ldwilson@fordharrison.com


BRAZOS ROCK: Fails to Give WARN Act Notice to Class, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Don Brewster, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Brazos Rock, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-00012 (W.D. Tex.,
February 13, 2015) is brought pursuant to the Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 for the Defendant's
alleged failure to give the required WARN Act written notice to
the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals in connection
with a recent Plant Closing or Mass Layoff at its Kermit, Texas
single site of employment/operational unit.

Brazos Rock, Inc. is a Texas domestic corporation.  The Defendant
maintains multiple district offices/yards in Texas from which
construction workers, support personnel, supplies and equipment
are based and dispatched on a variety of work projects, including
oil and gas exploration and production projects.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, P.C.
          3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 521-3605
          Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
          E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com


CALIFORNIA: "Thomas" Lawsuit Can't Proceed as Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason Latrell Thomas filed a putative class action complaint,
allegedly on behalf of himself and all inmates housed in the
Psychiatric Security Housing Unit at the California State Prison,
Sacramento.

On Jan. 26, 2015, Magistrate Judge Kendall Newman entered an order
holding that the action will not be construed as a class action
and instead is construed as an individual civil suit brought by
plaintiff.  The judge notes that plaintiff is a non-lawyer
proceeding without counsel. It is well established that a
layperson cannot ordinarily represent the interests of a class.

The case is JASON LATRELL THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. JEFF McCOMBER, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 2:14-CV-2995 KJN P (E.D. Cal.).  A copy
of the judge's order is available at http://is.gd/tMddqVfrom
Leagle.com.


CAMDEN COUNTY, NJ: Judge Seeks Explanation for High Jail Turnover
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Walsh, Courier-Post, writing for Courier-Post, reports that a
federal judge wants Camden County officials to explain high
turnover in a key post at the county's overcrowded jail.

Writing to attorneys in a lawsuit over jail conditions, U.S.
District Judge Jerome Simandle noted the corrections facility has
run through five population managers in a four-year period and the
post has been empty since November.

The population manager works to reduce the number of inmates in a
jail.

Judge Simandle's Jan. 26 letter said he was "very concerned" over
the county's failure to retain a full-time population manager "and
I am requesting a special report from Camden County addressing
these concerns."

County officials must respond to his request within 10 days, Judge
Simandle said.

The issue has derailed, at least temporarily, an effort to settle
a 10-year-old class-action lawsuit over conditions at the jail.

A lawyer for the jail's inmates, Nicole Acchione of Cherry Hill,
had submitted a motion for preliminary approval of a settlement,
but she asked to withdraw it after learning the post was vacant.
Judge Simandle granted that request.

In a Jan. 26 letter to the judge, Ms. Acchione said she'd ask
Judge Simandle to impose population caps on the jail and to find
the county in contempt if the manager's position remained vacant.

"Once an interim or full-time jail manager is hired by the county,
the parties will reassess whether final settlement is
appropriate," Ms. Acchione said.

County spokesman Dan Keashen said a consulting firm, Luminosity,
would provide an interim manager early next month "while we look
for a permanent jail population manager."

"This position is extremely unique," Mr. Keashen said.  "They are
few and far between, and they're needed all over the country."

The county has been working with Florida-based Luminosity to
improve conditions at the seven-story lockup, where overcrowding
has many inmates sleeping on the floors.

According to Judge Simandle's letter, the jail's population was
1,376 on Dec. 18, above its official capacity of 1,267 inmates.

The jail's population was above 1,800 in 2009, but fell to 1,210 a
year later in response to the class-action suit.  The number of
inmates then rose again because more police are on the streets of
Camden and its suburbs, boosting arrests across the county.

In his letter, Judge Simandle noted the jail has had "a succession
of short appointees" in the population manager's position,
including two interim managers and a part-timer.

One permanent manager served from June 2012 until April 2013;
another worked from November 2013 to November 2014.

"The court is concerned for the lack of stability and experience
in the jail population manager position that is essential for
success," Judge Simandle wrote.


CANADA: Merchant Law Firm Launches 60s Scoop Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Nichole Huck, writing for CBC News, reports that a Saskatchewan
law firm is representing more than a thousand victims of the so-
called '60s Scoop' who are seeking compensation from the federal
government.

The Merchant Law Group served the Federal Government the class-
action lawsuit on January 30.  From the 1960s to the 1980s, the
government ran an Adopt Indian Metis program.  That program saw
thousands of aboriginal children taken from their homes and
adopted into white families in Canada and the United States.

Tony Merchant says the Adopt Indian Metis program was misguided
and harmful to these children, and he alleges the children
suffered physical, sexual and psychological abuse as a result of
this program.

"It was part of the paternalistic approach, that if we could get
children out of the hands of aboriginal people, we could give them
a better life in the future by taking away their culture and
turning red children into white adults," said Merchant.

Merchant alleges the children suffered physical, sexual, and
psychological abuse as a result of this program.  He said he has
spoken with many of the children who were adopted into families in
the United States who are now trying to reconnect with their
cultural roots.

Parallels to Residential School Survivors

Merchant, who is known as the king of class-action lawsuits in
Canada, also represented more than 7000 Indian Residential school
survivors in a landmark case against the federal government.

The federal government approved a multi-billion-dollar settlement
agreement. A chunk would go to law firms, including the Merchant
Law Group, while former students received a common experience
payment of, on average, $24,000.

Merchant was recently in the news after the federal government
filed a $25-million statement of claim accusing Tony Merchant's
law firm of overbilling for legal services and falsifying
documents to cover it up, in a scheme to defraud Canada.

In 2005, the Regina lawyer was expecting his law firm to make
roughly $80 million for legal services on residential school
claims.

Merchant was widely criticized by First Nations groups for making
millions of dollars off the pain of aboriginal people.  Merchant
defends saying his law firm has done good by aboriginal people and
will continue to do so.

"Aboriginal people have to move on.  It's not easy to move on.
But they are entitled over this wrong, Adopt Indian Metis, to have
us try to obtain compensation for them and to try to obtain
closure."


CANADA: Aboriginal Elder Reacts to Suit v. Merchant Law Firm
------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Kraus, writing for Global News, reports that a local
Aboriginal elder spoke out for his community after learning a
local law firm is being sued for allegedly committing fraud during
Indian residential school litigation.

The Canadian government filed a statement of claim accusing
Merchant Law Group of falsely representing time spent working on
that class action lawsuit.

Noel Starblanket spent 11 years in residential school.  He said,
"I am not surprised the government of Canada is suing law firms
for improper billing."

Between 1997 and 2005, Tony Merchant and his law firm dealt with
more than 7,000 claims from survivors.

Mr. Starblanket wasn't represented by Merchant, but the
allegations against Merchant Law Group still upset him.

"There's still a lot of hurt, anger and grief out there," he said.
"This scenario only serves to bring all of those emotions back.
It's not nice for clients, for claimants, for survivors, for all
of us that endured this hardship over the years.  And to know that
people are making millions of dollars off their misery does not
sit well with me."


CAPSTONE CORPORATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
James Kelley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Capstone Corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-00061 (E.D.
Va., February 11, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and
injunctive relief, and any other relief under the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Capstone Corporation owns and operates a company providing IT
solutions and problem solving with central office located in
Alexandria, Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Allen Schreiber, Esq.
      BURKE HARVEY, LLC
      3535 Grandview Parkway, Suite 100
      Birmingham, AL 35243
      Telephone: (205) 930-9091
      Facsimile: (205) 930-9054
      E-mail: aschreiber@burkeharvey.com

         - and -

      Todd Michael Gaynor, Esq.
      GAYNOR LAW CENTER PC
      440 Monticello Ave, Suite 1800
      Norfolk, VA 23510
      Telephone: (757) 625-7300
      E-mail: tgaynor@gaynorlawcenter.com


CROSSMARK INC: May 27 Final Hearing to Approve "Tripp" Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A California district court granted preliminary approval of a
class settlement in the lawsuit CLAY TRIPP, et al., Plaintiffs v.
CROSSMARK, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-03480-WHO,
Consolidated with Case No. 14-cv-4461-WHO (N.D. Cal.).

District Judge William Orrick preliminarily approves the proposed
settlement of the California Labor Code section 2698, et seq.
claims alleged in the Lawsuit and the allocation of $15,000 to
settle those claims.  Should final approval be granted, of that
amount, and in accordance with California Labor Code section
2699(i), 75%, or $11,250, will be paid to the State of California
Labor and Workforce Development Agency and the remaining 25%, or
$3,750, will be allocated to the Net Settlement Fund and
distributed in accordance with the terms of the Settlement
Agreement.

Two classes are be preliminarily certified for settlement purposes
only:

a. "Settlement Class 1 (Hourly Class) Members" or "Settlement
    Class 1 Members" means all hourly California employees of
    Defendants who worked in one or more of approximately 34 job
    codes covering the data collector, event specialist and retail
    representative job positions between June 4, 2009 and October
    31, 2014, inclusive"; and

b. "Settlement Class 2 (Labor Code Section 212 Paycheck Class)
    Members" or "Settlement Class 2 Members" means all California
    employees of Defendants who worked at any time between June 4,
    2009 and March 25, 2013, inclusive, and who received at least
    one physical paycheck."

Keller Grover LLP and Kawahito, Shraga & Westrick are appointed as
class counsel.

Plaintiffs Clay Tripp, Karen Solberg and Gayle Smith are approved
as Settlement Class Representatives.

CPT Group is named as Claims Administrator for purposes of the
settlement.

A final hearing on the matter will be convened on May 27, 2015, at
2:00 p.m.

A copy of the District Court's Order dated Jan. 26, 2015 is
available at http://is.gd/JeR4TZfrom Leagle.com.

Clay Tripp, Plaintiff, represented by Eric A. Grover, Keller
Grover LLP.

Karen Solberg, Plaintiff, represented by Eric A. Grover, Keller
Grover LLP.

Crossmark, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lara Cardin de Leon,
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak and Stewart, P.C., Carolyn Blecha
Hall, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. & Timothy L.
Reed, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C..

Chi Management Group, LP, Defendant, represented by Lara Cardin de
Leon, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak and Stewart, P.C., Carolyn
Blecha Hall, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. &
Timothy L. Reed, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C..


DIVERSIFIED SERVICES: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kari Thompson, and all those similarly situated v. Diversified
Services Enterprises, Inc., and Physicians Group, LLC, Case No.
0:15-cv-00505-JRT-JJK (D. Minn., February 13, 2015) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Mark L. Vavreck, Esq.
          MARTINEAU, GONKO & VAVRECK, PLLC
          401 N 3rd St., Suite 600
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 659-9500
          Facsimile: (612) 659-9220
          E-mail: mvavreck@mgvlawfirm.com


DRIVEN SPORTS: Judge Enters Order on Insurer Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
A New York district court agrees with insurance carrier General
Star Indemnity Company that its expenses in defending underlying
lawsuits brought against Driven Sports, Inc., do reduce the limits
of coverage of insurance policy General Star extended to Driven
Sports.

General Star is an insurer who issued a liability and litigation
insurance policy Driven Sports, a producer and seller of a pre-
workout energy supplement called "Craze." In 2013, Driven Sports
in three separate actions ("the Craze Actions") alleging that
Craze contains an illegal and potentially dangerous
methamphetamine analog, and defendant sought coverage under the
Policy. Both parties have moved for summary judgment, asking the
Court to declare the extent of General Star's obligation to defend
the underlying lawsuits.

The case is GENERAL STAR INDEMNITY COMPANY v. DRIVEN SPORTS, INC.
NO. 14-CV-3579 (JFB)(ARL) (E.D.N.Y.).

In a Jan. 23, 2015 Memorandum and Order available at
http://is.gd/ZCVLnmfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Joseph F.
Bianco granted in part and denied in part plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment.  Specifically:

  -- plaintiff's motion is granted to the extent it seeks a
     declaratory judgment that (1) General Star has no duty to
     defend or indemnify Driven Sports in the underlying Craze
     Actions, and (2) the limits of liability of the Policy are
     reduced by the amount of any defense payments for the Craze
     Actions not repaid to General Star.

  -- plaintiff's motion is denied to the extent it seeks a
     declaratory judgment that General Star is entitled to recoup
     all amounts paid for defense of the Craze Actions.

The judge also ruled that Defendant's motion for partial summary
judgment is granted to the extent that General Star has no right
to recoup from Driven Sports all defense expenses for the Craze
Actions. However, the defendant's motion is denied in all other
respects.

Plaintiff is represented by Cara T. Duffield --
cduffield@wileyrein.com -- and John Howell --
jhowell@wileyrein.com  --of Wiley Rein LLP, Washington, DC, and
Vincent Proto -- vproto@buddlarner.com -- of Budd Larner, Short
Hills, NJ.

Defendant is represented by David A. Gauntlett and James A. Lowe,
Gauntlett & Associates, Irvine, CA -- info@gauntlettlaw.com -- and
Eugene Killian, Jr. -- ekillian@tkfpc.com -- Killian & Salisbury,
P.C., Iselin, NJ.


DYCKMAN LIQUORS: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Ordonez, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Nemisio Ordonez d/b/a Dyckman Liquors Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
01002 (S.D.N.Y., February 11, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours per week.

The Defendant owns and operates liquor stores in New York with a
principal place of business located at 121 Dyckman Street, New
York, New York, 10040.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lawrence Morrison, Esq.
      MORRISON TENENBAUM PLLC
      87 Walker Street, Floor 2
      New York, NY 10013
      Telephone: (212) 620-0938
      E-mail: info@m-t-law.com


EAGLE MATERIALS: Discovery in Wallboard Antitrust Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in the Domestic Wallboard Antitrust Litigation is
ongoing, Eagle Materials Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014.

Since late December 2012, several purported class action lawsuits
were filed in various United States district courts, including the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Western District of North
Carolina and the Northern District of Illinois, against the
Company's subsidiary, American Gypsum Company LLC ("American
Gypsum"), alleging that American Gypsum conspired with other
wallboard manufacturers to fix the price for drywall sold in the
United States in violation of federal antitrust laws and, in some
cases related provisions of state law. The complaints allege that
the defendant wallboard manufacturers conspired to increase prices
through the announcement and implementation of coordinated price
increases, output restrictions, and other restraints of trade,
including the elimination of individual "job quote" pricing. In
addition to American Gypsum, the defendants in these lawsuits
include CertainTeed Corp., USG Corporation and United States
Gypsum (together "USG"), New NGC, Inc., Lafarge North America,
Temple Inland Inc. and PABCO Building Products LLC.  On April 8,
2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred
and consolidated all related cases to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

On June 24, 2013, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs
filed consolidated amended class action complaints. The direct
purchasers' complaint added the Company as a defendant. The
plaintiffs in the consolidated class action lawsuits bring claims
on behalf of purported classes of direct or indirect purchasers of
wallboard from January 1, 2012 to the present for unspecified
monetary damages (including treble damages) and in some cases
injunctive relief. On July 29, 2013, the Company and American
Gypsum answered the complaints, denying all allegations that they
conspired to increase the price of drywall and asserting
affirmative defenses to the plaintiffs' claims.

On November 3, 2014 USG announced that it had entered into a
binding memorandum of understanding with counsel representing the
direct and indirect purchasers classes pursuant to which it agreed
to settle all claims against it. Discovery in this litigation is
ongoing.  Due to the fact that the case is in the discovery phase,
we are unable to estimate the amount of any reasonably possible
loss or range of reasonably possible losses. American Gypsum
denies the allegations in these lawsuits and will vigorously
defend itself against these claims.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: May 14 Hearing on Final Settlement Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Arts Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the Company is a
defendant in several actions that allege the Company
misappropriated the likenesses of various college athletes in
certain of the Company's college-themed sports games. In September
2013, the Company reached an agreement to settle all actions
brought by college athletes against the Company.

"We recognized a $30 million accrual during the three months ended
September 30, 2013 associated with the anticipated settlement. On
September 3, 2014, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California granted preliminary approval of
the settlement and set a hearing for May 14, 2015, to determine
whether to grant its final approval of the settlement," the
Company said.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Seeks Dismissal of Claims in Shareholder Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Arts Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the Company filed a
motion seeking dismissal of all claims in a shareholder class
action lawsuit.

On December 17, 2013, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain of its
officers by an individual purporting to represent a class of
purchasers of EA common stock. A second purported shareholder
class action lawsuit alleging substantially similar claims was
subsequently filed in the same court. These lawsuits have been
consolidated into one action. The lawsuits, which assert claims
under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, allege, among other things, that the Company and certain of
its officers issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the rollout of the Company's Battlefield 4 game.

"On October 20, 2014, the court granted our motion to dismiss all
claims with leave for the plaintiffs to amend their complaint. On
November 18, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and
we filed a motion seeking dismissal of all claims on January 15,
2015. The court has not yet ruled on our motion," the Company
said.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Seeks Further Review of Ruling in "Davis" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Arts Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the Company intends
to seek further court review of ruling in the class action by
Michael Davis.

On July 29, 2010, Michael Davis, a former NFL running back, filed
a putative class action in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California against the Company, alleging
that certain past versions of Madden NFL included the images of
certain retired NFL players without their permission. In March
2012, the trial court denied the Company's request to dismiss the
complaint on First Amendment grounds. In January 2015, that trial
court decision was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
and the case was remanded back to the district court. The Company
intends to seek further court review.


F&T MANAGEMENT: Faces "Zhao" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Guo Rong Zhao, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated v. F&T Management & Parking Corp., CP Parking
Corp., Sunny Chiu, Thomas Chang, John Doe and Jane Doe # 1-10,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00681 (E.D.N.Y., February 10, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a parking garage located on 39th
Avenue by the corner of Prince Street, in Flushing, New York
11354.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin Vorhis, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES PLLC
      136-18 39th Avenue, Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
      E-mail: kvorhis@hanglaw.com


FERGUSON, MO: Faces Class Action Over Municipal Court Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Spencer S. Hsu, writing for The Washington Post, reports that
civil rights lawyers filed federal lawsuits on Feb. 8 accusing
authorities in Ferguson and Jennings, Mo., of running the
equivalent of debtors' prisons by illegally jailing hundreds of
mostly poor, black residents for unpaid debts, many of them from
traffic tickets.

Local plaintiffs represented by lawyers with Washington-based
Equal Justice Under Law, Arch City Defenders of St. Louis and
Saint Louis University School of Law sought class-action status in
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, charging
that the two cities' municipal court policies violate the U.S.
Constitution, which prohibits jailing those too poor to pay and
allows the punishment only for those with means who willfully
refuse.

The suits, reported by the New York Times and NPR, are part of an
effort by legal advocates nationwide to target what they call
racially and economically skewed practices by which the criminal-
justice system has increasingly passed costs on to defendants.
The practices criminalize poverty, civil liberties groups say,
fueling the kind of frustrations that erupted after the fatal
police shooting last August in Ferguson of unarmed black teenager
Michael Brown.

In a report last year, Arch City Defenders, a nonprofit legal
clinic, traced tensions between many low-income black residents
and mainly white local authorities in part to policies by many of
the area's decentralized local courts.

More than half the courts in St. Louis County engage in "illegal
and harmful practices" of charging high fines and fees for
nonviolent offenses and arresting people who do not pay, the group
said.  The group's co-founder, Thomas Harvey, cited as typical
"poverty violations" driving with a suspended license or expired
registration or no proof of insurance.

An October study by the nonprofit group Better Together found that
municipal courts in St. Louis and St. Louis County collected
nearly half of the $132 million in fines paid statewide, despite
being home to fewer than 1 in 4 Missourians.  The county collected
one-third of the statewide total, with just 1 out of 9 state
residents.

More than a dozen small towns reap more from traffic-court fees
and fines than from sales or property taxes, each with large black
populations, the study found.

In Ferguson, population about 21,000, such revenue was the second-
largest source of income, $2.6 million of $20 million collected.
Overall, the city issued three arrest warrants per household, with
traffic-fine revenue increasing 44 percent since 2011.

"I understand the frustration from the defendants," John Adams,
court administrator for Jennings's municipal division, said in an
interview on Feb. 6 reported by the Times.  "At the same time, the
defendants should be responsible and take the step of at least
showing up in court. It would resolve so many issues," he
reportedly said.

Authorities from Washington State to Colorado to Ohio have backed
away from similar practices amid growing attention from public
defenders, law professors and activists, including the American
Civil Liberties Union.

In December, the Missouri Supreme Court required local courts to
allow installment plans, waive or reduce fines for the indigent,
and hold "show cause" hearings before issuing warrants for failure
to appear.

State Attorney General Chris Koster (D) targeted 13 county
municipal courts with a lawsuit over financial reporting
requirements, while lawmakers have discussed measures that would
consolidate courts that one said function as "little more than
ATMs."

Ferguson has capped court revenue at 15 percent of the city
budget, abolished the "failure to appear" offense and related
fines, forgiven warrants for nearly 600 defendants, and eliminated
fees to tow vehicles and revoke warrants.

"Debtors' prisons have no place in society that values equality
and justice," said Alec Karakatsanis, co-founder of Equal Justice
Under Law, after the group sued Montgomery, Ala., last year in
coordination with the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Mr. Karakatsanis's group alleged that Montgomery required
plaintiffs to pay fines immediately or sit in jail to pay off
debts at a rate of $50 a day, or $75 a day if they also agreed to
perform janitorial tasks.  The city agreed to reforms, provided
attorneys to municipal court defendants, and created new
community-service and hardship provisions for the indigent.


FIDELITY & GUARANTY: Class Certified in "Cressy" Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity & Guaranty Life said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that a California
court entered the Final Order and Judgment, finally certifying the
class for settlement purposes, and finally approving the class
settlement in the case Eddie L. Cressy v. Fidelity Guaranty [sic]
Life Insurance Company, et. al. class action.

On July 5, 2013, a putative class action Complaint was filed in
the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (the
"Court"), captioned Eddie L. Cressy v. Fidelity Guaranty [sic]
Life Insurance Company, et. al. Case No. BC-514340. The state
court Complaint asserts, inter alia, that the Plaintiff and
members of the putative class relied on Defendants' advice in
purchasing unsuitable equity-indexed insurance policies.

On April 4, 2014, the Plaintiff, FGL Insurance and the other two
defendants signed a Settlement Agreement, pursuant to which FGL
Insurance has agreed to pay a total of $5.3 million to settle the
claims of a nationwide class consisting, with certain exclusions,
of all persons who own or owned an OM Financial/FGL Insurance
indexed universal life insurance policy issued from January 1,
2007 through March 31, 2014, inclusive.  As part of the
settlement, FGL Insurance agreed to certification of the
nationwide class for settlement purposes only. An amended
Settlement Agreement was filed with the Court on June 5, 2014.

On November 18, 2014, the Court granted final approval of the
class settlement, subject to entry of a Final Order and Judgment.

At December 31, 2014, the Company estimated the total cost for the
settlement, legal fees and other costs related to this class
action would be $9.0 million and established a liability for the
unpaid portion of the estimate of $3.4 million. Based on the
information currently available the Company does not expect the
actual cost for settlement, legal fees and other related costs to
differ materially from the amount accrued. The Company is seeking
indemnification from OM Group (UK) Limited ("OMGUK") under the
First Amended and Restated Stock Purchase Agreement, dated
February 17, 2011 (the "F&G Stock Purchase Agreement") between HFG
and OMGUK related to the settlement and the costs and fees in
defending the Cressy litigation in both the federal and state
courts. The Company has established an amount recoverable from
OMGUK for the amount of $4.4 million, the collection of which the
Company believes is probable. The actual amount recovered from
OMGUK could be greater or less than the Company's estimate, but
the Company anticipates that the amount recovered will not be
materially different than its current estimate. The settlement,
legal fees and other costs related to this class action and the
amount recoverable from OMGUK is presented net in the income
statement in the caption "Benefits and other changes in policy
reserves."

On January 2, 2015, the Court entered the Final Order and
Judgment, finally certifying the class for settlement purposes,
and finally approving the class settlement. According to the class
settlement, the final settlement date means the date on which the
Final Order and Judgment becomes final for all purposes, including
appeal.


FOX SEARCHLIGHT: Court Hears Oral Arguments in Intern Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marianne Levine, writing for Politico, reports that more than 30
cases have been filed on behalf of unpaid interns in the past four
years.  The two most prominent are Glatt v. Fox Searchlight, known
familiarly as the "Black Swan" case, and Wang v. Hearst Corp.
Both cases are on federal appeal before New York City's Second
Circuit.  Both involve interns who worked for communications
companies that offered entree to a glamorous work environment -- a
movie studio in one instance, glossy magazine offices in the other
-- in lieu of wages.

"I think this practice has gotten incredibly out of hand," said
Eric Glatt, the lead plaintiff in the Black Swan case.  "It's
partly the fault of Washington by normalizing the practice, and
the fact that there are very few mechanisms in the place . . . for
people to push back."

In September 2011, Mr. Glatt and Alexander Footman, production
interns on the ballet film "Black Swan," sued Fox Searchlight,
alleging that the company's unpaid internship violated minimum
wage and overtime laws.  Mr. Glatt and Footman said they were
asked to perform menial tasks that should have been done by paid
employees.  In June 2013, a federal district court judge ruled in
favor of Messrs. Glatt and Footman, finding Fox Searchlight failed
to meet a six-part test that the Labor Department uses to
determine whether unpaid internships comply with the Fair Labor
Standards Act . . . At oral arguments on Jan. 30 in Manhattan's
Foley Square for both the Black Swan and Hearst cases, much
discussion turned on whether that test was the proper tool.

The test was initially developed more than half a century ago to
determine whether employees could be classified as "trainees"
under an exception to the FLSA that the Supreme Court granted in
1947.  But it wasn't until 2010 that the Obama Labor Department
adapted the six-part test to apply it to internships without pay.

Under the new rules, a for-profit company could refrain from
paying an intern only if the internship were similar to training
that would be given in an educational environment; if the
internship existed for the benefit of the intern; and if the
internship were not a substitute for hiring a paid employee.  In
addition, the employer could not derive an immediate advantage
from the intern's activities; the intern would not necessarily be
entitled to a job at the end of the internship; and the intern
could not be hired without it being made clear that he or she
would not be paid.

"It sets a high bar for the type of training if the test is that
all six points [must] be met," said Juno Turner, a lawyer for
Outten & Golden LLP who is representing Glatt and Footman.

Business interests, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, would
seem to agree about the six-part test's severity, and seek its
elimination. In particular the Chamber objects to the component
prohibiting businesses from deriving any immediate advantage from
the work of unpaid interns."  Prohibiting interns from performing
any productive work is antithetical to a meaningful internship,"
said the Chamber's amicus brief in support of Fox Searchlight. "If
unpaid interns are confined solely to unproductive tasks such as
shadowing senior employees and participating in training, the
benefits of the internship may be significantly diminished."

In the Jan. 30 court hearing, Neal Katyal, the lawyer representing
Fox, argued against the six-part test, saying courts should
instead apply a "primary beneficiary test" to evaluate the
"totality of circumstances."  Under a primary beneficiary test, an
intern must receive compensation if his or her work benefits the
employer more than it benefits the intern.  Rachel Bien, the
lawyer representing the plaintiffs, disagreed.  She told the court
that the question should not be about who benefits more, but
rather about whether the internship qualifies as a "bona-fide
training experience" under the DOL standards.

A challenge for intern advocates has been that interns are often
unaware of the six-part test, or are hesitant to invoke it against
a former employer.  In addition, the Labor Department's Wage &
Hour Division, already strained for resources, has devoted few
resources to policing unpaid internships, focusing instead on
violations in industries that pose a higher known risk of
exploitation, such as retail, construction, restaurants and
hotels.  Indeed, Wage & Hour has no formal procedure to track
internships, because interns are not classified as employees, and
it's received comparatively few complaints about unpaid
internships.

The Labor Department did file an amicus brief for the Jan. 30
hearing supporting the unpaid interns, and Labor Department
attorney Maria Van Buren showed up to defend the six-part test.
But that defense was somewhat qualified, with Van Buren conceding
"there may be unusual circumstances" in which the test might not
apply.  From the judges' comments, it was not clear that the court
would eventually uphold the test.

The Labor Department is "horrendously outstretched," said
Mikey Franklin, the co-founder of the Fair Pay Campaign, an
advocacy group focused on ending unpaid internships. "I have
sympathy for DOL, and in many respects they're doing the best they
can. At the same time, they've written these guidelines; it would
be nice to enforce them."

Wang v. Hearst concerns unpaid interns for the magazines Harper's
Bazaar, Cosmopolitan, Marie Claire, Esquire, Redbook and
Seventeen.  In that case, the lower court expressed strong
skepticism about the six-part test's value, which it found
confusing, and denied class certification.

Ross Perlin, author of the 2011 book "Intern Nation," believes
unpaid internships proliferated in years past for a variety of
reasons that included the rise of an educational movement that
favored applied forms of learning; enormous growth in temporary
and other forms of contingent employment; and tight enforcement
budgets at Wage & Hour.

Colleges and universities may have played the largest role by
granting academic credit for unpaid internships. That made it much
easier for employers to argue that they were providing an
educational rather than employment opportunity.  At the Jan. 30
hearing, Hearst Corporation's in-house counsel, Jonathan
Donnellan, said the court ought to give "very heavy weight" to the
granting of college credits.  "It's not like an educational
environment," Mr. Donnellan said of the unpaid magazine
internships. "It is an educational environment."

Others view colleges' collaboration with employers over unpaid
internships less favorably. "The most guilty party," Mr. Glatt
said, "is the colleges and the universities that rubber stamp this
practice, with zero oversight, with zero scrutiny."  Financially,
the arrangement is mutually beneficial; businesses acquire free
labor, while colleges pocket some portion of tuition dollars
without supplying any teaching in return.

Mr. Perlin attributed growing activism around unpaid internships
not only to the Black Swan case but also to the publication of his
book, the rise of the Occupy movement, the growth in student loan
debt and frustration with the difficult job market for recent
college graduates.

Previously, "there was quiet criticism," Mr. Perlin said, but
"there was no public forum for discussing it, and there were no
resources to sort of learn about what the situation was."  Now, he
said, "you have books, articles . . . labor rights groups."

Quite apart from however the legal questions will eventually be
settled, employers newly grappling with them are starting to
question whether unpaid internships are worth the bother.  Fox
Searchlight now pays its interns, and in October NBC Universal
agreed to pay $6.4 million to settle unpaid internship claims and
started paying all its interns.  The following month, Conde Nast
paid $5.8 million to settle a class action lawsuit brought by
thousands of former interns.  The publisher had already shut down
its internship program the year before, after the lawsuit was
filed.

A ruling for the interns would surely accelerate this process. "Is
this the end of exploiting young people?" asks Ms. Turner.  "Will
this be the start of internships becoming more meaningful or
becoming sources of meaningful employment?"

But this is one public policy issue you won't likely hear
discussed much in Congress.  With Democrats and Republicans both
talking about the need to expand economic opportunity for all,
it's hard for politicians to defend a practice that gives so
obvious a leg up to affluent young people at the expense of those
with modest means.  "We should get rid of unpaid internships," the
conservative political scientist Charles Murray has written.  "It
amounts to career assistance for rich, smart children. Those from
the middle and working class, struggling to pay for college, can't
afford to work for free."

But members of Congress won't likely be quick to criticize unpaid
internships, either.  "Congress uses so many unpaid interns itself
that it sees the practice as largely beneficial," Mr. Glatt said.
"I want to see a politician take this up and talk about the impact
it has on economically distressed communities."


FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Commenced Mailing of Settlement Notice
--------------------------------------------------------
In connection with the stockholder derivative litigation captioned
In Re: Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. Derivative Litigation,
C.A. No. 8145-VCN, Freeport-McMoRan Inc. (the "Company") commenced
a mailing of the Notice of Pendency of Derivative Action, Proposed
Settlement of Derivative Action, Settlement Hearing and Right to
Appear (the "Notice") to holders of the Company's common stock in
accordance with the Scheduling Order dated January 22, 2015. The
Scheduling Order requires that the Company also file a copy of the
Notice with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Representative Counsel for Plaintiffs:

     Michael J. Barry, Esq.
     GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
     123 Justison Street
     Wilmington, DE 19801

Representative Counsel for the Settling Defendants:

     William M. Lafferty, Esq.
     MORRIS NICHOLS ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
     1201 N. Market Street, 18th Floor
     Wilmington, DE 19801

          - and -

     M. Duncan Grant, Esq.
     PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
     1313 N. Market Street, Suite 5100
     Wilmington, DE 19899

A copy of the Notice is available at http://1.usa.gov/1D5gDL3


FRIENDLY'S ICE CREAM: Faces "Zartman" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lacey Zartman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Friendly's Ice Cream, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00298
(M.D. Pa., February 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours
per week.

Friendly's Ice Cream, LLC is a corporation headquartered in
Wilbraham, MA, that owns and operates Friendly's restaurants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. Cohen, Esq.
      KOLMAN ELY PC
      414 Hulmeville Ave.
      Penndel, PA 19047
      Telephone: (215) 750-3134
      E-mail: dcohen@kolmanlaw.net


GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Securities Suit Goes to ND Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------
IN RE GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION,  NO.
3:14-CV-00399-RCJ-WGC, CASE NO. 3:14-3:14-CV-00402-RCJ-WGC, (D.
Nev.) is a case that arose from Galectin Therapeutics, Inc.'s
alleged violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The
case is a consolidation of multiple suits brought by Galectin
shareholders claiming that Galectin engaged in securities fraud.

In a Jan. 21, 2015 Amended Order available at http://is.gd/TuM9q5
from Leagle.com, District Judge Robert Jones ordered for the
transfer of the Galectin securities lawsuit to the Northern
District of Georgia.

Galectin is a publicly-traded Nevada corporation with its
principal place of business in Norcross, Georgia.  It is a
development stage company engaged in researching and developing
therapies for fibrotic disease and cancer.

David L Hasbrouck, Plaintiff, represented by Frank J. Johnson --
FrankJ@JohnsonandWeaver.com -- Johnson & Weaver, LLP & Nathan
Hamler -- NathanH@JohnsonandWeaver.com -- Johnson & Weaver, LLP.

Peter G. Traber, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Smith.

James C. Czirr, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Smith.

Jack W. Callicutt, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Smith.

Gilbert F. Amelio, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Smith.

Kevin D Freeman, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Smith.

Arthur R. Greenberg, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Smith.

Rod D Martin, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Smith.

John F Mauldin, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Smith.

Steven Prelack, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Smith.

Marc Rubin, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Smith.

Galectin Therapeutics, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael R.
Smith.

Herman Paul Pressler, III, Defendant, represented by Michael R.
Smith.


GALION, OH: Customers Mull Suit Over Electricity Overcharges
------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Carr Smyth, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
high electric bills and environmental skepticism in towns across
the Midwest are causing customers to wonder if they've been duped
as power suppliers work to recoup investments in a financially
troubled Illinois generating plant and coal mine.

Rate increases and equipment breakdowns were the opposite of what
dozens of municipalities that invested in the Prairie State Energy
Campus were promised: low-cost, reliable energy for decades to
come.

Now, customers in Galion, Ohio, have threatened ballot action.
They want the city to repay overcharges they allege were amassed
to mask high electricity costs from the Washington County,
Illinois, project.

In Batavia, Illinois, another group of customers filed class-
action litigation alleging city-paid consultants misrepresented
financial risks associated with the complex, constructed by coal
producer Peabody Energy.

The municipal power provider in Paducah, Kentucky, contemplated
bankruptcy after its customers blamed its decision to invest in
Prairie State for some of the state's highest electricity rates.

When Prairie State's 1,600-megawatt generating operation, mine and
landfill went on line in 2012, its development had cost $4.9
billion -- more than twice the original estimate.  That forced
rate hikes and fees called power adjustments in many of the 217
municipalities and 17 electric cooperatives that invested in the
project.

Prairie State's defenders say it was expensive because it's one of
the country's cleanest, most efficient power plants.  As one of
the few coal plants built in the U.S. in 30 years, it faced
unanticipated costs in meeting tough, modern carbon emissions
standards proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency that
have vexed older coal-fired plants.

Many of the 68 Ohio municipalities that belong to the American
Municipal Power cooperative signed stringent "take or pay"
contracts that obligate investors to pay for their full contracted
share of power -- whether or not they receive it -- for 50 years.
Many customers now feel duped.

"For us, it absolutely makes no sense that we would place that
kind of a gamble to the extent that we did.  We've sold the family
farm," said Roberta Wade, a former law director and city
councilwoman behind the proposed ballot issue in Galion.  She sat
on the council when the Prairie State deal was signed but has said
little information was available.

Michael Childress, lead attorney in the Batavia suit, said Peabody
and the Indiana Municipal Power Authority staged a "road show"
across the Midwest in 2007 to sell the idea of investing in a
plant.  He alleges the project was conceived as a long-term
vehicle for Peabody coal.

"At the time, these towns are trying to figure out how they're
going to get access to safe, cost-efficient, inexpensive, secure,
theoretically environmentally clean power, and they're presented
with this notion that they can have all of this through Prairie
State," he said.  "So you can understand why they'd investigate
it."

On Wall Street, the unbreakable nature of the take-or-pay
contracts has been viewed as the strength of the Prairie State
deal.  However, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has
been investigating the financing deal after complaints from
members of Congress and local officials across the region.


GENERAL MOTORS: 108 Class Actions Pending Through Jan. 30
---------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that through January 30,
2015, the Company is aware of 108 putative class actions that are
pending against GM in various U.S. District Courts and state
courts alleging that consumers who purchased or leased GM vehicles
have been economically harmed by one or more of the recalls
announced this year and/or the underlying vehicle conditions
associated with those recalls (economic-loss cases).

Additionally, through January 30, 2015, 20 putative class actions
have been filed in various Provincial Courts in Canada seeking
similar relief as the U.S.-based cases.

In the aggregate, these economic-loss cases seek recovery for
purported compensatory damages, including alleged diminution in
value of the vehicles, punitive damages, and injunctive and other
relief.

"In addition through January 30, 2015, we are aware of 104 actions
pending against GM alleging injury or death as a result of defects
that may be the subject of recalls announced in the year ended
December 31, 2014, including faulty ignition switches and/or the
failure of air bags to properly deploy due to faulty ignition
switches (personal injury cases). In the aggregate these personal
injury cases seek recovery for purported compensatory damages,
punitive damages and other relief," the Company said.

In the three months ended March 31, 2014, GM announced recalls to
repair ignition switches that under certain circumstances could
unintentionally move from the "run" position to the "accessory" or
"off" position with a corresponding loss of power, which in turn
may prevent airbags from deploying in the event of a crash. Those
recalls included Chevrolet Cobalt and HHR, Pontiac G5, Pursuit and
Solstice and Saturn ION and Sky vehicles. Since those recalls, we
have announced a number of additional recalls in the year ended
December 31, 2014 relating to safety, customer satisfaction and
other matters.


GENERAL MOTORS: 156 Cases Consolidated as Part of MDL
-----------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that through January 30,
2015, 156 cases have been transferred and consolidated as part of
the multidistrict litigation.

Since June 2014 the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation has issued orders from time to time directing that
certain pending economic-loss and personal injury federal lawsuits
involving alleged faulty ignition switches or other defects that
may be related to the recalls announced in 2014 be transferred to,
and consolidated in, a single federal court, the Southern District
of New York (the multidistrict litigation). Through January 30,
2015, 156 cases have been transferred and consolidated as part of
the multidistrict litigation.

"We have requested that various other recently filed federal
lawsuits also be transferred and consolidated in the multidistrict
litigation. The court in the multidistrict litigation has
appointed lead counsel to prosecute the claims on behalf of all
plaintiffs in the consolidated cases," the Company said.

On October 14, 2014 lead counsel filed two amended consolidated
complaints.

"Because the majority of plaintiffs in these actions are suing
over vehicles manufactured by pre-bankruptcy General Motors
Corporation, we are seeking to enforce the terms of the federal
Bankruptcy Court's July 2009 Sale Order and Injunction to preclude
liability for any economic loss damages based on vehicles and
parts manufactured prior to July 2009. These cases are in their
early stages. In addition to the cases pending in the
multidistrict litigation, other economic-loss and personal injury
cases related to ignition-switch and other alleged defects that
may be the subject of recalls in 2014 are pending in various other
state and federal courts throughout the country.  The cases
pending in other state courts include a November 19, 2014 lawsuit
filed by the Attorney General for Arizona against GM in Arizona
state court alleging claims similar to those alleged in the
economic-loss actions and seeking an injunction, civil penalties
and other relief," the Company said.


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces 2 Actions Over Diminished Value of Vehicles
-----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that through January 30,
2015, the Company is aware of two actions that have been filed
against GM alleging that GM's purported concealment of the
ignition switch and other defects that have been the subject of
recalls in 2014 has diminished the value of other GM vehicles and
seeking economic damages under California consumer protection
statutes. One of these actions is a putative class action that has
been consolidated with the ignition switch putative class actions
and transferred to the Southern District of New York. The other
action was brought by the Orange County, California district
attorney and is pending in California state court. In the
aggregate, these actions seek recovery under California consumer
protection statutes for economic damages as well as civil
penalties, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs.


GENERAL MOTORS: NYSTRS File Consolidated Shareholder Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the New York State
Teachers' Retirement System filed a consolidated class action
complaint against GM and several current and former officers and
employees.

On March 21, 2014 a putative shareholder class action was filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan against GM and various current and former officers or
employees of GM (Pio v. General Motors Company et al.) on behalf
of purchasers of GM securities from November 17, 2010 through
March 10, 2014. The complaint alleges that defendants made
material misstatements and omissions relating to problems with the
ignition switch and other matters in SEC filings. Plaintiffs seek
unspecified monetary damages, interest and attorneys' fees and
costs. The court appointed the New York State Teachers' Retirement
System as the lead plaintiff. On January 15, 2015 New York State
Teachers' Retirement System filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint against GM and several current and former officers and
employees. The Consolidated Class Action Complaint supersedes the
complaint filed March 21, 2014 in this same case.


GENERAL MOTORS: Awaits Ontario Court Decision on Dealers' Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company is awaiting a decision from the Ontario
Superior Court with respect to the GMCL Dealers' Claim, the
Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 4, 2015, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014.

On February 12, 2010 a claim was filed in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice against General Motors of Canada Limited (GMCL)
on behalf of a purported class of over 200 former GMCL dealers
(the Plaintiff Dealers) which had entered into wind-down
agreements with GMCL. In May 2009 in the context of the global
restructuring of the business and the possibility that GMCL might
be required to initiate insolvency proceedings, GMCL offered the
Plaintiff Dealers the wind-down agreements to assist with their
exit from the GMCL dealer network and to facilitate winding down
their operations in an orderly fashion by December 31, 2009 or
such other date as GMCL approved but no later than on October 31,
2010. The Plaintiff Dealers allege that the Dealer Sales and
Service Agreements were wrongly terminated by GMCL and that GMCL
failed to comply with certain disclosure obligations, breached its
statutory duty of fair dealing and unlawfully interfered with the
Plaintiff Dealers' statutory right to associate in an attempt to
coerce the Plaintiff Dealers into accepting the wind-down
agreements. The Plaintiff Dealers seek damages and assert that the
wind-down agreements are rescindable. The Plaintiff Dealers'
initial pleading makes reference to a claim "not exceeding" CAD
$750 million, without explanation of any specific measure of
damages. On March 1, 2011 the court approved certification of a
class for the purpose of deciding a number of specifically defined
issues including: (1) whether GMCL breached its obligation of
"good faith" in offering the wind-down agreements; (2) whether
GMCL interfered with the Plaintiff Dealers' rights of free
association; (3) whether GMCL was obligated to provide a
disclosure statement and/or disclose more specific information
regarding its restructuring plans in connection with proffering
the wind-down agreements; and (4) assuming liability, whether the
Plaintiff Dealers can recover damages in the aggregate (as opposed
to proving individual damages). A number of former dealers have
opted out of participation in the litigation, leaving 181 dealers
in the certified class. Trial of the class issues was completed in
the fourth quarter of 2014.

"We are now awaiting a decision from the Ontario Superior Court.
The current prospects for liability are uncertain, but because
liability is not deemed probable we have no accrual relating to
this litigation. We cannot estimate the range of reasonably
possible loss in the event of liability as the case presents a
variety of different legal theories, none of which GMCL believes
are valid," the Company said.


GENERAL MOTORS: Estimates $511MM Loss in Korea Wage Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company estimates
its reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts accrued to be
562 billion South Korean Won (equivalent to $511 million) at
December 31, 2014, related to the GM Korea Wage Litigation.

Commencing on or about September 29, 2010 current and former
hourly employees of GM Korea filed eight separate group actions in
the Incheon District Court in Incheon, Korea. The cases, which in
aggregate involve more than 10,000 employees, allege that GM Korea
failed to include bonuses and certain allowances in its
calculation of Ordinary Wages due under the Presidential Decree of
the Korean Labor Standards Act.

On November 23, 2012 the Seoul High Court (an intermediate level
appellate court) issued a decision affirming a decision of the
Incheon District Court in a case involving five GM Korea employees
which was contrary to GM Korea's position. GM Korea appealed to
the Supreme Court of the Republic of Korea (Supreme Court) and
initiated a constitutional challenge to the adverse interpretation
of the relevant statute.

The Company said, "In December 2013 the Supreme Court rendered a
decision in a case involving another company not affiliated with
us which addressed many of the issues presented in the cases
pending against GM Korea and resolved many of them in a manner
which we believe is favorable to GM Korea. In particular, while
the Supreme Court held that fixed bonuses should be included in
the calculation of Ordinary Wages, it also held that claims for
retroactive application of this rule would be barred under certain
circumstances."

On May 29, 2014 the Supreme Court rendered its decision with
respect to the case involving the five GM Korea employees and
remanded the case to the Seoul High Court consistent with its
December 2013 ruling. In July 2014 GM Korea and its labor union
agreed to include bonuses and certain allowances in ordinary wages
retroactively to March 1, 2014.

"Therefore our accrual related to these cases was reclassified
from a contingent liability to the Pensions liability. We estimate
our reasonably possible loss, as defined by ASC 450,
"Contingencies," in excess of amounts accrued to be 562 billion
South Korean Won (equivalent to $511 million) at December 31,
2014, which relates to periods before March 1, 2014," the Company
said.

The Company added, "We are also party to litigation with current
and former salaried employees over allegations relating to
Ordinary Wages regulation. At December 31, 2014 we have identified
a reasonably possible loss in excess of the amount of our accrual
of 164 billion South Korean Won (equivalent to $149 million). Both
the scope of claims asserted and GM Korea's assessment of any or
all of the individual claim elements may change if new information
becomes available. These cases are currently pending before
various district courts in Korea and the Supreme Court."


GENERAL MOTORS: Paid $93MM Related to Ignition Switch Recall
------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that at January 30, 2015, the
Company has paid $93 million to eligible claimants under the
Ignition Switch Recall Compensation Program.

The Company said, "In the three months ended June 30, 2014 we
announced the creation of a compensation program (the Program) to
compensate accident victims who died or suffered physical injury
(or their families) as a result of a faulty ignition switch
related to the 2.6 million vehicles recalled. It is important to
our company that we reach everyone through this Program who has
been impacted. The Program is being administered by an independent
program administrator. The independent administrator has
established a protocol that defines the eligibility requirements
to participate in the Program. There is no cap on the amount of
payments that can be made to claimants under the Program."

"At December 31, 2014 we have an accrual of $315 million recorded
in Corporate which represents our best estimate of remaining
amounts that may be paid under the Program. However, it is
reasonably possible that the liability could exceed our recorded
amount by approximately $200 million. The most significant
estimates affecting the amount recorded include the number of
participants that have eligible claims related to death and
physical injury, which also contemplates the severity of injury,
the length of hospital stays and related compensation amounts and
the number of people who actually elect to participate in the
Program. Our estimate is subject to significant uncertainties, as
programs of this nature are highly unusual and each eligible claim
will have a unique underlying fact pattern. While we do not
anticipate material changes to our current estimate, it is
possible that material changes could occur should actual eligible
claims and the related compensation amounts differ from this
estimate. The Program accepted claims from August 1, 2014 through
January 31, 2015. Payments to eligible claimants began in the
fourth quarter 2014 and will continue through the first half of
2015. Accident victims (or their families) could choose not to
participate in the Program and pursue litigation against us. At
January 30, 2015 the Program had received 3,810 claims and the
independent program administrator has determined 128 claims to be
eligible for payment under the Program. Remaining claims are
either under review, deficient awaiting further documentation or
deemed ineligible. Based on currently available information we
believe our accrual at December 31, 2014 is adequate to cover the
estimated costs under the Program. At January 30, 2015 we have
paid $93 million to eligible claimants under the Program. Accident
victims that accept a payment under the Program agree to settle
all claims against GM related to the accident."


GENERAL MOTORS: Ignition-Switch Payment Fund to Exceed $400MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Bennett and Mike Spector, writing for The Wall Street
Journal, report that the cost of General Motors Co.'s victims-
compensation fund isn't expected to exceed the $400 million to
$600 million the auto maker set aside to pay those killed or
injured on account of faulty ignition switches, but it will take
weeks for the fund to sort through a late rush of claims filed
before the deadline passed.

GM's victims-compensation fund, administered by Washington
attorney Kenneth Feinberg, stopped taking new claims on Feb. 1
after thousands poured in from consumers seeking redress.  The
fund, started in August, is one of the several steps being taken
by GM in an attempt to restore credibility and limit legal
liability amid a record pace of safety recalls.

Mr. Feinberg's work, however, will do little to stanch widespread
concern about vehicle safety and leave unanswered many questions
about victim compensation.  Intended to compensate those killed or
injured in a batch of small cars built with faulty ignition
switches that prevented air-bag deployment, the fund received more
than 3,350 claims as of Jan. 29 and roughly quadrupled the death
toll from GM's initial estimate of 13, to 50.  Serious injuries
receiving compensation totaled at least 75.

The death-toll and injury figures are expected to climb further as
Mr. Feinberg and his lieutenants continue sifting through claims.

Many are wondering if the actions go far enough.

GM, for instance, covered in its fund only a fraction of consumers
affected by ignition-switch problems ultimately spanning millions
of vehicles and an array of models.  Vehicles equipped with the
defective switch can inadvertently jostle from the "on" to
"accessory" or "off" position and cut power to air bags and
electronic steering.

The company faces class-action lawsuits related to alleged safety
lapses, and continuing probes by the Justice Department and others
could cost GM billions of dollars in fines.

In an interview, Mr. Feinberg and his associate, Camille Biros,
said their work should help restore GM's credibility and head off
future lawsuits.  Claimants accepting payouts must waive their
right to sue GM.

It could take Mr. Feinberg's team weeks to finish going through
petitions related to a batch of roughly 2.6 million recalled
vehicles.  "We are bending over backward to help these individuals
by giving them more than one or two opportunities to provide the
information to us," Ms. Biros said.

Payments span $20,000 to $1 million, but the final tab won't be
disclosed until every claim has been reviewed.  Most of the claims
received have lacked required evidence, such as a police report,
or include cars not covered by the fund.

Importantly, said Mr. Feinberg, "of those who have been eligible
for compensation, not one, so far, has rejected a payout offer."
As for GM's role, the auto company has been "cooperative," he
said.

In determining compensation, Mr. Feinberg's team greatly widened
the definition of victim.

"GM took the approach of a strict engineering standard," Ms. Biros
said.  "We looked at everything and we were more flexible.  We
looked at photographs, police reports and historical maintenance
records.  So if there was a history of problems and in the
accident the air bags didn't deploy, we leaned toward paying the
claims."

Most claimants are in their early 20s because many of the affected
vehicles -- older Saturn Ions and Chevrolet Cobalts -- were sold
to young people.  Many accidents included other potential causes,
such as speeding, drinking or distraction, according to Ms. Biros.

Under GM's earlier parameters, most of these victims wouldn't have
been offered a settlement.

Still, Mr. Feinberg's work omits anyone involved in crashes tied
to more than eight million vehicles recalled in June with
similarly problematic ignition switches.  GM has identified three
deaths tied to two crashes involving older Chevrolet Impalas that
are among those recalled vehicles.

GM says there isn't conclusive evidence linking the three deaths,
all the result of high-speed crashes, to the defect.

"I was hopeful early on Mr. Feinberg and others would convince GM
. . . to broaden the compensation plan to include these other
vehicles. It appears they will not do it," said Lance Cooper, the
Georgia lawyer influential in discovering the root cause of the
ignition-switch problem in smaller vehicles.

Ms. Biros referred any questions about expanding the scope of the
compensation fund to GM.  "The facility has no authority to add
other GM model vehicles to the list of eligible vehicles under the
protocol," she said.

"The specific fact patterns are substantively different between
the various recalls," a spokesman for GM said.

With the second large round of recalls in June, "it isn't clear"
whether the switches caused accidents, said David Cole, chairman
emeritus of the Center for Automotive Research, a group that gets
some funding from auto makers.  "You can't automatically infer
this is the same thing that went on there," he said.

But he added that GM has to "step up" if the causes of the crashes
are directly linked to the other faulty switches.


GLOBAL TEL*LINK: Accused of Violating Telecommunications Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Dustin Murilla, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, Case No. 5:15-cv-05048-
PKH (W.D. Ark., February 13, 2015) is brought over alleged
violations of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amy C. Martin, Esq.
          EVERETT, WALES & COMSTOCK
          1944 East Joyce Blvd.
          P.O. Box 8370
          Fayetteville, AR 72703
          Telephone: (479) 443-0292
          Facsimile: (479) 443-0564
          E-mail: amy@everettfirm.com


HANBIT ENTERPRISES: Recalls Soybean Sprouts Due to Health Risks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hanbit Enterprises, Inc. dba Jack and the Beanstalk is recalling
Soybean Sprouts in 1lb, 1.5lb, 10 lb, and Natto plastic bags
distributed up to and including February 12, 2015 with Best if
Used by dates up to February 19, 2015, because they have the
potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an
organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in
young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened
immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer long-term
symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea,
abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause
miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

The soybean sprouts were distributed to Bay Area stores and
restaurants.

  --- 1LB SOYBEAN SPROUT BAR CODE - 7-27580-12366-9
  --- 1.5LB SOYBEAN SPROUT BAR CODE - 7-27580-12365-2
  --- 10LB SOYBEAN SPROUT BAR CODE - 7-27580-12351-5
  --- NATTO SOYBEAN SPROUT BAR CODE - 7-27580-12367-6

No illnesses that have been reported to date.

The recall was the result of a routine sampling program by the FDA
which revealed that the finished products contained the Listeria
bacteria. The company has ceased the production and distribution
of the product as FDA and the company continues their
investigation as to what caused the problem.

Consumers who have purchased Hanbit Enterprises, Inc. soybean
sprouts in 1lb, 1.5lb, 10lb, and Natto plastic bags are urged to
return it to the place of purchase for a full refund.

Consumers with questions may contact the company at 831-422-8028
during office hours: Monday through Friday from 9 a.m. to 5:00
p.m.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm434408.htm


HANSEN NATURAL: Final Judgment Entered in "Cunha" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge George H. Wu entered a final judgment and order of
dismissal, with prejudice, in the lawsuit MARCELO CUNHA,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. HANSEN NATURAL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case
No. EDCV 08-01249-GW(JCX) (C.D. Cal.).  A copy of the judge's Jan.
29, 2015 Final Judgment is available at http://is.gd/2kffBZfrom
Leagle.com.

On July 24, 2014, the Court entered an Amended Order Preliminarily
Approving Settlement in the lawsuit.  Subsequently, on further
review, the Court entered a final approval of the Settlement in
all respects.

All Settlement Class Members are forever barred and enjoined from
prosecuting any of the Released Claims against any of the Released
Persons.

Any Plan of Distribution submitted by Lead Counsel or any order
entered regarding any attorneys' fee and expense application will
no way disturb or affect the Jan. 29, 2015 Judgment and will be
considered separate from that Judgment, the Court added.

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, DOUGLAS R. BRITTON --
dougb@rgrdlaw.com ; JEFFREY D. LIGHT -- jeffl@rgrdlaw.com ; X. JAY
ALVAREZ -- jaya@rgrdlaw.com -- San Diego, CA, and DANIEL J.
PFEFFERBAUM -- dpfefferbaum@rgrdlaw.com -- San Francisco, CA, Lead
Counsel for Plaintiffs.


HOME DEPOT: Illegally Procures Consumer Reports, "Albu" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Romulus Albu, individually and as a representative of the class,
v. The Home Depot Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00412 (N.D. Ga., February
11, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide
the stand-alone disclosure required by the Fair Credit Reporting
Act, before procuring a consumer report.

The Home Depot Inc. is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia and is
considered as the world's largest home improvement specialty
retailer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
      4600 IDS Center
      80 South Eighth Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 256-3200
      Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
      E-mail: drake@nka.com


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces "Coss" Suit Over Subscription Services
-----------------------------------------------------------
Guy Coss, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Hyundai Motor America, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case
No. 2:15-cv-00974 (C.D. Cal., February 10, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to disclose the fact that the
Blue Link Telematics System would be rendered inoperable if
Hyundai owners opted not to enroll in the Blue Link subscription
service.

Hyundai Motor America is a California corporation with its
principal place of business located in Fountain Valley,
California. It is subsidiary of Hyundai Motor Company is a South
Korean multinational automotive manufacturer headquartered in
Seoul, South Korea.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard D. McCune, Esq.
      David C. Wright, Esq.
      Jae (Eddie) K. Kim, Esq.
      MCCUNEWRIGHT LLP
      2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216
      Redlands, CA 92374
      Telephone: (909) 557-1250
      Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
      E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
              dcw@mccunewright.com
              jkk@mccunewright.com


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces "Coss" 2nd Suit Over Subscription Services
---------------------------------------------------------------
Guy Coss, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Hyundai Motor America, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case
No. 8:15-cv-00237 (C.D. Cal., February 10, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to disclose the fact that the
Blue Link Telematics System would be rendered inoperable if
Hyundai owners opted not to enroll in the Blue Link subscription
service.

Hyundai Motor America is a California corporation with its
principal place of business located in Fountain Valley,
California. It is subsidiary of Hyundai Motor Company is a South
Korean multinational automotive manufacturer headquartered in
Seoul, South Korea.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard D. McCune, Esq.
      David C. Wright, Esq.
      Jae (Eddie) K. Kim, Esq.
      MCCUNEWRIGHT LLP
      2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216
      Redlands, CA 92374
      Telephone: (909) 557-1250
      Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
      E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
              dcw@mccunewright.com
              jkk@mccunewright.com


ILLINOIS: "Brown" Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge for Pre-Trial
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The action MAURICE BROWN, #K-7247, and STEVEN RUTLEDGE, #N-87582,
Plaintiff, v. STEVEN DUNCAN, SALVADOR GODINEZ, MRS. WEAVER, MRS.
HOPPER, RODNEY HUGHES, GALEN DELLINGER, and COUNSELOR RAY
Defendants, Case No. 14-cv-1266-SMY (S.D. Ill), is a civil rights
action alleging that the Plaintiffs have been denied protective
custody by officials at the Lawrence Correctional Center.

The Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint requests leave to certify the
cause as a class action in the future.  Plaintiffs are advised
that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit class actions to
be maintained only if the class representative "will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class," and "[e]very court
that has considered the issue has held that a prisoner proceeding
pro se is inadequate to represent the interests of his fellow
inmates in a class action." Plaintiffs have filed a motion for
recruitment of counsel, which shall be addressed in a separate
order. Until that motion is addressed, a ruling on class
certification is premature.

District Judge Staci Yandle entered a memorandum and order on Jan.
26, 2015, ruling that:

  -- Each Plaintiff was to advise the Court in writing
     by January 29, 2015, if he wishes to pursue his claims
     individually in a separate lawsuit;

  -- Plaintiff Brown's claim for damages (Count 1) against
     Defendants DUNCAN, WEAVER, HOPPER, DELLINGER, and GODINEZ in
     their individual capacities and Plaintiff Rutledge's claim
     for damages (Count 2) against Defendants DUNCAN, WEAVER,
     HOPPER, RAY, and GODINEZ in their individual capacities shall
     proceed. Plaintiffs may also proceed on their request for
     injunctive relief against Defendant DUNCAN in his official
     capacity as WARDEN OF LAWRENCE.

  -- Defendant HUGHES is DISMISSED from this action WITHOUT
     PREJUDICE.

  -- The action is REFERRED to United States Magistrate Judge
     Frazier for further pre-trial proceedings.

A copy of the Judge's order is available at http://is.gd/8hwZlR
from Leagle.com.


IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Motion to Dismiss Nasyrova Suit Fully Briefed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Immunomedics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2015, for the
fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2014, that defendants moved to
dismiss a class action complaint, and the motion has been fully
briefed by the parties.

A putative class action lawsuit, styled Nasyrova v. Immunomedics,
Inc., was filed on February 27, 2014 in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey. The lawsuit alleges that the
Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors failed to disclose and/or made material misstatements in
the Company's public filings relating to the termination of the
Nycomed Agreement. In particular, the complaint alleges that
defendants failed to make timely disclosure concerning a dispute
concerning a delay in the development of veltuzumab. On October 9,
2013, the Company announced that the Nycomed Agreement was
terminated. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On June 24, 2014 the District Court entered an order appointing
John Neff as lead plaintiff and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as lead
counsel. Lead plaintiff and lead counsel thereafter filed an
Amended Class Action Complaint on August 8, 2014. The defendants
believe that the allegations in the class action complaint are
without merit and intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.
Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on September 22, 2014,
and the motion has been fully briefed by the parties.


INVENSENSE INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Feb. 8 disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit against InvenSense, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The
class action, filed in United States District Court, Northern
District of California, and docketed under 15-cv-00142, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased InvenSense securities between July 29, 2014 and
October 28, 2014, inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover
damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased InvenSense securities
during the Class Period, you have until March 8, 2015 to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

InvenSense designs, develops, markets and sells Micro-Electro-
Mechanical Systems ("MEMS") sensors, such as accelerometers,
gyroscopes and microphones for consumer electronics.  The Company
targets sales of its products to manufacturers of smartphones and
tablets, console and portable video gaming devices, and other
types of consumer electronics.

The Complaint alleges that defendants concealed the adverse
effects the Company would experience as a result of its agreement
with Apple to supply sensors for the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus at
heavily discounted prices.  The low prices charged had negatively
impacted, and would continue to negatively impact, InvenSense's
margins.  Instead of revealing the Company's true financial
condition and prospects, defendants concealed these adverse facts
from investors and chose to issue strong guidance.  As a result of
defendants' false and misleading statements and/or omissions,
InvenSense common stock traded at artificially inflated prices
during the Class Period, reaching a high of $25.85 per share,
allowing certain of the Company's insiders to sell their
personally held stock at artificially inflated prices for
aggregate proceeds of over $5.3 million.

On October 28, 2014, the Company announced disappointing financial
results for the second quarter of fiscal year 2015, ended
Sept. 28, 2014.  Net revenue for the second quarter fiscal 2015
was $90.2 million, up 35 percent from $66.7 million for the first
quarter fiscal 2015.  Gross margin determined in accordance with
U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) for the
second quarter of fiscal 2015 was 35 percent, compared with 47
percent for the first quarter of fiscal 2015 including stock-based
compensation and related payroll taxes, and amortization of
acquisition intangibles.

On this news, shares of InvenSense fell $5.10 per share, or more
than 23.74%, to $16.08 per share on October 29, 2014.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as
the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the
field of securities class actions.


JCAHO SURVEYOR: Fails to Pay Overtime Wage Under FLSA, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Billie Klesch-Sheeran, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated v. JCAHO Surveyor and QHR Consultant Corp d/b/a The Joint
Commission and d/b/a Joint Commission on Accreditation of
Healthcare Organizations, a foreign corporation, Case No. 3:15-cv-
00530-M (N.D. Tex., February 13, 2015) alleges that the Defendant
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay overtime
pay for the actual hours its Field Representatives, including the
Plaintiff,  were working in excess of 40 each week when those
Field Representatives were misclassified as exempt.

JCAHO Surveyor and QHR Consultant Corp., doing business as The
Joint Commission and doing business as Joint Commission on
Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations is a foreign not-for-
profit corporation that does and is doing business in the state of
Texas.  The Defendant is a not-for-profit corporation that
accredits and certifies health organizations and programs
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
          J. Forester, Esq.
          LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
          1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 749-1400
          Facsimile: (214) 749-1010
          E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com
                  forester@l-b-law.com


KEURIG GREEN: 2nd Cir. Heard Oral Argument in Fraud Suit Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2015,
for the thirteen weeks ended December 27, 2014, that the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard oral argument
on the appeal in the securities fraud class action.

The putative securities fraud class action, captioned Louisiana
Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System ("LAMPERS") v. Green
Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 2:11-cv-00289,
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Vermont before the Honorable William K. Sessions, III.
Plaintiffs' amended complaint alleged violations of the federal
securities laws in connection with the Company's disclosures
relating to its revenues and its inventory accounting practices.
The amended complaint sought class certification, compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and such other relief as the
court should deem just and proper.  Plaintiffs sought to represent
all purchasers of the Company's securities between February 2,
2011 and November 9, 2011.  The initial complaint filed in the
action on November 29, 2011 included counts for alleged violations
of (1) Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
(the "Securities Act") against the Company, certain of its
officers and directors, and the Company's underwriters in
connection with a May 2011 secondary common stock offering; and
(2) Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against the
Company and the officer defendants, and for violation of Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act against the officer defendants.

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(3), plaintiffs had until January 30, 2012
to move the court to serve as lead plaintiff of the putative
class.  Competing applications were filed and the Court appointed
Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System, Sjunde
AP-Fonden, Board of Trustees of the City of Fort Lauderdale
General Employees' Retirement System, Employees' Retirement System
of the Government of the Virgin Islands, and Public Employees'
Retirement System of Mississippi as lead plaintiffs' counsel on
April 27, 2012.

Pursuant to a schedule approved by the court, plaintiffs filed
their amended complaint on October 22, 2012, and plaintiffs filed
a corrected amended complaint on November 5, 2012.  Plaintiffs'
amended complaint did not allege any claims under the Securities
Act against the Company, its officers and directors, or the
Company's underwriters in connection with the May 2011 secondary
common stock offering.  Defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint on March 1, 2013 and on December 20, 2013, the court
issued an order dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice.

On January 21, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of intent to appeal
the court's December 20, 2013 order to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.  Pursuant to a schedule entered by
the appeals court, briefing on the appeal was completed on June
23, 2014.  The Second Circuit heard oral argument on the appeal on
December 1, 2014.

The underwriters previously named as defendants notified the
Company of their intent to seek indemnification from the Company
pursuant to their underwriting agreement dated May 5, 2011 in
regard to the claims asserted in this action.


KEURIG GREEN: JBR's Brief in Antitrust Suit Appeal Due March 3
--------------------------------------------------------------
Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2015,
for the thirteen weeks ended December 27, 2014, that the Company's
brief in an appeal related to an antitrust litigation was due
February 17, 2015; and JBR, Inc. (d/b/a Rogers Family Company)'s
reply brief will be due March 3, 2015.

On February 11, 2014, TreeHouse Foods, Inc., Bay Valley Foods,
LLC, and Sturm Foods, Inc. filed suit against Green Mountain
Coffee Roasters, Inc. and Keurig, Inc. in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (TreeHouse Foods, Inc. et
al. v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. et al., No. 1:14-cv-
00905-VSB).  The TreeHouse complaint asserts claims under the
federal antitrust laws and various state laws, contending that the
Company has monopolized alleged markets for single serve coffee
brewers and single serve coffee portion packs, including through
its contracts with suppliers and distributors and in connection
with the launch of its next generation coffee brewer.  The
TreeHouse complaint seeks monetary damages, declaratory relief,
injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees.

On March 13, 2014, JBR, Inc. (d/b/a Rogers Family Company) filed
suit against Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California (JBR, Inc. v. Keurig
Green Mountain, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-00677-KJM-CKD).  The claims
asserted and relief sought in the JBR complaint are substantially
similar to the claims asserted and relief sought in the TreeHouse
complaint.

Additionally, beginning on March 10, 2014, twenty-seven putative
class actions asserting similar claims and seeking similar relief
have been filed on behalf of purported direct and indirect
purchasers of the Company's products in various federal district
courts.  On June 3, 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation granted a motion to transfer these various actions,
including the TreeHouse and JBR actions, to a single judicial
district for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings.
The actions are now pending before Judge Vernon S. Broderick in
the Southern District of New York (In re: Keurig Green Mountain
Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:14-md-02542-VSB).

On June 23, 2014, TreeHouse and JBR filed a joint motion to
expedite discovery, which the Court granted in part and denied in
part on July 23, 2014.  On August 11, 2014, JBR filed a motion for
a preliminary injunction, which the Company opposed.  The Court
held a hearing on September 3-4, 2014, and by order dated
September 19, 2014, denied JBR's motion for a preliminary
injunction.  On September 24, 2014, JBR filed a notice of appeal
of the denial of the preliminary injunction.  On October 28, 2014,
JBR moved to expedite its appeal, which the Company opposed, and
on November 13, 2014, the Court of Appeals denied the motion for
expedited treatment.  JBR filed its opening appeal brief on
November 17, 2014.  The Company's brief is due February 17, 2015,
and JBR's reply brief will be due March 3, 2015.


KEURIG GREEN: Plaintiffs' Opposition Briefs Due April 10
--------------------------------------------------------
Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2015,
for the thirteen weeks ended December 27, 2014, that consolidated
putative class action complaints by direct purchaser and indirect
purchaser plaintiffs were filed on July 24, 2014.  The Company
filed motions to dismiss these complaints and the complaints in
the TreeHouse and JBR actions on October 6, 2014.  On October 27,
2014, all plaintiffs informed the Company of their decision to
amend their complaints rather than oppose the Company's motions to
dismiss.  Plaintiffs' amended complaints were filed November 25,
2014.  The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaints on
February 2, 2015.  Under the current briefing schedule,
plaintiffs' opposition briefs will be due April 10, 2015, and the
Company's reply briefs will be due May 11, 2015.


KEURIG GREEN: Balks at Club Coffee's Statement of Claim
-------------------------------------------------------
Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. and Keurig Canada Inc. served Club
Coffee with notice of motion for a motion to strike the claims
made by Coffee Club for failure to state a reasonable cause of
action, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2015, for the
thirteen weeks ended December 27, 2014.

On September 30, 2014, a statement of claim was filed against the
Company and Keurig Canada Inc. in Ontario, Canada by Club Coffee
L.P. ("Club Coffee"), a Canadian manufacturer of single-serve
beverage packs, claiming damages of $600 million and asserting a
breach of competition law and false and misleading statements by
the Company.  On October 21, 2014, Club Coffee filed an amended
statement of claim against the Company and Keurig Canada Inc.
claiming the same amount of damages as in the original statement
of claim and asserting essentially the same breaches of
competition law and false and misleading statements by the
Company.  On January 12, 2015, the Company and Keurig Canada Inc.
served Club Coffee with notice of motion for a motion to strike
the claims made by Coffee Club for failure to state a reasonable
cause of action.


KEURIG GREEN: Recorded $10MM Net Charge in 2014 on Product Recall
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2015,
for the thirteen weeks ended December 27, 2014, that the Company
recorded a net charge in fiscal 2014 of approximately $10.0
million related to product recall.

In November 2014, the Company informed the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission and Health Canada that it identified a potential
issue involving certain Keurig MINI Plus (non-reservoir) brewers
(K10 and B31 models), where on very rare occasions, hot liquid
could escape the brewer.

As a result, the Company recorded a net charge in fiscal 2014 of
approximately $10.0 million in its statement of operations which
represented the Company's best estimate, based on a number of
assumptions, of the cost to remediate this issue and related
expenses.  Included in this charge is the recovery that the
Company expects to receive from its insurance carriers where the
Company has a legally enforceable contract that stipulates the
terms of the insurance coverage and where the terms are not in or
expected to be in dispute.

On December 23, 2014 the Company issued a recall for its Keurig
MINI Plus brewers.

"This action did not change our estimate for the reserve or the
anticipated insurance recovery; however, as such charge is based
on estimates, the Company's ultimate liability and recovery may
exceed or be less than the amounts recorded.  Based on current
information known to the Company, the Company believes that this
issue will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated
financial position, results of operations or cash flows of the
Company," the Company said.


KOHL'S CORPORATION: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Ankcorn, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Kohl's Corporation, a Wisconsin corporation, Case No.
1:15-cv-01303 (N.D. Ill., February 11, 2015), seeks to stop the
Defendant's practice of contacting consumers on the cellular
telephone using a pre-recorded message with an artificial or
computerized voice.

Kohl's Corporation owns and operates 66 department stores in the
State of Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roberto Carlos Robledo, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ROBERTO ROBLEDO
      9845 Erma Road, Suite 300
      San Diego, CA 92131
      Telephone: (619) 500-6683
      E-mail: roberto@robertorobledo.com


LLOYD'S OF LONDON: Underwriters Can Sell Insurance in Arkansas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas Business reports that a Saline County Circuit Court judge
agreed with former Arkansas Insurance Commissioner Jay Bradford
that Lloyd's of London underwriters are approved to sell insurance
in the state.

If you recall, the case stemmed from a lawsuit filed in 2013 by
Little Rock attorney Gene Ludwig, who was seeking a class-action
certification.  He argued that thousands of policies should be
invalidated because, under his reading of the law, the Lloyd's of
London underwriters weren't approved by the Arkansas Insurance
Department.

Mr. Ludwig represented more than a dozen named plaintiffs against
several brokers who sold surplus lines of insurance through the
Lloyd's of London marketplace.

But Saline County Circuit Judge Gary Arnold tossed the case on a
summary judgment order, meaning the case never made it to a jury.

"Each of the Plaintiffs' claims is predicated on the assumption
their policies were placed with unapproved insurers," Judge Arnold
wrote.  "From the undisputed record, each of the subject policies
was actually placed with approved insurers."

Even though Bradford and the Insurance Department weren't named as
a defendant in the lawsuit, Bradford vigorously disagreed with the
allegations and maintained the Lloyd's underwriters were approved.
He even issued a bulletin in July that reiterated his point.

Mr. Ludwig said in a statement to Whispers that "if we end up
losing this case, perhaps we will have at least succeeded in
raising public awareness about the inability of a policy holder to
identify, sue, and execute a judgment against the actual alien
insurers of 'Lloyds of London' surplus lines policies."

One of the attorneys for the insurance brokers, David Wilson of
Little Rock, told Arkansas Business that he is pleased with the
ruling.


LOVE HONEY: Faces Class Action Over Ineffective Lubricant
---------------------------------------------------------
Austin Siegemund-Broka at The Hollywood Report reports that a
California woman has filed a class-action lawsuit against author
EL James and a British erotic toy company over Fifty Shades of
Grey sex lubricant.

In a complaint filed on Feb. 5, Tania Warchol claims that she
purchased Fifty Shades of Grey Come Alive Pleasure Gel for Her,
part of Lovehoney's Official Pleasure Collection Approved by
James, "on at least two occasions" from an Adam & Eve store near
her home.  The store's parent company, PHE, is named as a
defendant.

The complaint notes that the product's packaging promises users
will "experience enhanced orgasms and stimulation as every tingle,
touch and vibration intensifies."  It includes the lines from
James' second Fifty Shades novel printed on the box -- "I
surrender, exploding around him -- a draining, soul-grabbing
orgasm that leaves me spent and exhausted."  It was a bit of a
letdown, Ms. Warchol claims.

"Based on Defendants' representations, Plaintiff believed the
Product has powerful aphrodisiac qualities and would increase her
sexual pleasure as advertised," reads the complaint, a copy of
which was obtained by The Hollywood Reporter.  "The Product did
not deliver the purported benefits."

The suit contains other allegations about the gel's legal
classification, including that it's improperly unregistered with
the Federal Drug Administration.  Federal law requires that any
substance marketed over the counter as an "aphrodisiac" and its
label receive approval from the FDA.  Ms. Warchol claims "the
adequacy of the labeled instructions for its 'aphrodisiac' uses"
has not received FDA approval and the product is therefore a
mislabeled drug.

The complaint contains similar allegations regarding the product's
"latex compatible" label.  In order for the gel to have that
designation, it needs to be registered with the FDA as either a
Class I Medical Device or, if it's meant for use with a condom, a
Class II Medical Device, according to the filing.  The Fifty
Shades of Grey Come Alive Pleasure Gel is registered as neither
and therefore is being "illegally marketed."

Ms. Warchol has sued on behalf of everyone who has purchased the
lubricant in the last four years.  She's claiming violations of
California's unfair competition and false advertising laws and of
the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.  She wants the defendants to
refund every plaintiff's purchase of the product in addition to
paying punitive damages.  She's represented by attorney
Ronald Marron.

The defendants are Love Honey, Inc., LoveHoney, LTD, LoveHoney
Group, LTD, PHE, Inc. and Erica Mitchell.


MAPLEBEAR INC: Removes "Cobarruviaz" Suit to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Cobarruviaz v. Maplebear, Inc.,
Case No. CGC-15-543583, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Francisco to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-
00697 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Shon Morgan, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543
          Telephone: (213) 624-7707
          Facsimile: (213) 624-0643
          E-mail: shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Smith, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Marriott International Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00130
(W.D. Tex., February 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay its fire inspectors overtime for all hours
worked over 40 in a workweek.

Marriott International Inc. is a hospitality company with more
than 3,900 properties worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Allison Sarah Hartry, Esq.
      THE MORALES FIRM, PC
      115 E. Travis St., Suite 1530
      San Antonio, TX 78205
      Telephone: (210) 225-0811
      Facsimile: (210) 225-0821
      E-mail: ahartry@themoralesfirm.com


MASSAGE ENVY: Not Liable for Wage Violations to T. Vann.
--------------------------------------------------------
A California district court opined that Terrance Allan Vann's
claims against Massage Envy Franchising LLC (MEF) cannot proceed
as a matter of law. MEF was not an employer or joint employer of
Mr. Vann, and therefore, cannot be liabile for any wage violations
committed by Charis Group, the court held.

MEF is a "business format franchisor" headquartered in Scottsdale,
Arizona.  MEF grants licenses to independently owned and operated
entities to use the Massage Envy name, trademark, and standardized
business operations in exchange for paying a franchise fee.

Mr. Vann, a massage therapist who worked at various Massage Envy
spa locations, filed a class action complaint against Defendants
MEF, Charis Group, LLC, and OC Wellness Group, Inc., alleging
violations of California's minimum-wage laws.  Defendant MEF is
the franchisor, and Defendants Charis Group, LLC and OC Wellness
Group, Inc. are franchisees.

On March 3, 2014, the Parties agreed to dismiss all claims against
OC Wellness Group, Inc.  The action against Defendant Charis
Group, LLC was stayed in light of its recent filing for
bankruptcy.

The action is TERRANCE ALLAN VANN, an Individual, On Behalf of
Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. MASSAGE
ENVY FRANCHISING LLC, an Arizona Limited Liability Corporation, et
al., Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-2221-BEN (WVG) (S.D. Cal.).

The judge's Jan. 5, 2015 Order is available at http://is.gd/OMCCYe
from Leagle.com.


MERCER CANYONS: Must Face Farmworkers' Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Kristi Pihl, writing for Tri-City Herald, reports that Mercer
Canyons has failed to get a federal judge to dismiss a class-
action lawsuit filed by farmworkers over the Horse Heaven Hills
farm's use of the federal H-2A guest worker program.

Judge Stanley Bastian said he found the farm's arguments and
interpretation of state law unconvincing in a recent written
opinion denying the farm's request for a summary judgment in its
favor.

"Mercer Canyons' effort to break this claim down into just a few
discrete and isolated incidents is uncompelling," he wrote.

Columbia Legal Services and Schroeter Goldmark & Bender of Seattle
brought the lawsuit on behalf of Jose Amador and Bacilio Ruiz.
They claim they have identified at least 600 job seekers who were
affected by the farm's alleged failure to comply with the
recruitment efforts required by the guest worker program.

Farmers that use the H-2A program can only hire foreign workers if
they can't find enough domestic workers to complete the needed
work.  The H-2A program is the only legal way for farms to employ
foreign workers to help harvest Washington's labor-intensive
crops.  More farmers have been using the costly, cumbersome
program because of statewide labor shortages.

Mercer Canyons hired 22 foreign workers through the H-2A program
for specific tasks between May and September 2013.  The farm
contends it met all obligations, including paying seasonal
domestic workers the higher $12 per hour wage for all the hours
they spent on the exact same work as the foreign workers,
according to court documents.

Mercer Canyons argued that the H-2A regulations lack a private
right of action and state law and the federal Agricultural Worker
Protection Act don't apply.  The farm says the farmworker claims
are mostly related to alleged non-compliance with the H-2A program
requirements.

But Judge Bastian wrote that seasonal farmworkers can use the
federal act to enforce a required H-2A wage rate.

Mr. Amador, of Grandview, claims he and two family members were
told no work was available when they went to Mercer Canyon's main
office in Alderdale in March of last year, according to court
documents.  He contends jobs on the farm should have gone to area
residents, instead of workers imported from other countries as
part of the federal guest worker program.

Mr. Ruiz, who worked as a vineyard laborer for Mercer Canyons in
2012, claims he should have been paid $12 an hour for some work
that he wasn't, according to court documents.  Mr. Ruiz also
contends he was not asked back in 2013, as required by the guest
worker program, but did end up working for the farm.

The farm said in court documents that Mr. Ruiz was paid all he was
owed and the farm wasn't required to pay him the higher wage for
the work he did on tasks the foreign workers weren't doing.

The farm also claims that Amador wasn't a seasonal farmworker
since he'd been working at Safeway for 12 years before he
supposedly asked about work available at the farm.

But Judge Bastian wrote that nothing in the Agricultural Worker
Protection Act requires someone to be currently employed as a
seasonal farm worker or to have a specific amount of farm work
experience in order to be protected by the act.

The lawsuit asks for triple damages of up to $25,000 for each
farmworker.  It also asks the court to award any unpaid wages as
well as twice the amount of unpaid wages as damages.


MICHIGAN: Faces Class Action Over Teen Inmate Sexual Assault
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Michigan's prison system is the
target of a class-action lawsuit alleging that guards and other
workers failed to prevent the sexual assault of male teen inmates
who were locked up with adults.

Inmates under 18 were forced to engage in sex acts with adult
prisoners and staff, according to the lawsuit, with some abuse
"open and obvious."  The Corrections Department disputes the
allegations, and state attorneys have argued that employees
shouldn't be held liable.

But after more than a year of litigation, the inmates have some
important victories.  Judge Carol Kuhnke agreed to make the case a
class-action and declared that Michigan's civil rights protections
apply.  More than 200 potential victims have contacted the
lawyers, who also plan to hold meetings at prisons.

The case in Washtenaw County court is led by a legal team that
negotiated a $100 million settlement in 2009 for hundreds of
female prisoners who said they were assaulted or harassed by male
guards.


MICHIGAN: District Court Junks "Reed" Class Complaint vs. MDOC
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge R. Allan Edgar dismissed a civil rights action
brought by Mark Anthony Reed against the Michigan Department of
Corrections (MDOC) and the Keefe Company for failure to state a
claim.

Plaintiff entitled his complaint as a class action, purporting to
represent all similarly situated prisoners.  Plaintiff is
currently confined at the Chippewa Correctional Facility.

Among other things, Plaintiff complained that the procedure for
handling misconducts among prisoners by prison staff is unfair;
the MDOC lowered the nutritional standards in the prisons; and the
MDOC does not provide adequate clothing for its prisoners.

The action is MARK ANTHONY REED, Plaintiff, v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants, Case No. 2:14-cv-211 (W.D. Mich.).

A copy of the judge's Jan. 23, 2015 Order is available at
http://is.gd/Damx9Nfrom Leagle.com.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: J. Rock Can File 3rd Amended Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Richard L. Young granted John Rock leave to
file a third amended version of his antitrust class action
complaint against National Collegiate Athletic Association in a
Jan. 23, 2015 order available at http://is.gd/5HsiuOfrom
Leagle.com.

The complaint is JOHN ROCK, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:12-CV-01019-JMS-DKL.  It
challenges certain regulations instituted by the NCAA, which
include (1) the NCAA's prohibition on multi-year Division 1
football scholarships, and (2) the caps on the number of Division
1 football scholarships that can be awarded by Division 1 member
institutions.

Mr. Rock notes that the only difference between previous version
of his complaint is the definition of the class.

The Court further orders that the NCAA may move to reopen
discovery for the limited purpose of obtaining the information
necessary to effectively examine the opinions and assumptions of
Plaintiff's expert, Daniel A. Rascher. If it does so, Plaintiff
shall assist the NCAA in obtaining that discovery, and all
briefing on Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall
remain stayed.

JOHN ROCK, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel J. Kurowski --
dank@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Elizabeth A.
Fegan -- jenniferc@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO,
LLP, James Piatt -- jpiatt@price-law.com -- PRICE WAICUKAUSKI &
RILEY, Jeff D. Friedman -- jefff@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN
SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Jon T. King -- jonk@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS
BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Joseph N. Williams --
jwilliams@price-law.com -- PRICE WAICUKAUSKI & RILEY, Sara
Willingham, The Paynter LawFirm, Steve W. Berman --
steve@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Stuart
McKinley Paynter, The Paynter Law Firm PLLC & William N. Riley --
wriley@price-law.com -- PRICE WAICUKAUSKI & RILEY.

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Defendant, represented
by Gregory L. Curtner -- gcurtner@schiffhardin.com -- SCHIFF
HARDIN, LLP, Jacob K. Danziger -- jdanziger@schiffhardin.com --
SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP, Jessica A. Sprovstoff --
jsprovstoff@schiffhardin.com -- SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP, Kathy Lynn
Osborn, FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP, Kimberly K. Kefalas --
kkefalas@schiffhardin.com -- SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP, Paul E. Bateman,
Jr. -- pbateman@schiffhardin.com -- SCHIFF HARDIN LLP, Robert
James Wierenga -- rwierenga@chiffhardin.com -- SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP
& Suzanne L. Wahl -- swahl@schiffhardin.com -- SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Judge Recuses Self in "Rock" Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson said there would have been no
basis for her to recuse herself from presiding over John Rock's
claims as set forth in Rock's Second Amended Class Complaint
against the National Collegiate Athletic Association.

But because Mr. Rock has been granted leave to file a Third
Amended Complaint, and because the parties dispute whether any
Butler University football players are members of the newly
proposed putative classes and whether Butler University would be
substantially affected by the requested injunctive relief, Judge
Magnus-Stinson recused herself from the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Sec. 455(a).  The judge directed the action to be returned to the
Office of the Clerk for random reassignment to another District
Judge.

The judge's order came upon John Rock's Motion to Disqualify the
assigned District Judge.  Mr. Rock sought to disqualify Judge
Magnus-Stinson as the presiding judge because the judge joined
Butler University's Board of Trustees in June 2013. Mr. Rock
claimed that this has resulted in a conflict requiring
disqualification pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 455(a), (b)(1), and
(b)(4) because Butler University is a Division I football program
with the NCAA.  The NCAA opposed Mr. Rock's request.

A copy of Judge Magnus-Stinson's Jan. 29, 2015 Order is available
at http://is.gd/HPx4dMfrom Leagle.com.

The complaint is JOHN ROCK, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:12-CV-01019-JMS-DKL.  It
challenges certain regulations instituted by the NCAA, which
include (1) the NCAA's prohibition on multi-year Division 1
football scholarships, and (2) the caps on the number of
Division 1 football scholarships that can be awarded by Division 1
member institutions.

JOHN ROCK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Daniel J. Kurowski, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL
SHAPIRO LLP, Elizabeth A. Fegan, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP,
James Piatt, PRICE WAICUKAUSKI & RILEY, Jeff D. Friedman, HAGENS
BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Jon T. King, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
LLP, Joseph N. Williams, PRICE WAICUKAUSKI & RILEY, Sara
Willingham, The Paynter LawFirm, Steve W. Berman, HAGENS BERMAN
SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Stuart McKinley Paynter, The Paynter Law Firm
PLLC & William N. Riley, PRICE WAICUKAUSKI & RILEY.

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Defendant, represented
by Gregory L. Curtner, SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP, Jacob K. Danziger,
SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP, Jessica A. Sprovstoff, SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP,
Kathy Lynn Osborn, FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP, Kimberly K. Kefalas,
SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP, Paul E. Bateman, Jr., SCHIFF HARDIN LLP,
Robert James Wierenga, SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP & Suzanne L. Wahl,
SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP.


NETHERLANDS INSURANCE: "Addison" Action Remanded to State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Massachussetts district court entered a memorandum and order on
plaintiff's motion to remand in the lawsuit ADDISON AUTOMATICS,
INC., Plaintiff, v. THE NETHERLANDS INSURANCE COMPANY, EXCELSIOR
INSURANCE COMPANY, PRECISION ELECTRONIC GLASS, INC., and PHILLIP
ROSSI, Defendants, CIVIL NO. 14-13710-FDS (D. Mass.).

The action is for declaratory judgment, in which plaintiff Addison
Automatics, Inc. seeks a declaration that defendant Netherlands
Insurance Company has a duty to defend and indemnify defendant
Precision Electronic Glass Company in an action pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Plaintiff originally brought the action in Suffolk Superior Court.
On September 25, 2014, defendants removed the case to the
Massachusetts district court.  Plaintiff filed a motion to remand
the case to state court on October 27, 2014, contending that
defendants did not timely remove the action and the action is not
a class action. Plaintiff also requested fees and costs.

For reasons noted in his order dated Jan. 29, 2015, District Judge
F. Dennis Saylor IV granted the motion to remand.

Addison Automatics, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Alan L.
Cantor, Swartz & Swartz, David M. Oppenheim, Jeffrey A. Berman &
Phillip A. Bock, Bock & Hatch, LLC.

The Netherlands Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Ryan
B. MacDonald -- rmacdonald@sloanewalsh.com -- of Sloane & Walsh.

Excelsior Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Ryan B.
MacDonald, Sloane & Walsh.

Precision Electronic Glass, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lane
N. Goldberg, Goldberg Law.

Phillip Rossi, Defendant, represented by Lane N. Goldberg,
Goldberg Law.


MONARCH TRANSPORTATION: Judge Certifies "Colbert" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Veronica Colbert sought and obtained conditional certification of
the class action complaint she filed, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, against Monarch Transportation LLC for
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Monarch Transportation is a Kansas limited liability company that
provides transportation services for various health and nursing
care facilities in and around Topeka, Kansas. Plaintiff worked as
a Transportation Aide for Monarch. She alleged unpaid overtime
pay, among other things.

In a Jan. 23, 2015 memorandum and order available at
http://is.gd/bEztXNfrom Leagle.com, Chief District Judge J.
Thomas Marten ruled that:

  (a) plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification of Class
      Claims under Sec. 216(b) of the FLSA is GRANTED, and a
      plaintiff opt-in class is certified.  Plaintiff is
      authorized to send out a notice to each potential member of
      the class;

  (b) Defendant, without delay, provide to plaintiff a list of all
      employees constituting the class, with their last known
      addresses, phone numbers, and dates of employment in an
      agreeable format for mailing;

  (c) plaintiff Veronica Colbert is designated class
      representative and her counsel, Rowdy Meeks Legal Group LLC
      and Davis George LLC, is designated as class counsel; and

  (d) plaintiff's request that defendant conspicuously post the
      notice by the time clock used by each currently employed
      putative class member until the opt-in period closes is
      DENIED.

The lawsuit is VERONICA COLBERT v. MONARCH TRANSPORTATION, LLC,
CASE NO. 5:13-CV-4126-JTM-JPO (Kansas).

Veronica Colbert, Plaintiff, represented by Rowdy B. Meeks, Rowdy
Meeks Legal Group, LLC & Tracey F. George, Davis George Mook, LLC.

Monarch Transportation, LLC, Defendant, represented by Alan V.
Johnson -- ajohnson@sloanlawfirm.com -- Sloan, Eisenbarth,
Glassman, McEntire & Jarboe, LLC & Stephen Douglas Lanterman --
slanterman@sloanlawfirm.com -- Sloan, Eisenbarth, Glassman,
McEntire & Jarboe, LLC.


NORTHLAND GROUP: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shaya Bodansky, of himself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Northland Group Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00774
(E.D.N.Y., February 13, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OKLAHOMA: DHS to Close Emergency Shelters as Part of Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Oklahoma Department of Human
Services plans to close a pair of emergency shelters for abused
and neglected children within six to nine months.

Director Ed Lake said the number of children entering foster care
is down. He says foster-home certifications are up and placements
into homes are happening quickly.

"It's encouraging," Mr. Lake said.  "It is not a time to dance on
tables, but it is encouraging."

Officials plan to shutter Tulsa's Laura Dester Shelter and
Oklahoma City's Pauline E. Mayer Shelter.  The closures will make
the state compliant with a goal to eliminate shelter use as part
of a settlement in a 2008 federal class-action lawsuit.

The shelters served as temporary housing until child-welfare
workers could locate suitable foster homes.  The lawsuit alleged
children were left there for too long and was settled three years
ago.

The department eliminated shelter use for infants and toddlers in
2012.  The exact time of the shelter closures depends on how soon
the remaining children can be placed into foster or group homes.

About 115 staff members work in the shelters.  Mr. Lake said
employees wishing to remain with the department will be able to
transition to other child-welfare jobs.

Mr. Lake said he will convene meetings in Tulsa with the shelter's
supporters and stakeholder to discuss future plans.  The campus
could be transformed into transitional living, homes for young
mothers or other community needs.

"This is a community decision," Mr. Lake said.  "We are totally
open to any and all ideas and what happens moving forward."


PASTA LA VISTA: "Alvarado" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Alvarado and Caleb Vivar, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Pasta La Vista, Inc. d/b/a Pazza Notte, Tove
Hansen-Nord, and David Walsh, Case No. 1:15-cv-00998 (S.D.N.Y.,
February 11, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 1375 Avenue
of the Americas, New York, New York 10019.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PETROBRAS: Situation Gets Worse After Fraud Probe, Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Rapoza, writing for Forbes, reports that the situation at
Brazilian oil major Petrobras is getting worse.  As shareholders
now know, on Jan. 29, Moody's downgraded Petrobras' credit rating
to Baa3, one notch above speculative grade.  That is the least of
Petrobras' problems.

Petrobras' president Maria Gracas Foster said the ongoing fraud
investigation into the state controlled oil company could worsen
before it gets better.

"New information from the investigations could cause new
adjustments, like changing the scope of contracts . . .and long
range forecasts," Ms. Foster told Brazilian reporters.  She noted
that Petrobras has already rifled through R$150 million -- or
roughly $70 million -- to pay for legal counsel and other internal
costs associated with the investigation.  Of course, for
Petrobras, this is a drop in the bucket.  But that is not what
investors are worried about.  Three class action lawsuits in the
U.S., plus changes to Petrobras' long term development goals all
point to deteriorating momentum for PBR.

Brazil's Federal Police and courts are investigating a massive
corruption scandal that led to money laundering and political
bribery within the government and with Petrobras construction
partners.  A handful of senior executives from Petrobras have been
arrested and conglomerates like Andrade Gutierrez have been banned
from new construction deals with the company, according to the
Financial Times.  Other construction companies working with
Petrobras on its national refinery projects were arrested last
year, including executives from OAS.

The investigation is akin to a total self-destruction of
Petrobras, long seen as the flagship enterprise of the Brazilian
state, and a source of political if not national pride.

Petrobras, a deep sea exploration and production firm, joined the
A-list of celebrity oil corporations in 2007 when it found large
oil reserves deep under the ocean bedrock off the coasts of Sao
Paulo and Rio de Janeiro states.  The discovery led to a gold rush
in foreign direct investment in Brazil.  If God is a Brazilian, as
the popular saying goes, then Petrobras was His archangel's
corporate office on terra firma.


PIZANO'S PIZZA: Faces "Laplaca" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carolyn Laplaca, individually and on behalf of a class of persons
similarly situated v. Rudy Malnati, Pizano's Pizza & Pasta, Inc.,
61 Madison, Inc. d/b/a Pizano's Pizza & Pasta, Case No. 1:15-cv-
01312 (N.D. Ill., February 11, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate Pizano's Pizza & Pasta restaurant
in Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
      James X. Bormes, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C.
      8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 201-0575
      Facsimile: (312) 332-0600
      E-mail: cpsons@bormeslaw.com
              bormeslaw@sbcglobal.net


PLANET BEAUTY: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Overtime Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik on Feb. 1 disclosed that on
December 9, 2014 the Los Angeles employment law lawyers at
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a class action complaint
alleging that Planet Beauty, Inc. and Beena Beauty Holding, Inc.
failed to pay their California retail store employees the proper
amount of overtime wages and allegedly failed to provide these
employees with meal and rest periods in accordance with California
law.  The Planet Beauty, Inc. class action, Case No. BC566065 is
currently pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court for the
State of California.

According to the class action complaint the beauty supply company
paid their hourly employees commission wages based on their sales
for the company.  The Complaint further claims that as a matter of
law the commission wages received by Planet Beauty's employees
should have been included in the employees' hourly rates, before
the company calculated their employees' correct overtime rates of
pay.  As a result of the alleged illegal overtime calculations
conducted by Planet Beauty, the lawsuit claims other non-exempt
employees working for Planet Beauty were also not correctly paid
all their overtime pay.  The Complaint also seeks penalties for
missed meal breaks because allegedly Planet Beauty did not have a
policy to provide a thirty (30) minute uninterrupted meal break
prior to their employees' fifth (5th) hour of work.

If you are a current or former employee of Planet Beauty, Inc. and
would like to know more about your rights, please contact an
experienced California labor lawyer today by calling (858) 568-
8020.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is a San Diego labor law firm
that dedicates its practice to helping employees, investors and
consumers fight back against unfair business practices, including
violations of the California Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards
Act.  If you need help in collecting unpaid overtime wages,
contact one of their attorneys today by clicking here.


PRIVATE LABEL: Falsely Marketed Green Coffee Products, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Schourup, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Private Label Nutraceuticals LLC d/b/a
Maritzmayer Laboratories, a Georgia limited liability company, and
Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-01026 (C.D. Cal.,
February 11, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's
misrepresentation of its Green Coffee Extract products as a
weight-loss supplement. When in fact, they contain little to no
chlorogenic acid, the effective ingredient in green coffee
extract, contain a sugar compound similar to Maltose and do not
contain green coffee extract.

Private Label Nutraceuticals LLC is a limited liability company
with its principal places of business in Roswell, Georgia that
manufactures nutritional vitamin, supplements and skincare
products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
      Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
      MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
      29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208
      Agoura Hills, CA 91301
      Telephone: (818) 991-8080
      Facsimile: (818) 991-8081
      E-mail: mbradley@marlinsaltzman.com
              kgrombacher@marlinsaltzman.com


RE SPEC CORP: Class Works in Excess of 40 Hours w/o OT, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Edgar Juarez and Ray Mundo Vasquez, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. RE Spec Corp. (d/b/a Jackson Hole and
Soup Stop), 3 K Foods Inc.(d/b/a Jackson Hole and Soup Stop),
George Kalogera, Thomas Kalogera, Dimitri Kalogera, Liliana
Kalogera, and Stelio Kalogera, Case No. 1:15-cv-01057-UA
(S.D.N.Y., February 13, 2015) alleges that the Plaintiffs have
worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without
appropriate compensation for the hours over 40 per week that they
worked.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a chain of fast food
restaurants located in New York City.  The Individual Defendants
are owners, managers, principals, or agents of the Defendant
Corporations.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


REAL FOODS: Recalls Strawberry Trays Due to Misbranding
-------------------------------------------------------
Real Foods in Kent, WA is initiating a voluntary recall of 356
cases (712 units) of Small Heart Strawberry Tray with Devonshire
Dip, due to misbranding and undeclared allergens. The company was
alerted to the issue by a retail operation selling the product,
that the strawberry trays were incorrectly packaged with
Buttermilk Ranch Dressing in place of Devonshire Dip. The
Buttermilk Ranch Dressing contains egg and soy, two known
allergens, which are not declared on the product label. People who
have an allergy or sensitivity to egg and/or soy run the risk of
serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume
these products.

The products subject to the recall:

  STORE       ITEM DESCRIPTION         UPC NUMBER        BEST BY
  -----       ----------------         ----------        -------
Quality Food  1.5# rigid plastic red   0 45009 06411 0  02/16/15
Centers       heart shaped container
              strawberries and dip

Top Foods/    1.5# rigid plastic red   0 45009 06411 0  02/16/15
Haggen        heart shaped container
              of strawberries and dip

Independent   1.5# rigid plastic red   0 45009 06411 0  02/16/15
Grocers       heart shaped container
Alliance      of strawberries and dip
(IGA)

Mckay's       1.5# rigid plastic red   0 45009 06411 0  02/16/15
              heart shaped container
              of strawberries and dip

Thriftway     1.5# rigid plastic red   0 45009 06411 0  02/16/15
including:    heart shaped container
Harvest       of strawberries and dip
Market,
Pick Rite

Food Market At 1.5# rigid plastic red   0 45009 06411 0  02/16/15
Lea Hill       heart shaped container
               of strawberries and dip

A total of 175 cases (350 units) of Small Heart Strawberry Tray
with Devonshire Dip were produced on 02/09/15 and 02/10/15 and
were shipped to a limited number of Quality Food Centers in the
Washington and Oregon areas only. This product was distributed by
Charlie's Produce and sold to Quality Food Centers in the
following cities: Bellevue, WA; Bothell, WA; Edmonds, WA; Everett,
WA; Gig Harbor, WA; Issaquah, WA; Kent, WA; Kirkland, WA;
Lynnwood, WA; Mt. Lake Terrace, WA; Maple Valley, WA; Mercer
Island, WA; Mill Creek, WA; Mukilteo, WA; Newcastle, WA; North
Bend, WA; Pt. Hadlock, WA; Portland, OR; Redmond, WA; Seattle, WA;
Stanwood, WA; and Tacoma, WA.

A total of 163 cases (326 units) of Small Heart Strawberry Tray
with Devonshire Dip were produced on 02/09/15 and 02/10/15 and
were shipped to a limited number of Top Foods and Haggen stores in
the Washington and Oregon areas only. This product was distributed
by Charlie's Produce and sold to Top Foods and Haggen stores in
the following cities: Aberdeen, WA; Auburn, WA; Bellingham, WA;
Burlington, WA; Ferndale, WA; Lake Stevens, WA; Marysville, WA;
Mount Vernon, WA; Puyallup, WA Olympia, WA; Oregon City, OR;
Snohomish WA; Stanwood, WA; Tualatin, OR; and Woodinville, WA.

The remaining 18 cases (36 units) of Small Heart Strawberry Tray
with Devonshire Dip were produced on 02/09/15 and 02/10/15 and
were distributed and sold by Charlie's produce to the following
stores in the following locations: The IGA in Darrington, WA (2
case); The IGA-Orcas Island in Eastsound, WA (2 cases); Mckay's in
Gold Beach and Lincoln City, OR (4 cases), Thriftway on Vashon, WA
(2 cases), Thriftway-Harvest Market in White Salmon, WA (2 cases),
Thriftway-Pick Rite in Montesano, WA (5 cases); Food Market at Lea
Hill in Auburn, WA (1 case).

No other products or code dates are affected by this recall. This
recall is being made with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration.

There have been no adverse reactions or illnesses attributed to
the recalled item to date.

Customers who have purchased this product and are sensitive to soy
and/or egg products or have soy and/or egg allergies should not
consume the above-mentioned product. This product may be returned
to the store where purchased for a full refund.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm434177.htm


REXNORD CORPORATION: Paid Class Action Plaintiff Attorneys' Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2015, for the
fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2014, that the Company's
subsidiaries, Zurn PEX, Inc. and Zurn Industries, LLC ("Zurn
Industries"), were named as defendants in a number of individual
and class action lawsuits in various United States courts. The
plaintiffs in these suits claimed damages due to the alleged
failure or anticipated failure of Zurn brass fittings on the PEX
plumbing systems in homes and other structures.

In July 2012, the Company reached an agreement in principle to
settle the liability underlying this litigation.  The settlement
is designed to resolve, on a national basis, the Company's overall
exposure for both known and unknown claims related to the alleged
failure or anticipated failure of Zurn brass fittings on PEX
plumbing systems, subject to the right of eligible class members
to opt-out of the settlement and pursue their claims
independently.  The settlement received final court approval in
February 2013, and utilizes a seven year claims fund, which is
capped at $20 million, and is funded in installments over the
seven year period based on claim activity and minimum funding
criteria.  The settlement also covers class action plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees and expenses totaling $8.5 million, which were
paid in the first quarter of fiscal 2014.

Historically, the Company's insurance carrier had funded the
Company's defense in the proceedings. The Company, however,
reached a settlement agreement with its insurer, whereby the
insurer paid the Company a lump sum in exchange for a release of
future exposure related to this liability.  The Company has
recorded an accrual related to this brass fittings liability,
which takes into account, in pertinent part, the insurance carrier
contribution, as well as exposure from the claims fund, opt-outs
and the waiver of future insurance coverage.


RIDGEBROOK INVESTMENTS: Minn. Landlords Can Bill Add-on Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
In July 2013, Jeff Persigehl and Samone Bodley filed a class
action complaint questioning the legality of add-on fees relating
to their rented apartment spaces.  The tenants resided in aparment
complexes owned separately by Ridgebrook Investments Limited
Partnership and MNS Investors, LLP.  Both complexes are managed by
Steven Scott Management, Inc. (SSM). SSM contracts with American
Utility Management, Inc. (AUM) to provide utility billing services
for both complexes. Because both apartment complexes are served by
a single meter, AUM pays the total cost of the utility, apportions
the utility costs among the tenants, and then bills each tenant
for his or her share of the utility. Included in each tenant's
lease is a Water/Sewer Utilities and Trash Addendum in which the
tenant agrees to pay AUM these "Add-on Fees": a new-account
activation fee, a monthly administrative fee, a late-payment fee,
and a convenience fee if the tenant pays by credit card.

Under Count 1 of the Complaint, tenants allege alternative claims.
First, they assert that Minn. Stat. Sec. 504B.215 prohibits
landlords from billing tenants for add-on fees. Second, tenants
allege that, if Minn. Stat. Sec. 504B.215 permits landlords to
bill tenants for add-on fees, the fees billed by AUM violate Minn.
Stat. Sec. 504B.215, subd. 2a, which, tenants allege, requires
that add-on fees be equitable and reasonable compared to the
actual cost of the utility service. In Count 2, tenants assert a
claim of unjust enrichment against AUM.

The district court denied the motion to dismiss count one, and
granted the motion to dismiss count two.  The district court also
granted tenants' motion for entry of partial judgment on the
unjust-enrichment claim.

Landlords filed a notice of appeal from the order denying the
motion to dismiss count one. Tenants filed a notice of related
appeal from the same order, challenging the district court's
conclusion that Minn. Stat. Sec. 504B.215 does not prohibit
landlords from billing tenants for add-on fees. Tenants also filed
a separate notice of appeal from the district court's partial
judgment dismissing count two of the complaint.  The Court of
Appeals of Minnesota subsequently consolidated the appeals.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Minnesota considers whether
Minn. Stat. Sec. 504B.215 prohibits a landlord from billing
tenants for fees in connection with a tenant's utility bill;
whether the statute imposes a requirement that those fees be
equitable in comparison to the cost of the utility service itself;
and whether the district court erred in dismissing an unjust-
enrichment claim against the utility administrator who billed
tenants for the fees.

In a Feb. 2, 2015 Opinion available at http://is.gd/7ERC8Lfrom
Leagle.com, the Court of Appeals of Minnesota:

   -- concluded that the certified question is important and
      doubtful and that the statute does not prohibit landlords
      from billing tenants for the fees at issue here;

   -- answered the certified question in the negative; and

   -- affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss the
      unjust-enrichment claim.

The appeals case is Jeff Persigehl and Samone Bodley, individually
and on behalf of the putative classes, Respondents (A14-0027),
Appellants (A14-0123), v. Ridgebrook Investments Limited
Partnership, Appellant (A14-0027), Respondent (A14-0123), MNS
Investors, LLP d/b/a Bar-Ett Investment Company, et al.,
Appellants (A14-0027), Respondents (A14-0123), American Utility
Management, Inc., Appellant (A14-0027), Respondent (A14-0123),
Case Nos. A14-0027, A14-0123.

E. Michelle Drake -- drake@nka.com , Anna P. Prakash --
aprakash@nka.com , Joseph Hashmall -- jhashmall@nka.com , of
Nichols Kaster PLLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for Persigehl and
Bodley.

Richard T. Ostlund -- rostlund@anthonyostlund.com , Brooke D.
Anthony -- banthony@anthonyostlund.com of Anthony, Ostlund, Baer &
Louwagie P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for Ridgebrook Investment
Limited Partnership.

Mark A. Jacobson -- mjacobson@lindquist.com , Karla M. Vehrs --
kvehrs@lindquist.com of Lindquist & Vennum LLP, Minneapolis,
Minnesota, for MNS Investors LLP, et al.

Bradley M. Jones -- bjones@meagher.com , Jeffrey M. Thompson --
jthompson@meagher.com , George H. Norris -- gnorris@meagher.com of
Meagher & Geer, P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for American
Utility Management.


SAN DIEGO COUNTY: Sued Over Failure to Have Blind-Accessible ATM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brett Boyer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. San Diego County Credit Union, Case No. 3:15-cv-00288
(S.D. Cal., February 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to provide ATMs are fully accessible to, and
independently usable by, sight-impaired individuals.

San Diego County Credit Union is a credit union headquartered at
6545 Sequence Drive, San Diego, California 92121. It is San
Diego's largest locally-owned financial institution, and owns and
operates over thirty-six branches in Southern California,
including several in the San Diego-San Marcos area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Meghan Sherry Maertz, Esq.
      Gerald D. Wells III, Esq.
      CONNOLLY WELLS AND GRAY LLP
      2200 Renaissance Boulevard, Suite 308
      King of Prussia, PA 19406
      Telephone: (610) 822-3700
      Facsimile: (610) 822-3800
      E-mail: meghansherry@yahoo.com
              gwells@cwg-law.com


STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE: "Sewell" Class Deal Gets Court OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
A California district judge granted final approval of a class
action settlement in the lawsuit ANDREA SEWELL, CONRAD SILVA, and
EDITH VIERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND,
Defendant, Case No. 3:13-CV-00588-THE (N.D. Cal.).

In a Jan. 26, 2015 Order available at http://is.gd/SmxirXfrom
Leagle.com, District Judge Thelton E. Henderson certified two
classes for purposes of effectuating the Settlement.  The classes
are:

  The "California Settlement Class" refers to "all persons
  employed as a "Payroll Auditor" or "Senior Payroll Auditor" by
  Defendant and who regularly performed officially assigned duties
  outside of an assigned office at any time during the period on
  or after February 11, 2009 through August 27, 2014, and who has
  not validly opted-out."

  The "FLSA Settlement Class" consists of "all persons employed as
  a "Payroll Auditor" or "Senior Payroll Auditor" by Defendant and
  who regularly performed officially assigned duties outside of an
  assigned office at any time during the period on or after April
  4, 2010 through August 27, 2014, who have submitted an opt-in
  claim form in this Action."

The Court approves a payment to the Class Representatives in the
amount of $7,500 to Andrea Sewell and Conrad Silva, each, and
$5,000 to Edith Viera, as an enhancement for the initiation and
pursuit of the action, work performed, and risks undertaken, as
more fully set forth in the moving papers and Class Representative
Declarations. These amounts are separate and apart from any other
recovery to which these Class Representatives might be entitled to
under other provisions of the Settlement Agreement.

Class Counsel is entitled to a fee and accordingly, the Court
approves the application of Class Counsel, (1) Law Offices of
Sohnen & Kelly; and (2) Law Office of Mary-Alice Coleman, in the
total amount of $293,750, which is 25 per cent of the gross
settlement fund, for their attorney's fees and $10,150.35 for
their litigation expenses.

The Court further approves and directs Simpluris, Inc., the
appointed Settlement Administrator, to disburse to:

   A. Participating Settlement Class Members, by check, his/her
      individual Settlement Payment as calculated by the
      Settlement Administrator within 25 days of the "Settlement
      Effective Date" as defined in paragraph 42 of the Settlement
      Agreement;

   B. Class Representatives, the sums of $7,500 to Andrea Sewell
      and Conrad Silva, each, and $5,000 to Edith Viera, by check,
      in addition to any Settlement distribution to which he/she
      is entitled within 15 days of the Settlement Effective Date;

   C. The Law Offices of Sohnen & Kelly and Law Office of Mary-
      Alice Coleman, jointly, by check, the total amount of
      $293,750, for their attorney's fees and $10,150.35 for their
      litigation expenses within 15 days of the Settlement
      Effective Date; and,

   D. Simpluris, Inc. the total amount of $14,000 for
      administration costs and expenses within 15 days of the
      Settlement Effective Date.

   E. Second round Settlement share checks to all participating
      Settlement Class Members from the Settlement Fund who cashed
      first round checks within the 90-day period, within 45 days
      of date of expiration of first round Settlement Class Member
      settlement checks.

   F. Residual funds in the Settlement Fund to the cy pres
      beneficiary no later than 30 days after the end of the 90
      day period for cashing checks in the second round
      distribution.

LAW OFFICE OF MARY-ALICE COLEMAN MARY-ALICE COLEMAN, MICHAEL S.
AHMAD, Davis, CA, LAW OFFICES OF SOHNEN & KELLY HARVEY SOHNEN,
PATRICIA KELLY, Orinda, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiffs ANDREA
SEWELL, CONRAD SILVA, and EDITH VIERA individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated.

MEDINA MCKELVEY LLP Brandon R. McKelvey --
Brandon@medinamckelvey.com -- Attorneys for Defendant STATE
COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND.

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP Mark P. Grajski -- mgrajski@seyfarth.com , Julie
G. Yap -- jyap@seyfarth.com -- Attorneys for Defendant STATE
COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND.


STRAUSS GROUP: Agrees to Change Label of Product Under settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yonah Jeremy Bob, writing for The Jerusalem Post, reports that a
Haifa District Court ruled on Sunday that some of the chocolate
products made by the Strauss Group are just not chocolaty enough.

The court's decision said several of the dairy products produced
by the conglomerate did not contain enough chocolate to be labeled
chocolate -- instead of "chocolate flavored" -- on the packaging.

The most famous of those products was Strauss's Milky chocolate
pudding, which will now have to be labeled "chocolate flavored"
pudding.

The decision came out of a compromise settlement from two class
action cases against Strauss filed by Nadav Avidor and Edward
Gerber.  The plaintiffs alleged that a range of Strauss products
labeled as chocolate -- or having pictures on the packaging
implying they contained chocolate -- were misleading to the public
as the products did not contain any chocolate.  Strauss agreed as
part of the settlement that in the future it will label such
products "chocolate flavored" to clarify to the consumer that the
product does not actually contain chocolate.

Strauss also committed to donating NIS 300,000 in dairy products
to Emek Medical Center in Afula for the benefit of the medical
center's patients.  The parties involved agreed to the donation as
a form of reparation, since identifying consumers who had been
"harmed" or fooled by Strauss's advertising was not considered
possible.

The parties, rather than the court, agreed together on the
organization that would receive the donation.


SYNGENTA CORP: "Hahn" Class Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Hahn v. Syngenta AG, et al.,
Case No. 6:15-cv-00013, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Texas to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Kansas (Kansas City).  The Kansas District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02589-JWL-JPO to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known
as In re: Syngenta AG MIR162 Corn Litigation, MDL No. 2:14-md-
02591-JWL-JPO.

The cases concern the Syngenta defendants' alleged decision to
commercialize corn seeds containing a genetically modified trait,
known as "MIR162," that reportedly controls certain insects.  Corn
with this trait has entered U.S. corn stocks but has not been
approved for import by the Chinese government, which has imposed a
complete ban on U.S. corn with this trait.  The Plaintiffs are
corn growers and grain exporters, who allegedly suffered economic
losses resulting from China's refusal to accept MIR162 corn.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Earley, Esq.
          HARE WYNN NEWELL & NEWTON
          2025 3rd Avenue, Suite 800
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (501) 225-5500
          Facsimile: (501) 225-5501
          E-mail: jason@hwnn.com

               - and -

          William B. Chaney, Esq.
          Hugh A. Fuller, Esq.
          GRAY REED & MCGRAW
          1601 Elm Street, Suite 4600
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 954-4135
          Facsimile: (214) 953-1332
          E-mail: wchaney@grayreed.com
                  afuller@grayreed.com


T. MARZETTI CO: Recalls Garlic Dressing Due to Milk & Eggs
----------------------------------------------------------
The T. Marzetti Co of Columbus, OH is voluntarily recalling 627
cases of LaRosa's Creamy Garlic Dressing in 1.5 oz packets because
the product contains milk and egg allergens that are not declared
on the packet label. The dressing was manufactured correctly and
has always contained milk and egg; however there was an error in
labeling. People who have an allergy to milk and eggs run the risk
of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume
this product.

LaRosa's Creamy Garlic Dressing in packets was distributed
primarily in the greater Cincinnati, OH area with limited
distribution Columbus, OH, Northern KY, and Southeast Indiana.
Product was distributed exclusively through LaRosa's Pizzeria
Restaurants.

The product is labeled LaRosa's Pizzeria Creamy Garlic Dressing in
a single serve 1.5oz packet with the UPC code 70200 80109.

   Restaurant   Item          UPC Number on Packet   Use By Date
   ---------    Description   -------------------    -----------
                -----------
LaRosa's       Creamy Garlic   70200 80109           UB051615C
               1.5 oz packet
LaRosa's       Creamy Garlic   70200 80109           UB052915C
               1.5 oz packet

This recall was initiated after incorrect packaging was discovered
at a LaRosa's Restaurant.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The product in question has been removed from the restaurants.

Consumers with questions may contact the T. Marzetti Co at: 1-800-
999-1835.

Hours: Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5pm. EST

Saturday/Sunday 11:00am - 11:00pm EST

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm434475.htm


TAKATA CORP: Faces "Boyd" Class Suit Over Defective Airbags
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Boyd, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons v. Takata Corporation, TK Holding, Inc., Highland
Industries, Inc., Honda Motor Co., Ltd; American Honda Motor Co.,
Ltd.; Case No. 3:15-cv-00079-JJB-RLB (M.D. La., February 13, 2015)
alleges that Takata designed, manufactured, tested, marketed
millions of defective airbags, which were distributed and sold to
the Vehicle Manufacturer Defendants.

Takata Corporation is a foreign for-profit corporation
headquartered in Tokyo, Japan.  Takata is a specialized supplier
of automotive safety systems that designs, manufactures, tests,
markets, distributes, and sells airbags.  TK Holdings Inc. is a
subsidiary of Takata Corporation headquartered in Auburn Hills,
Michigan.  TK Holdings sells, designs, manufactures, tests, marks,
and distributes airbags in the United States.  Highland
Industries, Inc. is a subsidiary of Takata Corporation and is
headquartered in Greensboro, North Carolina.  Highland
manufactures industrial and automotive textile product solutions,
including airbag fabrics for the automotive airbag industry.

Honda Motor Co., Ltd. is a foreign for profit corporation
headquartered in Tokyo, Japan.  Honda Motor manufactures and sells
motorcycles, automobiles, and power products through independent
retail dealers, outlets, and authorized dealerships primarily in
Japan, North America, Europe, and Asia.  American Honda Motor Co.,
Inc. is a subsidiary of Honda Motor headquartered in Torrance,
California.  American Honda conducts the sale, marketing, and
operational activities for Honda cars, trucks, and sport utility
vehicles automobile parts in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Esq.
          Matthew Moreland, Esq.
          Salvadore Christina, Jr., Esq.
          BECNEL LAW FIRM, LLC
          P.O. Drawer H
          Reserve, LA 70084
          Telephone: (985) 536-1186
          Facsimile: (985) 536-6446
          E-mail: dbecnel@becnellaw.com
                  mmoreland@becnellaw.com
                  schristina@becnellaw.com

               - and -

          Camilo K. Salas III, Esq.
          SALAS & CO., L.C.
          650 Poydras Street, Suite 2000
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 799-3080
          Facsimile: (504) 799-3085
          E-mail: csalas@salaslaw.com


TAKATA CORP: Former Engineer Talks to Plaintiffs' Attorneys
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hans Greimel, writing for Automotive News, reports that a former
Takata Corp. engineer plans to work with plaintiffs' attorneys
against the embattled supplier, arguing that its recalled airbag
inflators suffer a key chemistry flaw.

Turning whistleblower against his former employer, Mark Lillie
said he has been approached by attorneys now trying to assemble a
potential U.S. class action suit against the Japanese supplier.

Mr. Lillie plans to act as a plaintiff witness.

"There's no question that I'll testify.  The question is: Do I
come as an expert, or do I come as someone with knowledge of
Takata in particular?" he said in a telephone interview.

He also said that he is willing to testify on Takata in possible
congressional hearings.

Mr. Lillie left the company in 1999 in a dispute over Takata's
decision to switch to cheaper ammonium nitrate chemistry in its
inflators, a formula he warned was dangerously unstable.

That chemistry has become a central question mark in the recall of
some 24 million vehicles worldwide by 10 carmakers to replace
airbags with Takata-made inflators.  The airbags, which can
explode and spray the cabin with metal shards, have been linked to
five deaths in the United States and one in Malaysia.

Takata maintains that the basic inflator chemistry is safe, even
as automakers conduct millions of safety-improvement recalls of
suspect airbags.  Carmakers say the root cause for some of their
malfunctioning remains unclear.

At Takata, Lillie served as engineering manager at its Moses Lake,
Wash., site, where Takata made propellant tablets and loaded them
into inflators for use in Takata and rival airbags.  The
propellant produces the gas that inflates the bags.

Takata spokeswoman Akiko Watanabe confirmed that Mr. Lillie worked
for the company, but she declined to comment on possible lawsuits.

Takata has acknowledged manufacturing lapses that led to quality
problems.  But Ms. Watanabe said the design is sound: "As long as
they are properly manufactured, they are safe."

An inherent flaw with the propellant, however, could have wide
ramifications.  That is because automakers are replacing recalled
inflators with inflators constructed of similar base chemistry.
Indeed, Ms. Watanabe said Takata's replacement inflators also use
ammonium nitrate and are essentially the same as those being
recalled.

Mr. Lillie said: "They're trying to replace ammonium nitrate-based
inflators with more ammonium nitrate-based inflators.

"You're multiplying your problem. We need to pull all the ammonium
nitrate-based inflators out, and they need to be replaced with a
design that doesn't have this flaw."

Mr. Lillie said he protested Takata's adoption of ammonium
nitrate-based inflators to his supervisors because the chemical is
inherently unstable. The reason: It has five states of solidity
that expand and contract as temperatures change.

"It's like ice in a road in the winter time.  It ends up breaking
the propellant tablet down into a powder," Mr. Lillie said.  "The
powder then burns much, much faster than the tablet."

That run-away combustion, he said, triggers the explosions.  While
conducting a design review of the technology in the spring of
1999, he said, his team was not convinced that Takata had
engineered a reliable way to keep the chemical stable long term.

Despite his plans to testify, possibly as a paid expert witness,
against Takata, Lillie said he's not motivated by money.

"For me, it's an ethical issue," he said.  "If they offered to pay
me, my thinking right now is that I'd take the majority of
whatever they paid me and put it in some fund to help the family
of somebody who was killed or something."


TAURUS FLAVORS: Sued in Ill. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cesar Ramirez-Rojas, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Taurus Flavors, Inc., Kecia Perkins, Case
No. 1:15-cv-01295 (N.D. Ill., February 11, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours
worked more than 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in 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


TIPP FLOOR: Faces "Palaguachi" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Palaguachi, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Tipp Floor Covering, Inc., Thomas Stapleton, and
Michael Stapleton, Case No. 1:15-cv-01008 (S.D.N.Y., February 11,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Tipp Floor Covering, Inc. is a New York corporation that offers
supply and installation of commercial flooring, including carpet,
resilient, cork, epoxy, concrete finishing, rubber, wood,
laminate, wood refinishing, porcelain, subfloor preparation and
self-level.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
      Charles Joseph, Esq.
      JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
      233 Broadway, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10279
      Facsimile: (212) 688-2548
      Telephone: (212) 688-5640
      E-mail: maimon@jhllp.com
              charles@jhllp.com


UTAH: Citizens Seek Class Action Status for DUI Arrest Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ali Monsen, writing for ABC 4 Utah, reports that the attorney
representing a large group of people suing the State of Utah was
preparing to make oral arguments in court.

The State of Utah could lose loads of money if the citizens have
their way.  They claim former Utah Highway Patrol Trooper
Lisa Steed made bogus DUI arrests and that her supervisors
disregarded her illegal behavior.

The group filed as a class action case but is still waiting for
certification from the court.

Ms. Steed was once a 'Utah State Highway Patrol Trooper of the
Year," a rising star in the law enforcement world.  Ms. Steed made
about 400 DUI arrests in just a year, and that is apparently why
her superior nominated her for a national award.

"In his nomination letter, he stated that in that one year, she
had more DUI's than most troopers have in a 20- to 30-year
career!" said Robert Sykes, an attorney who has been working on
the case since January, 2013.

Mr. Sykes says those numbers should have made someone suspicious.
He represents many of the people Steed pulled over for traffic
violations and allegedly accused them of drug and alcohol use,
without 'legitimate, reasonable suspicion.'

"Either the stop was expanded, she falsely failed them on the FST
-- the field sobriety test -- and then she arrested them without
probable cause because she had no basis for it," Mr. Sykes
explained.

Mike Tilt suffers from epilepsy and cerebral palsy.  He says his
medications make him a little shaky.  Mr. Tilt was riding his
bicycle when Ms. Steed stopped him for failing to give a hand
signal, but the situation quickly turned into a DUI investigation,
and Steed pulled out a light.

"She kept turning it -- flipping it -- like this," he gestured.
"I guess to make your pupils dilate even more . . ." Mr. Tilt
said.

Mr. Tilt was taken to jail and later released when his DUI charges
were dropped.  It is people like him who deserve monetary
compensation, according to Sykes.

"This is a trooper who knows what to do and what not to do.  How
does it happen?" he asked.

The Utah Highway Patrol fired Steed in 2012, but Mr. Sykes says
that is not enough.

"This matters because the rule of law matters, because the
constitution of Utah matters.  It matters, and in order to protect
that, we have to allow suits like this -- when you have this type
of egregious abuse by a fundamentally dishonest trooper, who is
lying and cheating to get DUI arrests," he explained.

Sykes also says the trooper's body cams were almost always tilted
so they were not fully capturing the field sobriety tests. He
claims Steed purposefully did that to hide her behavior.

The attorney was set to make his oral arguments in court on
Feb. 9.


VITAMIN COTTAGE: Recalls Organic Garlic Powder Due to Salmonella
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vitamin Cottage Natural Food Markets, Inc., a Lakewood, Colorado-
based natural grocery chain, is recalling two lots of Natural
Grocers brand Organic Garlic Powder as the product has the
potential to be contaminated with Salmonella. Consumption of
products containing Salmonella can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems.

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

This recall was initiated after being notified of positive
Salmonella findings in product sampled by the FDA.

The recalled product is packaged in clear plastic bags with
Natural Grocers label notating Julian pack on dates and pricing
per pound. The product was produced in size ranges of 0.25 pound
to 0.30 pound. The lots being recalled are identified by Julian
packed on date and include: 351-14 and 006-15

The product was distributed to Natural Grocers' 92 stores located
in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington and
Wyoming. Consumers can find the specific locations of Natural
Grocers stores at: http://www.naturalgrocers.com/store-locations.

Only packages bearing the Julian packed on dates listed above are
subject to recall.

To date the company has received no reports of illness. Consumers
who may have purchased this product should return it to the store
for credit or refund.


WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Shahrashian" Suit Over Misbranding
----------------------------------------------------------
Victoria Shahrashian, Individually and on behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Walgreen Co., Target
Corporation, GNC Holdings, Inc., and Does 1- 10, Inclusive, Case
No. 2:15-cv-00978 (C.D. Cal., February 10, 2015), alleges that the
Defendants falsely, unlawfully, unfairly, and deceptively
manufacture, market, distribute and sell to consumers their herbal
dietary supplement products that do not contain the primary herbal
supplement identified on the product labeling and instead contain
other ingredients not identified on the labeling.

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

Walgreen Co. owns and operates a pharmacy and drug retail chain
with more than 8,000 locations across the country.

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

GNC Holdings, Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation that operates the
world's leading nutritional-supplements retail chain devoted to
items such as vitamins, supplements, minerals, and dietary
products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raymond P. Boucher, Esq.
      Shehnaz M. Bhujwala, Esq.
      Maria L. Weitz, Esq.
      BOUCHER LLP
      21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367-4903
      Telephone: (818) 340-5400
      Facsimile: (818) 340-5401
      E-mail: ray@boucher.la
              bhujwala@boucher.la
              weitz@boucher.la


          - and -

      Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
      18250 Ventura Boulevard
      Tarzana, CA 91356
      Telephone: (818) 609-0807
      Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
      E-mail: sahagii@aol.com


WALGREEN CO: Faces "Cintron" Suit Over Product Misbranding
----------------------------------------------------------
Nilsa Cintron, on Behalf of Herself and all Others Similarly
Situated v. Walgreen Co., an Illinois Corporation, Case No. 1:15-
cv-01314 (N.D. Ill., February 11, 2015), alleges that the
Defendants' Finest Nutrition Gingko Biloba, Finest Nutrition St.
John's Wort, Finest Nutrition Ginseng and Finest Nutrition
Echinacea are mislabeled products because they lacks the integral
ingredient listed on the product label. Instead, each contains
contaminants, substitutes and fillers that are not identified on
the product label.

Walgreen Co. owns and operates a pharmacy and drug retail chain
with more than 8,000 locations across the country.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Katrina Carroll, Esq.
      Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
      LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
      Chicago Office
      211 West Wacker Drive, Suite 500
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 750-1265
      E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com
              kshamberg@litedepalma.com

         - and -

      Andrei V. Rado, Esq.
      Henry J. Kelston, Esq.
      MILBERG LLP
      One Pennsylvania Plaza
      New York, NY 10119
      Telephone: (212) 594-5300
      Facsimile: (212) 868-1229
      E-mail: arado@milberg.com
              hkelston@milberg.com

         - and -

      Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
      LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
      Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor
      Newark, NJ 07102
      Telephone: (973) 623-3000
      Facsimile: (973) 877-3845
      E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Faces Class Action Over Landfill Odor
-------------------------------------------------------
Elise Young, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that the reign of
olfactory assault, though, is approaching its end, and with it the
consolation prize of dumping fees from two of the busiest
landfills in the eastern U.S.

One dump is expected to reach capacity well before its
certification lapses in 2019.  The permit for the other expires in
May, and though the state is considering renewal, an "ongoing odor
issue is a factor being considered as part of our review," said
Eric Shirk, a spokesman for the Environmental Protection
Department.

Waste Management Inc., the sites' Houston-based operator,
estimates it has three years to closing, according to
John Hambrose, a company spokesman based in Taylor, Pa. Left for
Tullytown to decide is how a town where the average homeowner pays
$380 in annual property taxes will sustain itself minus the
revenue from 650 garbage trucks arriving daily from Pennsylvania,
New Jersey, New York City and beyond.

"The people who run the borough right now are not going to worry
about that until there's no money," Wilhelmina Conca, a 67-year-
old Tullytown native, said in an interview in her Main Street
antiques shop.  "The landfill has done the town a lot of good, but
I think they have to stop spending money and start thinking about
the future."

When the wind blows from the west, residents in Florence, N.J.,
across the Delaware, are hit with stink that forces some to stay
indoors, according to Trenton-based attorney Kevin Riechelson.  He
filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania in December on behalf of five clients, seeking to
alter how the landfills operate, and is seeking class-action
status.

"There are methods they can use to keep the odors down, to try not
to be a nuisance to the surrounding community," Mr. Riechelson
said by telephone.

Mr. Hambrose declined to comment because the company doesn't
discuss litigation, he said.


WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Divine Treasures 100000 Smooches
-----------------------------------------------------
Whole Foods Market is recalling "Divine Treasures 100000 Smooches"
sold at the Glastonbury, Connecticut location due to an undeclared
peanut allergen. The product was sold in the Glastonbury store
through February 11, 2015 and includes any Divine Treasures
1000000 Smooches with "Sell By" dates through May 6, 2015.

The vegan chocolate candy labeled as "Divine Treasures 100000
Smooches" contained peanuts, a known allergen, which is not
declared due to incomplete wording on the label. People who have
an allergy or severe sensitivity to peanuts run the risk of
serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume this
product.

Signage is posted to notify customers of this recall, and all
affected product has been removed from shelves.

One allergic reaction has been reported.

Consumers who have purchased this product from Whole Foods Market
Glastonbury may bring their receipt to the store for a full
refund. Consumers with questions should contact their local store
or call 617-492-5500 between the hours of 9am and 5pm EST.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm434482.htm


WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Chocolate Cakes Due to Undeclared Eggs
-----------------------------------------------------------
Whole Foods Market is recalling chocolate cake for two produced
and sold in retail stores in the Southwest Region, which includes
TX, OK, LA, AR, due to undeclared egg. People who have an allergy
or severe sensitivity to egg run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.

The product was sold as whole cakes packaged in clear plastic
containers, UPC code 24635700000 with best by dates of 2/3/15 to
2/18/15.

The chocolate cake for two contains egg as an ingredient, which
was not declared on the label.

Signage is posted to notify customers of this recall, and all
affected product has been removed from shelves.

The error was discovered during routine product review. No
allergic reactions or illnesses have been reported to date.

Consumers who have purchased this product from any Whole Foods
Market Southwest stores in TX, OK, LA, and AR may bring their
receipt to the store for a full refund. Consumers with questions
should contact their local store between the hours of 9am and 5pm
CST any day of the week.

Customers may find their nearest Whole Foods Market at
www.wholefoodsmarket.com

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm434431.htm


* Consumers Lose Class-Actions Due to Failure to Read Fine Print
----------------------------------------------------------------
Today's online shoppers aren't bothering to read the fine print
when they shop, and could be giving many of their legal rights if
something goes wrong.  That's the finding of a new survey from
FindLaw.com, a legal information website.

The majority of online shoppers --  54 percent -- say they either
quickly skim or ignore any user agreements, terms of service, or
other legal language that are agreeing to.

Read every word and understand it thoroughly
22%

Read most agreements and try to understand most of it
24%

Quickly read or skim it
34%

Ignore it and don't read it at all
20%

Many e-commerce websites have terms & conditions that limit a
customer's ability to sue in the event of a dispute.  Customers
are instead required to use arbitration.  Some attempts to sue
websites -- either through individual or class-action lawsuits --
have been dismissed by the courts because the customer agreed to
the website's conditions.

"Most people don't realize that they are often giving away some,of
their legal rights when they click 'Agree,'" said Stephanie
Rahlfs, attorney-editor at FindLaw.com.  "Many websites require
that customers scroll through and review legal language and click
a button stating that they agree with the terms before completing
their purchase. But that's largely meaningless if the person
doesn't actually read the agreement.  Courts have tended to uphold
such agreements whether the person actually read them or not,
leaving little or no resource for filing a suit in the event of a
dispute."

The numbers are similar to results from the last time FindLaw.com
conducted this survey in 2011, even though online shopping has
exploded during the same time frame from $200 billion to $300
billion.  But despite buying and spending more, online shoppers
have not learned to pay more attention to what they're agreeing to
when they buy.


                             *********

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  * * *