CAR_Public/150303.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, March 3, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 44


                             Headlines

1ST ORIENTAL: Faces "Collins" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ACTION METALS: Faces "Ledesma" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
AIR FRANCE: Ticket Settlement Approval Hearing Set for April 17
ALCOA GLOBAL: "Villaneda" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
ALIBABA GROUP: Wolf Popper Files Class Action in New York

ALTRIA GROUP: Opposes Ad Campaign on Cigarette Smoking Fraud
AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE: Faces Class Action Over Automatic Renewal
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Violates Antitrust Laws, Judge Rules
AMIRA NATURE: Faces "Sund" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Hudson" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach

ANTHEM INC: Girard Gibbs Files Data Breach Class Action
ANTHEM INC: Data Breach Prompts Class Actions & "Phishing" Scams
APPLEBEE'S: Employees Can Sue as Group for Unpaid Wages
AVID TECHNOLOGY: May 12 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
BELLA BANQUETS: Faces "Salinas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

BLUE DIAMOND: Falsely Marketed Almond Milk Products, Suit Claims
CANADA CARTAGE: Court Certifies $100MM Overtime Class Action
CARMAX INC: Modified Opinion Entered in "Fowler" Case
CASA HOSPITALITY: "Amores" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
CMSG RESTAURANT: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

COMPASS GROUP: Faces "Rosario" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
CORNELL UNIVERSITY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
COSCO HOME: Recalls 273,000 Hand Trucks Due to Injury Risk
CVS CAREMARK: Parties in Hopkinton Suit Ordered to Arbitrate

CYTOSPORT: Faces Muscle Milk False Advertising Class Action
DEFFENBAUGH DISPOSAL: Bid to Vacate Oct. 28 Order Denied
ELECTROLUX HOME: Recalls Sears Kenmore 24-Inch Electric Ranges
EQUITRUST LIFE: Matrix Benefits Denial to Kennedy Estate Upheld
EXPEDIA INC: Class Cert. Denied in Municipalities' Suit

FANIMATION INC: Recalls Ceiling Fans Due to Injury Risk
FERGUSON, MO: Blacks Sue Over Discriminatory Policing
FORT COLLINS, CO: Faces Class Action Over Pandhandling Ordinance
FRESENIUS MEDICAL: Miss. AG Suit Remanded to State Court
GENERAL NUTRITION: Faces Class Action Over Herbal Supplements

GENERAL NUTRITION: Hagens Berman Sued Over Herbal Supplements
GLASS MOUNTAIN: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
GLK FOODS: Doesn't Properly Pay Farmworkers, "Baptiste" Suit Says
GRADUATE LEVERAGE: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Action Claims
HARRIS RANCH: Judge Recommends Initial OK of Gonzalez Suit Deal

HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Advocacy Group Files ADA Class Action
HAYNEEDLE INC: Recalls Artificial Christmas Trees Over Fire Risk
HI BOMBAY: Faces "Thompson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
HIDDEN LAKE: June 12 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
HOME LOAN: Faces Investor Class Action Over Ocwen Ties

HORNER SERVICES: N.D. Ga. Judge Narrows Claims in CEIC Suit
HOSPITAL CORPORATION: Faces "Case" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
INTERNATIONAL COMFORT: Sued in Cal. Over Defective HVAC Units
KEYPOINT: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
LIFEPOINT HOSPITALS: Faces Class Actions Over Heart Procedures

LTE CLUB: Mag. Judge Recommends Denial of Bid to Transfer Venue
MAGNA CHEK: Dodges Class Action Over Junk Fax Advertisements
MAJOR LEAGUE: Defends Wage-and-Hour Class Action
MANPOWER INC: June 18 Final Hearing to Approve "Willner" Accord
MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Judge Orders Hearings in Suit v. Arpaio

MARION COUNTY, FL: More Plaintiffs Join Class Action v. Sheriff
MARION BASS: May 28 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
MARYLAND CVS PHARMACY: Court Narrows Claims in "Ruyter" Case
MEL HARRIS: 2nd Cir. Upholds Debt Collection Class Action
MIMEDX GROUP: Faces "Long" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports

MONTANA POWER: Class Action Trial Scheduled for October 19
NESTLE PURINA: Faces Class Action Over Beneful Dog Food
NEW YORK: Dist. Court Judgment in "Garcia" Case Affirmed
NISSAN MOTOR: Bid to Lift Stay in "Wolf" Class Action Denied
OAKLAND, CA: April 1 Final Hearing on Deal Over Mass Arrest Suit

PERK UP: Faces "Chan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
PHILIP MORRIS: Appeals Marlboro Lights Class Action in Arkansas
PRESSMASTER INC: Recalls Xcelite Cable Stripping Tools
RAYMOND JAMES: Faces "Brink" Suit Over Processing Fee
RONALD REAGAN UCLA: "Superbug" Outbreak May Spur Lawsuits

ROYAL CANADIAN: Faces Class Action Over Flood Gun Seizures
SAFE STEP: Recalls Step Walk-In Tubs Due to Burn Hazard
SAFEWAY INC: Calif. App. Court Affirms Judgment in "Tamas" Case
SIGNAL INT'L: Indian Workers Awarded $14MM in Trafficking Suit
SCOTT USA: Recalls Bicycle Helmets Due to Head Injury Hazard

SINGING RIVER: Fails Make Plan Contributions, "Lowe" Suit Claims
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ST. JOSEPH SERVICES: Judge Tosses Data Breach Class Action
STARION ENERGY: Sued in E.D. Pa. Over High Utility Service Charge
SUN PACIFIC: Does Not Properly Pay Field Workers, Suit Claims

TAKATA CORP: Faces "Wieczorek" Over Defective Airbags
TAKATA CORP: Faces Airbag Class Action in Pittsburgh
TAKATA CORP: Not Cooperating With Airbag Investigation
TAKATA CORP: MDL Panel to Consolidate Airbag Suits in Fla. Court
TARGET CORP: Faces "Cohn" Suit Over Product Misbranding

TARGET CORP: Judge Trims Claims in Wet Wipe Class Action
TECK METALS: Judge Narrows Claims in Suit Over Mercury Exposure
TEPCO: Sailors' Class Action Over Fukushima Radiation Ongoing
THOMAS LUCAS: Texan Convicted Over Fake Disney Park Fraud
TITO TRANSMISSION: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime

TL CANNON: Supreme Court Reverses Class Action Dismissal
TOMMY BAHAMA: Recalls Shaker Sets Due to Laceration Hazard
TRINIDAD DRILLING: Fails to Provide Layoff Notice, Suit Claims
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Patino Law & Associates Files Class Action
UNITED STATES: Polsky's Suit vs. IRS Commissioner Dismissed

UNITED STATES: D.C. Circuit Revives Claims v. Dept of Commerce
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Oral Arguments Set in Pension Class Action
VERIZON ONLINE: Parties in "Sacchi" Case Directed to Arbitrate
WAL-MART STORES: Faces Class Action Over Herbal Supplements
WALGREENS: Bailey & Glasser Files Herbal Supplement Class Action

WALT DISNEY: March 26 Hearing Set for Class Action Motion
WATTS REGULATOR: Sued Over Defective Auto-Shutoff Connectors
WELLS FARGO: Appeals Court Upholds Reduction of Attorney's Fees
WORK OUT WORLD: Law Firms Settle Class Action Membership Dues

* Bill May Modify Colorado Construction Defects Law
* Canadian Securities Class Actions Growing, NERA Report Shows


                            *********


1ST ORIENTAL: Faces "Collins" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yuling Collins, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. 1st Oriental Market, LLC and Wai Kuen Pang,
Case No. 6:15-cv-00256 (M.D. Fla., February 19, 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 supermarket in Orange County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Donna V. Smith, Esq.
      Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, PA
      Suite 300, 1110 N Florida Ave
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 223-0431
      Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
      E-mail: dsmith@wfclaw.com


ACTION METALS: Faces "Ledesma" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Ledesma, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216 (b) v. Action Metals Inc. and Johnny Grinstein, Case No. 3:15-
cv-00573 (N.D. Tex., February 18, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in
excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Defendants own and operate a full-service recycling facility
that purchases and processes ferrous & non-ferrous metals that
regularly transacts business within Dallas County, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AIR FRANCE: Ticket Settlement Approval Hearing Set for April 17
---------------------------------------------------------------
If You Bought an Airline Ticket between the U.S. and Asia,
Australia, New Zealand, or the Pacific Islands, You Could Receive
Benefits from Class Action Settlements have been reached with
eight airlines in a class action lawsuit involving the price of
airline tickets.

The Settling Defendants are: Air France; Cathay Pacific; Japan
Airlines; Malaysian Airlines; Qantas; Singapore Airlines; Thai
Airways; and Vietnam Airlines.

The lawsuit continues against five Non-Settling Defendant
airlines: Air New Zealand; All Nippon Airways ("ANA"); China
Airlines (Taiwan); EVA Airways; and Philippines Airlines.

What is the case about?

The lawsuit claims that the Defendants agreed to fix prices on
tickets for transpacific air travel.  As a result, ticket
purchasers may have paid more than was necessary.  The Settling
Defendants deny the allegations, and deny that they have any
liability.  The Defendant airlines also deny liability, although
ANA has pled guilty to fixing the prices of certain discounted
tickets.

Am I included?

You are included if: (1) you bought a ticket for air travel from
one of 26 airlines; (2) the ticket included at least
one flight segment between the U.S. and Asia or Oceania; and (3)
your purchase was made between January 1, 2000 and the present.  A
more complete description of eligibility requirements is available
at the website or by calling the toll number.

What do the Settlements provide?

The Settling Defendants have agreed to pay $39,502,000.  Money
will not be distributed yet, and will be distributed pursuant to a
Plan of Allocation approved by the Court.  Additional information
is available on the website below.  Class Counsel will pursue the
lawsuit against the Non-Settling Defendants.

Class Counsel has not requested attorneys' fees and reimbursement
of costs at this time but will do so in connection with the final
approval hearing.  For the current Settlements, Class Counsel will
request up to one-third of the Settlement Fund plus up to $7,500
for each of the class representatives.  Class Counsel has asked
the Court to set aside an additional $3 million of the Settlement
Fund to cover future expenses.

How can I get benefits?

Submit a Claim Form online or by mail.  The earliest deadline to
file a claim is September 19, 2015, but you will have until 120
days after the Settlements become final and effective to file your
claim.

What are my rights?

If you do nothing, you will be bound by the Settlements and the
Court's decisions.  If you want to keep your right to sue the
Settling Defendants you must exclude yourself from the classes by
April 17, 2015.  If you stay in the classes, you may object to the
Settlements by April 17, 2015.  The Court will hold a hearing on
May 22, 2015 to consider whether to approve the Settlements.  You
or your own lawyer may appear at the hearing at your own expense,
but you do not have to attend.

Please visit the website, www.AirlineSettlement.com for additional
information, important documents, and case updates.

For more information: U.S. & CANADA: 1.800.439.1781 (Toll-Free),
INTERNATIONAL: 1.612.359.2900 (Toll) www.AirlineSettlement.com


ALCOA GLOBAL: "Villaneda" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maribel Villaneda, as an individual, and on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Alcoa Global Fasteners, Inc.,
Alcoa Inc., and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 2:15-cv-01124 (C.D.
Cal., February 17, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and penalties under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a facility that engages in
lightweight metals engineering and manufacturing in Los Angeles
County, and throughout California and the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul K. Haines, Esq.
      Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
      BOREN, OSHER & LUFTMAN LLP
      222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 2222
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Telephone: (310) 322-2220
      Facsimile: (310) 322-2228
      E-mail: phaines@bollaw.com
              fschmidt@bollaw.com


ALIBABA GROUP: Wolf Popper Files Class Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP on Feb. 11 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Alibaba Group Holding Limited and certain
of its officers, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (15-cv-0991), on behalf of all persons who
purchased Alibaba's publicly traded American Depositary Shares on
a U.S. stock exchange during the period October 21, 2014 through
January 28, 2015, and were damaged thereby.  This action alleges
claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act.

If you are a member of the Class, you may file a motion no later
than March 31, 2015 to be appointed a lead plaintiff.  A lead
plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of class
members in directing the litigation.

The Complaint charges that defendants made materially false and
misleading statements about Alibaba's efforts to combat the sale
of counterfeit and other illegal goods through Alibaba internet
platforms, downplaying the volume and widespread availability of
such goods through its platforms, and misrepresenting the efficacy
of its efforts to combat the sale of such goods.  Further,
defendants issued statements that Alibaba does not benefit from
sales of counterfeit goods, let alone rely on them for its
business model.  Indeed on December 23, 2014, Alibaba's CEO
represented that "in the end, counterfeiting hurts Alibaba Group
as consumers who receive fake goods may no longer want to shop on
our platforms."

Alibaba further failed to disclose that, in July 2014, top Alibaba
officers and managers had met with officials from China's State
Administration for Industry and Commerce, who had given Alibaba
"administrative guidance" that, inter alia, its procedures for
preventing and combatting counterfeit goods were grossly
inadequate, its employees had taken commercial bribes, and that
fictitious transactions were widespread on its platforms.

On January 28, 2015 the SAIC, posted a "white paper" on its
website that summarized the administrative guidance that had been
given to Alibaba in July 2014.

On the disclosure of the "white paper", Alibaba declined $4.49 per
ADS or approximately 4%, to close at $98.45 per ADS on January 28,
2015.

On January 29, 2015, the news website Quartz posted a translation
of the section of the SAIC White Paper that specified in detail
the manner in which Alibaba had failed to prevent, and even
encouraged, the sale of counterfeit and illegal goods, as well as
other illegal activity on its affiliated websites.

On this news, combined with disappointing earnings for the quarter
ended December 31, 2014, Alibaba declined an additional $8.64 per
ADS, or nearly 9%, to close at $89.81 on January 29, 2015.

Wolf Popper -- http://www.wolfpopper.com-- has successfully
recovered billions of dollars for defrauded investors.  The firm's
reputation and expertise have been repeatedly recognized by the
courts, which have appointed the firm to major positions in
securities litigation.

CONTACT:
Joshua Saltzman, Esq.
Tel.: 877-370-7703
Fax: 877-370-7704
Email: irrep@wolfpopper.com
Web site: http://www.wolfpopper.com


ALTRIA GROUP: Opposes Ad Campaign on Cigarette Smoking Fraud
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that America's biggest tobacco
companies say they are ready and willing to pass along factual
public health information about cigarettes.  But they say they
will not go along with being forced to underwrite an ad campaign
that would have the companies brand themselves as liars.

In 2006, U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler ordered the largest
cigarette makers to publicly admit that they had lied for decades
about the dangers of smoking.  The ruling came after testimony
from 162 witnesses, a nine-month bench trial and thousands of
findings by the judge that defendants engaged in a massive
campaign of fraud.

The companies argue that the ads are designed to ensure that the
public "does not believe anything the companies say on any topic,"
and they want an appeals court to set aside the "corrective
statements," as the ads are known, and craft new ones.

Oral arguments were set for Feb. 23 before the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The ads would be in all cigarette packs sold for 12 weeks over the
course of two years, in TV spots once per week for a year, in a
separate newspaper ad by each company, on company websites
indefinitely and at certain retail outlets.  They stem from a
civil case the government brought in 1999 under RICO, the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The preamble to the ads says a "federal court has ruled that
Altria, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, Lorillard and Philip Morris USA
deliberately deceived the American public."  The companies say the
statement is overbroad and misleading.

The companies in the case include Richmond, Virginia-based Altria
Group Inc., owner of the biggest U.S. tobacco company, Philip
Morris USA; No. 2 cigarette maker, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
owned by Winston-Salem, North Carolina-based Reynolds American
Inc.; and No. 3 cigarette maker Lorillard Inc., based in
Greensboro, North Carolina.

Judge Kessler required the companies to publicly address smoking's
adverse health effects, nicotine manipulation and the health
impact of secondhand smoke.  The judge also required that the
companies address the truth about "light" and "low tar" brands and
the nature of cigarette addiction.

In 2009, the appeals court directed Judge Kessler to craft
corrective statements confined to purely factual and
uncontroversial information that would reveal previously hidden
truths about the tobacco industry's products.

But the companies said in a recent filing that Judge Kessler went
beyond those instructions and ordered inflammatory statements that
require the defendants to denigrate themselves.

The case is 13-5028, U.S. versus Philip Morris USA.


AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE: Faces Class Action Over Automatic Renewal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that two California residents filed a
lawsuit Feb. 6 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California against the American Automobile Association
(AAA) for allegedly fraudulent billing practices in the last four
years.

Anthony Gee and Joseph Anthony Montegna Sr. of San Diego County,
Calif., filed a class action complaint against AAA, of Delaware,
on charges of violating business practice law and unfair
competition.  They claim the defendant makes automatic renewal and
continuous service offers to further its own monetary gain through
supposedly false, deceptive and misleading means by automatically
charging consumers for continued membership without their
knowledge.

Mr. Gee purchased a membership in 2010, and Mr. Montegna did in
2014.  They contend that AAA did not inform them prior to renewing
their memberships that it would continue to charge their credit
card accounts.  The suit said the practice offends public policy
and is immoral, unethical, oppressive and unscrupulous.

The class is believed to number in the hundreds of thousands.  The
suit seeks compensation for lost subscription funds, attorneys'
fees and costs.   Messrs. Gee and Montegna are represented by
Joshua Swigart and Sara Khosroabadi of Hyde & Swigart, San Diego;
and Abbas Kazerounian and Mona Amini of Kazerouni Law Group, APC,
of Costa Mesa, Calif.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Violates Antitrust Laws, Judge Rules
------------------------------------------------------
Ken Sweet, writing for The Associated Press, reports that American
Express violated U.S. antitrust laws by barring merchants from
asking customers to use one credit card over another, a federal
judge ruled on Feb. 19.  The case was a major blow to American
Express, who argued that its policies kept it competitive against
the larger payment networks of Visa and MasterCard and their bank
partners.  American Express plans to appeal the decision.

U.S. District Court Judge Nicholas Garaufis said in his ruling
that American Express nondisclosure policies harmed competition
and prevented merchants from trying to lower their credit card
processing costs.  He also said AmEx's policies kept consumers
unaware how much using their credit cards cost merchants, which
required merchants to pass along those costs in the form of higher
prices.

At the center of the case are the fees merchants pay to process
credit and debit cards, which have been largely hidden from the
average consumer but are a major cost for any merchant who wants
to accept plastic.  Every time a credit or debit card is used at a
merchant, the banks and payment networks take a small percentage
of the transaction as a fee.

The fee varies on what type of card is used, but typically debit
cards are cheaper for merchants to process than credit cards.  The
credit cards that gave consumers perks such as reward points, cash
back or airline miles, which are the cards American Express
offers, were among the most expensive for merchants to process.

Consumers never directly pay for these fees, but do so through
higher prices merchants must charge to cover the processing costs.

"Every day merchants make their vendors compete for their business
and, hopefully, drive down prices.  That type of competition does
not exist at all in the payment industry," said Jeffrey Shinder,
an antitrust and payments expert at the law firm Constantine
Cannon, who represents merchants in a related class action case
involving American Express.

American Express required its merchants to accept all credit cards
equally and could not encourage consumers to use one credit card
over another through practices like signs that say "We Prefer
Visa" or possibly offering discounts to Discover cardholders.

Visa and MasterCard used to have similar nondisclosure policies,
but ended those practices after settling with the Justice
Department in 2010.  American Express refused to settle, and the
issue went to trial last summer.  The company argued at trial that
merchants could discriminate against AmEx cardholders due to the
higher fees and also argued that, as the third-largest payment
network, it was not in a position to stifle competition.

Those arguments were rejected.  Judge Garaufis ruled that the
loyalty American Express cardholders have for their cards have
been often enough to keep merchants accepting American Express
cards.   Also, while American Express is the third-largest payment
network, it is the second-largest credit card network by payment
volume.

American Express Co., in a statement, called the decision "wrong."

"The court's ruling will not provide any benefit to consumers and
will, in fact, harm competition by further entrenching the two
dominant networks," the company said, referring to Visa and
MasterCard.

Retailers applauded the decision.

"This is a pretty important step forward, and it vindicates what
we've said all along: that the credit card market is broken and
the consequence has been high fees for merchants and consumers,"
said Mallory Duncan, general counsel for the National Retail
Federation, which represents most of the nation's most well-known
retail companies.

The ruling will not change American Express' policies immediately.
Judge Garaufis asked both American Express and the Justice
Department to submit proposed ideas on how to remedy the situation
as a result of the ruling.  However, if American Express is
required to lower its fees that is likely to have a long-term
effect on the company's profitability and, for consumers, its
ability to provide perks like points or airline miles.

The Feb. 19 news is the latest chapter in what has been a
difficult start to the year for American Express.  The New York
company said in January it would lay off 4,000 employees this
year, and this month American Express said its partnerships with
Costco and JetBlue would be coming to an end.

American Express shares closed down $1.38 to $78.40 following the
ruling.  The stock has declined nearly 16 percent so far this
year.


AMIRA NATURE: Faces "Sund" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David C. Sund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Amira Nature Foods Ltd., Karan A. Chanana, Bruce C.
Wacha, Ritesh Suneja, and Ashish Poddar, Case No. 8:15-cv-00280
(C.D. Cal., February 18, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made
false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects.

Amira Nature Foods Ltd. is a British Virgin Islands Corporation
with its principal executive offices located in Dubai, United Arab
Emirates.  It processes, markets, and sells rice and other food
products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      E-mail: info@glancylaw.com
              lglancy@glancylaw.com
              rprongay@glancylaw.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

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


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Hudson" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Hudson and Canaan Reich, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Anthem Inc., et al., Case No. 8:15-
cv-00296 (C.D. Cal., February 19, 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:

      Michael J. Walsh, Esq.
      Mark A. Walsh, Esq.
      WALSH & WALSH, P.C.
      420 Exchange, Suite 270
      Irvine, CA 92602
      Telephone: (714) 544-6609
      Facsimile: (714) 544-6621
      E-mail: walshandwalsh@gmail.com

         - and -

      Gregory G. Brown, Esq.
      BROWN & CHARBONNEAU LLP
      420 Exchange, Suite 270
      Irvine, CA 92602
      Telephone: (714) 505-3000
      Facsimile: (714) 505-3070
      E-mail: gbrown@bc-llp.com


ANTHEM INC: Girard Gibbs Files Data Breach Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Girard Gibbs LLP filed on February 9, 2015, a federal class action
lawsuit against health insurer Anthem on behalf of Anthem members
and employees whose personal information was allegedly exposed as
a result of the data breach announced in February 2015.  The
lawsuit alleges that Anthem, the nation's second-largest insurer,
failed to implement reasonable security measures to prevent,
detect, and limit the scope of the breach.

The lawsuit also alleges that the personal information of up to 80
million Anthem customers was exposed to theft when hackers used
the login credentials of Anthem technicians to access unencrypted
customer data.  According to Anthem's official statement, updated
on February 11, 2015, thieves had access to members' names,
birthdays, Social Security numbers, medical IDs, street addresses,
email addresses, employment information, and income data.

"All health insurers have a legal obligation to protect the
sensitive personal information of their members," said Eric Gibbs,
a founding partner at Girard Gibbs LLP.  "This case alleges that
Anthem failed to implement reasonable security measures, such as
adequately screening its systems for unauthorized activity or
encrypting members' personal data.  Anthem's conduct has increased
its members' risk of identity theft."

The Anthem data breach class action lawsuit is called Hood v.
Anthem, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-00918, and is currently pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Girard Gibbs is a national litigation firm with a consumer
protection group that has represented millions of individuals in
class action lawsuits.  Girard Gibbs' partners hold leadership
positions in the Adobe Systems data breach litigation, and are
representing clients in the Sony Pictures and Home Depot data
breach cases.  Partner Daniel C. Girard was also recently
appointed to the Consumer Cases Steering Committee in the pending
class action lawsuit concerning the Target data breach. Girard
Gibbs has successfully settled cases involving data breaches at
Health Net and Certegy.

If you believe your personal information was put at risk in the
Anthem data breach and would like to learn more about this
lawsuit, please contact a Girard Gibbs consumer attorney toll-free
at (866) 981-4800.


ANTHEM INC: Data Breach Prompts Class Actions & "Phishing" Scams
----------------------------------------------------------------
F. Paul Pittman, Esq. of Sedgwick LLP, in an article for JDSupra,
reports that Anthem Inc. -- the nation's second largest health
insurer -- reported a data breach involving the disclosure of the
personal information of over 80 million patients and employees.
Plaintiffs wasted little time seeking redress, bringing class
action lawsuits a day later in Alabama, Georgia and California
federal court alleging that Anthem failed to adequately protect
its customers and employees.  The Anthem data breach continues a
long line of corporate data breaches in the past year, including
the Target data breach, that have impacted millions of customers
and employees of the hacked companies.  Notably, cybercriminals
have revealed a new way to profit from the fallout that occurs
with a data breach.

According to Anthem, hackers executed a "very sophisticated
attack" to infiltrate Anthem's information technology system,
where they accessed the names, addresses, birthdays, Social
Security numbers, income data and other personal details of about
80 million current and former customers and employees.  The
hackers, however, do not appear to have collected health
information.  Anthem claims it immediately instituted data breach
response measures by identifying and notifying consumers about the
breach, offering credit monitoring services and setting up a
toll-free number for individuals impacted by the breach --
although at least ten state attorneys general have accused Anthem
of failing to follow through with these measures.

The general allegations in the class action complaints in
California, Alabama and Georgia are similar, but the causes of
actions asserted in each lawsuit differ in part.  The class
plaintiff for the California action, Samantha Kirby, alleges that
Anthem didn't have proper security procedures in place and waited
too long to tell customers about the breach.  The putative class
in the California action includes all California Anthem customers
affected by the breach and alleges that Anthem is liable for
negligence, bailment, conversion, invasion of privacy, and
violations of the California Confidentiality of Medical
Information Act and Unfair Competition Law.

The class plaintiff for the Alabama action, Danny Juliano, alleges
that the insurer failed to properly encrypt user data and failed
to protect consumers.  The Alabama putative class claims include
all Anthem customers nationwide and the complaint asserts claims
of invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, negligence, wantonness
and violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The class plaintiffs for the Georgia action, Joseph D'Angelo III,
Shawn Haggerty, Charity Latimer, Kurt McLaughlin, Tamara Nedlouf
and John Thomas II allege that Anthem failed in their duty to
protect customers' personal information.  The Georgia plaintiffs
claim that Anthem has previously failed to adequately protect the
personal information of its customers, citing a settlement Anthem
entered into with the California state attorney general in 2012
over the disclosure of 30,000 social security numbers, among other
examples.  The Georgia complaint asserts causes of action for
violation of seven state data breach laws, negligence, bailment,
breach of contract and implied contract.

While plaintiffs seek redress for the data breach, cybercriminals
have moved in to compound the injury by instituting a "phishing"
scam against former and current customers.  Anthem has confirmed
that it did not distribute emails that prompted recipients to
click a link to access a free credit monitoring service.  Anthem
indicated that it would notify affected customers and offer them
credit monitoring by contacting them through U.S. mail not email.
In response to the "phishing" attack, Anthem warned customers to
avoid clicking on any of the email's links, replying to the email
or opening any attachments.

The Anthem data breach provides yet another example of the varying
issues that can arise when a company's information technology
system is hacked.  As if identifying an intrusion, mitigating any
loss of information and notifying affected consumers weren't
enough, companies now have to battle cybercriminals who prey on
the very data protection mechanisms companies institute to protect
consumers.  Hackers use of "phishing" scams to target unsuspecting
Anthem customers waiting for assistance following a breach further
drives home the need for companies to evolve, just as the
cybercriminals do, to respond to these challenges.


APPLEBEE'S: Employees Can Sue as Group for Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that on Feb. 10, the
2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that former employees of
several Applebee's restaurants in upstate New York are not barred
from suing as a group over supposedly unpaid wages, even though
the lost wages will eventually have to be assessed individually.

The appeals court rejected the restaurant owner's arguments that
under the U.S. Supreme Court's 2013 decision in a case called
Comcast v. Behrend, plaintiffs cannot be certified to sue as a
class unless they can offer a model for measuring damages that
applies to everyone in the group.

The Comcast ruling "did not hold that a class cannot be certified
simply because damages cannot be measured on a classwide basis,"
the 2nd Circuit opinion said.  "The Supreme Court did not
foreclose the possibility of class certification ' in cases
involving individualized damages calculations."

The Applebee's opinion is just the latest in a string of appellate
disappointments for defendants that had hoped to use the Comcast
ruling to squelch sprawling class actions.

In the Comcast case, a divided Supreme Court reversed the
certification of a class of Pennsylvania cable subscribers who
claimed Comcast made illegal deals with other cable companies to
obtain monopoly power over geographic areas.

In an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court
majority said that lower-court judges should consider defendants'
challenges to damages models when they are deciding whether to
certify a class.  The model proposed by the Comcast subscribers,
according to the opinion, didn't match their theory of the case,
so their class couldn't be certified.

Class action opponents seized on language in the Supreme Court
opinion that suggested a broader principle about damages and class
certification.

Justice Scalia said several times that plaintiffs suing as a class
must establish "that damages are susceptible of measurement across
the entire class."  In dozens of cases after Comcast, defendants
argued that the Supreme Court's phraseology precluded class
actions in which damages have to be calculated individually.

The Supreme Court itself seemed to be encouraging defendants to
test Comcast's boundaries when it sent two enormous consumer class
actions over allegedly moldy washing machines back to federal
circuit courts for reconsideration in light of Comcast.

But in case after case since 2013, federal appeals courts have
declined to construe Comcast broadly.  The 6th and 7th Circuits,
for instance, both recertified the moldy washer consumer classes
the Supreme Court had asked them to reconsider.

ASSESSING DAMAGES

Judge Richard Posner of the 7th Circuit wrote a characteristically
lucid explanation of the court's reasoning: "It would drive a
stake through the heart of the class action device' to require
that every member of the class have identical damages," he said in
Butler v. Sears.

"If the issues of liability are genuinely common issues, and the
damages of individual class members can be readily determined in
individual hearings, in settlement negotiations, or by creation of
subclasses, the fact that damages are not identical across all
class members should not preclude class certification.  Otherwise
defendants would be able to escape liability for tortious harms of
enormous aggregate magnitude but so widely distributed as not to
be remediable in individual suits." (The Supreme Court
subsequently refused to grant review of the 6th and 7th Circuits'
moldy washer class certification decisions.)

The 1st, 5th, 9th and 10th Circuits have also issued decisions
restricting Comcast's impact, as the 2nd Circuit's Applebee's
opinion points out.  Judge Christopher Droney, writing for a panel
that also included 2nd Circuit Judge Dennis Jacobs and U.S.
District Judge Lewis Kaplan of Manhattan, sitting by designation,
said the other federal circuits have read Comcast to require that
class action plaintiffs link their liability and damages theories
-- but not to preclude class actions involving individual damages
calculations.

"The circuits are developing a consensus that individualized
damages are not a per se bar to class certification," said
Scott Michelman of Public Citizen, who argued the employees' case
against Applebee's at the 2nd Circuit.

Mr. Michelman said that Comcast could have killed a lot of class
actions -- including consumer, civil rights and employment cases
-- if courts had interpreted it the way defendants wanted them to.
Instead, he said, "Comcast has turned out to be a lot less
influential than class action opponents had hoped."

Barry Barnett -- Bbarnett@susmangodfrey.com -- of Susman Godfrey,
who argued for Comcast subscribers at the Supreme Court, said in
an email that no one should be surprised at the circuits' narrow
reading of the ruling. The Supreme Court took the Comcast case,
Mr. Barnett said, to decide on a standard for expert testimony on
damages and had to rewrite the question the case presented when it
turned out that Comcast hadn't raised that issue in the lower
courts.

The ultimate opinion, according to Mr. Barnett, stands only for
the very narrow conclusion that the Comcast class didn't present
evidence linking their antitrust allegations to classwide damages.

"I therefore believe that the 2nd Circuit certainly reached the
right conclusion when it held just that in the Applebee's case,"
Mr. Barnett said in the email.

       Attorney Explains Wage-and-Hour Class Action Ruling

Cecil Caulkins, writing for LB Network, reports that the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a wage and hour class
action against Applebee's, discussed in an earlier LBN report, may
proceed.  The case is important for several reasons, including
that it discusses class action certification under Federal Rule
23(b) in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Comcast Corp. v.
Behrend.  Attorney Scott Michelman explains the decision in this
report.

Mr. Michelman explains that the ruling of the district court
denied certification of the lawsuit as a class action on the
theory that the Comcast case would permit class action
certification only when damages were "measurable on a classwide
basis."  In the Applebee's case, damages would necessarily be
different for all class members because of differences in
location, hours worked, and wage rates.  This is typically true in
any wage and hour case. The Second Circuit said that the
individualized nature of the damages is only one factor among many
to be considered in deciding whether a class action can proceed.

Mr. Michelman notes that opponents of class actions had said, in
the wake of Comcast, that it was a "game changer."  But what the
Court actually said, explains Mr. Michelman, is that the
plaintiff's theory of damages must match the theory of liability.
What that Court did not say is that the individualized nature of
damages would preclude certification of a class.  The district
court was in error by reading the Comcast decision in that light.

In this case (Roach v. T.L. Cannon Corp.), Applebee's had a number
of corporate policies and practices aimed at denying wages to
their workers, wages to which the workers would be entitled under
state law.  Mr. Michelman says there was adequate evidence in the
record that Applebee's was training managers at franchise
restaurants to shave time off time cards for rest breaks that
employees didn't take.  Defendant Cannon is a franchisee that
operates 53 restaurants in New York.

The most important effect of the Second Circuit's decision in the
long term will be to clarify for all parties that individualized
damages like the ones in this case will not defeat class action
certification.  This case clarifies that, just as before Comcast,
the question is "whether common issues predominate over individual
ones." Individualized damages won't kill a class action.


AVID TECHNOLOGY: May 12 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Pomerantz on Feb. 11 issued a
statement LLP regarding the Avid Securities Litigation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

MICHAEL COURTNEY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. AVID TECHNOLOGY, INC., GARY G.
GREENFIELD, KENNETH A. SEXTON and ERNST & YOUNG, LLP, Defendants.
No. 1:13-cv-10686-WGY, CLASS ACTION

TO:       ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED AVID TECHNOLOGY,
INC. ("AVID") COMMON STOCK DURING THE PERIOD BETWEEN OCTOBER 23,
2008 AND FEBRUARY 24, 2014, INCLUSIVE

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, that a hearing
will be held on May 12, 2015, at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable
William G. Young, United States District Judge, at the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Way, Boston,
Massachusetts 02210, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether
the proposed Settlement of the claims in the Litigation for the
amount of $2,595,000.00 should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether a Final Judgment and Order
of Dismissal with Prejudice should be entered by the Court
dismissing the Litigation with prejudice and releasing the
Released Claims; (3) whether the Plan of Allocation for the Net
Settlement Fund is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be
approved; and (4) whether the application of Lead Counsel for the
payment of attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses and an award to
the Lead Plaintiff for his service to the Settlement Class should
be approved.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED AVID COMMON STOCK DURING THE TIME
PERIOD FROM OCTOBER 23, 2008, THROUGH AND INCLUDING FEBRUARY 24,
2014 (THE "CLASS PERIOD"), YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE
SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION, INCLUDING THE RELEASE AND
EXTINGUISHMENT OF CLAIMS YOU MAY POSSESS RELATING TO YOUR PURCHASE
OR ACQUISITION OF AVID COMMON STOCK DURING THE CLASS PERIOD.  If
you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed
Settlement of Class Action, Motion for Attorneys' Fees and
Settlement Fairness Hearing ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of
Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies by writing to Avid
Securities Litigation, c/o GCG, Claims Administrator, P.O. Box
10147, Dublin, OH 43017-3147, or on the Internet at www.GCGInc.com
If you are a Settlement Class Member, in order to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof
of Claim and Release by mail or online no later than May 4, 2015,
establishing that you are entitled to recovery.

If you purchased or acquired Avid common stock during the Class
Period and you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class,
you must submit a request for exclusion so that it is received no
later than April 28, 2015, in the manner and form explained in the
detailed Notice referred to above.  All members of the Settlement
Class who do not timely and validly request exclusion from the
Settlement Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the
Litigation pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement.

Any objection to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, Lead
Counsel's request for attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses or the
Lead Plaintiff's request for his reasonable costs and expenses
incurred in representing the Settlement Class must be received by
each of the following recipients no later than April 28, 2015:

COURT
Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
District of Massachusetts
John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse
1 Courthouse Way, Suite 2300
Boston, MA  02210

LEAD COUNSEL
Jeremy A. Lieberman
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue
New York, NY  10016

Ellen Gusikoff Stewart
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA  92101

DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL
Matthew C. Baltay
FOLEY HOAG LLP
155 Seaport Boulevard
Boston, MA  02210

Matthew L. McGinnis
ROPES & GRAY LLP
Prudential Tower
800 Boylston Street
Boston, MA  02199

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.  If you have any questions about the Settlement, you
may contact Lead Counsel at the addresses listed above.

DATED: January 14, 2015
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS


BELLA BANQUETS: Faces "Salinas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Angel de Jesus Salinas and Edelia Cantu, on behalf of themselves
and all other similarly situated persons, known and unknown v.
Bella Banquets, Inc., d/b/a Bella Banquets and Via Bella
Restaurant, and Michelle Fulco, Case No. 1:15-cv-01559 (N.D. Ill.,
February 19, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 per week.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant and banquet service
located at 5412 South La Grange Road, Countryside, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BLUE DIAMOND: Falsely Marketed Almond Milk Products, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Claire Harlam, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Blue Diamond Growers, Case No. 1:15-cv-00877
(E.D.N.Y., February 19, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's false
and misleading labeling and advertising of its Almond Milk
Products as All Natural, when in fact they contain synthetic and
artificial ingredients and chemical preservatives.

Blue Diamond Growers is a California corporation that produces
retail food products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Chant Yedalian, Esq.
      CHANT & COMPANY
      1010 N. Central Avenue
      Glendale, CA 91202
      Telephone: (877) 574-7100
      Facsimile: (877) 574-9411
      E-mail: chant@chant.mobi

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Don Barrett, Esq.
      BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
      Po Box 927, 404 Court Square North
      Lexington, MS 39095
      Telephone: (662) 834-9168
      Facsimile: (662) 834-2628
      E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com

         - and -

      Jay Philip Nelkin, Esq.
      NELKIN & NELKIN
      5417 Chaucer Street
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 526-4500
      Facsimile: (713) 526-8915
      E-mail: jnelkin@nelkinpc.com

         - and -

      Jonathan Watson Cuneo, Esq.
      Taylor Asen, Esq.
      CUNEO, GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
      507 C Street, NE
      Washington, DC 20002
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
      E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com
             taylor.asen@gmail.com


CANADA CARTAGE: Court Certifies $100MM Overtime Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers from the law firm Lax O'Sullivan Scott Lisus LLP on
Feb. 11 announced the decision of the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice, released January 30, 2015, certifying a national class
action lawsuit against Canada Cartage Diversified GP Inc., Direct
General Partner Corporation, and Canada Cartage System, Limited
regarding unpaid overtime.

Canada Cartage, with headquarters in Mississauga, Ontario, engages
in the business of dedicated trucking, warehousing, distribution,
and logistics services across Canada.  Direct Distribution Centres
is the warehousing division of Canada Cartage, with locations
across Canada.

The certification decision (available at http://canlii.ca/t/gg4ff)
is a judicial determination that this case is an appropriate case
to proceed as a class action.  The case covers a "class" of
approximately 7,800 current and former Canada Cartage employees
who worked at the company since March 1, 2006 who were entitled to
receive overtime compensation pursuant to the Canada Labour Code
and its regulations.  The court also found that the plaintiff,
Marc-Oliver Baroch, is an appropriate representative plaintiff for
the class.  Mr. Baroch worked at a Canada Cartage location in
Mississauga, Ontario for approximately seven years and left the
company in 2013.

The Amended Statement of Claim alleges that Canada Cartage had a
policy or practice of avoiding or disregarding its overtime
obligations to class members.  According to the lawsuit, which was
commenced in November 2013, this policy or practice manifested
itself in a number of ways.  For example, the Claim alleges that
after Human Resources and Skills Development Canada determined
that Canada Cartage was not complying with its overtime
obligations, Canada Cartage deliberately misled HRSDC about the
remedial steps it would undertake to correct its non-compliance.
For some class members, it is alleged that Canada Cartage
unilaterally reduced their rates of pay and "reverse engineered"
their compensation to make it appear that they were being paid
overtime when in fact their weekly earnings remained unchanged.

"The Court's decision certifying this case as a class action is a
very positive development," said Eric R. Hoaken, a partner at Lax
O'Sullivan Scott Lisus LLP.  "It allows us to move forward to
trial and obtain justice on behalf of the class of hard-working
men and women who we allege were deprived of the overtime pay to
which they are entitled.  We are gratified that the Court has
cleared the way for the case to be determined on its merits."

Additional information about this case is available at
www.canadacartageclassaction.com

       Canada Cartage to Vigorously Defend OT Class Action

Peter Carte, writing for Today's Trucking, reports that Canada
Cartage might be facing a $100-million class-action suit, but the
101-year-old carrier is ready, if the case ever gets to court.

"Our firm is proud of our 100-year record of strong employee
relations. Should this case move forward, we will defend it
vigorously," said President and CEO Jeff Lindsay.

On Feb. 11, lawyers from the law firm Lax O'Sullivan Scott Lisus
LLP announced that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has
determined the law firm's clients can pursue a class-action suit
against Canada Cartage, over the issue of unpaid overtime.  The
Court ruling is simply proving that a suit can be made, it is not
a ruling on the charges.

According to a statement from Canada Cartage, Justice Edward
Belobaba ruled that the case meets the legal requirements to be
certified as a class action.  The decision is not a ruling on the
merits of the overtime claim but rather a procedural decision
allowing the case to move forward as a class action. The decision
notes that "The merits will be litigated (and Canada Cartage may
well prevail) later at the common issues trial."

Canada Cartage intends to seek leave to appeal the certification
decision.

According to a statement from the lawyers, "the case covers a
'class' of approximately 7,800 current and former Canada Cartage
employees who worked at the company since March 1, 2006 who were
entitled to receive overtime compensation pursuant to the Canada
Labour Code and its regulations.  The court also found that the
plaintiff, Marc-Oliver Baroch, is an appropriate representative
plaintiff for the class.  Mr. Baroch worked at a Canada Cartage
location in Mississauga, Ontario for approximately seven years and
left the company in 2013."

The claim alleges Canada Cartage avoided overtime obligations to
class members.  According to the lawsuit, which was commenced in
November 2013, this policy or practice manifested itself in a
number of ways.  For example, the Claim alleges that after Human
Resources and Skills Development Canada determined that Canada
Cartage was not complying with its overtime obligations, Canada
Cartage misled HRSDC about the remedial steps it would undertake
to correct its non-compliance. For some class members, it is
alleged that Canada Cartage unilaterally reduced their rates of
pay and "reverse engineered" their compensation to make it appear
that they were being paid overtime when in fact their weekly
earnings remained unchanged.


CARMAX INC: Modified Opinion Entered in "Fowler" Case
-----------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division One
entered on February 24, 2015, an order modifying an opinion and
denying rehearing in the case captioned JOHN WADE FOWLER et al.,
Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CARMAX, INC., et al., Defendants and
Respondents, NO. B238426.

The order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/PIVcDb
from Leagle.com, provides that the opinion filed on January 28,
2015, will be modified to reflect that on page 18, first sentence
of the second full paragraph, the word "addressed" is changed to
"briefed."

There is no change in the judgment.

The petition for rehearing is denied.

Kingsley & Kingsley, Eric B. Kingsley, Darren M. Cohen; The Cooper
Law Firm, Scott B. Cooper; The Carter Law Firm and Roger R. Carter
for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, Jack F. Sholkoff and
Christopher W. Decker for Defendants and Respondents.


CASA HOSPITALITY: "Amores" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Armeros, for herself and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Casa Hospitality Services, Inc. d/b/a Casa Ybel
Resort, Case No. 2:15-cv-00107 (M.D. Fla., February 18, 2015),
seeks to recover  unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Casa Hospitality Services, Inc. owns and operates a hotel resort
in Lee County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Angeli Murthy, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      Suite 400, 600 N Pine Island Rd
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 318-0268
      Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
      E-mail: amurthy@forthepeople.com


CMSG RESTAURANT: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Iolanda Rodriguez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. CMSG Restaurant Group, LLC d/b/a Larry Flynt's Hustler
Club, Anthony F. Grant, Michael A. Grant, Joseph A. Sullo and
Jason Mohney, Case No. 1:15-cv-01181 (S.D.N.Y., February 18,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate an adult club located at 641 West
51st Street, New York, New York 10019.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Deirdre Anne Aaron, Esq.
      Justin Mitchell Swartz, Esq.
      Olivia J. Quinto, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN, LLP
      3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 245-1000
      Facsimile: (646) 509-2064
      E-mail: daaron@outtengolden.com
              jms@outtengolden.com
              ojq@outtengolden.com


COMPASS GROUP: Faces "Rosario" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carla Rosario, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated individuals v. Compass Group, USA, Inc., Case No. 3:15-
cv-00241 (D. Conn., February 19, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in
excess of 40 per week.

Compass Group, USA, Inc. owns and operates numerous food service
facilities throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard Eugene Hayber, Esq.
      HAYBER LAW FIRM LLC
      221 Main Street, Suite 502
      Hartford, CT 06106
      Telephone: (860) 522-8888
      Facsimile: (860) 218-9555
      E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Stern, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case
No. 3:15-cv-01261 (D.N.J., February 18, 2015), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable practice of collecting debt.

Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. is a debt collection firm doing
business within the State of Washington.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CORNELL UNIVERSITY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sheena Hudson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Cornell University and Joan and Sanford I. Weill
Medical College and Graduate School of Medical Sciences Of Cornell
University, Case No. 1:15-cv-01196 (S.D.N.Y., February 19, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage, overtime compensation, and
liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Cornell University is a private university located in Ithaca, New
York.

Joan and Sanford I. Weill Medical College and Graduate School of
Medical Sciences Of Cornell University run a medical facility
located at 1300 York Avenue, New York, New York 10065.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander Todd Coleman, Esq.
      Alexander Gastman, Esq.
      Michael John Borrelli, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES
      1010 Northern Blvd., St. 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com
              alg@employmentlawyernewyork.com
              mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com


COSCO HOME: Recalls 273,000 Hand Trucks Due to Injury Risk
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Cosco Home & Office Products, of Columbus, Ind., announced a
voluntary recall of about 273,000 Hand trucks. Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The wheel hub can separate or break and eject pieces during
inflation, posing a risk of injury to the consumer and bystanders.

This recall involves Cosco Home & Office Products 3-in-1
convertible aluminum hand trucks. The handles can be moved to
allow the hand truck to be used in a vertical or horizontal
position. Recalled hand trucks have model numbers 12-301 ABL and
12-301 ABL1 and were manufactured from January 2009 to October
2011. The model number and manufacture date are on the Cosco label
on the rear side of the bottom cross member.

Cosco has received 10 reports of wheel hubs separating or breaking
and ejecting pieces including four reports of bruises and
lacerations.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/lX92sw

The recalled products were manufactured in China sold at Ace
Hardware, Costco Wholesale Club, Lowe's, Price Mart and United
Stationers and online at The Home Depot.com from March 2009 to
October 2011 for between $100 and $150 dollars.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled hand trucks
and contact Cosco for a free repair kit.


CVS CAREMARK: Parties in Hopkinton Suit Ordered to Arbitrate
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William G. Young of the District of Massachusetts
ordered the parties in HOPKINTON DRUG, INC., Plaintiff, v.
CAREMARKPCS, L.L.C. CVS CAREMARK, Corp. Defendants, CIVIL ACTION
NO. 14-12794-WGY (D. Mass.), to arbitrate.

Hopkinton is an independent pharmacy that specializes in compound
pharmaceuticals, while CVS Caremark is a national pharmacy
operator. CVS Caremark entered into a provider agreement with
Hopkinton, whereby the latter agreed to fill prescriptions for
health care plan members for which CVS served as a pharmacy
benefits manager. The provider agreement includes a clause
requiring all disputes to be settled by an arbitrator, as well as
a provision allowing Caremark to amend the agreement or manual by
giving notice to the provider of the terms of the amendment and
specifying the date the amendment becomes effective.

On June 23, 2014, CVS Caremark issued a written notice to
Hopkinton, alleging that Hopkinton was not in compliance with the
provider agreement, and that it would terminate Hopkinton's rights
under the agreement. On June 30, 2014, Hopkinton filed a five-
count complaint against the defendants, in which it sought
injunctive and monetary relief. On that same day, it also filed an
emergency motion for a temporary restraining order. On July 3,
Hopkinton filed an amended complaint, which added an additional
count seeking confirmation of a previously issued arbitration
award entered in its favor and against the defendants. The
defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration.

Judge Young preliminarily enjoined CVS Caremark from terminating
Hopkinton as pa party to the provider agreement and ordered the
parties to arbitrate the merits of the dispute.

A copy of Judge Young's memorandum dated January 5, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/0vBJRtfrom Leagle.com.

Hopkinton Drug, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Lawrence G. Green
-- lgreen@burnslev.com -- Christopher L. Ayers --
cayers@burnslev.com -- at Burns & Levinson LLP

CaremarkPCS, L.L.C., and CVS Caremark Corporation Defendants,
represented by Robert H. Griffith -- rgriffith@foley.com --
Lawrence M. Kraus -- lkraus@foley.com -- at Foley & Lardner LLP


CYTOSPORT: Faces Muscle Milk False Advertising Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ray Latif, writing for Bevnet, reports that false advertising and
misleading label statements are at the heart of a trio of recently
filed class action lawsuits against well-known beverage companies.

As reported by Legal Newsline and Law360, plaintiffs in the three
unrelated cases allege that Hain Celestial, R.W. Knudsen, and
Cytosport, maker of Muscle Milk products, are misleading consumers
about the formulation of their products.

For Cytosport, which was acquired by Hormel Foods in July, the
lawsuit is yet another targeting Muscle Milk.  The company has for
years been dogged by consumer watchdog groups and government
agencies which take issue with use of the word "milk" in the name
of brand whose products contains none of the actual ingredient.
Cytosport has also faced accusations that while it positions
Muscle Milk products as a healthy and nutritious, they are in
actuality packed with fats.  In 2013, the company agreed to a
$5.275 million settlement to resolve such claims.

In the most recent lawsuit filed against Cytosport, plaintiffs
Chayla Clay, Erica Ehrlichman and Logan Reicher allege that Muscle
Milk labels lead consumers to believe that the brand's products
contain significant amounts of muscle-building ingredients,
including L-Glutamine, and present a sub-line of its ready-to-
drink and powered beverages as "lean."

The lawsuit, filed on Jan. 23 in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, contends that Cytosport "products
contain significantly less protein that what is claimed and
displayed."  Moreover, the company "fortifies its Lean Muscle Milk
Products with sunflower and canola oils, considerable sources of
fat" and "has no basis to label is Lean Muscle Milk Products as
'lean'."

The plaintiffs are seeking to recover "damages and other legal and
equitable relief" and all "costs and expenses" associated with
filing the lawsuit.

Meanwhile, two consumers are claiming that food and beverage
conglomerate Hain Celestial falsely advertises its tea products as
"100 percent natural."  Sandra Burga, of Orange County, Calif.,
and Alison Conforti, of Brooklyn, N.Y. allege that Hain's teas
contain ascorbic acid and soy lecithin, and because the company
sources both ingredients from genetically modified (GMO) crops,
the products do not meet the criteria for "natural."

R.W. Knudsen Family Organic Blueberry Pomegranate JuiceBurga and
Conforti claim that they paid a premium for the teas because they
were presented as "100 percent natural" and would not have
purchased the products otherwise.  They allege that Hain is in
violation of consumer and business law, consumer fraud, and false
advertising, and are seeking a "corrective advertising campaign;
stricter accounting for profits from the products in question;
actual, punitive and statutory damages; attorneys' fees and
litigation costs," according to Legal Newsline.  The case was
filed on Jan. 26 in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

Across the country, R.W. Knudsen, which produces a range of shelf-
stable juice products, was hit with a class action lawsuit filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida
Tallahassee Division, which alleges that the company mislabels and
omits ingredients from its R.W. Knudsen Family Organic Blueberry
Pomegranate Juice.

Melvin Youmans and Lois Koons claim that Knudsen fails to disclose
that the beverage contains concentrated and/or reconstituted
ingredients, including organic apple juice concentrate, blueberry
puree, pomegranate juice concentrate and lemon juice concentrate.
The plaintiffs claim that they avoid processed juices and that
Knudsen misled them about the beverage.  Mr. Youmans and Ms. Koons
accuse Knudsen of being in violation of Florida consumer
protection statutes and trade practice law, false advertising,
breach of warranty, negligence and unjust enrichment.  They are
seeking a corrective advertising campaign, injunctions against
current labeling practices and compensation for damages and legal
fees.


DEFFENBAUGH DISPOSAL: Bid to Vacate Oct. 28 Order Denied
--------------------------------------------------------
LARRY WHITTON, on behalf of himself, and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. DEFFENBAUGH DISPOSAL, INC., et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 12-2247, (D. Kan.), alleges breach of
contract, violation of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act (KCPA),
and unjust enrichment for defendants' practice of charging two
types of fees: an "environmental/fuel charge" and an
"administrative fee." Plaintiff asked for certification of two
classes (KCPA and breach of contract), but the court denied class
certification with respect to both classes in June 2014.  On
October 27, 2014, the court ruled on defendants' motion for
summary judgment.  On October 28, 2014, the court ruled on
plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.  The matter presently
before the court is defendants' Motion to Reconsider and Vacate
the Court's October 28, 2014 Order.

District Judge Carlos Murguia denied the Defendants' Motion to
Reconsider and Vacate the Court's October 28, 2014 Order saying
Defendants have not shown the court committed manifest error.

Judge Murguia held that the court properly considered plaintiff's
motion for reconsideration and a new class definition, which was a
narrower definition than the definition found in plaintiff's
motion to certify class.  For the same reason, the court's
expansion of the definition found in plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration was permissible. Defendants' defenses of consent
and voluntary payment are not foreclosed, but the court also
believes the defenses do not preclude class certification. Those
defenses may be found applicable (or inapplicable) on a class-wide
basis after class-wide discovery is complete, he said. The court
reaffirms its determination that the fuel/environmental charge is
actually two separate fees. Finally, the court believes defendants
had ample notice of and opportunity to oppose: (1) plaintiff's
revised class definition in his motion for reconsideration; (2)
the argument that the fuel and the fuel/environmental fees are two
distinct fees; and (3) the definition ultimately certified by the
court in its October 28 order.

A copy of the Court's February 23, 2015 memorandum and order is
available at http://is.gd/3g3N4lfrom Leagle.com.

Larry Whitton, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Eric D. Barton, Wagstaff &
Cartmell, LLP, James M. Terrell -- jterrell@mmlaw.net -- McCallum,
Methvin & Terrell, PC, Patrick C. Marshall -- pmarshall@mmlaw.net
-- McCallum, Methvin & Terrell, PC & Robert G. Methvin, Jr. --
rgm@mmlaw.net -- McCallum, Methvin & Terrell, PC.

Deffenbaugh Disposal, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ashley N.
Gillard -- ashley.gillard@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave LLP, Catesby
A. Major -- catesby.major@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave LLP & Robert
M. Thompson -- rmthompson@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave LLP.

Deffenbaugh Industries, Inc, Defendant, represented by Ashley N.
Gillard, Bryan Cave LLP, Catesby A. Major, Bryan Cave LLP & Robert
M. Thompson, Bryan Cave LLP.


ELECTROLUX HOME: Recalls Sears Kenmore 24-Inch Electric Ranges
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Electrolux Home Products Inc., of Charlotte, N.C., announced a
voluntary recall of about 3,000 Sears Kenmore 24-inch electric
ranges. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The heating element can fail to properly adhere to the cooktop,
posing an electrical shock hazard to consumers.

This recall involves Sears Kenmore 24-inch wide freestanding
electric ranges with model number 790.90152 with serial numbers
from NF408 through NF424 and model number 790.90153 with serial
numbers from NF408 through NF427. The ranges have smooth cooktops
and are white or black with stainless steel accents. The model and
serial numbers are located on the bottom right frame of the range
inside the storage drawer.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/W1DhlJ

The recalled products were manufactured in Canada and sold at
Sears and Kmart stores nationwide from April 2014 through October
2014 for between $650 and $860.

Consumers should immediately stop using and unplug the recalled
electric ranges and contact Sears to schedule a free inspection
and repair if necessary.


EQUITRUST LIFE: Matrix Benefits Denial to Kennedy Estate Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: DIET DRUGS (PHENTERMINE/FENFLURAMINE/
DEXFENFLURAMINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. PATTI KENNEDY,
ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF DENNIS J. KENNEDY AND ACTING
INDIVIDUALLY AS THE SPOUSE OF DENNIS J. KENNEDY, Appellant, NO.
14-2729, the Estate of Dennis J. Kennedy appealed from the order
of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania denying its claim for Matrix A benefits under the
terms of the Diet Drug Nationwide Class Action Settlement
Agreement.

This case is part of an ongoing multi-district litigation
concerning diet drugs called "Pondimin" and "Redux," which were
previously sold by Wyeth. Under the Settlement Agreement, Wyeth
was required to contribute funds to a trust for the payment of
claims. The Settlement Trust reviews class members' claims to
determine their eligibility for benefits. "Matrix benefits" are
based on two benefit matrices, which classify claimants pursuant
to certain factors, including the presence of other medical
conditions that may have caused or contributed to valvular heart
disease.

In an opinion dated February 24, 2015, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/htZzAAfrom Leagle.com, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the
District Court ruling denying the Kennedy Estate's claims for
Matrix A Benefits.


EXPEDIA INC: Class Cert. Denied in Municipalities' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly of the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, without prejudice, in the case VILLAGE OF BEDFORD
PARK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. EXPEDIA, INC. (WA), et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 13 C 5633 (N.D. Ill.)

Fourteen Illinois municipalities, on behalf of a putative class of
276 municipalities, have sued defendants for unpaid taxes. The
defendants are online travel companies.

Defendants contract with individual hotels and pay wholesale rates
for rooms at those hotels. Defendants then rent the rooms directly
to the public for a higher retail price. The price defendants
charge customers includes the wholesale rate, a facilitation fee,
and an amount labeled Taxes & Services, which consists of an
estimate of the hotel tax due and other service costs. After these
customers complete their stays at the hotels, the hotels bill
defendants for the wholesale rate and a tax based on the wholesale
rate. Defendants then pay the hotels.

Plaintiffs claim that their hotel tax ordinances apply to the
retail rate charged to customers, not just the wholesale rate.
They allege, therefore, that the defendants have failed to remit
taxes owed under the hotel tax ordinances.

Defendants removed the case to federal court on the basis of the
Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332(d) and 1453.
In September 2013, defendants moved to dismiss seven of the ten
claims in plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a claim. The
Court granted defendants' motion.

Plaintiffs moved to certify the class under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(1) and (b)(3).

A copy of Judge Kennelly's memorandum opinion and order dated
January 6, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/D9bb0hfrom
Leagle.com.

Village of Bedford Park, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Sean
Krzak, Clifford Law Offices, P.C., Dominick L Lanzito, Peterson
Johnson & Murray, Donald J. Storino, Storino, Ramello & Durkin,
John W. Crongeyer, Crongeyer Law Firm, P.C., Kristen L. Beightol,
Bird Law Group, Paul A O'Grady, Peterson Johnson and Murray
Chicago LLC, Richard J. Ramello, Storino, Ramello & Durkin, Robert
K Finnell, Finnell Firm,Thomas K. Prindable, Clifford Law Offices,
P.C. & William Q. Bird, Bird Law Group, P.C.

City of Warrenville, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Sean Krzak,
Clifford Law Offices, P.C., Dominick L Lanzito, Peterson Johnson &
Murray, Donald J. Storino, Storino, Ramello & Durkin, John W.
Crongeyer, Crongeyer Law Firm, P.c., Kristen L. Beightol, Bird Law
Group, Paul A O'Grady, Peterson Johnson and Murray Chicago LLC,
Richard J. Ramello, Storino, Ramello & Durkin, Robert K Finnell,
Finnell Firm,Thomas K. Prindable, Clifford Law Offices, P.C. &
William Q. Bird, Bird Law Group, P.C.

City of Oakbrook Terrace, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Sean
Krzak, Clifford Law Offices, P.C.,Dominick L Lanzito, Peterson
Johnson & Murray, Donald J. Storino, Storino, Ramello & Durkin,
John W. Crongeyer, Crongeyer Law Firm, P.c., Kristen L. Beightol,
Bird Law Group, Paul A O'Grady, Peterson Johnson and Murray
Chicago LLC, Richard J. Ramello, Storino, Ramello & Durkin, Robert
K Finnell, Finnell Firm, Thomas Justin Halleran, Storino, Ramello
& Durkin, Thomas K. Prindable, Clifford Law Offices, P.C. &
William Q. Bird, Bird Law Group, P.C.

Oak Lawn Village Of, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Sean Krzak,
Clifford Law Offices, P.C., Dominick L Lanzito, Peterson Johnson &
Murray, Donald J. Storino, Storino, Ramello & Durkin, John W.
Crongeyer, Crongeyer Law Firm, P.c., Kristen L. Beightol, Bird Law
Group, Paul A O'Grady, Peterson Johnson and Murray Chicago LLC,
Richard J. Ramello, Storino, Ramello & Durkin, Robert K Finnell,
Finnell Firm,Thomas K. Prindable, Clifford Law Offices, P.C. &
William Q. Bird, Bird Law Group, P.C.

Village of Orland Hills, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Sean
Krzak, Clifford Law Offices, P.C., Dominick L Lanzito, Peterson
Johnson & Murray, Donald J. Storino, Storino, Ramello & Durkin,
John W. Crongeyer, Crongeyer Law Firm, P.c., Kristen L. Beightol,
Bird Law Group, Paul A O'Grady, Peterson Johnson and Murray
Chicago LLC, Richard J. Ramello, Storino, Ramello & Durkin, Robert
K Finnell, Finnell Firm,Thomas K. Prindable, Clifford Law Offices,
P.C. & William Q. Bird, Bird Law Group, P.C.

City of Rockford, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Sean Krzak,
Clifford Law Offices, P.C., Dominick L Lanzito, Peterson Johnson &
Murray, Donald J. Storino, Storino, Ramello & Durkin, John W.
Crongeyer, Crongeyer Law Firm, P.c., Kristen L. Beightol, Bird Law
Group, Paul A O'Grady, Peterson Johnson and Murray Chicago LLC,
Richard J. Ramello, Storino, Ramello & Durkin, Robert K Finnell,
Finnell Firm,Thomas K. Prindable, Clifford Law Offices, P.C. &
William Q. Bird, Bird Law Group, P.C.

Willowbrook, Vlg of, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Sean Krzak,
Clifford Law Offices, P.C., Dominick L Lanzito, Peterson Johnson &
Murray, Donald J. Storino, Storino, Ramello & Durkin, John W.
Crongeyer, Crongeyer Law Firm, P.c., Kristen L. Beightol, Bird Law
Group, Paul A O'Grady, Peterson Johnson and Murray Chicago LLC,
Richard J. Ramello, Storino, Ramello & Durkin, Robert K Finnell,
Finnell Firm,Thomas K. Prindable, Clifford Law Offices, P.C. &
William Q. Bird, Bird Law Group, P.C.

Village of Arlington Heights, Plaintiff, represented by Michael
Sean Krzak, Clifford Law Offices, P.C.,Dominick L Lanzito,
Peterson Johnson & Murray, Donald J. Storino, Storino, Ramello &
Durkin, John W. Crongeyer, Crongeyer Law Firm, P.c., Kristen L.
Beightol, Bird Law Group, Paul A O'Grady, Peterson Johnson and
Murray Chicago LLC, Richard J. Ramello, Storino, Ramello & Durkin,
Robert K Finnell, Finnell Firm, Thomas K. Prindable, Clifford Law
Offices, P.C. & William Q. Bird, Bird Law Group, P.C.

Village of Burr Ridge, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Sean
Krzak, Clifford Law Offices, P.C., Dominick L Lanzito, Peterson
Johnson & Murray, Donald J. Storino, Storino, Ramello & Durkin,
John W. Crongeyer, Crongeyer Law Firm, P.c., Kristen L. Beightol,
Bird Law Group, Paul A O'Grady, Peterson Johnson and Murray
Chicago LLC, Richard J. Ramello, Storino, Ramello & Durkin, Robert
K Finnell, Finnell Firm,Thomas K. Prindable, Clifford Law Offices,
P.C. & William Q. Bird, Bird Law Group, P.C.

Des Plaines, City of, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Sean
Krzak, Clifford Law Offices, P.C., Dominick L Lanzito, Peterson
Johnson & Murray, Donald J. Storino, Storino, Ramello & Durkin,
John W. Crongeyer, Crongeyer Law Firm, P.c., Kristen L. Beightol,
Bird Law Group, Paul A O'Grady, Peterson Johnson and Murray
Chicago LLC, Richard J. Ramello, Storino, Ramello & Durkin, Robert
K Finnell, Finnell Firm,Thomas K. Prindable, Clifford Law Offices,
P.C. & William Q. Bird, Bird Law Group, P.C.

Village of Lombard, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Sean Krzak,
Clifford Law Offices, P.C., Dominick L Lanzito, Peterson Johnson &
Murray, Donald J. Storino, Storino, Ramello & Durkin, John W.
Crongeyer, Crongeyer Law Firm, P.c., Kristen L. Beightol, Bird Law
Group, Paul A O'Grady, Peterson Johnson and Murray Chicago LLC,
Richard J. Ramello, Storino, Ramello & Durkin, Robert K Finnell,
Finnell Firm,Thomas K. Prindable, Clifford Law Offices, P.C. &
William Q. Bird, Bird Law Group, P.C.

Village of Orland Park, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Sean
Krzak, Clifford Law Offices, P.C., Dominick L Lanzito, Peterson
Johnson & Murray, Donald J. Storino, Storino, Ramello & Durkin,
John W. Crongeyer, Crongeyer Law Firm, P.c., Kristen L. Beightol,
Bird Law Group, Paul A O'Grady, Peterson Johnson and Murray
Chicago LLC, Richard J. Ramello, Storino, Ramello & Durkin, Robert
K Finnell, Finnell Firm,Thomas K. Prindable, Clifford Law Offices,
P.C. & William Q. Bird, Bird Law Group, P.C.

Village of Tinley Park, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Sean
Krzak, Clifford Law Offices, P.C., Dominick L Lanzito, Peterson
Johnson & Murray, Donald J. Storino, Storino, Ramello & Durkin,
John W. Crongeyer, Crongeyer Law Firm, P.c., Kristen L. Beightol,
Bird Law Group, Paul A O'Grady, Peterson Johnson and Murray
Chicago LLC, Richard J. Ramello, Storino, Ramello & Durkin, Robert
K Finnell, Finnell Firm,Thomas K. Prindable, Clifford Law Offices,
P.C. & William Q. Bird, Bird Law Group, P.C.

Village of Schaumburg, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated,, Plaintiff, represented byMichael Sean Krzak,
Clifford Law Offices, P.C., Dominick L Lanzito, Peterson Johnson &
Murray, Donald J. Storino, Storino, Ramello & Durkin, John W.
Crongeyer, Crongeyer Law Firm, P.c., Kristen L. Beightol, Bird Law
Group, Paul A O'Grady, Peterson Johnson and Murray Chicago LLC,
Richard J. Ramello, Storino, Ramello & Durkin, Robert K Finnell,
Finnell Firm, Thomas K. Prindable, Clifford Law Offices, P.C. &
William Q. Bird, Bird Law Group, P.C.

Expedia, Inc. (WA), Defendant, represented by Mark P. Rotatori,
Jones Day, Meghan Eileen Sweeney, Jones Day & Nicole C. Henning,
Jones Day

Hotels.Com L.P., Defendant, represented by Mark P. Rotatori, Jones
Day, Meghan Eileen Sweeney, Jones Day & Nicole C. Henning, Jones
Day

Hotwire, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark P. Rotatori, Jones
Day, Meghan Eileen Sweeney, Jones Day & Nicole C. Henning, Jones
Day

Egencia, LLC, Defendant, represented by Mark P. Rotatori, Jones
Day, Meghan Eileen Sweeney, Jones Day & Nicole C. Henning, Jones
Day

Trip Network, Inc., Defendant, represented by Elizabeth Brooke
Herrington, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP,Jeffrey A Rossman,
McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, Lisa Nicole Haidostian, Mcdermott
Will & Emery Llp &Mark Jacob Altschul, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP

Orbitz LLC, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth Brooke Herrington,
McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, Jeffrey A Rossman, McDermott, Will &
Emery LLP, Lisa Nicole Haidostian, Mcdermott Will & Emery Llp &
Mark Jacob Altschul, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP

Internetwork Publishing Corporation, doing business as
lodging.com, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth Brooke
Herrington, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, Jeffrey A Rossman,
McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, Lisa Nicole Haidostian, Mcdermott
Will & Emery Llp & Mark Jacob Altschul, McDermott, Will & Emery
LLP

Priceline.com Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Albert Lee
Hogan, III, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP CH.
Travelweb, LLC, Defendant, represented by Albert Lee Hogan, III,
Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP CH

Travelocity.com LP, Defendant, represented by Brian Stagner, Kelly
Hart & Hallmann, Brian S. Stagner, Kelly Hart & Hallman Llp, Derek
Lee Montgomery, Kelly Hart & Hallman Llp, Luke DeGrand, DeGrand &
Wolfe, P.C., Scott Ryan Wiehle, Kelly Hart & Hallman, LLP & Tracey
L. Wolfe, DeGrand & Wolfe, P.C.

Site59.com LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian Stagner, Kelly
Hart & Hallmann, Brian S. Stagner, Kelly Hart & Hallman Llp, Derek
Lee Montgomery, Kelly Hart & Hallman Llp, Luke DeGrand, DeGrand &
Wolfe, P.C., Scott Ryan Wiehle, Kelly Hart & Hallman, LLP & Tracey
L. Wolfe, DeGrand & Wolfe, P.C.

priceline.com LLC, Defendant, represented by Randolph K. Herndon,
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & Albert Lee Hogan, III,
Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP


FANIMATION INC: Recalls Ceiling Fans Due to Injury Risk
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Fanimation Inc., of Zionsville, Ind., announced a voluntary recall
of 9,300 Brewmaster Ceiling Fans. Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The ceiling fan hub holding the blades can separate from the shaft
when operating in reverse. If this happens, the fan blades and hub
can fall and pose a risk of injury to bystanders.

The recall includes Brewmaster belt-driven fans powered by a
remote motor. The fans have two blades of various styles and
colors, and were sold in a short neck assembly, extending 15
inches from the ceiling and a long assembly extending 26 inches
from the ceiling. The fans were sold in antique brass, pewter and
black hardware. A face plate on the lower part of the head
assembly reads in part, "THE BREWMASTER by FANIMATION." Fans with
the following model numbers on their packaging are included in the
recall: FP10AB, FP10AC, FP10BL, FP10PW, FP20AB, FP20AC, FP20BL and
FP20PW.

The firm has received two reports of the ceiling fan hub falling.
No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/roBh3c

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Electrical distributors, fan specialty stores and lighting
showrooms nationwide and online from June 2002 to December 2014
for between $800 and $2,500 per system.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled fans and
contact Fanimation for a retention collar for the Brewmaster fan.


FERGUSON, MO: Blacks Sue Over Discriminatory Policing
-----------------------------------------------------
According to Black Agenda Report, blacks have launched a class
action suit against the towns of Ferguson and Jennings, Missouri,
demanding compensation for disproportionate traffic tickets, fines
and jailings.  BAR executive editor Glen Ford discussed the case
on the Real News Network.  Glen Ford believes revenue is far from
the only motive for over-policing in towns like Ferguson, and
wonders whether, if the town elected and selected a black mayor, a
black police chief over a majority black department, any different
enforcement pattern might emerge.


FORT COLLINS, CO: Faces Class Action Over Pandhandling Ordinance
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBS4 reports that the City of Fort Collins is facing a lawsuit
over panhandling.  The American Civil Liberties Union claims the
city's new ordinance, which limits where people can ask for money,
is illegal.

The ACLU's Colorado chapter said it does not object to targeted
ordinances to enforce issues.  The organization claims in this
case Fort Collins police have gone too far by turning polite pleas
for help into a crime.

"I think for one, that people who are in need should be able to
ask for help," said Fort Collins resident Nancy York.

Ms. York, 76, joined the class action lawsuit which was filed in
federal district court on Feb. 10.  The lawsuit claims the new
ordinance violates free speech rights.

Ms. York wants city leaders to get rid of the ordinance that makes
it illegal for people to ask her for money because she falls into
what's defined as an "at risk" group of people over the age of 60.
"I've never been abused in any way or rudely solicited.  If
anything, I find that the people I identify as homeless are even
overly polite," said Ms. York.

Not everyone has a problem with the ordinance, even those who do
ask for money.

"My sign, first of all, doesn't say anything about needing help,"
said David Kulick.

Mr. Kulick said he chose to opt out of the lawsuit.  He said as
long as people play by the rules he sees no problem with the way
police enforce the city's anti-panhandling rules.

"I don't talk to people, therefore I am not being aggressive or
rude or anything like that," said Mr. Kulick.

The City of Fort Collins is reviewing the lawsuit and will not
comment until they've evaluated all of the claims.

The Fort Collins Police Department is also waiting to comment on
the ACLU's lawsuit.

The ACLU is hoping for an injunction, stopping enforcement of all
the current rules as the lawsuit moves forward.

The non-profit Greenpeace is also names as a plaintiff in the
lawsuit, saying the law keeps their street canvassers from
working.


FRESENIUS MEDICAL: Miss. AG Suit Remanded to State Court
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Douglas P. Woodlock of the District of
Massachusetts ruled on the parties' motion in the case entitled IN
RE: FRESENIUS GRANUFLO/NATURALYTE DIALYSATE PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION. This Order Relates To: JIM HOOD, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, ex rel. THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI,
Plaintiffs, v. FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE HOLDINGS, INC. and FRESENIUS
USA, INC., Defendants, MDL NO. 13-02428-DPW, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-
12384-DPW (D. Mass.)

The Attorney General of Mississippi on behalf of the State of
Mississippi filed this action against Fresenius Medical Care
Holdings, Inc. and Fresenius USA, Inc. in the Chancery Court of
DeSoto County, Mississippi.  The complaint contains a single count
alleging that Fresenius engaged in unfair or deceptive trade
practices in violation of the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act,
Miss. Code Ann. Sections 75-24-1, et seq. (MCPA), by providing
false product information and misrepresenting or concealing the
risks associated with its GranuFlo and NaturaLyte dialysis
products. Through the complaint, the Attorney General seeks
injunctive relief, disgorgement of all money wrongfully acquired
by the defendants from the sale of GranuFlo and NaturaLyte
administered to Mississippi Medicaid recipients and members of the
State Health Plan, civil penalties of up to $10,000 for each
violation of the MCPA, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.

Fresenius removed the action to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Sections 1441 and 1446, alleging diversity jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. Section 1332(a)(1). The State immediately moved to remand
the case to Mississippi state court and for costs and fees, but on
Fresenius's motion, the Mississippi federal court issued a stay
pending consideration of transfer of the case by the Judicial
Panel for Multidistrict Litigation to the Massachusetts district
court as part of the Fresenius GranuFlo/NaturaLyte Dialysate
Products Liability Litigation.

The Attorney General filed its renewed motion to remand the case
to Desotto County and for costs and fees, while Fresenius asked
the court to certify an interlocutory appeal upon remand of the
case.

Judge Woodlock granted the state of Mississippi's motion for
remand of the case to the Chancery Court of DeSotto County, but
denied the Attorney General's motion for fees and costs against
Fresenius for contesting the issue.  Judge Woodlock denied
Fresenius' request for certification.

A copy of Judge Woodlock's memorandum ad order dated January 2,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/lM54Njfrom Leagle.com.

Jim Hood, Plaintiff, represented by:

Geoffrey C. Morgan, Esq.
George W. Neville, Esq.
MISSISSIPPI ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
Walter Sillers Building
550 High Street, Suite 1200
Jackson, MS 39201
Telephone: 601-359-3680
Facsimile: 601-359-2003

     - and -

Jason L. Nabors -- jason@smithphillips.com -- Richard T. Phillips
-- flip@smithphillips.com -- at SMITH, PHILLIPS, MITCHELL & SCOTT
& RUTHERFORD

     - and -

Robert A. Malouf, Esq.
MALOUF & MALOUF, Esq.
501 E. Capitol Street
Jackson, MS 39201
Telephone: 601-948-4320

     - and -

W. Ellis Pittman, Esq.
PITTMAN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
P.O. Box 1670
123 Sharkey Avenue
Clarkside, MS 38614
Telephone: 662-624-6680
Facsimile: 662-627-6791

FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE HOLDINGS, INC., Fresenius U.S.A., Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Juanita R. Brooks -- brooks@fr.com --
Thomas M. Melsheimer -- melsheimer@fr.com -- at Fish & Richardson,
P.C.; Kevin C. Newsom -- knewsom@babc.com -- Leigh Anne Hodge --
lhodge@babc.com -- Margaret Oertling Cupples -- mcupples@babc.com
-- Jackson Roy D. Campbell, III -- rjcampbell@babc.com -- Slates
C. Veazey -- sveazey@babc.com -- at  BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS
LLP


GENERAL NUTRITION: Faces Class Action Over Herbal Supplements
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms Weil Quaranta & McGovern of Miami and Los Angeles
and Babbitt, Johnson, Osborne & Le Clainche of West Palm Beach on
Feb. 10 disclosed that they have filed a federal class action suit
against General Nutrition Corporation, alleging deception in the
herbal supplement market.

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in the Southern District
of Florida on Feb. 9 on behalf of consumers around the nation who
purchased four herbal supplements sold at GNC stores.  It was the
first class-action federal suit filed in the Southeast since the
New York State Attorney General's office issued a Feb. 2 Cease-
and-Desist notification against GNC to stop selling adulterated or
mislabeled supplements.

The 17-page lawsuit cites GNC for fraudulently mislabeling the
following "Herbal Plus" dietary supplement products: GNC Plus
Gingko Biloba; GNC Herbal Plus St. John's Wort; GNC Herbal Plus
Ginseng; and GNC Herbal Plus Echinacea.

Kelly Reyes v. General Nutrition Corporation, General Nutrition
Centers, and GNC Holdings, United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, Case No. 1:15-cv-20492-U.S. District
Judge Ursula Ungaro

The lawsuit contends that the "Gingko Biloba," "St. John's Wort,"
"Ginseng," and "Echinacea" on GNC shelves contain no Gingko
Biloba, St. John's Wort, Ginseng, or Echinacea.  Rather, the
lawsuit says, they may contain rice, garlic, wheat/grass, pine, or
no plant substances at all.

"GNC's products are not medicinal herbal supplements as they
claim," the lawsuit says.  "Instead the supplements fail to
contain any of the active ingredients represented by both the
products' names and label.  As such, the supplements Defendants
sell their customers are a sham."

The suit lists five causes of action: violation of Florida's
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act; unjust enrichment;
breach of implied warranty of merchantability; breach of express
warranty; and negligence.

"When products are not what they purport to be, the producer and
seller deserve to be held accountable," said Weil Quaranta Partner
John M. Quaranta -- John@wqmlaw.net --  "The New York report
suggests a possible spreading infection in the $6-billion herbal
industry."

"This is more than a matter of mislabeling or even fraud. This is
a potential public danger," said Babbitt Johnson Partner Theodore
Babbitt.  "Unlabeled ingredients such as wheat or any number of
contaminants can harm people with allergies or aversions."

Concerned consumers who purchased the products above should email
Kristi@wqmlaw.net or call 305-372-5352 and ask for Kristine
Rodriguez.

Over 50 years, Babbitt, Johnson, Osborne Le Clainche --
http://www.babbitt-johnson.com-- has earned a national reputation
for its representation of the seriously injured and wronged.

Weil Quaranta McGovern -- http://www.wqmlaw.net-- is a prominent
Miami and Los Angeles trial law firm with a focus on complex trial
advocacy and litigation on behalf of businesses and individuals.
Learn more at www.wqmlaw.net.

For the last two years, Babbitt Johnson and Weil Quaranta have
been representing plaintiffs in high-profile continuing litigation
against the Church of Scientology.

Contacts:

Wragg & Casas Strategic Communications
Mark Sell
Tel: 305-372-1234
Cell: 305-206-5397
msell@wraggcasas.com

or

Weil Quaranta & McGovern
Miami

John M. Quaranta
Tel: 305-372-5352
john@wqmlaw.net

or

Babbitt, Johnson, Osborne & Le Clainche
West Palm Beach
Theodore Babbitt
Tel: 561-684-2500
tedbabbitt@babbitt-johnson.com


GENERAL NUTRITION: Hagens Berman Sued Over Herbal Supplements
-------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer-rights law firm Hagens Berman has filed a class-action
lawsuit against some of the country's largest retailers alleging
major fraud in the $6 billion per year herbal supplement market.
The suit was filed on behalf of consumers who purchased
supplements from GNC, Target, Walgreens and Walmart that have been
found to contain no traces of purported healthful ingredients
listed on the supplements' labels, and in some cases other
ingredients not disclosed on the packaging.

"Herbal supplements, also known as 'botanicals,' are one of the
most commonly consumed nutritional supplements in the United
States."

"We believe these major retailers have completely abandoned their
responsibility to consumers who trust that their products contain
what's listed on the label -- not phony pills full of anything
but," said Steve Berman, managing partner at Hagens Berman and
attorney representing the class of purchasers.  "Millions of
consumers across the nation have been duped by GNC, Target,
Walmart and Walgreens and have spent years purchasing fake and
fraudulent products."

The 61-page lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois cites GNC, Target, Walgreens and
Walmart for "selling certain store brand Herbal Supplements that
fail to contain the ingredients that the Defendants represent are
contained in the Herbal Supplements, or, that contain other
substances which are not disclosed on the packaging for those
Herbal Supplements."

Concerned consumers who purchased any of the following products
may contact Hagens Berman by emailing supplements@hbsslaw.com or
by calling 206-623-7292.  Additional information about the
investigation is available at:

http://www.hbsslaw.com/cases-and-investigations/cases/supplements

According to a recent study from the New York Attorney General,
the following supplements were found to contain either no trace of
the following ingredients or very little trace amount:

GNC: Herbal Plus brand
Gingko Biloba, St. John's Wort, Ginseng, Echinacea, Saw Palmetto

Target: Up & Up brand
Gingko Biloba, St. John's Wort, Echinacea, Saw Palmetto, Valerian
Root

Walgreens: Finest Nutrition brand
Gingko Biloba, St. John's Wort, Ginseng, Garlic, Echinacea

Walmart: Spring Valley brand
Gingko Biloba, St. John's Wort, Ginseng, Garlic, Echinacea, Saw
Palmetto

According to the complaint, "Herbal supplements, also known as
'botanicals,' are one of the most commonly consumed nutritional
supplements in the United States."  As of 2013, it is estimated
that approximately 36 million adults in the United States consume
herbal supplements, it states, equaling an increase of 33 percent
since 2011.

                      About Hagens Berman

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


GLASS MOUNTAIN: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert De Boisblanc, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Glass Mountain Capital, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company and John and Jane Does Numbers 1
Through 25, Case No. 1:15-cv-01172 (S.D.N.Y., February 18, 2015),
seeks to stop the Defendant's false, deceptive, misleading,
unconscionable, and other illegal practices, in connection with
its attempts to collect an alleged debt.

Glass Mountain Capital, LLC is a Delaware financial services firm
with its principal place of business located 1930 Thoreau Drive,
Suite 100, Schaumberg, Illinois 60173.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig Thor Kimmel, Esq.
      KIMMEL & SILVERMAN
      30 E. Butler Avenue
      Ambler, PA 19002
      Telephone: (215) 540-8888
      Facsimile: (215) 540-8817
      E-mail: kimmel@creditlaw.com


GLK FOODS: Doesn't Properly Pay Farmworkers, "Baptiste" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andre Jean-Baptiste, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. GLK Foods, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-20691 (S.D.
Fla., February 19, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to properly pay farmworkers according to the provisions of
the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act.

GLK Foods, LLC is a Wisconsin limited liability company that
operates a sauerkraut processing facility in Bear Creek, Wisconsin
which prepares and processes cabbage into sauerkraut.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory Scott Schell, Esq.
      FLORIDA LEGAL SERVICES INC.
      508 Lucerne Avenue
      Lake Worth, FL 33460
      Telephone: (561) 582-3921
      Facsimile: 582-4884
      E-mail: Greg@Floridalegal.Org


GRADUATE LEVERAGE: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Jalbert, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Graduate Leverage, LLC and Daniel Thibeault,
Case No. 1:15-cv-10452 (D. Mass., February 19, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to overtime wages, commissions
and vacation pay.

Graduate Leverage, LLC is a financial services firm in the student
lending industry with a principal place of business located at 400
Fifth Avenue, Suite 600, Waltham, Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua N. Garick, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JOSHUA N. GARICK, P.C.
      100 Trade Center, Suite G-700
      Woburn, MA 01801
      Telephone: (617) 600-7520
      Facsimile: (617) 600-7430
      E-mail: joshua@garicklaw.com


HARRIS RANCH: Judge Recommends Initial OK of Gonzalez Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone issued his Findings and
Recommendations recommending preliminary approval of a class
action settlement in JOSE GONZALEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HARRIS
RANCH BEEF COMPANY, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 1:14-CV-00038-
LJO-SAB, (E.D. Cal.).

Under the settlement, an $185,000 gross settlement fund would be
established. The funds would be allocated in this manner:

* $55,500 in attorney's fees (30%)

* $24,000 in claims administration fees

* $10,000 in attorney costs

* $5,000 class representative enhancement

* $90,500 for distribution to class members

The $90,500 amount will be distributed evenly between class
members who submit a valid claim, but no class member may receive
more than $250.00. Any unclaimed funds will be donated to the Boys
and Girls Club of Huron.

Magistrate Judge Boone recommended that:

* The motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement
be granted, and this class be certified for settlement purposes
only: [A]ll "consumers", as that term is defined in 15 U.S.C.
Section 1681a(c), to whom Defendant provided an electronically
printed credit or debit card receipt between December 4, 2008 and
December 4, 2013 at the point of sale or transaction on which
Defendant printed the expiration date(s) of the consumer's credit
card or debit card number.

* Plaintiff Jose Gonzalez be appointed as the Class Representative
for the Settlement Class.

* Kenneth S. Gaines, Daniel F. Gaines, and Alex P. Katofsky of
Gaines & Gaines, APLC be appointed as Class Counsel for the
Settlement Class.

* The Court set a final approval and fairness hearing and schedule
based upon the schedule set forth in the motion for preliminary
approval.

A copy of the Court's February 23, 2015 order is available at
http://is.gd/C1l1Ptfrom Leagle.com.

Jose Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alex Paul Katofsky --
alex@gaineslawfirm.com -- Gaines & Gaines, APLC & Daniel Franklin
Gaines, Gaines & Gaines, APLC.

Harris Farms, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jay A.
Christofferson -- jchristofferson@wjhattorneys.com -- Wanger Jones
Helsley PC & Oliver W. Wanger -- owanger@wjhattorneys.com --
Wanger Jones Helsley PC.

Harris Farms, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Jay A.
Christofferson, Wanger Jones Helsley PC & Oliver W. Wanger, Wanger
Jones Helsley PC.

Springer-Miller Systems, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Whitty Somvichian -- wsomvichian@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP.

Harris Ranch Beef Company, a California corporation, ThirdParty
Plaintiff, represented by Jay A. Christofferson, Wanger Jones
Helsley PC.

Harris Farms, Inc., ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Jay A.
Christofferson, Wanger Jones Helsley PC & Oliver W. Wanger, Wanger
Jones Helsley PC.

Harris Ranch Beef Holding Company, a California corporation,
ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Jay A. Christofferson, Wanger
Jones Helsley PC.

Springer-Miller Systems, Inc., ThirdParty Defendant, represented
by Whitty Somvichian, Cooley LLP.


HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Advocacy Group Files ADA Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Scott Malone, writing for Reuters, reports that an advocacy group
for the deaf on Feb. 12 sued Harvard University and the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, saying the elite schools
had violated laws by posting online video and audio recordings for
public use that lacked accurate captions.

Two lawsuits charged that Harvard and MIT said the webcast
recordings were intended to provide the public free access to the
schools but were unusable by people with difficulty hearing
because they either lacked captions or had captions that were so
poor as to be unusable.

"Harvard has largely denied access to this content to the
approximately 48 million -- nearly one out of five -- Americans
who are deaf or hard of heading," plaintiffs, including the
National Association for the Deaf, said in a filing in U.S.
District Court in Boston on Feb. 12.

The separate lawsuit filed against MIT contained similar language.
Both suits seek class-action status.

The suits against the Cambridge, Massachusetts-based schools asked
the court to find that the schools violated Title III of the
Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to caption the
programming and to order the schools to provide accurate captions
in the future.

The National Association for the Deaf cited a 2009 video of
President Barack Obama visiting MIT that transcribed his words "go
down on the solar cell" as "go down on dollars OK."

Each school declined to comment directly on the suit. MIT
spokeswoman Kimberly Allen said the school had not seen the suit
but that it was committed to making its online material accessible
to the hearing impaired.

Harvard spokesman Jeff Neal said the university expected the U.S.
Department of Justice to guidance on the subject in June and that
Harvard would comply.

The two schools were early participants in the edX learning
initiative that started in 2012 and allows students to take free
online courses and earn certificates for completing their work.
Officials at each university have long maintained the programs are
not at all comparable to enrolling in the highly selective
schools.

"If you are a hearing person, you are welcomed into a world of
lifelong learning," said Arlene Mayerson -- amayerson@dredf.org --
a lawyer for plaintiffs in the MIT case.  "No captions is like no
ramp for people in wheelchairs."


HAYNEEDLE INC: Recalls Artificial Christmas Trees Over Fire Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Hayneedle Inc., of Omaha, Neb., announced a voluntary recall of
about 220 artificial Christmas trees. Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The motor that turns the color disc can overheat, posing the risk
of a fire.

This recall involves 7-foot tall artificial Christmas trees
lighted by optical fibers in the branches. The trees have a base
that contains a 60-watt light and a motor that rotates a multi-
colored disc that makes the optic fibers in the trees change
colors. Recalled trees are white with a silver base and green with
a black base.

Hayneedle has received 20 reports of incidents of smoke and a
burning smell coming from the motor. No injuries or property
damage have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/bFbQ5y.

The recalled products were manufactured in China by East-West
Basics, of Hong Kong and sold exclusively at Hayneedle.com from
August 2014 to December 2014 for about $100.

Consumers should immediately stop using and unplug the recalled
Christmas trees and contact Hayneedle for a full refund. Hayneedle
is contacting consumers directly.


HI BOMBAY: Faces "Thompson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Desiree Thompson, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Mohammed Alam d/b/a Friendly Market/Hi
Bombay Hi Bombay Restaurant, and Hi Bombay, Inc., Case No. 2:15-
cv-00069 (D. Me., February 18, 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 convenient stores in Cumberland
County, Maine.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew A. Schmidt, Esq.
      ANDREW SCHMIDT LAW PLLC
      97 India Street
      Portland, ME 04101
      Telephone: (207) 619-0320
      E-mail: andy@maineworkerjustice.com


HIDDEN LAKE: June 12 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STATE OF INDIANA COUNTY OF LAKE SS: IN THE LAKE CIRCUIT COURT AT
CROWN POINT, INDIANA In Re: HIDDEN LAKE BRIDGE COLLAPSE AT
MERRILLVILLE, INDIANA CAUSE NO.: 45C01-0907-CT-00127 NOTICE TO ALL
CLASS MEMBERS OF A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
TO: ALL PERSONS HAVING CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE HIDDEN LAKE
BRIDGE COLLAPSE AT MERRILLVILLE, INDIANA ON JULY 4, 2009

Pursuant to the Order dated February 5, 2015 and entered under
Indiana Trial Rule 23 by the Lake Circuit Court in the class
action, you are hereby notified that there is a proposed
settlement of the class action lawsuit.

The class action lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the
negligence of Defendants, Ross Township, Indiana and John Rooda in
his capacity as Ross Township Trustee, proximately caused the
bridge at Hidden Lake Park to collapse and the resulting injuries
and damages to the class.  Defendants have denied that they were
negligent and have denied the nature and extent of the injuries
and damages claimed.

You are a member of the class if you suffered physical injury in
the bridge collapse and your injuries are permanent, or if you
suffered physical injury in the bridge collapse and your injuries
are temporary, or if you suffered emotional distress due to direct
involvement in the bridge collapse and are entitled to recover
under the rule in Groves v. Taylor, 729 N.E.2d 568 (Ind. 2000).

As a class member you will be bound by any Court approved
settlement or other disposition of the class action lawsuit.  The
parties have now reached a tentative settlement agreement.
However, because this case is a class action, we are required to
inform the class members of the proposed settlement terms and give
you an opportunity to comment on the proposed settlement before
the Court approves the settlement.

In settlement of this class action, the parties have agreed to the
following terms: 1. Defendants will pay a total of $900,000.00 to
the class and class counsel. 2. Class counsel will be paid
reasonable attorney's fees of 331/3% of the settlement amount plus
costs incurred or advanced in the litigation. 3. The remaining
settlement proceeds, with the exception of the sum of $3,000.00,
will be allocated based upon individual injury and damage among
those class members who submitted signed interrogatory answers and
responses to requests for production prior to the date of
mediation, May 1, 2014.  The sum of $3,000.00 will be allocated,
based upon individual injury and damage, to those class members,
if any, who provide answers to interrogatories and responses to
requests for production after May 1, 2014 and before April 30,
2015.  The allocation of proceeds to class members will be made by
the Honorable Richard F. McDevitt (ret.), a neutral party,
applying his experience and expertise and based upon his
independent review and analysis of the information provided in the
interrogatory answers and documents produced in response to
discovery requests.  In the event that there are no class members
who submit signed interrogatory answers and responses to requests
for production after May 1, 2014 and before April 30, 2015, or
based upon a determination of the neutral that the class member(s)
who have submitted such materials are reasonably compensated by
payments less than $3,000.00, the remaining funds, if any, shall
be allocated to those class members who submitted signed
interrogatory answers and responses to requests for production
prior to May 1, 2014. 4. Once the settlement is approved by the
Court, the class action lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice,
with the Court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the
settlement and to adjudicate any liens/subrogation claims.

If you want to object to the settlement, you must file your
objection in writing with the Court by April 30, 2015 and include
your full name, address, telephone number, a statement you are a
class member, a written statement of your objection, and any
documents to support your objection.  You must also serve a copy
of your objection and any supporting documents on Class Counsel.

A hearing will be held in the Lake Circuit Court, 2293 N. Main
Street, Crown Point, IN 46307 on June 12, 2015 at 1:00 o'clock
p.m., to determine whether the proposed settlement should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate, and to
consider the application of Class Counsel for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of litigation expenses.  You may appear at the
hearing and speak about the fairness of the settlement only if you
have filed a written objection by the deadline or if the Court
permits you to speak.

In order to share in the settlement you must complete and mail
signed interrogatory answers and responses to requests for
production to class counsel by no later than April 30, 2015.  If
you do not submit the signed interrogatory answers and responses
to requests for production by the deadline, you will not share in
the settlement, and you will be bound by the settlement and
subsequent dismissal with prejudice of this class action.
Interrogatories and requests for production may be requested from
class counsel.  If you have already submitted signed interrogatory
answers and responses to requests for production to class counsel,
you are not required to resubmit these documents in order to share
in the settlement but you must provide proof of compliance with
the request(s) of class counsel to provide such answers and
responses.

Class counsel:

Kenneth J. Allen, Esq.
Robert D. Brown, Esq.
Sarah M. Cafiero, Esq.
Kenneth J. Allen Law Group, LLC
1109 Glendale Boulevard
Valparaiso, IN 46383
Tel: (219) 465-6292
Fax: (219) 477-5181


HOME LOAN: Faces Investor Class Action Over Ocwen Ties
------------------------------------------------------
Tory Barringer, writing for MRreport, reports that a Los Angeles
law firm announced a new class action lawsuit against Home Loan
Servicing Solutions (HLSS), making it the latest in a line of
suits filed against the mortgage company over its relationship
with Ocwen.

Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP alerted HLSS shareholders on Feb. 10
about the suit, which targets HLSS for not being open about the
company's close relationship with Ocwen, which has suffered from
wave after wave of regulatory setbacks in the last year.

In its complaint, the firm alleges that HLSS, which deals in the
acquisition of mortgage servicing assets, made misleading
statements and failed to disclose to investors how much its own
business depended on Ocwen's and the extent of Ocwen's troubles.

The complaint comes after a year of investigations by New York's
top financial watchdog into Ocwen's relationships with affiliated
companies, which regulators say created conflicts of interest in
the companies' daily business.

Late last year, Ocwen resolved the investigation with a $150
million settlement that also saw the resignation of its founder
and executive chairman, William Erbey.  Mr. Erbey had also served
as non-executive chairman on HLSS' board, a position he was forced
to vacate.  Shares of HLSS plummeted in the weeks following the
announcement of Erbey's resignation.

The complaint also brings up a notice issued in late January by
private investment firm BlueMountain Capital Management notifying
both HLSS and Ocwen that regulatory sanctions against Ocwen
constituted a breach of contract and default on certain notes
serviced by HLSS.

Glancy Binkow & Goldberg isn't the only firm taking action against
HLSS. New York firms Levi & Korsinsky and Pomerantz LLP have also
made similar filings. Each class action comprises investors who
purchased shares in HLSS from February 7, 2013 through January 23,
2015.

On top of that, the company has fielded complaints from New York
investor Mangrove Solutions, which has threatened to nominate a
new slate of directors based on HLSS' ongoing dealings with Ocwen.

As promised, Mangrove introduced its list of nominations for HLSS'
board of directors, citing the "significant value destruction
shareholders are facing" from the company's relationship with
Ocwen and the failure of HLSS' current board to address the issue.

"While we remain open to further discussion with the Board and are
amenable to reaching a mutually agreeable resolution that benefits
all shareholders, we remain firm in our position on this matter --
HLSS must terminate its relationship with Ocwen.  If this Board
continues to refuse to take action, we look forward to presenting
shareholders with what we believe will represent the far superior
choice of leadership at the Company's 2015 Annual Meeting," said
Mangrove founder and president Nathaniel August in a statement.
August is also one of the nominees offered by Mangrove.


HORNER SERVICES: N.D. Ga. Judge Narrows Claims in CEIC Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard W. Story of the Northern District of
Georgia, Gainesville Division ruled on the parties' motions in the
case CHESAPEAKE EMPLOYERS' INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. BRUCE
EADES, INSURANCE OFFICE OF AMERICA, JIM CONNER, and HORNER
SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-CV-00209-RWS
(N.D. Ga.)

Chesapeake Employers' Insurance Company is a not-for-profit,
independent state agency that provides workers' compensation
insurance coverage to Maryland businesses. Chesapeake has provided
workers' compensation insurance to non-party Merciers, Inc.
(Merciers), a Maryland company that provides right-of-way
maintenance and vegetation-management services. Merciers
contracted out certain jobs to defendant Horner Services, LLC
(Horner Services), a Georgia company that also provides right-of-
way maintenance and vegetation-management services, at different
periods and locations both in and outside the state of Georgia
from 2010 to 2012.

The contract between Merciers and Horner Services provided that
the latter was required to carry its own workers' compensation
insurance. Subcontractors of Horner Services were required to
carry workers' compensation insurance, and Horner Services was
obligated to provide Merciers with copies of both their insurance
and their subcontractors' insurance.

On July 5, 2011, Chesapeake conducted a routine audit of Merciers
to calculate the premiums Merciers owed. Sometime before that
date, defendant Insurance Office of America, Inc. (IOA), IOA
employee defendant Bruce Eades, Horner Services, and Horner
Services' owner defendant Jim Conner provided Merciers a
certificate of insurance dated October 22, 2010. The certificate
names Horner Services as the insured, lists Conner as the primary
contact, and states that Horner Services had workers' compensation
insurance through Columbia Insurance Group for the period of June
17, 2010, through June 17, 2011. Defendants provided another
certificate of insurance to Merciers dated June 20, 2011, which
again lists Horner Services as the insured and Conner as the
primary contact. It states that Horner Services had workers'
compensation insurance from June 17, 2011, through June 17, 2012
from Georgia Casualty & Surety Co.

During the July 5, 2011 audit, Chesapeake relied on the October
2010 and June 2011 Certificates to calculate Merciers workers'
compensation premium. Believing Horner Services had its own
workers' compensation insurance, Chesapeake charged premiums to
Merciers without taking into account the Horner Services payroll.

Around December 18, 2012, Chesapeake learned that Merciers was
withholding payment from Horner Services until it provided proof
of insurance. Conner then provided Merciers five certificates of
insurance, each showing that Horner Services had workers'
compensation coverage in states other than Georgia
Chesapeake later learned that Horner Services did not in fact have
workers' compensation coverage outside the state of Georgia. Over
two years earlier, a Horner Services employee or subcontractor
named William Sheldon suffered a workplace injury in Missouri and
submitted a workers' compensation claim.  This claim was denied
after the insurance company determined that Horner Services was
only insured for workers' compensation claims arising in Georgia.

Plaintiff brought this action over defendants' attempts to
illegally manipulate the workers' compensation insurance system by
creating and transmitting false certificates of insurance to
Chesapeake's insured, causing Chesapeake to forego premiums to
which it was otherwise entitled. Chesapeake alleges numerous
claims against Defendants IOA, Eades, Horner Services, and Conner,
including negligent misrepresentation, tortious interference with
contractual relations, fraud, and violations of the Georgia and
Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
Defendants move for dismissal of all claims.

Judge Story granted in part and denied in part defendant IOA's
motion to dismiss, granted plaintiff's RICO claims under federal
and Georgia law against IOA and denied all other claims. Defendant
Eade's motion to dismiss is denied as tl all claims and defendant
Conner and Horner Services' motion to dismiss is granted in part
and denied in part.

A copy of Judge Story's order dated January 5, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/SVHAFWfrom Leagle.com.

Chesapeake Employers' Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by
Jeffrey Y. Lewis -- jeffrey.lewis@agg.com -- Megan Elena Poitevint
at Arnall Golden & Gregory

Bruce Eades, Insurance Office of America, Defendants, represented
by Jo Lanier Meeks -- JMeeks@JamesBatesLLP.com -- Amanda Noelle
Wilson -- AWilson@JamesBatesLLP.com -- at James Bates Brannan
Groover, LLP

Jim Conner, Horner Services, LLC, Defendants, represented by
Steven Jeffrey Stuart -- sjstuart@smithcurrie.com -- Karl
Frederick Dix, Jr. -- kfdix@smithcurrie.com -- Kirk D. Johnston --
kdjohnston@smithcurrie.com -- at Smith Currie & Hancock, LLP


HOSPITAL CORPORATION: Faces "Case" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kellie Lynn Case, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Hospital Corporation of America, and
Envision Healthcare Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-20683 (S.D.
Fla., February 18, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to safeguard their patients' sensitive personal
information, including, their names, dates of birth, and protected
health information.

The Defendants are health care providers that manage over 162
hospitals and 113 surgery centers throughout the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
      Edmund A. Normand PLLC
      4381 New Broad Street
      Orlando, FL 32814
      Telephone: (407) 625-9043
      E-mail: ed@ednormand.com

         - and -

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


INTERNATIONAL COMFORT: Sued in Cal. Over Defective HVAC Units
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brett Grassi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. International Comfort Products, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-
00253 (E.D. Cal., February 18, 2015), arises out of the heating,
ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) units sola and
manufactured by the Defendant containing defective coils, that
causes to be particularly susceptible to developing formicary
corrosion and other holes, cracks, and leaks which lead to
premature failure of the coils.

International Comfort Products, LLC is a Delaware corporation
headquartered at 650 Heil Quaker Avenue, PO Box 128, Lewisburg, TN
37091. It is in the business of manufacturing, marketing, and
distributing heating, air-conditioning, and refrigeration products
under several brand names, including Tempstar, Comfortmaker, Heil,
Arcoaire, Day & Night, and Keeprite.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan Shub, Esq.
      SEEGER WEISS LLP
      1515 Market Street, Ste 1380
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Telephone: (215) 564-2300
      Facsimile: (215) 851-8029
      E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com


KEYPOINT: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for LawyersnadSettlements.com, reports that a
double standard is alleged amongst the ranks of investigators
employed by KeyPoint Government Solutions Inc.  This, according to
an overtime pay lawsuit filed at the end of January in California
by a KeyPoint investigator who feels there are potentially
thousands of employees misclassified as contractors and thus are
owed a ton of money in back pay, benefits and overtime.

The plaintiff in the unpaid overtime lawsuit is Richard Smith, an
investigator for KeyPoint who was originally classified as an
independent contractor, and as such was not granted overtime. He
paid for his own vehicle fuel and his own supplies, and was paid
per project.

The impetus of his lawsuit was a change in his status at KeyPoint:
in 2012, Mr. Smith was suddenly switched from independent
contractor status to that of a full employee of KeyPoint.  As
such, he was now in receipt of full benefits and pay -- including
overtime pay as required under California overtime law.

Only thing was he saw little, if any, difference in his
responsibilities.  It was at this point that Mr. Smith realized
there must be many others who undertake tasks as required of an
employee but, rather, have been misclassified as independent
contractors and thus do not benefit from overtime pay or other
perks normally reserved for actual employees.

KeyPoint, the overtime pay lawsuit alleges, "treats the
investigators as employees in every material respect, except that
it has misclassified an entire class of them as independent
contractors."  The plaintiff notes that every individual who works
at KeyPoint utilizes the same application for employment, training
is identical and everyone is held to a uniform standard,
regardless of status as an employee or an independent contractor.

So why is it that some people are classified as independent
contractors, while others are classed as employees for doing
essentially the same thing? That's what Smith wants to know.  And
if overtime pay laws are being circumvented through the
misclassification of employees as independent contractors, then
unpaid overtime and other compensation should be forthcoming.

The lawsuit alleges that KeyPoint requires its investigators to
put in extra hours as needed to get everything done.  This can
include writing reports and undertaking corrections -- over and
above investigative work that includes but is not limited to
interviewing subjects, scouring public records and contacting past
employers.  There are mandatory deadlines on cases, and overtime
is often needed to meet those deadlines.

Mr. Smith claims that classifying some investigators as
independent contractors, while others are classified as employees
-- with everyone doing similar work and holding to similar
standards -- is a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).

While the unpaid overtime lawsuit was filed in California,
Mr. Smith is seeking class-action status on behalf of all
investigators who were classed as an independent contractor in the
three years preceding Mr. Smith's complaint.

The California overtime law case is Richard Smith v. KeyPoint
Government Solutions, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00429, in the US
District Court for the Northern District of California.


LIFEPOINT HOSPITALS: Faces Class Actions Over Heart Procedures
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Schencker, writing for Modern Healthcare, reports that
LifePoint Hospitals is the target of federal investigations, more
than a dozen individual lawsuits and two class action suits
alleging the performance of improper interventional heart
procedures, the Tennessee-based hospital chain revealed on Feb. 12
in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

LifePoint, through an internal review, identified two
cardiologists who "independently elected to place cardiac stents
that may not have been clinically appropriate," according to a
LifePoint statement released on Feb. 12.

LifePoint then self-reported the matter to the Department of
Justice.  The two doctors are no longer practicing at any of
LifePoint's affiliated hospitals, according to the LifePoint
statement.

LifePoint is notifying all patients who may have been affected and
offering them follow-up meetings with doctors of their choice.
The government's investigations are ongoing, according to the
filing.

"We value the trust and confidence our patients and communities
place in our hospitals, and we regret any concern this matter may
cause," according to the statement.  "We will continue working to
resolve it as quickly as possible."

The 13 individual lawsuits were filed in December in state court
against LifePoint, and/or its Vaughan Regional Medical Center in
Selma, Ala., several of LifePoint's subsidiaries and Dr. Seydi V.
Aksut, according to the SEC filing.

One of the class action lawsuits, filed Nov. 21, seeks to cover
all Alabama citizens who underwent an invasive cardiology
procedure at any LifePoint-owned hospital in the state and who
received notice about the medical necessity of that procedure,
according to the filing.

The other class action suit, filed Feb. 6, seeks to cover people
who underwent an interventional heart procedure performed by Aksut
that was allegedly not medically necessary.  If successful, that
suit could mean triple damages for any injury resulting from
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act.

The lawsuits were all filed in the Circuit Court of Dallas County,
Ala. Other parties not affiliated with LifePoint were also named
in the individual lawsuits, but the SEC filing did not name them.

LifePoint subsidiaries own and operate more than 60 hospitals in
21 states.  LifePoint is the fifth largest for-profit hospital
chain in the country.


LTE CLUB: Mag. Judge Recommends Denial of Bid to Transfer Venue
---------------------------------------------------------------
Laurence Bartell and Jerry Stauffer, Plaintiffs, v. LTE Club
Operations Company, Inc., Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-
00401, (S.D. Ohio) came before Magistrate Judge Mark R. Abel for a
report and recommendation on defendant LTF Club Operations
Company, Inc.'s December 11, 2014 motion to transfer venue.

Plaintiffs brought this action on their behalf and as a class
action asserting claims for breach of contract, violations of the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act, fraud, violations of Ohio's Prepaid
Entertainment Contract Act (OPECA) and the Ohio Consumer Sales
Practices Act (OCSPA), and for unjust enrichment.

In his report and recommendation entered February 23, 2015, a copy
of which is available at http://is.gd/41cG1tfrom Leagle.com,
Magistrate Judge Abel recommended that LTF Club's motion to
transfer venue be denied.

Laurence Bartell, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas N McCormick --
tnmccormick@vorys.com -- Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease, Angelyne E.
Lisinski -- aelisinski@vorys.com -- Vorys, Sater, Seymour and
Pease LLP & Kenneth J Rubin -- kjrubin@vorys.com -- Vorys Sater
Seymour & Pease.

Jerry Stauffer, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas N McCormick,
Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease, Angelyne E. Lisinski, Vorys, Sater,
Seymour and Pease LLP & Kenneth J Rubin, Vorys Sater Seymour &
Pease.

LTF Club Operations Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Christopher C Koehler, Lindsey Carr Siegler, Frantz Ward LLP &
Gregory Farkas -- gfarkas@frantzward.com -- Frantz Ward LLP.


MAGNA CHEK: Dodges Class Action Over Junk Fax Advertisements
------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a small
business in Michigan recently survived a class action lawsuit that
it said threatened to shut it down.

In December, Magna Chek, a company that offers non-destructive
testing, settled a class action brought by an Illinois
chiropractor who received one of the company's fax advertisements.

Though the faxes contained a notice that provided a 24/7 phone
number for recipients who wished to stop receiving them, the
plaintiff said they weren't compliant with the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act because they did not express that opt-out requests
must be honored within 30 days and because he did not solicit
them.

Magna Chek had contracted with WestFax, Inc., to draft the
disclaimer and believed the faxes fully complied with the TCPA.

But William Pollack and his attorneys at Edelman, Combs, Latturner
& Goodwin in Chicago disagreed and filed a five-count federal
class action against it in February 2014.

The original faxes contained an opt-out notice at the bottom of
the page and included a toll-free phone number that was available
24 hours a day.

Magna Chek -- which employs approximately 35 individuals, has been
in business for 44 years and averages approximately $2 million in
gross sales -- said it turned to faxes when other forms of
advertising proved to not be cost-effective.

The notice at the bottom of its faxes simply stated, "If you wish
to be removed, please call (the phone number)."

Among the plaintiff's arguments were that the notice did not
satisfy the requirements of the TCPA because it did not disclose
that opt-out requests must be honored within 30 days, Magna Chek
said.

"The putative class action against Magna Chek . . . 'converts an
opt-out mechanism designed to shield recipients from unsolicited
faxes into a sword allowing savvy recipients of solicited faxes to
extract massive damages on the basis of nonexistent injuries,'"
Magna Chek's petition to the Federal Communications Commission
says, citing a Purdue Pharma petition.

"Essentially a person could call Jimmy John's, request a menu be
faxed to him, then sue Jimmy John's under the TCPA for failure to
comply with each of the specific requirements . . ."

Magna Chek sought a ruling from the FCC in March.

Executive Vice President Scott Bucholz testified that if the
company would have been found to have violated the TCPA, its
potential liability would "substantially exceed its net worth and
annual gross sales, thereby forcing Magna Chek out of business."

The company's petition said it was only a "minor technical
violation" that threatened to bankrupt it.

"Not only will the (medical devices, automotive and trucking)
industries lose a critical safety partner if Magna Chek closes its
doors, but nearly 40 residents of the Detroit metropolitan area
will lose their jobs and be forced to join the already
overburdened ranks of the unemployed," the petition says.

The petition also says the faxes the company sends are not
unsolicited.  The company compiled its mailing list through
customers, trade show contacts and opt-in lists purchased from
various vendors.

On Oct. 30, the FCC granted a retroactive waiver of compliance
with the opt-out notice requirements for solicited faxes.

The FCC said companies like Magna Chek were led to confusion
regarding the opt-out notice requirements.

"(W)e find that granting a retroactive waiver would serve the
public interest," the FCC wrote.

"The record in this proceeding demonstrates that a failure to
comply with the rule -- which as noted above could be the result
of reasonable confusion or misplaced confidence -- could subject
parties to potentially substantial damages, as well as possible
liability under the Communications Act."

Any terms of any settlement between Pollack and Magna Chek were
not disclosed in the Dec. 9 stipulation of dismissal.  A class was
never certified in the case.

As a result of its ordeal, Magna Chek's short opt-out notice has
grown much longer.  It reads: "If you no longer wish to receive
faxes from Magna Chek, you may request that we not send faxes to
your telephone fax machine(s).  In order for your request to be
valid, (i) the request must clearly identify the fax number(s) to
which the request relates; (ii) the request must be communicated
to us by calling 888-876-1394 or by sending a fax to 248-597-0440;
and (jii) you must not have subsequently provided express
permission, whether written or unwritten, to us to transmit faxes
to the fax number(s) identified in the request.  Our failure to
comply with a proper request within 30 days is unlawful."


MAJOR LEAGUE: Defends Wage-and-Hour Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Dominic H. Rivers, Esq. of Fox Rotschild, wrote in an article that
Aaron Senne and several former minor league baseball players filed
on October 24, 2014, a consolidated amended class action complaint
against the Office of the Commissioner of Major League Baseball,
former Commissioner Bud Selig himself, and the 30 major league
clubs.  The amended complaint alleges in its introductory
paragraphs that the defendants "openly collude on the working
conditions for the development of [their] chief commodity: young
baseball players."

Despite this introduction, and unlike prior and pending cases
brought by professional baseball players, the 100-page amended
complaint in Senne does not make claims for antitrust violations.
The complaint instead consists of claims under the federal Fair
Labor Standards Act, state wage-and-hour laws, state unfair-
business-practice laws, and equitable state theories such as
quantum meruit.  In short, the players allege that they are paid
significantly less than what is fair and/or what is required by
laws governing minimum wages and overtime.

The lawsuit is generating publicity not merely because of its
subject matter, but also because of the media relations efforts of
one of the plaintiff's lead attorneys, Garret Broshuis, a 33-year
old former minor leaguer and recent (2013) law school graduate.
In addition to the sports-related periodicals one would expect to
cover this case, Broshuis has recently been featured in the
Village Voice, the Daily Beast, and  Mother Jones -- publications
with decidedly non-jock audiences that are not known for their
coverage of either sports or the business thereof.  Mr. Broshuis
explains in these features that minor leaguers typically earn
$1,000 or less per month, and then are expected to purchase their
own equipment and pay for their own lodging.  [side note: The New
York Mets have generated some recent negative press for requiring
their minor leaguers to pay for use of Mets training facilities in
the offseason - something which their co-defendants would
privately concede is not helpful to MLB's p.r. efforts in
justifying the defendants' stance in this Senne case].  Defendants
and their proponents argue that the minor league experience is not
run-of-the-mill employment but is instead designed to be a
training ground for the major leagues; in short, minor leaguers
are provided with more than what can be measured in their
paychecks.

While opinions abound about the plaintiffs' likelihood of success,
it would seem that the federal claim, at least, will turn on the
applicability of the exemptions in the Fair Labor Standards Act
that are geared toward certain types of seasonal employees.
Plaintiffs are aware of these exemptions but argue that they are
inapplicable.

The case is Senne et al v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball,
et al, Case Number 3:2014cv00608, United States District Court for
the Northern District of California (San Francisco).   Motions to
dismiss and to transfer venue are pending.  To the extent that the
case is not cut short by dispositive motions or a settlement, an
8-week trial is set for early 2017.


MANPOWER INC: June 18 Final Hearing to Approve "Willner" Accord
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar of the Northern District of California
granted plaintiff's motion in the case VERA WILLNER, Plaintiff, v.
MANPOWER INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 11-CV-02846-JST (N.D. Cal.)

Vera Willner is an hourly paid employee of Manpower Inc., which
operates a temporary employment agency. She received her wages
from Manpower by U.S. mail and was paid on a weekly basis when
work was assigned to her. Willner asserts five claims in her
complaint: (1) violations of California Labor Code section
201.3(b)(1) for failure to pay timely weekly wages; (2) violations
of California Labor Code section 226 for failure to furnish
accurate wage statements; (3) violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law (UCL) for failure to provide accurate wage
statements and to pay timely wages; (4) penalties under the
Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) for failure to provide
accurate wage statements and to pay timely wages; and (5)
violations of California Labor Code sections 201 and 203 for
failure to pay timely wages due at separation.

Both parties filed a motion for summary judgment in which the
court denied Manpower's motion on Wilner's section 226 and UCL
claims, granted Wilner's motion as to her PAGA claim, granted
Manpower's motion on Wilner's claim under section 201.3(b)(1).

On April 1, 2014, Willner filed a Fifth Amended Complaint, which
added inaccurate wage statement allegations on behalf of employees
who received their paystubs by means other than mail. On June 30,
2014, the Court denied Manpower's motion to dismiss and/or strike
this addition.

The parties engaged in settlement discussions and agreed to the
core terms of the proposed settlement. After several weeks of
further settlement negotiations, the parties finalized the
settlement, which was fully-executed on July 31, 2014. Willner
filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement
agreement and Manpower filed its statement of non-opposition to
the motion.

The Court issued an Order denying plaintiff's motion for
preliminary approval without prejudice. The Court invited
plaintiff to file a new motion for preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement, curing the deficiencies, within sixty days.

On her renewed motion plaintiff Willner moves for an order (1)
preliminarily approving the parties' settlement agreement; (2)
conditionally certifying the proposed class for settlement
purposes; (3) appointing Willner as class representative and her
counsel as class counsel; (4) approving and directing the mailing
of the proposed notice pursuant to the proposed notice plan; and
(5) scheduling a fairness hearing for final approval of the
settlement agreement. Manpower has filed a statement of non-
opposition.

Judge Tigar granted plaintiff's motion. The Court appoints
plaintiff's counsel, Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & Ho and Jackson
Hanson, LLP as Lead Counsel and Class Counsel, and plaintiff Vera
Willner as Class Representative.

The Court further approved the selection of Simpluris as the
Claims Administrator, and the payment of reasonable administration
costs, estimated at $104,326.74, to be paid from the Maximum
Settlement Amount.

Counsel shall return before the Court for a Final Approval
Hearing, at which the Court shall finally determine whether the
settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, on June 18, 2015, at
2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 9.  Class Counsel will file a noticed
motion for final approval of settlement no later than 35 days
before the Final Approval Hearing.

A copy of Judge Tigar's order dated January 2, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/8AVnSifrom Leagle.com.

Vera Willner, Plaintiff, represented by James Kan --
jkan@gbdhlegal.com -- Laura L. Ho -- lho@gbdhlegal.com -- at
Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & HO; Lin Yee Chan -- lchan@lchb.com
-- at Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP

     - and -

Jeffrey C. Jackson
Kirk David Hanson
JACKSON HANSON, LLP
2790 Truxtun Rd Ste 140
San Diego, CA 92106
Telephone: 619-523-9001
Facsimile: 619-523-9002

Manpower Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew C. Kane --
mkane@mcguirewoods.com  -- Brian Edward Spang --
bspang@mcguirewoods.com -- Regina Anne Musolino --
rmusolino@mcguirewoods.com  -- Sylvia Jihae Kim --
skim@mcguirewoods.com -- at McGuire Woods LLP; Nancy L. Abell --
nancyabell@paulhastings.com -- at Paul Hastings LLP

Claudia Padilla and Leslie Guido, Interested Parties, represented
by:

Charles Swanston
Bernard James Fitzpatrick
FITZPATRICK SPINI & SWANSTON
838 S Main St #E
Salinas, CA 93901
Telephone: 831-755-1311
Facsimile: 831-755-1319

     - and -

David E Cameron
Patrick Darryn Toole
WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
265 E River Park Cir Ste 310
PO Box 28340
Fresno, CA 93729
Telephone: 559-233-4800
Facsimile: 559-233-9330
Email: ptoole@wjhattorneys.com


MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Judge Orders Hearings in Suit v. Arpaio
------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Cassidy, writing for azcentral.com, reports that a federal
judge presiding over a long running racial-profiling case against
the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office has officially ordered a
civil contempt hearing for Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

In January, U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow initiated the
hearings by asking both plaintiffs' and defense attorneys to set
aside April 21-24 in their calendars.  On Feb. 12, Judge Snow
filed an official order confirming that the hearings would
transpire on those dates.

The Feb. 12 order specifies which topics sheriff's officials will
answer to at the evidentiary hearing:

-- Evidence that deputies failed to abide by Snow's preliminary
injunction to stop enforcing federal immigration law.  Sheriff
Arpaio and several top aides must show why they should not be held
in contempt.

  -- Evidence that sheriff's officials did not disclose all
required information in pre-trial proceedings, including deputies'
audio-recording devices.

  -- Why the office failed to follow oral orders given in May.

In a separate document issued on Feb. 12, Judge Snow scheduled a
pre-trial conference for Feb. 26 and ordered the defendants to
provide plaintiffs with additional information that could prove
the agency violated his orders.

The latest legal hurdle stems from a 2007 class-action civil
rights case that alleged the Sheriff's Office's immigration sweeps
amounted to discriminatory policing against Latinos.  Judge Snow
agreed and imposed an operational overhaul that would prevent the
behavior in the future.

A finding of civil contempt would likely amount to fines for the
office, perhaps compensating the individuals whose rights were
violated after the judge issued his initial order.  Criminal
contempt is more punitive, and could result in harsher monetary
penalties or even jail time.  Judge Snow may still refer the
office for criminal contempt proceedings.


MARION COUNTY, FL: More Plaintiffs Join Class Action v. Sheriff
---------------------------------------------------------------
WISH's wishtv.com reports that two more names were added onto a
class action suit filed against the Marion County Sheriff alleging
delayed releases from the jail. Michael Boyd and Nicholas Swords
joined two other inmates who filed the suit in December.

Swords claims in the suit a cousin paid his bond Dec. 12, 2014 but
he wasn't released from the jail until Dec. 15, 2014.  According
to the suit, the Marion County Sheriff's computers didn't reflect
that Sword had seen a judge or his bond was paid.

In Boyd's case, the suit alleges he was released from jail two
days after he was scheduled to be in November 2014.  He was
serving time for an alcohol related charge.  A pretrial hearing is
set to Feb. 24 on the suit.

The Marion County Sheriff's Office declined to comment as their
lawyers are still reviewing the amended complaint.


MARION BASS: May 28 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
The following release was issued by RG/2 Claims Administration
LLC, as Notice Administrator, on behalf of Motley Rice LLC

Kellerman, et al. v. Marion Bass Securities Corporation, et al. -
cause No. 01-L 000457

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT - THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT - MADISON COUNTY, IL

Notice of Settlements of Class Action, of Fairness Hearing, of
Right to Appear, and of Right to Opt Out or Object

To:   All of Those Persons Who Purchased (or Otherwise Acquired)
Tax-Free Revenue Bonds (Between February 1, 1996 and December 11,
1998) in the Bond Issues of:  Lawrence, Indiana; Princeton,
Wisconsin; Manitowoc, Wisconsin; Gillett, Wisconsin; Wautoma,
Wisconsin; Riverview, Michigan; Bangor, Michigan; and Redford,
Michigan in Connection with Malachi Corporation, Inc., as Borrower

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY.  A STATE COURT AUTHORIZED THIS
NOTICE.  THIS IS NOT A SOLICITATION.

The purpose of this notice is to inform you of the proposed class
action settlements between each of Fifth Third Bank as successor
to Peoples Bank & Trust Company, Blue & Company, LLC, and Gilmore
& Bell, P.C., the settling defendants in this class action, and Al
Kellerman, Lillard Hedden,1 and William Tennison, the plaintiffs
in the Action and representatives of the certified class.  A
fairness hearing will be held in the Circuit Court of the Third
Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois to consider the
fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the proposed
Settlements.  Your legal rights may be affected by this Notice and
the proceedings in this litigation, whether you act or do not act.
You should read this Notice carefully.  These proposed Settlements
will provide for a combined Settlement Fund of $525,000 (five
hundred twenty-five thousand U.S. dollars), which comprises a
$300,000 payment from Fifth Third Bank, a $150,000 payment from
Blue & Company, LLC, and a $75,000 payment from Gilmore & Bell,
P.C.  The Settlement Fund will be placed into a Settlement Account
that will collect interest until such time as the Plaintiffs'
ongoing claims asserted against Wells Fargo, N.A. are fully
resolved, at which time Plaintiffs will move the court regarding a
proposed distribution on a pro-rata basis to investors with
recognized claims and for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses, costs of administering the Settlements, and Case
Contribution Awards to the Named Plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs are not
moving the Court for such distribution or awards at this time.
The Fairness Hearing will be held on May 28, 2015, at 1:30 p.m.,
before the Honorable Barbara Crowder, Circuit Court Judge, to
determine, among other things (as set forth in the Parties'
proposed Final Approval Order): (1) whether the proposed
Settlements should be granted final approval; (2) whether the
Settlements are fair, reasonable, and adequate; and (3) whether
the Action and the claims of the members of the Class against the
Settling Defendants should be dismissed on the merits.

If you want to be excluded from the class certified in the Action,
you must send your request in writing to Class Counsel and
Defendants' Counsel, including your full name and address, the
dates, amounts, and types of bonds you purchased, and your
signature.  Your exclusion request must be postmarked no later
than April 24, 2015.  If you exclude yourself from the class
certified in the Action, you will not be entitled to participate
in any distribution of funds from the Settlements or from any
possible recovery against Wells Fargo, N.A.

If you are a Class member who did not opt out of the Class, you
can object to the terms of the Settlements.  To object, you must
send a signed letter or other such document setting forth your
objection to the proposed Settlements to the Court, Class Counsel,
and Settling Defendants' Counsel on or before May 11, 2015.  The
Court will only consider your views if you file a proper objection
within the deadline identified and according to the specific
procedures.

Court:
Clerk of the Circuit Court
Third Judicial Circuit
155 N. Main St., Room 230
Edwardsville, IL  62025

Class Counsel:

Fred Thompson, III, Esq.
William S. Norton, Esq.
Motley Rice LLC
28 Bridgeside Boulevard
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464

Christopher P. Threlkeld, Esq.
J. William Lucco, Esq.
Lucco, Brown, Threlkeld & Dawson, LLP
224 St. Louis Avenue
P.O. Box 539
Edwardsville, IL  62025

Settling Defendants' Counsel:

Scott Kane, Esq.
Colter Paulson, Esq.
Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
221 E. Fourth St., Suite 2900
Cincinnati, OH 45202

Michael J. Nester, Esq.
Donovan Rose Nester P.C.
201 S. Illinois Street
Belleville, IL  62220

Mark D. Bauman, Esq.
Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP
521 West Main, Suite 300
P.O. Box 509
Belleville, IL  62222-0509

Peter D. Sullivan, Esq.
Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP
222 N. LaSalle St., Suite 300
Chicago, IL  60601

Dean C. Nichols, Esq.
Michael J. Pitzer, Esq.
Rabbit Pitzer & Snodgrass, P.C.
100 S. Fourth St., Suite 400
St. Louis, MO 63102-1821

Your objection must state the dates, amounts, and types of bonds
you purchased, and must include your name, address, daytime
telephone number, and signature.  You cannot object by telephone,
facsimile, or email.

You do not need to go to the Fairness Hearing to have your written
objection considered by the Court.  However, any objector may
appear in person or arrange, at that objector's expense, for a
lawyer to represent the objector at the Fairness Hearing provided
that objector has complied with the specific procedures for filing
and serving a notice of intent to appear.

If you want more information regarding anything in this Notice,
you may obtain such information by visiting
www.kellermanmunicipalbondsettlement.com  by calling toll-free
866-742-4955, by writing to Class Counsel listed above or sending
an email to info@rg2claims.com

DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, THE COMPANY, OR
DEFENDANTS REGARDING THIS NOTICE.  THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ANSWER
YOUR QUESTIONS.  DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT REGARDING THIS NOTICE.


MARYLAND CVS PHARMACY: Court Narrows Claims in "Ruyter" Case
------------------------------------------------------------
In AUDRA RUYTER, Plaintiff, v. MARYLAND CVS PHARMACY, LLC,
Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. TDC-14-2541, (D. Md.), the Plaintiff
is a former 13-year employee of Maryland CVS.  After CVS
terminated her employment in December 2013, Ruyter filed suit for
wrongful termination (Count I), false imprisonment (Count II),
defamation (Count III), and retaliation in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C, Section 201 el seq. (2012)
(Count IV).  Presently pending is CVS's Motion to Dismiss Ruyter's
claims for wrongful termination and defamation.

District Judge Theodore D. Chuang granted the motion as to the
wrongful termination claim, and denied the motion as to the
defamation claim.  A copy of the Court's February 20, 2015
memorandum opinion is available at http://is.gd/GsqcnJfrom
Leagle.com.

Audra Ruyter, Plaintiff, represented by Richard A Finci, Houlon
Berman Bergman Finci Levenstein and Skok LLC & Benjamin Cutter
Marcoux, Houlon Berman Finci Levenstein and Skok LLC.

Maryland CVS Pharmacy, LLC, Defendant, represented by Thomas
Langley McCally -- tlm@carrmaloney.com -- Carr Maloney PC & Laura
Mae Raisty -- laura.raisty@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP.


MEL HARRIS: 2nd Cir. Upholds Debt Collection Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Lunsford, writing for insideARM.com, reports that the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals on Feb. 10 in a split decision
ruled that a district court was within its rights to grant class
action status to a lawsuit claiming FDCPA and RICO Act violations
for improper service of process in debt collection legal actions.

The case, Monique Sykes et al., vs. Mel Harris & Associates, LLC
et al., alleges that collection law firm Mel Harris, acting on
behalf of debt buyer Leucadia National Corp., employed a process
server that allegedly deliberately did not properly serve
collection lawsuit defendants with notices they were being sued.
As a result, the suit alleges that when the debtors didn't appear
in court, Leucadia and Mel Harris obtained default judgments
against them, which allowed them to freeze debtors' bank accounts
and threaten to garnish wages or property to obtain settlements.

According to the case, the defendants then swore in affidavits
that process had been properly served and that the affiant had
personal knowledge of the relevant facts.

The long-running case has been very closely watched by the ARM
legal community as well as consumer advocates.  In January 2011,
insideARM.com explained the ramifications in an in-depth article
and then followed up when the case was granted class action
status.

The district judge actually certified two class in the case: for
people who have been or will be sued by Mel Harris as counsel for
Leucadia and are pursuing claims under the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and New York law; and for all
people who have been sued by Harris on behalf of Leucadia in New
York City Civil Court and where a default judgment has been
obtained and are seeking claims under RICO, New York law, and the
FDCPA.

The defendants argued on appeal that the classes did not represent
common enough plaintiffs to allow for a single class action.

The majority disagreed, noting allegations that one Harris
employee supposedly certified the merits of 20 lawsuits per hour.
This proved that it was "undisputed" that he did not review the
underlying documents, leading to violations.

In the dissent, Circuit Judge Dennis Jacobs argued that a class
action was unnecessary, as New York law provided a path for judges
to vacate default judgments, even en masse.  "The only remaining
salient advantage of this federal class action is attorneys' fees,
which do not much help the members of the class," he wrote.  "This
is class litigation for the sake of nothing but class litigation."


MIMEDX GROUP: Faces "Long" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence J. Long, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Mimedx Group, Inc., Parker H. Petit, and
Michael J. Senken, Case No. 1:15-cv-01221 (S.D.N.Y., February 19,
2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Mimedx Group, Inc. is a medical device company. It is focused on
developing and marketing biomaterials for soft tissue repair, such
as tendons, ligaments, and cartilage, as well as other biomaterial
based products for other medical applications.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONTANA POWER: Class Action Trial Scheduled for October 19
----------------------------------------------------------
David Reese, writing for Lake County Leader, reports Montana Power
Co. has long been dismantled, but a class-action lawsuit against
the former power conglomerate will proceed to trial this fall.
The class-action case involves a class of litigants who claim that
Montana Power Co., which formerly owned Kerr Dam on the Flathead
River, operated the dam in a way that caused shoreline erosion.

Montana Power sold the dam and most of its assets and became Touch
America, a telecommunications company.  Touch America went
bankrupt, ending nearly a century of Montana Power's dominance as
a utility in Montana. (The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes
purchased Kerr Dam and will assume ownership in September.)
Montana Power sold Kerr Dam, along with other generating assets,
to PP&L Global, LLC, which transferred it to PPL Montana.  PPLM
was added as a defendant in this case in 2001.  MPC underwent a
series of corporate changes and as a result, Touch America
Holdings, Northwestern Energy, Northwestern Corporation, and
Montana Power were also added as defendants but because of
proceedings in bankruptcy court, they are no longer actively
participating in this case.  The active defendants in this case
are now MPC and PPLM.

The class-action suit dates back to Nov. 8, 1999, when Rebecca E.
Mattson and others sued Montana Power Company in Montana Eleventh
Judicial District Court in Flathead County.  The suit was filed on
behalf of themselves and others who have owned lakefront and
riverfront property on Flathead Lake and a portion of the northern
part of Flathead River that the plaintiffs allege has been damaged
by the operation of Kerr Dam.  From 1930 to 1960, Montana Power
obtained flood easements on all lakefront and riverfront
properties on Flathead Lake and Flathead River, the suit says.

The Montana Supreme Court has determined that the flood easements
allowed MPC and PPLM, as the operators of Kerr Dam, to erode the
shoreline if the operation of the Dam is reasonably necessary and
does not cause unreasonable damage to shoreline properties.

The Mattson plaintiffs claim MPC and PPLM have operated Kerr Dam
in an "unreasonable manner that resulted in loss of shoreline and
property damage, including riverbank undercutting," on their
lakefront or riverfront properties by failing, in years prior to
2007, to lower the water level at the dam after Oct. 31.

On Dec. 27, 2012, the Montana Supreme Court ruled that this case
would proceed on a class basis and ordered Flathead County
District Court to certify the class.  On July 23, 2014, the
District Court entered an order certifying the case as a class
action against MPC and PPLM on behalf of the following class.

The class includes "All persons and entities (other than the
United States, the defendants, and the Confederated Salish and
Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, Montana) that have,
since Nov. 9, 1991 to Dec. 1, 2006, owned real property either
with frontage on the shoreline of Flathead Lake in Flathead County
or Lake County, which contains a bank of the Flathead River
located in Flathead County, Montana, south of the point at which
Lower Valley Road east of U.S. Highway 93 intersects with the
Flathead River, or both."

MPC and PPLM contend they have reasonably operated Kerr Dam. MPC
and PPLM contend the flood easements, as interpreted by the
Montana Supreme Court, allow for erosion and bank undercutting,
and their operation of Kerr Dam was within the scope of the flood
easements.  MPC and PPLM also assert that Kerr Dam is required to
coordinate its operation with other federal regulators and dams in
the northwest according to the Pacific Northwest Coordination
Agreement.

The plaintiffs are seeking financial damages from MPC and PPLM to
compensate them for their what they claim is loss of land and
money spent for repairs of erosion damage.  MPC and PPLM deny that
the plaintiffs are entitled to any damages.

A trial date has been set for Oct. 19 in Kalispell at Flathead
County District Court.


NESTLE PURINA: Faces Class Action Over Beneful Dog Food
-------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a California man filed a class action
lawsuit against a large pet food manufacturer on Feb. 4, alleging
unsafe pet food manufacturing and distribution, as well as breach
of warranty.

Frank Lucido alleged that Nestle Purina Petcare Co. of Missouri
and John Does 1 through 200 manufactured and sold Beneful dog
food, which injured his three dogs.  The suit alleges that the
defendants have received more than 3,000 online complaints about
the food making dogs sick over the past four years.  In some
cases, the dogs allegedly suffered internal bleeding, weight loss,
dehydration and other symptoms.

Mr. Lucido alleged that Purina added an ingredient to Beneful that
was known to be dangerous to dogs and cats.  Propylene glycol, an
automotive antifreeze component, is listed in the product's
ingredients, along with mycotoxins.  The plaintiff's German
Shepherd and Labrador allegedly suffered and his English Bulldog
died after ingesting Beneful beginning on Jan. 15.

Alleging negligence, misrepresentation, product liability and
unfair business practices, the plaintiff is seeking more than
$5 million in damages, plus costs and fees.

Mr. Lucido and the class are represented by Jeffrey Cereghino --
jbc@rocklawcal.com -- Michael Ram -- mram@rocklawcal.com --
Matt Malone and Susan Brown, of Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski
LLP in San Francisco; John Yanchunis, of Morgan & Morgan Complex
Litigation Group in Tampa, Fla.; Karl Molineux and Charles
Merrill, of Merrill, Nomura & Molineux in Danville, Calif.; and
Donna Solen, of Kimbrell Kimbrell & Solen LLC in Washington, D.C.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case
No. 3:15-cv-00569


NEW YORK: Dist. Court Judgment in "Garcia" Case Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------
Defendants-appellants asked the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit to definitively conclude, on the limited record
before it on their motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim,
that they are entitled to qualified immunity for their arrest of a
group of demonstrators.

Plaintiffs commenced this action for false arrest under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983 following their arrests for participating in a
demonstration in support of the Occupy Wall Street movement.
Although plaintiffs have not been able to conduct discovery, they
attached five video excerpts and nine still photographs as
exhibits to the Second Amended Complaint, which the Court
considered in deciding the appeal. The Court also considered
videos submitted by defendants, which plaintiffs concede are
incorporated into the Complaint by reference.

The Second Circuit held that because it cannot resolve at this
early stage the ultimately factual issue of whether certain
defendants implicitly invited the demonstrators to walk onto the
roadway of the Brooklyn Bridge, which would otherwise have been
prohibited by New York law, it affirms the judgment of the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The case is, Karina Garcia, as Class Representative on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, Yari Osorio, as Class
Representative on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Benjamin Becker, as Class Representative on Behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, Cassandra Regan, as Class
Representative on Behalf of herself and others Similarly situated,
Yareidis Perez, as Class Representative on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, Tyler Sova, as Class Representative on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Stephanie Jean
Umoh, as Class representative on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Michael Crickmore, as Class Representative on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Brooke Feinstein,
as Class Representative on Behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, Marcel Cartier, as Class
Representative on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Jane and John DOES 1-40, Individually and in Their
Official Capacities, Defendants-Appellants, Raymond W. Kelly,
individually and in his official capacity, City of New York,
Michael R. Bloomberg, in his official capacity and individually,
Defendants, DOCKET NO. 12-2634-CV. 764 F.3d 170 (2014).

A copy of the Court's Opinion is available at http://is.gd/NUnf48
from Leagle.com.

Mara Verheyden-Hilliard (Andrea Hope Costello and Carl Messineo,
on the brief), Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, Washington,
D.C. for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Ronald E. Sternberg, Assistant Corporation Counsel (Leonard
Koerner and Arthur G. Larkin, Assistant Corporation Counsel, on
the brief), for Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel of the
City of New York, New York, New York, for Defendants-Appellants.


NISSAN MOTOR: Bid to Lift Stay in "Wolf" Class Action Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
In MATTHEW S. WOLF, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION,
Defendant, CIVIL NO. 10-3338 (NLH/KMW), (D. N.J.), the Court
previously entered an order staying the proceedings and referring
the matter to arbitration. Plaintiff has filed a letter motion
seeking to lift the stay and reopen the case based upon the
purported failure of Defendant, Nissan Motor Acceptance
Corporation, to submit the proper arbitration fee, which resulted
in the matter being withdrawn from arbitration.

District Judge Noel L. Hillman denied the request in an opinion
dated February 20, 2015, a copy of which is available at from
http://is.gd/kJKzMeLeagle.com.

The Court denied the Plaintiff's request to lift the stay entered
on June 22, 2011 and directed the parties to return to
arbitration.

Michael John DeBenedictis, Esquire -- mjd@debenedictislaw.com --
DeBenedictus & DeBenedictis LLC, Haddonfield, New Jersey.

Counsel for Plaintiff:

   Thomas T. Booth, Jr., Esq.
   Law Offices of Thomas T. Booth, Jr., LLC
   129 W. Evesham Road
   Voorhees, New Jersey 08043
   Telephone: (856) 354-6060
   Facsimile: (856) 354-6033

William H. Grae, Esquire -- wgrae@chartwelllaw.com -- The
Chartwell Law Offices, LLP, Millburn, New Jersey, Counsel for
Defendant.


OAKLAND, CA: April 1 Final Hearing on Deal Over Mass Arrest Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins of the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division, granted plaintiffs' motions in
the case STEVEN ANGELL, and others, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF
OAKLAND, and others, Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-00190 NC (N.D.
Cal.)

A case was filed on January 14, 2014, by eight plaintiffs --
Steven Angell, Miles Avery, Molly Batchelder, Sri Louise also
known as Louise Coles, Cicily Cooper, Shareeff Elfiki, Theodore
Hexter, and Lindsay Weber. The proposed class alleged in the
complaint consists of persons who were herded, corralled and then
arrested in the mass arrest that occurred on the evening of
January 28, 2012 on Broadway in Oakland, between 23rd and 24th
Street, and who were detained, arrested, imprisoned and never
charged with any crime.

The complaint names as defendants the City of Oakland, the County
of Alameda, and individual defendants employed by the City and the
County.  The complaint alleges causes of action under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983 for violations of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth
Amendments, as well as state law rights against false arrest and
false imprisonment. Id. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and
the class, seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to restrain
defendants from continuing to violate plaintiffs' federal and
state constitutional and statutory rights, the protections for
these rights in the Oakland Crowd Management/Crowd Control Policy,
and from using false arrests, false imprisonment, unreasonable
conditions of confinement, and other unlawful actions to disrupt,
interfere with and deter future demonstrations and protest
activities in the City of Oakland and Alameda County. An
injunction requiring the defendants to seal, return, and/or
destroy any records of plaintiffs' arrests and monetary damages
for the injuries plaintiffs suffered when they were falsely
detained, arrested and imprisoned.

The parties participated in settlement conferences with Magistrate
Judge Laurel Beeler over several months. As a result, the parties
were able to reach a settlement in September 2014. Plaintiffs
filed a motion to certify the class, which defendants do not
oppose. The parties moved jointly for preliminary approval of the
settlement.

The Court denied the motion for preliminary approval without
prejudice due to several deficiencies in the proposed settlement
agreement and class notice. After the parties submitted a revised
settlement agreement and class notice, the Court held a
preliminary approval hearing on December 17, 2014. No objectors
appeared.

Magistrate Judge Cousins certifies the proposed class, grants
preliminary approval of the revised settlement agreement, and
approves the proposed method of notice. He also approves the
proposed class counsel and class representatives.

Class counsel is directed to file a supplemental declaration by
March 30, 2015, informing the Court of the number of claims forms,
exclusion forms, and objections received.

The Court will hold a final approval hearing on April 1, 2015, at
1:00 p.m. in Courtroom A, 15th Floor, U.S. District Court, 450
Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Cousins' order dated January 5, 2015 is
available at http://is.gd/7yHh3ffrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel Mark Siegel --
DanSiegel@siegelyee.com -- Yolanda Huang -- Anne Butterfield
Weills -- AnneWeills@siegelyee.com - at Siegel & Yee

City of Oakland, Howard Jordan, Jeffrey Israel, Eric Breshears,
Ron Yelder, Darren Allison, Steve Tull, Edward Tracey, Anthony
Rachal, Sean Whent, Defendants, represented by:

James F. Hodgkins
Otis McGee, Jr.
William Edmond Simmons
Lozano Smith
Oakland City Attorney
City Hall, 6th Floor
1 Frank Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: 510-238-3601
Facsimile: 510-238-6500

County of Alameda, Gregory J. Ahern, Brett Keteles, Carla Kennedy,
David Brady, Gregory L. Morgado, Kerry Jackson, Defendants,
represented by Gregory J. Rockwell -- grockwell@bjg.com -- Jill
Sazama -- at Boornazian Jensen & Garthe


PERK UP: Faces "Chan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yuk Kwan (Peter) Chan, Wai Hung (Ronald) Chan and others similarly
situated v. Perk Up, Inc. d/b/a Kari-Out Co., Paul Epstein, Howard
Epstein, and David Chan, Case No. is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are headquartered at 399 Knollwod Road, White
Plains, New York 10603.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Kaining Li, Esq.
      THE BOYD LAW GROUP, PLLC
      370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1012
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 867-3675
      Facsimile: (212) 867-5765
      E-mail: wli@theboydlawgroup.com


PHILIP MORRIS: Appeals Marlboro Lights Class Action in Arkansas
---------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Satter, writing for Arkansas Online, reports that attorneys
appearing before the Arkansas Supreme Court disagreed on whether
hundreds of thousands of people who bought Marlboro Lights
cigarettes in Arkansas between 1971 and 2010 have enough
"commonality" to constitute a class of plaintiffs.


PRESSMASTER INC: Recalls Xcelite Cable Stripping Tools
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Pressmaster Inc., of Westmont, Ill., announced a voluntary recall
of 327 "Xcelite" cable stripping tools. Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The tool's plastic end cap can fly off the product with force
either during use or while in storage, posing an impact hazard.

This recall involves the Pressmaster Xcelite professional
stripping tool for round cables of all insulation types. The tool
is black and is approximately six inches long. "Xcelite" "CJS 200"
are printed on the face of the tool.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/1C4Epn

The recalled products were manufactured by Pressmaster AB, of
Sweden in Sweden and sold at Hardware and industrial supply stores
nationwide and online at Amazon.com from August 2014 to November
2014 for about $90.

Consumers should immediately stop using the cable stripping tool
and contact Pressmaster to return the product for a free
replacement.


RAYMOND JAMES: Faces "Brink" Suit Over Processing Fee
-----------------------------------------------------
Jyll Brink, on her own behalf, and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Raymond James & Associates, Inc., Case No. 0:15-cv-
60334 (S.D. Fla., February 17, 2015), seeks to stop the
Defendant's practice of charging unauthorized and unreasonable
processing fee.

Raymond James & Associates, Inc. is a full service broker-dealer
which maintains its principal place of business in St. Petersburg,
Pinellas County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lyle E. Shapiro, Esq.
      Eric M. Sodhi, Esq.
      Joshua L. Spoont, Esq.
      RICHMAN GREER, P.A.
      396 Alhambra Circle
      North Tower, 14th Floor
      Miami, FL 33134
      Telephone: (305) 373-4000
      Facsimile: (305) 373-4099
      E-mail: lshapiro@richmangreer.com
              esodhi@richmangreer.com
              jspoont@richmangreer.com

         - and -

      Sara E. Hanley, Esq.
      Randall C. Place, Esq.
      PLACE AND HANLEY, PLLC
      1415 Panther Lane
      Naples, FL 34109
      E-mail: sara_hanley@placeandhanley.com
              randall_place@placeandhanley.com


RONALD REAGAN UCLA: "Superbug" Outbreak May Spur Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------
Brian Melley, writing for The Associated Press, reports that with
an antibiotic-resistant "superbug" outbreak connected to its
facility, Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center stopped short of
pointing a finger at the manufacturer of a medical instrument
believed to have spread the deadly germs.  The maker of the
product was careful not to blame the hospital as it issued new
cleaning instructions emphasizing meticulous manual sterilization.

Things may not be so polite once lawyers get involved.  Lawsuits
are expected to follow the outbreak tied to two deaths and several
infections, with the hospital and manufacturer pointing fingers at
each other.

"That's exactly the kind of skirmishing you're going to see," said
John Culhane, co-director of the Family Health Law & Policy
Institute at the Widener University School of Law in Delaware.
"The bottom line is that the two defendants will be hauled into
court, and they'll be trying to do two things: One, they didn't do
anything wrong; the second thing is to pin the blame on the other
defendant."

Two people have died at UCLA, and five others have been infected
with the bacteria known as carbapenem-resistant
Enterobacteriaceae, or CRE, after undergoing similar endoscopic
procedures to diagnose and treat pancreatic and bile-duct problems
between October and January, hospital officials said.  More than
170 other patients also may have been exposed.

The family of an 18-year-old student in grave condition from the
bacteria is considering suing the endoscope's manufacturer,
Olympus Corporation of the Americas, an arm of Japan's Olympus
Corp, attorney Kevin Boyle said.

That hard-to-clean medical instrument used on more than half a
million people in the U.S. every year has become the focus of the
investigation into the outbreak.

Olympus emphasized in a statement on Feb. 19 that meticulous
manual sterilization is needed.  The company said it was issuing
new instructions and working with federal officials.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned doctors on Feb. 19
that the device's complex design and tiny parts make complete
disinfection extremely difficult.  Even when cleaning instructions
are followed, germs may linger, the FDA said.  Between January
2013 and December 2014, the FDA received 75 reports involving 135
patients in the U.S. who may have been infected by tainted scopes.

The blame game has played out across the country where some
patients are believed to have died from infections and hundreds of
others have been shocked when notified they could have been
infected with bacteria or a harmful disease from a medical
instrument that was intended to help them.

In some cases, patients who weren't infected have sued for having
to go through the unnerving process of being screened over months
for diseases such as HIV and hepatitis they may have been exposed
to.

Pittsburgh medical malpractice lawyer Brendan Lupetin currently
represents more than 200 patients in a class-action suit against a
Pennsylvania clinic that he said didn't properly clean its
endoscopes.  He envisions lots of lawsuits coming from the UCLA
outbreak, with lawyers targeting both the hospital and Olympus and
possibly third parties who may have been responsible for
maintaining equipment used for cleaning and sterilization.

"It looks like someone dropped the ball," Mr. Lupetin said.
"Whether it's the manufacturer or UCLA, you can almost guarantee
there will be a number of lawsuits."

UCLA said it doesn't comment on litigation.  A spokesman for
Olympus didn't immediately return an email seeking comment.

Lawrence Muscarella, a health care and sterilization expert, said
he'd be surprised if there's litigation because he doesn't know of
any lawsuits tied to outbreaks he has closely followed at four
other U.S. hospitals.

Few lawyers have taken on the hospitals because it can cost
hundreds of thousands of dollars to prepare a case, and there's no
guarantee of success when it's hard to prove what caused an
infection, he said.  Doctors rarely list the infection as the
cause of death, and some hospitals have said patients entered
their facility with the antibiotic-resistant bacteria, a notion he
dismisses.

"Proving causation is impossible," he said.  "You can't prove you
didn't have that organism when you came into the hospital."

Mr. Culhane, the law professor, said that if cases do proceed to
court, defendants probably won't blame the victim for their role,
as often happens in negligence cases.  In these cases, the patient
was probably unconscious.


ROYAL CANADIAN: Faces Class Action Over Flood Gun Seizures
----------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a proposed class-action lawsuit
has been filed against the RCMP over the seizure of guns from
homes in High River during flooding in southern Alberta in 2013.

Jane White, the representative plaintiff, says Mounties had no
right to break into her locked home and confiscate 11 rifles that
she and her husband hid in their bedroom under a quilt to protect
them from rising water.  She says the officers broke the front
door, spread mud on the floor and on the walls and damaged other
property.

Mounties left the door open when they left, putting the house at
risk until she and her husband were allowed to return the
following month, she says.

"We thought it was a very disrespectful and unreasonable way to
treat the citizens in the middle of a disaster -- and to go into a
home that was secure," she said on Feb. 12 in an interview.
"I would like them to be accountable.  There was a lot of damage
done to our house."

The lawsuit alleges the seizure was an unlawful and unnecessary
invasion of people's private lives and caused distress,
humiliation and anguish.  It also alleges that Mounties damaged
homes and property, breached people's charter rights and caused
them emotional and psychological trauma.

The lawsuit, which has not yet been certified, seeks monetary
damages and a declaration that the RCMP were negligent.

Clint Docken, Ms. White's lawyer, said there could be more than
100 plaintiffs who had firearms seized.

Statements of claim contain allegations not proven in court.
The Mounties have said the guns -- 609 firearms were taken from
105 homes -- could have posed a hazard, as there were reports of
break-ins and thefts.


SAFE STEP: Recalls Step Walk-In Tubs Due to Burn Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Safe Step Walk-In Tub Co., of Nashville, Tenn., announced a
voluntary recall of about 6,400 Safe Step Walk-In Tubs. Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The tub's heated seat can get stuck in the "on" position. If a
towel or other item is covering the seat of an empty tub, the seat
can overheat, posing a burn hazard to consumers.

This recall involves Safe Step walk-in, hydro-massage bath tubs
with heated seats.  The recalled tubs have model numbers LP2848,
LP2851, LP2853, LP3153 or LP3255 and serial numbers 124423 through
131569 containing the prefix HS, HSHY, HSHS, HSMB or MBHS. The
model and serial numbers are located on the back of the small
access panel on the faucet end of the tub.

There have been 11 reports of the empty tub's heated seat getting
stuck in the "on" position, including one report of the seat
overheating and becoming hot to the touch. No injuries have been
reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/C7FfW4

The recalled products were manufactured by Oliver Fiberglass
Products, of Hohenwald, Tenn. (tub shell) and NuWhirl Systems
Corp., of Corona, Calif. (heated seating equipment) in United
States sold at CKH Industries, New Windsor, N.Y.; Galkos
Construction, Huntington Beach, Calif.; Gulf Atlantic Home
Solutions, Clermont, Fla.; Home Smart Industries, Aston, Penn.;
IPS, Hohenwald, Tenn.; New Bath, Jefferson, La.; Remodel USA,
Capitol Heights, Md.; Safe Step of Minnesota, Burnsville, Minn.;
Safe Step of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nev.; Safe Step Tubs Northwest,
Tukwila, Wash., and Safe Step Walk-In Tub Co., Nashville, Tenn.
from January 2014 through September 2014 for between $12,000 and
$15,000.

Consumers should not put a towel or other item on the seat and
contact Oliver Fiberglass for new instructions and warning
stickers to place on the tubs. Oliver Fiberglass is contacting tub
owners directly.


SAFEWAY INC: Calif. App. Court Affirms Judgment in "Tamas" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
In ASHLEY TAMAS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SAFEWAY, INC. et al.,
Defendants and Respondents, NO. G050114, Ashley Tamas appeals from
the judgment entered in favor of defendants Safeway, Inc. and
Lucerne Foods, Inc. -- collectively Safeway -- after the trial
court sustained a demurrer to Tamas' proposed class action
complaint without leave to amend. In her complaint, Tamas alleged
Safeway was culpable for misbranding its Lucerne brand of Greek
yogurt as "yogurt" because the food's ingredients included "milk
protein concentrate" (MPC), which is not included on the list of
allowable optional ingredients for "yogurt" under the applicable
regulation promulgated by the federal Food and Drug Administration
(FDA). The trial court disagreed, concluding that MPC was an
allowable ingredient in yogurt, as the restrictive regulation
relied upon by Tamas had been stayed, and the FDA had informally
agreed to allow the use of MPC in yogurt until the stay was
resolved.

The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division
Three, in an opinion entered February 23, 2015, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/UqMxKJfrom Leagle.com, affirmed the
judgment entered in favor of Safeway.

The Calif. Appeals Court held that the "regulation relied upon by
Tamas to preclude the use of MPC in yogurt is one that she admits
was stayed by the FDA shortly after it was enacted, in response to
concerns the rule was unduly restrictive. The glacial pace at
which the FDA has moved in attempting to resolve those concerns
and redraft a new formal regulation did not, as Tamas seems to
suggest, operate as a stealth reenactment of the stayed rule."

Ridout Lyon + Ottoson, Christopher P. Ridout, Caleb LH Marker;
Zimmerman Reed and Bradley C. Buhrow -- Brad.Buhrow@zimmreed.com
-- for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Fulbright & Jaworski, Jeffrey B. Margulies --
jeff.margulies@nortonrosefulbright.com -- William L. Troutman --
william.troutman@nortonrosefulbright.com -- and Margot M.
Fourqurean -- mfourqurean@fulbright.com -- for Defendants and
Respondents.


SIGNAL INT'L: Indian Workers Awarded $14MM in Trafficking Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cain Burdeau, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
federal jury on Feb. 16 awarded $14.1 million to five Indian guest
workers who claimed they were defrauded and made to live in
squalid conditions after being lured to work for an Alabama-based
marine and fabrication company following Hurricane Katrina.

The jury issued its verdict against Mobile, Alabama-based Signal
International LLC and its associates in a civil trial overseen by
U.S. District Judge Susie Morgan.  More than 200 other workers'
claims are pending against the company, lawyers said.  The
plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages.

The suit was filed in 2008, charging that Signal used the federal
government's H-2B guest-worker program to recruit Indians to work
as welders and pipefitters at its facilities in Pascagoula,
Mississippi, and Orange, Texas.

The suit alleged Signal falsely promised to help the workers apply
for and receive green cards.  But the plaintiffs claimed they were
the victims of a labor-trafficking scheme by Signal, an
immigration lawyer and an Indian labor recruiter.  Signal faces
paying $12 million of the damages, plaintiffs lawyers said.

"In short, these workers were sold a bill of goods," said
Alan Howard, a lawyer for Southern Poverty Law Center, an Alabama
civil rights group that represented the Indian workers.  "They
were victimized and exploited and really taken advantage of."

The plaintiffs claim they were charged $10,000 per person by
recruiters who gave them false promises that they would be able to
get green cards and obtain permanent residency in the United
States.  Based on those promises, the suit claims Indian workers
went into debt to get the jobs for Signal and in some cases sold
homes and gave up jobs in India before leaving for the Gulf Coast.

Once they arrived, the guest workers claimed they were told they
were going to get 10-month work permits.  The suit also accused
Signal of housing the workers in squalid conditions and forcing
them to pay $1,050 each a month to stay in overcrowded and dirty
trailers.

Signal said in a statement that it "strongly disagrees" with the
Feb. 18 verdict and is considering an appeal.

Mr. Howard said the cases of about 230 other workers are pending
against Signal.  An attempt to certify the Indian workers under a
class-action suit was rejected by a federal judge.

Signal hired about 500 workers to work at its facilities after
Katrina.  The company said it was facing a shortage of skilled
workers following the 2005 hurricane and that it paid the Indian
workers $18 an hour, the same as American workers would have
received for the same jobs.

Plaintiffs' lawyers contended that American workers, due to the
shortage of skilled laborers, commanded much higher wages and that
Signal profited greatly from the use of the Indian workers.

The suits are being brought under the Victims of Trafficking and
Violence Protection Act, a federal law passed in 2003 to protect
people from traffickers.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is also suing
Signal.  That trial is slated to start on June 1 in New Orleans.

Mr. Howard said it was far from clear when the Indian workers
might see any compensation.  He said Signal has suggested it might
file for bankruptcy.

A spokeswoman for the company said she could not comment on that
issue but would pass it to others for their consideration.


SCOTT USA: Recalls Bicycle Helmets Due to Head Injury Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Scott USA, Inc., of Salt Lake City, Utah, announced a voluntary
recall of about 1,450 2015 SCOTT(R) Vanish Evo Bicycle Helmets.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The bicycle helmets do not comply with the impact requirements of
the CPSC safety standards for bicycle helmets.

The helmets have the brand name "SCOTT" printed on the outer shell
of the helmet on the left side. For the Vanish Evo black and grey
helmets, the lettering is black; for the Vanish Evo white and grey
helmets, the lettering is white. The following serial number
ranges are included in this recall: 2014-06/009359 through 2014-
09/027210. The serial number is printed on a white sticker inside
the back of the helmet.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
authorized SCOTT dealers nationwide and online from July 2014
through December 2014 for about $200.

Consumers should immediately stop using the bicycle helmet and
take it to an authorized SCOTT dealer for a refund of the purchase
price.


SINGING RIVER: Fails Make Plan Contributions, "Lowe" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Martha Ezell Lowe, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated employees v. Singing River Health System, et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00044 (S.D. Miss., February 18, 2015), is
brought against the Defendant for breached in its duty of loyalty
and prudent care, specifically by failing to notify the Plan
participants in a timely manner regarding the failure to make
required contributions and failing to administer the Plan
according to its terms.

Singing River Health System owns and operates two hospitals in
Jackson County, Mississippi along with several medical clinics and
physician offices in the Gulf Coast region.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roger K. Doolittle, Esq.
      ROGER K. DOOLITTLE, ATTORNEY
      460 Briarwood Drive, Suite 500
      Jackson, MS 39206
      Telephone: (601) 957-9777
      Facsimile: (601) 957-9779
      E-mail: rogerkdoolittle@aol.com

         - and -

      Richard P. Rouco, Esq.
      QUINN, CONNOR, WEAVER, DAVIES & ROUCO, LLP
      2700 Highway 280, Ste. 380
      Birminghan, AL 35223
      Telephone: (205) 870-9989
      Facsimile: (205) 803-4143
      E-mail: rrouco@qcwdr.com

         - and -

      Joe R. Whatley Jr., Esq.
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLC
      2001 Park Place, Suite 1000
      Birminghan, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 448-1200
      Facsimile: (205) 922-4851
      E-mail: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew McKinley, as an individual, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Southwest Airlines Co., a Texas corporation
and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 8:15-cv-00283 (C.D.
Cal., February 18, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Southwest Airlines Co. is an airline company with its headquarters
located in Dallas, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry W. Lee, Esq.
      Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq.
      DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
      550 South Hope Street, Suite 2655
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 488-6555
      Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
      E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
              nrosenthal@diversitylaw.com


ST. JOSEPH SERVICES: Judge Tosses Data Breach Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Y. Peter Kang, writing for Law360, reports that a Texas federal
judge on Feb. 11 shot down a putative class action filed by a
former patient of health services provider St. Joseph Services
Corp. who alleged that its failure to guard against a massive
personal data breach violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act,
ruling that the plaintiff lacked standing.

Former patient Beverly T. Peters had filed the class action in
March 2014, claiming that she received a fraud alert on the same
credit card she used at one of St. Joseph's hospitals and
complaining of an increase in spam email both to and from her
email account.  She asserts that the data breach has made her more
vulnerable to future fraud attempts and alleges willful and
negligent FCRA violations as well as various state violations.

The issue at hand, U.S. District Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt wrote in
the opinion, was whether the heightened risk of future identity
theft or fraud from a data breach gives legal standing to a person
whose data may have been compromised.

"Having reviewed the parties' submissions and the relevant law,
the court concludes that the answer is no," the judge wrote in the
opinion.  "Peters has not made the requisite demonstration of
injury, traceability and redressability for her alleged injuries.
Lacking viability, her federal claims are dismissed with
prejudice."

In early 2014, St. Joseph had announced that a December 2013
cyberattack resulted in compromised personal data for more than
400,000 patients and employees.  St. Joseph said it didn't know
whether the personal information had been misused but made
arrangements for one free year of credit monitoring and identify
theft protection.

St. Joseph argued in its motion to dismiss the suit that Peters'
claims of actual injury, consisting of a fraudulent attempt to use
her credit card, an attempted hack of her Amazon.com account and
increased spam emails and telemarketing calls, are not claims of
quantifiable damage or loss suffered due to the data breach.

Judge Hoyt agreed with the assertion.

"Even if the above injuries were traceable to St. Joseph's alleged
failures under the FCRA, it is not likely that a favorable
decision from this court would redress the harm she has
experienced," he wrote.

The judge dismissed the complaint without leave to amend but
allowed Peters to raise her state and common law claims in state
court.

Ms. Peters is represented by Jason Webster of The Webster Law
Firm, Mitchell A. Toups of Weller Green Toups & Terrell LLP and
Richard L. Coffman of The Coffman Law Firm.

The defendants are represented by Kent M. Adams --
Kent.Adams@lewisbrisbois.com -- and Kristie E. Johnson --
Kristie.Johnson@lewisbrisbois.com -- of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith LLP.

The case is Beverly T. Peters v. St. Joseph Services Corp. et al.,
case number 4:14-cv-02872, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas.


STARION ENERGY: Sued in E.D. Pa. Over High Utility Service Charge
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John D. Orange, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Starion Energy PA, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-
00773 (E.D. Pa., February 18, 2015), alleges that the Defendants
charge customers an exorbitant monthly rate far out of the line
with the competition or market factors after its initial teaser
rate offer.

Starion Energy PA, Inc. is engaged in the business of marketing,
advertising and selling utility services to consumers in
Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan Shub, Esq.
      SEEGER WEISS LLP
      1515 Market Street, Suite 1380
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Telephone: (215) 564-2300
      Facsimile: (215) 851-8029
      E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com


SUN PACIFIC: Does Not Properly Pay Field Workers, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jaime Perez, Nancy Silva, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Sun Pacific Farming Cooperative, Inc., Case
No. 1:15-cv-00259 (E.D. Cal., February 19, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to properly pay field workers
according to the provisions of the Migrant and Seasonal
Agricultural Worker Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory N. Karasik, Esq.
      KARASIK LAW FIRM
      11835 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 1275
      Los Angeles, CA 90064
      Telephone: (310) 312-6800
      E-mail: greg@karasiklawfirm.com

         - and -

      Santos Gomez, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SANTOS GOMEZ
      2901 Park Ave #B16
      Soquel, CA 95073
      Telephone: (831) 471-8780
      Facsimile: (831) 471-8774
      E-mail: santos@lawofficesofsantosgomez.com


TAKATA CORP: Faces "Wieczorek" Over Defective Airbags
-----------------------------------------------------
Jerzy Wieczorek, Corine Shearer, Constantine Kazos, Howard
Campbell, Angel Figuerora, Pattirowe Ciramontoya, and Katherine E.
Shank on behalf of themselves and the Class v. Takata Corporation,
et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00821 (E.D.N.Y., February 17, 2015),
alleges that the Defective Vehicles contain airbags manufactured
by the Defendant that, instead of protecting vehicle occupants
from bodily injury during accidents, they violently explode and
expel vehicle occupants with lethal amounts of metal debris and
shrapnel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TAKATA CORP: Faces Airbag Class Action in Pittsburgh
----------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a Japanese airbag manufacturer was
sued on Feb. 5 over allegations that its airbags would explode,
sending dangerous debris at passengers.

Janet McFarland filed the lawsuit against Takata Corporation
alleging the company tried to cover up the problems with its
airbags.  It is one of dozens filed against the company in recent
months, and the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
recently decided to consolidate some of the cases in Miami federal
court.

The class action suit also names several well-known motor vehicle
manufacturers, including Honda, Ford, BMW, Nissan, Toyota, General
Motors, Mazda, Mitsubishi and Subaru.

The lawsuit alleged that approximately 16 million vehicles
containing Takata airbags have been recalled worldwide due to the
defects.  The issues date back to April 2000.  Takata found out
about the defects "no later than 2001," the lawsuit alleged.

The suit also alleged that when the airbags explode they spray the
inside of the vehicle with metal shrapnel, which has maimed and
even killed occupants.

The lawsuit further alleged corporate management told Takata
engineers to "destroy the evidence" when the engineers found out
the airbags were causing the injuries and deaths.

The lawsuit seeks more than $5 million in damages plus court costs
and repairs to all vehicles affected by the damaged airbags.

Mr. McFarland is represented by Gary F. Lynch and Edwin J. Kilpela
Jr., of Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela in Pittsburgh and Garrett D.
Blanchfield and Brant D. Penney, of Reinhardt, Wendorf &
Blanchfield in St. Paul, Minn.

United States District Court District of Western Pennsylvania case
No. 2:15-cv-00153


TAKATA CORP: Not Cooperating With Airbag Investigation
------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Japanese auto parts maker Takata
Corp. isn't cooperating with the government's investigation of its
air bags, the National Highway Safety Administration on
Feb. 20 said as it imposed fines of $14,000 a day that will
continue until key safety information is provided.

Here are five things to know about the Takata air bag recalls:

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE AIR BAGS? The inflators propelled by
ammonium nitrate can explode with too much force, spewing shrapnel
into drivers and passengers.  At least six people have been killed
and 64 injured worldwide due to the problem.  Seventeen million
vehicles have been recalled in the U.S. by 10 automakers since
2008.  Only about 2 million, or 12 percent, have been fixed,
largely due to lack of parts.

WHY ARE SOME RECALLS ONLY IN AREAS OF HIGH HUMIDITY? Government
investigators believe that prolonged exposure to moisture in the
air makes the inflator chemical burn too fast, creating too much
pressure.  That can shatter metal canisters meant to contain the
explosion that inflates the bags.  But they don't know exactly how
much humidity over what time frame can cause the problem.
Driver's side air bags have been recalled nationwide, but recalls
of passenger side air bags were limited to Florida, Puerto Rico,
areas near the Gulf of Mexico including Texas, Alabama,
Mississippi, Georgia, and Louisiana, as well as Guam, Saipan,
American Samoa, U.S. Virgin Islands and Hawaii.

WHAT DOES TAKATA SAY? Takata has challenged the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's demand for a national recall of
driver's air bags, but automakers did it on their own.  The
company says the safety administration has authority to require
recalls by automakers, not a parts supplier like Takata.  It also
says tests of 10,000 inflators don't show any reason for the
recalls to be expanded.

WHAT IS BEING DONE NOW? The government says it must be able to
explain what is going wrong with the air bags and why in order to
force Takata into a national recall.  Three groups are testing the
air bags: Takata, an independent contractor hired by the company,
and a group of 10 automakers.  Also, the government plans to issue
an order this week requiring people who have filed lawsuits
against Takata to share with federal investigators the results of
safety tests on air bags that were involved in crashes, and making
inflators available to plaintiffs lawyers for testing.

HOW CAN I BE SURE MY AIR BAGS ARE SAFE? While the testing
continues, the only thing you can do is check to see if your car
has been recalled and get the repairs done as soon as possible.
To check, go to https://vinrcl.safercar.gov/vin/ and key in your
17-digit vehicle identification number, which is stamped on your
dashboard near the driver's side windshield.  The site will tell
you if there's a recall.  If so, contact your dealer.


TAKATA CORP: MDL Panel to Consolidate Airbag Suits in Fla. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the
U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has decided to
consolidate all Takata airbag recall lawsuits that are pending
nationwide.

The six-member panel issued its four-page transfer order on
Feb. 12.

"These actions -- all of which are putative nationwide class
actions -- share factual questions arising from allegations that
certain Takata-manufactured airbags are defective in that they can
violently explode and eject metal debris resulting in injury or
even death," the panel wrote.

"Plaintiffs allege that Takata and the various motor vehicle
manufacturer defendants became aware of the defect years ago, but
concealed their knowledge from safety regulators and the public.

"Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent
inconsistent pretrial rulings on class certification and other
issues, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel,
and the judiciary."

Complaints filed through the federal court system will be
transferred to Judge Federico Moreno in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida.

The panel described Judge Moreno as an "able and experienced
jurist."

"He has been on the federal bench since 1990, and was a state
court judge prior to that.  He also is a veteran transferee judge,
having previously overseen MDL No. 1334, In re: Managed Care
Litigation, a complex docket involving numerous health care
defendants," they wrote.

"As with that MDL, we are confident that Judge Moreno will steer
the proceedings here on a prudent course."

The order affects at least five class action lawsuits filed in the
Central District of California, Southern District of Florida and
Eastern District of Michigan.

But dozens more could be transferred into the MDL.

"The Panel has been informed of 67 additional related federal
actions.  Those actions and any other related federal actions are
potential tag-along actions," the order states, adding that
constituent and tag-along actions are pending across the country
in more than two dozen districts.

According to a search of PACER, an online service that provides
access to federal court documents, nearly 100 lawsuits have been
filed against Takata since Nov. 1 alone.

The airbags allegedly rupture and spray bits of metal into drivers
and front-seat passengers.

Japanese manufacturer Takata Corp. is believed to have sold bad
airbags to at least 11 different automakers dating to at least as
far back as 2001.  However, the company did not issue a recall
until 2008.

The first reported airbag shrapnel deployment occurred in 2004.

Hiroshi Shimizu, senior vice president for global quality
assurance at Takata, testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science and Transportation in November that the company
believes the root causes of the "inflator ruptures" likely involve
a combination of three factors: (1) the age of the unit; (2)
persistent exposure over time to conditions of high absolute
humidity; and (3) potential production issues.

"Even one failure is unacceptable and we are truly and deeply
saddened that five fatalities have been attributed to auto
accidents where Takata airbags malfunctioned," Chairman and CEO
Shigehisa Takada wrote in an open letter to the U.S. media in
December.

"We understand the public's concerns and we take them seriously."

Both plaintiffs and defendants supported consolidation of the
airbag lawsuits; however, Takata was pushing for the Western
District of Pennsylvania, while defendant Chrysler wanted the
Southern District of New York.


TARGET CORP: Faces "Cohn" Suit Over Product Misbranding
-------------------------------------------------------
Joel Cohn, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Target Corporation, Case No. 0:15-cv-00536 (D. Minn., February
18, 2015), alleges that the Defendant mislabeled its Up & Up
Herbal dietary supplement products because they failed to contain
the medical herbs represented by the label.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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

         - and -

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


TARGET CORP: Judge Trims Claims in Wet Wipe Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Aebra Coe, writing for Law360, reports that an Ohio federal judge
on Feb. 10 trimmed but refused to gut a class action accusing
Target Corp. of marketing and selling flushable wet wipes that
clog septic systems, finding that although three of the suit's
common law claims fail, a slew of other product liability-related
claims can proceed.

U.S. District Judge Donald C. Nugent denied Target's motion to
dismiss lead plaintiff Christopher Meta's Ohio product liability
claims, which the retailer argued should be thrown out because
some class members experienced clogged plumbing and others did
not.

"The motion to dismiss currently under consideration is not the
appropriate forum for the parties to resolve what appears to be an
issue for summary judgment, or a class certification argument.
Thus, Target's motion to dismiss Counts VI, VII and VIII is
denied," Judge Nugent said.

Additionally, Judge Nugent refused to kill the suit's fraud,
breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment and Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act claims.

Counsel for Mr. Meta, Lorenzo Cellini of Tycko & Zavareei LLP said
his clients are pleased with the Feb. 10 decision.

"The judge will allow us to proceed with most of our claims,"
Mr. Cellini, said.  "We think it's an important victory for
consumers, and we look forward to holding the defendants
accountable."

Mr. Meta claims he started buying Up & Up brand flushable moist
wipes from Target when he was potty training his daughter.  Later,
he said he started noticing problems with his home's plumbing and
in 2013 spent $200 to fix it, finding that the moist wipes had
caked together in his pipes.

Mr. Meta filed his proposed class action in April, bringing 11
counts against Target and the company that packages the wipes,
saying the product's packaging and Target's website advertise the
wipes as flushable and safe for sewers and septic systems when
they are not.

While the majority of the complaint's claims were allowed to stand
on Feb. 10, Judge Nugent rejected Meta's argument that Ohio law
allows for an exception to the Ohio Product Liability Act's
abrogation of common law claims where consumers buy a product
worth less than the value advertised.

The Feb. 10 decision also dismissed the suit's negligent
misrepresentation allegation for failure to state a claim.

Mr. Meta is represented by Stuart E. Scott, Dennis R. Lansdowne
and Daniel Frech of Spangenberg Shibley & Liber LLP and Lorenzo B.
Cellini and Jonathan K. Tycko of Tycko & Zavareei LLP.

Target is represented by Theresa M. Bratton -- tbratton@sutter-
law.com -- Denise A. Dickerson and Christina J. Marshall --
cmarshall@sutter-law.com -- of Sutter O'Connell Mannion & Farchi.

The case is Meta v. Target Corporation, case number 4:14-cv-00832,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.


TECK METALS: Judge Narrows Claims in Suit Over Mercury Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Lonny R. Suko of the Eastern District of
Washington granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion
in the case BARBARA ANDERSON, MICHAEL BUFFAN, GAIL LEADEN, TRAVIS
MAGERS, RHETT WEILEP, and LEIGH WILLIAM on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TECK METALS,
LTD., a Canadian corporation, Defendant, NO. CV-13-420-LRS (E.D.
Wash.)

Gail Leaden, Travis Magers, Rhett Weilep and Leigh Williams lived
in the Upper Columbia River Region have been diagnosed with
Crohn's or ulcerative colitis that were caused by the long-term
exposure to TECK's emissions, particularly mercury. They filed a
physical injury lawsuit against Teck Metals, Ltd., a Canadian
corporation.  Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging that
it was not until after 2010 that individuals residing in the Upper
Columbia River Region (UCRR), or who once resided there, knew or
had reason to know that emissions from Teck's smelter could be
responsible for their specific health problems and that the same
was susceptible of proof so that they had a legal right to
maintain an action against Teck.

Teck contends that the Amended Complaint fails to allege any facts
to establish causation which is an essential element of all of the
plaintiffs' claims. According to Teck, absent from the Amended
Complaint are essential factual links in the causal chain between
releases from the Trail Smelter and plaintiffs' alleged diseases.
Teck asserts that plaintiffs' allegations regarding general
causation are insufficient because while plaintiffs have arguably
alleged that certain chemicals can cause certain diseases, they
say nothing as to whether those chemicals can cause diseases at
the level they claim they were exposed to as a result of living in
the UCRR.

Teck asserts that because plaintiffs plead no specific facts about
their own exposure to hazardous substances, they fail to provide a
plausible basis to conclude their injuries are fairly traceable to
Teck. According to Teck, plaintiffs fail to plead "what specific
metals or chemicals each was exposed to personally, the means by
which each was exposed, or in what quantities and the periods of
time during which each was exposed. TEK filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint.

Judge Suko granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion
to dismiss.  The motion is denied to the extent it seeks dismissal
based on the statute of limitations, causation, and personal
jurisdiction. Plaintiffs fail to state federal common law public
nuisance claims and state law public nuisance claims upon which
relief can be granted. These claims are dismissed with prejudice,
the Court said.

A copy of Judge Suko's order dated January 5, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/Zig4YOfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Steve W Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com --
Andrew M Volk -- andrew@hbsslaw.com --at Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP; Barbara Mahoney -- at Danielson Harrigan Leyh &
Tollefson

Defendants, represented by James L Stengel -- jstengel@orrick.com
-- John L Ewald -- jewald@orrick.com -- Strauch Weiss --
lstrauchweiss@orrick.com -- David S Keenan -- dkeenan@orrick.com
-- at Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP; Daniel J Dunne, Jr - at
Stoel Rives LLP; Geana Van Dessel -- geanav@leehayes.com -- Leslie
Richard Weatherhead -- leslieW@leehayes.com -- at Lee & Hayes,
PLLC


TEPCO: Sailors' Class Action Over Fukushima Radiation Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Vedder, writing for Komo News, reports that there is a group
of sailors and Marines, some from right here in the Northwest, who
consider themselves warriors, wounded in a battle they didn't
realize they were fighting against an enemy that's both terrifying
and invisible: radiation.

It happened in 2011, right after Japan's devastating earthquake
and tsunami. Now that group is suing over debilitating and even
fatal diseases that may not show up for years.

In March and April of that year, the front line for the US Navy's
7th Fleet was the coast of Japan.  When the 9.0 earthquake struck,
followed by a massive tsunami, the 25-ship carrier group led by
the USS Ronald Reagan arrived the next day to help.  It was
officially dubbed "Operation Tomodachi."

Aviation Bosun's Mate Dagan Honda of Oak Harbor recalls the
mission, "it was helping save people's lives.  That's what we do
every day and that's what we're expected to do."

He and Aviation Structural Mechanic Ron Wright of Kent spent day
after day on the Reagan's flight deck, along with hundreds of
sailors, loading supplies and keeping the relief efforts moving.
"All I was doing pretty much the entire time," says Mr. Wright,
"was carry one box, just pick it up and then walk it over. . .
rinse and repeat."  Both say they spent the majority of every day
topside and worked most every day of the two-month mission.

But both added they'd had no idea of what was happening in coastal
Fukushima at the TEPCO nuclear facility.  Three of the six nuclear
reactors suffered meltdowns.  Then several explosions funneled
clouds of radiation into the atmosphere and the prevailing winds
sent most of that radiation over the Pacific, where the 7th Fleet
was positioned to help.

"So these sailors literally were marinating in radioactive
particles," said Attorney Charles Bonner.  He represents more
than 200 sailors and Marines in a class action lawsuit against
TEPCO, claiming radiation from Fukushima has caused devastating
health effects, including cancers, tumors, brain defects, even
death, and a whole host of other difficult-to-diagnose complaints.

"Very serious illnesses for a very large population of very young
people," Mr. Bonner said.  And Mr. Bonner adds the 7th Fleet
didn't know it was sailing into a radioactive emergency because
TEPCO intentionally underplayed it.  "They lied to the world and
told the world that there was no meltdown, that everything was
under control," Bonner said.

Honda and Wright are both plaintiffs in the lawsuit.  For at least
the first few days to a week of Operation Tomodachi, the sailors
say no one aboard ship took any extra radiation protection
measures.  Honda remembers when the Navy started changing
protocols:  "One of the helos took off and when it came back like
they quarantined the whole area by my shop, like my shop was
Ground Zero."

Sometime after that, Wright and Honda say every top-side sailor
had to wear extra booties and gloves and get scanned for radiation
before entering the ship below.  Wright remembers one time the
machines went crazy while scanning the pants he was wearing.

"It was just being all like beep, beep, beep, beep beep," he said.
And when the scanners went crazy, that meant the radiation
technicians would confiscate whatever was hot, "Yes, I lost my
pants.  Other people lost boots, coats, probably a mixture of
everything."

Neither Wright nor Honda worried, saying the Navy continuously
reassured them.  Honda adds, "they said onboard you know, it was
no big deal."

But right after Tomodachi, Honda says he started experiencing
frequent migraines and unexplained fatigue which he'd never
suffered from before.  And he says his doctor told him he has
several discs degenerating at an unusual rate.

"Mine are degenerating rapidly compared to people in my age group
and it's not something that is normal for people my age to have,"
he said.

Within a month of Operation Tomodachi, Ron Wright, now a civilian,
says he started experiencing painful swelling in his groin.  He's
undergone three surgeries but expects to suffer pain the rest of
his life.  But even more frightening is Wright's diagnosis of
varicocele can lead to male infertility, leaving Wright's future
uncertain.

"I don't know what the long term effects can be," Wright said.

One of the biggest roadblocks to the class action lawsuit will
likely be the Department of Defense.  Though it's not a
participant in the suit, in a 2014 report to Congress the DOD said
it calculated doses for all sailors of the 7th Fleet and they
were, "well below Federal regulatory limits," and that it believes
it is, "implausible that these low-level doses are the cause of
the health effects," to sailors.

In a statement to KOMO 4 News, TEPCO referred us to the
conclusions of the DOD report, adding it appreciates, "the service
of all the men and women of the United States military who
provided the Japanese people with humanitarian and disaster
relief."


THOMAS LUCAS: Texan Convicted Over Fake Disney Park Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a jury on Feb. 13 convicted a
member of a Dallas-area real estate family of duping investors
with tales of a fake Walt Disney theme park and resort project.

The federal jury in North Texas deliberated less than a half day
in Sherman before convicting Thomas W. Lucas Jr. on all charges:
seven wire fraud counts and one count of making false statements
to the FBI.

Investors complained they overpaid for land in Collin and Denton
counties that they were told was on the fringes of the future
theme park.  In court documents, the investors said Mr. Lucas, 40,
of Plano, Texas, showed them fake and forged artist sketches,
maps, site plans and other documents related to "Frontier Disney
Dallas-Fort Worth" to dupe them.  The investors planned to flip
the land to developers at a profit when the Disney announcement
was made.

Numerous partnerships, joint ventures and limited liability
companies were set up to begin acquiring land in the area.
Prosecutors said that from 2006 to 2010, Lucas defrauded more than
50 investors out of about $14 million.

The Walt Disney Co., which has its headquarters in Burbank,
California, has repeatedly denied rumors that it planned to build
a theme park in North Texas.  However, prosecutors said Lucas told
potential investors he had a secret source who tipped him off
about the theme park.

Prosecutors said the identity of Lucas' secret source varied
depending on who he spoke to -- and when.  They said he identified
the person as a childhood or lifelong friend in some versions of
his story, but in other accounts described the individual as a
friend of a friend.

When the FBI questioned Mr. Lucas about the source in 2013, he
gave agents the name of a dead man, prosecutors said.

They said Mr. Lucas met the man, a Hurricane Katrina transplant
with a drug habit who worked odd jobs before committing suicide in
2012, at a North Texas methadone rehab clinic where the two were
receiving treatment.

Defense attorneys argued the investors were greedy and used Lucas
as a scapegoat for their bad deals.  His father, who was the only
defense witness called to testify, said his son had his own money
in the deals.

In a statement, Mr. Lucas' uncle Harry "Beau" Lucas said the land
parcels his nephew sold "are superior long-term investments."  He
said, however, that he and his family understand the investors'
anger because his nephew "manipulated relatives and associates in
his own family's company."


TITO TRANSMISSION: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Gonzalez Mercedes, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Tito Transmission Corp. d/b/a V.A. Automatic
Transmission Repairs and Vicente Amparo, Case No. 1:15-cv-01170
(S.D.N.Y., February 18, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours
per week.

The Defendants own and operate an automobile repair shop which
operates under the name V.A. Automatic Transmission Repairs
located at 1135 Webster Ave Bronx, NY 10456.

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


TL CANNON: Supreme Court Reverses Class Action Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that
plaintiffs employment lawyers breathed a collective sigh of relief
on Feb. 10, when a federal appeals court in New York reined in an
expansive view of U.S. Supreme Court precedent that would have
severely hobbled wage-and-hour class actions.

Siding with lawyers at Public Citizen, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit ruled that a lower court wrongly refused to
certify a class of employees claiming that Applebee's franchisee
T.L. Cannon Corp. short-changed them on pay.  The decision marks a
loss for T.L. Cannon and its defense lawyers at Littler Mendelson.
In blocking the workers' class action in 2013, U.S. District Judge
Thomas J. McAvoy in Binghamton, N.Y., invoked the Supreme Court's
2013 decision in Comcast v. Behrend, which, he ruled, precluded
class actions when the plaintiffs can't calculate damages on a
classwide basis.  The Second Circuit panel, however, found
Mr. McAvoy's reading of Comcast far too broad.

In Comcast, the Supreme Court concluded that an antitrust class
action shouldn't have been certified because individual damages
inquiries overwhelmed the common, classwide questions in the case.
On Feb. 10, the Second Circuit clarified that Comcast urges courts
to consider damages issues at the class certification stage, but
it doesn't bar class actions altogether whenever damages are
varied.

"Because we do not read Comcast as precluding class certification
where damages are not capable of measurement on classwide basis,
we reject the district court's sole reason for denying plaintiffs'
motion for class certification," Circuit Judge Christopher Droney
wrote for the three-judge appeals panel.

The ruling comes in one of two closely watched appeals dealing
with the application of Comcast to lawsuits alleging violations of
wage-and-hour laws.

Outside the T.L. Cannon case, the Second Circuit also considered
an appeal from Duane Reade Inc., which faces a lawsuit from
assistant store managers who claim they were stiffed on overtime
pay.  In the Duane Reade case, U.S. District Judge Paul Oetken in
Manhattan took a narrower view of Comcast -- he agreed to certify
a class, but left damages to be resolved individually.

With the district courts split, the Second Circuit accepted the
T.L. Cannon and Duane Reade appeals and heard the cases in tandem
in September.  Scott Michelman of Public Citizen argued for the
Applebee's employees, while Outten & Golden's Adam Klein argued
for the Duane Reade workers.  Littler's Craig Benson --
cbenson@littler.com -- handled arguments for both defendants.

The Second Circuit has now come down in favor of the plaintiffs
lawyers in both appeals.  In addition to the T.L. Cannon opinion,
the appellate court issued a summary order on Feb. 10 upholding
Judge Oetken's decision in the Duane Reade case.

Public Citizen's Michelman called the Second Circuit's decision a
significant win for workers.

"Had the lower court's interpretation prevailed, it would have
been virtually impossible to certify most wage-and-hour class
actions and consumer class actions," Mr. Michelman said in a
statement.


TOMMY BAHAMA: Recalls Shaker Sets Due to Laceration Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Tommy Bahama Group Inc., of Seattle, Wash., announced a voluntary
recall of about 1,700 Hula Girl Cocktail Shaker and Glass Set.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The glass shaker can break or shatter unexpectedly, posing a
laceration hazard.

The recall includes the Tommy Bahama Hula Girl Shaker & Glass Sets
sold with one glass 18-ounce shaker and two 8-ounce cocktail
glasses. The glass shaker has a stainless steel top, a green palm
tree decal and three decals of hula girls wearing red bikini top,
green grass skirts and yellow and red leis around their neck. The
two cocktail glasses have one dancing hula girl decal. The shaker
sets were sold in a yellow and light brown box with a white label
on the bottom of the package with the Tommy Bahama logo and
product style code TH31993 printed above the UPC code.

Tommy Bahama has received five reports of the glass shaker
breaking or shattering, including one report of a laceration
requiring stitches when the shaker broke during use.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/T5Fqy7.

The recalled products were manufactured in China by Willingham
Designs, of Park City, Utahand sold exclusively at Tommy Bahama
retail stores nationwide and online at www.TommyBahama.com from
September 2014 through January 2015 for about $50.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled Hula Girl
Shaker & Glass Set and contact Tommy Bahama for a full refund.


TRINIDAD DRILLING: Fails to Provide Layoff Notice, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard R. Sisney, Jr., Frank Fetters and Ryan Walker, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Trinidad
Drilling, LP, Case No. 5:15-cv-00132 (W.D. Tex., February 19,
2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide 60
days advance written notice in connection with recent Mass Layoffs
and Plant Closings at San Antonio, Texas, Woodward, Oklahoma and
Springtown, Texas single sites.

Trinidad Drilling, LP is a foreign limited partnership that
operates in the drilling and well servicing sectors of the oil and
gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
      BARON AND BUDD PC
      3102 Oak Lawn Ave-Ste 1100
      Dallas, TX 75219
      Telephone: (214) 521-3605
      Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
      E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Patino Law & Associates Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Uber and Lyft can add one more lawsuit to the pile of legal
troubles that have been mounting up for both companies over the
last year.  Patino Law & Associates on Feb. 10 disclosed that a
class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Florida against Uber Technologies and
Lyft, Inc. for failing to follow regulatory laws, deceiving the
public and its drivers about its business practices and
endangering the safety of the public at large.

The lawsuit against Uber and Lyft, which was filed on behalf of
the riding public, the physically disabled, taxi drivers and fee
for hire companies calls for injunctive relief for the protection
and safety of the general public and seeks to prohibit the two
entities from continuing to engage in rideshare transportation
services without a for-hire license, passenger service company
registration or certificate of transportation.

"These regulations exist to ensure that the vehicles that provide
us with transportation, be it a school bus, ambulance, taxi or any
other for-hire vehicle, are properly equipped and maintained and
that the drivers are well trained to ensure everyone's safety on
the road."

The lawsuit demands that Uber and Lyft work within the regulatory
scheme that was created by Miami Dade County through ordinances
and claims that their failure to do so jeopardizes the welfare of
the riding public in the following ways:

   The vehicles are not inspected.

   There is no record of vehicles being maintained.

   Drivers do not have for-hire chauffeur registration licenses
and identification.

   Criminal background checks are not being done through the
recognized and approved process.

Their insurance is not under the Florida Insurance Guaranty
Association (FIGA) insured network of companies and is therefore
not compliant with the Miami Dade County Code of Ordinances.

As defined by the Miami Dade County Code of Ordinances (MDCCO),
defendants Uber and Lyft are passenger service companies who hire
drivers to provide for-hire transportation services to consumers
through the use of a smartphone application, receiving a portion
of all profits rendered by said drivers.  To date, neither Uber or
Lyft have attempted to apply for nor have they received any form
of licensure from Miami-Dade County.

While their lack of regulatory compliance is certainly of
importance, more important are the implications that such
violations have on public safety.  One such example is Uber and
Lyft's misrepresentation of its available insurance coverage in an
attempt to lure customers to their service and undermine the
business of Plaintiffs and putative class.

"Innovation is one of the cornerstones of the American way of
life, but so is respect for the rule of law," said Ralph Patino,
founding member of Patino Law & Associates.  "Rule of law is
grounded on the perception that laws will be upheld when they are
violated -- regardless of the identity of the entity responsible
for such violations."


UNITED STATES: Polsky's Suit vs. IRS Commissioner Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In ROBERT POLSKY and LISA POLSKY v. DANIEL I. WERFEL, Acting
Commissioner, IRS, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-655, (E.D. Pa.), the
central and dispositive issue in this action is whether a
permanently and totally disabled child who is older than 17 and
qualifies as a dependent under section 152(c) of the Internal
Revenue Code ("IRC") also qualifies for the child tax credit under
section 24 despite the age limitation of seventeen in section 24.

The pro se plaintiffs, Robert and Lisa Polsky, parents of a
permanently and totally disabled child, claim that they have been
deprived of their right to due process under the Fourteenth
Amendment because the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS")
intentionally prevented them from appealing the disallowance of
the child tax credit ("CTC") for the years 2010 and 2011 to the
Tax Court. They contend that the IRS misapplied and misinterpreted
26 U.S.C. Sections 24 and 152 of the IRC. They believe that
because their daughter qualifies as a dependent under Section
152(c), she is also qualified as a dependent for a tax credit
under Section 24 regardless of her age.

Moving to dismiss the complaint, the Commissioner argues that the
Polskys are actually seeking a tax refund under 26 U.S.C. Section
7422. He contends that not only have they improperly named him as
a defendant, but they have also failed to state a claim under
Section 7422 because they do not qualify for a refund of the child
tax credit. The Commissioner further argues that to the extent the
Polskys' complaint can be construed as asserting a claim under 42
U.S.C. Section 1983 for a violation of their constitutional
rights, the court lacks jurisdiction because neither the United
States, the IRS nor the Commissioner can be sued under Section
1983.

District Judge Timothy J. Savage, in a February 23, 2015
memorandum opinion, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/dAhTdgfrom Leagle.com, ruled that "[w]hether it is a
claim of a constitutional violation or one for a tax refund, the
Polskys cannot prevail. If it is an action for a constitutional
violation, the Polskys cannot establish any constitutional injury
or damage to support a cause of action for deprivation of due
process. If it is a claim for a refund, they are not entitled to a
refund because they do not qualify for the tax credit. Therefore,
we shall grant the motion to dismiss the complaint."

ROBERT POLSKY, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

LISA POLSKY, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

UNITED STATES, Defendant, represented by ANNETTA FOSTER GIVHAN,
U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, BEATRIZ T. SAIZ, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE &
E. CHRISTOPHER LAMBERT, U.S. DEPT OF JUSTICE.


UNITED STATES: D.C. Circuit Revives Claims v. Dept of Commerce
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Judith Ann Wilson Rogers of the United States Court of
Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, reinstated claims in the
appealed case, JANET HOWARD, Appellee JOYCE MEGGINSON, Appellant,
v. PENNY SUE PRITZKER, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE, Appellee, NO. 12-5370, CONSOLIDATED WITH 12-5392 (D.C.
Cir.)

Janet Howard worked at the Department for 25 years, from 1983 to
2008, and Joyce Megginson began working there in 1971 and was
still an employee as of 2014. In February 1995, Howard and two
other employees filed an administrative class complaint alleging
Racial Discrimination against African Americans in the Department
of Commerce, as evidenced by low performance rating, continued
denial of promotion and awards, disparate treatment in job
assignment and environment, and disparate treatment in recognition
and training. They sought equitable and monetary relief. As the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulations
required, they filed the complaint with the Department, which, in
turn, referred the complaint to the EEOC for adjudication. In the
summer of 2000 plaintiffs-appellants obtained a favorable EEOC
ruling that called for further administrative consideration.

In December 2002, the Department moved to redefine the size of the
class. Howard opposed the motion. Eight months later, in August
2003, the ALJ summarily granted the motion. Howard moved for
reconsideration. When approximately eighteen months had passed
without a decision, despite having inquired and received
assurances that a decision would be rendered within months, class
counsel requested by letter of September 27, 2005, in view of the
decade that had elapsed since the initial charge was filed, that
the administrative class complaint be dismissed because the class
intended to file suit in federal court. On September 30, 2005, the
ALJ dismissed the class complaint.

Howard and Megginson, as two of 13 class representatives, filed a
civil action in federal court on October 5, 2005. It sought
relief, pursuant to Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Sections 2000e et seq.,
on behalf of the class and the class representatives, for race
discrimination and retaliation through injunctive relief,
including the affirmative restructuring of the Department's
selection and compensation procedures, training and other terms
and conditions of employment; back pay; front pay; compensatory
and nominal damages; and attorneys fees, costs and expenses.

On June 13, 2006, Howard and two other named class representatives
filed an amended complaint, dropping the class request for
compensatory damages and adding several individual claims. The
district court granted the Department's motion to strike the class
claims for failure timely to move for class certification and
denied the motion to dismiss the individual claims.

On December 11, 2007, Howard, Megginson, and Tanya Ward Jordan,
all named class representatives, filed a second amended complaint
alleging individual disparate impact claims under Title VII in
Count I and a claim under the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C.
Sections 710 et seq., on behalf of Jordan in Count II. The
district court dismissed Count II as devoid of factual allegations
and speculative and denied the Department's motion to dismiss
Howard's and Megginson's individual disparate impact claims for
failure to exhaust administrative remedies, as well as the
Department's motion to dismiss Megginson's claim as untimely
filed. It also denied the Department's motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim and for summary judgment. The district
court referred the case to a magistrate judge for settlement
discussions and appointed counsel.

When settlement efforts failed, Howard and Megginson moved on July
16, 2010 for leave to file a third amended complaint to add claims
related to disparate impact, a hostile work environment, and
retaliation. The Department moved to dismiss the complaint on the
ground that the six-year statute of limitations for non-tort suits
against the United States, 28 U.S.C. Section 2401(a), barred the
suit. The district court agreed, dismissing the second amended
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denying the
motion for leave to file a third amended complaint.

Howard and Megginson appealed.

Judge Rogers reversed the dismissal of the second amended
complaint and remanded the case to the district court. The
appellate court holds the view that the six-year statute of
limitations for suits against the United Stated, 28 U.S.C. Section
2401(a), does not apply to claims filed by federal employees
pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
Sections 2000e et seq., as amended.

A copy of Judge Rogers's judgment dated January 6, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/TrDncgfrom Leagle.com.

Elizabeth C. Bullock -- ebullock@jenner.com -- David W. DeBruin --
ddebruin@jenner.com -- Matthew S. Hellman -- mhellman@jenner.com -
- at JENNER & BLOCK; Matthew S. McKenzie --
matt@tannehillcarmean.com -- at TANEHILL, CARMEAN & MCKENZIE --
for Appellant

For Appellee:

Brian P. Hudak
Ronald C. Machen Jr.
R. Craig Lawrence
United States Attorney's Office
555 4th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Telephone: 202-252-7566

The panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit consists of Senior Circuit Judge Harry Thomas
Edwards and Circuit Judges Judith Ann Wilson Rogers and Janice
Rogers Brown


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Oral Arguments Set in Pension Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Association of BellTel Retirees, Inc. on Feb. 12 disclosed that
a three judge U.S. court of appeals panel was set to hear oral
arguments in the class action Lee v. Verizon, Case No. 14-10553,
regarding the transfer of 41,000 Verizon management retirees'
pensions into a single group annuity sponsored by Prudential
Insurance Company.  Arguments were set to be heard on February 4,
2015 at 9:00 a.m. Central Time, before the United States Court of
Appeals for the 5(th) Circuit in New Orleans.

Attorneys Curtis L. Kennedy of Denver and Robert E. Goodman, Jr.
of Dallas are representing the class of 41,000 Verizon retirees.
They originally filed a request for an injunction in November 2012
in an effort to block the transfer of retirees, but Chief Judge
Sidney Fitzwater of the Northern District of Texas allowed the
annuity transaction to move forward in December 2012.

"This case is being closely monitored by corporate pension
sponsors, pension fund managers, the annuity insurance industry
and ERISA legal professionals throughout the nation," retirees'
attorney Curtis L. Kennedy said, "Indeed the case will develop
ERISA law that will have repercussions on retiree pensioners
throughout the nation."

The retirees argue that the original court decision allowing the
transaction to go forward severely undermined federal ERISA law's
strict statutory duties and the rigor with which the United States
Congress intended the federal courts to monitor the conduct of
pension fiduciaries.

Verizon claimed that developed ERISA laws do not apply to its
decision to alter the Verizon Management Pension Plan, and then
proceeded with the annuity transaction.

"Although the retirees are still receiving the same monthly
payments, this pension stripping transaction replaces their
pensions with non-ERISA protected insurance annuities.  It strips
retirees of ERISA's protections and the Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation's uniform guarantee, putting their retirement income
stream at risk in the event of a personal bankruptcy," said
Association of BellTel Retirees -- http://www.belltelretirees.org
-- Chairman Jack Cohen, who was one of the 41,000 retirees whose
pension was spun-off.  "No one is arguing about the present
solvency condition of Prudential, but because of this transfer,
retirees are not safeguarded under the same protections as prior
to the transaction."

Retirees are concerned that if Prudential or a successor
experiences a default or asset shortfall, the previous federal
PBGC protection to which pensioners were entitled has been
replaced by a patchwork of insurance industry controlled state
guaranty associations, which are not pre-funded in the case of
catastrophic financial loss.  Insurance annuities are backed only
by varying coverage -- determined by state of residence -- from
$100,000 - $500,000, lifetime, per person cap.

Verizon also does not adequately refute the Association of BellTel
Retirees claim that the pension plan transfer was highly
discriminatory, nor does the corporation address the argument that
retirees were not consulted and given a fair choice in the matter.
Other companies transacting similar de-risking lift-outs, such as
General Motors and Ford, gave their retirees notice and a choice
of accepting a lump sum before they transferred their pension
plans to Prudential.

The case is: William Lee, Joanne McPartlin and Edward Pundt, as
Plan Participants and Beneficiaries of the Verizon Management
Pension Plan vs. Verizon Communications Inc., et al. (case # 14-
10553)


VERIZON ONLINE: Parties in "Sacchi" Case Directed to Arbitrate
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Sacchi brought a putative class action against Verizon Online
LLC and Does 1 through 100.  Verizon filed a motion to dismiss, or
in the alternative to stay and compel arbitration.

The Plaintiff did not terminate his Verizon internet service until
September 2014. As such, Verizon contended that Plaintiff has
accepted the terms of the Amended Agreement and that all of his
claims are covered by the arbitration provision.

District Judge Ronnie Abrams agreed in opinion and order entered
February 23, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/tqDIB0from Leagle.com.

Judge Abrams granted Verizon's motion to compel arbitration and
stayed the case pending the completion of arbitration.

The case is JOHN SACCHI, an individual, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VERIZON ONLINE LLC
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, NO. 14-CV-423-RA,
(S.D. N.Y.).

John Sacchi, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Seth Meisner --
rmeisner@bsrjlaw.com -- Berman, Sauter, Record & Jardim, P.C.,
Stephen John Simoni -- StephenSimoniLAW@Gmail.com -- Law Offices
of Stephen J. Simoni & Thomas Christopher Jardim, Berman, Sauter,
Record & Jardim, P.C.


WAL-MART STORES: Faces Class Action Over Herbal Supplements
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of George W. Cochran on Feb. 12 disclosed that it
is representing an Ohio resident in a federal class action lawsuit
filed in Akron against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., GNC Holdings, Inc.
and NBTY, Inc. (a manufacturer) over the alleged mislabeling and
adulteration of six popular herbal dietary supplements.  The
lawsuit was sparked by a study released by the New York attorney
general's office that found a total of four national retailers
were distributing "herbal dietary supplements" that did not
contain the herbal concentration advertised or included harmful
contaminants.  The study focused on the following herbal products:
Gingko Biloba, St. John's Wort, Ginseng, Garlic, Echinacea, and
Saw Palmetto.  Retailers distribute these supplements under the
following national brands:

WAL-MART     "Spring Valley"
GNC          "Herbal Plus"
TARGET       "Up & Up"
WALGREENS    "Finest Nutrition"

The lawsuit seeks triple damages for consumer fraud, deceptive
trade practices and unjust enrichment on behalf of all Ohio
citizens who purchased the products over the last four years.  It
also asks the court to order the retailers to correct the labeling
on all future bottles marketed and sold in the state of Ohio.  If
the class prevails, counsel will seek attorney's fees and
financial incentive awards for each plaintiff. Still needed are
individuals who bought these products from Target and Walgreens.

If you purchased one of these products in Ohio after February 15,
2011 and would like to be involved in the case, please contact
George W Cochran, Esq, at 330-626-5600 or email
lawchrist@gmail.com for a confidential interview.

          About the Law Offices of George W. Cochran

The law office of George W. Cochran has championed consumer class
action litigation for over 20 years.  In addition to manufactured
home park litigation, Mr. Cochran has prosecuted a variety of
cases alleging violations of state and federal consumer fraud
statutes.  He also serves as lead counsel in a federal class
action in Chicago that seeks to recover $100 million in fines
assessed against cash-paying users of the Illinois Tollway from
neighboring states.  A lifelong Ohio resident, Mr. Cochran now
maintains offices in Streetsboro and southern California.


WALGREENS: Bailey & Glasser Files Herbal Supplement Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The use of herbs and plants has been part of the healing arts for
thousands of years, and they have many widely accepted medicinal
uses.  Herbal supplements are also a huge business in the United
States, with $6 billion in annual sales, according to the American
Botanical Council.

But what if those supplements don't contain the beneficial herbs
they claim? That's the question John Hollis -- lead plaintiff in a
class action lawsuit filed against Walgreens by Bailey & Glasser
LLP -- must ask after learning that the Walgreens private label
supplements he's been buying for years were tested and found to be
made up of rice and other substitutes instead of the Ginkgo Biloba
claimed on the label.

On February 3, 2015, the New York Attorney General served cease-
and-desist letters to a number of retailers, including Walgreens,
after an investigation found that only 21 percent of tested
supplements actually contained DNA from the plants advertised on
the bottles.  Only 18 percent of Walgreens' "Finest Nutrition"
private label supplements had DNA matching their product labels.

Customers bought herbal supplements that claimed to be Ginkgo
Biloba, St. John's Wort, Garlic, Ginseng, Echinacea and other
herbs.  But instead, the supplements contained rice, allium,
dracaena, wheat and other fillers or contaminants -- none of which
were listed in the ingredients.  Some of the substituted fillers
and contaminants are allergens posing considerable health risks
that should have been disclosed to consumers.

These supplements are expensive, and consumers should have
confidence that they are buying something beneficial, not
worthless products that might actually contain allergens and other
contaminants.

The class action lawsuit was filed by attorneys Greg Porter and
Michael Murphy of Bailey & Glasser's Washington, D.C., office.

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


WALT DISNEY: March 26 Hearing Set for Class Action Motion
---------------------------------------------------------
Dominic Patten, writing for Deadline, reports that the animation
studios may want to see the consolidated class action against them
-- alleging anti-poaching and wage-fixing deals -- thrown out of
court, but the digital-artist plaintiffs say that's not gonna
happen.  "Each of Plaintiffs' federal and state causes of action
is timely," according to the response from David Wentworth,
Robert Nitsch Jr. and Georgia Cano to Disney, Sony, DreamWorks
Animation and other studios' motion to dismiss.  In their motion
of January 9, the toon companies cited the 4-year statute of
limitations in such matters.  They claimed that because the issue
has been known since 2009 (when a Department of Justice
investigation into similar dealings by high tech companies was
first reported) and the first lawsuit was filed on September 8
last year by former DWA visual effects artist Mr. Nitsch, math
proves their point.  That's bad math claim Wentworth, Mr. Nitsch
and Cano. Correspondingly, they want the motion to dismiss
effectively dismissed.

"Plaintiffs have presented a detailed Complaint which, taken as a
whole, demonstrates not only the existence of a conspiracy to
suppress compensation to employees in the animation and visual
effects industry, but also many overt acts by Defendants to
implement this conspiracy," says the February 9 opposition from
the trio.  "Plaintiffs further allege the steps that Defendants
have taken to ensure this conspiracy was discovered no earlier
than 2013, meaning that this suit was filed well within the
appropriate statute of limitations period."

"Plaintiffs diligently investigated their injuries once this Court
unsealed documents in the High-Tech litigation in 2013 and 2014,
which gave the first indication of Defendants' involvement in the
conspiracy," adds the 48-page federal court filing.  "Plaintiffs
promptly filed their Complaint thereafter."  A hearing on the
motion is scheduled for March 26 at the federal courthouse in
San Jose.

This probably is all rather amusing to presiding Judge Lucy H.
Koh.  The federal judge also was in charge of the High-Tech
Employee Litigation by 64,000 tech workers against Apple, Google,
Intel and Adobe that followed the DOJ investigation.  The
discovery process in that case first revealed the alleged antics
of the animation companies.  Last year, Judge Koh rejected the
tech giants' proposed $325 million settlement as too low.  It's
now under appeal.

Because of Judge Koh's detailed knowledge of the matter and the
players, Mr. Nitsch saw his case as related and asked on
September 16 for the judge to take it over.  She did so on
September 24 and took over the other two class actions cases as
well.  On December 2, the trio sought to have their cases merged.

Mr. Nitsch also filed paperwork rejecting DWA and other
defendants' attempt to compel arbitration on his case or a stay on
the overall case, based on the employment contract he signed when
at the Jeffrey Katzenberg-run studio from 2007 to 2011 -- in part.
"DreamWorks has no colorable argument that Mr. Nitsch must
arbitrate the entirety of his claims against it," notes a
February 9 memo in opposition.

"The language of the arbitration clause, properly read, does not
cover the claims in this case," the document argues.  "But
Plaintiffs recognize that -- as to Nitsch's claim against
DreamWorks for underpayment by DreamWorks -- Defendants'
interpretation is not groundless and must be decided by the
arbitrator.  But under no credible reading does the clause
encompass Mr. Nitsch's claim against DreamWorks for the amount he
was underpaid while employed by a different Defendant, Sony.  Nor
is there any reasonable argument that Mr. Nitsch's release upon
his departure from Sony applies to any Defendant other than the
Sony Defendants."  This part of the case will be addressed at what
could be a moot April 23 hearing in front of Judge Koh, depending
on what happens at that March 26 hearing.

Daniel A. Small -- dsmall@cohenmilstein.com -- of DC's Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC; Steve Berman of Seattle's Hagens
Berman Sobel Shapiro LLP; and Marc Seltzer of LA's Susman Godfrey
LLP are lead lawyers for the plaintiffs.  A collection of firms
including Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Covington and Burling, Orrick,
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Williams & Connolly plus McManis
Faulkner are representing the animation studios.


WATTS REGULATOR: Sued Over Defective Auto-Shutoff Connectors
------------------------------------------------------------
Curtis Klug, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Watts Regulator Company and Watts Water Technologies,
Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-00061 (D. Neb., February 19, 2015), arises
out of the Defendant's false and misleading advertising of its
FloodSafe(R) Auto-Shutoff Connectors as designed to protect
against catastrophic water damage caused by burst, broken or
ruptured water supply hoses and fittings, when in fact they
contain defective design and manufacturing that prematurely
fracture and fail at the automatic shut-off device on a routine
basis.

The Defendants manufacture and market a line of water supply
connectors known as FloodSafe(R) Auto-Shutoff Connectors, which
are used to supply water to common household fixtures and
appliances including faucets, toilets, washing machines,
dishwashers, and icemakers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
      Glen L. Abramson, Esq.
      Jeffrey L. Osterwise, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-4656
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      E-mail: scarson@bm.net
              gabramson@bm.net
              josterwise@bm.net

         - and -

     Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
     Lisa A. White, Esq.
     GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
     Bank of America Center
     550 Main Avenue, Suite 600
     Knoxville, TN 37902
     Telephone: (865) 247-0080
     Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
     E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
             lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com

        - and -

     Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
     Amy E. Keller, Esq.
     WEXLER WALLACE LLP
     55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Telephone: (312) 346-2222
     Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
     E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
             aek@wexlerwallace.com


WELLS FARGO: Appeals Court Upholds Reduction of Attorney's Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Collins of the Court of Appeals of California, Second
District, Division Four, affirmed the trial court's order reducing
the counsel fees in the case JENNIE NGUYEN, Plaintiff, v. WELLS
FARGO & COMPANY AND WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendants and
Respondents, SHENOI KOES, Movant and Appellant, NO. B256375 (Cal.
App.)

Jennie Nguyen was a former Wells Fargo employee who was named as a
defendant in a federal criminal complaint and subsequently
arrested, but was never indicted or convicted of any wrongdoing,
and the complaint against her was subsequently dismissed.

The Wells Fargo branch office where Nguyen worked was robbed at
gunpoint while she was on duty. Two Wells Fargo investigators
questioned Nguyen about the robbery as well as her prior arrest.
Wells Fargo subsequently terminated her, based on alleged
violations of Wells Fargo's Code of Ethics and Business Conduct
Policies. Nguyen alleged that after her termination Wells Fargo
refused to pay her for accrued vacation time.

Nguyen asserted class claims for violations of Labor Code section
432.7, violations of Code of Civil Procedure section 1786.53,
subdivision (b), unpaid wages, waiting time penalties, failure to
furnish timely and accurate wage statements, violations of
Business and Professions Code section 17200et seq. (UCL), and
violations of the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA). Nguyen also
asserted individual claims for wrongful termination in violation
of public policy, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, and defamation.

Nguyen filed a Second Amended Complaint adding plaintiff Merry
Cariaga. Plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Complaint in September
2012. This amendment added a new subclass, Subclass VI, defined as
"all Wells Fargo former California employees whose last date of
employment was after January 18, 2011, and were not timely paid
all final wages." Cariaga, on behalf of herself and Subclass VI
eventually settled the waiting time penalty claim and derivative
UCL and PAGA claims. The remainder of Nguyen's and Cariaga's class
and individual claims were dismissed.

In March 2009, Sossi Madzounian commenced a putative class action
in Los Angeles Superior Court against Wells Fargo. In November
2010, the parties reached a class-wide settlement of Madzounian's
section 203 claim for failure to pay wages timely upon
termination. The Madzounian court granted final approval of the
settlement in August 2012. Counsel for Madzounian was awarded
$1,186,151.67 in attorney fees, which was 33 percent of the common
fund. They expended 458.3 hours of time valued at $324,644.
Accordingly, counsel for Madzounian recovered attorney fees 3.34
times greater than the lodestar value of their labor.

Three years of litigation in the Nguyen/Cariaga case led to
pleading challenges, numerous discovery motions, and two
mediations. During the second mediation the parties settled the
claim for failure to pay wages timely upon termination under Labor
Code section 203 and the derivative UCL and PAGA claims. The other
class claims were dismissed without prejudice. The parties agreed
to a fund of $400,000 for the settling class. The parties also
agreed that Wells Fargo would separately set-aside $600,000 for
attorney fees, litigation expenses, and costs, and that the court
would decide Class Counsel's award. The $600,000 set-aside was not
part of the $400,000 settlement fund. Wells Fargo insisted and
stipulated that no portion of the $600,000 would go to the
settling class and that any funds remaining after the court's
award would revert to Wells Fargo.

Class Counsel filed a motion for attorney fees, litigation
expenses, and costs in February 2014, seeking an award of
$584,055.46 in attorney fees and $15,944.54 for litigation
expenses and costs -- the full $600,000 set aside by Wells Fargo
pursuant to the terms of the settlement. Class Counsel presented
multiple bases of support for a $600,000 award.

The court awarded attorney fees in the amount of $297,700
Class Counsel appealed the $297,700 attorney fee award.

Justice Collins affirmed the trial court's judgment and order and
concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
awarding attorney fee of $297,000.

A copy of Justice Collins's unpublished opinion dated January 6,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/DU46Wffrom Leagle.com.

Allan A. Shenoi -- ashenoi@shenoikoes.com -- Daniel J. Koes --
dkoes@koeslaw.com  -- Nneka Egbujiobi -- negbujiobi@shenoikoes.com
-- at Shenoi Koes, for Movant Appellant

Glenn L. Briggs -- gbriggs@kadingbriggs.com  -- Theresa A. Kading
-- tkading@kadingbriggs.com -- Lisa M. Fike --
Lfike@kadingbriggs.com  -- at Kading Briggs, for Respondents

The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Four
panel consists of Presiding Justice Norman L. Epstein, and
Justices Audrey B. Collins and Nora M. Manella.


WORK OUT WORLD: Law Firms Settle Class Action Membership Dues
-------------------------------------------------------------
Poulos LoPiccolo and The Wolf Law Firm on Feb. 12 disclosed that
on December 22, 2014, Judge LeBlon of the New Jersey Superior
Court in Middlesex County granted final approval to a class action
settlement brought against Work Out World for alleged violations
of several of New Jersey's consumer protection laws including the
Health Club Services Act, the Consumer Fraud Act, and the Truth-
in-Consumer Contract, Notice and Warranty Act.  The Wolf Law Firm
and Poulos LoPiccolo filed a class action complaint in May 2013 on
behalf of individuals that were victims of WOW's alleged practice
of charging New Jersey customers for additional membership dues
after they cancelled their membership contracts.  After intense
and prolonged negotiations, as part of the settlement, over 57,000
members or former members of WOW will automatically receive a
settlement check in the amount of approximately $50.00 as well as
two (2) freely transferrable 30-Day VIP Guest Passes that can be
used at any WOW location.

The settlement applies to all members or former members of WOW
that signed up for WOW membership on or after May 24, 2007 and
cancelled their membership in writing within the last thirty (30)
days of their initial membership period or later and were charged
membership dues for any subsequent month(s) whether or not they
used a WOW facility during the last month(s) for which they paid.
As part of the settlement, WOW will amend their cancellation
policy to fully comply with the New Jersey consumer protection
statutes and regulations by no later than 30 days after the
Effective Date, and that they will inform all current members of
the revised cancellation policy.

John Poulos of Poulos LoPiccolo PC, Co-Lead Class Counsel,
commented, "We are very happy that WOW did the right thing here
and not only agreed to compensate those that were wrongly charged
fees, but also agreed to amend their contracts for the benefit of
current and future WOW customers."   Andrew Wolf --
awolf@wolflawfirm.net -- of The Wolf Law Firm, Co-Lead Class
Counsel, stated, "members of the class are going to receive a
check in an amount equal to almost two months' worth of membership
dues -- that is a great result."

The case is Caruso and Brady v. Work Out World, et al., Docket No.
MID-L-3112-13.  Additional information can be found at the WOW
settlement website at www.wowsettlement.com
You can also contact Class Counsel at:

The Wolf Law Firm, LLC
Attn:  Caruso and Brady v. WOW
1520 U.S. Highway 130, Suite 101
North Brunswick, NJ  08902
732-798-8055

Poulos LoPiccolo, P.C.
Attn: Caruso and Brady v. WOW
1305 South Roller Road
Ocean, NJ 07712
732-757-0165


* Bill May Modify Colorado Construction Defects Law
---------------------------------------------------
The Coloradoan's Pat Ferrier and The Associated Press report that
a bill recently introduced in the Colorado Senate could modify the
state's construction defects law making it harder for condo owners
to sue builders for faulty work.

Current law -- which allows as few as two condo owners to bring a
class-action lawsuit against a builder -- was passed a decade ago
to protect consumers from unscrupulous builders and shoddy
construction during the nation's pre-recession building boom.

Developers say the ease with which homeowners can sue and the
threat of litigation has made it prohibitively expensive to
insure, build and sell condominiums.  That means many builders shy
away from condos, oftentimes the least expensive product to build
and the most affordable entry point into home-ownership.

Senate Bill 177, sponsored by Sens. Mark Scheffel and Jesse
Ulibarri and Reps. Brian DelGrosso and Jonathan Singer in the
House, would require construction complaints go to mediation
before a lawsuit is filed and would require a majority of
homeowners to agree to a suit.

It's legislation long sought by developers, builders, Realtors and
municipalities to help revive the condo market and create more
affordable housing options.

Tom Clark, CEO of the Metro Denver Economic Development
Corporation said "this bill is a pivotal piece to bringing
affordable, for-sale attached housing back into the marketplace.

"Thousands of Coloradans who are searching for an affordable home
will benefit without government subsidies," he said.  "While we
are focused on affordable condos, we are supportive of other
efforts to help those who have not yet benefitted with Colorado's
economic recovery."

Proponents of the current law say SB 177 would be a disaster for
homeowners who buy poorly built homes.  Jonathan Harris, president
of Build Our Homes Right, said the bill "makes it harder for
homeowners to protect their consumer rights."

Mr. Harris and other residents of The Point Condominiums in Denver
have been fighting their builder for about 10 years to resolve
water and drainage problems.  Mediation was fruitless, he said,
leaving the homeowners with few options.  "We didn't really have a
choice. It was either that or our properties were worthless."

The lack of inventory is driving condo prices up faster than
single-family homes, Realtor Larry Kendall said during The Group's
real estate forecast.  Between 2013 and 2014, single-family home
prices rose about 8 percent, he said, while condo prices jumped
more than 27 percent in Larimer County.

Opponents argue the decline in condo construction has less to do
with the construction defects law and more to do with the economic
recession, a drop in demand and millennials who aren't jumping
into the housing market as early as the previous generation.

A bill to slash the time period for homeowners to sue a builder
for faulty work was originally scheduled for a hearing on Feb. 10.
But that hearing has been delayed.

SB 177 has been assigned to the Business, Labor and Technology
committee.  No hearing date has been set.


* Canadian Securities Class Actions Growing, NERA Report Shows
--------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Fric, Esq. -- lfric@osler.com -- and Henry Ngan, Esq. --
hngan@osler.com -- of Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, reports that
on February 10, 2015, NERA published Trends in Canadian Securities
Class Actions: 2014 Update.

In the Canada Report, NERA found that the number of outstanding
Canadian securities class action cases has grown, as new filings
outpace settlements.  According to NERA, the docket now sits at 60
unresolved securities class actions representing more than $35
billion in total claims.

Meanwhile, south of the border, the U.S. Report found that average
settlement amounts have plummeted 38% to 61% as compared to last
year; measured by median amount, NERA notes that these settlement
numbers are the lowest in 10 years.

Canada Report: Summary of NERA's Findings

Litigation Risk -- Consistent with the average number of new cases
over the past five years, 11 new securities class actions were
filed in 2014. Of these, seven involved issuers listed on the
Toronto Stock Exchange ("TSX"), three involved issuers listed on
the TSX Venture Exchange ("TSX-V"), and one involved a non-
publicly listed company.  From 2009 to 2014, a total of 46 class
actions were filed against TSX-listed companies and nine against
TSX-V listed companies, representing an annual litigation risk of
approximately 0.5% and 0.7%, respectively, as determined by NERA
with reference to the number of listed companies during this
period.

Nature of Cases -- Similar to 2012 and 2013, each of the 11 new
cases filed in 2014 was a shareholder class action.  With the
exception of one, all of the newly filed securities class actions
involved claims under the secondary market civil liability
provisions of provincial securities acts.  Four of the 11 new
cases involved parallel class actions in the U.S., corresponding
to the trend that approximately half of all U.S. filings against
Canadian companies since 2006 were linked to a parallel claim in
Canada.

Industry Sectors -- Mining and oil and gas sectors continued to
account for a substantial share of new filings, with seven of the
11 new filings in 2014 implicating companies in the energy and
minerals sectors.  Cases involving companies in the financial
sector (excluding claims against companies who provided financial
services to reporting issuers) have declined in the last five
years.

Settlements -- Six Canadian securities class actions were settled
in 2014, matching the number of settlements in 2013 and doubling
the number of settlements in 2012.  Defendants in these cases
agreed to pay a total of approximately $38.4 million, averaging
out to $6.4 million per settlement.  In these cases, the
settlement amount was on average 13.8% of claimed compensatory
damages, however, NERA notes that these numbers may not accurately
reflect the plaintiffs' recovery of actual compensable losses, as
estimates of aggregate damages may ultimately differ significantly
from the initial claimed amount.

U.S. Report: Summary of NERA's Findings

Generally speaking, due to a much larger sample size and the
availability of data, the U.S. Report employed a more
sophisticated statistical analysis as compared to the Canada
Report.  For the purposes of this post, some of NERA's key
findings in the U.S. Report are summarized with observations about
comparisons that could be drawn between the two jurisdictions.

Litigation Risk -- Consistent with the average number of new cases
over the past six years, 221 securities class actions were filed
in federal courts in 2014.  With listing data from the three major
stock exchanges in the U.S., NERA calculated that the average
probability of a company being targeted by a securities class
action was 4.2% in 2014.

Industry Sectors -- In 2014, three sectors taken together
continued to account for more than half of primary defendants:
health technology and services (24%); finance (19%); and
electronic technology and services (13%).  In addition to being
implicated as primary defendants, companies in the financial
sector were also targeted as co-defendants.  In 2014, 32% of the
securities class actions filed had a defendant in the financial
sector, although this is a reversal of a trend where, between 2007
and 2013, filings involving a financial sector defendant steadily
declined from 67% to 23%.  Furthermore, although 30% of the
filings in 2014 had accounting allegations, only two named
accounting firms as co-defendants (0.9%, as compared to 10.6% in
2006).

Settlements -- Excluding settlements above $1 billion, average
settlements amounted to $34 million, representing a drop of 38%
from 2013.  Including settlements above $1 billion, average
settlements amounted to $86 million, representing a 61% from 2013.
The median settlement amount in 2014 was $6.5 million, the lowest
amount in ten years, as more than half of the settlements were
less than $10 million.  Adjusted for inflation, the 2014 median
was the third lowest since 1996.

Comparing the Two Jurisdictions
Although the sample size in Canada makes meaningful comparisons
difficult, one could observe based on NERA's findings that:

Not surprisingly given Canada's economic base, claims against
mining and resource companies make up a greater portion of
securities class actions.  Claims against financial companies
remain less prevalent, although it remains to be seen whether
claims against underwriters will increase in the future.

Average settlement size tends to be larger in the U.S. -- this may
reflect the size of the claims or other factors, such as
litigation exposure given the different legal regimes in the two
jurisdictions.

While the number of outstanding cases has grown, the number of new
filings appears to be relatively stable in Canada.  This suggests
that the carrying capacity of plaintiff-side counsel is
increasing.


                             *********

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  * * *