CAR_Public/150226.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, February 26, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 41


                             Headlines

ABIOMED INC: Oral Arguments Conducted Before First Circuit
AIRSTREAM: Recalls 47 Trailers Due to Loose Propane Tank Tray
ALL AREA ROOFING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
ALLIANT TECHSYSTEMS: MOU Reached in Orbital Stockholder Suit
AMAZON.COM INC: Defending Against "Blagman" Class Action

AMAZON.COM INC: Supreme Court Ruled in "Busk" Class Action
AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR: Class Suit Settlement Declared Effective
AMTECH SYSTEMS: Enters Into MOU to Settle Stockholder Actions
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Brown" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach
ANTHEM INC: Faces "DeVito" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach

ANTHEM INC: Faces "Edwards" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Hills" Suit in Colo. Over Alleged Data Breach
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Mullahey" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Park" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach
ATKINS & FRERES: Recalls Smoked Salmon and Coriander Rillettes

ATLAS ENERGY: Continues to Face Lawsuits Over Mergers
ATLAS ENERGY: Faces Inspired Investors Class Action
AUTOCAR: Recalls 10 Xpert Model Trucks Due to Chassis Issue
AVERITT EXPRESS: Faces "Bray" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
AVX CORP: Accrued $1.2MM in Costs, Expenses Related to Class Suit

BANK OF AMERICA: March 13 Hearing to Approve Garibaldi Settlement
BG GROUP: "Neely" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
BLACKBOARD ANALYTICS: Accused of Gender Bias by Female Ex-Worker
BLUE BIRD: Recalls 32 All American Non-School Bus Model
BLUE BIRD: Recalls 54 All American School Buses

BOUCHAINE VINEYARDS: Lyons Case Stayed Amid Settlement Conference
BYA CORP: Accused of FLSA Wage and Hour Violations in New York
CALAVO GROWERS: Two Securities Class Actions Filed
CASA MARGARITA: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Action Claims
CEVA LOGISTICS: Obtains Initial Approval of Miller Suit Deal

CHICAGO CARRIAGE: Class Suit by Taxi Drivers Dismissed
CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 19,557 Cherokees Over ORC System Defect
CHRYSLER GROUP: Court Denies Bid to Intervene in "Velasco" Case
COVENTRY FIRST: Court Denies Bid to Strike Class Allegations
COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: Arkansas Teacher to Serve as Lead Plaintiff

CORN REFINERS: Squire Patton Boggs Ousted From Corn Syrup Suit
DIAMOND WIPES: Recalls Love & Beauty Lavender Anti-Aging Eye Mask
EASTMAN CHEMICAL: Chancery Court Has Jurisdiction of Virtus Suit
EL TORO: Faces "Tapia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
EMILY HOME: "Garcia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

ESCAPE MEDIA: Sued in Cal. Over Alleged Copyright Infringement
EXTREME NETWORKS: Hearing Today on Summary Judgment Motion
FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: Provides Update on Truck Stop Litigation
FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: Update on Merchant Class Litigation
FORD MOTOR: Recalls 9,956 MKS Cars Due to Door Handle Woes

FORD MOTOR: Recalls 7 Ranger Trucks Due to Airbag Problem
FORENSIC COUNSELORS: "Carr" Suit Remanded to State Court
FOREST LABORATORIES: 1st Cir. Affirms "Marcus" Suit Dismissal
GE DEALER: DBTCA Reviewing Newly-Filed Pleadings
GENERAL MOTORS: Removes "Barros" Injury Suit to M.D. Florida

GENERAL MOTORS: Removes "Unseul" Suit to Florida District Court
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Acadia Model
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Malibu, Malibu MAXX and G6 Models
GERON CORP: Dismissal Bid in "Patel" Suit to be Heard April 10
GOURMET TRADING: Recalls Frontier Soup Mushroom Barley Soup

GROUPON INC: 9th Cir. Vacates Approval of Accord and Remands Case
GRUMA CORP: Sued for Violating Fair Labor Standards Act in Texas
HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Class Action Related to Overdraft Fees Settled
HEARTLAND: Recalls Big Horn and Big Country Model Trailers
HUNTER WARFIELD: Faces "Wilkerson" Suit Alleging EFTA Violations

HYPERDYNAMICS CORPORATION: 2012 Class Action Still in Early Stage
HYPERDYNAMICS CORPORATION: Motion to Consolidate Suits Filed
IC SYSTEM: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y.
INTERSTATE DISTRIBUTOR: Trial Ct. Ruling in Marine Case Reversed
INVENSENSE INC: Faces 3 Class Action Complaints

JB'S SAUSAGE: Recalls Chicken Breading Due to Undeclared Soy
KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN: Faces "Gross" Securities Class Action
KIDDE: Recalls Plastic Valve Disposable Fire Extinguishers
LEUCADIA NATIONAL: March 25 Hearing on Shareholder Suit Accord
MACK: Recalls CXU Model Over Air Brake System Problems

MACK: Recalls LEU Model Due to Defective Door Latches
MACK: Recalls CXU Model Due to Defective Air Brake Systems
MANAC: Recalls Semi-Trailer Model Due to Possible Brake Drag
MCKESSON CORP: Received Share of Class Action Settlements
MEL S. HARRIS: 2nd Cir. Affirms Class Cert. Ruling in Sykes Case

MERCEDES-BENZ: Recalls Sprinter 2500 and Sprinter 3500 Models
METROPOLITAN TEA: Recalls Flavored Teas Due to Undeclared Milk
MICROSEMI CORP: Obtains Final Approval of "Williamson" Suit Deal
NEWMAR: Recalls King Aire & Essex Class A Motorhomes
NEWMAR: Recalls King Aire Class A Motorhome Model

MOONBEAM CAPITAL: Sued Over Wheelchair-Inaccessible Facilities
NISSAN: Recalls Pathfinder, QX60 and Rogue Models
OUTERWALL INC: Plaintiff in "Piechur" Action Files Appeal
OUTERWALL INC: 7th Circuit Affirmed Ruling in "Boesky" Action
PACCAR: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models

PELLA CORP: Class Rep. Deposition to be Completed in March
PETER THE CHEF: Recalls Compliments Traditional Cannelloni
PREMIER POLMAREX: Recalls Olza Prince Polo Choc. Covered Wafers
R.J. REYNOLDS: Corrected Opinion Entered in "Baker" Case
RDIO INC: Sued in N.D. Cal. Over Alleged Copyright Infringement

REGENCY ENERGY: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Company Sale
SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: To Defend v. Morning Song Bird Food Suit
SEA GULL: Recalls Chandeliers Due to Risk of Fall
SEARS CANADA: Recalls Bean Bag Chairs
SIRIUS XM: To Appeal Ruling in Pre-1972 Sound Recording Cases

SIRIUS XM: Seeks Indemnification From Call Center Vendors
SONY COMPUTER: Sued in Cal. Over Alleged Copyright Infringement
STOCKLOTS DISTRIBUTION: Recalls Boys Print Fleece Top with Hood
SUNBEAM: Recalls Bionaire and Sunbeam Oil Filled Heaters
T & K HOSPITALITY: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

TALK4LESS LLC: Faces "Roberts" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TASTE OF COUNTRY: Recalls Chicken Pie Due to Undeclared Milk
TAYLOR FARMS: Judge Narrows Class in Hourly Workers' Suit
TJX CANADA: Recalls Masala Maza Korma Simmer Sauce
TOTALLY GLUTEN: Recalls Pizzas Due to Undeclared Mustard

TOYOTA: Recalls FJ Cruiser Model Due to Possible Loss of Steering
TRIUMPH PROPERTY: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Says
TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Settled With Former Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES: Court Tosses Motion to Dismiss Immigrants' Case
UNITED STATES: Suit Against Retirement Systems Dept. Remanded

WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Lowe" Suit Over Product Misbranding
WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Myers" Suit in Indiana District Court
WATSON LABORATORIES: Direct Purchasers Obtain Final Judgment
WHITE HALL: Removes "Hartman" FLSA Suit to N.D. West Virginia

* Percentage of Women Lawyers in Top Positions Low, NAWL Says


                            *********


ABIOMED INC: Oral Arguments Conducted Before First Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Oral arguments in a class action appeal were conducted before the
First Circuit on January 8, 2015, Abiomed, Inc. said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31,
2014.

On November 16 and 19, 2012, two purported class action complaints
were filed against the Company and certain of its officers in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, or the
District Court, by alleged purchasers of its common stock, on
behalf of themselves and persons or entities that purchased or
acquired common stock of the Company between August 5, 2011 and
October 31, 2012. The complaints alleged that the defendants
violated the federal securities laws in connection with
disclosures related to the Company's marketing and labeling of the
Impella 2.5 product and seek damages in an unspecified amount. The
District Court consolidated these complaints and a consolidated
amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs on May 20, 2013.

On July 8, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action. Oral arguments on the Company's motion
to dismiss were conducted before the District Court on September
18, 2013.

On April 10, 2014, the District Court entered an order granting
the Company's motion and dismissed the consolidated and amended
complaint. On May 9, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal, and subsequently filed their appellate brief with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, or the First Circuit, on
July 16, 2014. Oral arguments were conducted before the First
Circuit on January 8, 2015.

"We are currently awaiting the ruling of the First Circuit court,"
the Company said.


AIRSTREAM: Recalls 47 Trailers Due to Loose Propane Tank Tray
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 9, 2015
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Travel Trailer
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Structure
Units affected:           47
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2015057
TC ID number:             2015057

On certain travel trailers, the Propane tank trays may not have
been properly fastened to the trailer due to faulty screws.  If
the tray was to come loose from the trailer, the tanks could fall
off the trailer causing personal injury and/or property damage.
If the tanks were to contain propane at the time of failure, this
would also increase the risk of explosion and/or fire causing
injury and/or damage to property.  Correction: Dealers will
replace the faulty screws with bigger bolts.

Affected products:

   Maker        Model               Model year(s) affected
   -----        -----               ----------------------
   AIRSTREAM    LAND YACHT          2014, 2015
   AIRSTREAM    INTERNATIONAL       2014, 2015
   AIRSTREAM    FLYING CLOUD        2014, 2015
   AIRSTREAM    EDDIE BAUER         2014, 2015
   AIRSTREAM    SPORT               2014, 2015


ALL AREA ROOFING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Comer, Tommie Johnson, and Darrell Brown v. All Area
Roofing & Waterproofing, Inc., All Area Roofing & Construction,
Inc., and Jennifer Richards, Case No. 2:15-cv-14049-RLR (S.D.
Fla., February 17, 2015) is brought against the Defendants to
recover unpaid wages, compensation and damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The Defendants are the Plaintiff's employer and a corporation
conducting business in Florida.  Jennifer Richards had operational
control over the Plaintiff's corporate employer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd William Shulby, Esq.
          TODD W. SHULBY, P.A.
          2800 Weston Road, Suite 101
          Weston, FL 33331
          Telephone: (954) 530-2236
          Facsimile: (954) 530-6628
          E-mail: tshulby@shulbylaw.com


ALLIANT TECHSYSTEMS: MOU Reached in Orbital Stockholder Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Alliant Techsystems Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended December 28, 2014, that a Memorandum of
Understanding was reached in the case Orbital Sciences Corporation
Stockholder Litigation, providing for the settlement in principle
of all claims asserted in the action, subject to the approval of
the court.

On May 5, 2014, a purported stockholder class action and
derivative complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Arlington
County, Virginia by Michael Blank, who claims to be a stockholder
of Orbital Sciences Corporation, alleging, among other things,
that the directors of Orbital breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the Transaction between Orbital and ATK, and
alleging that ATK aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary
duty. A similar purported class action was filed on May 9, 2014,
by Gregory Ericksen in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware. Plaintiffs in Virginia and Delaware seek, among other
relief, to enjoin the Transaction (or, in the Delaware action, to
rescind it in the event it is consummated).

On January 16, 2015, following arm's-length negotiation, the
parties to In re Orbital Sciences Corporation Stockholder
Litigation, C.A. No. 9635-VCN, entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding ("MOU") providing for the settlement in principle of
all claims asserted in the action, subject to the approval of the
court.  Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, Orbital and ATK agreed
to make additional information available to Orbital's
stockholders.  That additional information, which should be read
in concert with the previously filed joint proxy
statement/prospectus, was included in a Form 8-K filing by Orbital
on January 16, 2015.  In addition, the defendants agreed to
negotiate in good faith with plaintiffs' counsel regarding an
appropriate amount of fees and expenses to be paid to plaintiffs'
counsel by Orbital or its successor.

ATK, Orbital and the other defendants continue to deny all of the
allegations in the lawsuit and believe the disclosures in the
joint proxy statement/prospectus are adequate under the law.
Nevertheless, ATK, Orbital and the other defendants have agreed to
settle the lawsuit for legal expenses incurred to date in order to
avoid the burden, expense, distraction and uncertainties inherent
in further litigation.

If approved by the court, the settlement provides for dismissal
with prejudice of the lawsuit and provides for the release of any
and all claims arising from the merger, except for those relating
to any alleged material inaccuracy in ATK's historical financial
statements.

There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter
into a definitive settlement agreement or that the court will
approve the settlement. In such event, or if the merger is not
consummated for any reason, the proposed settlement will be null
and void and of no force and effect. Payments made in connection
with the settlement, which are subject to court approval, are not
expected to be material. The settlement will not affect the
consideration to be received by Orbital's stockholders in the
merger or the timing of the anticipated closing of the merger.


AMAZON.COM INC: Defending Against "Blagman" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Amazon.Com, Inc. continues to defend against a purported class-
action complaint by Norman Blagman, the Company said in its Form
10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 30, 2015, for the fiscal year period ended December 31,
2014.

In July 2012, Norman Blagman filed a purported class-action
complaint against Amazon.com, Inc. for copyright infringement in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

"The complaint alleges, among other things, that Amazon.com, Inc.
sells digital music in our Amazon MP3 Store obtained from
defendant Orchard Enterprises and other unnamed "digital music
aggregators" without obtaining mechanical licenses for the
compositions embodied in that music. The complaint seeks
certification as a class action, statutory damages, attorneys'
fees, and interest. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and
intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter," the Company
said.


AMAZON.COM INC: Supreme Court Ruled in "Busk" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court ruled in the "Busk" class action that time spent
waiting for and undergoing security screening is not compensable
working time under the federal wage and hour statute, Amazon.Com,
Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on January 30, 2015, for the fiscal year
period ended December 31, 2014.

Beginning in August 2013, a number of complaints were filed
alleging, among other things, that Amazon.com, Inc. and several of
its subsidiaries failed to compensate hourly workers for time
spent waiting in security lines and otherwise violated federal and
state wage and hour statutes and common law. In August 2013, Busk
v. Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. and Amazon.com, Inc. was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada, and Vance v. Amazon.com, Inc., Zappos.com Inc., another
affiliate of Amazon.com, Inc., and Kelly Services, Inc. was filed
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky. In September 2013, Allison v. Amazon.com, Inc. and
Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington, and Johnson
v. Amazon.com, Inc. and an affiliate of Amazon.com, Inc. was filed
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky. In October 2013, Davis v. Amazon.com, Inc., an affiliate
of Amazon.com, Inc., and Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. was
filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee.

The plaintiffs variously purport to represent a nationwide class
of certain current and former employees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and/or state-law-based subclasses for certain
current and former employees in states including Arizona,
California, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Kentucky, and Nevada,
and one complaint asserts nationwide breach of contract and unjust
enrichment claims. The complaints seek an unspecified amount of
damages, interest, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees.

"We have been named in several other similar cases. In December
2014, the Supreme Court ruled in Busk that time spent waiting for
and undergoing security screening is not compensable working time
under the federal wage and hour statute. We dispute any remaining
allegations of wrongdoing and intend to defend ourselves
vigorously in these matters," the Company said.


AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR: Class Suit Settlement Declared Effective
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American Superconductor Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5,
2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement reached in the securities
class action complaints became effective June 5, 2014.

Between April 6, 2011 and May 12, 2011, seven putative securities
class action complaints were filed against the Company and two of
its officers in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts (the "Court"); one complaint additionally
asserted claims against the underwriters who participated in its
November 12, 2010 securities offering. On June 7, 2011, the Court
consolidated these actions under the caption Lenartz v. American
Superconductor Corporation, et al., Docket No. 1:11-cv-10582-WGY.

On August 31, 2011, Lead Plaintiff, the Plumbers and Pipefitters
National Pension Fund, filed a consolidated amended complaint
against the Company, its officers and directors, and the
underwriters who participated in its November 12, 2010 securities
offering, asserting claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act, as well as
under sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act.

On November 19, 2013, the Company entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement (the "Stipulation"), which resolved the
claims asserted against the Company, certain of its current and
former officers and directors, and the underwriters. The terms of
the Stipulation provided, among other things, a settlement payment
by the Company of $10.0 million, $8.2 million of which was to be
funded by the Company's insurers and $1.8 million of which was
paid through the issuance of 944,882 shares of its common stock
(the "Settlement Shares").

In the event that the value of the Settlement Shares (as
calculated under the Stipulation) decreased as of the effective
date of the settlement, the Company was required to make a cash
payment for the difference in value.  The effective date of the
Stipulation was June 5, 2014 (the "Effective Date").

Pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation, (i) on June 11, 2014,
the Company made a cash payment of approximately $0.5 million for
the decrease in value of the Settlement Shares (as calculated
under the Stipulation) as of the Effective Date, and (ii) on June
18, 2014, the Company issued the Settlement Shares.  The issuance
of the Settlement Shares was exempt from registration pursuant to
Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act.  The payments by the
Company represented the final amounts to be paid to the plaintiffs
under the Stipulation.


AMTECH SYSTEMS: Enters Into MOU to Settle Stockholder Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amtech Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the Company and BTU
International, Inc., along with the other defendants, entered into
a memorandum of understanding to settle stockholder class actions.

The Company and its subsidiaries are defendants from time to time
in actions for matters arising out of their business operations.
On October 21, 2014, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") by and among the Company,
BTU Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Merger Sub"),
and BTU International, Inc. a Delaware corporation ("BTU").
Shortly after the Company entered into the Merger Agreement with
BTU, two separate putative stockholder class action complaints
were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
(together, the "Stockholder Actions"). The first was filed on
November 4, 2014 and the second on November 17, 2014, purportedly
on behalf of BTU's public stockholders, against BTU, the members
of the BTU Board, Amtech and Merger Sub. The Stockholder Actions
were consolidated into one action on December 4, 2014.

These complaints generally allege, among other things, that the
members of BTU's board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties owed to BTU's public stockholders by failing to engage in a
competitive sale and bidding process, by causing BTU to enter into
the Merger Agreement and by approving the merger, and that the
Company and Merger Sub aided and abetted such alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties. These complaints further allege that these
fiduciary breaches gave the Company an unfair advantage as a
result of BTU's alleged failure to solicit other potential
acquirers and also that the Merger Agreement improperly favors the
Company and unduly restricts BTU's ability to negotiate with other
potential bidders. The complaint generally seeks, among other
things, declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the alleged
fiduciary breaches, injunctive relief prohibiting the Company,
Merger Sub, and BTU from consummating the Merger, other forms of
equitable relief, and compensatory damages.

On January 16, 2015, the Company and BTU, along with the other
defendants named therein, entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "MOU") to settle the Stockholder Actions.
Pursuant to the MOU, the parties to the Stockholder Actions agreed
to resolve the claims alleged and the Company and BTU agreed to
make certain additional disclosures regarding the Merger. The MOU
is expected to be memorialized in a stipulation of settlement,
which will be subject to customary terms and conditions, including
court approval, and will include an agreement by the plaintiffs in
the Stockholder Actions, on behalf of each stockholder class, to
provide a release of all claims against the Company and BTU, along
with the other defendants named therein, subject to an exception
for certain securities law claims. In addition, as part of the
settlement, BTU has agreed to be responsible for the payment of
certain amounts in plaintiffs' attorney fees and expenses in
connection with the settlement. The Company and BTU entered into
the MOU solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties
inherent in litigation and without admitting any liability or
wrongdoing. There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
court will approve such settlement. In such event, the proposed
settlement as contemplated by the MOU may be terminated.
The merger was consummated on January 30, 2015. The plaintiffs'
attorney fees and expenses will be reflected as a liability on the
opening balance sheet of BTU on the date of the merger.


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Brown" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alyce G. Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Anthem, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00710 (N.D. Cal.,
February 13, 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:

      Karen H. Riebel, Esq.
      Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
      Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
      100 Washington Ave. South, Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Telephone: (612) 339-6900
      Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
      E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com
              hmsilton@locklaw.com
              kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com

            - and -

      Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
      CARPENTER LAW GROUP, APC
      402 West Broadway 29th Floor
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 756-6994
      Facsimile: (619) 756-6990
      E-mail: Todd@Carpenterlawyers.com


ANTHEM INC: Faces "DeVito" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer DeVito Jigarjian, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-
cv-00316 (S.D. Cal., February 13, 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:

      Stephen Richard Basser, Esq.
      BARRACK RODOS AND BACINE
      One America Plaza
      600 West Broadway, Suite 900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 230-0800
      Facsimile: (619) 230-1874
      E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Edwards" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kellen Edwards and George Nicoud, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:15-cv-00318 (S.D. Cal., February 13, 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:

      Jason S. Hartley, Esq.
      STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
      550 West C Street, Suite 1750
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 400-5822
      Facsimile: (619) 400-5832
      E-mail: hartley@stuevesiegel.com

         - and -

      Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
      Barrett J. Vahle, Esq.
      J. Austin Moore, Esq.
      STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
      460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
      Kansas City, MO 64112
      Telephone: (816) 714-7100
      Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
      E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
              vahle@stuevesiegel.com
              moore@stuevesiegel.com

         - and -

      Joseph M. Barton, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH M. BARTON
      628 Manzanita Avenue
      Corte Madera, CA 94925
      Telephone: 415-235-9162
      E-mail: joebartonesq@gmail.com

        - and -

      John K. Landay, Esq.
      LANDAY ROBERTS LLP
      450 J Street, Unit 5291
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (805) 305-3384
      E-mail: jlanday@landayroberts.com


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Hills" Suit in Colo. Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Hills, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Anthem, Inc., an Indiana corporation, Case No. 1:15-
cv-00314 (D. Colo., February 13, 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:

      Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
      Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
      WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
      3900 E Mexico Ave., Suite 300
      Denver, CO 80210
      Telephone: (970) 673-9075
      Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
      E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
              ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Mullahey" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
Steven Mullahey, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Anthem Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00138
(M.D. Tenn., February 13, 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 Kent Bramlett, Esq.
      Robert P. Bramlett, Esq.
      BRAMLETT LAW OFFICES
      P.O Box 150734
      Nashville, TN 37215
      Telephone: (615) 248-2828
      Facsimile: (615) 254-4116
      E-mail: pknashlaw@aol.com
              robert@bramlettlawoffices.com

         - and -

      Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-4600
      Facsimile: (212) 545-4653
      E-mail: burt@whafh.com


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Park" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gloria K. Park, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-00709 (N.D.
Cal., February 13, 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:

      Gordon M. Fauth Jr., Esq.
      Rosanne L. Mah, Esq.
      LITIGATION LAW GROUP
      1801 Clement Avenue, Suite 101
      Alameda, CA 94501
      Telephone (510) 238-9610
      Facsimile (510) 337-1431
      E-mail: gmf@classlitigation.com
              rlm@classlitigation.com


ATKINS & FRERES: Recalls Smoked Salmon and Coriander Rillettes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 5, 2015
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Egg, Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Atkins & Freres Inc.
Distribution:             Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9619

Atkins & Freres Inc. is recalling Atkins & Freres brand Smoked
Salmon and Coriander Rillettes from the marketplace because they
contain mustard and egg which are not declared on the label.
People with an allergy to mustard or egg should not consume the
recalled products.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home.  Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

If you have an allergy to mustard or egg, do not consume the
recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening
reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of these products.

The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
(CFIA) inspection activities.  The CFIA is conducting a food
safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other
products.  If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will
notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled products
from the marketplace.


ATLAS ENERGY: Continues to Face Lawsuits Over Mergers
-----------------------------------------------------
Atlas Energy Group, LLC said in an exhibit to its Amendment No. 4
To FORM 10 Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on January 30, 2015, that since the announcement on
October 13, 2014 of the Atlas Merger and the APL Merger, Atlas
Energy, APL and the other parties to the mergers have been named
as defendants in putative stockholder class action complaints
challenging the transactions.

The Company said, "Although New Atlas has not been named as a
defendant in these complaints, certain of our expected officers
have been named as defendants, and the litigation could delay or
impede the consummation of the separation and distribution."

"As of January 30, 2015, we are aware that Atlas Energy, Atlas
Energy's general partner, Targa Resources, Trident GP Merger Sub
LLC (a subsidiary of Targa Resources created in connection with
the Atlas Merger), and the members of the Atlas Energy board,
including Edward E. Cohen and Jonathan Z. Cohen, New Atlas's
expected Chief Executive Officer and Executive Chairman, have been
named as defendants in two putative stockholder class action
complaint challenging the Atlas Merger filed in the Court of
Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. These cases are
captioned: Rick Kane v. Atlas Energy, L.P., et al., Case No. GD-
14-019658 (Pa. Ct. Comm. Pls. Oct. 22, 2013) and Jeffrey Ayers v.
Atlas Energy, L.P., et al., Case No. GD-14-020255 (Pa. Ct. Comm.
Pls. Nov. 3, 2014) (the "ATLS Lawsuits"). The ATLS Lawsuits were
consolidated as In re Atlas Energy, L.P. Unitholder Litigation,
Case No. GD-14-019658, in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania (the "Consolidated ATLS Lawsuit"), although
the Kane litigation has since been voluntarily dismissed. We are
also aware that APL, APL's general partner, Atlas Energy, Targa
Resources, Targa Resources Partners, Targa Resource Partners'
general partner, Trident MLP Merger Sub LLC (a subsidiary of Targa
Resources Partners created in connection with the APL Merger), and
the members of the APL board, including Edward E. Cohen and
Jonathan Z. Cohen, New Atlas's expected Chief Executive Officer
and Executive Chairman, have been named as defendants in five
putative stockholder class action complaints challenging the APL
Merger, four filed in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania and one filed in the District Court of Tulsa
County, Oklahoma. These cases are captioned: Michael Envin v.
Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. GD-14-019245 (Pa.
Ct. Comm. Pls. Oct. 17, 2013), Greenthal Living Trust U/A 01/26/88
v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. GD-14-020108
(Pa. Ct. Comm. Pls. Oct. 31, 2014), Mike Welborn v. Atlas Pipeline
Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. GD-14-020729 (Pa. Ct. Comm. Pls.
Nov. 10, 2014), Irving Feldbaum v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P.,
et al., Case No. GD-14-22208 (Pa. Ct. Comm. Pls. Dec. 5, 2014) and
William B. Federman Family Wealth Preservation Trust v. Atlas
Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. CJ-2014-04087 (Okla. D.
Ct. Oct. 28, 2014) (the "APL Lawsuits" and, together with the ATLS
Lawsuits, the "Lawsuits"). The Evnin, Greenthal, Welborn and
Feldbaum APL Lawsuits have been consolidated as In re Atlas
Pipeline Partners, L.P. Unitholder Litigation, Case No. GD-14-
019245, in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania (the "Consolidated APL Lawsuit").

"The lawsuits generally allege that the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duties and/or contractual obligations by,
among other things, failing to obtain sufficient value for the
Atlas Energy and APL unitholders in, respectively, each of the
Atlas Energy Merger and the APL Merger, agreeing to certain terms
in each of the merger agreements that allegedly restrict the
defendants' ability to obtain a more favorable offer, favoring
their self-interests over the interests of ATLS and APL
unitholders, and omitting material information from the Proxy
Statements. The lawsuits further allege that those breaches were
aided and abetted by some combination of Atlas Energy, APL, Targa
Resources, Targa Resources Partners, or various affiliates of
those entities named above. The plaintiffs seek, among other
things, injunctive relief, unspecified compensatory and/or
rescissory damages, attorney's fees, other expenses, and costs."


ATLAS ENERGY: Faces Inspired Investors Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Atlas Energy Group, LLC said in an exhibit to its Amendment No. 4
To FORM 10 Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on January 30, 2015, that a putative stockholder class
action and derivative lawsuit, captioned Inspired Investors v.
Perkins et. al., Case No. 2015-04961, was filed on January 28,
2015, purportedly on behalf of Targa Resources Corp. shareholders
in the District Court of Harris County, Texas. The lawsuit names
Atlas Energy and the individual members of the board of directors
of Targa Resources Corp. as defendants and Targa Resources Corp.
as a nominal defendant. The lawsuit generally alleges that the
individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by, among
other things, omitting purportedly material information from the
registration statement on Form S-4 that Targa Resources Corp.
initially filed with the SEC on November 20, 2014 and most
recently amended on January 22, 2015. The lawsuit seeks, among
other things, injunctive relief and unspecified recissory damages,
attorney's fees, interest, and costs.


AUTOCAR: Recalls 10 Xpert Model Trucks Due to Chassis Issue
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            January 29, 2015
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Structure
Units affected:           10
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2015042
TC ID number:             2015042
Manufacturer recall
number:                   M-1408

Certain Xpert chassis vehicles may experience a bounce condition
while traveling 40km\h or faster, related to chassis flexibility
and body configuration.  The bounce condition may be surprising or
unnerving to the operator.  This could result in a loss of driver
control of the vehicle, increasing the risk of a crash causing
injury and/or damage to property.

The vehicle will be re-calibrated with an updated calibration
program.  This updated calibration will correct the issue.

Note: This is an expansion of recall 2014394.

Affected products: 2012 Autocar


AVERITT EXPRESS: Faces "Bray" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
James M. Bray and Barbara Stabler v. Averitt Express Inc., Case
No. 7:15-cv-00267 (N.D. Ala., February 13, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours
worked over 40 in a workweek.

Averitt Express Inc. provides supply chain management services to
MBUSI at the Vance Alabama Plants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dennis George Pantazis Jr., Esq.
      WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER & GOLDFARB
      The Kress Building
      301 19th Street North
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 314-0557
      Facsimile: (205) 254-1500
      E-mail: dpantazisjr@wigginschilds.com


AVX CORP: Accrued $1.2MM in Costs, Expenses Related to Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AVX Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the Company had
$1,200,000 in accrued costs and expenses with respect to a class
action lawsuit as of December 31, 2014.

"On November 27, 2007, a suit was filed in South Carolina State
Court by individuals as a class action with respect to property
adjacent to our Myrtle Beach, South Carolina factory claiming
property values were negatively impacted by alleged migration of
certain pollutants from our property. The parties agreed to a
$1,200 settlement of the action, which was approved by the Court
on December 15, 2014. We have $1,200 in accrued costs and expenses
with respect to this case as of December 31, 2014," the Company
said.


BANK OF AMERICA: March 13 Hearing to Approve Garibaldi Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan Ilston approved a second stipulation by
Plaintiff Sheri Garibaldi and Defendant Bank of America, N.A. to
continue the filing deadline and hearing date on plaintiff's
motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement.

The judge's order was entered in the lawsuit SHERI GARIBALDI, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, and DOES 1 through 10,
Defendants, Case No. 3:13-CV-02223-SI, (N.D. Cal.).  A copy of the
Feb. 11, 2015 order is available at http://is.gd/ZMvkshfrom
Leagle.com.

Specifically, February 27, 2015 is the Plaintiff's deadline to
file her motion for preliminary approval of the class action
settlement.

A March 13, 2015, 9:00 a.m. hearing will be convened to consider
Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval.

McGUIREWOODS LLP, Matthew C. Kane, Michael D. Mandel, John A. Van
Hook, Christopher Killens, Los Angeles, California, Attorneys for
Defendant BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.

BAKER & SCHWARTZ LAW PRACTICE, Chris Baker, San Francisco,
California, Attorneys for Plaintiff, SHERI GARIBALDI.


BG GROUP: "Neely" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bobby Neely, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v.
The BG Group, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Case No.
9:15-cv-80192 (S.D. Fla., February 13, 2015), seeks to recover
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and costs and
reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The BG Group, LLC is a Florida limited liability company that
specializes in demolition, asbestos abatement, excavation and
recycling.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Camar Ricardo Jones, Esq.
      THE SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
      1515 South Federal Hwy., Suite 404
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 447-8888
      Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
      E-mail: cjones@shavitzlaw.com


BLACKBOARD ANALYTICS: Accused of Gender Bias by Female Ex-Worker
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vicki Katz v. Blackboard Analytics, a Division of Blackboard,
Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-02596-DDC-JPO (D. Kan., February 17, 2015)
alleges that during the entirety of the Plaintiff's employment
with the Defendant, she was compensated less than similarly
situated men for similar work, which required similar skill.

Ms. Katz is a female resident of Overland Park (Johnson County),
Kansas.  She was employed by Blackboard working from her home in
Overland Park, Kansas.  She alleges that the Defendant wrongfully
terminated her from employment because of her gender and because
she complained about unfair treatment and pay.

Blackboard, Inc. is a Delaware for profit corporation doing
business in the state of Kansas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark V. Dugan, Esq.
          Heather J. Schlozman, Esq.
          DUGAN SCHLOZMAN LLC
          8826 Santa Fe, Suite 307
          Overland Park, KS 66212
          Telephone: (913) 322-3528
          Facsimile: (913) 894-1686
          E-mail: mark@duganschlozman.com
                  heather@duganschlozman.com


BLUE BIRD: Recalls 32 All American Non-School Bus Model
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 4, 2015
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Bus
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Emissions
Units affected:           32
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2015051
TC ID number:             2015051
Manufacturer recall
number:                   R15YB-C

On certain buses, the exhaust system hanger may fail, possibly
causing damage to the Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) and
Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) housings.  Should this occur, the
housings could separate and become a road hazard, posing a risk to
motorists and bystanders.

Dealers will provide new bolted hanger assemblies and support
cables.

Affected products: 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 BLUE
Bird All American Non-School Bus


BLUE BIRD: Recalls 54 All American School Buses
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 4, 2015
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              School Bus
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Emissions
Units affected:           54
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2015050
TC ID number:             2015050
Manufacturer recall
number:                   R15YB-C

On certain school buses, the exhaust system hanger may fail,
possibly causing damage to the Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)
and Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) housings.  Should this occur,
the housings could separate and become a road hazard, posing a
risk to motorists and bystanders.

Correction: Dealers will provide new bolted hanger assemblies and
support cables.

Affected products: 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 Blue
Bird All American School Bus


BOUCHAINE VINEYARDS: Lyons Case Stayed Amid Settlement Conference
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen signed on February 18, 2015, an
amended stipulation and order referring the case captioned SHERI
LYONS, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. BOUCHAINE VINEYARDS, INC., Defendant, CASE
NO. 3:14-CV-4869 EMC, (N.D. Cal.) to an early settlement
conference and staying proceedings pending the settlement
conference.

The parties believe that a stay of this case until 30 days after
the requested settlement conference will allow the parties to
focus their efforts on settlement negotiations, will preserve
scarce judicial resources, and will save the parties considerable
time and expense.

The court-approved stipulation, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/wePbzQfrom Leagle.com, provides that:

* The case will be referred to a Magistrate Judge for an early
settlement conference;

* That all other proceedings in the action will be stayed until 30
days after the date of the settlement conference;

* That all pending motions, discovery, and court deadlines should
be vacated;

* That initial disclosures will be due 28 days after expiration of
the stay;

* That Bouchaine's response to Lyons' complaint will be due 30
days after expiration of the stay; and

* That Bouchaine's response to Plaintiff's pending discovery
requests will be due 40 days after expiration of the stay.

Racheal Turner -- rturner@fbm.com -- Amber C. Chrystal --
achrystal@fbm.com -- Farella Braun + Martel LLP, San Francisco,
CA, Attorneys for Defendant, BOUCHAINE VINEYARDS, INC.

Stephanie R. Tatar, Esq., Tatar Law Firm, APC, Burbank, CA, Thomas
J. Lyons Jr., Esq., MN Attorney I.D. #: 0249646 Consumer Justice
Center P.A., Vadnais Heights, MN, admitted pro hac vice 1/20/15,
Attorneys for Plaintiff, SHERI LYONS.


BYA CORP: Accused of FLSA Wage and Hour Violations in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Biljana Sugranes v. BYA Corp. d/b/a Lobster Box and Vasilios
Lambos, Case No. 1:15-cv-01115-UA (S.D.N.Y., February 17, 2015)
seeks damages and other appropriate relief to remedy the
Defendants' alleged wage and hour violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New York Labor Law and discrimination in
violation of the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City
Human Rights Law.

BYA Corp., doing business as Lobster Box, is a New York domestic
business corporation with its principal place of business located
in Bronx, New York.  The Company operates its restaurant at that
same address under the name "Lobster Box."  Vasilios Lambos is a
resident of Westchester, New York.  He is an owner, agent,
officer, director or president of BYA Corp.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brittany Weiner, Esq.
          Marsha Mozammel, Esq.
          IMBESI LAW PC
          450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408
          New York, NY 10123
          Telephone: (646) 380-9555
          Facsimile: (212)658-9177
          E-mail: brittany@lawicm.com
                  marsha@lawicm.com


CALAVO GROWERS: Two Securities Class Actions Filed
--------------------------------------------------
Calavo Growers, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended October 31, 2014, that in January 2015, two
purported securities class action complaints- El Dabe v. Calavo
Growers, Inc., et al., No. 2:15-cv-00400 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 20,
2015), and O'Hanlon v. Calavo Growers, Inc., et al., No. 2:15-cv-
00414 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2015)-were filed against the Company and
certain of its officers in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California. The cases arise from the
Company's announcement on January 15, 2015 that it had identified
a non-cash misstatement in its historical consolidated financial
statements related to its treatment of contingent consideration in
the Company's acquisition of Renaissance Food Group, LLC in June
2011. The same day, the Company filed a Current Report on Form 8-K
with the Securities and Exchange Commission announcing that the
Company was recording a non-cash charge totaling $88.9 million
before tax ($54 million net of tax) in connection with the error.
The complaints allege that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by fraudulently misstating the Company's finances
in the Company's public filings. Both complaints also allege that
the Company is liable for these actions pursuant to Section 20(a)
of the Act because its officers were "controlling persons" of the
Company.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the foregoing
complaints. Based on the very early stage of the litigation, it is
not possible to estimate the amount or range of possible loss that
might result from an adverse judgment or a settlement of these
matters.


CASA MARGARITA: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Gomez, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown v. Casa Margarita III, Inc.
and Al Lotfi, Case No. 1:15-cv-01397 (N.D. Ill., February 13,
2015), is brought against the Defendants failure to pay overtime
wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate Casa Margarit restaurant located at
145 S. Weber Road, Bolingbrook, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CEVA LOGISTICS: Obtains Initial Approval of Miller Suit Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Troy L. Nunley granted preliminary approval of a
class action settlement in KEN MILLER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CEVA
LOGISTICS USA, INC., et al., Defendants, NO. 2:13-CV-01321-TLN-
CKD, (E.D. Cal.).

The Court provisionally certified for settlement purposes, the
Settlement Class defined as: "All persons who, at any time after
four (4) years prior to the filing of this action through the date
of trial, are or were employed as drivers by Defendants in
California."

Under the proposed settlement, the Defendants will pay a sum equal
to $2,600,000.00 (the Maximum Settlement Amount) to fund the
settlement payments to the class members, administration of the
settlement and payment of an Enhancement Award and attorney's fees
and costs. CEVA will contribute $2,500,000 toward the Maximum
Settlement Amount and ADECCO will contribute $100,000. The
expected maximum Net Settlement Amount is estimated to be
$1,620,000.

The Court confirms the following persons as the class
representatives: Ken Miller, Jeremie Todd, and Christopher
Franklin; and appoints R. Duane Westrup of Westrup & Associates as
Class Counsel for settlement purposes only.

The Court approves Rust Consulting as the Claims Administrator.

At the time of final approval, each of the representative
Plaintiffs will request that the Court approve an enhancement of
$15,000 each for acting as the class representatives.  Westrup &
Associates will request attorneys' fees in the amount of
$865,000.00 and costs incurred, not to exceed $50,000.00.

Judge Nunley ordered the parties to meet and confer as to possible
dates for the final fairness hearing and file with the Court a
proposed date within 30 days. Upon the Court's approval of such
date, the parties will submit an updated Notice of Class Action
Settlement to the Court for final approval. With submission of the
Notice of Class Action Settlement the parties will file an updated
Implementation Schedule for all other applicable further
proceedings, including Motions for attorney's fees.

A copy of the Court's February 18, 2015 order is available at
http://is.gd/VfVPTNfrom Leagle.com.

Ken Miller, Plaintiff, represented by Phillip R Poliner --
ppoliner@wkalaw.com -- Westrup Klick LLP & R. Duane Westrup,
Westrup Klick LLP.

Jeremie Todd, Plaintiff, represented by Phillip R Poliner, Westrup
Klick LLP & R. Duane Westrup, Westrup Klick LLP.

Christopher Franklin, Plaintiff, represented by Phillip R Poliner,
Westrup Klick LLP & R. Duane Westrup, Westrup Klick LLP.

CEVA Logistics USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Heather
Allison Elmore -- Allison.Elmore@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis
P.C. & Fraser Angus McAlpine -- fraser.mcalpine@jacksonlewis.com
-- Jackson Lewis P.C.

Adecco USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles Forve Barker
-- cbarker@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter &
Hampton LLP, Thomas Y. Lee -- tlee@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard,
Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP & Suzanna L. Winslow --
swinslow@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter &
Hampton.


CHICAGO CARRIAGE: Class Suit by Taxi Drivers Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Andrea R. Wood of the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, granted defendants' motion to dismiss
the case, PETER ENGER, KAREN CHAMBERLAIN, COURTNEY CREATER,
GREGORY MCGEE, and FINN EBELECHUKWU, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CHICAGO CARRIAGE CAB
CO., YELLOW CAB AFFILIATION, INC., FLASH CAB CO., DISPATCH TAXI
AFFILIATION, INC., SIMON GARBER, MICHAEL LEVINE, HENRY ELIZAR,
SAVAS TSITIRIDIS, and EVEGNY FRIEDMAN, Defendants, NO 14-CV-02117
(N.D. Ill.)

The plaintiffs Peter Enger, Karen Chamberlain, Courtney Creater,
Gregory McGee, and Finn Ebelechukwu work as taxi drivers in
Chicago, Illinois. Plaintiffs worked for defendant cab services
Chicago Carriage Cab Co., Yellow Cab Affiliation, Inc., 5 Star
Flash Inc., and Dispatch Taxi Affiliation, Inc. (the Cab
Defendants) or their affiliates.

Defendants Simon Garber, Michael Levine, Henry Elizar, Savas
Tsitiridis, and Evegny Friedman (the Individual Defendants) own
various of the Cab Defendants.

To drive for one of the Cab Defendants, taxi drivers must pay
fees, either directly to the Cab Defendants or their affiliates.
The drivers may pay these fees on a weekly basis or a daily basis.

Plaintiffs have filed a two-count complaint alleging that
defendants (1) violated the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection
Act or IWPCA, and (2) were unjustly enriched by their misconduct.
The suit is a putative class action on behalf of all other persons
who have worked as taxi drivers in Chicago, Illinois, over the
last ten years for any of the defendants or their affiliates and
have had to pay weekly fees or daily fees (for 12 or 24 hour
shifts) in order to work as taxi drivers. Plaintiffs claim that
they, and others similarly situated to them, are mischaracterized
as independent contractors. Plaintiffs further allege that as a
result of this misclassification, defendants have not only charged
plaintiffs to work, but also have required them to pay the
expenses necessary to operate a taxi and have failed to ensure
that their taxi drivers earn minimum wage or overtime pay, have
protection under employment discrimination or unemployment
statutes, or enjoy any other privileges, benefits, or protections
of employment.

Defendants argue that plaintiffs have failed to plead any sort of
contract or agreement that could support their IWPCA claim. The
defendants have moved to dismiss these claims pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Judge Wood granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint and
plaintiffs' complaint is dismissed without prejudice to refiling.
The Motion to Dismiss Complaint as to Defendants Freidman and
Tstiridis is denied as moot.

A copy of Judge Woods' memorandum opinion and order dated December
29, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/TivrUofrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

John E Duke, Esq.
Shannon E Liss-Riordan, Esq.
LICHTEN & RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: 617-994-5800
Facsimile: 617-994-5801
Email: sliss@llrlaw.com

     - and -

Ryan F Stephan, Esq.
Teresa M. Becvar, Esq.
James B. Zouras, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
205 N. Michigan Ave, Suite 2560
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: 312-233-1550
Facsimile: 312-233-1560

Chicago Carriage Cab Co., Yellow Cab Affiliation, Inc., Flash Cab
Company, Simon Garber, Michael Levine, Henry Elizar, Defendants,
represented by Brian P Paul -- bppaul@michaelbest.com -- Carrie A.
Hall -- cahall@michaelbest.com -- Michael A. Stiegel --
mastiegel@michaelbest.com -- Benjamin Thomas Johnson --
btjohnson@michaelbest.com -- at Michael Best & Friedrich LLP

Savas Tsitiridis and Evgeny Freidman, Defendants, represented by
Jeffrey H. Bunn -- jbunn@llflegal.com -- at Latimer LeVay Fyock


CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 19,557 Cherokees Over ORC System Defect
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            January 28, 2015
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              SUV
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Airbag
Units affected:           19557
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2015039
TC ID number:             2015039
Manufacturer recall
number:                   R05

On certain vehicles, a defect in the Occupant Restraint Control
(ORC) system could result in unwanted side curtain and seat airbag
deployment in off-road events.  Unintended airbag deployment, in a
non-warranted (non-impact) situation, could startle the driver,
which could result in a vehicle crash causing injury and/or
property damage.

Correction: Dealers will update ORC module software.

Affected products: 2014 Jeep Cherokee


CHRYSLER GROUP: Court Denies Bid to Intervene in "Velasco" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the Central District of
California denied a motion to intervene in the case PETER VELASCO,
CHRISTOPHER WHITE, JACQUELINE YOUNG, and CHRISTOPHER LIGHT, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. CHRYSLER GROUP LLC, Defendant, CASE NO. CV 13-08080
DDP (VBKX)(C.D. Cal.)

The plaintiffs filed the putative class action suit against
Chrysler Group, LLC, over the alleged failure of an electronic
control unit, knows as the TIPM-7, installed in a number of late-
model Chrysler vehicles.

On September 18, 2014, plaintiffs moved for preliminary injunction
authorizing them to send potential class members a preliminary
notice warning of the potential for dangerous component failures
in Chrysler vehicles equipped with the TIPM-7. Plaintiffs applied
to submit certain documents related to the motion provisionally
under seal, because the parties were still attempting to reach
settlement. Defendant similarly filed an application to submit
documents in opposition to the motion under seal, primarily
because the documents constituted confidential business
information. The court denied plaintiffs motion for preliminary
injunction.

On October 23, 2014, nonparty Center for Auto Safety (CAS) filed
motions to intervene in the case and to unseal portions of the
record on the motion for preliminary injunction.  Chrysler opposed
the motions.

Judge Pregerson denied the nonparty's motion to intervene and
motion to unseal. However, the denial is without prejudice and CAS
is free to move to intervene again in the event that future
motions also present questions of public access to court records.
Plaintiff is ordered to file a single new document.

A copy of Judge Pregerson's order dated December 30, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/IJKCanfrom Leagle.com

Jacqueline Young, Plaintiff, represented by Caitlyn D Finley,
Girard Gibbs LLP, Dylan Hughes, Girard Gibbs LLP, Eric H Gibbs,
Girard Gibbs LLP, Joshua G Konecky, Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky LLP, Todd M Schneider, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky
LLP, David K Stein, Girard Gibbs LLP, Rachel Adi Naor, Girard
Gibbs LLP & Scott M Grzenczyk, Girard Gibbs LLP

Bradford Soule, Plaintiff, represented by Caitlyn D Finley, Girard
Gibbs LLP, Dylan Hughes, Girard Gibbs LLP, Eric H Gibbs, Girard
Gibbs LLP, David K Stein, Girard Gibbs LLP, Rachel Adi Naor,
Girard Gibbs LLP & Scott M Grzenczyk, Girard Gibbs LLP

John Melville, Plaintiff, represented by Caitlyn D Finley, Girard
Gibbs LLP, Dylan Hughes, Girard Gibbs LLP, Eric H Gibbs, Girard
Gibbs LLP, David K Stein, Girard Gibbs LLP, Rachel Adi Naor,
Girard Gibbs LLP & Scott M Grzenczyk, Girard Gibbs LLP

Daphne Ray, Plaintiff, represented by Caitlyn D Finley, Girard
Gibbs LLP, Dylan Hughes, Girard Gibbs LLP,Eric H Gibbs, Girard
Gibbs LLP, David K Stein, Girard Gibbs LLP, Rachel Adi Naor,
Girard Gibbs LLP &Scott M Grzenczyk, Girard Gibbs LLP

Phillip Lightfoot, Plaintiff, represented by Caitlyn D Finley,
Girard Gibbs LLP, Dylan Hughes, Girard Gibbs LLP, Eric H Gibbs,
Girard Gibbs LLP, David K Stein, Girard Gibbs LLP, Rachel Adi
Naor, Girard Gibbs LLP & Scott M Grzenczyk, Girard Gibbs LLP

Donald Kendrick, Plaintiff, represented by Caitlyn D Finley,
Girard Gibbs LLP, Dylan Hughes, Girard Gibbs LLP, Eric H Gibbs,
Girard Gibbs LLP, David K Stein, Girard Gibbs LLP, Rachel Adi
Naor, Girard Gibbs LLP & Scott M Grzenczyk, Girard Gibbs LLP

Marcos Galvan, Plaintiff, represented by David K Stein, Girard
Gibbs LLP, Rachel Adi Naor, Girard Gibbs LLP & Eric H Gibbs,
Girard Gibbs LLP

Jimmy Pat Carter, Plaintiff, represented by David K Stein, Girard
Gibbs LLP, Rachel Adi Naor, Girard Gibbs LLP & Eric H Gibbs,
Girard Gibbs LLP

Elizabeth Dillon, Plaintiff, represented by David K Stein, Girard
Gibbs LLP, Rachel Adi Naor, Girard Gibbs LLP & Eric H Gibbs,
Girard Gibbs LLP

Chrysler Group LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian S Westenberg,
Miller Canfield Paddock and Stone PLC, John Woodson Rogers,
Thompson Coburn LLP, Kathy A Wisniewski, Thompson Coburn LLP, M
Sheila Jeffrey, Miller Canfield Paddock and Stone PLC, Stephen A
D'Aunoy, Thompson Coburn LLP &Rowena G Santos, Thompson Coburn LLP

The Center for Auto Safety, Intervenor, represented by Jennifer D
Bennett, Public Justice PC & Leslie Andrea Bailey, Public Justice
PC


COVENTRY FIRST: Court Denies Bid to Strike Class Allegations
------------------------------------------------------------
In LINCOLN T. GRISWOLD, and LINCOLN T. GRISWOLD FAMILY LLP,
Plaintiffs, v. COVENTRY FIRST LLC, THE COVENTRY GROUP, INC.,
MONTGOMERY CAPITAL, INC., COVENTRY FINANCIAL, LLC, and REID S.
BUERGER, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-5964, (E.D. Penn.),
pending before the Court was the motion by defendants to strike
plaintiffs' class action allegations from the First Amended
Complaint.

The crux of this case involves Plaintiff Lincoln T. Griswold's
purchase of a life insurance policy that was later sold to
Defendant Coventry First LLC at a purportedly inflated price that
included kickbacks to the broker.

District Judge Ronald L. Buckwalter issued a memorandum on
February 18, 2015 denying the Defendants' motion to strike saying
"this Court will allow the class claims to proceed past the
pleading stage and will consider issues of the propriety of a
class action upon properly-filed and briefed motions under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23."

A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/cMBems from
Leagle.com.

LINCOLN T. GRISWOLD, INDIVIDUALLY, Plaintiff, represented by
CHRISTOPHER P. THORMAN -- cthorman@tpgfirm.com -- THORMAN PETROV
GRIFFIN CO., LPA, DANIEL PAUL GOETZ -- dgoetz@weismanlaw.com --
WEISMAN KENNEDY BERRIS CO LPA, DANIEL P. PETROV --
dpetrov@tpgfirm.com -- THORMAN PETROV GRIFFIN CO., LPA, GERARD M.
MCCABE, Mitts Law, LLC, J. MATTHEW LINEHAN -- mlinehan@thllaw.com
-- THORMAN PETROV GRIFFIN CO., LPA, MARK DAVIES GRIFFIN --
mgriffin@thllaw.com -- THORMAN PETROV GRIFFIN CO., LPA, PETER
HARDIN-LEVINE -- plevine@thllaw.co -- THORMAN & HARDIN-LEVINE CO
LPA & R. ERIC KENNEDY -- ekennedy@weismanlaw.com -- WEISMAN,
KENNEDY & BERRIS.

LINCOLN T. GRISWOLD, Plaintiff, represented by CHRISTOPHER P.
THORMAN, THORMAN PETROV GRIFFIN CO., LPA, DANIEL PAUL GOETZ,
WEISMAN KENNEDY BERRIS CO LPA, DANIEL P. PETROV, THORMAN PETROV
GRIFFIN CO., LPA, GERARD M. MCCABE, Mitts Law, LLC, J. MATTHEW
LINEHAN, THORMAN PETROV GRIFFIN CO., LPA, MARK DAVIES GRIFFIN,
THORMAN PETROV GRIFFIN CO., LPA, PETER HARDIN-LEVINE, THORMAN &
HARDIN-LEVINE CO LPA & R. ERIC KENNEDY, WEISMAN, KENNEDY & BERRIS.

COVENTRY FIRST LLC, Defendant, represented by JULI ANN LUND --
jlund@wc.com -- WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, KYLE EUGENE THOMASON --
kthomason@wc.com -- WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, RICHMOND T. MOORE --
rtmoore@wc.com -- WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, WILLIAM PRUITT ASHWORTH
-- washworth@wc.com -- WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, DAVID FORKNER --
dforkner@wc.com -- WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, LLP, FRED WARREN JACOBY --
fjacoby@cozen.com -- COZEN O'CONNOR, JENNIFER M. MCHUGH --
jmchugh@cozen.com -- COZEN O'CONNOR, KENNETH J. BROWN --
kbrown@wc.com -- WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, MARCIE R. ZIEGLER --
mziegler@wc.com -- WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP & STEPHEN D. ANDREWS --
sandrews@wc.com -- WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP.

THE COVENTRY GROUP, INC., Defendant, represented by JULI ANN LUND,
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, KYLE EUGENE THOMASON, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY
LLP, RICHMOND T. MOORE, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, WILLIAM PRUITT
ASHWORTH, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, DAVID FORKNER, WILLIAMS &
CONNOLLY, LLP, FRED WARREN JACOBY, COZEN O'CONNOR, JENNIFER M.
MCHUGH, COZEN O'CONNOR, KENNETH J. BROWN, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP,
MARCIE R. ZIEGLER, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP & STEPHEN D. ANDREWS,
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP.

MONTGOMERY CAPITAL, INC., Defendant, represented by JULI ANN LUND,
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, KYLE EUGENE THOMASON, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY
LLP, RICHMOND T. MOORE, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, WILLIAM PRUITT
ASHWORTH, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, DAVID FORKNER, WILLIAMS &
CONNOLLY, LLP, FRED WARREN JACOBY, COZEN O'CONNOR, JENNIFER M.
MCHUGH, COZEN O'CONNOR, KENNETH J. BROWN, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP,
MARCIE R. ZIEGLER, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP & STEPHEN D. ANDREWS,
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP.

COVENTRY FINANCIAL, LLC, Defendant, represented by JULI ANN LUND,
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, KYLE EUGENE THOMASON, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY
LLP, RICHMOND T. MOORE, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, WILLIAM PRUITT
ASHWORTH, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, DAVID FORKNER, WILLIAMS &
CONNOLLY, LLP, FRED WARREN JACOBY, COZEN O'CONNOR, JENNIFER M.
MCHUGH, COZEN O'CONNOR, KENNETH J. BROWN, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP,
MARCIE R. ZIEGLER, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP & STEPHEN D. ANDREWS,
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP.

REID S. BUERGER, Defendant, represented by JULI ANN LUND, WILLIAMS
& CONNOLLY LLP, KYLE EUGENE THOMASON, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP,
RICHMOND T. MOORE, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, WILLIAM PRUITT
ASHWORTH, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, DAVID FORKNER, WILLIAMS &
CONNOLLY, LLP, FRED WARREN JACOBY, COZEN O'CONNOR, JENNIFER M.
MCHUGH, COZEN O'CONNOR, KENNETH J. BROWN, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP,
MARCIE R. ZIEGLER, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP & STEPHEN D. ANDREWS,
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP.


COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: Arkansas Teacher to Serve as Lead Plaintiff
--------------------------------------------------------------
CommVault Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the Court
entered an order (i) appointing the Arkansas Teacher Retirement
System to serve as lead plaintiff in the class action, (ii)
appointing Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP to serve as
lead counsel, and (iii) changing the case caption to "In re
CommVault Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation."

On September 10, 2014, a purported class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey against the Company, the Chief Executive Officer and the
Chief Financial Officer.  The case is captioned Town of Davie
Police Pension Plan vs. CommVault Systems, Inc., et al. (Case No.
3:14-cv-05628-JAP-LHG).  The suit alleges that the defendants made
materially false and misleading statements, or failed to disclose
material facts, regarding the Company's financial results,
business, operations and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  The suit asserts claims covering an
alleged class period from May 15, 2013 through April 24, 2014.  It
is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock during that period, and seeks compensatory damages,
costs and expenses, as well as equitable or other relief.

On January 12, 2015, the Court entered an order (i) appointing the
Arkansas Teacher Retirement System to serve as lead plaintiff in
this action, (ii) appointing Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
LLP to serve as lead counsel, and (iii) changing the case caption
to "In re CommVault Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation."

At this time, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this
matter and cannot currently estimate a range of any possible
losses that it may experience. Accordingly, the Company is unable
at this time to estimate the effects of this lawsuit on its
financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. As of
December 31, 2014 the Company has not recorded a reserve for this
matter.


CORN REFINERS: Squire Patton Boggs Ousted From Corn Syrup Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports a
federal judge in California has disqualified Squire Patton Boggs
from a high-stakes case between the sugar and high-fructose corn
syrup industries due to conflicts that arose from the law firm's
merger last year.

Squire Sanders brought the case in 2011 on behalf of The Sugar
Association Inc. in Washington and nine of its members, alleging
the Corn Refiners Association and its members misled consumers in
advertisements stating that corn syrup is "natural" and no
different nutritionally from table sugar.

Two of the corn refiners once represented by Patton Boggs filed
motions to disqualify Squire Patton Boggs from representing The
Sugar Association, claiming they hadn't been informed of its
June 1 merger.  Squire Patton Boggs argued that both corn refiners
signed advanced waivers years ago and that the matters in which it
represented them were unrelated to the current case.

In her Feb. 13 ruling, U.S. District Judge Consuelo Marshall of
the Central District of California disagreed.  She also rejected
several proposed alternatives to disqualification, such as
creating ethical walls in the case, while acknowledging the burden
of disqualifying Squire Patton Boggs so close to trial.

"Indeed, disqualification at this late stage would undoubtedly
impose hardship on plaintiffs," she wrote.  She noted that the
parties had engaged in "extensive discovery and motion practice"
and that the plaintiffs had incurred more than $12 million in fees
from Squire Patton, reflecting 20,000 hours of professional time.

But Judge Marshall found that none of the alternatives resolved
the conflict.  She raised particular concern that Stuart Pape, the
Patton Boggs attorney in Washington who signed the engagement
letters as to both companies in 1998 and 2004, had created a "real
risk" of disclosing confidential information when he consulted,
after the merger, with an expert witness for the plaintiffs and
with John Burlingame, co-lead attorney in the case at Squire
Sanders.

On Feb. 5, Mr. Pape, longtime managing partner of Patton Boggs,
left the firm for Kansas City, Mo.-based Polsinelli, along with
partner Carey Nuttall and of counsel Anne Spiggle.  Mr. Pape,
Nuttall and Spiggle were identified in Judge Marshall's ruling as
being the only attorneys remaining at Squire Patton Boggs who
worked on matters for one of the corn-refiner clients, Ingredion
Inc., after 2010.
After disqualifying the firm, Judge Marshall stayed the case,
including a Feb. 24 pre-trial hearing, and scheduled the next
hearing for May 5.

Squire Patton Boggs spokesman Angelo Kakolyris declined to
comment, and Edith Matthai of Robie & Matthai in Los Angeles, who
represented the firm, did not respond to a request for comment.
The Sugar Association issued a statement: "We have the utmost
respect for the lawyers of Squire Patton Boggs, and we thank them
for the representation they have provided in the past.  As the
court's order requires, the Sugar Association and its members will
continue to pursue their rights in this litigation through other
counsel.  We are looking forward to our existing trial team (The
Lanier Law Firm) bringing our claims to a jury."


DIAMOND WIPES: Recalls Love & Beauty Lavender Anti-Aging Eye Mask
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 5, 2015
Posting date:             February 5, 2015
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Cosmetics
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Contamination
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-43611

Affected products: Love & Beauty by Forever 21 Lavender Anti-Aging
Eye Mask

The recall involves Love & Beauty by Forever 21 Lavender Anti-
Aging Eye Mask with batch code stamp "MFG: 11/14 4660".  This
product is packaged in a black plastic 3.5 gram packet.  Each
packet contains one eye mask.  The batch code stamp is found on
the back of the packet.

The affected batch is contaminated with mold.

Neither Health Canada nor Diamond Wipes International has received
any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use
of this product.

Approximately 814 units were distributed across Canada and
approximately 21,786 units were distributed in the United States.

The affected Eye Mask was manufactured in the United States and
distributed in Canada between Dec. 1, 2014 and Dec. 16, 2014.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Diamond Wipes International
                    Chino
                    California
                    United States

Retailer            Forever 21
                    Various stores in British Columbia, Alberta,
                       Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec
                    Canada

Consumers should immediately stop using the product and contact
Diamond Wipes for an exchange or refund.


EASTMAN CHEMICAL: Chancery Court Has Jurisdiction of Virtus Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The complaint VIRTUS CAPITAL L.P. v. EASTMAN CHEMICAL COMPANY,
C.A. NO. 9808-VCL (Del. Chan.), alleges that Martin D. Sass
breached his duty of loyalty by causing Sterling Chemicals, Inc.,
to be sold at a fire-sale price to alleviate a liquidity crisis
that Mr. Sass was facing at his investment funds. The complaint
also alleges that Eastman Chemical Company, the acquirer, aided
and abetted Mr. Sass' breaches of fiduciary duty by exploiting the
conflicts of interest that Mr. Sass faced.  Mr. Sass controlled
Sterling Chemicals. None of the defendants have moved to dismiss
the complaint for failing to state a claim on which relief could
be granted.

Mr. Sass moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2),
arguing that the Court of Chancery of Delaware lacks personal
jurisdiction over him.  So has one of the entities through which
he controlled Sterling: the M.D. Sass Associates, Inc. Employee
Profit Sharing Plan (the "Sass Plan").

In a Feb. 11, 2015 Memorandum Opinion available at
http://is.gd/G6liITfrom Leagle.com, Vice Chancellor Laster held
that, "Because the defendants engaged in acts within the State of
Delaware and purposefully availed themselves of the benefits of
Delaware law, this court has jurisdiction over Sass and the Sass
Plan."

Thus, the Rule 12(b)(2) motions are denied, the judge rules.

The complaint is captioned VIRTUS CAPITAL L.P., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EASTMAN
CHEMICAL COMPANY, JOHN L. TEEGER, JOHN V. GENOVA, RICHARD K.
CRUMP, JOHN W. GILDEA, PHILIP M. SIVIN, KARL W. SCHWARZFELD,
DANIEL M. FISHBANE, WALTER TREYBIG, MARTIN D. SASS, M.D. SASS
INVESTORS SERVICES, INC., RESURGENCE ASSET MANAGEMENT, L.L.C.,
RE/ENTERPRISE ASSET MANAGEMENT L.L.C., RESURGENCE ASSET MANAGEMENT
INTERNATIONAL, L.L.C., CORPORATE RESURGENCE PARTNERS, L.L.C.,
CORPORATE RESURGENCE PARTNERS II, L.L.C., M.D. SASS CORPORATE
RESURGENCE PARTNERS III, L.P., RESURGENCE ASSET MANAGEMENT, L.L.C.
EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT PLAN, TRUST "O" FOR A PORTION OF THE ASSETS OF
THE KODAK RETIREMENT INCOME PLAN, KODAK PENSION PLAN, M.D. SASS
ASSOCIATES, INC. EMPLOYEE PROFIT SHARING PLAN, M.D. SASS
RE/ENTERPRISE PORTFOLIO COMPANY, L.P., M.D. SASS RE/ENTERPRISE II,
L.P., RESURGENCE PARALLEL FUND, L.L.C., RESURGENCE PARALLEL FUND
II, L.L.C., RESURGENCE PARALLEL FUND III, L.L.C., EASTMAN TC,
INC., AND MOELIS & COMPANY LLC, Defendants.

Joel Friedlander, Jeffrey M. Gorris, Benjamin P. Chapple,
FRIEDLANDER & GORRIS, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; Attorneys for
Plaintiff.

T. Brad Davey, J. Matthew Belger, POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP,
Wilmington, Delaware; Barry S. Pollack, POLLACK SOLOMON DUFFY LLP,
Boston, Massachusetts; Attorneys for Defendants Martin D. Sass,
MD. Sass Associates, Inc. Employee Profit Sharing Plan, MD. Sass
Investor Services, Inc., Resurgence Asset Management, L.L.C., and
RE/Enterprise Asset Management L.L.C.

A. Thompson Bayliss, Adam K. Schulman, ABRAMS & BAYLISS LLP,
Wilmington, Delaware; Attorneys for Defendant John V. Genova.
Thomas W. Briggs, Jr., Kevin M. Coen, Frank R. Martin, Brendan W.
Sullivan, MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP, Wilmington,
Delaware; Attorneys for Defendants Eastman Chemical Company, and
Eastman TC, Inc.

Lewis H. Lazarus, Brett M. McCartney, Patricia A. Winston, MORRIS
JAMES LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Attorneys for Defendants John L.
Teeger, Richard K Crump, and John W. Gildea.

Rolin P. Bissell, Paul J. Loughman, YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT &
TAYLOR, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Paul D. Flack, Reagan D. Pratt,
PRATT & FLACK LLP, Houston, Texas; Attorneys for Defendant Walter
B. Treybig.

Gregory P. Williams, Susan M. Hannigan, J. Scott Pritchard,
RICHARDS LAYTON & FINGER, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; Yosef J.
Reimer, Matthew Solum, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, New York, New York;
Attorneys for Defendants Philip M Sivin, Karl W. Schwarzfeld, and
Daniel M Fishbane.

David E. Ross, S. Michael Sirkin, SEITZ ROSS ARONSTAM & MORITZ
LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; William Savitt, Benjamin D. Klein,
WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ, New York, New York; Attorneys for
Defendant Moelis & Company LLC.


EL TORO: Faces "Tapia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jenny Tapia and Lillian Yanes, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. El Toro Bravo # 1 Corp. d/b/a El Toro
Bravo, Gonzalo Levya and Diana Levya, Case No. 1:15-cv-00770
(E.D.N.Y., February 13, 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 bar and restaurant located at 88-
12/10 Roosevelt Avenue, Jackson Heights, New York, 11372.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EMILY HOME: "Garcia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Justina Garcia, and other similarly situated individuals v. Emily
Home Care, Inc., a Florida profit corporation and Graciela
Ricardo, Case No. 1:15-cv-20591 (S.D. Fla., February 13, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Emily Home Care, Inc. is a Florida Profit corporation that
provides in-home care services in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ESCAPE MEDIA: Sued in Cal. Over Alleged Copyright Infringement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Beach Road Music LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Escape Media Group, Inc., Samuel Tarantino,
and Joshua Greenberg, Case No. 3:15-cv-00702 (N.D. Cal., February
13, 2015), alleges that the Defendants reproduced, distributed, or
performed Pre-1972 Recordings on Grooveshark without paying
royalties or licensing fees to the recordings' owners.

Escape Media Group, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that operates a
service that streams music to consumers known as Grooveshark.

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, D.C. 20006
      Telephone: (202) 540-7200
      Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
      E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com
              jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
              ngiddings@hausfeld.com


EXTREME NETWORKS: Hearing Today on Summary Judgment Motion
----------------------------------------------------------
Extreme Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that a motion for
Summary Judgment/Adjudication filed in a class action lawsuit will
be heard on February 26, 2015.

On or about February 3, 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed in
the Commonwealth of Kentucky against Enterasys Networks, Inc. and
two other defendants.  The complaint alleges that Enterasys and
its subcontractor, TJL Information Technologies, Inc., d.b.a.
Unbridled Information Technologies ("Subcontractor"), violated
Kentucky's wage and hour laws and failed to pay the prevailing
wage in violation of the Kentucky State Prevailing Wage Act (the
"Act") on various public works projects for a number of Kentucky
government agencies since January 2010.  Plaintiffs also allege
common law actions for quantum merit and unjust enrichment and
they seek monetary damages, costs, expenses and attorney fees,
although there was no quantified amount identified.  One of the
defendants, Integrated Facility Systems, LLC ("IFS"), has also
filed a cross-claim against Enterasys.  The Company denies the
claims and filed answers to both the complaint and cross-claim on
April 16, 2014.  In addition, the Company filed a cross-claim for
indemnity against IFS.

Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on September 26, 2014,
in which they named Commonwealth of Kentucky's Office of
Technology under the State's Finance and Administration Cabinet
("COT") as a defendant.  The Company filed an answer to the
Plaintiffs' first amended complaint on October 10, 2014. COT then
filed a motion to dismiss COT as a defendant in this lawsuit and
the court granted COT's motion. Although this litigation is in the
discovery stage, Plaintiffs have filed a motion for Summary
Judgment/Adjudication, which will be heard on February 26, 2015,
on the issue of whether the work performed by the defendants
constitutes "construction" under the Act. The Company will
vigorously oppose this motion. This litigation is in the early
stages of discovery.


FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: Provides Update on Truck Stop Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
FleetCor Technologies, Inc. said an exhibit to its Form 8-K/A
Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on January 30, 2015, that in March and April 2007, six
independent-truck stops located in several states filed nearly
identical complaints in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Ceridian and its wholly-
owned subsidiary, Comdata, alleging anticompetitive conduct with
respect to Comdata's trucker fleet card and point-of-sale systems
businesses in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman
Antitrust Act, which later were consolidated into a single action.
The plaintiffs in the consolidated action sought certification of
a class of independent truck stops and other retail fueling
merchants and requested damages described by plaintiffs as the
overcharges they and other members of the putative class paid to
Comdata on certain payment card transactions, trebled, as well as
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, injunctive relief, and
the costs of suit, including attorneys' fees.

In April 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend
their complaint to rejoin Ceridian to the case to add as
defendants Pilot Corporation, Pilot Travel Centers, Love's Travel
Stops & Country Stores, Petro Stopping Centers (now owned by
TravelCenters of America), and TravelCenters of America. While
that motion was pending, the plaintiffs filed a separate action in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania against those entities, which was consolidated in
March 2010 with the pending case against Comdata.

Because of the significant costs and uncertainties of this class
action antitrust litigation, and based on the recommendation of
outside counsel to Ceridian and Comdata, in December 2013, the
Boards of Directors of Ceridian and Comdata authorized settlement
of this litigation. Under the terms of a Memorandum of
Understanding among plaintiffs, Ceridian and Comdata, signed on
December 31, 2013, and a definitive Settlement Agreement, signed
March 3, 2014, which was preliminarily approved by the court on
March 17, 2014, we have agreed to make a one-time cash payment of
$100.0 million as part of a $130.0 million global settlement with
all other defendants, and to provide certain prospective relief
with respect to specific provisions in its merchant agreements.
Comdata recorded a $100.0 million expense in December 2013 and
deposited the $100.0 million payment into escrow on March 24,
2014. The escrow deposit is included in restricted cash on the
condensed consolidated balance sheet. The payment was funded
through the use of available capacity on the accounts receivables
facility.

On April 14, 2014, notices and claim forms were sent to potential
class members. Publication notice was made as well. Class members
had until May 27, 2014, to object to the settlement or to opt out
entirely. The fairness hearing was scheduled for July 14, 2014.

Comdata said, "If finally approved by the court, and provided that
all other conditions to the settlement have been satisfied, the
settlement agreement will provide Comdata and affiliated
companies, including its parent, Ceridian, with a broad release of
claims and will limit exposure to legal claims by merchants who do
not timely exclude themselves from the settlement. If the
settlement is not approved by the court, or if the other
conditions to the settlement have not been satisfied or waived,
the Company believes that the plaintiffs will recommence this
litigation."


FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: Update on Merchant Class Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
FleetCor Technologies, Inc. said an exhibit to its Form 8-K/A
Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on January 30, 2015, that in 2005, numerous U.S. merchant
retailers filed suit against MasterCard, Visa, and several U.S.
financial institutions alleging that Visa and MasterCard colluded
directly and indirectly through banks issuing their credit cards
to keep merchants from mitigating credit card costs. On July 13,
2012, the defendants agreed to a Memorandum of Understanding to
settle the U.S. merchant class litigation. The parties then
presented a proposed settlement agreement to the court for
approval. On November 27, 2012, the court awarded preliminary
approval of the settlement agreement and enjoined members of the
settlement class from "challenging in any action . . . any matter
covered by the Class Settlement Agreement or its release . . .
provisions." Later, that same day, the ten objecting plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal. One of the settlement terms provides
that U.S. merchant class members will receive a 10 basis point
reduction in credit interchange rates for eight months
("Interchange Rate Relief"). MasterCard began implementing the
Interchange Rate Relief by withholding this amount from U.S.
issuers of its credit cards on July 29, 2013. Another term of the
settlement allows merchants, under defined circumstances, to
charge a surcharge fee to cardholders. This term went into effect
on January 27, 2013. Final approval of the settlement was entered
by the court on December 13, 2013, and appeals from that order to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit have been filed
by numerous merchants. No briefing schedule has been set yet.
Comdata is not a MasterCard issuer, but is a member service
provider and has contractual relationships with MasterCard and
with the issuing bank for the Comdata MasterCard products. As a
member service provider, the Company does receive benefit of the
gross interchange charged to merchants who accept the Comdata
MasterCard, and therefore, the Interchange Rate Relief reduced the
amount collected from July 29, 2013 to March 29, 2014. Neither
Comdata, nor the Comdata issuing bank, were named defendants in
the merchant class litigation.

Comdata has reviewed the settlement agreement, as well as the
procedural posture of the litigation, in light of its status as a
member service provider and its contractual relationships with
MasterCard, the issuing bank and its customers to assess the level
of potential liability specific to the proposed Interchange Rate
Relief. The Company recorded $8.0 million for the nine-month
period ended September 30, 2012 in other operating expense in the
accompanying condensed consolidated statements of operations and
comprehensive loss due to its status as a member service provider.


FORD MOTOR: Recalls 9,956 MKS Cars Due to Door Handle Woes
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            January 28, 2015
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Structure
Units affected:           9956
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2015035
TC ID number:             2015035
Manufacturer recall
number:                   15S02

On certain vehicles, the return spring within the interior door
handle assembly could become unseated, resulting in an interior
handle that does not return to the fully stowed position after
actuation.  This could allow a door to unlatch during a side
impact crash, which could increase the risk of injury to a seat
occupant.

Correction: Dealers will inspect, and repair or replace the
interior handles as necessary.

Affected products: 2011 Lincoln MKS


FORD MOTOR: Recalls 7 Ranger Trucks Due to Airbag Problem
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 5, 2015
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Light Truck & Van
Notification type:        Service Campaign Mfr
System:                   Airbag
Units affected:           7
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2015054
TC ID number:             2015054
Manufacturer recall
number:                   14S28

Ford Canada is conducting a voluntary Safety Improvement Program
involving driver and passenger airbag inflators certain vehicles
that were originally sold or ever registered in certain high
humidity areas of the United States equipped with Takata airbags.
Ford will replace the driver or passenger inflator on affected
vehicles, depending on the vehicle involved.  Owners who believe
their vehicles may have been originally purchased or registered in
the states of Florida, Hawaii, Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin
Islands should contact a Ford dealer.  This action is not being
conducted under the requirements of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Affected products: 2003 Ford Ranger


FORENSIC COUNSELORS: "Carr" Suit Remanded to State Court
--------------------------------------------------------
Clark Carr, et al. v. National Association of Forensic Counselors,
Inc., et al. Case No. CV 14-8761-JFW (JCX) (C.D. Cal.), goes back
to state court where it was originally filed, according to a
ruling by District Judge John F. Walter of the Central District of
California.

Carr filed the suit on his own behalf and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated persons against the defendants in Los Angeles
Superior Court. Plaintiff alleges that defendants provided alcohol
and drug counselor certifications to individuals in California and
fraudulently represented that their certifications were nationally
recognized when in fact the California Department of Alcohol and
Drug Programs never authorized any of the defendants to certify
alcohol and drug counselors. Plaintiff alleges consumer fraud and
unfair competition under California Business & Professions Code
Sections 17200 et seq., fraudulent and false advertising,
California Business & Professions Code Sections 17500 et seq., and
fraud.

On November 12, 2014, defendants filed a notice of removal
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1441(b) alleging that the federal
district court for the Central District of California had
jurisdiction over the subject matter. On November 20, 2014,
defendants filed a Supplement to Notice of Removal Concerning
Amount in Controversy. In the Second Notice of Removal, the
defendants allege that the federal district court has subject
matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d) (CAFA). Plaintiff argues that the
Second Notice of Removal is improper.

Defendants National Association of Forensic Counselors, Inc. and
American Academy of Certified Forensic Counselors, d/b/a American
College of Certified Forensic Counselors (Entity defendants) filed
a motion to dismiss the case or in the alternative transfer the
same, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rules 12(b) and 13(a). On
December 4, 2014, defendants Francis Deisler and Karla Deisler
Taylor (Individual defendants) filed a motion to dismiss.

On December 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed Motion for Remand pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Sections 1332 and 1447, and for Attorneys' Fees pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Section 1447.

According to Judge Walter, Plaintiff's motion for remand is
granted and the action is remanded to Los Angeles Superior Court
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff's motion for
attorney's fees is denied and the entity defendants' motion to
dismiss or transfer and the individual defendants' motion to
dismiss are denied as moot.

A copy of Judge Walter's order dated December 29, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/iq39z8from Leagle.com.

Clark Carr, Plaintiff, represented by David C Scheper --
dscheper@scheperkim.com -- Margaret E Dayton --
pdayton@scheperkim.com -- William H Forman --
wforman@scheperkim.com -- at Scheper Kim and Harris LLP

Defendants, represented by Steven Alan Fink --
sfink@stevefinklaw.com  -- at Law Offices of Steven Fink; David R
Keesling -- David@KLGattorneys.com -- at Keesling Law Group PLLC


FOREST LABORATORIES: 1st Cir. Affirms "Marcus" Suit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE: CELEXA AND LEXAPRO MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES
LITIGATION. RANDY and BONNIE MARCUS, on behalf of themselves and
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, Appellants, v.
FOREST LABORATORIES, INC. and FOREST PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
Defendants, Appellees, NO. 14-1290, an appeal arose out of this
putative class action against Forest Pharmaceuticals, the
manufacturer of Lexapro, an antidepressant medication. Plaintiffs
claim that Lexapro's FDA-approved drug label misleads California
consumers by omitting material efficacy information, in violation
of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Cal. Civ. Code
Section 1750 et seq., False Advertising Law (FAL), Cal. Bus. &
Prof. Code Section 17500 et seq., and Unfair Competition Law
(UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq.  The district
court dismissed these claims, finding them barred by California's
safe harbor doctrine.

Expressing no view on the California safe harbor doctrine's
applicability, the United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit
on February 20, 2015, found that federal law impliedly preempts
these claims because the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FDCA), 21 U.S.C. Section 301 et seq., prohibits Forest from
independently changing its FDA-approved label as plaintiffs claim
California law requires.  The Appeals Court, therefore, affirmed
the judgment dismissing the complaint.

A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/AAP2NIfrom
Leagle.com.

R. Brent Wisner, with whom Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, P.C.
and Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP were on brief, for appellant.
Edwin G. Schallert, with whom Debevoise & Plimpton LLP and
Sugarman, Rogers, Barshak & Cohen, P.C. were on brief, for
appellee.


GE DEALER: DBTCA Reviewing Newly-Filed Pleadings
------------------------------------------------
GE Dealer Floorplan Master Note Trust said in its Form 10-D Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30,
2015, that Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas ("DBTCA"), as
indenture trustee, has provided the following information to CDF
Funding, Inc. for inclusion in this Form 10-D:

DBTCA has been named as a defendant in civil litigation concerning
its role as trustee of certain residential mortgage backed
securities ("RMBS") trusts. On June 18, 2014, a group of investors
("Plaintiff Investors") filed a civil action against DBTCA and
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company ("DBNTC") in New York State
Supreme Court purportedly on behalf of and for the benefit of 544
private-label RMBS trusts asserting claims for alleged violations
of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, breach of contract, breach of
fiduciary duty and negligence based on DBTCA's and DBNTC's alleged
failure to perform their obligations as trustees for the trusts
(the "NY Derivative Action"). An amended complaint was filed on
July 16, 2014, adding Plaintiff Investors and RMBS trusts to the
NY Derivative Action. On November 24, 2014, the Plaintiff
Investors moved to voluntarily dismiss the NY Derivative Action
without prejudice. Also on November 24, 2014, substantially the
same group of Plaintiff Investors filed a civil action against
DBTCA and DBNTC in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (the "SDNY Action"), making
substantially the same allegations as the NY Derivative Action
with respect to 564 RMBS trusts (542 of which were at issue in the
NY Derivative Action). The SDNY Action is styled both as a
derivative action on behalf of the named RMBS trusts and, in the
alternative, as a putative class action on behalf of holders of
RMBS representing interests in those RMBS trusts. DBTCA is
reviewing these newly-filed pleadings. DBTCA has no pending legal
proceedings that would materially affect its ability to perform
its duties as indenture trustee on behalf of the noteholders.


GENERAL MOTORS: Removes "Barros" Injury Suit to M.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Barros v. General Motors, L.L.C., et al.,
Case No. 15-CA-000125, was removed from the Circuit Court of the
20th Florida Judicial Circuit in Lee County, Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Ft. Myers).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-00101-SPC-DNF
to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges that as a direct and proximate result of the
Chevrolet Cobalt losing control, Raymond Santiago, Jr., suffered
serious significant serious personal injuries resulting in his
death.  Mr. Barros was Virgenmina Barros' son.

Cobalt was designed, manufactured, marketed, and distributed by
GM.  GM has admitted having faulty air bag systems and ignition
switch problems in many of its vehicles, including Cobalt.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Lewis Beckman, Esq.
          VILES & BECKMAN, LLC
          6350 Presidential Ct., Suite A
          Ft. Myers, FL 33919
          Telephone: (239) 334-3933
          Facsimile: (239) 334-7105
          E-mail: michael@vilesandbeckman.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brian Baggot, Esq.
          RUMBERGER, KIRK & CALDWELL, PA
          100 N Tampa St., Suite 2000
          PO Box 3390
          Tampa, FL 33601-3390
          Telephone: (813) 223-4253
          Facsimile: (813) 221-4752
          E-mail: bbaggot@rumberger.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Removes "Unseul" Suit to Florida District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Unseul v. General Motors, L.L.C.,
et al., Case No. 15-CA-0000058, was removed from the Circuit Court
of the 20th Florida Judicial Circuit in Lee County, Florida, to
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Ft.
Myers).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-00102-
JES-CM to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges that as a direct and proximate result of the
Chevrolet Cobalt losing control, Amos Joseph, suffered serious
significant serious personal injuries resulting in his death.  Mr.
Joseph was Jeanette Unseul's son.

Cobalt was designed, manufactured, marketed, and distributed by
GM.  GM has admitted having faulty air bag systems and ignition
switch problems in many of its vehicles, including Cobalt.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Lewis Beckman, Esq.
          VILES & BECKMAN, LLC
          6350 Presidential Ct., Suite A
          Ft. Myers, FL 33919
          Telephone: (239) 334-3933
          Facsimile: (239) 334-7105
          E-mail: michael@vilesandbeckman.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brian Baggot, Esq.
          RUMBERGER, KIRK & CALDWELL, PA
          100 N Tampa St., Suite 2000
          PO Box 3390
          Tampa, FL 33601-3390
          Telephone: (813) 223-4253
          Facsimile: (813) 221-4752
          E-mail: bbaggot@rumberger.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Acadia Model
------------------------------------
Starting date:            January 27, 2015
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Tire
Notification type:        Compliance Mfr
System:                   Tires
Units affected:           411
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2015033
TC ID number:             2015033
Manufacturer recall
number:                   15025

Certain vehicles may be equipped with tires that may not comply
with Canadian Motor Vehicle Tire Safety Regulations.  During the
inspection phase of routine tire compliance testing, cracks were
observed in the tire's tread.  This is contrary to the
requirements of the standard.  This could result in tire noise,
ride vibration and/or tread chunking.  Tires operated in this
condition could be at greater risk of failure, increasing the risk
of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property.

Correction: Dealers will replace affected tires.

Affected products: 2015 GMC Acadia


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Malibu, Malibu MAXX and G6 Models
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 4, 2015
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety TC
System:                   Steering
Units affected:           9675
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2015048
TC ID number:             2015048
Manufacturer recall
number:                   14772

Certain vehicles equipped with electric power steering may
experience a sudden loss of power steering assist that could occur
at any time while driving.  If the power steering assist is lost,
a message is displayed on the Driver Information Centre and a
chime sounds to inform the driver.  Steering control can be
maintained, as the vehicle will revert to a manual steering mode,
but will require greater driver effort.  The sudden change in
steering may increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or
property damage.

Dealers will replace the torque sensor assembly with a redesigned
one.  Note: This recall is an expansion of recalls 2012-331 and
2014-104.  Vehicles having already been repaired under the
previous campaigns do not require re-inspection.

Affected products:

   Maker        Model          Model year(s) affected
   -----        -----          ----------------------
   CHEVROLET    MALIBU         2006
   CHEVROLET    MALIBU MAXX    2006
   PONTIAC      G6             2006


GERON CORP: Dismissal Bid in "Patel" Suit to be Heard April 10
--------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing will be convened on April 10, 2015, in California
district court to consider Geron Corp's Motion to Dismiss an
amended class action complaint by lead plaintiff Vinod Patel.

The new hearing date was stipulated by the parties.  The hearing
was originally scheduled for March 6, 2015.

Geron Corp. has until Feb. 27 to file and serve their Reply in
support of the Motion to Dismiss.

A copy of the Feb. 11, 2015 stipulation order is available at
http://is.gd/fqZhgjfrom Leagle.com.

The case is IN RE GERON CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, CASE
NO. 14-CV-01224-CRB (N.D. Cal.).

COOLEY LLP, JOHN C. DWYER, BRETT DE JARNETTE, Palo Alto, CA.
COOLEY LLP, RYAN E. BLAIR, San Diego, CA, Attorneys for Defendants
Geron Corporation, John A. Scarlett, Olivia K. Bloom, and Stephen
M. Kelsey.

FARUQI & FARUQI LLP, DAVID E. BOWER, RICHARD W. GONNELLO, MEGAN M.
SULLIVAN, Richard W. Gonnello (Pro Hac Vice) Counsel for Lead
Plaintiff Vinod Patel.


GOURMET TRADING: Recalls Frontier Soup Mushroom Barley Soup
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 6, 2015
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Labeling
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Gourmet Trading Company Ltd.
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9626

Affected products: 113 g. Frontier Soups Mushroom Barley Soup Mix
with Lot GTPA3393, Best Before 08/29/2016 and Lot GTPA3604, Best
Before 11/06/2016


GROUPON INC: 9th Cir. Vacates Approval of Accord and Remands Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In In re: GROUPON MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION,
ANTHONY FERREIRA; HEATHER KIMEL; BRIAN ZARD; SARAH GOSLING; ASHLEY
CHRISTENSEN; WILLIAM EIDENMULLER; JASON COHEN; CARLOS VAZQUEZ; ELI
R. JOHNSON; JULIE BUCKLEY; SARAH MEHEL; NEVIN BOOTH; BARRIE
ARLISS; JEFF LAWRIE; MICHAEL MCPHERSON; ERIC TERRELL; KENNETH
HINTON; E.G. JOHNSON; NICHOLAS SPENCER, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
PADRAIGIN BROWNE, Objector-Appellant, v. GROUPON, INC.; NORDSTROM
INC.; FUN TIME, LLC, DBA Wheel Fun Rentals; YMCA OF METROPOLITAN
WASHINGTON; WHIRLY WEST INC., DBA WhirlyBall; SPA BLIX, INC., a
Washington corporation; FULL CIRCLE FARMS, INC., a Washington
corporation; CHARLES RIVERBOAT COMPANY, INC.; BEAUTY & BLISS, LLC;
THE GAP, INC., Defendants-Appellees. In re: GROUPON MARKETING AND
SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION, ANTHONY FERREIRA; HEATHER KIMEL; BRIAN
ZARD; SARAH GOSLING; ASHLEY CHRISTENSEN; WILLIAM EIDENMULLER;
JASON COHEN; CARLOS VAZQUEZ; ELI R. JOHNSON; JULIE BUCKLEY; SARAH
MEHEL; NEVIN BOOTH; BARRIE ARLISS; JEFF LAWRIE; MICHAEL MCPHERSON;
ERIC TERRELL; KENNETH HINTON; E.G. JOHNSON; NICHOLAS SPENCER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SEAN HULL, Objector-Appellant, v.
GROUPON, INC.; NORDSTROM INC.; FUN TIME, LLC, DBA Wheel Fun
Rentals; YMCA OF METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON; WHIRLY WEST INC., DBA
WhirlyBall; SPA BLIX, INC., a Washington corporation; FULL CIRCLE
FARMS, INC., a Washington corporation; CHARLES RIVERBOAT COMPANY,
INC.; BEAUTY & BLISS, LLC; THE GAP, INC., Defendants-Appellees,
NOS. 13-55118, 13-55128, a dispute arose from the district court's
approval of a class action settlement between Defendants-Appellees
Groupon and other merchants (Groupon) and a nationwide class of
customers (collectively, the settling parties). On appeal,
Objectors-Appellants Sean Hull and Padraigin Browne contend that
notice of the settlement was inadequate, and that the district
court made several errors when it approved the settlement and
awarded attorneys' fees to class counsel.

In a memorandum entered February 19, 2015, the United States Court
of Appeals, Ninth Circuit stated, "Mindful of the high procedural
standard that we have set for settlements that, like the one at
issue here, occur before certification of the class, we vacate
approval and remand to the district court so that it can conduct a
"more searching inquiry into the fairness of the negotiated
distribution of funds, as well as consider the substantive
reasonableness of the attorneys' fee request in light of the
degree of success attained.""

On remand, the parties and the district court may explore the
extent to which values may be quantified by reference to factual
or expert testimony, or reliably bounded within a specific range
of values that are expected, or illustrated by proxy evidence.
After appropriately supplementing the record, the district court
may exercise its discretion to reapprove the settlement and class
counsels' fee, reapprove the settlement but modify class counsels'
fee, to disapprove the settlement, or take other appropriate
actions depending on its inquiry, findings, and evaluation of
whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, the
Ninth Circuit concluded.

A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/h9PD5Ifrom
Leagle.com


GRUMA CORP: Sued for Violating Fair Labor Standards Act in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Matos Hernandez v. Gruma Corporation Pueblo a/k/a Mission
Food Pueblo, Case No. 3:15-cv-00541-D (N.D. Tex., February 17,
2015) seeks relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Class Action Related to Overdraft Fees Settled
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., said in an exhibit to its Form
8-K Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on January 30, 2015, that American Savings Bank, F.S.B.
(American), a wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of Hawaiian
Electric Industries, Inc. (NYSE - HE), reported that fourth
quarter 2014 net income of $12.0 million was $1.2 million lower
than the linked quarter and $0.2 million lower than the same
quarter of 2013.  Compared to the linked quarter of 2014, the $1.2
million decline was primarily driven by the following on an after-
tax basis:

* $1 million higher noninterest expense largely attributable to
the settlement of a purported class action lawsuit related to
overdraft fees on debit card transactions and costs related to the
strategic designation of a new corporate campus in Honolulu; and

* $1 million higher provision for loan losses related to loan
growth in the quarter.


HEARTLAND: Recalls Big Horn and Big Country Model Trailers
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            January 30, 2015
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Light Trailer
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Structure
Units affected:           8
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2015046
TC ID number:             2015046
Manufacturer recall
number:                   99-01-19

On certain fifth wheel trailers, the axles may have been installed
too far forward, which could affect weight distribution.
Incorrectly distributed trailer weight could adversely affect
vehicle stability and potentially cause an uncontrolled swaying
motion, which could result in a crash causing injury and/or
property damage.  Correction: Heartland will either relocate the
axles rearward, or install a ballast to the pin box and upgrade
the axles to offset the increased ballast, depending on the model
involved.  Each trailer will also be weighed and tire, axle and
cargo capacity labels bearing updated information will be applied.

Affected products:

   Maker        Model           Model year(s) affected
   -----        -----           ----------------------
   HEARTLAND    BIG HORN        2015
   HEARTLAND    BIG COUNTRY     2015


HUNTER WARFIELD: Faces "Wilkerson" Suit Alleging EFTA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Keisha Wilkerson, Individually and on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Hunter Warfield, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-00324-NYW (D. Colo., February 17, 2015) is brought pursuant to
the Electronic Fund Transfer Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          G. Thomas Martin, III, Esq.
          MARTIN & BONTRAGER, APC
          6565 West Sunset Boulevard, Suite 410
          Los Angeles, CA 90028
          Telephone: (323) 940-1700
          Facsimile: (323) 238-8095
          E-mail: tom@mblawapc.com


HYPERDYNAMICS CORPORATION: 2012 Class Action Still in Early Stage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hyperdynamics Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that a class action
filed on April 2, 2012, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas is the early stage.

"On April 2, 2012, a lawsuit styled as a class action was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against
us and our chief executive officer alleging that we made false and
misleading statements that artificially inflated our stock
prices," the Company said. "The lawsuit alleges, among other
things, that we misrepresented the prospects and progress of our
drilling operations, including our drilling of the Sabu-1 well and
plans to drill the Baraka-1 well off the coast of the Republic of
Guinea.  The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of damages based
on Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Although several lead plaintiffs were appointed by the Court and
then withdrew from the matter, a lead plaintiff has now been
appointed and a scheduling order governing briefing on a motion to
dismiss has been entered by the Court."

"On May 12, 2014, lead plaintiff filed his amended complaint ading
our current and former chief financial officers as defendants, and
defendants filed their motion to dismiss on July 11, 2014. On
August 20, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a response to our motion
to dismiss, and we filed our reply on September 19, 2014.

"We have assessed the status of this matter and have concluded
that an adverse judgment remains reasonably possible, but not
probable. As a result, no provision has been made in the
consolidated financial statements. Given the early stage of this
dispute, we are unable to estimate a range of possible loss;
however, in our opinion, the outcome of this dispute will not have
a material effect on our financial condition and results of
operations."


HYPERDYNAMICS CORPORATION: Motion to Consolidate Suits Filed
------------------------------------------------------------
Hyperdynamics Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the lead
plaintiff in an April 2012 lawsuit filed a motion to consolidate
the March 2014 class action cases with the earlier case.

"Beginning on March 13, 2014, two lawsuits styled as class actions
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas against us and several officers of the Company alleging that
we made false and misleading statements that artificially inflated
our stock prices," the Company said.  "The lawsuits allege, among
other things, that we misrepresented our compliance with the
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and anti-money laundering statutes
and that we lacked adequate internal controls.  The lawsuits seek
damages based on Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, although the specific amount of damages is not
specified. On May 12, 2014, a shareholder filed a motion for
appointment as lead plaintiff, which remains pending. Also, on May
12, 2014, lead plaintiff in the April 2012 lawsuit filed a motion
to consolidate the March 2014 cases with the earlier case. The
parties await a ruling on the motion to consolidate.

"In addition to these lawsuits, we have received demands from
stockholders to inspect our books and records; however, no
proceedings have been initiated. We have assessed the status of
these matters and have concluded that an adverse judgment remains
reasonably possible, but not probable. As a result, no provision
has been made in the consolidated financial statements. Given the
early stage of these disputes, we are unable to estimate a range
of possible loss; however, in our opinion, the outcome of this
dispute will not have a material effect on our financial condition
and results of operations."


IC SYSTEM: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tolzoh Katzburg, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. I.C. System, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00811-
ENV-LB (E.D.N.Y., February 17, 2015) accuses the Defendant of
violating 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


INTERSTATE DISTRIBUTOR: Trial Ct. Ruling in Marine Case Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Marine, a truck driver employed by defendant Interstate
Distributor Co. (Interstate), filed a putative class action
alleging Interstate failed to comply with California meal and
break period regulations. Following certification of a class
consisting of all Interstate drivers on exclusively intrastate
routes, the trial court granted judgment on the pleadings to
Interstate, concluding Marine's claims were preempted by the
Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (49
U.S.C. Section 14501 et seq.; Act).

Marine argued the trial court erred in concluding his claims were
preempted by the Act.

Relying primarily on state and federal appellate court decisions
rendered after entry of the trial court's order, the Court of
Appeals of California, First District, Division One reversed the
judgment of the trial court and the finding of preemption.

The Calif. Appeals Court remanded the matter for further
proceedings consistent with its decision.

The case is MARTIN MARINE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
INTERSTATE DISTRIBUTOR CO., Defendant and Respondent, NO. A138658.

A copy of Calif. Appeals Court's February 20, 2015 opinion is
available at http://is.gd/CseYhffrom Leagle.com.


INVENSENSE INC: Faces 3 Class Action Complaints
-----------------------------------------------
InvenSense, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended December 28, 2014, that a purported
shareholder filed on January 7, 2015, a class action complaint in
the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California against
the Company and two of the Company's current and former executives
(the "Securities Case"). Jim McMillan, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. InvenSense, Inc., et al. Civil
Action No. 3:15-cv-00084-JD. The complaint alleges that the
defendants violated the federal securities laws by making
materially false and misleading statements regarding our business
results between July 29, 2014 and October 28, 2014, and seeks
unspecified damages along with plaintiff's costs and expenses,
including attorneys' fees. A second complaint, William Lendales v.
InvenSense, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00142-VC, was filed on
January 12, 2015, by a different purported shareholder, in the
same court, setting forth substantially the same allegations. A
third complaint, Plumber & Steamfitters Local 21 Pension Fund v.
InvenSense, Inc., et al., Civil Action No 5:15-cv-00249-BLF, was
filed on January 16, 2015, by a different purported shareholder,
in the same court, setting forth substantially the same
allegations. The Company has undertaken an evaluation of these
complaints. A fourth complaint, William B. Davis vs. InvenSense,
Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 5:15-cv-00425-RMW, was filed on
January 29, 2015, by a different purported shareholder, in the
same court, setting forth substantially the same allegations.


JB'S SAUSAGE: Recalls Chicken Breading Due to Undeclared Soy
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 3, 2015
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Gluten, Allergen - Soy,
                          Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           JB's Sausage Maker Supplies Ltd.
Distribution:             Saskatchewan
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9583

Affected products: 1 kg. JB's Sausage Supplies Chicken Breading
with all codes where soy and wheat are not declared on the label


KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN: Faces "Gross" Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kansas City Southern still faces the securities class action
styled as Gross v. Kansas City Southern, et al., the Company said
in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on January 30, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2014.

On April 15, 2014, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Western District
of Missouri against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors. The securities class action is
styled as Gross v. Kansas City Southern, et al., 4:14-cv-00345-
BCW. On April 16, 2014, the first of two shareholder derivative
actions purportedly brought on behalf of the Company (which is
named as a "nominal defendant") was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Missouri against
certain of the Company's current and former directors and
officers. The first derivative action is styled as Webster v.
Starling, et al., 4:14-cv-00349-BCW. The second derivative action
was filed on June 6, 2014, and is styled as Lerner v. Starling, et
al., 4:14-cv-00509-BCW. The complaints allege, among other things,
that the Company made misrepresentations or omitted to disclose
certain facts in connection with its volume guidance for fiscal
year 2013. The complaints seek unspecified damages and equitable
relief. While the outcome of these matters cannot be predicted
with certainty, the Company does not believe that, when resolved,
these disputes will have a material effect on its consolidated
financial statements. However, an adverse resolution could have a
material effect on the Company's consolidated financial
statements.


KIDDE: Recalls Plastic Valve Disposable Fire Extinguishers
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 6, 2015
Posting date:             February 6, 2015
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Household Items
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-43609

The recall involves Kidde and Garrison branded black plastic Zytel
Nylon valve disposable fire extinguishers manufactured between
July 23, 2013 and Oct. 15, 2014.

The affected fire extinguishers are white or red in color and are
either ABC or BC-rated.  The Kidde or Garrison logo and serial
number are located on the nameplate.  The date code is an ink jet
10-digit number stamped on the side of the cylinder near the
bottom.  Digits 5-9 of this number convey the day and year of
manufacture.

Affected units will have these five digits in a date code:

2013: XXXX20413X through XXXX36513X,
2014: XXXX00114X through XXXX28814X.

The models are:

    Description       Model Number            UPC
    -----------       ------------            ---
  Kidde 1A 10BC      E110, FULL HOME 110   047871662968
  Kidde 1A 10BCW     E110, FULL HOME 110   047871661497
  Kidde 2A 10BC      FX210                 047871071708
  Garrison 2A 10BC   46-0066-6             047871074044
  Garrison 5BC       46-0092-2             047871074020
  Kidde 5BC          E5, M5C, BC5GD        047871662944
  Kidde 5BCW         E5, M5C, BC5GD        047871661787
  Kidde 10BC         ELITE 10, ELITE 10
                     HOME, E10, E10H       047871662951
  Kidde FC110        E110, FULL HOME 110   047871680290

The disposable fire extinguishers may not fully discharge as
designed when the lever is pressed and released multiple times.
This defect is caused by an out-of-specification valve component.

Neither Kidde Canada nor Health Canada has received reports of
consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use of
these products.

Approximately 175,000 units were sold in Canada at various
retailers.

The affected fire extinguishers were manufactured in Mexico and
sold between August 2013 and November 2014.

Companies:

Manufacturer     Kidde Matamoros, S. de R.L. de C.V.
                 Tamps
                 Mexico

Distributor      Walter Kidde Portable Equipment Company, Inc.
                 Mebane
                 North Carolina
                 United States

Customers should immediately check the date code and model number
on their plastic valve disposable fire extinguishers to determine
if any of their devices are included in the recall.  If so,
consumers should contact Kidde Canada for a free replacement.


LEUCADIA NATIONAL: March 25 Hearing on Shareholder Suit Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
Leucadia National Corporation said in its Form 8-K Current Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30,
2015, that on January 16, 2015, the Company entered into a
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the "Stipulation")
reflecting the previously disclosed terms of the settlement of the
consolidated stockholder class action, entitled In re Jefferies
Group, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 8059-
CB, relating to the March 1, 2013 transaction through which
Jefferies Group LLC became the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary.

"While we and the other defendants continue to deny each of the
plaintiffs' claims and deny any liability, we agreed to the
settlement solely to resolve the disputes, to avoid the costs and
risks of further litigation and to avoid further distractions to
our management.  The terms of the settlement agreement are subject
to court approval, the hearing date for which is March 25, 2015 at
10:00 a.m. at the Delaware Court of Chancery," the Company said.


MACK: Recalls CXU Model Over Air Brake System Problems
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            January 30, 2015
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type:        Compliance Mfr
System:                   Brakes
Units affected:           10
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2015044
TC ID number:             2015044
Manufacturer recall
number:                   SC0389

Certain vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Canada
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 121 - Air Brake Systems.  These
vehicles were built with insufficient air tank reserve capacity,
which may provide an insufficient air supply to properly operate
the brakes during repetitive brake applications.  This may result
in reduced braking performance which could result in a vehicle
crash.

Correction: Dealers will install a bigger air tank to increase air
reservoir capacity.

Affected products: 2014 MACK CXU


MACK: Recalls LEU Model Due to Defective Door Latches
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            January 30, 2015
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Structure
Units affected:           56
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2015045
TC ID number:             2015045
Manufacturer recall
number:                   SC0388

On certain vehicles, the door latches may fail and prevent the
driver and/or passenger from opening the door from inside the cab.
If this were to occur, the driver and/or passenger(s) may not be
able to quickly exit the vehicle in an emergency, which could
increase the risk of injury.  Correction: Dealers will replace
affected door latches.

Affected products: 2015 Mack Leu


MACK: Recalls CXU Model Due to Defective Air Brake Systems
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            January 30, 2015
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type:        Compliance Mfr
System:                   Brakes
Units affected:           10
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2015044
TC ID number:             2015044
Manufacturer recall
number:                   SC0389

Certain vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Canada
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 121 - Air Brake Systems.  These
vehicles were built with insufficient air tank reserve capacity,
which may provide an insufficient air supply to properly operate
the brakes during repetitive brake applications.  This may result
in reduced braking performance which could result in a vehicle
crash.

Correction: Dealers will install a bigger air tank to increase air
reservoir capacity.

Affected products: 2014 MACK CXU


MANAC: Recalls Semi-Trailer Model Due to Possible Brake Drag
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            January 30, 2015
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Heavy Trailer
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Brakes
Units affected:           169
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2015043
TC ID number:             2015043

On certain vehicles, brake chamber diaphragm(s) may not be
properly seated.  This could lead to brake drag, causing brake
overheating or unintended spring brake application.  These issues
could increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or property
damage.

Correction: Dealers will affect repairs as necessary.
Affected products

Makes and models affected: 2015 Manac Semi-Trailer


MCKESSON CORP: Received Share of Class Action Settlements
---------------------------------------------------------
McKesson Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the company's
Distribution Solutions segment's gross profit increased in the
third quarter and first nine months of 2015 primarily due to the
Company's acquisition of Celesio and growth in its other
Distribution Solutions businesses.  "Gross profit margin increased
in 2015 primarily due to our acquisition of Celesio and higher buy
margin reflecting higher volume and price increases of
pharmaceutical products. These increases were partially offset by
a decrease in sell margin primarily driven by higher sales volume
and the increased sales associated with the recently launched
drugs for the treatment of Hepatitis C, which have lower margins.
The gross profit margin for the third quarter and first nine
months of 2014 was favorably affected by the receipt of $27
million and $34 million, representing our share of settlements of
antitrust class action lawsuits brought against drug
manufacturers," the Company said.


MEL S. HARRIS: 2nd Cir. Affirms Class Cert. Ruling in Sykes Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated appeals are taken from the September 4, 2012 class
certification opinion in Sykes v. Mel Harris & Assocs., LLC, 285
F.R.D. 279 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) ("Sykes II"), and March 28, 2013 class
certification order of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  Defendants in this case comprise
three entities: "(1) various subsidiaries of Leucadia National
Corporation (Leucadia) that purchase and collect consumer debt;
(2) Mel S. Harris and Associates LLC (Mel Harris), a law firm
specializing in debt collection litigation; [and] (3) Samserv,
Inc. (Samserv), a process service company."  Defendants also
include "associates of each of the foregoing entities," id., and
which are respectively referred to as the Leucadia defendants, Mel
Harris defendants, and Samserv defendants.

The district court's March 28, 2013 order certified two classes.
The first class, certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, comprises "all persons who have
been or will be sued by the Mel Harris defendants as counsel for
the Leucadia defendants . . . assert[ing] claims under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18
U.S.C. [Section] 1961; New York General Business Law (GBL)
[Section] 349; and New York Judiciary Law [Secion] 487."

The second class, certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, comprised "all persons who have
been sued by the Mel Harris defendants as counsel for the Leucadia
defendants in . . . New York City Civil Court and where a default
judgment has been obtained. Plaintiffs in the Rule 23(b)(3) class
assert claims under RICO; the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
[(FDCPA)], 15 U.S.C. [Section] 1692; GBL [Section] 349; and New
York Judiciary Law [Section] 487."

The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, in an order
entered February 10, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/gQBdQxfrom Leagle.com, affirmed the class
certification saying the district court did not abuse its
discretion in certifying either class.

The case is MONIQUE SYKES, REA VEERABADREN, KELVIN PEREZ, CLIFTON
ARMOOGAM, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MEL S. HARRIS AND ASSOCIATES
LLC, MEL S. HARRIS, TODD FABACHER, MICHAEL YOUNG, KERRY LUTZ,
ESQ., LR CREDIT 18, LLC, L-CREDIT, LLC, LEUCADIA NATIONAL
CORPORATION, LR CREDIT, LLC, LR CREDIT 10, LLC, SAMSERV, INC.,
WILLIAM MLOTOK, BENJAMIN LAMB, DAVID WALDMAN, JOSEPH A. ORLANDO,
MICHAEL MOSQUERA, JOHN ANDINO, LR CREDIT 14, LLC, LR CREDIT 21,
LLC, PHILIP M. CANNELLA, Defendants-Appellants, DOCKET NOS. 13-
2742-CV, 13-2747-CV, 13-2748-CV.

PAUL D. CLEMENT, Bancroft PLLC, Washington, DC (Candice Chiu,
Bancroft PLLC, Washington, DC; James R. Asperger and Maria
Ginzburg, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, New York, NY;
Marc A. Becker, London, UK; Brett A. Scher, Kaufman Dolowich &
Voluck LLP, Woodbury, NY, on the brief), for Defendants-Appellants
Mel S. Harris LLC, Mel S. Harris, Michael Young, David Waldman,
Kerry Lutz, and Todd Fabacher.

MIGUEL A. ESTRADA, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC
(Scott P. Martin, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC;
Michael Zimmerman, Zimmerman Jones Booher LLC, Salt Lake City, UT;
Lewis H. Goldfarb and Adam R. Schwartz, McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney
& Carpetner LLP, Morristown, NJ; Mark D. Harris, Proskauer Rose
LLP, New York, NY, on the brief), for Defendants-Appellants
Leucadia National Corporation, L-Credit, LLC, LR Credit, LLC, LR
Credit 10, LLC, LR Credit 14, LLC, LR Credit 18, LLC, LR Credit
21, LLC, Joseph A. Orlando, and Philip M. Cannella.

JACK BABCHIK, Babchik & Young LLP, White Plains, NY, for
Defendants-Appellants Samserv, Inc., William Mlotok, Benjamin
Lamb, Michael Mosquera, and John Andino.

MATTHEW D. BRINCKERHOFF, Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP, New
York, NY (Jonathan S. Abady, Debra L. Greenberger and Vasudha
Talla, Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP, New York, NY; Josh
Zinner, Susan Shin and Claudia Wilner, New Economy Project, New
York, NY; Carolyn E. Coffey and Ariana Lindermayer, of counsel to
Jeanette Zelhoff, MFY Legal Services, New York, NY; Charles J.
Ogletree, Jr., Harvard Law School, Boston, MA, on the brief), for
Plaintiffs-Appellees.

JEAN CONSTANTINE-DAVIS, AARP Foundation Litigation, Washington,
DC, on behalf of Amici Curiae AARP, National Association of
Consumer Advocates, and National Consumer Law Center, in support
of Plaintiffs-Appellees.

DANIELLE F. TARANTOLO, New York Legal Assistance Group, New York,
NY, on behalf of Amicus Curiae Consumer Advocates, in support of
Plaintiffs-Appellees.

SARANG VIJAY DAMLE, Senior Counsel, Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau, Washington, DC (Meredith Fuchs, General Counsel, To-Quyen
Truong, Deputy General Counsel, David M. Gossett, Assistant
General Counsel, Jessica Rank Divine, Attorney, Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau, Washington, DC; Jonathan E. Nuechterlein,
General Counsel, John F. Daly, Deputy General Counsel for
Litigation, Theodore (Jack) Metzler, Attorney, Federal Trade
Commission, Washington, DC, on the brief), on behalf of Amici
Curiae The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Federal Trade
Commission, in support of Plaintiffs-Appellees.


MERCEDES-BENZ: Recalls Sprinter 2500 and Sprinter 3500 Models
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 6, 2015
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Light Truck & Van
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Structure
Units affected:           1173
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2015055
TC ID number:             2015055

On certain vehicles, the B-pillar may not have been correctly
assembled.  As a result, the doors could be more difficult to open
if the vehicle was involved in a severe frontal collision.  This
could increase the risk of injury.

Correction: Dealers will inspect and repair the B-pillar as
needed.

Affected products: 2015 MERCEDES-BENZ SPRINTER 2500 and 2015
MERCEDES-BENZ SPRINTER 3500


METROPOLITAN TEA: Recalls Flavored Teas Due to Undeclared Milk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 3, 2015
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Sulphites
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           The Metropolitan Tea Company Ltd.
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number:    9611


MICROSEMI CORP: Obtains Final Approval of "Williamson" Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lucy h. Koh granted final approval of a class
action settlement in JANE WILLIAMSON and GERALD BEAUCHESNE, on
Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. MICROSEMI CORP., PETT ACQUISITION CORP.,
SYMMETRICOM, INC., and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants,
CASE NO. 5:14-CV-01827-LHK, (N.D. Cal.).

The Court certified the Class defined as:  Any employee of
Symmetricom who remained on Symmetricom's payroll as of November
26, 2013 and was a participant in Symmetricom's Incentive
Compensation Plan and/or Symmetricom's Success Sharing Plan.

The Court confirmed Cliff Palefsky and Scott Stillman of McGuinn,
Hillsman & Palefsky, and Michael Rubin and Eve Cervantez of
Altshuler Berzon LLP as Class Counsel.

As set forth in more detail in a separate Order Awarding
Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses, and Class
Representative Incentive Payments, an award of attorneys' fees in
the aggregate amount of $587,500-equivalent to 25% of the total
Gross Settlement Value -- and for costs and litigation expenses in
the aggregate amount of $6,280.07 as final payment for and
complete satisfaction of any and all attorneys' fees and costs
incurred by and/or owed to Class Counsel is granted. A payment to
Dahl Administration, Inc, as Claims Administrator, in the
aggregate amount of $14,830.00 is similarly granted. These
payments to Class Counsel and the Claims Administrator shall only
be made in accordance with the terms set forth in the Settlement.

The Court also approved Named Plaintiffs Williamson and Beauchesne
as Class Representatives and grants payment to Ms. Williamson and
Mr. Beauchesne of an Enhancement Award in the amount of $5,000
each for their service as Class Representatives.

The Court further approved and directed Dahl Administration, Inc.,
the appointed Claims Administrator, to disburse to these persons
and entities, in the manner set forth, the following sums:

A. Settlement Class Members, by check, his or her Settlement Class
Member Payment as calculated by the Claims Administrator pursuant
to Paragraph 92 of the Settlement Stipulation, as modified by the
Addendum, within 10 business days of the Effective Date, as
defined in Paragraphs 70-74 of the Settlement Stipulation;

B. Named Plaintiffs, the sums of $5,000 each by check within 15
business days of the Effective Date, in addition to any Settlement
Class Member Payment to which each of them is entitled;

C. Altshuler Berzon LLP and McGuinn, HIllsman & Palefsky, jointly,
by wire transfer, the total amount of $587,500, for their
attorneys' fees and $6,280.97 for their litigation expenses,
within 15 business days of the Effective Date;

D. As set forth in Paragraph 100, any Residual Amount from
Settlement Class Members' uncashed checks, will escheat to the
State of that Settlement Class Member's residence.

The action is dismissed with prejudice.

A copy of the Court's February 19, 2015 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/ow2cmd from Leagle.com.

Jane Williamson, Plaintiff, represented by Cliff Michael Palefsky
-- cp@mhpsf.com -- McGuinn Hillsman & Palefsky, Eve Hedy Cervantez
-- ecervantez@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP, Michael
Rubin -- mrubin@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP &
Scott M Stillman, McGuinn Hillsman Palefsky.

Gerald Beauchesne, Plaintiff, represented by Cliff Michael
Palefsky McGuinn Hillsman & Palefsky, Eve Hedy Cervantez,
Altshuler Berzon LLP, Michael Rubin, Altshuler Berzon LLP & Scott
M Stillman, McGuinn Hillsman Palefsky.

Microsemi Corporation, Defendant, represented by Adam P.
KohSweeney -- akohsweeney@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Ashley
Brown -- abrown@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Sarah Starcevich
Miller -- sstarcevich@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP & Eric J.
Amdursky -- eamdursky@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

Symmetricom, Inc., Defendant, represented by Adam P. KohSweeney,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Ashley Brown, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Sarah
Starcevich Miller, O'Melveny & Myers LLP & Eric J. Amdursky,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP.


NEWMAR: Recalls King Aire & Essex Class A Motorhomes
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 3, 2015
Starting date:            January 29, 2015
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Motorhome
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Brakes
Units affected:           7
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2015041
TC ID number:             2015041

On certain vehicles equipped with a Wabco quick release with
double check valves, used to control park/spring brake
application, the valve may leak internally.  This could cause
unintended partial or full park/spring brake application, which
could affect service brake function and increase the risk of a
crash causing injury and/or damage to property.

Correction: Dealers will affect repairs.

Affected products:

   Maker      Model                      Model year(s) affected
   -----      -----                      ----------------------
   NEWMAR     KING AIRE MOTORHOME        2014
   NEWMAR    ESSEX CLASS A MOTORHOME     2014


NEWMAR: Recalls King Aire Class A Motorhome Model
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 4, 2015
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Motorhome
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Steering
Units affected:           5
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2015049
TC ID number:             2015049

On certain vehicles, the castle nuts for the steering linkage ball
joint fasteners, which mount to the bell cranks, may have been
improperly tightened during assembly.  If the castle nuts were to
come completely loose, the steering linkage may separate from the
bell cranks without warning.  This could result in a loss of
steering control, increasing the risk of a crash causing injury
and/or damage to property.

Correction: Dealers will inspect the castle nuts, and if
necessary, tighten them to the proper specification.

Affected products: 2013 Newmar King Aire Class A Motorhome


MOONBEAM CAPITAL: Sued Over Wheelchair-Inaccessible Facilities
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Heinzl, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Moonbeam Capital Investments, LLC and Century III Mall
PA, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00203 (W.D. Pa., February 13, 2015),
arises out of the Defendants' facilities that are not fully
accessible to, and independently usable by individuals who use
wheelchairs.

The Defendants own and operate a retail property known as Century
III Mall with headquarter located at 9103 Alta Drive, Suite 204,
Las Vegas, Nevada 89145.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
      R. Bruce Carlson (PA56657)
      Stephanie Goldin (PA202865)
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP
      PNC Park
      115 Federal Street, Suite 210
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Telephone: (412) 322-9243
      Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
      E-mail: bsweet@carlsonlynch.com
              bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com
              sgoldin@carlsonlynch.com


NISSAN: Recalls Pathfinder, QX60 and Rogue Models
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 9, 2015
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              SUV
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Wheels
Units affected:           80
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2015056
TC ID number:             2015056

On certain vehicles, the front hub assembly bolts may not have
been tightened to specification. If the bolts were to loosen, the
brake caliper could separate from the wheel hub assembly, reducing
braking performance and affecting vehicle stability.  This could
result in an accident causing injury and/or damage to property.

Correction: Dealers will inspect and torque bolts to
specification.

Affected products:

   Maker         Model            Model year(s) affected
   -----         -----            ----------------------
  NISSAN         PATHFINDER       2014, 2015
  NISSAN         ROGUE            2015
  INFINITI       QX60             2014, 2015


OUTERWALL INC: Plaintiff in "Piechur" Action Files Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
Outerwall Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the plaintiffs in the
Laurie Piechur class action filed an appeal on January 7, 2015.

The Company said, "In October 2009, an Illinois resident, Laurie
Piechur, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed a putative class action complaint against our
Redbox subsidiary in the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial
Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois. The plaintiff alleged that,
among other things, Redbox charges consumers illegal and excessive
late fees in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act, and that Redbox's rental terms
violate the Illinois Rental Purchase Agreement Act or the Illinois
Automatic Contract Renewal Act and the plaintiff is seeking
monetary damages and other relief. In November 2009, Redbox
removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois."

In February 2010, the District Court remanded the case to the
Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair
County, Illinois. In May 2010, the court denied Redbox's motion to
dismiss the plaintiff's complaint.

In November 2011, the plaintiff moved for class certification, and
Redbox moved for summary judgment. The court denied Redbox's
motion for summary judgment in February 2012.

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 19, 2012, and an
amended motion for class certification on June 5, 2012. The court
denied Redbox's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The
amended class certification motion was briefed and argued. At the
hearing on plaintiff's amended motion for class certification, the
plaintiff dismissed all claims but two and is pursuing only her
claims under the Illinois Rental Purchase Agreement Act and the
Illinois Automatic Contract Renewal Act.

On May 21, 2013, the court denied plaintiff's amended class action
motion. On January 29, 2014, the Illinois Supreme Court denied
plaintiff's petition for leave to appeal the trial court's denial
of class certification. Redbox has moved to dismiss all remaining
claims on mootness grounds, and the Court granted Redbox's motion
on December 11, 2014.  The plaintiffs appealed on January 7, 2015.

"We believe that the claims against us are without merit and
intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter. Currently,
no accrual has been established as it was not possible to estimate
the possible loss or range of loss because this matter had not
advanced to a stage where we could make any such estimate," the
Company said.


OUTERWALL INC: 7th Circuit Affirmed Ruling in "Boesky" Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Outerwall Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's
judgment in Redbox's favor in the class action by Blake Boesky.

The Company said, "In March 2011, a California resident, Blake
Boesky, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed a putative class action complaint against our
Redbox subsidiary in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois. The plaintiff alleges that Redbox retains
personally identifiable information of consumers for a time period
in excess of that allowed under the Video Privacy Protection Act,
18 U.S.C. Sections 2710, et seq. A substantially similar complaint
was filed in the same court in March 2011 by an Illinois resident,
Kevin Sterk."

"Since the filing of the complaint, Blake Boesky has been replaced
by a different named plaintiff, Jiah Chung, and an amended
complaint has been filed alleging disclosures of personally
identifiable information, in addition to plaintiffs' claims of
retention of such information. Plaintiffs are seeking statutory
damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and
interest. The court has consolidated the cases. The court denied
Redbox's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims upon
interlocutory appeal. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit reversed the district court's denial of Redbox's motion to
dismiss plaintiff's claims involving retention of information,
holding that the plaintiffs could not maintain a suit for damages
under this theory.

"On April 25, 2012, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to add
claims under the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. Section
2707, and for breach of contract. On May 9, 2012, Redbox moved to
dismiss the amended complaint. On July 23, 2012, the court
dismissed the added retention claims, except to the extent that
plaintiffs seek injunctive, non-monetary relief. On August 16,
2013, the court granted summary judgment in Redbox's favor on all
remaining claims, and entered a final judgment for Redbox. On
September 16, 2013, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. On October
23, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
affirmed the district court's judgment in Redbox's favor."


PACCAR: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models
---------------------------------------
Starting date:            January 28, 2015
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Brakes
Units affected:           11
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2015037
TC ID number:             2015037
Manufacturer recall
number:                   115B / 15KWA

On certain vehicles equipped with a Wabco quick release with
double check valves, used to control park/spring brake
application, the valve may leak internally.  This could cause
unintended partial or full park/spring brake application, which
could affect service brake function and increase the risk of a
crash causing injury and/or damage to property.

Correction: Dealers will affect repairs.

Affected products:

  Maker        Model      Model year(s) affected
  -----        -----      ----------------------
  KENWORTH     T800       2014
  PETERBILT    320        2014
  KENWORTH     T660       2014
  KENWORTH     K370       2014
  PETERBILT    210        2014
  PETERBILT    220        2014
  KENWORTH     K270       2014
  KENWORTH     T880       2014


PELLA CORP: Class Rep. Deposition to be Completed in March
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge David c. Norton issued a second amended case
management order no. 5 on February 18, 2015, in IN RE: PELLA
CORPORATION ARCHITECT AND DESIGNER SERIES WINDOWS MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL DOCKET NO. 2514,
(D. S.C.).

The schedule will govern those actions transferred to the South
Carolina Court by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation,
pursuant to its Order of February 14, 2014.

Among other things, the schedule provides that:

* Depositions of all class representatives shall be completed by
March 15, 2015.

* All depositions of Pella fact witnesses; third party defendants;
and third party witnesses shall be completed by June 24, 2015.

* By July 20, 2015, the parties shall select three cases for
motions and briefing on class certification.

The cases shall be selected in the following manner: Plaintiffs
shall jointly select one case; Defendant shall jointly select one
case and one case shall be selected at random from the remaining
cases by whatever method agreed to by the Court and Parties. If
Defendant's selected case is dismissed by Plaintiffs after July
20, 2015, the case will be dismissed with prejudice unless good
cause can be shown that it should not be, the non-dismissing
party shall be entitled to select a substitute case within Ten
(10) days from when the case is dismissed, and briefing as to
that case will be re-set at that time.

* Plaintiffs shall disclose any expert who will provide testimony
or affidavits in support of class certification and provide expert
reports for such experts as required by Rule 26 by July 20, 2015.

* Pella shall disclose any expert who will provide testimony or
affidavits in opposition to class certification and provide expert
reports for such experts as required by Rule 26 by August 20,
2015.

* All depositions of the parties' experts regarding class
certification issues and any other inspections performed shall be
completed by October 1, 2015.

* Plaintiffs' motion for class certification for the selected
cases and all briefing and materials in support of motion(s) for
class certification shall be filed on or before October 15, 2015.

* Pella's opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification
and all briefing and materials in support of its opposition shall
be filed on or before November 15, 2015.

* Plaintiffs' reply memoranda in support of their motion(s) for
class certification shall be filed on or before by November 30,
2015.

A copy of the scheduling order is available at http://is.gd/VEcJnj
from Leagle.com.

In Re, Pella Corporation Architect and Designer Series Windows
Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation,
represented by John P. Mandler -- john.mandler@FaegreBD.com --
Faegre, Baker Law Firm & Shane A Anderson --
shane.anderson@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels.

Plaintiff's Lead Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel K
Bryson -- dan@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP &
Jonathan Shub -- jshub@seegerweiss.com -- Seeger, Weiss Law Firm.

Plaintiff's Liaison Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by Justin
O'Toole Lucey -- jlucey@lucey-law.com -- Justin O'Toole Lucey Law
Firm.

Pella Corporation, Defendant, represented by Amy R Fiterman --
amy.fiterman@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels, G Mark Phillips
-- mark.phillips@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley and
Scarborough, John P. Mandler -- john.mandler@FaegreBD.com --
Faegre, Baker Law Firm, Michael Tucker Cole --
mike.cole@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley and
Scarborough, Kevin L Morrow -- kevin.morrow@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre
Baker Daniels, Mark J Winebrenner, Faegre Baker Daniels & Shane A
Anderson --shane.anderson@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels.


PETER THE CHEF: Recalls Compliments Traditional Cannelloni
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 6, 2015
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Sesame Seeds
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Peter The Chef Fine Food Limited
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9615

Peter The Chef Fine Food Limited is recalling Compliments brand
Traditional Cannelloni, Longo's brand Meat Cannelloni and Our
Finest brand Cheese Tortellini from the marketplace because they
may contain sesame which is not declared on the label.  People
with an allergy to sesame should not consume the recalled products
described.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home.  Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

If you have an allergy to sesame, do not consume the recalled
products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of these products.

The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
(CFIA) inspection activities.  The CFIA is conducting a food
safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other
products.  If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will
notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings.


PREMIER POLMAREX: Recalls Olza Prince Polo Choc. Covered Wafers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 5, 2015
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Premier Polmarex Inc.
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9620

Affected products: Olza Prince Polo Choc. Covered Wafer with all
codes where milk is not declared on the label


R.J. REYNOLDS: Corrected Opinion Entered in "Baker" Case
--------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District issued a
corrected opinion on February 18, 2015, in the case captioned
SHIRLEY B. BAKER, Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF ELMER
P. BAKER, Appellant, v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, Appellee,
NO. 4D13-570.

Shirley Baker (Plaintiff) sued R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
(Defendant) for the death of her husband Elmer Baker (Mr. Baker)
that was allegedly caused by smoking. In her lawsuit, Plaintiff
asserted claims for negligence, strict liability, concealment, and
conspiracy. After the jury found Defendant's actions were not the
legal cause of her husband's death, she argued that under the
Florida Supreme Court's decision in Engle v. Liggett Group, 945
So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006) (hereinafter Engle III), the jury's finding
that Mr. Baker was a member of the Engle class consequently
established the conduct and causation elements of her claims. She
appeals the trial court's entry of final judgment in favor of
Defendant, arguing the trial court erred in denying her motion for
a new trial because the jury's verdict was internally
inconsistent.

The Florida Appeals Court held that by seeking to have the jury
separately decide the issue of causation, and without raising the
issue of what effect should be given to an Engle class finding,
Plaintiff failed to preserve her right to appeal and cannot now
successfully claim error simply because the jury returned an
adverse verdict.

Accordingly, the Florida Appeals Court found the Plaintiff's
remaining issues on appeal to be without merit, and affirmed the
trial court's denial of Plaintiff's motion for new trial.

A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/R6lmqdfrom
Leagle.com

David J. Sales -- david@salesappeals.com -- of David J. Sales,
P.A., Jupiter, for appellant/cross-appellee.

Robert C. Weill -- robert.weill@sedgwicklaw.com -- Eric L. Lundt
-- eric.lundt@sedgwicklaw.com -- Gordon James, III, and Lenor C.
Smith -- lenore.smith@sedgwicklaw.com -- of Sedgwick LLP, Fort
Lauderdale, Donald Ayer -- dbayer@jonesday.com -- and Gregory G.
Katsas -- ggkatsas@jonesday.com -- of Jones Day, Washington, D.C.,
and Charles R.A. Morse -- cramorse@jonesday.com -- of Jones Day,
New York, NY, for appellee/cross-appellant.


RDIO INC: Sued in N.D. Cal. Over Alleged Copyright Infringement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Beach Road Music LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Rdio Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00698 (N.D.
Cal., February 13, 2015), alleges that the Defendant reproduced,
distributed, or performed Pre-1972 Recordings without paying
royalties or licensing fees.

Rdio Inc. is a Delaware corporation that is headquartered in San
Francisco California. It is a music service that offers over 32
million songs in 85 countries worldwide.

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, D.C. 20006
      Telephone: (202) 540-7200
      Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
      E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com
              jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
              ngiddings@hausfeld.com


REGENCY ENERGY: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Company Sale
-------------------------------------------------------------
Irwin Berlin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Regency Energy Partners LP, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-
00519 (N.D. Tex., February 13, 2015), arises out of the unfair and
inadequate consideration offered in the Proposed merger agreement
between Regency Energy Partners LP and Energy Transfer Partners,
L.P., specifically because the intrinsic value of Regency's common
units is materially in excess of the amount offered, given the
Company's significant potential for growth, anticipated operating
results, and future profitability.

Regency Energy Partners LP is a Delaware limited partnership,
headquartered at 2001 Bryan Street, Suite 3700, Dallas, Texas
75201 that specializes in natural gas gathering and processing,
transportation, contract compression and treating, crude oil
gathering, water gathering and disposal, and natural gas liquids
transportation, fractionation and storage.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: To Defend v. Morning Song Bird Food Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended December 27, 2014, that the Company
disputes the plaintiffs' assertions and intends to vigorously
defend the consolidated action, Morning Song Bird Food Litigation.

In connection with the sale of wild bird food products that were
the subject of a voluntary recall in 2008, the Company has been
named as a defendant in four putative class actions filed on and
after June 27, 2012, which have now been consolidated in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California as In re Morning Song Bird Food Litigation, Lead Case
No. 3:12-cv-01592-JAH-RBB. The plaintiffs allege various statutory
and common law claims associated with the Company's sale of wild
bird food products and a plea agreement entered into in previously
pending government proceedings associated with such sales. The
plaintiffs allege, among other things, a purported class action on
behalf of all persons and entities in the United States who
purchased certain bird food products. The plaintiffs assert
hundreds of millions of dollars in monetary damages (actual,
compensatory, consequential, punitive, and treble); reimbursement,
restitution, and disgorgement for benefits unjustly conferred;
injunctive and declaratory relief; pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest; and costs and attorneys' fees. The Company disputes the
plaintiffs' assertions and intends to vigorously defend the
consolidated action.

"Given the early stages of the action, it is not currently
possible to reasonably estimate a probable loss, if any,
associated with the action and, accordingly, no reserves have been
recorded in the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements with
respect to the action. There can be no assurance that this action,
whether as a result of an adverse outcome or as a result of
significant defense costs, will not have a material adverse effect
on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or
cash flows," the Company said.


SEA GULL: Recalls Chandeliers Due to Risk of Fall
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 5, 2015
Posting date:             February 5, 2015
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Household Items
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Fall Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-43629

Affected products: Sea Gull Lighting Chandeliers

The recall involves various models of Sea Gull Lighting
chandeliers from one of these seven collections: Brandywine,
Laurel Leaf, New Verona, Newport, Parkview, Roslyn and Somerton.
The chandeliers are metal with various finishes and two or three
tiers of glass shades.  They measure between 68.58 cm to 127 cm
(27 to 50 inches) wide and 66.04 cm to 116.84 cm (26 to 46 inches)
high, depending on the model.

The screw collar that holds the chandelier to the ceiling mount
can break causing the chandelier to fall, creating a risk of
injury to bystanders under or near the chandelier.

Four incidents have been reported to Sea Gull Lighting.  No
injuries have been reported.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries related to the use of these products.

Approximately 800 chandeliers were sold in Canada and 8,800 were
sold in the United States at various retailers and online.

The affected products were manufactured in China and sold from
November 2006 to August 2013 in Canada and the United States.

Companies:

   Distributor     Sea Gull Lighting Products, LLC
                   Skokie
                   Illinois
                   United States

Consumers should contact Sea Gull Lighting to receive a free
repair kit or replacement for chandeliers that have fallen.


SEARS CANADA: Recalls Bean Bag Chairs
-------------------------------------
Starting date:            January 28, 2015
Posting date:             January 28, 2015
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Household Items
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Choking Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-43495

Affected products: Vinyl Bean Bag Chairs

The recall involves polystyrene-filled vinyl bean bag chairs that
have a single zipper on the exterior cover.  The round vinyl bean
bag chairs measure 88" in diameter and were sold in purple, black,
pink, royal blue, and red.  A tag sewn into the bean bag chair's
cover seam reads "Made By Comfort Research" and "100%
Polystyrene".

Bean Bags Recalled:

   Description       Sears UPC       Sears Item Number
   -----------       ---------       -----------------
  Classic Purple    650231603077     99755
  Classic Black     650231062997     99775
  Classic Pink      650231063017     99779
  Classic Royal     650231063093     99784
  Classic Red       650231063031     99786

The zippers on the bean bag chairs can be opened by children who
can then crawl inside, become entrapped, suffocate or choke on the
bean bag chair's foam beads.

Neither Health Canada nor Sears Canada Inc. has received reports
of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these bean
bag chairs.

Approximately 346 units of the recalled products were sold in
Canada, online through Sears.ca.

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and China
and sold from March 2010 to March 2012.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Comfort Research, LLC
                    Grand Rapids
                    Michigan
                    United States

   Retailer         Sears Canada Inc.
                    Toronto
                    Ontario
                    Canada

Consumers should immediately take the recalled bean bag chairs
away from children and check if the zippers can be opened.


SIRIUS XM: To Appeal Ruling in Pre-1972 Sound Recording Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sirius XM Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company intends
to appeal the ruling of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York in the so-called Pre-1972 Sound
Recording Matters.

"We are a defendant in three class action suits and one additional
suit, which were commenced in August and September 2013 and
challenge our use and public performance via satellite radio and
the Internet of sound recordings fixed prior to February 15, 1972
under California, New York and/or Florida law," the Company said.
"The plaintiffs in each of these suits purport to seek in excess
of $100 million in compensatory damages along with unspecified
punitive damages and injunctive relief. Accordingly, at this point
we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss, or range of loss,
which could be incurred if the plaintiffs were to prevail in the
allegations, but we believe we have substantial defenses to the
claims asserted. We intend to defend these actions vigorously."

In September 2014, the United States District Court for the
Central District of California ruled that the grant of "exclusive
ownership" to the owner of a sound recording under California's
copyright statute included the exclusive right to control public
performances of the sound recording. The court further found that
the unauthorized public performance of sound recordings violated
California laws on unfair competition, misappropriation and
conversion. In October 2014, the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles adopted the Central
District Court's interpretation of "exclusive ownership" under
California's copyright statute. That Court did not find that the
unauthorized public performance of sound recordings violated
California laws on unfair competition, misappropriation and
conversion.

In November 2014, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York ruled that sound recordings fixed
before February 15, 1972 were entitled under various theories of
New York common law to the benefits of a public performances
right.

"We intend to appeal these decisions," the Company said.

These cases are titled Flo & Eddie Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc. et
al., No. 2:13-cv-5693-PSG-RZ (C.D. Cal.), Flo & Eddie, Inc. v.
Sirius XM Radio Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-23182-DPG (S.D. Fla.),
Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc. et al., No. 1:13-cv-
5784-CM (S.D.N.Y.), and Capitol Records LLC et al. v. Sirius XM
Radio Inc., No. BC-520981 (Super. Ct. L.A. County). Additional
information concerning each of these actions is publicly available
in court filings under their docket numbers.


SIRIUS XM: Seeks Indemnification From Call Center Vendors
---------------------------------------------------------
Sirius XM Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company notified
certain of its call center vendors of Telephone Consumer
Protection Act lawsuits and requested that they defend and
indemnify the Company against these claims.

"We are a defendant in three purported class action suits, which
were commenced in February 2012, January 2013 and January 2015, in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, Newport News Division, and the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California that allege that we,
or certain call center vendors acting on our behalf, made numerous
calls which violate provisions of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA")," the Company said. "The
plaintiffs in these actions allege, among other things, that we
called mobile phones using an automatic telephone dialing system
without the consumer's prior consent or, alternatively, after the
consumer revoked their prior consent and, in one of the actions,
that we violated the TCPA's call time restrictions. The plaintiffs
in these suits are seeking various forms of relief, including
statutory damages of $500 for each violation of the TCPA or, in
the alternative, treble damages of up to $1,500 for each knowing
and willful violation of the TCPA, as well as payment of in
terest, attorneys' fees and costs, and certain injunctive relief
prohibiting violations of the TCPA in the future. We believe we
have substantial defenses to the claims asserted in these actions,
and we intend to defend them vigorously."

"We have notified certain of our call center vendors of these
actions and requested that they defend and indemnify us against
these claims pursuant to the provisions of their existing or
former agreements with us. We believe we have valid contractual
claims against certain call center vendors in connection with
these claims and intend to preserve and pursue our rights to
recover from these entities."

These cases are titled Erik Knutson v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No.
12-cv-0418-AJB-NLS (S.D. Cal.), Francis W. Hooker v. Sirius XM
Radio, Inc., No. 4:13-cv-3 (E.D. Va.) and Brian Trenz v. Sirius XM
Holdings, Inc. and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., No. 15-cv-
0044L-BLM (S.D. Cal).


SONY COMPUTER: Sued in Cal. Over Alleged Copyright Infringement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Beach Road Music LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC, and
Sony Entertainment Network International LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-
00703 (N.D. Cal., February 13, 2015), alleges that the Defendants
reproduced, distributed, or performed Pre-1972 Recordings without
paying royalties or licensing fees to the recordings' owners.

The Defendants are Delaware limited liability companies that own
and operate Music Unlimited.

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, D.C. 20006
      Telephone: (202) 540-7200
      Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
      E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com
              jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
              ngiddings@hausfeld.com


STOCKLOTS DISTRIBUTION: Recalls Boys Print Fleece Top with Hood
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 2, 2015
Posting date:             February 2, 2015
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Children's Products, Clothing and
                          Accessories
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Strangulation Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-43531

Affected products: McGordon Boys Print Fleece Top with hood
drawstring, style number# KBB-1552

McGordon's Boys Printed Fleece Top with full zip and hood, style
KBB-1552.  The drawstring is found around the hood of the garment

Health Canada has determined that drawstrings on children's upper
outerwear can become caught on playground equipment, fences or
other objects and result in strangulation, or in the case of a
vehicle, the child being dragged.

Neither Stocklots Distribution nor Health Canada has received
reports of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to
the use of these products.

Approximately 1512 Boys fleece hooded sweatshirt with full zip and
hood were sold.

The recalled products were manufactured in Philippines and sold
from October 2012 to January 2015.

Companies:

   Distributor     Stocklots Distribution/4283147Canada Inc.
                   Montreal
                   Canada

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the hood
to eliminate the hazard.


SUNBEAM: Recalls Bionaire and Sunbeam Oil Filled Heaters
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            January 29, 2015
Posting date:             January 29, 2015
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Electronics
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Burn Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-43391

Affected products: Bionaire and Sunbeam brand oil filled heaters
with the following date codes on the plug prongs: G170, G179 or
G229

The recall involves Bionaire and Sunbeam branded oil filled
heaters.  The heaters are black (Bionaire) and grey (Sunbeam) and
measure about 65 centimetres (25.5 inches) tall, 30.5 centimetres
(12 inches) wide and 14 centimetres (5.5 inches) long.

The model number is printed on the rating label adjacent to the
control panel of the heater.  The "Bionaire" logo is located above
the digital control panel and the "Sunbeam" logo is located under
the power switch.  The only heaters that are affected have a date
code on the heater plug prongs of G170, G179 or G229.

The heaters may spray or expel heated oil, posing a potential
scald hazard to consumers and damage their property.

Sunbeam has received 31 reports of incidents in Canada involving
the Bionaire brand model BOF2001-CN heater spraying/expelling oil
leading to minor property damage.  One incident involved a
consumer slipping on the oil resulting in a sprained wrist.

Health Canada has received one consumer report of the heater
leaking oil, and no injuries were reported.

Approximately 564 units of the Bionaire brand model BOF2001-CN and
83 units of the Sunbeam brand model SOF1000-CN were sold in
Canada.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold between
August 2014 and November 2014.

Companies:

   Distributor     Sunbeam Corporation (Canada) Ltd. dba Jarden
                    Consumer Solutions ("Sunbeam")
                   Brampton
                   Ontario
                   Canada

Consumers should immediately stop using the Bionaire BOF2011-CN
and Sunbeam SOF1000-CN oil filled heater models.  Consumers are
advised to unplug their product and contact Sunbeam for
instructions on how to cut the cord/plug and send it to Sunbeam to
receive a refund.


T & K HOSPITALITY: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nicasio Flores, Nael Lopez, and Yaneth Lopez, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. T & K Hospitality LLC d/b/a
Pinto Restaurant, Teerawon Nanthavatsiri, Kobsak Songyoo and Hei
Man Leung Godfrey, Case No. 1:15-cv-01056 (S.D.N.Y., February 13,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for hours worked over 40 in a workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a Thai restaurant located at 118
Christopher Street, New York, New York 10014.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TALK4LESS LLC: Faces "Roberts" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shaun Roberts, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Talk4Less LLC, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00115 (S.D.
Ohio, February 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Talk4Less LLC is a Florida limited liability company that owns and
operates a mobile phone and accessories stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. DeRose II, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St, 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com


TASTE OF COUNTRY: Recalls Chicken Pie Due to Undeclared Milk
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 4, 2015
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Taste of Country
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9618

Taste of Country is recalling Taste of Country brand Chicken Pie
from the marketplace because it contains milk which is not
declared on the label.  People with an allergy to milk should not
consume the recalled product.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home.  Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled
product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of this product.

The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
(CFIA) inspection activities.  The CFIA is conducting a food
safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other
products.  If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will
notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

Affected products: 6 X 125 g. Taste of Country Chicken Pie with
all codes where milk is not declared on the label


TAYLOR FARMS: Judge Narrows Class in Hourly Workers' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Hourly workers sought class certification of their lawsuit against
former and current employers, in the case captioned MARIA DEL
CARMEN PENA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TAYLOR FARMS PACIFIC, INC.,
d/b/a TAYLOR FARMS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:13-CV-01282-
KJM-AC, (E.D. Cal.).  Three defendants, Taylor Farms Pacific, Inc.
(TFP), Abel Mendoza, Inc. (AMI), and SlingShot Connections, LLC
opposed the motion.  Plaintiffs replied.

District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller granted in part and denied in
part the certification motion in a Feb. 9, 2015 order available at
http://is.gd/yoe6iffrom Leagle.com.

The judge specifically ruled that:

   1. The motion to certify the general class is GRANTED IN PART:

      a. Certification of the class and each subclass is DENIED as
         to defendant SlingShot Connections, LLC.

      b. Certification of the donning and doffing subclass is
         DENIED.

      c. Certification of the mixed hourly worker subclass is
         GRANTED in part, as to meal break claims, and DENIED in
         part, as to rest break claims. Plaintiffs Pena,
         Hernandez, and Morris are approved as subclass
         representatives.

      d. Certification of the waiting time subclass is GRANTED in
         part and DENIED in part. As granted, this subclass is
         derivative of the mixed hourly workers subclass.
         Plaintiffs Pena and Hernandez are approved as subclass
         representatives.

      e. Certification of the wage statement subclass is DENIED.

   2. To the extent certification is denied for any subclass for
      lack of sufficient evidence, the court does so without
      prejudice in light of its recent orders on summary judgment
      and the lifting of the discovery stay effected by this
      order.  Should the plaintiffs file a renewed motion for
      class certification, they may in the same motion seek leave
      to amend the complaint and make substitutions of named
      plaintiffs. However, before filing any renewed motion for
      class certification, plaintiffs' counsel shall meet and
      confer in person with defendants' counsel and, fourteen days
      before filing any such motion, arrange for the filing of a
      joint statement reporting on the meet and confer efforts and
      the parties' positions with respect to a renewed motion.
      Upon receipt of such a joint statement, the court may set a
      special status.

   3. Plaintiffs' counsel is approved as class counsel.

   4. The stay on discovery is LIFTED.

A status conference is currently scheduled for March 19, 2015, at
2:30 p.m. The parties shall file a joint report no later than
seven days before the conference.

TFP operates two food production and processing plants in Tracy,
California. The plaintiffs used to work in those plants.  They
seek to represent a class of the defendants' current and former
employees and bring employment claims. Their claims arise from
three core allegations: that the defendants did not pay them for
time spent putting on and taking off mandatory personal protective
equipment, that is "donning and doffing" the equipment; that the
defendants did not allow them rest breaks and meal breaks as
required by California labor law; and that they did not receive
paychecks in the form and at the time California law requires.
Specifically, the plaintiffs' plead eight claims.

Maria del Carmen Pena, Plaintiff, represented by Patricia K.
Oliver, R. Rex Parris Law Firm, Philip A Downey, The Downey Law
Firm, Llc, Alexander Russell Wheeler, R. Rex Parris Law Firm, Eric
Daniel Rouen, Law Office of Eric D. Rouen, Kitty Kit Yee Szeto, R.
Rex Parris Law Firm & Stuart Rowe Chandler, Law Office Of Stuart
R. Chandler.

Consuelo Hernandez, Plaintiff, represented by Patricia K. Oliver,
R. Rex Parris Law Firm, Philip A Downey, The Downey Law Firm, Llc,
Alexander Russell Wheeler, R. Rex Parris Law Firm, Eric Daniel
Rouen, Law Office of Eric D. Rouen, Kitty Kit Yee Szeto, R. Rex
Parris Law Firm & Stuart Rowe Chandler, Law Office Of Stuart R.
Chandler.

Leticia Suarez, Plaintiff, represented by Patricia K. Oliver, R.
Rex Parris Law Firm, Philip A Downey, The Downey Law Firm, Llc,
Alexander Russell Wheeler, R. Rex Parris Law Firm, Eric Daniel
Rouen, Law Office of Eric D. Rouen, Kitty Kit Yee Szeto, R. Rex
Parris Law Firm & Stuart Rowe Chandler, Law Office Of Stuart R.
Chandler.

Rosemary Dail, Plaintiff, represented by Patricia K. Oliver, R.
Rex Parris Law Firm, Philip A Downey, The Downey Law Firm, Llc,
Alexander Russell Wheeler, R. Rex Parris Law Firm, Eric Daniel
Rouen, Law Office of Eric D. Rouen, Kitty Kit Yee Szeto, R. Rex
Parris Law Firm & Stuart Rowe Chandler, Law Office Of Stuart R.
Chandler.

Wendell T. Morris, Plaintiff, represented by Patricia K. Oliver,
R. Rex Parris Law Firm, Philip A Downey, The Downey Law Firm, Llc,
Alexander Russell Wheeler, R. Rex Parris Law Firm, Eric Daniel
Rouen, Law Office of Eric D. Rouen, Kitty Kit Yee Szeto, R. Rex
Parris Law Firm & Stuart Rowe Chandler, Law Office Of Stuart R.
Chandler.

Taylor Farms Pacific, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joseph Craig
Hansen, Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Sarah Zenewicz, Gibson, Dunn
& Crutcher & Jesse Alvin Cripps, Jr., Gibson Dunn and Crutcher
LLP.

Abel Mendoza, Inc., Defendant, represented by Wade M Hansard,
McCormick Barstow Sheppard Wayte & Carruth LLP.
Manpower, Inc., Defendant, represented by Sabrina Alexis Beldner,
McGuire Woods LLP.

Quality Farm Labor, Inc., Defendant, represented by Terrence
Raymond O'Connor, Noland, Hamerly, Etienne & Hoss.

Slingshot Connections LLC, Defendant, represented by Hope Anne
Case, Sacks, Ricketts & Case LLP, Luanne Sacks, Sacks, Ricketts &
Case LLP, Sonia Sanjit Shah, Pahl & McCay & Stephen D. Pahl, Pahl
& Mccay.


TJX CANADA: Recalls Masala Maza Korma Simmer Sauce
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 2, 2015
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Peanut
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           TJX Canada
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba,
                          Ontario, Saskatchewan
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9601

Affected products: 355 ml Masala Maza Korma Simmer Sauce


TOTALLY GLUTEN: Recalls Pizzas Due to Undeclared Mustard
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 3, 2015
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Totally Gluten Free Bakery
Distribution:             Alberta
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9614


TOYOTA: Recalls FJ Cruiser Model Due to Possible Loss of Steering
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 5, 2015
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              SUV
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Steering
Units affected:           36
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2015053
TC ID number:             2015053
Manufacturer recall
number:                   SRC R03

On certain vehicles, the intermediate shaft that connects the
steering wheel to the steering gear box might have been improperly
welded during manufacturing.  If the vehicle is continuously
operated in this condition, the weld could separate, which could
result in a loss of steering control, increasing the risk of a
crash causing injury and/or damage to property.

Correction: Dealers will replace the intermediate shaft.

Affected products: 2014 Toyota FJ Cruiser


TRIUMPH PROPERTY: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Hastings, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Triumph Property Management Corporation, Case No.
3:15-cv-00312 (S.D. Cal., February 13, 2015), seeks to stop the
Defendant's practice of contacting the Plaintiff and other class
members via text message utilizing an automated telephone dialing
system.

Triumph Property Management Corporation is a real estate company
doing business in Las Vegas, Nevada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Settled With Former Chief Financial Officer
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tyco International Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended December 26, 2014, that with respect to
Mark H. Swartz, the Company's former chief financial officer, in
November 2014 the parties reached a definitive agreement to
resolve all outstanding disputes, with Mr. Swartz agreeing to
release the Company from any claims to monetary amounts related to
compensation, retention or other arrangements alleged to have
existed between him and the Company. In the first quarter of
fiscal 2015, the Company also received approximately $12 million
in cash from Mr. Swartz, $5 million of which will be shared
pursuant to the terms of the class action lawsuit, resulting in a
net recovery of $7 million which was recorded in Selling, general
and administrative expenses in the Consolidated Statement of
Operations. The cash received has been classified as restricted.


UNITED STATES: Court Tosses Motion to Dismiss Immigrants' Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States saw a surge in immigration in the summer of 2014
as people fled increased lawlessness in Honduras, Guatemala, and
El Salvador. In the case, R. I. L-R, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JEH
CHARLES JOHNSON, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-11 (JEB),
(D. D. C.), Plaintiffs (and other members of the class they seek
to represent) are mothers and their minor children who escaped
violence and persecution in these countries to seek asylum in the
United States.  After entering this country unlawfully and being
apprehended, each was found to have a "credible fear" of
persecution, meaning there is a significant possibility that she
will ultimately be granted asylum here.  Although, in the past,
individuals in this position were generally released while their
asylum claims were processed, Plaintiffs were not so lucky.
Instead, for each family, Immigration and Customs Enforcement
determined that interim detention was the appropriate course.
Chasing liberty, Plaintiffs turned to the courts. They filed suit
on January 6, 2015, naming the Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security and two ICE officials as Defendants. The
Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs' detention resulted from an
unlawful policy that DHS adopted in June 2014 in response to the
immigration spike. Pursuant to that policy, Plaintiffs claim, DHS
is detaining Central American mothers and children with the aim of
deterring potential future immigrants. According to Plaintiffs,
such detention violates the Fifth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, the
Administrative Procedure Act, and applicable DHS regulations.
They now seek a preliminary injunction to prevent DHS from
applying this policy until a final determination has been reached
on the merits of this action.

Finding that the circumstances merit extraordinary form of relief,
District Judge James E. Boasberg granted the Plaintiffs' Motions
for a Preliminary Injunction and Provisional Class Certification,
and denied Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

A copy of Judge Boasberg's February 20, 2015 memorandum opinion is
available at http://is.gd/njsRXvfrom Leagle.com.

R. I. L-R, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis B. Auerbach --
dauerbach@cov.com -- COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Arthur B. Spitzer,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF THE NATION'S CAPITAL, David M.
Zionts -- dzionts@cov.com -- COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Judy
Rabinovitz, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION & Philip J.
Levitz -- plevitz@cov.com -- COVINGTON & BURLING LLP.

J. L. S., Plaintiff, represented by Dennis B. Auerbach, COVINGTON
& BURLING LLP, Arthur B. Spitzer, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
OF THE NATION'S CAPITAL, David M. Zionts, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP,
Judy Rabinovitz, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION &
Philip J. Levitz, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP.

K. L. S., Plaintiff, represented by Dennis B. Auerbach, COVINGTON
& BURLING LLP, Arthur B. Spitzer, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
OF THE NATION'S CAPITAL, David M. Zionts, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP,
Judy Rabinovitz, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION &
Philip J. Levitz, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP.

Z. M. R., Plaintiff, represented by Dennis B. Auerbach, COVINGTON
& BURLING LLP, Arthur B. Spitzer, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
OF THE NATION'S CAPITAL, David M. Zionts, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP,
Judy Rabinovitz, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION &
Philip J. Levitz, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP.

J. P. L-M, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis B. Auerbach, COVINGTON
& BURLING LLP, Arthur B. Spitzer, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
OF THE NATION'S CAPITAL, David M. Zionts, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP,
Judy Rabinovitz, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION &
Philip J. Levitz, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP.

W. M. C., Plaintiff, represented by Dennis B. Auerbach, COVINGTON
& BURLING LLP, Arthur B. Spitzer, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
OF THE NATION'S CAPITAL, David M. Zionts, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP,
Judy Rabinovitz, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION &
Philip J. Levitz, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP.

C. M. A-C, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis B. Auerbach, COVINGTON
& BURLING LLP, Arthur B. Spitzer, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
OF THE NATION'S CAPITAL, David M. Zionts, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP,
Judy Rabinovitz, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION &
Philip J. Levitz, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP.

G. A. P-C, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis B. Auerbach, COVINGTON
& BURLING LLP, Arthur B. Spitzer, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
OF THE NATION'S CAPITAL, David M. Zionts, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP,
Judy Rabinovitz, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION &
Philip J. Levitz, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP.

G. C. R., Plaintiff, represented by Dennis B. Auerbach, COVINGTON
& BURLING LLP, Arthur B. Spitzer, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
OF THE NATION'S CAPITAL, David M. Zionts, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP,
Judy Rabinovitz, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION &
Philip J. Levitz, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP.

J. A. R., Plaintiff, represented by Dennis B. Auerbach, COVINGTON
& BURLING LLP, Arthur B. Spitzer, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
OF THE NATION'S CAPITAL, David M. Zionts, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP,
Judy Rabinovitz, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION &
Philip J. Levitz, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP.

JEH CHARLES JOHNSON, Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security, In his Official Capacity, Defendant, represented by
Sarah B. Fabian, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & Wynne Patrick Kelly,
U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

PHILIP T. MILLER, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Assistant Director of Field Operations for Enforcement and Removal
Operations, In his Official Capacity, Defendant, represented by
Sarah B. Fabian, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & Wynne Patrick Kelly,
U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

SARAH R. SALDANA, Assistant Secretary for United States
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, In her Official Capacity,
Defendant, represented by Sarah B. Fabian, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE.


UNITED STATES: Suit Against Retirement Systems Dept. Remanded
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Linda Lee of the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division
Two, affirmed a superior court's remand order in the case JEFFREY
PROBST, and a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs,
MICKEY FOWLER and LEISA FOWLER, and a class of TRS 3 Plan members,
Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS, Respondent, NO.
45128-011 (Wash. App.)

Jeffrey Probst filed an administrative appeal with the Department
of Retirement Services (DRS) when he found out that his
contributions were not earning interests. He then filed a class
action suit in superior court, challenging the DRS's calculation
practice and sought judicial review of the DRS's decision.

The administrative appeal was consolidated into the superior court
action. The superior court then approved a class settlement
agreement, which excluded some class members based on the date
that they transferred from Plan 2 to Plan 3. The settlement
agreement provided that excluded proposed additional class
members' claims may still be brought against the DRS.

Mickey and Leisa Fowler, who were part of the proposed additional
class, filed an amended complaint. The superior court dismissed
the claims, in which the Fowlers appealed before the present
court. The court of appeals reviewed, reversed and remanded the
case to the superior court.

On remand to the superior court, the Fowlers argued that the court
of appeals opinion required that judgment be entered in their
favor and required the DRS to pay daily interest. The superior
court disagreed and remanded the action to the DRS.

The Fowlers again filed an appeal before the present court,
questioning the superior court's order in remanding the action to
the DRS. The Fowlers argue that the trial court failed to comply
with court of appeals mandate when it refused to calculate the
interest the Fowlers were entitled to based on the common law
daily interest rule and instead remanded the action to the DRS;
the DRS cannot retroactively apply a newly adopted rule, and; the
DRS's retroactive application of a new rule that does not use the
common law daily interest rule will result in an unconstitutional
taking. Additionally, the Fowlers seek costs and a common fund
attorney fee award at the conclusion of the litigation.

The appellate court affirmed the superior court's order in
remanding the case to the DRS, and denied the Fowlers request for
a common fund attorney fee award.

A copy of Judge Lee's unpublished opinion dated December 30, 2014,
is available at http://is.gd/H75hz6from Leagle.com.

Counsel for Appellants:

     Stephen Kolden Strong, Esq.
     Stephen Kirk Festor, Esq.
     David Frank Stobaugh, Esq.
     BENDICH STOBAUGH & STRONG PC
     701 5th Ave Ste 4850
     Seattle, WA, 98104-7062

          - and -

     Philip Albert Talmadge, Esq.
     TALMADGE/FITZPATRICK
     2775 Harbor Ave Sw
     Seattle, WA, 98126-2138

Counsel for Respondent(s):

     Michael E. Tardif, Esq.
     Jeffrey A.O. Freimund, Esq.
     FREIMUND JACKSON TARDIF & BENEDICT GARRA
     711 Capitol Way S. Ste 602
     Olympia, WA, 98501-1236

          - and -

     Sarah Elizabeth Blocki, Esq.
     Attorney at Law
     7141 Cleanwater Dr Sw
     Po Box 40108
     Olympia, WA, 98504-0108

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division II panel consists of
Presiding Judge Lisa R. Worswick and Judges Linda Lee and Bradley
Maxa.


WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Lowe" Suit Over Product Misbranding
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sherri Lowe, individually and on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Case No. 2:15-
cv-04030 (W.D. Mo., February 13, 2015), alleges that the
Defendants' Spring Valley Gingko Biloba, Spring Valley St. John's
Wort, Spring Valley Ginseng and Spring Valley 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.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward D. Robertson Jr., Esq.
      James P. Frickleton, Esq.
      Edward D. Robertson III, Esq.
      BARTIMUS, FRICKETON, ROBERTSON & GOZA, P.C.
      11150 Overbrook Road, Suite 200
      Leawood, KS 66211
      Telephone: (913) 266-2300
      Facsimile: (913) 266-2366
      E-mail: chiprob@earthlink.net
              jimfnu@bflawfirm.com
              krobertson@bflawfirm.com

         - and -

      Jay Barnes, Esq.
      BARNES & ASSOCIATES
      219 East Dunklin Street, Suite A
      Jefferson City, MO 65101
      Telephone: (573) 634-8884
      Facsimile: (573) 635-6291
      E-mail: jaybarnes5@zoho.com


WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Myers" Suit in Indiana District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Erika Strojny Myers, on behalf of herself, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc., Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., Wal-Mart Associates,
Inc., Wal-Mart.Com Usa, LLC, Wal-Mart.Com Usa, LLC, Wal-Mart
Stores East, LP, Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, Wal-Mart Stores East,
Inc., Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc., Wal-Mart TRS, LLC, and Wal-Mart
TRS, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-00019-TWP-TAB (S.D. Ind., February 17,
2015) asserts fraud-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John L. Smith, Esq.
          FAITH INGLE SMITH LLC
          412 East Main Street
          New Albany, IN 47150
          Telephone: (812) 542-0048
          Facsimile: (812) 941-4026
          E-mail: jsmith@faithinglesmith.com


WATSON LABORATORIES: Direct Purchasers Obtain Final Judgment
------------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE LOESTRIN 24 FE ANTITRUST LITIGATION, NO. 1:13-MD-2472-S-
PAS, (D.R.I.), the Court ruled on these motions: (1) Motion for
Entry of Final Judgment filed by Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs
American Sales Company and Rochester Drug Co-Operative (Direct
Purchasers); (2) End-Payor Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration
or Alternatively to Certify the Order for Interlocutory Appeal
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) and to Stay the Proceeding;
and (3) Defendants' Motion to Stay the Walgreen Plaintiffs'
Action.

In an order dated February 17, 2015, a copy of which is available
at http://is.gd/GywnDtfrom Leagle.com, Chief District Judge
William E. Smith held that the Direct Purchasers' Motion for Entry
of Final Judgment is granted. Judge Smith noted that, in a
September 4, 2014 Opinion and Order granting Defendants' Motions
to Dismiss, the Court dismissed Direct Purchasers' Sherman Act
complaint in its entirety, denying Direct Purchasers all relief.
Thus, their case is "immediately appealable."

Final judgment will, therefore, be entered in favor of Defendants
and against Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 58(b)(1)(C).

End-Payor Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration or Alternatively
to Certify the Order for Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1292(b) and to Stay the Proceeding is granted in
part and denied in part.

According to Judge Smith, reconsideration is not appropriate
unless the movant demonstrates newly discovered evidence, "a
manifest error of law," or that the court "patently misunderstood"
a party's argument. End-Payor Plaintiffs ("End Payors")
demonstrate only that they dispute the Court's analysis in its
September 4, 2014 Opinion and Order, largely repeating arguments
previously set forth in their opposition to Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss. They point to nothing that could constitute a "manifest
error of law." Their description of the Court's "misunderstanding"
is again merely a reiteration of their disagreement with the
Court's analysis. For these reasons, End Payors' request for
reconsideration is denied, he said.

End Payors' request for permission to pursue an interlocutory
appeal under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) is also denied, Judge Smith
added.  The Court has determined that the appropriate approach is
to enter final judgment as to End Payors' federal antitrust claims
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). There is "no just
reason" to delay entering final judgment as to these claims
because to do otherwise would bar End Payors from appealing these
claims at the same time as Direct Purchasers, causing the precise
harm Rule 54(b) meant to avoid, according to Judge Smith.

Moreover, End Payors intend to appeal the same issue as to which
Direct Purchasers are entitled to final judgment. Thus, given that
Direct Purchasers' claim is ripe for appeal regardless of End
Payors' participation, granting Rule 54(b) judgment has no bearing
on the usual concern with piecemeal appeals, Judge Smith said.

"Final judgment will therefore be entered in favor of Defendants
and against End Payors as to Claims One and Three in End Payors'
Consolidated Class Action Complaint," ruled the Court.  "End
Payors' request to stay remaining proceedings in this Court as to
their state law claims pending resolution of their appeal to the
First Circuit Court of Appeals of the September 4, 2014 Opinion
and Order is hereby granted."

In addition, Defendants' Motion to Stay the Walgreen Plaintiffs'
Action is granted. Because resolution of the appeals will be
determinative of at least a large portion of the Walgreen
Plaintiffs' claims, judicial economy clearly favors staying the
action, notes the Court. The Walgreen Plaintiffs, in their
objection, fail to persuasively set forth any indication that they
will be prejudiced by a stay.

"All matters before the Court in this action are hereby stayed,
pending resolution of the anticipated appeals of the judgments
entered under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54(b) and 58
discussed herein, or until further order of this Court," Judge
Smith added.


WHITE HALL: Removes "Hartman" FLSA Suit to N.D. West Virginia
-------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled Hartman v. White Hall Pharmacy, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 15-C-24, was removed from the Circuit Court of Marion
County, West Virginia, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, Clarksburg Division.  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-00026-IMK to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff's complaint is centered upon his allegation of
retaliatory discharge brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry J. Rector, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC
          400 White Oaks Blvd.
          Bridgeport, WV 26330
          Telephone: (304) 933-8151
          Facsimile: (304) 933-8753
          E-mail: Larry.Rector@steptoe-johnson.com

               - and -

          Julie A. Moore, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC
          PO Box 1616
          Morgantown, WV 26507-1616
          Telephone: (304) 598-8137
          Facsimile: (304) 598-8116
          E-mail: julie.moore@steptoe-johnson.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brian J. Moore, Esq.
          DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
          P.O. Box 11887
          900 Lee Street, East, Suite 600
          Charleston, WV 25339-1887
          Telephone: (304) 357-0900
          Facsimile: (304) 357-0919
          E-mail: brian.moore@dinsmore.corn

               - and -

          Michael J. Moore, Esq.
          DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
          215 Don Knotts Boulevard, Suite 310
          Morgantown, WV 26501
          Telephone: (304) 225-1420
          Facsimile: (304) 246-6116
          E-mail: michael.moore@dinsmore.com


* Percentage of Women Lawyers in Top Positions Low, NAWL Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that the percentage of women lawyers in top positions in general
is low -- just 17 percent of partners are female at the nation's
largest 200 firms, according to the National Association of Women
Lawyers.  And that data reflects mostly firms that serve as
defense counsel.  No statistics are available on the percentage of
women on the plaintiffs side or specifically in mass torts, but
lawyers in the practice area say that it has been overwhelmingly
dominated by men.

When Elizabeth Cabraser first started working as a law clerk for
Bob Lieff in 1977, she was often the only woman in a mass tort
case.

"Over the years, a few more women came into the picture, but they
were still few and far between," said Ms. Cabraser, a partner at
San Francisco's Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein.  "The guys
were in charge."  Now, more female attorneys are taking on
leadership roles in mass tort litigation, in part due to the
encouragement of judges who appoint the committees that lead the
litigation, many of which involve products made exclusively for
women, such as birth control and pelvic mesh devices.

A major reason for the shortage of women on the plaintiffs side is
money. Those attorneys, who work on contingency arrangements, must
find the funding for litigation that often lasts for years.

Historically, the financial decisions have been made by the male
lawyers leading their firms.  And mass torts can be pricey: The
sudden-acceleration litigation against Toyota Motor Corp., for
example, cost more than $5 million.

But that's beginning to change.  "Finally, after years, you're
starting to see women as repeat players who either started their
own law firms and figured out how to do this, or have risen in the
ranks of a larger plaintiffs firm and are now decision-makers,"
Ms. Cabraser said.

Other changes stem from the bench.  In a comprehensive 2014
report, the Duke Law Center for Judicial Studies called on judges
and law firms in mass torts to include more women and minority
lawyers who in the past "have not been appointed to leadership
positions at rates proportionate to their representation in the
plaintiffs' bar generally."

Some judges, both men and women, have taken it upon themselves to
appoint more women applying to steering committees that lead the
litigation.  In 2013, for example, U.S. District Judge Cathy
Seibel of the Southern District of New York encouraged plaintiffs
attorneys to put a woman on the lead committee overseeing
litigation about the Mirena intrauterine device.

It's a significant shift from the early 1990s, when predominantly
male lawyers were throwing their money into large mass torts such
as tobacco and breast implants.  In those days, most of the
plaintiffs lawyers funded the litigation with money they
previously had made in individual cases, said Mark Robinson of
Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis in Newport Beach, Calif.
And for women without a track record of victories, doors were
closed. "I don't know that there were a lot of women lawyers who
were trying product liability cases back in those days," he said.

As for getting a third party to provide financing, "there were not
many women in any of the firms in a senior enough position at that
point to be able to go to a bank and get the backing to pursue
that litigation," said Jayne Conroy -- jconroy@simmonsfirm.com --
co-founder of Simmons Hanly Conroy in New York.  "It's very
important to have women on the team, but it's very, very difficult
to find law firms with senior partners who are women who can
control the flow of money in those cases."

But change is afoot.  Three years ago, plaintiffs lawyer
Aimee Wagstaff -- aimee.wagstaff@ahw-law.com -- founding partner
of Andrus Wagstaff in Lakewood, Colo., launched a networking group
called Women En Mass, which hosts an annual retreat in Aspen,
Colo.  This year's event is expected to have more than 200
attendees, said Lori Andrus -- lori.andrus@andrusanderson.com -- a
partner at San Francisco's Andrus Anderson, a grassroots organizer
of the group and daughter of Ms. Wagstaff's law partner, Vance
Andrus.

"One myth we want to dispel is that we're not out there," she
said.

The retreat features panels, a reception and some time to bond
while enjoying hiking trails or spas.  Among the group's tasks are
to submit law review articles to publications read by judges and
develop their networking by identifying a list of "allies" who
have helped promote women.

Many of their supporters have been men in senior positions who
recognize that times have changed.  "To be in mass tort litigation
is a commitment to travel, it's a commitment to long hours and
different kinds of hours, and it's a commitment you are going to
be away from your family a substantial amount of time, and it's
unpredictable," said Joseph Rice, founding member of Motley Rice
in Mount Pleasant, S.C.  "I think women in today's litigation
world are more prepared to do that than they were 20 or 25 years
ago."

Some firms have pushed for their female partners to take those
roles.  Having women on those committees makes a difference in
mass torts, lawyers say, especially when some of the largest cases
in the country involve women's products.

"I've certainly impressed the point on my male colleagues that if
you have a mass tort involving a defective birth control device,
it's not a good idea to propose a 100 percent male leadership
slate," Ms. Cabraser said.

In a bellwether trial defending Johnson & Johnson unit Ethicon
Inc.'s pelvic mesh device, for example, attorney Kim Schmid --
kim.schmid@bowmanandbrooke.com -- discussed a woman's sex life,
uterus, vagina and menstrual blood flow.

"It's a sensitive topic to even talk about, let alone mention in a
public setting, but we have to do that," said Ms. Schmid,
executive managing partner of Bowman and Brooke in Minneapolis, in
her Jan. 26 opening statement, according to Courtroom View
Network.

CHALLENGES ON BOTH SIDES

Some lawyers said more women have joined the defense side in mass
torts, where large firms benefit from clients that have encouraged
diversity and where bills get paid on a regular basis.  But the
National Association of Women Lawyers found little change in the
promotion and retention of women at the largest 200 firms during
the past few years in its latest survey, released in 2014.

"In big high-stakes litigation, and in any matter, not just mass
torts, where it's perceived to be bet-the-company, corporations
are looking for the most seasoned litigators," said Cari Dawson --
cari.dawson@alston.com -- head of the class action practice team
at Alston & Bird.  "And not at all, but at certain law firms,
those might be more so men than women."

As lead defense attorney for Toyota in the class actions filed
over economic damages associated with sudden acceleration, Dawson
flew from her home in Atlanta to other cities across the country,
sometimes as often as once a week.

"It can be challenging when you have responsibilities for a child
or elder parent and you're on the road three weeks out of the
month," she said.  "How do you juggle that?"

In many respects, the challenges in mass torts aren't dissimilar
from women in other professions, Mr. Andrus said.  Women continue
to face discrimination, biases and stereotypes every day, noting
that she regularly gets mistaken for the court reporter at
depositions and in court.

"We have more work to do to inform people of our presence," she
said.  "There's a long way to go."


                             *********

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  * * *