CAR_Public/150306.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Friday, March 6, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 47


                             Headlines

ADVENT SOFTWARE: Being Sold for Too Little to SS&C, Suit Claims
ALIBABA GROUP: Faces "Chao" Suit Alleging Securities Violations
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Blain" Suit in Ind. Over Alleged Data Breach
APOTEX INC: Recalls Apothecare (APC) Bisacodyl Tablets
APPLE INC: Beach Road Files Class Action Over Pre-1972 Recordings

APPLE INC: 2nd Circuit to Hear Price-Fixing Suit This Month
ARIZONA: Deal Between Corrections Dept. & Inmates Okayed
AURORA HUTS: Judge Denied Bid to Dismiss "Mielo" Suit
AUTO CLUB GROUP: E.D. Mich. Judge Denied Class Certification
BRAZOS ROCK: Faces "Lewis" Suit in Texas Alleging FLSA Violations

BROWN COMMUNITY: Accused of Illegal Conduct Over Fund Transfer
BURBERRY LIMITED: Faces "Citizen" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CADILLAC MOTOR: Recalls ATS 2013 Models Due to Injury Risk
CAMDEN COUNTY, NJ: Hires Manager to Deal With Jail Overcrowding
CAN-AM: Recalls Spyder RT 2013 Models Due to Burn Risk

CHELSEA INVESTMENT: Sued by Minors Over Violations of Housing Act
CHRYSLER: Recalls 200 2015 Models Due to Injury Risk
CITY FISH: Recalls Candy Smoked Salmon Products Due to Listeria
CLEANNET USA: Court Orders "Estrada" Case Parties to Arbitrate
COLLECTION TECHNOLOGY: Sued in Florida Over Violations of EFTA

COMMUNITY HEALTH: "Veciana" Suit Moved From Florida to Alabama
COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
CONNIE GIPSON: Court Dismisses "Brown" Suit With Leave to Amend
CVS PHARMACY: Removes "Patel" Class Suit to C.D. California
DEEP CANADA: Recalls Masala Mixed Spices Due to Undeclared Sesame

DOLLAR TREE: Faces "Frizzell" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
DOLLAR TREE: Faces "Frizzell" 2nd Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
ELITE SALADS: Recalls White Fish Duet to Clostridium Botulinum
ENDO HEALTH: "Mahaffay" Suit Moved From California to Illinois
FOREST RIVER: Recalls XLR 2015 Models Due to Safety Hazard

FREIGHTLINER TRUCKS: Recalls 2015 Models Due to Safety Hazard
FUEL FOODS: "Gross" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
GENCOR NUTRIENTS: "Ryan" Suit Moved From N.D. to C.D. California
GOVSIMPLIFIED LLC: Removes "O'Brien" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
HEIL TRAILER: Recalls 2000 Petroleum Pull Trailers

HERBALIFE INT'L: Former Distributors to Oppose Class Action Deal
J.P. MORGAN: N.D. Cal. Judge Dismissed RICO Claim in "Ellis" Case
JAMES BOMBECK: Removes G&J Suit to Middle District of Florida
JAPAN: Survivors of 1945 Hiroshima Bombing File Class Action
JUNTOS INC: Faces "Rojas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

KIA MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Optima Door Lock Problems
KMART CORPORATION: Faces First Choice Suit Over Data Breach
KMART CORPORATION: Faces Gulf Coast Suit in La. Over Data Breach
KNIGHTS' MARINE: "Fairley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
KNUDSEN & SONS: Lies About Blueberry Pomegranate Juice, Suit Says

KOREA EXCHANGE: Faces Suit Over Carbon Emissions Quota
LABORATOIRE RIVA: Recalls RIVA-Olanzapine Tablets
LABORATOIRE RIVA: Recalls RIVA-Olanzapine Tablets
LAKE LAND: Recalls Smoked Trout & Arctic Char Products
LAND ROVER: Recalls 2015 Range Rover Sport Models

LAND ROVER: Recalls Multiple Models Due to Safety Hazard
LAND ROVER: Recalls Multiple Models Due Non-Compliance
LEIGHTON HOLDING: Conceals Financial Black-Hole, Exec Alleges
LENOVO INC: Faces Sterling Int'l Suit Over Preinstalled Spywares
LIFE SCIENCE: Recalls Ironkids Gummies due to Missing Labels

LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Court Appoints Coyler as Lead Plaintiff
MAJOR LEAGUE: Judges Wants Class Members Linked to California
MANGOS STEAKHOUSE: "Jimenez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
MARION COUNTY, IN: Faces Class Action Delayed Jail Releases
MAXWELL & MORGAN: Sued for Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act

MAYPORT C & C: Faces "Cowen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MEDICAL CAREER: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims
MILLPOND FARM: "Mendez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
MINNESOTA: Trial Begins in Sex Offender Program Class Action
MINNESOTA: Class Action Mulled Over Mismanaged Disability Funds

MYCOIN: Investors Mull Class Action Over "Ponzi Scheme"
NATIONAL CREDIT: IFS et al. Dropped From "Gerstle" Suit
NESTLE PURINA: 7th Cir. Flips Dist. Court Ruling in "Adkins" Case
NICKLES BAKERY: Ohio Route Sales Drivers File OT Class Action
NORDSTROM INC: Class Cert. Bid in "Ogiamien" Case Denied

PARAMOUNT CITRUS: Faces "Peralta" Class Suit in E.D. California
PASADENA, CA: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Tax Payers Funds
PATTIES FOODS: Raspberries Recalled Over Hepatitis A-Link
PATTIES FOODS: Class Action Over Frozen Berries Looms
PERRY JOHNSON: Court Stays Case Pending Arbitration Result

PHILADELPHIA, PA: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of Civil Rights
PHOENIX TECHNOLOGY: "Bechtloff" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
PIMA COUNTY, AZ: Faces Class Action Over Foster Child Abuses
PIZZA HUT: Faces FCRA Class Action Over Background Reports
PHARMASCIENCE INC: Recalls PMS-Olanzapine Tablets

PHILIPS LIFELINE: Recalls Neck Cords Due to Strangulation Hazard
PRO DOC: Recalls Multiple Olanzapine Tablets
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Class Action Over Landfill Odors Stalls
QUADRA GROUP: Has Sent Unsolicited Faxes, New United Suit Claims
SANDOZ CANADA: Recalls Polytopic Creams

SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Accused of Violating Communications Act
SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT: Accused of Discrimination by Macedonian Engr.
SOBEYS INC: Recalls Compliments Fruit Cocktail in Light Syrup
SPRING LAKE PARK, MN: To Implement Traffic Education Program
SQUARETWO FINANCIAL: Sued Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices

STELLENBOSCH UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Over Garnishee Orders
STRATASYS LTD: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
STRATEGIC PARASECURITY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
SYNCHRONY BANK: Discovery on Jurisdiction in Gym Suit Ordered
TAKATA CORP: 3 Suits From E.D. Louisiana Included in Airbag MDL

TAKATA CORP: "Arnold" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL
TAKATA CORP: "Considine" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL
TAKATA CORP: "Leger" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL
TAKATA CORP: Three Suits From Pennsylvania Included in Airbag MDL
TATITLEK SUPPORT: Removes "Chalupa" Class Suit to C.D. California

TEXAS BRINE: Wants to Halt Evacuation Assistance Check Payments
TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls 2015 Yaris Due to Injury Risk
TRINITY UNIVERSAL: Court Tosses Bid to Remand "Burton" Class Suit
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: California Court Rulings Ominous, Atty. Says
UNITED COLLECTION: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

UNITED INSURANCE: Denial of Bid to Compel Arbitration Upheld
UNITED KINGDOM: 500 Investors Join Class Action Against FCA
UNITED STATES: VA to Help Homeless Vets in L.A. After Settlement
VAUGHN ENERGY: "Wedel" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
VICTORY CHRISTIAN: "Mauldin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT

VITEL COMMUNICATIONS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
WA ANGELS: Former Players Mull Wage Suit Against Owner
WET SEAL: Appellate Court Dismissed Challenge to Discovery
WILLIAM SONOMA: Suit Over Unpaid OT Sent Back to Superior Court
YAMAHA MOTOR: Recalls Shark RAW Helmets Due to Non-compliance

* Central European Borrowers Mull Suit Over Swiss Franc Loans
* Clinic Launches Registry to Track Illegal Billing Practices
* Huge Jury Verdicts Foretell Bad News for Carmakers
* Transport Canada Recalls Certain Vehicles Due to Crash Risk
* Transport Canada Recalls Certain Vehicles Due to Incorrect Info


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Continues to Defend Stearns Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Continues to Defend Falk Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Corp. Has 41,000 AO Respiratory Claimants
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Trezza" Suit Remanded to Missouri State Court

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens' Bid to Exclude Testimony in PI Suit OK'd
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Reconsider Fibro Summary Judgment Granted
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fraser's Bid to Dismiss "McCrossin" Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Dismiss Appeal in NY PI Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurer Can't Annual Eagle & USF&G Settlement

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Cos. Obtain Summary Judgment in "Laurent" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Humphries" Suit Remanded to La. State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford's Summary Judgment Win in PI Suit Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 62 Cos. Dropped as Defendants in "Desimone" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5th Cir. Affirms Ruling in Anco's Insurance Suit


                            *********


ADVENT SOFTWARE: Being Sold for Too Little to SS&C, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling Advent
Software too cheaply through an unfair process to SS&C
Technologies, for $44.25 a share or $2.3 billion, shareholders
claim in Delaware Chancery Court.


ALIBABA GROUP: Faces "Chao" Suit Alleging Securities Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alibaba founder Jack Ma made $867 million selling shares in its
IPO, without disclosing a host of problems, including counterfeit
sales, fraud, bribery and inadequate controls, a shareholder
claims in a class action.

Lead plaintiff Myrtle Chao sued the Alibaba Group, Ma, and three
other company officers on Feb. 16 in Federal Court.  This is the
fifth shareholder class action filed this year in U.S. courts
against Alibaba, the Chinese eBay, according to the Courthouse
News database.  It also faces a welter of previous lawsuits
accusing it of selling counterfeit goods.

Alibaba created a tizzy on Wall Street when it began offering its
stock in September 2014.  It calls itself "the largest online and
mobile commerce company in the world in terms of gross merchandise
volume."

Chao claims the defendants made false and misleading statements in
SEC filings, news releases and in conference calls with investors.
She claims that Alibaba did not disclose that in July 2014, two
months before its IPO, China's main corporate regulator, the State
Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC), had given the
company "'administrative guidance' about counterfeit and
contraband goods sold over its platforms as well as other illegal
activity, including widespread fraudulent transactions, the taking
of illegal commercial bribes by Alibaba employees, and inadequate
controls to prevent illegal sales and other improper activities."

Chao claims that during the IPO, Alibaba, Ma and other insiders
sold more than 368 million American Depository Shares at $68,
raising more than $25 million.

Ma sold 12.75 million shares for $867 million, and defendant vice
chairman of the board Joseph Tsai sold 4.25 million shares for
$289 million, the complaint states.

The SAIC posted a "white paper" on its web page on Jan. 28, with
information about the administrative guidance it had given Alibaba
in July, including accusations of "grossly inadequate and weak
internal controls," commercial bribery and fraud, the complaint
states.  The SAIC white paper was posted in Chinese.

The Wall Street Journal and other financial media published
translations from the report before the marker opened on Jan. 28,
and Alibaba shares sank by $4.49 that day, or 4 percent, to close
at $98.45, the complaint states.

Alibaba shares were trading at $87.08 at around 8 a.m. on February
18.  Its market high was $120, on Nov. 13, 2014.

Chao claims that despite Alibaba's representations, its business
model is "dependent upon counterfeit sales, trademark violations,
sales made through pyramid schemes, false advertising and taking
bribes to give sellers preferential treatment.

Chao seeks class certification, damages for securities violations,
and costs.

Also named as defendants are CEO Jonathan Zhaoxi Lu and CFO Maggie
Wei Wu.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Long Z. Liu, Esq.
          THE LIU LAW FIRM
          923 E. Valley Boulevard, Suite 110
          San Gabriel, CA 91776
          Telephone: (626) 927-9009
          Facsimile: (815) 331-0657
          E-mail: office@theliulawfirm.com


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Blain" Suit in Ind. Over Alleged Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Francine Blain, Nicholas Kalfa, Corinne Bernstein, and Freda Bein
Muldoon, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. Anthem, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00288 (S.D. Ind., February 20,
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:

      Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
      Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
      Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
      Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq.
      COHEN & MALAD LLP
      One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
      Indianapolis, IN 46204
      Telephone: (317) 636-6481
      Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
      E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com
              ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
              rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
              sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com


APOTEX INC: Recalls Apothecare (APC) Bisacodyl Tablets
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 18, 2015
Posting date: February 25, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Drugs
Hazard classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-43829

Non-medicinal ingredients not listed on the label.

Affected products: Apothecare (APC) Bisacodyl
                   DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
                   DIN 02374943
Dosage form: Tablets (Delayed-release)
Strength: 5 mg
Lot or serial number: MC8485
Recalling Firm:  Apotex Inc.
                 150 Signet Drive
                 Toronto
                 M9L 1T9
                 Ontario
                 CANADA
Marketing Authorization Holder: Apotex Inc.
                                150 Signet Drive
                                Toronto
                                M9L 1T9
                                Ontario
                                CANADA


APPLE INC: Beach Road Files Class Action Over Pre-1972 Recordings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patently Apple reports that late on Feb. 13, a new Class Action
lawsuit was filed by Beach Road Music against Apple and Beats
Electronics.  Beach Road Music notes in their filing that it
manages over 3,000 musical copyrights, recorded music rights, name
and likeness rights, trademarks, video assets, and life rights for
the estates of Nat King Cole, Peggy Lee, and Bing Crosby.  They
allege that Apple and Beats unlawfully use pre-1972 recordings in
their respective music streaming services without license.

Nature of the Action

The following is directly from the Class Action document filed
with the court by Beach road Music LLC regarding the Nature of
their Action:

"This putative class action involves all musical performances that
were originally 'fixed' i.e., recorded -- prior to February 15,
1972 ("Pre-1972 Recordings") that are subject to California, New
York, or Florida law.

Since January 21, 2014, Beats has operated a service that streams
music to consumers known as Beats Music.  Beats Music is available
on a consumer's internet browser and applications for computers
and peripherals (e.g., iPhones, iPods, iPads, and Android-based
devices).

Since September 18, 2013, Apple has operated a service that
streams music to consumers known as iTunes Radio.  iTunes Radio is
available on a consumer's internet browser and applications for
computers and peripherals (e.g., iPhones, iPods, iPads, and
Android-based devices).  Beats Music and iTunes Radio will
collectively be referred to as Defendants' music services.

In order to stream sound recordings on their music services,
Defendants have made copies of these sound recordings on their
servers.  Defendants' music services stream Pre-1972 Recordings
that Defendants have not obtained the recordings' owners'
permission to stream and that Defendants have not paid royalties
or licensing fees to the recordings' owners.  Yet, Defendants have
profited from its streaming of Pre-1972 Recordings in the form of
subscription fees collected from its users and advertising revenue
it collects from advertising partners.

The Defendants' streaming of Pre-1972 Recordings without a
license: (a) violates California Civil Code Sec. 980(a)(2) and
California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Secs.
17200, et seq., ("UCL"); (b) constitutes misappropriation and
conversion under California, New York and Florida law; and (c)
constitutes infringement of common law copyrights under New York
and Florida law.  Defendants' improper conduct also violates
Florida's law prohibiting statutory theft (Fla. Stat.
Sec. 812.014), which is redressable under Florida's civil theft
statute (Fla. Stat. Sec. 772.11); an appropriate pre-filing demand
in connection with this claim will be sent to Defendants.
Plaintiff will amend this complaint to add a civil theft claim
under Florida law if that demand is rejected.

Plaintiff Beach Road is the legal owner to a library of Pre-1972
Recordings ("Plaintiff's Recordings"), at least one of which
Defendants have reproduced, distributed, or performed on Beats
Music and iTunes Radio without payment of royalties or licensing
fees to Beach Road.  Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of
itself and all other similarly-situated owners of Pre-1972
Recordings that Defendants have reproduced, distributed, or
performed on their music services without paying royalties or
licensing fees."

The Parties

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

Defendant Apple is a California corporation with its principal
place of business at 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, California 95014.
In June of 2013, Apple introduced a streaming music service called
iTunes Radio, which it makes available both in the United States
and abroad. the service allows listeners to access many thousands
of songs and permits the user to create customizable "radio
stations."

Defendant Beats is a Delaware limited liability company with its
principal place of business at 81 Infinite Loop, Cupertino,
California 95014.  Beats offers a streaming service with over 20
million songs in its music catalog. Beats has been a subsidiary of
Apple since August 1, 2014.


APPLE INC: 2nd Circuit to Hear Price-Fixing Suit This Month
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Wall Street Journal reports that Apple is developing smart
watches as its next tech product, even if the Justice Department
is still litigating the iPad tablet.  The better development is
that the antitrust assault on the company is showing cracks.

This month the Second Circuit Appeals Court hears a challenge to
the special monitor who was imposed on Apple for its alleged
price-fixing violations.  In 2013 federal Judge Denise Cote ruled
that allowing consumers to read e-books on the iPad was an
antitrust conspiracy between Apple and the big publishers.  She
then commissioned lawyer Michael Bromwich to police Apple's
antitrust compliance.

Mr. Bromwich has since charged Apple in excess of $2.65 million
for his services through January, conducted some 80 interviews
with executives and staff, and made 10 fact-finding missions to
California.  According to billing records and his semiannual
reports to Judge Cote, which we reviewed, there are new reasons
for the Second Circuit to sack Mr. Bromwich and end what is a
major abuse even by the standards of modern antitrust.

Companies generally consent to special masters when they reach
negotiated settlements, but Apple never admitted liability and
Mr. Bromwich was embedded over the company's objections, not least
because of his long-time political connections to Judge Cote.  The
fixer-for-hire had no prior antitrust experience but does have the
dubious honor of being the first and only involuntary monitor ever
in civil antitrust litigation.

Judge Cote justified this unusual arrangement by holding that
Apple's alleged price-fixing was so egregious that an in-house
monitor was the only remedy.  When the Second Circuit heard oral
arguments in a separate appeal on the antitrust merits in late
December, deputy solicitor general Malcolm Stewart also argued
that Apple's new e-books business model was a "classic" and "per
se" -- or inherently illegal -- antitrust infraction.

But the three-judge panel didn't think it was obvious at all.
They pointed out that Amazon controlled 90% of the e-book market
when the iPad debuted and "so what we are talking about is a new
entrant providing additional competition that is breaking the hold
of a monopolist," as Judge Dennis Jacobs put it.  Some of the more
amusing excerpts from the exchange are nearby.

Pressed further, Mr. Stewart retreated to the mere existence of
Judge Cote's ruling.  "We would concede that there is no smoking
gun email in the record," he said, "but if there had been a
smoking gun email the district court wouldn't need to write a 160-
page opinion."

In fact, Judge Cote cited "powerful direct evidence corroborated
by compelling circumstantial evidence" that "leads inextricably to
the finding that Apple chose to join forces with the publisher
defendants to raise e-book prices and equipped them with the means
to do so." She also called this evidence "overwhelming,"
"abundant" and "voluminous."  But if it is all so self-evident,
why couldn't Mr. Stewart now say the same?

In March, Apple will argue that Mr. Bromwich's appointment is
illegal and unconstitutional, and rightly so.  Article III judges
can appoint agents to carry out judicial duties on their behalf.
But these servants of the court must be impartial like judges, and
not exceed the powers of the judiciary itself, such as by
conducting quasi-prosecutorial investigations.  For this reason,
both the Justice Department and Judge Cote claim that
Mr. Bromwich's role is limited to merely reviewing Apple's
antitrust compliance and training measures.

But the order also includes a clause "to deal with situations in
which the monitor, without looking for violations, stumbles upon
one," as Mr. Stewart explained it.  The problem is that
Mr. Bromwich has been stumbling all around Cupertino to conduct a
roving, unfettered inquisition into Apple's business, as his own
records show and the details of which have not been previously
reported.

In one April 2014 document, Mr. Bromwich complains that he is
treated by Apple "as an adversary and an interloper, rather than a
court officer with a defined mission specified by the Final
Judgment."  The result is that he lacks "a full understanding of
Apple's corporate structure, a specific understanding of the
functions of each business unit and sub-business unit, and a
sufficient understanding of the division of responsibilities among
categories of Apple employees."

Mr. Bromwich gains a "much better understanding of Apple's
business organization and operations" in an October 2014 update as
he is given access to all senior executives with the exception of
the design and marketing divisions.  He even probes units such as
Siri voice recognition, the maps group and hardware engineering.
None of this is relevant to antitrust.

As for Mr. Bromwich's narrow "defined mission," he finds that the
live or online antitrust training sessions that are mandatory for
5,000 employees are insufficient because they do not "acknowledge,
dissect, and discuss past cases in which Apple was involved."
Apparently he wants these seminars to be encounter groups in which
Apple workers come to terms with misdeeds they vigorously deny.

Mr. Bromwich believes that "the tone must be established at the
top and transmitted throughout the company on a continuing basis
by word and deed," and thus he requests to attend in person a
June 2014 antitrust workshop conducted by the superlawyer David
Boies for the 10 senior-most executives. Citing attorney-client
privilege, Apple provides him with a redacted video instead.
Mr. Bromwich is displeased.

Another grievance is that Apple refuses to provide him the agendas
and minutes from the executive team's regular Feb. 16 meeting, or
from the Apple board's audit and finance committees.  Mr. Bromwich
calls it "surprising and disappointing" that members of the board
aren't provided with copies of his musings "as something relevant
to consider in the discharge of its oversight responsibilities."

Mr. Bromwich's main demand is that Apple conduct a rolling
"antitrust risk assessment" in order to "identify those businesses
and employees that require the most attention and the specific
antitrust issues that merit emphasis."  The substance of this
systematic internal audit would then be turned over to him to
decide if the antitrust program is "sufficiently comprehensive and
effective for Apple."

But Apple has good reason to wonder if Mr. Bromwich can be trusted
with such confidential, privileged business information, given his
extensive ex parte communications with Apple's litigation
adversaries.  Those include the Justice Department as well as the
plaintiff states and class-action attorneys who are suing Apple
for nearly $800 million in antitrust damages.

Mr. Bromwich's invoices to Apple, which were initially redacted,
show that for at least four months he was closely collaborating
with DoJ lawyers and state Attorneys General.  He puts in three
hours on Oct. 21, 2013, for example, with an entry to "prepare for
call w state AGs; Conf call w CT, NY and TX AGs."  He notches 5.75
hours on Nov. 15, 2013 on matters such as "conf call w DOJ and
States re CA trip," and 2.75 hours on Dec. 29, 2013 on "review DOJ
draft brief in opposition to motion to stay."

That last one refers to Apple's first attempt to remove
Mr. Bromwich; in other words, he wasn't acting as a neutral court
officer but as an agent of the prosecution -- and then charging
Apple for his trouble.  Mr. Bromwich bills at $1,100 an hour.
Apple can be forgiven for seeing him as an adversary and
interloper, because he is.

Apple might have settled long ago as most corporations do, and
that option might even have been cheaper than a protracted appeal.
But the company is doing a public service by attempting to
vindicate a legal principle and brake the growing abuse of court-
appointed monitors and a crank theory of antitrust that will harm
many more innovators if it is allowed to stand.  If Apple prevails
in the Second Circuit, it ought to sue Mr. Bromwich and attempt to
disgorge the $2.65 million he has soaked from shareholders.


ARIZONA: Deal Between Corrections Dept. & Inmates Okayed
--------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge
on February 18 approved a settlement agreement between the Arizona
Department of Corrections and inmates in its 10 state-run prisons,
which should improve medical care for prisoners.

Under the settlement , the Arizona Department of Corrections ask
the Legislature for increased funding for health care staffing and
institute plans to treat prisoners with chronic diseases.  The
agency, which admitted no wrongdoing, will also give annual flu
shots and provide colon cancer screenings and mammograms to
inmates of a certain age.  Corrections officers are to refrain
from using pepper spray on prisoners unless there is an "imminent
threat" present.

The settlement comes after a 2012 class action in which inmates
claimed they were subjected to "unnecessary pain and suffering,
preventable injury, amputation, disfigurement and death" in
Arizona prisons.  They also claimed prison staffs were ill-
prepared and -trained to handle medical emergencies.

U.S. District Judge David Duncan approved the settlement, and
authorized Arizona to pay class attorneys $4.9 million in legal
fees.  He also required the settlement to be placed in each prison
library.

                           *     *     *

In a prior report, Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service related
that, according to the complaint, prison staff were not properly
trained to handle medical emergencies, "and as a result of this
failure to respond properly and timely to emergencies, prisoners
suffer avoidable harm and injuries, including unnecessary deaths."
There are more than 33,000 prisoners in the 10 prisons.

"Critically ill prisoners have begged prison officials for
treatment, only to be told 'be patient,' 'it's all in your head,'
or 'pray' to be cured," the complaint stated.  "Despite warnings
from their own employees, prisoners and their family members, and
advocates about the risk of serious injury and death to prisoners,
defendants are deliberately indifferent to the substantial risk of
pain and suffering to prisoners, including deaths, which occur due
to defendants' failure to provide minimally adequate health care,
in violation of the Eighth Amendment."

The Department of Corrections, without admitting wrongdoing,
agreed to take a number of measures to improve conditions in the
prisons, including petitioning the Arizona Legislature to increase
funding for health care staffing, administering annual flu shots,
and properly treating prisoners with chronic diseases.

Prisoners between the ages of 50 and 75 will receive colon cancer
screenings, and female prisoners 50 and older will be offered
mammograms every two years unless more frequent screenings are
required on the prisoner's medical chart.

Under the settlement, pepper spray will be used on "seriously
mentally ill" inmates in case of an "imminent threat" to the
safety of prisoners or prison security.

The prisons must provide inmates who are not fluent in English
with interpreters, and accommodations must be made for prisoners
who suffer "heat intolerance" reactions to medications by moving
them to cells that do not get hotter than 85 degrees.

The state will allow the prisoners' attorneys 20 "tour days" of
the prisons each year, and they will have access to Department of
Corrections' records to help monitor compliance with the
agreement.

After four years, Arizona can petition to terminate the
settlement.  The agreement does not provide the prisoners with
monetary damages, but Arizona must pay their attorneys $4.9
million in legal fees.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Donald Specter, Esq.
          Alison Hardy, Esq.
          Sara Norman, Esq.
          Corene Kendrick, Esq.
          Warren E. George, Esq.
          PRISON LAW OFFICE
          1917 Fifth Street
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 280-2621
          E-mail: dspecter@prisonlaw.com
                  ahardy@prisonlaw.com
                  snorman@prisonlaw.com
                  ckendrick@prisonlaw.com
                  wgeorge@prisonlaw.com

               - and -

          David C. Fathi, Esq.
          Amy Fettig, Esq.
          Ajmel Quereshi, Esq.
          ACLU NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT
          915 15th Street N.W., 7th Floor
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 548-6603
          E-mail: dfathi@npp-aclu.org
                  afettig@npp-aclu.org
                  aquereshi@npp-aclu.org

               - and -

          Daniel C. Barr, Esq.
          Amelia M. Gerlicher, Esq.
          Kirstin T. Eidenbach, Esq.
          John H. Gray, Esq.
          Matthew B. du Mee, Esq.
          Jerica L. Peters, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2000
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: (602) 351-8000
          E-mail: dbarr@perkinscoie.com
                  agerlicher@perkinscoie.com
                  keidenbach@perkinscoie.com
                  jhgray@perkinscoie.com
                  mdumee@perkinscoie.com
                  jpeters@perkinscoie.com

               - and -

          Daniel Pochoda, Esq.
          James Duff Lyall, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF ARIZONA
          3707 North 7th Street, Suite 235
          Phoenix, AZ 85013
          Telephone: (602) 650-1854
          E-mail: dpochoda@acluaz.org
                  jlyall@acluaz.org

               - and -

          Caroline Mitchell, Esq.
          Amir Q. Amiri, Esq.
          Dara Levinson, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          555 California Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 875-5712
          E-mail: cnmitchell@jonesday.com
                  aamiri@jonesday.com
                  daralevinson@jonesday.com

               - and -

          John Laurens Wilkes, Esq.
          Taylor Freeman, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          717 Texas Street
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (832) 239-3939
          E-mail: jlwilkes@jonesday.com
                  tfreeman@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Kamilla Mamedova, Esq.
          Jennifer K. Messina, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          222 East 41 Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 326-3498
          E-mail: kmamedova@jonesday.com
                  jkmessina@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Kevin Brantley, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 851-3939
          E-mail: kcbrantley@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Sarah Kader, Esq.
          Asim Varma, Esq.
          Brenna Durkin, Esq.
          ARIZONA CENTER FOR DISABILITY LAW
          5025 East Washington Street, Suite 202
          Phoenix, AZ 85034
          Telephone: (602) 274-6287
          E-mail: skader@azdisabilitylaw.org
                  avarma@azdisabilitylaw.org
                  bdurkin@azdisabilitylaw.org

               - and -

          J.J. Rico, Esq.
          Jessica Jansepar Ross, Esq.
          ARIZONA CENTER FOR DISABILITY LAW
          100 N. Stone Avenue, Suite 305
          Tucson, AZ 85701
          Telephone: (520) 327-9547
          E-mail: jrico@azdisabilitylaw.org
                  jross@azdisabilitylaw.org

The Defendants are represented by:

          Daniel P. Struck, Esq.
          Kathleen L. Wieneke, Esq.
          Rachel Love, Esq.
          Timothy J. Bojanowski, Esq.
          Nicholas D. Acedo, Esq.
          Ashlee B. Fletcher, Esq.
          Anne M. Orcutt, Esq.
          Jacob B. Lee, Esq.
          STRUCK, WIENEKE, & LOVE, P.L.C.
          3100 West Ray Road, Suite 300
          Chandler, AZ 85226
          Telephone: (480) 420-1600
          E-mail: dstruck@swlfirm.com
                  kwieneke@swlfirm.com
                  rlove@swlfirm.com
                  tbojanowski@swlfirm.com
                  nacedo@swlfirm.com
                  afletcher@swlfirm.com
                  aorcutt@swlfirm.com
                  jlee@swlfirm.com

               - and -

          Thomas C. Horne, Esq., Arizona Attorney General
          Michael E. Gottfried, Esq., Assistant Attorney General
          Lucy M. Rand, Esq., Assistant Attorney General
          Katherine E. Watanabe, Esq., Assistant Attorney General
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          1275 W. Washington Street
          Phoenix, AZ 85007-2926
          Telephone: (602) 542-4951
          E-mail: Michael.Gottfried@azag.gov
                  Lucy.Rand@azag.gov
                  Katherine.Watanabe@azag.gov

The case is Victor Parsons, et al. v. Charles Ryan, Director,
Arizona Department of Corrections, et al., Case No. CV 12-00601-
PHX-DJH, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.


AURORA HUTS: Judge Denied Bid to Dismiss "Mielo" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy of the Western District of
Pennsylvania denied defendant's motion in the case CHRISTOPHER
MIELO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. AURORA HUTS, LLC, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION
NO. 2:14-CV-1162 (W.D. Pa.)

The plaintiff Christopher Mielo is a resident of the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania who has a mobility disability and is limited in
the major life activity of walking, causing him to be dependent
upon a wheelchair for mobility.

Defendant Aurora Huts, LLC owned multiple retail establishments in
Western District of Pennsylvania, specifically in Pittsburgh,
Cheswick, Natrona Height, McKeesport, New Stanton, Greensburg,
Aliquippa, Baden, Harmony, Butler, Canonsburg and the one
plaintiff had visited in 8609 University Boulevard, Coraopolis,
Pennsylvania.

During plaintiff's visit, Plaintiff experienced unnecessary
difficulty and risk due to excessively sloped surfaces in a
purportedly accessible parking space and access aisle. Plaintiff
brings an action individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated against defendant, alleging violations of Title
III of the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Sections
12181 et seq. (ADA). Specifically, he alleges that the parking
lots at 14 properties owned and managed by defendant contain
access barriers so as to render defendant's properties not fully
accessible to and independently usable by plaintiff and a putative
class of similarly situated disabled individuals who are dependent
upon wheelchairs for mobility, because of various identified
access barriers that fail to comply with the requirements of the
ADA.

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of
jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
and 12(b)(6) challenging plaintiff's standing to bring this
action. In the alternative, defendant moves for a more definite
statement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e).

Magistrate Judge Eddy denied defendant's motion to dismiss class
action complaint and request for a more definite statement.  A
copy of Magistrate Judge Eddy's memorandum opinion dated January
7, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/xlnjhAfrom Leagle.com.

CHRISTOPHER MIELO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin J. Sweet
-- bsweet@carlsonlynch.com -- R. Bruce Carlson --
bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com -- Stephanie K. Goldin --
sgoldin@carlsonlynch.com -- at Carlson Lynch LTD

AURORA HUTS, LLC, Defendant, represented by Joni M. Mangino --
mangino@zklaw.com -- Joseph F. Butcher -- butcher@zklaw.com -- at
Zimmer Kunz P.L.L.C.


AUTO CLUB GROUP: E.D. Mich. Judge Denied Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge George Caram Steeh of the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division granted defendants' motions in the
case FRANK MONTELEONE and SHERI MONTELEONE, Plaintiffs, v. THE
AUTO CLUB GROUP, and MEMBERSELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-12716 (E.D. Mich.)

The plaintiffs' Frank and Sheri Monteleone suffered water damage
in their finished basement of their Clinton Township home, which
caused significant harm, including loss of personal property, and
structural damage to their home.

The AutoClub Group, MemberSelect Insurance Company, AutoClub
Insurance Assoc., Auto Club Group Insurance Co., Auto Club
Property-Casualty Insurance Co., and Auto Club Services are
insurance companies.

Plaintiffs claim they paid for coverage of water damage claims
where water originating from within the home is prevented from
leaving the premises. Plaintiffs describe such water damage events
as overflows which they claim were covered losses under their
homeowner's insurance policies. Defendants denied coverage under
the policies' exclusion.

Plaintiffs seek to proceed as a class action under the theory that
defendants categorically denied valid claims based on an erroneous
application of the policy terms, and that all individuals who
merely purchased insurance, even those who never filed claims, are
entitled to a partial refund of premiums, or like measure of
damages, because certain coverage was allegedly illusory.  The
court denied class certification because issues of liability and
damages as to each individual policyholder would predominate over
any common questions.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and once again sought to
certify a class.  Plaintiffs filed a three-count complaint. Count
I seeks declaratory judgment that defendants' alleged
interpretation of certain policy provisions was erroneous; Count
II alleges breach of contract on behalf of all homeowners who
purchased policies, including those individuals who never filed
claims; and Count III alleges breach of contract and the covenant
of good faith and fair dealing on behalf of the those
policyholders whose legitimate claims for water damage were
improperly denied.

Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss Count II of the amended
complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and
to deny class certification.

Judge Steeh granted defendants' motion to dismiss Count II of the
amended complaint as well as the motion to deny class
certification.

A copy of Judge Steeh's opinion and order dated January 5, 2015,
is available at http://is.gd/DjgyyEfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffa, represented by Amy L. Marino -- amarino@sommerspc.com
-- Kevin J. Stoops -- kstoops@sommerspc.com -- Lance C. Young --
lyoung@sommerspc.com -- Jason J. Thompson --
jthompson@sommerspc.com - at Sommers Schwartz, P.C.; Michael H.
Fabian - mfabian@fabiansklar.com -- Patrick A. King --
pking@fabiansklar.com -- at Fabian, Sklar

The Auto Club Group et al. are represented by:

Kevin M. Aoun, Esq.
Morley Witus, Esq.
BARRIS, SOTT, DENN & DRIKER, PLLC
211 W Fort Street, 15th Floor
Detroit, MI 48226-3202
Telephone: 313-965-9725
Facsimile: 313-965-2493


BRAZOS ROCK: Faces "Lewis" Suit in Texas Alleging FLSA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Glenn Lewis, Mark Morton and Don Brewster, On Behalf of
Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Brazos Rock, Inc.,
Case No. 4:15-cv-00013 (W.D. Tex., February 19, 2015) is brought
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant (a) failed to pay the
Plaintiffs time and one-half their regular rates of pay for all
hours worked over 40 during each seven-day workweek; and (b)
failed to properly calculate the Plaintiffs' regular rates of pay
when determining the overtime premium owed.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


BROWN COMMUNITY: Accused of Illegal Conduct Over Fund Transfer
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marina Awerbuch, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Brown Community Management, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
00333 (D. Ariz., February 23, 2015), alleges that the Defendant
limits the rights of consumers with respect to electronic fund
transfers through the use of its standardized, form agreements
identical or substantially similar to the Automatic Payment Plan
Application and Agreement, specifically by, waiving the right to
cancel preauthorized electronic transfers in a manner other than
in writing and notifying the financial institution, instead of
Defendant.

Brown Community Management, Inc. is a homeowner association
management company doing business within the state of Arizona.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
      GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
      5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33431
      Telephone: (561) 826-5477
      Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
      E-mail: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com


BURBERRY LIMITED: Faces "Citizen" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Prince Citizen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Burberry Limited, and Doe One through and including
Doe Ten, Case No. 2:15-cv-01289 (C.D. Cal., February 23, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Burberry Limited owns and operates several retail stores
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan Ricasa, Esq,
      LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN RICASA
      2341 Westwood Boulevard Suite 7
      Los Angeles, CA 90064
      Telephone: (424) 248-0510
      Facsimile: (424) 204-0652
      E-mail: jricasa@ricasalaw.com


CADILLAC MOTOR: Recalls ATS 2013 Models Due to Injury Risk
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 19, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Compliance
Mfr System: Electrical
Units affected: 6431
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015075TC
ID number: 2015075
Manufacturer recall number: 15119

Certain vehicles equipped with power-operated sunroof system may
fail to conform to Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (CMVSS)
118 - Power-Operated Window, Partition and Roof Panel Systems. The
roof panels could close automatically when the non-recessed
portion of the "Slide" or "Tilt" switches are pressed and the roof
panel is open, which is contrary to the standard. The switch could
be more susceptible to an inadvertent actuation, which could
result in unintended auto-closure of the roof panel, increasing
the risk of injury. Correction: Dealers will replace the roof
console accessory switch trim plate.

  Make       Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----      ----------------------
  CADILLAC   ATS        2013


CAMDEN COUNTY, NJ: Hires Manager to Deal With Jail Overcrowding
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Laday, writing for South Jersey Times, reports that Camden
County officials have temporarily filled a top position at the
county jail responsible for dealing with overcrowding issues,
following a letter from a federal judge demanding to know why the
job had been vacant since November.

Working through the Florida-based consulting firm Luminosity, the
county has hired Patrick Jablonski as its newest jail population
manager.  Tasked with bringing the jail's current population of
1,376 more in line with its official capacity of 1,267,
Mr. Jablonski will serve at the position until a permanent
replacement is found.  He is the sixth person to hold the title in
the past four years.

"We've contracted with Luminosity, which is extremely well
regarded in population management, to a year-long agreement to
help us with the jail population," said Camden County spokesman
Dan Keashen.  "(Jablonski) is going to be short-term, but
Luminosity has been very productive, and an asset, so far in
identifying someone who will be the long-term population manager."

Luminosity helped the county in 2009, when the jail's population
had grown to more than 1,800, reducing the number of inmates to
1,278 one year later.  The county's move to fix the issue back
then had been in response to a class action lawsuit filed in 2005,
by a group of inmates alleging the overcrowding represented a
violation of their Constitutional rights.

However, in recent years, the jail's population has steadily begun
to rise back above its capacity.  Officials have reportedly
connected the new overcrowding issue to the new Camden County
Police Department, which has vastly increased the number of police
officers on the streets in Camden, which in turn has led to more
arrests.

U.S. District Court Judge Jerome Simandle penned his letter
registering his "concern" with the county regarding the
overcrowding issue on Jan. 26.  Camden County and Luminosity
officials named Mr. Jablonski as population manager on Feb. 9.

Meanwhile, the overcrowding at the county jail has forced some
inmates to sleep on the floor, according to the accounts of those
with loved ones incarcerated in the facility.

Stephanie Williams, a resident of Salem, said her fianc‚,
Christopher Jones, is currently serving a 364-day sentence in the
jail for missing a court date -- a charge Jones and Williams still
contest.

"When he first came into the jail last August, he said he was
sleeping on the floor for a while, and then he got a bed after a
few months," Williams said. "He's mentioned the overcrowding to me
-- people sleeping on the floor, on mats -- numerous times. It
makes no sense to have that kind of situation there."

Others have reported there are, in some instances, four inmates
sharing a two-person cell.

Mr. Keashen stated he cannot comment of specific cases, but
reiterated that the county is taking the issue "very seriously."

"I can only tell you what the numbers are -- the population is
about 1,370, and the capacity is around 1,260," he said.  "We are
taking this very seriously; the people at Luminosity are well-
respected in this field. I can't think of anyone better to help us
address this."


CAN-AM: Recalls Spyder RT 2013 Models Due to Burn Risk
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 16, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: 3 Wheel Motorcycle
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Engine
Units affected: 1373
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015067TC
ID number: 2015067
Manufacturer recall number: PE 14-025

On certain vehicles, the temperature in the engine compartment may
rise excessively at low speeds in hot ambient conditions. Elevated
temperature in the engine bay may increase the risk of a skin burn
and increase the risk of a fire causing injury and/or damage to
property. Correction: Under development. Should be available by
May 2015.

  Make      Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----       ----------------------
  CAN-AM    SPYDER RT   2013


CHELSEA INVESTMENT: Sued by Minors Over Violations of Housing Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ethan Whitby, Isabel Whitby, Gabriel Whitby, Savannah Whitby,
Kirill Kouprina, Anna Kouprina, Vera Kouprina, Galina Kouprina,
Blancis Jhandi, Seth Jensen, Joseph McGhee, Marie Corbin, Anisa
Whittenburg, Adrian Whittenburg II, Ashley Guerrero, Eduardo
Guerrero, Maya Flores, Brandon Cole, Arezo Nawaey, Arash Nawaey,
Carter Stokes, Braun Webb, Caleb Webb, Chloe Webb, Derek Martinez,
Richard Garcia Barrows, Emily Williams, Hailey Garcia Barrows,
Aiden Williams, Ariel Smallwood, Jamaine Smallwood, Rafael
Ramirez, Jr., Ricardo Ramirez, Rebecca Ramirez, Ariset Flores,
Adrell Flores, Brett Jensen, and Deborah Jahndi, minors and others
similarly situated v. Chelsea Investment Corporation, a California
corporation; CIC PHR, LP, a California limited partnership; PHR
Inclusionary, LLC, a California limited liability company; Pacific
Southwest Community Development Corporation, a California
corporation; Lend Lease PHR CIC, L.P., a Massachusetts
corporation; SLP, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation; CIC
Fairbanks, L.P., a California limited partnership; DDS Fairbanks,
LLC, a California limited liability company; CIC La Costa, L.P., a
California limited partnership; DDC La Costa, LLC, a California
limited liability company; CIC Calavara, L.P., a limited
partnership; CIC Calavara Hills II, LLC, a California limited
liability company; Silver Sage CIC, L.P., a California limited
partnership; CIC Silver Sage, LLC, a California limited liability
company; CIC Landings, L.P., a California limited liability
company; Ajax-Landings, LLC, a California limited liability
company; CIC Management Inc., a California corporation; ConAm
Management Corporation, a California corporation; The Schmid
Family Trust Dated as of July 22, 1996, a California trust; James
J. Schmid, an individual; Lynn Harrington Schmid, an individual;
Rosie Terriquez, an individual; and Does 1-500, Case No. 3:15-cv-
00355-H-WVG (S.D. Cal., February 19, 2015) alleges violations of
the Fair Housing Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew S. Wilson, Esq.
          WILSON LAW CORPORATION
          11622 El Camino Real, Suite 100
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 777-9815
          Facsimile: (858) 777-9812
          E-mail: matthew@wilsonlawcorp.com


CHRYSLER: Recalls 200 2015 Models Due to Injury Risk
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:  February 17, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Power train
Units affected: 3403
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015069TC
ID number: 2015069
Manufacturer recall number: R08

On certain vehicles equipped with 9-speed automatic transmissions,
the PARK pawl may not properly engage. If the parking pawl fails
to engage and the driver does not use the parking brake, the
vehicle may roll away after the brake pedal is released, which
could result in a crash causing injury and/or damage to property.
Correction: Dealers will inspect the transmission and repair if
necessary.

  Make      Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----      ----------------------
CHRYSLER    200        2015


CITY FISH: Recalls Candy Smoked Salmon Products Due to Listeria
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 21, 2015
Type of communication: Recall Alert
Sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: City Fish
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9658

City Fish is recalling Salish Seafoods brand Candy Smoked Salmon
from the marketplace due to possible Listeria monocytogenes
contamination. Consumers, food service establishments, retailers,
and distributors in Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan
should not consume, serve, use, or sell the recalled product
described below.

The following product has been sold in Alberta, British Columbia
and Saskatchewan from February 7, up to and including February 15,
2015.

Please note that some product packages may not bear the same brand
or product name as described below, or a brand at all. Also, these
products may have been sold clerk-served from deli counters with
or without a label or coding. Consumers who are unsure if they
have purchased the affected product are advised to contact their
retailer.

Check to see if you have recalled product in your home. Recalled
product should be thrown out or returned to the store where it was
purchased.

Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include
vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache
and neck stiffness. Pregnant women, the elderly and people with
weakened immune systems are particularly at risk. Although
infected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-like
symptoms, the infection can lead to premature delivery, infection
of the newborn or even stillbirth. In severe cases of illness,
people may die.

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

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

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

  Brand name     Common name Size Code(s) on product    UPC
  ----------     ----------- -----------------------    ---
Salish Seafoods  Candy Smoked Salmon  Variable Lot # 6936 Packed
On JA.30.15 None

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


CLEANNET USA: Court Orders "Estrada" Case Parties to Arbitrate
--------------------------------------------------------------
Esther Estrada, Isaac Carrazco, and Maria Jacobo are California
residents who seek to represent a class of individuals allegedly
injured by corporate Defendants CleanNet USA, D&G Enterprises,
Inc., CleanNet of San Jose, CleanNet of Southern California,
CleanNet of San Diego, CleanNet of Sacramento, and individual
Defendants Mark Salek and David Crum.  Defendants are alleged to
operate an integrated business wherein CleanNet USA controls its
Area Operators, who in turn sell franchises to individuals. Each
Plaintiff purchased a franchise. To purchase a franchise, each
Plaintiff signed a franchise agreement. All three franchise
agreements contained dispute resolution provisions and class
action waivers. All three franchise agreements provide that the
parties must first attempt to resolve disputes through direct
negotiation. They then provide that, before a demand for
arbitration can be made, the parties must attempt to settle their
dispute through mediation. If that fails, "[a]ll disputes,
controversies, and claims of any kind arising between the parties,
including but not limited to claims arising out of or relating to
this Agreement . . . shall be settled by arbitration. . . ."
Finally, the agreements provide that "Franchisee shall not seek to
arbitrate or litigate as a representative of, or on behalf of, any
other person or entity, any dispute, controversy, and claim of any
kind arising out of or relating to this Agreement. . . ."
Plaintiffs not only signed these agreements, they initialed each
page.

On April 18, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a putative class action. On
June 3, 2014, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, alleging
sixteen causes of action. Defendants moved to compel arbitration,
or to dismiss the complaint.

On February 24, 2015, District Judge Jeffrey S. White granted the
Defendants' motions to compel arbitration and ordered Plaintiffs
to attempt to resolve their disputes, on a solely individual
basis, in accordance with the franchise agreements that they
signed. The Court further ordered the proceedings stayed pending
arbitration.

A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/gC8jpSfrom
Leagle.com.

The case is ESTHER ESTRADA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CLEANNET USA,
INC., et al., Defendants, NO. C 14-01785 JSW, (N.D. Cal.).

Esther Estrada, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Allen Wimmer
-- cwimmer@emergentlegal.com -- Emergent Legal & Greg Demirchyan
-- greg@emergentlegal.com -- Emergent Legal.

Isaac Carrazco, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Allen
Wimmer, Emergent Legal & Greg Demirchyan, Emergent Legal.

Maria Jacobo, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Allen Wimmer,
Emergent Legal & Greg Demirchyan, Emergent Legal.

CleanNet USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by R. Brian Dixon --
bdixon@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC, Laura Emily Hayward
-- lhayward@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson & Richard Hill --
rhill@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson.

D&G Enterprises, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles G. Miller
-- cmiller@bzbm.com -- Bartko Zankel Bunzel & Miller, Charles
Griffith Towle -- gtowle@bzbm.com -- Bartko Zankel Bunzel & Miller
& Sony Broto Barari -- sbarari@bzbm.com -- Bartko, Zankel, Bunzel
& Miller.

CleanNet of Southern California, Inc., Defendant, represented by
R. Brian Dixon, Littler Mendelson, PC, Laura Emily Hayward,
Littler Mendelson & Richard Hill, Littler Mendelson.

CleanNet of San Diego, Defendant, represented by William Vincent
DePaul Whelan -- wwhelan@swsslaw.com -- Solomon Ward Seidenwurm
Smith LLP.

CleanNet of Sacramento, Defendant, represented by William Vincent
DePaul Whelan, Solomon Ward Seidenwurm Smith LLP.

Mark Salek, Defendant, represented by R. Brian Dixon, Littler
Mendelson, PC, Laura Emily Hayward, Littler Mendelson & Richard
Hill, Littler Mendelson.

David Crum, Defendant, represented by Charles G. Miller, Bartko
Zankel Bunzel & Miller, Charles Griffith Towle, Bartko Zankel
Bunzel & Miller & Sony Broto Barari, Bartko, Zankel, Bunzel &
Miller.


COLLECTION TECHNOLOGY: Sued in Florida Over Violations of EFTA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Angel Wassell, Individually and on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Collection Technology, Inc., and Does
1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 8:15-cv-00348-MSS-TBM (M.D.
Fla., February 19, 2015) alleges violations of the Electronic Fund
Transfer Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Hans Crumley, Esq.
          CRUMLEY & WOLFE, PA
          2254 Riverside Ave.
          Jacksonville, FL 32204
          Telephone: (904) 374-0111
          Facsimile: (904) 374-0113
          E-mail: ben@cwbfl.com


COMMUNITY HEALTH: "Veciana" Suit Moved From Florida to Alabama
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Veciana v. Community Health
Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:14-cv-02893, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
(Southern).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-
00279-KOB to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is included in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Community Health Systems, Inc., Customer Data Security
Breach Litigation, MDL No. 2595.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony Anderson Benton Dogali, Esq.
          Geoffrey E. Parmer, Esq.
          DOGALI LAW GROUP, PA
          101 E Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1100
          Tampa, FL 33602-5146
          Telephone: (813) 289-0700
          Facsimile: (813) 289-9435
          E-mail: adogali@dogalilaw.com
                  gparmer@dogalilaw.com

Defendant Community Health Systems Inc. is represented by:

          Timothy L. Warnock, Esq.
          RILEY, WARNOCK & JACOBSON, PLC
          1906 W End Avenue
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 320-3700
          Facsimile: (615) 320-3737
          E-mail: twarnock@rwjplc.com

Defendant Community Health Systems Professional Services
Corporation is represented by:

          Jimmy D. Parrish, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP
          200 S Orange Ave., Suite 2300
          Orlando, FL 32801-3432
          Telephone: (407) 649-4000
          Facsimile: (407) 841-0168
          E-mail: jparrish@bakerlaw.com


COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tywanshia Bowden, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Commonwealth Financial Systems, Inc. and
Cascade Capital, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-01236 (C.D. Cal., February
20, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' unlawful practice of
collecting time-barred debt.

The Defendants own and operate a debt collection company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CONNIE GIPSON: Court Dismisses "Brown" Suit With Leave to Amend
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin issued an order dismissing the
complaint captioned WILLIAM E. BROWN, Plaintiff, v. CONNIE GIPSON,
et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 1:13 CV 02084 GSA PC, (E.D. Cal.) and
granted the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.  A copy
of the February 23, 2015 order is available at http://is.gd/uOrOhZ
from Leagle.com.

The Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section
1983. He is in the custody of the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) at Pelican Bay State Prison.
He brought this civil rights action against defendant correctional
officials employed by the CDCR at CSP Corcoran. Plaintiff names
the following individual defendants: Warden Connie Gipson; Sgt.
Wilson; Sgt. J. Gonzales; A. Guzman; E. Castro; S. Weber. Sgt.
Rasley; Lt. M. Marsh; C/O Saucedo; C/O Scalfe; C/O Miere.
Plaintiff brought the action to enforce court orders in Coleman v.
Brown, CV-S-90-0520-LKK-JFM.

According to Judge Austin, individual suits for injunctive and
equitable relief from unconstitutional prison conditions cannot be
brought where there is a pending class action suit involving the
same subject matter. If Plaintiff seeks to complain about a
perceived failure to comply with orders in Coleman, he may contact
plaintiff's class counsel.

The Court held that it has screened Plaintiff's complaint and
finds that it does not state any claims upon which relief may be
granted under section 1983.  However, the Plaintiff will be
provided with the opportunity to file an amended complaint curing
the deficiencies identified by the Court. Plaintiff is cautioned
that he may not change the nature of this suit by adding new,
unrelated claims in his amended complaint.

Therefore, the Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed, with leave to
amend, for failure to state a claim. The Clerk's Office will send
to Plaintiff a complaint form, and within 30 days, the Plaintiff
must file an amended complaint.

The Plaintiff may not add any new, unrelated claims to the action
via his amended complaint and any attempt to do so will result in
an order striking the amended complaint.  If Plaintiff fails to
file an amended complaint, the Court will recommend dismissal of
this action, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

William E. Brown, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


CVS PHARMACY: Removes "Patel" Class Suit to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Patel v. CVS Pharmacy, et al.,
Case No. 30-2015-00765552, was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Orange to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Santa Ana).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:15-cv-00288 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from alleged employment discrimination.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Roger L. Scott, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1000
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 732-6524
          Facsimile: (949) 732-6501
          E-mail: scottro@gtlaw.com


DEEP CANADA: Recalls Masala Mixed Spices Due to Undeclared Sesame
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 18, 2015
Type of communication: Recall Alert
Sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Sesame Seeds
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Deep Canada Inc.
Distribution: Alberta, Nova Scotia, Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number:9647

  Brand     Common name     Size   Code(s)          UPC
  name      -----------     ----   on product       ---
  ----                             ----------
Badshah   Punjabi Chhole  100 g  All codes where  8 901774 002141
          Masala Mixed           sesame is not
          Spices                 declared on the
                                 label.


DOLLAR TREE: Faces "Frizzell" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Frizzell, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, and on behalf of all aggrieved employees
pursuant to PAGA v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
00407 (E.D. Cal., February 20, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. is a Virginia corporation that owns and
operates chain of discount variety stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephanie E. Yasuda, Esq
      Kenneth H. Yoon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH YOON
      624 S. Grand Ave., Ste. 2200
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213) 612-0988
      Facsimile: (213) 947-1211
      E-mail: syasuda@yoonlaw.com
              kyoon@yoonlaw.com

          - and -

      Peter M. Hart, Esq.
      Travis Hodgkins, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF PETER M. HART
      12121 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 205
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone: (213) 612-0988
      Facsimile: (213) 947-1211
      E-mail: hartpeter@msn.com


DOLLAR TREE: Faces "Frizzell" 2nd Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Frizzell, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, and on behalf of all aggrieved employees
pursuant to PAGA v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., Case No. 2:15-at-
00265 (E.D. Cal., February 20, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. is a Virginia corporation that owns and
operates chain of discount variety stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephanie E. Yasuda, Esq
      Kenneth H. Yoon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH YOON
      624 S. Grand Ave., Ste. 2200
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213) 612-0988
      Facsimile: (213) 947-1211
      E-mail: syasuda@yoonlaw.com
              kyoon@yoonlaw.com

         - and -

      Peter M. Hart, Esq.
      Travis Hodgkins, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF PETER M. HART
      12121 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 205
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone: (213) 612-0988
      Facsimile: (213) 947-1211
      E-mail: hartpeter@msn.com


ELITE SALADS: Recalls White Fish Duet to Clostridium Botulinum
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 20, 2015
Type of communication: Recall Alert
Sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Clostridium botulinum
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Elite Salads International
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9653

The food recall warning issued on February 10, 2015 has been
updated to include additional product information. This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

Elite Salads International is recalling Elite Salads brand White
Fish from the marketplace because it may permit the growth of
Clostridium botulinum. Consumers should not consume the recalled
product described below.

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

Food contaminated with Clostridium botulinum toxin may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include
nausea, vomiting, fatigue, dizziness, blurred or double vision,
dry mouth, respiratory failure and paralysis. In severe cases of
illness, people may die.

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

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

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

  Brand name  Common name  Size   Code(s)         UPC
  ---------   ----------   ----   on product      ---
                                  ----------
  Elite        White Fish  200 g  Best Before     7 77739 00060 0
  Salads                          Feb. 25, 2015

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/y2g2Q9


ENDO HEALTH: "Mahaffay" Suit Moved From California to Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Mahaffay v. Endo Health Solutions
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00387, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  The
Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01473 to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants violate antitrust laws in
connection with the generic entry of Opana ER.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew M. Purdy, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1 Market Spear St. Tower
          San Francisco, CA 92866
          Telephone: (415) 442-1310
          E-mail: apurdy@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          James Gerard Beebe Dallal, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM
          255 California Street, Suite 450
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 500-6800
          E-mail: jdallal@saverilawfirm.com

               - and -

          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          Ryan J. Mcewan, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM
          505 Montgomery Street, #625
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 500-6800
          Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
          E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
                  rmcewan@saverilawfirm.com

               - and -

          Ralph B. Kalfayan, Esq.
          KRAUSE, KALFAYAN, BENINK & SLAVENS, LLP
          550 West C Street, Suite 530
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 232-0331
          E-mail: rkalfayan@kkbs-law.com

Defendants Endo Health Solutions, Inc. and Endo Pharmaceuticals
Inc. are represented by:

          Joshua David Hess, Esq.
          DECHERT LLP
          One Bush Street, Suite 1600
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 262-4500
          Facsimile: (415) 262-4555
          E-mail: joshua.hess@dechert.com

Defendant Impax Laboratories, Inc. is represented by:

          Susan Harriman, Esq.
          Benedict Y. Hur, Esq.
          KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
          633 Battery St.
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 391-5400
          Facsimile: (415) 397-7188
          E-mail: sharriman@kvn.com
                  bhur@kvn.com

               - and -

          Kenneth R. O'Rourke, Esq.
          Ana Fabish, Esq.
          Stephen J. McIntyre, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          400 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899
          Telephone: (213) 430-6000
          Facsimile: (213) 430-6407
          E-mail: korourke@omm.com
                  afabish@omm.com
                  smcintyre@omm.com

Defendants Actavis Inc. and Actavis South Atlantic LLC are
represented by:

          James Patrick Schaefer, Esq.
          SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          525 University Avenue, Suite 1100
          Palo Alto, CA 94301
          Telephone: (650) 470-4500
          Facsimile: (650) 470-4570
          E-mail: james.schaefer@skadden.com


FOREST RIVER: Recalls XLR 2015 Models Due to Safety Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 18, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Travel Trailer
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Accessories
Units affected: 9
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015073TC
ID number: 2015073

On certain travel trailers, The nozzle of the fuel dispensing
system may come into proximity with a fuel burning appliance. As a
result, the fuel vapor from the nozzle could be ignited by a fuel
burning appliance pilot, burner or heating element. This could
result in an explosion or fire causing injury and/or damage to
property. Correction: Dealers will move the fuel dispensing
station towards the rear of the unit.

  Make           Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----           -----       ----------------------
  FOREST RIVER   XLR         2015


FREIGHTLINER TRUCKS: Recalls 2015 Models Due to Safety Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 16, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Brakes
Units affected: 49
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015068TC
ID number: 2015068
Manufacturer recall number: FL-677

On certain vehicles equipped with a hydraulic brake booster, an
incorrect switch may have been installed, potentially disabling
brake warning lights in the instrument panel. As a result, warning
lights may fail to illuminate in the event of a reduction in brake
power assist, causing an unexpected increase in braking effort,
which could increase stopping distances and increase the risk of a
crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction:
Dealers will install the correct switch.

  Make           Model                Model year(s) affected
  ----           -----                ----------------------
  FREIGHTLINER   BUSINESS CLASS M2    2015


FUEL FOODS: "Gross" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristina Gross, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Fuel Foods, Inc., Erik Leander, and Jeff
Taschner, Case No. 9:15-cv-80232 (S.D. Fla., February 23, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, unpaid commissions, and an
additional equal amount liquidated damages, declaratory relief and
attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of providing healthy
prepackaged meals to clients in Palm Beach County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shawn Logan Birken, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SHAWN L. BIRKEN
      100 SE 3rd Avenue, Suite 1300
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
      Telephone: (954) 990-4459
      Facsimile: (954) 990-4469
      E-mail: sbirken@birken-law.com


GENCOR NUTRIENTS: "Ryan" Suit Moved From N.D. to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Ryan, et al. v. Gencor
Nutrients, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-05682-JSW, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (Oakland)) to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California (Los Angeles).  The Central
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-01209-GW-MAN to the
proceeding.

The Defendants manufacture, market, and sell Testofen or
nutritional supplements containing Testofen, an extract of the
herb fenugreek.  The Defendants advertise and market these
products as "testosterone boosters," representing that Testofen
has been "clinically proven" to increase free testosterone levels.

The Plaintiffs allege that these representations are false, based
on universally accepted principles of statistical analysis that
have been adopted by the regulatory bodies of every "first world"
country, including the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Barry Himmelstein, Esq.
          HIMMELSTEIN LAW NETWORK
          2000 Powell St., Suite 1605
          Emeryville, CA 94608-1861
          Telephone: (510) 450-0782
          Facsimile: (510) 924-0403
          E-mail: barry@himmellaw.com

Defendants Gencor Nutrients, Inc., Ge Nutrients, Inc., and Jith
Veeravalli are represented by:

          Joshua G. Simon, Esq.
          Matthew R. Orr, Esq.
          CALL AND JENSEN
          610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 717-3000
          Facsimile: (949) 717-3100
          E-mail: jsimon@calljensen.com
                  morr@calljensen.com

Defendants General Nutrition Corporation, GNC Corporation, General
Nutrition Centers Inc., S&G PROPERTIES, LLC, Direct Digital LLC,
Force Factor LLC, Dreambrands, Inc., Pharmafreak Holdings Inc.,
and Prevention, LLC are represented by:

          Angel A. Garganta, Esq.
          Jasmine Kaur Singh, Esq.
          Robert Leslie Meyerhoff, Esq.
          VENABLE LLP
          Spear Tower, 40th Floor
          1 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 653-3735
          Facsimile: (415) 653-3755
          E-mail: AGarganta@Venable.com
                  jsingh@venable.com
                  rlmeyerhoff@venable.com

               - and -

          Daniel Scott Silverman, Esq.
          VENABLE LLP
          2049 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 299-9900
          Facsimile: (310) 229-9901
          E-mail: dsilverman@venable.com

               - and -

          Sarah S. Park, Esq.
          VENABLE LLP
          1270 Avenue of the Americas, 27th Floor
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 503-0653
          Facsimile: (212) 307-5598
          E-mail: spark@venable.com

Defendant Truderma, LLC is represented by:

          David R. Koch, Esq.
          Steven Bradley Scow, Esq.
          KOCH AND SCOW LLC
          11500 South Eastern Avenue, Suite 210
          Henderson, NV 89052
          Telephone: (702) 318-5040
          Facsimile: (702) 318-5039
          E-mail: dkoch@kochscow.com
                  sscow@kochscow.com

Defendant Premium Nutraceuticals, LLC is represented by:

          Daniel F. Crowley, Esq.
          DANIEL CROWLEY AND ASSOCIATES
          37 Old Corthouse Square, Suite 200
          Santa Rosa, CA 95404
          Telephone: (707) 525-8999
          Facsimile: (707) 542-4752
          E-mail: dcrowley@dcalaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Francis Peil, Esq.
          CHARLES T. HUGGINS JR., PC
          7013 Evans Town Center Boulevard, Suite 502
          Evans, GA 30809
          Telephone: (706) 210-9063
          Facsimile: (706) 210-9282
          E-mail: jpeil@hugginsfirm.com

Respondent NDS Nutrition Products Inc. is represented by:

          David Robert Clark, Esq.
          THE CLARK LAW FIRM
          1520 Wood Duck Lane
          Meadow Vista, CA 95722
          Telephone: (530) 878-8700
          Facsimile: (530) 878-3609
          E-mail: drclarklaw@att.net


GOVSIMPLIFIED LLC: Removes "O'Brien" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled O'Brien v. GovSimplified, LLC,
Case No. 15-01492-CA-01 (11), was removed from the 11th Judicial
Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida (Miami).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20702-MGC to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Benjamin Boese, Esq.
          LEON COSGROVE LLC
          255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 424
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 740-1975
          Facsimile: (305) 437-8158
          E-mail: aboese@leoncosgrove.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Harley Shepard Tropin, Esq.
          Rachel Sullivan, Esq.
          Tal J. Lifshitz, Esq.
          Detra Shaw-Wilder, Esq.
          KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON
          2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, 9th Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33134-6036
          Telephone: (305) 372-1800
          Facsimile: (305) 372-3508
          E-mail: hst@kttlaw.com
                  rs@kttlaw.com
                  tjl@kttlaw.com
                  dps@kttlaw.com


HEIL TRAILER: Recalls 2000 Petroleum Pull Trailers
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 18, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Heavy Trailer
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Other
Units affected: 9
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015071TC
ID number: 2015071

On certain trailers, the cables of the secondary coupling system
may not be able to completely restrain the towed vehicle, if the
primary Pintle hitch coupling should fail. Failure of the cables
of the secondary coupling system may increase the likelihood of a
crash and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will install
larger secondary coupling cables.

  Make           Model                   Model year(s) affected
  ----           -----                   ----------------------
  HEIL TRAILER   PETROLEUM PULL TRAILER  2000


HERBALIFE INT'L: Former Distributors to Oppose Class Action Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Celarier, writing for New York Post, reports that more
than two dozen former Herbalife distributors plan to object to a
proposed $15 million class-action settlement with the company that
was reached in October, The Post has learned.

At least $100 million is required to adequately compensate the
class, which represents 1.55 million people, said Douglas Brooks,
the lawyer representing the group.

A former Herbalife salesman in California sued Herbalife in 2013,
claiming it was a pyramid scheme.  Dana Bostick argued more than a
million former distributors have failed trying to peddle the
Los Angeles company's protein shakes and other weight-loss
products.

Herbalife, which is also under investigation by several federal
and state regulators over similar allegations, agreed to settle
the suit as a class action without an admission of wrongdoing.

The $15 million cash settlement, after lawyers fees, would
represent less than $10 for each class member. Objections to the
settlement are due March 24.

"The proposed settlement is unfair, inadequate and unreasonable,"
said Julie Contreras, of the League of United Latin American
Citizens.  She has been organizing the group objecting to the
settlement.

About 20 percent to 25 percent of the class are "supervisors" --
people who spent at least $3,000 to reach that level.  The average
loss is typically $8,500 for supervisors, according to Mr. Brooks.
Even if the losses were half of $8,500, $100 million would
represent little more than 10 cents on the dollar, he said.

Ms. Contreras, who has taken 22 complaints from former Herbalife
distributors to the Illinois Attorney General and the Federal
Trade Commission, said she is preparing complaints from three more
alleged victims.  All 25 are protesting the settlement.

One is a Chicago woman who lost more than $118,000 after running
an Herbalife nutrition club at a loss for five years,
Ms. Contreras said.

The proposed settlement also includes some changes to Herbalife's
corporate policies, which were put into effect after Herbalife foe
and hedge-fund billionaire Bill Ackman pointed out the
questionable practices.

"These changes are only giving Herbalife defenses in future
litigation," said Mr. Brooks.  "None of them deal with the
fundamental problem of Herbalife, which is that the compensation
plan rewards recruiting."


J.P. MORGAN: N.D. Cal. Judge Dismissed RICO Claim in "Ellis" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the Northern District of
California granted defendants' motion to dismiss in the case DIANA
ELLIS, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO., ET AL.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 12-CV-03897-YGR (N.D. Cal.)

The plaintiffs Diana Ellis, James Schillinger, and Ronald Lazar
filed a class action complaint against defendants J.P. Morgan
Chase & Co., J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., and Chase Home Finance
LLC. Plaintiffs allege that Chase engaged in fraudulent practices
by charging unnecessary fees in connection with defendants' home
mortgage loan servicing businesses. By Order dated June 13, 2013,
the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' first
motion to dismiss and provided plaintiffs leave to amend their
complaint. Plaintiffs promptly filed their First Amended
Complaint, which plaintiffs made allegations on Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") claims.

Judge Rogers granted defendants motion to dismiss and plaintiffs'
RICO claims are dismissed without leave to amend. She observed
that plaintiffs have failed to allege an association-in-fact
enterprise in this case.

A copy of Judge Rogers's order dated January 6, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/Mh8ncZfrom Leagle.com.

Diana Ellis, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Philip Pifko --
mpifko@baronbudd.com -- Daniel Alberstone --
dalberstone@baronbudd.com -- Roland K. Tellis --
rtellis@baronbudd.com -- at Baron & Budd, P.C.; Marguerite K.
Kingsmill -- mkingsmill@kingsmillriess.com -- Charles B. Colvin -
ccolvin@kingsmillriess.com -- John Van Nguyen -- at Kingsmill
Riess, LLC; Philip F Cossich, Jr -- pcossich@cossichlaw.com --
Andrew Cvitanovic -- AndrewCvitanovic@cossichlaw.com -- David
Allen Parsiola -- dparsiola@cossichlaw.com -- at Cossich, Sumich,
Parsiola and Taylor

James Schillinger and Ronald Lazar, Plaintiffs, represented by
Mark Philip Pifko -- mpifko@baronbudd.com -- Daniel Alberstone --
dalberstone@baronbudd.com -- Roland K. Tellis --
rtellis@baronbudd.com -- at Baron & Budd, P.C.; Marguerite K.
Kingsmill -- mkingsmill@kingsmillriess.com -- Charles B. Colvin -
ccolvin@kingsmillriess.com -- John Van Nguyen -- at Kingsmill
Riess, LLC

Defendants, represented by David M. Jolley -- djolley@cov.com --
Robert D. Wick -- rwick@cov.com -- at Covington & Burling LLP; Jee
Young You -- JeeYoung.You@aporter.com -- Peter Obstler --
peter.obstler@aporter.com -- at Arnold & Porter LLP


JAMES BOMBECK: Removes G&J Suit to Middle District of Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled G&J Marketing and Sales, LLC v. Bombeck, Case
No. 14-9233-CI, was removed from the 6th Judicial Circuit, in and
for Pinellas County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida (Tampa).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 8:15-cv-00352-JSM-AEP to the proceeding.

The action is for injunctive relief for alleged breach of
contract.

Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant G&J Marketing and Sales, LLC is
represented by:

          Charles A. Samarkos, Esq.
          Colleen M. Flynn, Esq.
          JOHNSON, POPE, BOKOR, RUPPEL & BURNS, LLP
          911 Chestnut Street
          PO Box 1368
          Clearwater, FL 33757
          Telephone: (727) 461-1818
          Facsimile: (727) 441-8617
          E-mail: charles@jpfirm.com
                  ColleenF@jpfirm.com

Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff James Bombeck, on his Own Behalf
and On Behalf of a Class and/or Collective Action of All Similarly
Situated Sales Associates, is represented by:

          Charlotte Rose Fernee Kelly
          FERNEE KELLY LAW FIRM, LLC
          3201 W Hillsborough Av
          Tampa, FL 33614-5940
          Telephone: (813) 886-3473
          E-mail: charlotte@charlottefernee.com

               - and -

          Lindsey Wagner, Esq.
          CATHLEEN SCOTT & ASSOCIATES, PA
          250 S Central Blvd., Suite 104-A
          Jupiter, FL 33458
          Telephone: (561) 653-0008
          E-mail: lwagner@csapalaw.com


JAPAN: Survivors of 1945 Hiroshima Bombing File Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Sputnik News reports that survivors of the Hiroshima nuclear
bombing are preparing a class action lawsuit against the Japanese
government, insisting that it expands the area in which victims
are eligible for health coverage.

Hiroshima survivors are filing a class action lawsuit against the
Japanese government, demanding that it expands health coverage for
people exposed to fallout after the 1945 nuclear bombing, Japanese
daily Mainichi reported.

The survivors, who are not currently receiving assistance under
the country's Atomic Bomb Survivors' Assistance Law, have been
impacted by so-called black rain.  Following the nuclear bomb's
explosion, the mixing of radioactive particles with carbon residue
from resulting firestorms led to rainfall in surrounding areas.
The rain which reached the ground was a dangerously radioactive,
sticky, black substance that became known as black rain.

So far, 46 people have indicated that they will join the lawsuit,
which aims to expand the area officially designated as exposed to
black rain to six times what it is today.

In 2012, the Japanese government announced that the request to
expand the coverage area was "scientifically groundless" and would
not grant people exposed to black rain "Category 3" status which
means that they were exposed to radiation and would be granted
free medical checkups.

On August 6, 1945, in the concluding weeks of World War II, the
United States dropped a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima, killing 80,000
people in the blast and resulting firestorm, and tens of thousands
more from resulting injuries.  On August 9, 1945 the United States
dropped a second nuclear bomb in Nagasaki, killing another 80,000
people.  Hundreds of thousands more were impacted by radiation,
and later designated as survivors of the bombing by the Japanese
government.  As of March 2014, the Japanese government recognized
192,719 people as "hibakusha," Japanese for "explosion-affected
people."


JUNTOS INC: Faces "Rojas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Rojas and Emigdio Cruz Marcial, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. Juntos Inc. d/b/a Barbossa,
Mohamed Tariq Hag, and Ernani Assuncao Jr., Case No. 1:15-cv-01250
(S.D.N.Y., February 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours
per week.

The Defendants own and operate a Brazilian restaurant located at
232 Elizabeth Street, New York, New York 10012.

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


KIA MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Optima Door Lock Problems
-------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that Kia
Optima door lock problems will get a close look in a proposed
class-action lawsuit filed by the owner of a 2003 Kia Optima who
claims having problems unlocking both front doors.

The lawsuit alleges model year 2001-2006 Optimas have defective
door lock mechanisms that can lock a person inside or outside the
car, leading to a dangerous situation during an emergency.

Plaintiff Colleen Davison filed the lawsuit after she began having
problems with both front doors.  Ms. Davison claims after using
the key fob to unlock the doors, the doors would lock on their own
simply from touching the door handle.  This caused her to open the
doors manually by inserting the key into the lock.  Additionally,
she couldn't unlock the doors from the inside and had to reach
outside to unlock the doors with the key.

Ms. Davison says there were incidents where she found herself
locked inside the Kia Optima and had to forget using the front
doors and instead, climb over the seat and exit through a rear
door.

CarComplaints.com has heard from Kia Optima owners who also claim
they have to perform stunts to exit the cars.

"Many others have the same problem. Driver's door locks itself
when you go to open the door from inside or outside the car.  The
result is a 3 door car and an embarrassed owner that is relegated
to climbing in from the passenger side performing gymnastic moves
worthy of a gold medal." - 2005 Kia Optima owner / Chattanooga,
Tennessee

"Drivers side door will not open with fob or key. I have to crawl
through passenger side to get and out.  There should be recall and
Kia pay for this defect.  This is a safety hazard." - 2005 Kia
Optima owner / Greenville, South Carolina

The lawsuit alleges the plaintiff told her Kia dealership about
the door lock problems and was told the repairs would cost about
$500, money Ms. Davison would have to pay because the car was no
longer under warranty.  Ms. Davison had no choice but to drive the
Optima while she saved the money to repair the door locks.

Ms. Davison had more problems over the next months as it became
nearly impossible to manually unlock the doors.  Eventually she
couldn't open the front doors at all and had to park the Optima,
without the ability to lock the doors while the car was parked.

The Kia Optima door lock lawsuit alleges the door locks are
clearly a safety defect because of what could happen to front seat
occupants in various situations.  In the event of a crash, fire or
other emergency, not having the ability to unlock the doors could
lead to disaster.

The Kia Optima door lock lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court Central District of California Southern Division - Colleen
Davison v. Kia Motors America, Inc.

The plaintiff is represented by the Braun Law Group, and the
Katriel Law Firm.


KMART CORPORATION: Faces First Choice Suit Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
First Choice Federal Credit Union, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated financial institutions v. Kmart
Corporation and Sears Holdings Corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-00241
(W.D. Pa., February 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to maintain adequate computer data security for
customer information, including credit and debit card data and
personally identifying information.

Kmart Corporation is a Michigan corporation that operates a chain
of retail stores that sell a wide variety of merchandise,
including home appliances, consumer electronics, home goods,
apparel, grocery & household, pharmacy and drugstore items.

Sears Holdings Corporation is the parent company of Kmart and was
formed in 2004 in connection with the merger of Kmart and Sears,
Roebuck and Co.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John J. Edson, Esq.
      100 Hazel Lane, Suite 300
      Sewickley, PA 15143
      Telephone:  (412) 259-8868
      Facsimile: (412) 259-8892
      E-mail: lesterlaw@comcast.net

         - and -

      Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
      Erin G. Comite, Esq
      Edward C. Signaigo, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      The Chrysler Building
      405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
      New York, NY 10174
      Telephone: (212) 223-6444
      Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
      E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
              ecomite@scott-scott.com
              esignaigo@scott-scott.com


KMART CORPORATION: Faces Gulf Coast Suit in La. Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gulf Coast Bank and Trust Company, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated financial institutions v. Kmart
Corporation and Sears Holdings Corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-00558
(E.D. La., February 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to maintain adequate computer data security for
customer information, including credit and debit card data and
personally identifying information.

Kmart Corporation is a Michigan corporation that operates a chain
of retail stores that sell a wide variety of merchandise,
including home appliances, consumer electronics, home goods,
apparel, grocery & household, pharmacy and drugstore items.

Sears Holdings Corporation is the parent company of Kmart and was
formed in 2004 in connection with the merger of Kmart and Sears,
Roebuck and Co.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Wallace Goodell Jr., Esq.
      WILLIAM W. GOODELL, JR. ATTORNEY AT LAW
      P. O. Box 52663
      Lafayette, LA 70505-2663
      Telephone:  (337) 412-2724
      E-mail: bill@goodelllaw.com


KNIGHTS' MARINE: "Fairley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Fairley, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. Knights' Marine and Industrial Services, Inc., David Knight,
and Brian Knight, Case No. 1:15-cv-00047 (S.D. Miss., February 20,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
declaratory relief, attorney's fees and costs, and other damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Knights' Marine and Industrial Services, Inc. is a Mississippi
corporation that subcontracts with various shipyards and other
marine and industrial companies to provide the services of
structural welders, shipfitters, pipe welders, pipefitters,
electricians, and outside machinists.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Virginia Carothers LoCoco, Esq.
      LOCOCO AND LOCOCO, PA
      P.O. Box 6014
      D'Iberville, MS 39532
      Telephone: (228) 392-3799
      E-mail: virginia.lococo@lococolaw.com


KNUDSEN & SONS: Lies About Blueberry Pomegranate Juice, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Snyder, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Knudsen & Sons, Inc., an Ohio Corporation, Case No.
3:15-cv-00189-TJC-MCR (M.D. Fla., February 19, 2015) is a class
action seeking redress for the Defendant's alleged deceptive
practices misrepresenting and omitting the true nature of the R.W.
Knudsen Family Organic Blueberry Pomegranate Juice.

Mr. Snyder alleges that the Product, based on the label and other
forms of advertising, represented that the ingredients in the
juice product are pomegranate and blueberry juice.  However, he
contends, the Product contains very little pomegranate or
blueberry juice, a fact that the Defendant knew and purposely
failed to disclose to its consumers.  He adds that the Product
consists primarily of water and cheap apple and other juices.

Knudsen & Sons, Inc., is an Ohio corporation with its principal
office located in California.  The Defendant manufactures, labels,
markets, advertises, sells and distributes the Product to
purchasers throughout the state of Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
          Michael J. Pascucci, Esq.
          EGGNATZ, LOPATIN & PASCUCCI, LLP
          5400 S. University Drive, Suite 413
          Davie, FL 33328
          Telephone: (954) 889-3359
          Facsimile: (954) 889-5913
          E-mail: jeggnatz@eggnatzlaw.com
                  mpascucci@EggnatzLaw.com


KOREA EXCHANGE: Faces Suit Over Carbon Emissions Quota
------------------------------------------------------
The Korea Herald reports that the Korea Exchange, the nation's
main bourse and the operator of the emissions trading market, said
that only 1,380 tons of emissions allowances -- with a total value
of 11.55 million won ($10,500) -- changed hands in the first month
of trading since Jan. 12.  There was not a single transaction in
all but four days -- all in the first week -- during the entire
one-month period.

Nevertheless, the Korean carbon exchange's poor report card for
the first month goes beyond our expectations, and this calls for
all concerned parties -- especially government authorities -- to
take supplementary measures.

One of the urgent problems to be tackled is readjustment of the
amount of emissions allowances.  Businesses insist that the 1.6
billion tons allocated to 525 installations is too small -- in
fact, it accounts for 80 percent of the emission quotas requested
by the installations.

It is understandable that businesses have been crying foul against
emissions quotas, with some going on to take legal action, which
is widely seen as justified in some cases.

A group of 17 firms in the nonmetal manufacturing sector filed an
administrative suit.  Their logic is that the nonmetal industry
should get a larger proportion of emissions allowances than the
metal industry because it is growing far faster, but the
government allocations were based on uniform criteria.

That petrochemical companies are moving to file a similar class
action suit and pressure government officials to review the way
they allocated the emissions quotas for each sector and individual
installations.

In this context, the government did the right thing when it
decided to increase the emissions quotas of 40 installations --
out of 243 who appealed their original allocations -- by a total
of 6.7 million tons.

The government is advised to see whether there is room to readjust
the emissions allowances, on the condition that the goal -- for
cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 80 million tons by 2017 and 30
percent below the business-as-usual levels by 2020 -- is kept
intact.  It will do well to devise supplementary programs to help
the emissions trading scheme take root early.


LABORATOIRE RIVA: Recalls RIVA-Olanzapine Tablets
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 18, 2015
Posting date: February 26, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Drugs
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-43907

This lot is potentially contaminated with foreign tablets
(Ondansetron 8mg).

Affected products:

A. RIVA-Olanzapine 2.5 mg
   DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
   DIN 02337126
   Dosage form: Tablet
   Strength: Olanzapine 2.5 mg
   Lot or serial number: C0938

B. RIVA-Olanzapine 5 mg
   DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
   DIN 02337134
   Dosage form: Tablet
   Strength: Olanzapine 5 mg
   Lot or serial number: C1362

C. RIVA-Olanzapine 7.5 mg
   DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
   DIN 02337142
   Dosage form: Tablet
   Strength: Olanzapine 7.5 mg
   Lot or serial number: C1729, C0940

Recalling Firm: Laboratoire Riva Inc.
                660 Industrial Blvd.
                Blainville
                J7C 3V4
                Quebec
                CANADA
Marketing Authorization Holder: Laboratoire Riva Inc.
                                660 Industrial Blvd.
                                Blainville
                                J7C 3V4
                                Quebec
                                CANADA


LABORATOIRE RIVA: Recalls RIVA-Olanzapine Tablets
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 18, 2015
Posting date: February 26, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Drugs
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-43907
This lot is potentially contaminated with foreign tablets
(Ondansetron 8mg).

Affected products:

A. RIVA-Olanzapine 2.5 mg
   DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
   DIN 02337126
   Dosage form: Tablet
   Strength: Olanzapine 2.5 mg
   Lot or serial number: C0938

B. RIVA-Olanzapine 5 mg
   DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
   DIN 02337134
   Dosage form: Tablet
   Strength: Olanzapine 5 mg
   Lot or serial number: C1362

C. RIVA-Olanzapine 7.5 mg
   DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
   DIN 02337142
   Dosage form: Tablet
   Strength: Olanzapine 7.5 mg
   Lot or serial number: C1729, C0940

Recalling Firm: Laboratoire Riva Inc.
                660 Industrial Blvd.
                Blainville
                J7C 3V4
                Quebec
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Laboratoire Riva Inc.
                                660 Industrial Blvd.
                                Blainville
                                J7C 3V4
                                Quebec
                                CANADA


LAKE LAND: Recalls Smoked Trout & Arctic Char Products
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 19, 2015
Type of communication: Recall Alert
Sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Clostridium botulinum
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Lake Land Meats & Farm Market
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9650

Lake Land Meats & Farm Market is recalling smoked trout and smoked
arctic char from the marketplace because they may permit the
growth of Clostridium botulinum. Consumers should not consume the
recalled products described below.

The affected products were sold in variable weight packages at the
following retail locations in Ontario during the periods shown
below.

  Retail Location         Address              Dates Sold
  ---------------         --------             ----------
Lake Land Meats Farm &    1226 St. Paul St.    Up to and
Market Retail Store       West St. Catharines  including
                          ON                   February 13, 2015.

Cheese Shoppe on          90 Locke St. South   Up to and
Locke                     Hamilton ON          including
                                               February 13, 2015.

Upper Canada              4159 Jordan Rd.      Up to and
Cheese Company            Jordan Station ON    including
                                               February 13, 2015.

Consumers who are unsure if they have purchased the affected
product are advised to contact their retailer.

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

Food contaminated with Clostridium botulinum toxin may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include
nausea, vomiting, fatigue, dizziness, blurred or double vision,
dry mouth, respiratory failure and paralysis. In severe cases of
illness, people may die.

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

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

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

  Brand name  Common name    Size     Code(s) on product   UPC
  ----------  -----------    ----     ------------------   ---
  None        Smoked Trout   variable None                 None
  None        Smoked Arctic  variable None                 None
              Char

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/t4PyEY


LAND ROVER: Recalls 2015 Range Rover Sport Models
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 18, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: SUV
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Engine
Units affected: 1
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015072TC
ID number: 2015072
Manufacturer recall number: P055

On certain vehicles, bolts which fix the big end bearing caps onto
the engine connecting rod may not have been torqued to the correct
specification and could loosen. This would result in unusual
knocking noises from the engine compartment. If the vehicle was to
be operated in this condition, the engine could seize and stall,
causing a loss of motive power as well as a loss of power steering
and power brake assist. This could increase the risk of a crash
causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will
replace affected engines.

  Make         Model               Model year(s) affected
  ----         -----               ----------------------
  LAND ROVER   RANGE ROVER SPORT   2015


LAND ROVER: Recalls Multiple Models Due to Safety Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 19, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: SUV
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Wheels
Units affected: 127
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015076TC
ID number: 2015076
Manufacturer recall number: P056

On certain vehicles, the wheel nuts may contain a manufacturing
defect. The wheel nuts may crack and detach from the wheel hub
stud when subjected to shock loading. Correction: Dealers will
replace wheel nuts. Locking wheel nuts are not affected by this
concern.

   Make        Model                Model year(s) affected
   ----        -----                ----------------------
  LAND ROVER   RANGE ROVER          2015
  LAND ROVER   RANGE ROVER SPORT    2015
  LAND ROVER   LR4                  2015


LAND ROVER: Recalls Multiple Models Due Non-Compliance
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 19, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: SUV
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Airbag
Units affected: 5839
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015077TC
ID number: 2015077
Manufacturer recall number: P059

Certain vehicles may not comply with the requirements of Canada
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (CMVSS) 208 - Occupant Protection.
The passenger seat occupant classification system (OCS) may have
been calibrated incorrectly during the manufacturing process. This
could result in the non-deployment of an airbag, which would
increase the risk of injury to the seat occupant in a crash where
airbag deployment is warranted. Correction: Dealers will reprogram
the occupant classification system (OCS).

  Make         Model              Model year(s) affected
  ----         -----              ----------------------
  LAND ROVER   RANGE ROVER        2013
  LAND ROVER   RANGE ROVER SPORT  2014


LEIGHTON HOLDING: Conceals Financial Black-Hole, Exec Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nick McKenzie, Richard Baker and Jenny Wiggins at The Sydney
Morning Herald report that Australian construction firm Leighton
Holdings faces courtroom accusations it concealed a financial
black-hole worth up to $4 billion from shareholders, potentially
breaching continuous disclosure laws.

The allegations from a former senior company manager in the
Federal Circuit Court come with the firm facing a series of high-
level investigations, including an internal probe into the
purchase of expensive gifts for former NSW premier Barry O'Farrell
and other politicians and business figures.

Fairfax Media can reveal that former senior technical manager Alan
Henry told the court that Leighton's chief operating officer,
Adolfo Valderas Martinez, and other top executives have been
publicly over-stating revenue "for fear" that disclosing adverse
results "would jeopardize the company's reputation and financial
position".

Mr. Henry, a 20-year Leighton veteran, has also alleged that a
number of Leighton executives had "suffered extreme stress and
anxiety as a result of pressures to falsify or improve inaccurate
reporting figures".

The revelations come just three years after Leighton was
sanctioned by ASIC for failing in 2011 to fully reveal the extent
of its financial position in major projects in Victoria and
Queensland, causing massive share market losses and a class action
law suit that cost the firm $70 million.

A Fairfax Media investigation can also reveal that Leighton
operating company Thiess has apparently breached its own policies
by purchasing a $1195 Montblanc pen for Mr. O'Farrell, who said in
a statement he and his staff did not recall receiving the pen.

The purchase of the luxury pen is one of a number of expensive
items bought with company funds that appear to breach company
policies banning gifts to government officials or the purchase of
goods unrelated to company business.  A company legal source said
other egregious examples include the personal assistant of a top
company executive using a Thiess credit card to pay for botox
treatments and staff using company credit cards while on leave.

The latest allegations add to the raft of misconduct claims
already facing Leighton and suggest ASIC's previous 2012
sanctioning of the firm for failures to disclose cost blow outs
has had little effect on its corporate behavior.  The new claims
also raise questions about the progress of other longstanding and
unresolved probes into the firm.

Federal police are expected to soon charge several of former
Leighton executives over alleged bribery linked to a multi-million
dollar oil pipeline in Iraq in 2010, while ASIC is preparing its
own case relating to accounting and disclosure discrepancies
linked to a 2010 joint-venture project in India with firm Welspun.

On Feb. 16, Fairfax Media revealed how Indian police have issued a
criminal summons to Thiess chief Bruce Munro over allegations he
and Thiess defrauded Indian businessman Syam Reddy in connection
to a massive coal deal.

The latest failure-to-disclose allegations are detailed in an
unfair dismissal case lodged in November by Mr. Henry.  He says he
was pushed out of Leighton after repeatedly urging Mr. Valderas
and other senior figures to release unflattering financial
figures.

Mr. Valderas was appointed Leighton's chief operating officer in
October 2013 ahead of a $1.1 billion takeover by Spanish
construction company Grupo ACS in March 2014.

ACS, which controls 70 percent of Leighton, fired Leighton's chief
executive and chief financial officer in March last year,
appointing former ACS executive Marcelino Fernandez Verdes as CEO
and chairman.

Mr. Henry has sworn that Mr. Valderas knew of major project blow
outs but "intentionally chose to disregard their significance."
Among the evidence Mr. Henry has presented to the court is a photo
of a whiteboard used during a management meeting in Perth in
February last year.  The photo allegedly shows a $205 million blow
out on the Chevron Gorgon Jetty Project, from $2.688 to $2.893
billion.

Mr. Henry said that when he raised the issue of under-reporting on
the jetty project at a further meeting with Mr. Valderas and
Leighton Contractors managing director Craig Laslett, and
questioned whether it should be disclosed to the Australian
Securities Exchange, his observations were "not favorably
received".

"The issues raised were a major concern for Mr. Valderas and the
company, particularly in light of the recent change of control and
their desire to develop a good reputation," he court case states.

Mr. Henry said that during another high-level meeting executives
discussed how Leighton should retrieve $1.464 billion from the
client on the jetty project, given it had only approved payments
of $1.428 billion to Leighton and had rejected most of the
additional claims already submitted.

Mr. Henry said it later became apparent that the firm had relied
on "a knowingly false forecast" of $2.688 billion relating to the
Gorgon project Mr. Henry has alleged he was "concerned" by this as
the "number was . . . used to uphold the first quarter results
publicly issued by Leighton Holdings".

The court files state that Mr. Valderas has previously rejected
Mr. Henry's claims, but Leighton declined to respond to questions
from Fairfax Media.

Australian listed companies are required by law to give continuous
and honest disclosure to the market so their shareholders are
fully informed of the financial position.

Mr. Henry has also alleged the company relied on "a total of
around $4 billion" in revenue that its clients had not agreed to
pay, did not know about or would most likely dispute.  He has
alleged this "unapproved revenue" stemmed from an oil pipeline
project in Iraq, a Hong Kong Kowloon rail terminus project, the
Chennai to Nashri Tunnel project in India and the Chevron Gorgon
Jetty project.

Mr. Henry said he sought to "avoid the victimization that his
previous colleagues had suffered [in questioning the failure to
act on cost blow outs] by raising the issues with Mr. Valderas on
a number of occasions with the hope that the issues would be
addressed".

"However, in raising these concerns, the applicant received
significant push back from Mr. Valderas and the management team,
for fear that such results would jeopardize the company's
reputation and financial position," the legal claim states.
"Not only was Mr. Valderas aware of the shortfalls but he also
intentionally chose to disregard their significance despite the
number of times the applicant [Mr. Henry] raised them."


LENOVO INC: Faces Sterling Int'l Suit Over Preinstalled Spywares
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sterling International Consulting Group, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated v. Lenovo (United States) Inc.,
Lenovo Group Limited, and Superfish Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-00807
(N.D. Cal., February 23, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants'
practice of selling new computers with preinstalled harmful and
offensive spyware and malware.

Lenovo (United States) Inc. is a subsidiary of Lenovo Group
Limited, a multinational computer technology company, which,
through its subsidiaries, designs, develops, manufactures and
sells personal computers, tablet computers, smartphones,
workstations, servers, electronic storage devices and smart
televisions.

Superfish, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place
of business in Palo Alto, California. It is an advertising company
that develops various advertising-supported software products
based on a visual search engine.
The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq.
      Shiho Yamamoto, Esq.
      PRITZKER LEVINE LLP
      180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1390
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (415) 692-0772
      Facsimile: (415) 366-6110
      E-mail: jkl@pritzkerlevine.com
              ecp@pritzkerlevine.com
              sy@pritzkerlevine.com

         - and -

      John A. Kehoe, Esq.
      41 Madison Avenue, 31st Floor
      New York, New York 10010
      Telephone: (917) 525-2190
      Facsimile: (917) 525-2184
      E-mail: jak@pritzkerlevine.com


LIFE SCIENCE: Recalls Ironkids Gummies due to Missing Labels
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 17, 2015
Posting date: February 26, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Natural health products
Hazard classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-43895

Recall initiated due to missing labels on the bottles

Affected products: Ironkids Omega-3 Gummies
                   DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
                   NPN 80031182
Dosage form: Block
Strength: Fish oil 90.0 mg (Omega-3 Fatty acids 25.0 mg;
          Eicosapentaenoic acid 5.0 mg; Docosahexaenoic acid
          20.0 mg)
Lot or serial number: 14233
Recalling Firm: Life Science Nutritionals
                1190 Lemay Street
                Acton Vale
                J0H 1A0
                Quebec
                CANADA
Marketing Authorization Holder: Life Science Nutritionals
                                6-5040 Mainway
                                Burlington
                                L7L 7G5
                                Ontario
                                CANADA


LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Court Appoints Coyler as Lead Plaintiff
-----------------------------------------------------------
In ADAM ZHAMUKHANOV, Plaintiff, v. ACELRX PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV-04416-LHK, (N.D. Cal.), before
the Court are three motions to appoint lead plaintiff and approval
of lead counsel. The first is Plaintiff Dennis Simcox's motion for
appointment of Simcox as lead plaintiff and approval of Simcox's
selection of counsel. The second is Plaintiff Rick L. Coyler's
unopposed motion for appointment of Coyler as lead plaintiff and
approval of Coyler's selection of counsel. The third is Plaintiff
Harry Zweifel's motion to appoint Zweifel as lead plaintiff and
approval of Zweifel's selection of counsel.  Defendants have filed
a statement of non-opposition to all three of Plaintiffs' motions
and have stated they take no position as to the appointment of
lead plaintiff and/or the selection of lead counsel.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), District Judge Lucy H. Koh
finds all three motions appropriate for determination without oral
argument, and thus vacates the hearing set for these motions on
March 26, 2015, at 1:30 p.m.  The Court further grants Coyler's
unopposed motion and denies the other two motions.

Coyler is appointed as the lead plaintiff in this action and
Brower Piven as lead counsel, wrote Judge Koh in her order dated
February 24, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/H7SIE7from Leagle.com.

Adam Zhamukhanov, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Vincent
Prongay, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP.

AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey
Michael Kaban -- jkaban@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Jeffrey Michael
Walker -- jwalker@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, John C. Dwyer --
dwyerjc@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP & Koji Francis Fukumura --
kfukumura@cooley.com -- Cooley Godward Kronish LLP.

Richard A. King, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Michael Kaban,
Cooley LLP, Jeffrey Michael Walker, Cooley LLP, John C. Dwyer,
Cooley LLP & Koji Francis Fukumura, Cooley Godward Kronish LLP.

Timothy E. Morris, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Michael
Kaban, Cooley LLP, Jeffrey Michael Walker, Cooley LLP, John C.
Dwyer, Cooley LLP & Koji Francis Fukumura, Cooley Godward Kronish
LLP.

James H. Welch, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Michael Kaban,
Cooley LLP, Jeffrey Michael Walker, Cooley LLP, John C. Dwyer,
Cooley LLP & Koji Francis Fukumura, Cooley Godward Kronish LLP.

Dennis Simcox, Movant, represented by Laurence M. Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A..

Rick L. Coyler, Movant, represented by Evan Jason Smith --
esmith@brodsky-smith.com -- Brodsky & Smith LLC.

Harry Zweifel, Movant, represented by Robert Vincent Prongay --
rprongay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP.


MAJOR LEAGUE: Judges Wants Class Members Linked to California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge ordered attorneys representing minor league
baseball players in a labor dispute with Major League Baseball to
find potential class members linked to California, reports Arvin
Temkar at Courthouse News Service.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Spero ruled in a putative class action
from lead plaintiff Aaron Senne, who claims Major League Baseball
underpays its amateur players.  Senne played for the Miami Marlins
organization from 2010 to 2013.

Senne sued three Major League clubs, the Office of the
Commissioner of Baseball dba Major League Baseball, and
Commissioner Bud Selig in February 2014.  Eventually, all 30 Major
League teams were added as defendants.

Eleven teams sought dismissal in November, claiming they were not
subject to jurisdiction in California.  Baseball's attorneys
argued that the teams' limited contacts with California do not
satisfy the court's standards for personal jurisdiction.

In a hearing on February 13, Spero told plaintiffs' attorneys to
submit an amended complaint with potential new class members who
can be shown to have worked for their teams in California.

"You need an individual representative plaintiff for each of these
clubs that are contesting jurisdiction," Spero said.

In separate motions also addressed February 13, defendants'
attorneys asked the judge to transfer the case to the Middle
District of Florida because that's where "the largest
concentration of parties and witnesses can be found."

Spero said it is unlikely he will transfer the case, because it is
a "nationwide case" with many parties inside and outside of
California.


MANGOS STEAKHOUSE: "Jimenez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Gustavo Adolfo Ortiz Jimenez, Juan Carlos Gonzalez Caceres, and
William Isazalopez, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Mangos Steakhouse & Bakery, Inc. d/b/a Mangos, Case
No. 1:15-cv-00841 (E.D.N.Y., February 23, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant bar located at 78-14
Roosevelt Avenue Jackson Heights, New York 11372.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lawrence F. Morrison, Esq.
      MORRISON TENENBAUM PLLC
      87 Walker Street, Floor 2
      New York, NY 10013
      Telephone: (212) 620-0938
      Facsimile: (646) 998-1972
      E-mail: lmorrison@m-t-law.com


MARION COUNTY, IN: Faces Class Action Delayed Jail Releases
-----------------------------------------------------------
Russ McQuaid, writing for Fox59, reports that Marion County's
Sheriff Office faces a class action over delayed jail releases.

Terry Clayton's problems began long before he went to court. Mr.
Clayton was arrested for battery and intimidation last fall, said
Richard Waples, the attorney representing the former inmate in a
federal lawsuit against the Marion County Sheriff.  On December
10th Mr. Clayton's trial came to a conclusion.

"The jury found him not guilty," said Mr. Waples.  "There weren't
any other charges against him.  The judge issued an order right
then and there at the conclusion of the trial that he be released.
The sheriff then after the trial puts him in chains and handcuffs,
takes him back to the jail, imprisons him for another two days
before he's finally released."

Not only did Mr. Clayton served two months in jail awaiting trial
for a crime he didn't commit, he served another 48 hours after the
jury found him not guilty because the Marion County Sheriff's
Department is bogged down in its processing of inmates in and out
of the jail.

"The sheriff admits that there's a problem here," said Mr. Waples.
"It's widespread, it's systemic, the courts are frustrated by it,
defense counsel are frustrated by it, the prosecutors are
frustrated by it and certainly our clients, who represent the
people who are spending the time in jail when they shouldn't be
there, are extremely frustrated by it."

Each year the Marion County Sheriff is responsible for booking
some 63,000 people into its jail and assorted detention centers.

Since the implementation of a new case management system called
Odyssey last June, the sheriff has grappled with the mistaken
release of inmates who should be held and the delayed departures
of arrestees and offenders who shouldn't be.

"Not only is it a problem to the person that has to wait in jail
for days after they should've been let free," said Mr. Waples,
"it's a problem for us all as citizens of the city because we pay
to incarcerate people so it's costing more for our government to
be inefficient by incarcerating people who shouldn't be there
because that's a cost every day."

FOX59 News has investigated the inefficiencies and glitches of the
Odyssey case management system since its launch.  Throughout the
summer and fall, loved ones and friends of Marion County Jail
inmates called FOX59 News to complain that offenders were not
being released days after judges signed their paperwork.

FOX59 viewers said their friends and family members were told by
jailers that the sheriff didn't have enough staff on duty to
process the offenders out in a timely manner.

"The sheriff's department says they have 72 hours to release them
and that's not the law," said Mr. Waples.  "The sheriff's
department should release them quickly."

In September Sheriff John Layton brought in an outside management
expert to examine the Odyssey system and how an offender's case
moves from arrest through the jail to the courts and back out onto
the streets.

"The scope of what I have been involved in is looking at the
wrongful releases, and hand-in-hand with the wrong releases, the
slow releases and the over-detentions," said Dr. Jon Padfield, a
former state representative and president of Proffer Brainchild.
"The recommendations that we came up with I'm very confident that
we're going to see a substantial decrease in the number of over-
detentions."

That was in September. Layton's staff promised changes by October
1st.

The four men listed in the federal class action lawsuit claim they
were over-detained in November and December.

"The guys were being held over days after they were ordered
released either on bail or if they had been found not guilty or if
they had been ordered released on their own recognizance," said
Mr. Waples.  "The punishment aspect of this is horrible.  The
conditions are not good in jail and yet they're subjected to these
conditions when maybe they didn't do anything and they're
innocent, and even if they are guilty of the offenses charged, the
punishments are so minor in many of these cases that they're going
to end up effectively serving more time than they would even if
they go to trial and are found guilty."

Mr. Waples estimates over-detentions like those served by his
clients have been repeated thousands of times with other inmates
during the last year.

The attorney sees a class action lawsuit, with its demand of
compensation and changes in jail policy and practices, as the most
effective remedy to the over-detention dilemma.

High above the main entrance to the sheriff's department is a
banner proclaiming MCSD as one of the top 1 percent of the
sheriff's departments in America.  Sheriff Layton, the 2014
Indiana Sheriff of the Year, sought the certification as his
department emerged from years of oversight by the U.S. District
Court.

The current lawsuit invites a federal judge to once again examine
the operations and practices of the Marion County Sheriff's
Department.

When asked for a response to the lawsuit, a spokeswoman for
Sheriff Layton told FOX59 News, "No comment as lawyers are still
in the process of reviewing the amended complaint."


MAXWELL & MORGAN: Sued for Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allan Costa, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Maxwell & Morgan PC, an Arizona professional
corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-00315-NVW (D. Ariz., February 19,
2015) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Clark Wigley, Esq.
          Francis Robert Connelly, II, Esq.
          Jonathan Adam Dessaules, Esq.
          DESSAULES LAW GROUP
          5353 N 16th St., Suite 110
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 274-5400
          Facsimile: (602) 274-5401
          E-mail: dwigley@dessauleslaw.com
                  rconnelly@dessauleslaw.com
                  jdessaules@dessauleslaw.com

               - and -

          Kevin R. Harper, Esq.
          HARPER LAW PLC
          207 N Gilbert Rd., Suite 001
          Gilbert, AZ 85234
          Telephone: (602) 256-6400
          Facsimile: (602) 256-6418
          E-mail: krh@harperlawarizona.com


MAYPORT C & C: Faces "Cowen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Cowen v. Mayport C & C Fisheries, Inc. and Graeme Thomson,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00195 (M.D. Fla., February 20, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Mayport C & C Fisheries, Inc. is a Florida corporation that is
engaged in the business of distributing, packing and selling of
seafood.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yolando Ann-Marie Hewling, Esq.
      FARAH & FARAH, PA
      3rd Floor, 10 W Adams St
      Jacksonville, FL 32202
      Telephone: (904) 807-3103
      Facsimile: (904) 358-5302
      E-mail: yhewling@farahandfarah.com


MEDICAL CAREER: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lucinda Yuetter-Beacham, individually, and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Medical Career Institute of South
Florida, Inc., et al., Case No. 9:15-cv-80226 (S.D. Fla., February
20, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
minimum wages as required by the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Medical Career Institute of South Florida, Inc. owns and operates
an educational institute located at 3650 Shawnee Ave., West Palm
Beach, Florida 33409.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony Sanchez, Esq.
      ANTHONY F. SANCHEZ, P.A.
      6701 Sunset Drive, Suite 101
      Miami, FL 33143
      Telephone: (305) 665-9211
      Facsimile: (305) 328-4842
      E-mail: afs@laborlawfla.com


MILLPOND FARM: "Mendez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Juan E. Mendez, and other similarly-situated individuals v.
Millpond Farm, Inc. and Donna Phillips, Case No. 0:15-cv-60366
(S.D. Fla., February 23, 2015), seeks to recover minimum and
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and the costs and
reasonably attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a real estate company in Coconut
Creek County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
      ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
      3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202
      Miami, FL 33133
      Telephone: (305) 446-1500
      Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
      E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


MINNESOTA: Trial Begins in Sex Offender Program Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Melius, writing for St. Peter Herald, reports that
Minnesota's Sex Offender Program entered its second week of
scrutiny in St. Paul, as the class action lawsuit questioning its
constitutionality revealed two widely differing viewpoints.

State Sen. Kathy Sheran, DFL-Mankato, continues to watch the trial
unfold, a scenario she had hoped the Minnesota Legislature would
have avoided by taking leadership and action to make changes to
the program.  Sen. Sheran, whose senate district includes St.
Peter and Nicollet County, stressed at the start of the 2015
legislative session that the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP)
needed to be amended before the Feb. 9 trial opened.

"I obviously believe that the court has given us plenty of
direction on what they would like the Legislature to do,"
Sen. Sheran said prior to the start of the trial.  "They've given
us time to make changes to the system."

But others disagreed. Rep. Tony Cornish, R-Vernon Center, has been
vocal in suggesting the trial run its course, which could be
several weeks.  After that, Cornish said, the Legislature can
assess the court ruling and either appeal or begin to redefine the
MSOP.

It's a tough case either way, both admit.

"The public has become very fearful," said Sen. Sheran.  "The
public does not have empathy for sex offenders."

Funding woes add to that dilemma, as the Minnesota Department of
Human Services estimates that the MSOP costs $341 a day to treat
and house patients, or $124,000 annually.  With over 700
individuals in the MSOP, total costs to the system are climbing
close to $9 million a year.

Gov. Mark Dayton has proposed an additional $6.8 million in state
funding over the next two years which would be used to evaluate
patients more often and move some to facilities less restrictive
than St. Peter and Moose Lake, both which house MSOP clients.

Minnesota Department of Human Services Commissioner Lucinda Jesson
defended the program in testimony on Feb. 13.  Ms. Jesson stressed
that since 2011, when she took over the department, ongoing
changes have been made to the program.  Ms. Jesson was thrust into
leading such change after the Office of the Legislative Auditor
the same year pointed out "significant inconsistencies in the
commitment process."

The class action lawsuit, however, claims that those individuals
civilly committed have little hope of ever being released, as
attorney Dan Gustafson also argued that treatment options are
inadequate.

"The door swings only one way," Mr. Gustafson argued.  "It's easy
to get in . It's impossible to get out."

U.S. District Court Judge Donovan Frank, who is presiding over the
MSOP trial, had labeled the program as "draconian" and "clearly
broken" in pre-trial hearings.

In the 21-year history of the MSOP, only three individuals have
been granted conditional discharge from the program.  But where to
house such individuals remains a political problem, as the first
attempt at the development of such an alternative housing facility
in Cambridge was met with fierce neighborhood opposition.
Locally, the DHS recommended placement of convicted sex offender
Robert Jeno at a Le Center facility has also draw opposition.
"The community reaction was much more than we'd expected,"
Commissioner Jesson said after the Cambridge plan was dropped.

But Deputy Minnesota Attorney General Nathan Brennaman, arguing
the case for DHS, says the state has "a legitimate interest in
protecting its citizens from sex offenders" and considers the MSOP
constitutional.

"This program not only does some things well, but does some things
better than any sex offender treatment program in the country,"
Mr. Brennaman argued.  "The fact is, these individuals are
difficult to treat."

But the trial's first day saw four hours of testimony from
Deborah McCullough, head of Wisconsin's Sexually Violent Persons
treatment program.  She was one of four court-appointed experts
asked to review the Minnesota's program. And she labeled the MSOP
problematic, creating a "climate of despair" for those committed,
prompting "hopelessness" and "helplessness."

Ms. McCullough and others critiquing the MSOP particularly noted
that 52 individuals remained in treatment even though their
offenses were committed as juveniles.

Commissioner Jesson said improvements to the MSOP may lead to some
40 to 50 patients moving out of the program.  She also noted that
since 2012, there's been a 9 percent increase in patients moving
up to "Phase 3" and an improvement from 25 to 51 percent moving up
to "Phase 2" in the MSOP.

Funding delayed

Adding to Sen. Sheran's concerns was a $10.4 million emergency
funding bill for the Minnesota State Security Hospital in St.
Peter, which became embroiled in controversy as Dayton launched a
surprising tirade of words on Feb. 13 against a fellow DFLer,
Minnesota Senate Majority Leader Tom Bakk.

Sen. Sheran had advocated for the emergency spending measure two
weeks earlier, indicating that the hospital was in danger of
running out of finances my March 31 if the additional funding
wasn't approved.

The Mankato senator, who chairs the Minnesota Senate's Health and
Human Services Committee, said safety and security measures put in
place last year prompted the funding deficiency at the St. Peter
facility.  She noted that some 60 security counselors have been
added, costing the facility $8.2 million.  The admitting area at
the hospital was also separated from the crisis unit at a cost of
$600,000.  Additional training funds of $1.2 million further
crippled the State Hospital budget, according to Sen. Sheran.

However, Gov. Dayton threatened to veto the emergency funding bill
because Rep. Bakk removed a provision which would have allowed for
raises to many of Dayton's department heads.  Members of both
political parties are hoping the two DFLers can mend their ways.


MINNESOTA: Class Action Mulled Over Mismanaged Disability Funds
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Serres, writing for Star Tribune, reports that thousands of
Minnesotans struggling with physical and mental disabilities have
been deprived of basic services and therapy because county
governments are failing to spend millions of dollars set aside for
disability services.

In the last two years alone, nearly $200 million in state and
federal money that was allocated by the state for people with
disabilities went unspent by counties, state records show.  As a
result, disabled people were placed on long waiting lists for
services and wrongly told that funds were unavailable.

The situation has inflamed advocates and state lawmakers, who are
now pressing the administration of Gov. Mark Dayton to accelerate
long-stalled reforms that would expand access to independent
housing, transportation and other services for the disabled.

In a letter to Human Services Commissioner Lucinda Jesson,
Minneapolis attorney Shamus O'Meara accused her agency of
mismanaging at least $1.1 billion over the last 15 years and
threatened a class-action lawsuit on behalf of a large group of
disabled clients.  If the state had managed the money better,
prolonged waits for disability benefits, which can last a decade
or more, would have been dramatically reduced or eliminated,
Ms. O'Meara argues.

In February, a coalition of disability rights advocates and
providers was expected to introduce a bill that would force
counties to spend more of the available money or face action by
the state.  The advocates blame what they see as a series of
"perverse incentives" that encourage counties to be overly stingy
with Medicaid benefits, known as waivers, which represent the
largest source of money for social services for disabled
Minnesotans.

"This is a blatant mismanagement of public funds that flies in the
face of everything government agencies should be doing to serve
vulnerable populations," said Sen. John Hoffman, DFL-Champlin, who
plans to introduce the waiver legislation.  "It simply has to
stop."

Human Services officials argue that the advocates are exaggerating
the scope of the problem, but say they are preparing to take
unprecedented steps to eliminate large disparities among counties
in the use of waiver funds.  Some counties fail to spend 20
percent to 40 percent of the money allocated to them by the state,
while others spend nearly all of what they receive.  "Clearly, we
need to manage the dollars better," Assistant DHS Commissioner
Jennifer DeCubellis said in an interview on Feb. 13.  "There is a
significant need."

At the same time, these officials say critics have failed to grasp
the complexities of waiver funding and the challenge of
forecasting demand for disability services.  In small counties,
just one or two complex disability cases could cause overspending.
As a result, the state allocates more waiver money than is
legislatively mandated to give counties more flexibility.

"It's really hard for counties to hit a number year after year,
given their changing needs," said Deputy Human Services
Commissioner Charles Johnson.

'Too conservative'

The legislation and threat of legal action are likely to shine a
bright light on the arcane but vital process by which counties
divvy up more than $1 billion in annual spending on Medicaid
waivers.  The waivers pay for an array of services, from personal
care assistants to adult day care and integrated work
opportunities, which enable thousands of Minnesotans to live in
their own homes rather than in institutions, such as nursing
homes.

The backlog of unused waiver funds originated, in part, from
changes the Legislature adopted nearly a decade ago.  Counties
were required to reimburse the state if they overspent their
waiver funds; as a result, they became overly cautious, say
disability advocates.

A coalition of disability advocacy groups, including Arc of
Minnesota and the Minnesota Disability Law Center, are preparing
legislation that would reverse the payback provision but require
counties that overspend to develop a correction plan.

"Right now, too many counties are far too conservative," said
Bud Rosenfield, a supervising attorney with the Disability Law
Center, a state advocacy agency for people with disabilities.
"The money is frustratingly unused, while people are not getting
access to supports that would help them live better lives."

In pressing for reform, disability rights advocates are emboldened
by a 1999 federal civil rights ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court,
known as Olmstead, that said states cannot keep disabled people in
segregated settings if less-segregated alternatives are available
in the community.  In recent years, the Justice Department has
applied Olmstead broadly, using it against government agencies
with long waiting lists for community services.

Under pressure from a federal court, the state developed a
detailed plan in late 2013 to demonstrate that it is complying
with the Olmstead ruling.  A key piece of the plan called for
reduced waiting lists for disability waiver benefits.  As of
November, nearly 5,000 Minnesotans were on waiting lists for the
disability waivers through Medical Assistance, the state's version
of Medicaid, the federal-state insurance program for the poor.

A federal judge overseeing the Olmstead plan has repeatedly
admonished DHS for failing to move quickly enough on steps that
would reduce the wait lists.

"DHS has ignored the problem . . . and now they're forced to
explain how they failed to ensure that the money gets to the
people it was meant to help," said O'Meara, managing partner with
O'Meara Leer Wagner and Kohl and lead counsel for the families.


MYCOIN: Investors Mull Class Action Over "Ponzi Scheme"
-------------------------------------------------------
With Hong Kong-based bitcoin exchange MyCoin now unmasked as a
'classic Ponzi scheme', the race is on in terms of trying to
recover up to HK$3 billion ($387 million) of investor assets
around the globe.

Randall Arthur, a partner in the Hong Kong office of Kobre & Kim,
addresses a number of key questions about what lies ahead:

What recourse do MyCoin investors have?

"There are no provisions under Hong Kong law or procedure which
allow class action lawsuits to be commenced.  Individual investors
have the right to commence legal proceedings in Hong Kong against
MyCoin, or even join together as joint plaintiffs in a claim.
However they would only be pursuing the claim on behalf of
themselves and not for the benefit of a class of investors.  Even
if one or more individuals were able to obtain a judgment against
MyCoin, it appears that there may not be any assets in Hong Kong
against which such a judgment could be enforced.

"Unless assets can be immediately identified in Hong Kong or
elsewhere in the world -- and steps taken to freeze those assets
in aid of the Hong Kong proceedings -- MyCoin and the perpetrators
of the scheme would almost certainly use the opportunity to
continue to try and hide investors' funds in various jurisdictions
around the world, making any judgment obtained that much harder to
enforce.

"Taking immediate action to identify the whereabouts of investors'
assets and to freeze those assets is crucial.  It may therefore be
in the best interests of the investors to take immediate steps to
place MyCoin into provisional liquidation.  Once appointed, the
provisional liquidators will have wide powers to take immediate
possession of all of MyCoin's assets and records, including
banking records.  They can thereafter engage in a large scale
recovery exercise, involving investigations, both in Hong Kong and
overseas, to trace where investors' stolen funds have been hidden.
Once identified, the funds -- or assets acquired with those funds
-- can be frozen and then steps can be taken, whether through
legal proceedings or otherwise, to recover those assets for the
benefit of the investors."

How should investors go about applying to put MyCoin in
provisional liquidation?

"Simply, as creditors of MyCoin, one or more of the investors
would need to present a winding-up petition against MyCoin
alleging that there are unpaid debts due to the investors and that
it is appropriate for MyCoin to be wound up.  It is also possible
-- although uncommon -- for the Registrar of Companies to apply to
wind up a company if it appears to the Registrar that the company
is being used for unlawful purposes, as is likely to be the case
with MyCoin.  As soon as the petition is presented, an application
can immediately be made to appoint provisional liquidators over
MyCoin."

When provisional liquidators are appointed in this matter, they
will begin an investigation into the affairs of the company.  What
are the top things liquidators need to do right away to minimize
losses?

"The provisional liquidators (and liquidators once a winding-up
order is made) will be primarily concerned with investigating the
affairs of MyCoin and identifying, and preserving, whatever assets
they can by securing the premises at which MyCoin conducted
business, and taking possession of the computers, books and
records of MyCoin.  The provisional liquidators' team will
immediately begin to review the records to ascertain where the
investors' assets may be, whether in or outside of Hong Kong.

"They will also inform banks of their appointment to ensure any
accounts MyCoin has are immediately frozen -- to the extent that
such accounts have not already been frozen by the police -- and
obtain all relevant banking records.  Any funds remaining in any
account will be transferred to the company's liquidation account.

"In addition, the provisional liquidators will need to interview
-- and obtain any relevant information and documents from -- a
number of organizations and individuals. These include investors,
any employees who can be located; and other agents and advisors
involved with the company."

"Once the provisional liquidators are able to identify assets
outside of Hong Kong, they will likely engage lawyers to take
steps to secure those assets, whether through court proceedings or
otherwise."

How will the fact that there are allegedly no (or few) written
records in this case impact asset recovery?

"This will make things more difficult, but liquidators are used to
dealing with scenarios where there are few written records.  In
such circumstances they will conduct investigations with the tools
they have, analyzing computers, banking records, and other books
and records of company.  They will also seek to obtain what they
can from third parties, whether documents, e-mails, or other
electronic records.

"It is worth noting that provisional liquidators have wide powers
to compel production of documents and information from any party
who may have knowledge of the affairs of the company, such as
directors, investors, lawyers, accountants, company secretarial
service providers, banks, or other agents.  If those parties fail
to co-operate with the liquidators' investigations, then the
liquidators can apply to the court to compel those parties to
provide documents and information."

MyCoin allegedly operated with a large network of referral sources
such as real estate and insurance agents and law firm clerks.  Do
investors have recourse against these parties?

"The liquidators may have potential claims against such parties if
there is evidence they were complicit in the scheme.  Even if did
not know of the scheme and were innocent pawns, liquidators may be
able to claw back any payments or commissions made to them by
MyCoin.  These parties will be an important source of information,
and potentially documents, for the liquidators."

What might be the long-term implications of this matter in terms
of legislation or moves to protect investors in the future?

"Legislation, called the Pyramid Schemes Prohibition Ordinance,
already exists in Hong Kong which makes it an offence to promote,
or knowingly participate in, pyramid and ponzi schemes.  Further,
ponzi schemes involving regulated industries, such as products
regulated by the Securities & Futures Commission, are often more
difficult to run and promote, as investors are better placed to do
due diligence on the company.

"Whilst it is almost certain that MyCoin did not actually trade in
bitcoins, it may well have promoted itself as doing so given that
the bitcoin industry is not currently regulated.  In other words,
potential investors would have had less opportunity to investigate
the bona fides of the company.  In light of this ponzi scheme
which falsely promoted itself as trading in bitcoins, there have
already been increasing calls for the regulation of bitcoin
trading."


NATIONAL CREDIT: IFS et al. Dropped From "Gerstle" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum of the Southern District
of New York ruled on defendants' motions in the case AVROHOM
GERSTLE and PHILLIP COUSER, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL CREDIT ADJUSTERS, LLC,
a Kansas Limited Liability Company; INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL
SERVICES, INC., a Kansas Corporation; RICHARD E. SMITH,
Individually and in His Official Capacity with NATIONAL CREDIT
ADJUSTERS, LLC and INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.; MARK L.
HUSTON, Individually and in His Official Capacity with NATIONAL
CREDIT ADJUSTERS, LLC and INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.;
BRADLEY E. HOCHSTEIN, Individually and in His Official Capacity
with NATIONAL CREDIT ADJUSTERS, LLC; MARK FLETCHALL, Individually
and in His Official Capacity with NATIONAL CREDIT ADJUSTERS, LLC;
KEVIN EMMERICH, Individually and in His Official Capacity with
NATIONAL CREDIT ADJUSTERS, LLC; CHARLES HYTER, Individually and in
His Official Capacity with NATIONAL CREDIT ADJUSTERS, LLC; JACKIE
FAGAN, Individually and in Her Official Capacity with NATIONAL
CREDIT ADJUSTERS, LLC. Defendants, NOS 12 CIV 07593 (MGC), 13 CIV
02542 (MGC) (S.D.N.Y.)

National Credit Adjusters, LLC (NCA), is a purchaser and collector
of consumer debts. Other defendants include International
Financial Services, Inc. (IFS) as the sole manager of NCA and have
complete authority to direct NCA's affairs. Richard Smith,
president of IFS and an investor of NCA, Mark L. Huston, the Chief
Financial Officer of NCA, Mark Fletchall, the General Counsel of
NCA, Kevin Emmerich, the Operations Manager of NCA, Charles Hyter,
the Regulatory Compliance Officer of IFS, Jackie Fagan, manager of
NCA and Bradley E. Hochtein.

NCA acquired two payday loans made to plaintiff Avrohom Gerstle
and a one day pay day loan made to plaintiff Phillip Couser. On
January 27, 2012 and June 21, 2012, letters bearing an NCA
letterhead and defendant Fagan's typewritten signature were sent
to plaintiff Gerstle at a New York address. The letters purported
to be "communications from a debt collector attempting to collect
a debt. On August 16, 2012, an unsigned letter bearing the NCA
letterhead purporting to be from a debt collector attempting to
collect a debt was sent to plaintiff Couser at a New York address.
That same day, NCA presented for payment from Couser's checking
account for $125. Although Couser did not authorize that check,
Couser's bank paid $125 to NCA from his account.

Couser brought suit in the Western District of New York on October
5, 2012. Gerstle filed separately in the
Western District of New York

District Court on October 11, 2012. Couser's case was transferred,
by agreement of the parties, to this Court, and the two plaintiffs
filed their first amended class action complaint on October 3,
2013. Defendants moved to dismiss on December 13, 2013. Plaintiffs
subsequently proposed a second amended class action complaint that
was never filed. The motion to dismiss was denied in part and
granted in part with leave to amend on June 26, 2014. Plaintiffs
filed a third amended class action complaint on July 10, 2014.
They alleged in their amended complaint, (Count I) violation of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; (Count II) N.Y. Gen. Bus.
Law Section 349 (Deceptive Business Practices) and (Count III)
N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law Section 5-501 et seq. (Usury).

All defendants except NCA move to dismiss the Third Amended Class
Action Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2). All defendants also move to dismiss for
failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

Judge Cedarbaum granted the motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction as to IFS and all individual defendants except Fagan.
Personal jurisdiction over NCA is unchallenged. Count II, N.Y.
Gen. Bus. Law Section 349, is dismissed. Count IV, RICO, is
dismissed because there is no jurisdiction over the defendants
named in that count. Count I, FDCPA, will proceed against NCA and
Fagan, and Count III, N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law Section 5-501et seq.,
will proceed against NCA.

A copy of Judge Cedarbaum's opinion dated January 6, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/MYMCbffrom Leagle.com.

Attorney for Plaintiffs:

Tiffany N. Hardy, Esq.
EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: 312-739-4200
Facsimile: 312-419-0379

     - and -

William F. Horn, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM F. HORN
188-01B 71st Crescent
Fresh Meadows, NY 11365
Telephone: 718-785-0543

     - and -

Abraham Kleinman, Esq.
KLEINMAN, LLC
626 RXR Plaza
Uniondale, NY 11556-0626
Telephone: 516-522-2621

     - and -

Mark F. Viencek -- mark@trustedvoice.net -- at LAW OFFICES OF MARK
F. VIENCEK, Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Glenn M. Fjermedal -- gfjermedal@davidsonfink.com -- Andrew M.
Burns -- aburns@davidsonfink.com -- Curtis A. Johnson --
cjohnson@davidsonfink.com -- at DAVIDSON FINK LLP, Attorneys for
Defendants National Credit Adjusters, LLC; International Financial
Services, Inc.; Mark Fletchall; Kevin Emmerich; Charles Hyter; and
Jackie Fagan

Jason Nagi -- jnagi@polsinelli.com -- Paul D. Sinclair --
psinclair@polsinelli.com -- Mark. A. Olthoff --
molthoff@polsinelli.com -- Todd H. Bartels --
tbartels@polsinelli.com -- at POLSINELLI PC, Attorneys for
Defendants International Financial Services, Inc.; Richard E.
Smith; Mark L. Huston; Bradley E. Hochstein; and Mark Fletchall


NESTLE PURINA: 7th Cir. Flips Dist. Court Ruling in "Adkins" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In DENNIS ADKINS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, and CONNIE CURTS,
Intervening Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NESTLE PURINA PETCARE COMPANY
and WAGGIN' TRAIN, LLC, Defendants-Appellees, NO. 14-3436, which
the district court has certified as a nationwide class action,
Plaintiffs contend that Nestle and Waggin' Train sold dog treats
that injured the dogs. The parties have reached a settlement, to
which the district court has given tentative approval pending a
fairness hearing under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). That hearing has
been scheduled for June 23, 2015. The order tentatively approving
the settlement has one non-tentative provision: It enjoins all
class members from prosecuting litigation about the dog treats in
any other forum.

One case affected by this injunction has been pending for two
years in Missouri, and it was certified as a statewide class
action before the federal suit was certified as a national class
action. It was on a schedule leading to a trial in May 2015 when
the injunction stopped it cold. Connie Curts, the certified
representative of the Missouri class, intervened to protest the
federal injunction. She contends in this appeal that the district
court has violated 28 U.S.C. Section 2283, the Anti-Injunction
Act, which provides: "A court of the United States may not grant
an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as
expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid
of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments."
The parties (the representatives of the federal class plus Nestle
and Waggin' Train) contend that the injunction is "necessary in
aid of [the district court's] jurisdiction". Curts maintains, to
the contrary, that only federal actions in rem -- that is, suits
about the disposition of specific property -- come within the
scope of the "aid of jurisdiction" exception, because only then
could a state court's action override the federal tribunal by
moving or destroying the property on which federal authority
depends.

According to the United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit,
when it sought to learn the district court's view of this subject,
it was stymied. "The district judge has not explained why he
entered the injunction. There are some hints, but nothing more.
That won't do. Rule 65(d)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure provides that every order issuing an injunction must
"state the reasons why it issued,"" it pointed out.

The immediate question the Seventh Circuit must resolve,
therefore, is whether to vacate the injunction and remand for
further proceedings, or to reverse outright. "We think the latter
step appropriate, for two reasons: first, the final hearing is
scheduled for June, and further proceedings in the district court
(potentially followed by another appeal) could leave the state
litigation in limbo until then, disrupting the state case almost
as effectively as an injunction; second, in supporting this
injunction the parties do not even contend that it is "necessary"
in aid of the district court's "jurisdiction,"" ruled the Seventh
Circuit in an opinion dated March 2, 2015, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/WbTXoUfrom Leagle.com.

"Effective immediately, the district court's injunction is stayed.
Curts and the Missouri court are free to proceed. But our mandate
will issue in the ordinary course, to preserve the parties'
entitlement to seek rehearing," the Seventh Circuit added.


NICKLES BAKERY: Ohio Route Sales Drivers File OT Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sidney Daily News reports that a newly approved class action
lawsuit claims that Nickles Bakery misclassified its Ohio route
sales drivers and denied them overtime pay.  The plaintiff, a
Nickles Bakery route sales driver, is represented by Nilges
Draher, LLC in Canton, Ohio.

The case is filed against Nickles Bakery in federal court under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The FLSA requires that hourly and
non-exempt workers be paid their minimum wage and overtime at time
and a half for working more than 40 hours a week.

Nickles Bakery has a long-standing practice of classifying its
route sales drivers as exempt sales employees.  The result of this
classification means that the route sales drivers, who routinely
work 50 or more hours per week, are not paid overtime.  The class
action lawsuit alleges these misclassified drivers route sales
drivers as exempt sales employees because their primary duty is to
deliver baked products and manage inventory, not to make sales.

Nilges Draher will send notice those workers allowing them the
opportunity to join the lawsuit.


NORDSTROM INC: Class Cert. Bid in "Ogiamien" Case Denied
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Otis D. Wright, II, denied a motion for class
certification in SHAMEA OGIAMIEN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NORDSTROM, INC.,
Defendant, CASE NO. 2:13-CV-05639-ODW-JCG, (C.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Shamea Ogiamien sought to certify a class of former,
non-exempt employees of Defendant Nordstrom, Inc., alleging that
Nordstrom's policy subjected them to bag checks during "off the
clock time" without compensation. Nordstrom opposed the
certification arguing that individualized inquiries into the
random and non-mandatory checks of bag-carrying employees prevents
class-wide issues from predominating over individual issues.

In his ruling entered February 24, 2015, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/L2sM9xfrom Leagle.com, Judge Wright
concluded that Ogiamien failed to establish that "the questions of
law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions
affecting only individual members." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).

Shamea Ogiamien, Plaintiff, represented by Kashif Haque --
khaque@aegislawfirm.com -- Aegis Law Firm PC & Roger Richard
Carter -- rcarter@carterlawfirm.net -- The Carter Law Firm.

Shamea Ogiamien, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff,
represented by Samuel A Wong -- swong@aegislawfirm.com -- Aegis
Law Firm PC.

Shamea Ogiamien, Plaintiff, represented by Scott B Cooper --
scott@cooper-firm.com -- The Cooper Law Firm PC & Samantha A Smith
-- samantha@cooper-firm.com -- The Cooper Law Firm, P.C..

Nordstrom, Inc., a Washington Corporation, Defendant, represented
by Dawn S Fonseca -- dfonseca@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC.

Nordstrom, Inc., Defendant, represented by Julie A Dunne --
jdunne@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson & Dominic John Messiha --
dmessiha@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC.


PARAMOUNT CITRUS: Faces "Peralta" Class Suit in E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marcelina Peralta and Rigoberto Monjaraz, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. Paramount Citrus
Cooperative, Case No. 1:15-cv-00263-JLT (E.D. Cal., February 19,
2015) is brought over farmworker rights under the Agriculture
Acts.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory N. Karasik, Esq.
          KARASIK LAW FIRM
          11835 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 1275
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 312-6800
          Facsimile: (310) 943-2582
          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


PASADENA, CA: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Tax Payers Funds
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Lomako, for himself and those similarly situated v.
City Of Pasadena, a California charter city, et al., Case No.
2:15-cv-01256 (C.D. Cal., February 20, 2015) is brought against
the Defendants for depriving the Class members' constitutional
rights under color of authority of law, specifically by not
publicly disclosing information related to the embezzlement of tax
payers' funds prior to the closing of nominations period.

City of Pasadena is a municipal government entity chartered under
the laws of the State of California, a charter city and
incorporated within the boundaries of Los Angeles County,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Philip Eberhard Koebel, Esq.
      PHILIP E. KOEBEL LAW OFFICES
      P O Box 94799
      Pasadena, CA 91109-4799
      Telephone: (626) 797-6342
      Facsimile: (626) 410-1149


PATTIES FOODS: Raspberries Recalled Over Hepatitis A-Link
---------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Jefferson, writing for Herald Sun, reports that NANNA'S
Raspberries 1kg packs are being recalled after a potential link to
Hepatitis A contamination, Patties announced on Feb. 17.

Patties Foods CEO, Steven Chaur, said the further recall was a
precautionary measure in the interests of public safety after
investigations identified the potential link to a specific source
of raspberries in China.

"While there are no confirmed test results indicating a potential
link to Hepatitis A, we are working proactively with health
authorities based on the information they have presented to date,"
he said.

"The specific source supplied raspberries which were packed in
Nanna's and Creative Gourmet Mixed Berries, that were the subject
of the consumer recall.

"The source also supplied product for Nanna's Raspberries 1kg
packs, with Best Before Dates up until 15/09/16.

"The specific source did not supply raspberries for Creative
Gourmet Raspberries 300g and 500g packs.

"The supplier of raspberries is no longer used by Patties Foods."

Meanwhile, consumers who have eaten berries at the centre of the
scare should ignore advice to throw the frozen fruit out and keep
the product in case they need to make a claim, a lawyer says.

Compensation lawyer Mark O'Connor said consumers should ignore the
product recall by the distributors of Nanna's frozen berries
because they could be key evidence should a consumer contract the
virus.

"If someone has consumed some I would suggest they hang on to them
-- put them in the freezer, mark them 'poison' or something so
nobody else consumes any," he said.

"If they become ill later on then they will need to be able to
prove that they have consumed the product in question, and my
experience with insurance companies is they won't take your word
for it."

The food scare is ripe for a class action, a Melbourne law
academic says.

Dr Andy Schmulow, senior research associate in the school of law
at the University of Melbourne, says the goods will have breached
Australian consumer law if found not to be fit for human
consumption.

Nine Australians have now tested positive to Hepatitis A after
consuming contaminated berries.

Three Victorians, four Queenslanders and two people in New South
Wales diagnosed with Hepatitis A have all reported eating 1kg
packets of Nanna's Frozen Mixed Berries before becoming ill.

A national recall has been issued by Patties for the following
products: Nanna's Raspberries 1kg packs, Nanna's Frozen Mixed
Berries 1kg packs and Patties' 300g and 500g packs of Creative
Gourmet Mixed Berries.

While hepatitis A typically poses a very low risk to the blood
supply, Red Cross Blood Service spokesman Shaun Inguanzo says the
situation is being closely monitored and people who have eaten the
berries will be banned from donating for two months.  He said
hepatitis A is almost exclusively spread by ingesting faecal-
contaminated food.

"As a purely precautionary matter, the Blood Service is asking
donors who consumed Nannas Frozen Mixed Berries or Creative
Gourmet Mixed Berries and then gave blood either on or after 1
November 2014 to contact us on 13 14 95," Mr Inguanzo told AAP on
Feb. 17.

The Blood Service screens blood donations for 70 diseases, but not
hepatitis A due to its low risk.

As the Hepatitis A scare spreads, $14.6 million was wiped off the
value of Victorian company Patties Food on Feb. 16.

Hepatitus A is a viral disease that affects the liver and has an
incubation period of up to 50 days.  Symptoms include abdominal
pain, fever, loss of appetite, diarrhoea, dark-coloured urine and
jaundice.  Hepatitis A is spread when food is contaminated with
fecal matter.  Health authorities expect the number of those
affected to rise.

Bairnsdale-based manufacturer Patties Foods expanded the recall on
Feb. 15 to include all 300g and 500g packs of Creative Gourmet
Mixed Berries.  Customers who bought the berries were earlier
advised to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund.

Patties Foods has been importing frozen berry products from China
for the past six years and takes its blueberries from Chile.

Professor Enzo Palombo, Chair of the Department of Chemistry and
Biotechnology at Swinburne University of Technology, said freezing
the berries would not eliminate the problem.

"While the virus does not grow in frozen food, it still remains
infectious," he said.

Australian farmers say they are confident that homegrown fruits
are the best berries money can buy.

Owner of Sunny Ridge Strawberry Farm, Mick Gallace said Australian
grown produce was subject to strict rules.

"You get a much fresher product which is grown with quality and is
sold with a guarantee that you will not get sick," he said.

As a precaution, the Australian Red Cross Blood Service says it is
working closely with health authorities to determine the risk of
hepatitis A entering the blood supply.  It is asking donors who
have eaten the three affected products and given blood after
November 1 to contact them on 13 14 95.


PATTIES FOODS: Class Action Over Frozen Berries Looms
-----------------------------------------------------
Darren Gray and Deborah Gough, writing for The Age, report that a
class action lawsuit is looming over the Hepatitis A food scare
linked to imported frozen berries, with law firm Slater and Gordon
encouraging anyone who ate the berries and developed the virus to
come forward.

The firm said it had been contacted by "a number of people" who
had contracted Hepatitis A after eating recalled frozen berries
imported by Bairnsdale-based company Patties Foods.

"Manufacturers of goods, such as the frozen berries in question,
have a number of stringent obligations towards consumers under
Australian law, and among the most important of these is a clear
requirement that any goods they produce must be free from safety
defects," said Slater and Gordon Principal Lawyer Julie Clayton.

"This means that the safety of goods must be of a standard that
people generally are entitled to expect for a product of that
nature -- clearly, any food product contaminated with a virus like
hepatitis A fails to meet this test," she said.

In other developments on Feb. 17 relating to the Hepatitis A
scare;

* Patties Foods added the Nanna's 1kg frozen raspberries to the
three other lines recalled.

* Victorian Farmers Federation president Peter Tuohey said the
imported food scare was a "wake-up call" to Australian consumers.

* Australian berry growers said locally grown berries were grown
under strict food standards, and urged consumers to buy
Australian-grown produce.

* Nine cases of Hepatitis A have been linked to the consumption of
berries from one kilogram packets of Nanna's Frozen Mixed Berries.
A tenth case of Hepatitis A linked to imported frozen berries was
confirmed in Queensland late on Feb. 17, but health officials did
not name the product consumed.

* The Red Cross said more than 110 blood donors have contacted it
recently to report their consumption of Patties frozen berries
products that have been recalled because of the scare.

Patties Foods said on Feb. 17 that because commercial food
production laboratories in Australia were not equipped to test for
hepatitis A, Nanna's frozen berries had been sent to the United
States and Italy for testing.

The Victorian Health Department advised Patties of the potential
Hepatitis A link to its Nanna's 1kg frozen mixed berries packets
on Feb. 13.  Microbiological tests have yet to prove a link
between the virus and the berries but tests in the US and Italy
should establish if raspberries, supplied in China, are the cause.
Test results are expected in two weeks.

Patties managing director and chief executive officer Steven Chaur
said the common link between the products in all four recalled
lines was the raspberries, which came from a supplier in China.
"That was a very clear marker for us that the consistency with the
two products is the raspberries," he said.

"We don't believe at this time that our other products -- sourced
from other facilities and other countries and other regions -- are
at risk.  The common denominator here is raspberries and we
believe that could be an area to further investigate," he said.

Patties severed its links with the China supplier of those
raspberries in November last year but Mr. Chaur denied it was over
health concerns and said it was to consolidate supply in China.
He said testing for hepatitis A virus was "difficult".  No
commercial food production testing facilities were equipped to
test for viruses like hepatitis A in Australia, he said.

"We do test for markers (for hepatitis A) like e.coli which are
generally associated with faecal matter.  That is a pretty clear
indicator if there is any concern," Mr. Chaur said.

He said E.coli levels results showed its frozen berries were
within safe tolerance levels.  "We had no reason to believe these
products present a health risk," he said.

Meanwhile, Australian growers have noticed a surge in demand for
locally-grown berries.  At The Big Berry farm in the Yarra Valley
the phone has been "running hot" in recent days with people
looking for locally-grown frozen berries, said grower Paul Casey.

Mr. Casey attributed the interest to the imported berry scare.  He
reassured Australian berry lovers that they could be confident in
the quality of locally-grown produce.

"It's produced locally and we know it's under Australian food
standards," Mr. Casey said.  The 72-year-old said his berries were
regularly tested and his operation regularly audited.

"The phone's been running hot in the last two or three days,
people are looking for frozen berries that haven't bought from me
in the past.  There's been a dramatic surge in inquiries and
purchasing of frozen berries.  I'd like to see it continue," he
said.

Orders from one customer, he said, "have quadrupled in the last
couple of days," while new customers were also ringing, he said.


PERRY JOHNSON: Court Stays Case Pending Arbitration Result
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Joan B. Gottschall of the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion in the case MARIA WILLIAMS-BELL, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
PERRY JOHNSON REGISTRARS, INC. and TERRY BOBOIGE, Defendants, CASE
NO. 14 C 1002 (N.D. Ill.)

Perry Johnson Registrars, Inc. (PJR), is an audit organization
based on industry standards and registers the organizations if
they meet or exceed the applicable standards, and Terry Boboige is
PJR's president. The plaintiff Maria Williams-Bell is currently
the lead auditor for PJR.

Plaintiff contends that defendants Perry Johnson Registrars, Inc.
and Boboige, violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29
U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq., and the Illinois minimum wage law,
820 Ill. Comp. Stat. Sections 105, et seq. by improperly
classifying her as an independent contractor, thus PJR owes
overtime compensation and wages to her and other similarly
situated individuals.

The parties agree that William-Bell's individual claims must be
arbitrated pursuant to a binding arbitration clause in a contract
she signed relating to auditing work that she performed for PJR.
However, the parties disagree regarding who this court or an
arbitrator should decide whether the claims brought on behalf of
putative class members are arbitrable. The defendants ask the
court to dismiss the complaint in its entirety pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P.12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(3) for improper venue. Alternatively, they ask the
court to compel arbitration of William-Bell's individual dispute
and rule that the classwide arbitration is not available.
Williams-Bell argues that the availability of classwide
arbitration is a question for an arbitrator and that a stay of the
case pending completion of arbitration, not dismissal is the
proper procedure when the court compels arbitration.

Judge Gottschall granted in part and denied in part PJR's motion
to dismiss or compel arbitration. PJR's motion to dismiss based on
the lack of subject matter jurisdiction and improper venue is
denied. The court, however, compels arbitration of Williams-Bell's
individual claim. It further finds that the arbitrator may decide
if the class claims are arbitrable. Finally, it stays the case
pending completion of arbitration proceedings.

A copy of Judge Gottschall's memorandum opinion and order dated
January 8, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/QFOlzFfrom
Leagle.com.

Maria Williams-Bell, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by:

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

Perry Johnson Registrars, Inc., Defendant, represented by:

Daniel Garth Cohen, Esq.
PILCHAK & COHEN, P.C.
3062 E. Walton Blvd.
Auburn Hills, MI 48326-2366
Telephone: 248-409-1900
Facsimile: 248-409-1999

   - and -

Michael A. Warner, Jr. -- maw@franczek.com -- at Franczek Radelet
PC

Terry Boboige, Defendant, represented by Michael A. Warner, Jr.
-- maw@franczek.com -- at Franczek Radelet PC


PHILADELPHIA, PA: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of Civil Rights
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Sanders, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. City of Philadelphia, Law Department, Case No. 2:15-
cv-00868-TJS (E.D. Pa., February 19, 2015) is brought under the
Civil Rights Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
          SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT & BENDESKY PC
          One Liberty Plaza, 52nd Floor
          1650 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 575-3985
          E-mail: ckocher@smbb.com


PHOENIX TECHNOLOGY: "Bechtloff" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Bechtloff and William Kelly, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Phoenix Technology Services USA
Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-00483 (S.D. Tex., February 20, 2015), seeks
to recover the unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Phoenix Technology Services USA Inc. is an oilfield service
company with significant operations in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PIMA COUNTY, AZ: Faces Class Action Over Foster Child Abuses
------------------------------------------------------------
Patty Machelor, writing for Tucson.com, reports that after the
first full year of extensive reform to Arizona's child welfare
system, Pima County continues to trail state averages for hiring
new staff workers and investigating abuse allegations, with more
than 200 calls receiving no response last year.

And since early last March, when 3-year-old Roman Barreras'
skeletal remains were found in an abandoned toy chest, at least
eight more children have died or nearly died of abuse or neglect
in Pima County.  Amelise Beatrice Telles-Lopez and Jacob Patrick
Mathews died, and another child suffered significant brain
injuries, despite their cases being recently known to Arizona's
Department of Child Safety.

Statewide reform efforts started in December 2013 after the agency
acknowledged failing to investigate more than 6,000 cases of
suspected child abuse since 2009.  Caseworkers at that time were
seriously overburdened, often handling 75 to 80 percent more cases
than state and federal guidelines suggested they should.

In Pima County, that trend appears to have continued. Of 4,575
calls made between April and September 2014, 221 received no
response, DCS records show.  Maricopa County, by comparison,
failed to respond to 32 of 14,680 calls made during the same
period.  The uninvestigated calls here, which account for 73
percent of all investigated allegations statewide, were in cases
where a child was not believed to be in current or imminent
danger.

At the start of the six-month reporting period beginning in April
2014, DCS was authorized to employ 293 Pima County caseworkers and
specialists, but had 60 vacancies, a DCS financial report shows.
That staffing shortage was even larger than it was in July 2013,
when the county had 40 vacancies.  DCS did not respond to requests
for more recent data on Pima County's vacancies.

On Feb. 10, Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey fired Charles Flanagan, who
was charged with turning the agency around after being hired as
director one year ago.  He replaced Flanagan with Greg McKay, who
previously worked at the Phoenix Police Department before becoming
head of the Office of Child Welfare Investigations in 2012.  As
head of that office, Mr. McKay discovered the thousands of
uninvestigated reports.

Mr. McKay declined interview requests.  He steps into the job at a
time when more than 17,000 Arizona children are in out-of-home
care -- an increase of 13.3 percent from last year -- and as
Arizona is facing a class-action federal lawsuit recently filed on
behalf of 10 foster children from Maricopa and Pima counties.  The
lawsuit alleges Arizona's treatment of foster children is so bad
it puts them at greater risk than staying home.


PIZZA HUT: Faces FCRA Class Action Over Background Reports
----------------------------------------------------------
Allison Reddoch, Esq. of Strasburger reports that Pizza Hut became
the latest major restaurant chain to come under fire for how it
screens potential hires.  The lawsuit, filed in New York federal
court, accuses Pizza Hut of violating the Fair Credit Reporting
Act ("FCRA"), which regulates employers' use of background reports
during the hiring process.

The FCRA is widely-known as the federal law that regulates the
exchange of credit information between credit bureaus and lenders.
For decades, most lawsuits targeted the nation-wide credit
reporting agencies ("CRAs") and claims against employers were
rare.  However, since early 2014, there have been approximately
thirty FCRA class-action lawsuits brought against employers in the
retail, restaurant, theater, manufacturing, and transportation
industries.

This recent rise in FCRA class actions is likely due to the
plaintiff's bar view that the FCRA's remedial provisions are
"class action friendly."  An applicant or employee may sue an
employer for "negligent" or "willful" non-compliance with the
FCRA.  Class actions typically allege willful non-compliance
because plaintiffs can pursue statutory damages (ranging from $100
to $1,000) for each alleged "willful" violation.  In contrast,
plaintiffs may only recover "actual damages" for alleged
"negligent" violations. Typically, because an employer's violation
of the FCRA concerns paperwork defects, actual damages are nominal
at best.  Further, the U.S. Supreme Court's 2013 ruling that
individualized damages issues may preclude class certification in
certain cases may have had the unintended effect of increasing the
FCRA's appeal to class action lawyers.  Many believe that the
statutory damages under the FCRA make class certification easier
to obtain because individualized damages assessments are
unnecessary.  Lastly, and quite possibly most appealing to the
plaintiffs' bar, is that the FCRA allows prevailing plaintiffs to
recover their attorneys' fees.

Of course, the headline catching, high dollar settlements have
also driven the increase in FCRA class action litigation.  In
October 2014, grocery chain Publix Super Markets, Inc. and
discount retail chain Dollar General Corp. agreed to settle FCRA
class actions for $6.8 million and $4 million respectively.  While
these settlement figures are dwarfed by the number of high-profile
settlements in cases brought against CRAs, the plaintiff's bar
remains steadfast in their pursuit of class claims against
employers.

The lawsuit filed against Pizza Hut is illustrative of the most
popular claims brought against employers; namely that the
employer's background check disclosure form contains "extraneous"
language, such as a release of liability, which is not permitted
under the FCRA.  Another common cause of action attacks an
employer's failure to provide any pre-adverse action notice, or if
notice is provided, the employer failed to wait an appropriate
amount of time before taking final adverse action against an
individual.

To mitigate any chance of FCRA litigation, employers should first
review their written disclosure to ensure that it is "clear and
conspicuous" to the applicant or employee that a consumer report
may be obtained as part of the hiring, retention, or promotion
process.  The disclosure must also be a stand-alone document.  If
the employer intends to take an adverse action, even if only based
in part on the report's content, the employer must provide a
"pre-adverse action notice" to the individual as well as a copy of
the consumer report and the statutory Summary of Rights.  If the
employer takes the adverse action, meaning it denies employment or
takes any other employment action that adversely affects any
current or prospective employee, the employer must provide a
second adverse action notice, which must include specific text.

While the FCRA is silent concerning the minimum amount of time an
employer must wait between delivering the pre-adverse action
notice and adverse action notice, courts have generally found five
business days reasonable.

While there is never any guaranteed protection that your company
won't share the FCRA spotlight with Pizza Hut, Michaels, Paramount
Pictures, Whole Foods, Dollar General, Publix Super Market, or
LinkedIn, creating and implementing policies and procedures that
ensure compliance with the technical requirements of the FCRA will
go far in defending against any claims that your company
"willfully" violated the FCRA.


PHARMASCIENCE INC: Recalls PMS-Olanzapine Tablets
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 18, 2015
Posting date: February 26, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Drugs
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-43903

This lot is potentially contaminated with foreign tablets
(Ondansetron 8mg).

Affected products:

A. PMS-Olanzapine 2.5 mg
   DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
   DIN 02303116
   Dosage form: Tablet
   Strength: Olanzapine 2.5 mg
   Lot or serial number: C302666

B. PMS-Olanzapine 5 mg
   DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
   DIN 02303159
   Dosage form: Tablet
   Strength: Olanzapine 5 mg
   Lot or serial number: C302667

C. PMS-Olanzapine 7.5 mg
   DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
   DIN 02303167
   Dosage form: Tablet
   Strength: Olanzapine 7.5 mg
   Lot or serial number: C302668

D. PMS-Olanzapine 10 mg
   DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
   DIN 02303175
   Dosage form: Tablet
   Strength: Olanzapine 10 mg
   Lot or serial number: C302669

Recalling Firm: Pharmascience Inc.
                6111 Royalmount Ave., Suite 100
                Montreal
                H4P 2T4
                Quebec
                CANADA
Marketing Authorization Holder: Pharmascience Inc.
                                6111 Royalmount Ave., Suite 100
                                Montreal
                                H4P 2T4
                                Quebec
                                CANADA


PHILIPS LIFELINE: Recalls Neck Cords Due to Strangulation Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 20, 2015
Posting date: February 20, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Specialized Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Strangulation Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-43841

This recall involves the non-breakaway neck cord versions of the
Lifeline AutoAlert Personal Help Button, Classic Personal Help
Button and the Slimline Personal Help Button.

Philips Lifeline personal help buttons with breakaway cords are
not affected by this recall.

Cords that do not have the breakaway design may pose a
strangulation risk if the cord becomes caught or entangled on a
wheelchair, walker or other protruding objects.

Philips Lifeline and Health Canada has received two reports of
deaths that were possibly related to the affected products in
Canada since 2009.

Over 100 000 units of the affected products were distributed in
Canada prior to 2011.

Since 2011, Philips Lifeline has taken steps to recall the
affected products and replace them with the new breakaway version
of the neck-cord.  However, some of the affected products may
remain in the market.

The affected products were distributed prior to June 2011.

Manufactured in the United States.

Distributor: Philips Lifeline Canada
             Markham
             Ontario
             CANADA

Consumers who do not already have a breakaway neck cord should
immediately contact Philips Lifeline Canada to order a replacement
neck cord with a breakaway feature or an alert button worn on the
wrist.

For more information, consumers can contact Philips Lifeline
Canada toll-free at 1-800-387-1215 (24hours/7days per week) or via
the Philips Lifeline website.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/fbyvV9


PRO DOC: Recalls Multiple Olanzapine Tablets
--------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 18, 2015
Posting date: February 26, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Drugs
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-43905
Recalled Products

This lot is potentially contaminated with foreign tablets
(Ondansetron 8mg).

Affected products:

A. Olanzapine 2.5 mg
   DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
   DIN 02311968
   Dosage form: Tablet
   Strength: Olanzapine 2.5 mg
   Lot or serial number: C302666

B. Olanzapine 5 mg
   DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
   DIN 02311976
   Dosage form: Tablet
   Strength: Olanzapine 5 mg
   Lot or serial number: C302667

C. Olanzapine 10 mg
   DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
   DIN 02311992
   Dosage form: Tablet
   Strength: Olanzapine 10 mg
   Lot or serial number: C302669

Recalling Firm: Pro Doc Ltd.
                2925 Industrial Blvd.
                Laval
                H7L 3W9
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Pro Doc Ltd.
                                2925 Industrial Blvd.
                                Laval
                                H7L 3W9
                                CANADA


REPUBLIC SERVICES: Class Action Over Landfill Odors Stalls
----------------------------------------------------------
Ian Bauer, writing for Milpitas Post, reports that a San Francisco
law firm's prior class-action lawsuit over odors allegedly
emanating from the Newby Island Landfill and Resource Recovery
Park on the Milpitas-San Jose border has stalled, after a judge
ruled the existing suit was legally insufficient as presented to
the court.

In 2012, the Evans Law Firm, in conjunction with Detroit-based
Macuga, Liddle & Dubin PC, filed a suit in Santa Clara County
Superior Court against Republic Services of Santa Clara County
(named in the suit as International Disposal Corp. of California)
regarding the San Jose landfill at 1601 Dixon Landing Road, on
behalf of Milpitans Peter Ng and Dolly Wu, and other unnamed
residents.

The law firms' suit -- that largely seeks monetary damages and
asks for odor mitigation from the dump's operator -- is separate
from an ongoing legal battle over odor between City of Milpitas
and the landfill operator that is on appeal.  Currently, Milpitas
officials are mulling possible litigation against Republic that
might look to close the landfill permanently.

Under the Evans Law Firm's suit, the firm "alleges negligence and
nuisance in the operation of this landfill, and seeks damages for
all persons residing within a two-mile radius of the landfill,
which encompasses over 10,000 homes and over 30,000 residents," an
Evans Law Firm statement reads.  "Despite numerous complaints to
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District regarding noxious
odors from this facility, Republic Services Inc. continues to
expand its operations at Newby Island."

But following challenges by the waste company on the plaintiff's
allegations of odor nuisance that hinged on air modeling data, the
court ruled in January to deny the lawsuit's assertions.

On Jan. 23, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Peter Kirwan
in part ruled the plaintiff's class-action case was "overly broad"
and the members of the class action could not be easily identified
as Milpitas residents or persons living within the vicinity of the
landfill.  The judge also asserted the case itself was not a class
action per se.

"The court finds that plaintiffs have not sufficiently carried
their burden of establishing the existence of an ascertainable
class and a well-defined community of interest among the proposed
class members," Judge Kirwan wrote in his ruling.  "For these
reasons, plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied
without prejudice."

Republic Services, in a written statement issued on Jan. 27, was
pleased with the judge's decision.

"The court issued the ruling based on the current evidence in the
record as well as a lack of an ascertainable class and the absence
of a well-defined community of interest among proposed class
members," Republic Services' statement reads.  "As part of the
proceedings, the court considered the plaintiff's air modeling
data and concluded that it was insufficient to demonstrate an odor
nuisance affecting the proposed class.  In addition, the court
considered expert reports about other odor sources in the
immediate area, including the South Bay and the organic nature of
the coastal marine wetlands and estuarine streams."

Moreover, the company claimed it has "invested substantially in
highly advanced odor mitigation technology, and maintains
industry-leading management practices."

Ingrid Evans, a civil trial attorney, said the ruling of denial
without prejudice does not bar her plaintiffs -- who she says
number in the hundreds -- from refiling the suit.

"Our motion was denied but the issues can be addressed . . .
meaning we can bring it again," Ms. Evans said.

Saying there are plans to refile the same case with the court
soon, Ms. Evans suggested the initial class action -- where a
large group of plaintiffs have allegedly been harmed by the same
common defendant -- can be brought back as a mass action, also
known as a mass tort.

In a mass action, claims often involve injuries to a distinct
group of individuals who likely reside in the same geographic
area.  Typically, mass actions are smaller cases than class action
suits.

Ms. Evans added a trial date had been set for this summer.

According to court documents, the suit "alleges that Republic
recklessly and willfully failed to take adequate safety measures
to protect the nearby public from the noxious odors, pollutants,
and air contaminants caused by its day-to-day operations; the
landfill includes facilities for the processing of solid waste,
compost, construction and demolition material, and gas-to-energy,
as well as a recyclery."

The suit states "odors, pollutants and air contaminants invading
the plaintiffs' property from the landfill (have) frequently
forced nearby residents to forego the use of their yards, having
to stay inside with doors and windows closed, and interferes with
the plaintiffs' ability to freely use their property.  The suit
alleges the landfill constitutes a public and private nuisance,
and that Republic Services Inc. should be held responsible for
negligence and nuisance in the operation of their business."

Besides Republic, the lawsuit also seeks court action against up
to 100 unnamed defendants, described as "Does" in the suit, who
are "legally responsible in some manner for the unlawful acts
described above."  The plaintiffs' suit states those defendants
may be named later as the case proceeds.

If the case were to proceed in the future, the lawsuit seeks a
trial by jury and an award of "restitution, actual and punitive
damages and attorneys' fees and costs, including pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest" and "an order that the entrance of . . .
odors upon plaintiffs' property constituted a nuisance."

In addition, the suit seeks a "temporary, preliminary and
permanent order for injunctive relief requiring defendants to
expeditiously repair or correct the operation of the facilities in
a manner that is practically abatable and economically feasible as
determined by plaintiffs' expert, so that odors, pollutants and
air contaminants no longer invade plaintiffs' property."  The
plaintiffs also ask for any "further relief as the court deems
just and proper."

Ms. Evans is working with Macuga, Liddle on this case.  According
to the firm's website, Macuga, Liddle & Dubin focuses on
class-action lawsuits involving pet food recalls, basement
flooding, environmental contamination, governmental liability and
consumer law cases.

Among its cases, Macuga, Liddle & Dubin has investigated odor
complaints from the Riverview Land Preserve -- a municipal solid
waste landfill owned by the City of Riverview, Mich., a 12,500-
person suburb about 20 miles southwest of Detroit.

Ms. Evans' lawsuit comes after her firm sent letters and an
accompanying question-and-answer survey in 2012 to Milpitas
residents regarding odors allegedly emitted from Newby Island.
Evans Law Firm sent out similar letters to Milpitas residents less
than a month ago -- containing question-and-answer surveys or
"data sheets."


QUADRA GROUP: Has Sent Unsolicited Faxes, New United Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
New United, Inc., an Illinois corporation, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Quadra Group Development LLC d/b/a Astra Estimating and John Does
1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-01585 (N.D. Ill., February 20, 2015), seeks
to stop the Defendants' practice of sending unsolicited
facsimiles.

Quadra Group Development LLC is an Ohio limited liability business
consulting company with its principal place of business in
Tallmadge, Ohio.
The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SANDOZ CANADA: Recalls Polytopic Creams
---------------------------------------
Starting date: February 19, 2015
Posting date: February 24, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Drugs
Hazard classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-43871

Product recalled due to Out of Specification result for the
ingredient Polymixine B at 18 months stability testing.

Affected products: Polytopic Cream
                   DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
                   DIN 00422908
                   Dosage form: Cream
Strength: Gramicidine 0.25 mg/g
          Polymyxine B 10000 unit/g
Lot or serial number: 667906
Recalling Firm: Sandoz Canada Inc.
                145 Jules-Leger
                Boucherville
                J4B 7K8
                Quebec
                CANADA
Marketing Authorization Holder: Sandoz Canada Inc.
                                145 Jules-Leger
                                Boucherville
                                J4B 7K8
                                Quebec
                                CANADA


SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Accused of Violating Communications Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Smith and Daniel Boyd, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Securus Technologies, Inc., Case No.
0:15-cv-00550-SRN-HB (D. Minn., February 19, 2015) seeks relief
pursuant to the Communications Act of 1934.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter F. Barry, Esq.
          Patrick J. Helwig, Esq.
          BARRY & HELWIG, LLC
          2701 University Ave. SE, Suite 209
          Minneapolis, MN 55414-3236
          Telephone: (612) 379-8800
          Facsimile: (612) 379-8810
          E-mail: pbarry@lawpoint.com
                  phelwig@lawpoint.com


SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT: Accused of Discrimination by Macedonian Engr.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pellumb Ameti v. Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation and United
Technologies Corporation Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00235-JCH (D.
Conn., February 19, 2015) alleges that Sikorsky unlawfully
discriminated against the Plaintiff, based on his color/national
origin/religion (Darker Skin/Appears Middle Eastern/Muslim Faith),
in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Mr. Ameti is a resident of Oxford, Connecticut, and worked for
Sikorsky at its Stratford, Connecticut location.  He was hired in
2008 as a Staff Engineer at Sikorsky in Stratford.  According to
the complaint, his National Origin is Macedonia and he appears as
though he is from the Middle East, although he is not.  He has
darker skin color and belongs to the Muslim faith.

Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation and United Technologies Corporation
are Delaware corporations headquartered in Connecticut.  Sikorsky
is wholly-owned subsidiary of UTC.  Sikorsky designs and builds
some of the world's most advanced helicopters for military use and
is a leading defense contractor.  Sikorsky helicopters are relied
upon by all five branches of the United States armed forces, along
with military services and commercial operators in 40 nations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eugene N. Axelrod, Esq.
          Michael C. McMinn, Esq.
          AXELROD & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          8 Lunar Drive
          Woodbridge, CT 06525
          Telephone: (203) 389-6526
          Facsimile: (203) 389-2656
          E-mail: eaxelrod@axelrodlegal.com
                  mmcminn@axelrodlegal.com


SOBEYS INC: Recalls Compliments Fruit Cocktail in Light Syrup
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 16, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Chemical
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Sobeys Inc.
Distribution: Alberta, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba, New
Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan,
Newfoundland and Labrador
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9638

  Brand name   Common name  Size   Code(s)on      UPC
  ----------   -----------  ----   product        ---
                                   -------
Compliments   Fruit        398 ml BB/MA 2015MR28 0 55742 50499 6
               Cocktail in         BB/MA 2015MR29
               Light Syrup         BB/MA 2015MR30
                                   BB/MA 2015MR31


SPRING LAKE PARK, MN: To Implement Traffic Education Program
------------------------------------------------------------
Olivia Alveshere, writing for ABC Newspapers, reports that on hold
for more than a year with threat of legal action, Spring Lake
Park's traffic education program is back on the table and will be
implemented in the coming months.  The City Council Dec. 16, 2013,
established the voluntary program, which allows individuals who
receive traffic citations for offenses found on the statewide
payables list to pay a fee, go through an online education
program, pass a test and have the offenses wiped from their
records.  The next month, before Spring Lake Park's program was up
and running, a Wabasha County District Court judge decided the
county's traffic education program was illegal under Minnesota
law, and a class action lawsuit sprung up elsewhere in the state,
including several jurisdictions within Anoka County: Centennial,
Circle Pines, Coon Rapids, Lexington and Lino Lakes. So, Spring
Lake Park put its program on the back burner.

The judge in Wabasha County ruled that a class action lawsuit was
inappropriate for this matter.  The Court of Appeals upheld the
ruling.  Attorneys have requested a review by the Minnesota
Supreme Court, but the city attorney's office found that the
Supreme Court will not likely grant the review.

"Our program is different than the one in Wabasha, and I don't
think we need or should want to wait any longer to do this,"
City Attorney Jeff Carson said.  "We're comfortable now making
this recommendation given the state of litigation."

Unlike the traffic education program in Wabasha County, the
programs in Anoka County, including the one in Spring Lake Park,
are court-based.  Tickets are filed with the court and the program
works as a plea bargain.  In Wabasha County, tickets were never
filed with the court if the required class was completed.

The City Council Feb. 2, 2015, reaffirmed the resolution
establishing the traffic education program and a new fund devoted
to public safety, capital improvements, traffic calming, signage,
community education and other purposes as approved by the council.

"It seems like such a good idea," Council Member Bob Nelson said.
"Here's something that really works, and they've got to keep
throwing monkey wrenches in it."

Mr. Carson offered an explanation: "The higher governmental
authorities have never liked it when cities found ways to take
care of things on their own, including the fines," he said.

Fees collected from people who enroll in the traffic education
program will be split 25-75 between the city's general fund and
the newly created program fund.

Spring Lake Park Police Chief Doug Ebeltoft will wait a little
longer to implement the traffic education program so that software
to run the program will only have to be installed once, as his
department is awaiting technology upgrades in squad cars in the
next few months.

"I'm trying to be fiscally prudent and responsible," Mr. Ebeltoft
said.

Drivers will be able to participate in the traffic education
program up to two times each year. Juveniles and commercial
driver's license holders are ineligible for the program.

Mr. Ebeltoft is excited to see the program come to fruition.
"It's something that we've been patiently waiting for."


SQUARETWO FINANCIAL: Sued Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Bowermaster, and Miranda R. Balog, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Squaretwo Financial
Corporation, et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-00362 (M.D. Fla., February
20, 2015), alleges that the Defendants use unfair or
unconscionable means of debt collection, specifically by
impermissibly increasing the amount of debts due from already
financially strapped Florida consumers without the lawful ability
to do so.

Squaretwo Financial Corporation is a Delaware debt collection
company, headquartered in Denver, Colorado.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory Harrison Lercher, Esq.
      Ian Richard Leavengood, Esq.
      J. Andrew Meyer, Esq.
      LEAVENGOOD, DAUVAL, BOYLE & MEYER PA
      3900 First St N Ste 100
      St. Petersburg, FL 33703-6109
      Telephone: (727) 327-3328
      E-mail: glercher@leavenlaw.com
              ileavengood@leavenlaw.com
              ameyer@leavenlaw.com


STELLENBOSCH UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Over Garnishee Orders
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Philani Nombembe and Jerome Cornelius, writing for Times Live,
report that a group of security guards, cleaners and farmworkers
from Stellenbosch could rewrite the law on microlending.  They are
applicants in a groundbreaking class action by the Stellenbosch
University Legal Aid Clinic that began on Feb. 16.

The clinic has hauled 14 micro-lenders before the Cape Town High
Court for allegedly deceiving court clerks into issuing emolument
orders (commonly known as garnishee orders) that deduct as much as
50% of debtors' salaries.

The case is expected to have far-reaching implications for
unscrupulous credit providers.

The law clinic wants sections of the Magistrates' Court Act that
"permits a clerk of court to authorize and issue a court order
attaching a debtor's earnings" declared unconstitutional.

The National Credit Regulator and the ministers of justice and
correctional services and of trade and industry are cited as
respondents.  The SA Human Rights Commission has been admitted as
a friend of the court.

The clinic's counsel, Anton Katz SC, said the debtors include
farmworkers, cleaners and security guards who "support their
families on salaries of between R1200 and R8000 a month".

The microlenders had failed to conduct proper "affordability
studies" before granting the loans, some of which carried interest
rates of up to 60% a year, he said.

"The ability of people to earn an income and support themselves
and their families is central to the right to human dignity.  Any
legislation that deprives a person of their means of support or
impairs the ability of people to access their socioeconomic rights
will constitute a limitation of the right to dignity," said
Mr. Katz.

At the centre of the controversy is law firm Flemix and
Associates, which helped the 14 microlenders collect debt.

Mr. Katz said the firm had advised its client to apply for
garnishee orders in "alien jurisdictions", including Beaufort
West, Kimberley, Johannesburg and Hankey.  This was done to avoid
certain "restrictions" at the Stellenbosch Magistrate's Court.  He
urged the court to report the firm to the law society.

"This undermines the entire South African court structure," said
Mr. Katz.  "[It is] trickery, this process is frowned upon as it
impedes on fairness."

Judge Siraj Desai ordered that the debtors' names not be
published.

One of the applicants, a 44-year-old lay Aids counsellor, said she
had been pressured into signing documents that resulted in R1015
of her R5000 salary being docked every month.  She later learnt
that an entity known as Mavava Trading 279, from which she had
never received a loan, had also obtained a garnishee order against
her via the Johannesburg Magistrate's Court in 2013. Mavava and SA
Multiloan are also respondents in the case.

In court papers, Minister of Justice and Correctional Services
Michael Masutha denies that sections of the Magistrates' Court Act
are unconstitutional.  He says making magistrates responsible for
the issuing of garnishee orders would overburden the courts.

Experts said on Feb. 16 that clarity on the law was needed.

Clark Gardner, CEO of financial investment company Summit, said:
"There are between 2.5million and 3million garnishee orders in
circulation, and many people have more than one.  Outstanding
debt, which stands at R75-million, is getting worse.

"But the magistrate's courts are pulling up their socks. It's
getting harder for debt collectors."

He said the problem was a lack of enforcement.  "The law is only
as good as it is enforced.  The court issues on a debt, but
there's no one telling them [the credit providers] when to stop,
so the orders often don't stop."

Jurisdiction was also a problem.

"There are no restrictions on where the garnishee can be applied,
making it harder to stop.  The consumer doesn't have authority to
dispute [the order], because the court is not in their
jurisdiction," Gardner said.

Deputy credit ombudsman Reana Steyn said: "The fact is that in
many instances the correct legal process was not followed in
obtaining the [garnishee orders]. Consumers struggle to obtain
statements and information about their indebtedness.  Exorbitant
costs and fees are at times added to accounts."

She said the Marikana commission had put garnishee orders in the
spotlight.

Research by the Pretoria University Law Clinic in 2013 showed that
the private sector with the highest number of employees with
garnishee orders was the mining industry -- 12.9% of the
workforce.

Ms. Steyn highlighted the importance of the current court case for
reform.  "From what our office has observed there has been an
increase in the number of complaints from consumers in this
regard."

Paul Slot, director at Octogen debt counsellors, said the case was
testing the current practice -- and abuse -- of a law.

"If you play a game for too long, you forget the rules.  The
magistrate's court process was written long ago.  People have
started to interpret the act in different ways.  It [this case]
will stop the abuse of the process. It will definitely have an
impact on debt collectors," he said.

The court case was set to continue on Feb. 17.


STRATASYS LTD: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
City Of Hollywood Police Officers' Retirement System, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Stratasys, Ltd.,
David Reis and Erez Simha, Case No. 1:15-cv-00927 (E.D.N.Y.,
February 20, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.

Stratasys, Ltd. is a company engaged in the business of additive
manufacturing (AM), more commonly known as three-dimensional
printing (3D printing). AM systems such as 3D printers create
models used in the engineering, prototyping, and manufacturing of
end parts used in various industries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Curtis V. Trinko, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF CURTIS V. TRINKO
      16 West 46th Street, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 490-9550
      Facsimile: (212) 986-0158
      E-mail: ctrinko@trinko.com

         - and -

      Joseph E. White III, Esq.
      Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
      SAXENA WHITE P.A.
      5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 60 l
      Boca Raton, FL 33486
      Telephone: (561) 394-3399
      Facsimile: (561) 394-3382


STRATEGIC PARASECURITY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nobel Gaubert v. Strategic Parasecurity Services Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-20714 (S.D. Fla., February 20, 2015), seeks to recover
overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Strategic Parasecurity Services Inc. owns and operates a private
security company and maintains a corporate office in Coral Gables,
FL.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack Dennis Card Jr., Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A.
      2501 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 100
      Hollywood, FL 33020
      Telephone: (954) 921-9994
      Facsimile: (305) 574-0132
      E-mail: Dcard@Consumerlaworg.com


SYNCHRONY BANK: Discovery on Jurisdiction in Gym Suit Ordered
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge ordered
discovery on jurisdiction for a class action alleging that JP
Morgan Chase and Synchrony Bank provided One World Fitness with
unauthorized lines of credit against the gym's customers.

The case is Valerie McMullen v. Synchrony Bank, et al., Case No.
14-1983, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.


TAKATA CORP: 3 Suits From E.D. Louisiana Included in Airbag MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Three class action lawsuits were transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami).  The
lawsuits are:

   (1) Primeaux, et al. v. Takata Corporation, et al.,
       Case No. 2:14-cv-02551.  The Florida District Court Clerk
       assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20685-FAM to the proceeding;

   (2) Gilbert Art, LLC v. Takata Corporation, et al.,
       Case No. 2:14-cv-02520.  The Florida District Court Clerk
       assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20684-FAM to the proceeding; and

   (3) Burch, et al. v. Takata Corporation, et al.,
       Case No. 2:14-cv-02703.  The Florida District Court Clerk
       assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20698-FAM to the proceeding.

The lawsuits are included in the multidistrict litigation known as
In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1:15-
md-02599-FAM.

The actions in the litigation 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 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.

The Burch Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph F. Rice, Esq.
          Jodi Westbrook Flowers, Esq.
          Kevin R. Dean, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          28 Bridgeside Boulevard
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 216-9000
          Facsimile: (843) 216-9450
          E-mail: jrice@motleyrice.com
                  jflowers@motleyrice.com
                  kdean@motleyrice.com

               - and -

          Val Patrick Exnicios, Esq.
          LISKA, EXNICIOS & NUNGESSER
          1515 Poydras Street
          14th Floor, Suite 1400
          New Orleans, LA 70112
          Telephone: (504) 410-9611
          Facsimile: (504) 410-9937
          E-mail: vpexnicios@exnicioslaw.com


TAKATA CORP: "Arnold" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Arnold v. Takata Corporation, et
al., Case No. 1:14-cv-03556, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia to the The
Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20689-FAM
to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is included in the multidistrict litigation known as
In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1:15-
md-02599-FAM.

The actions in the litigation 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 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.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Timothy Morrison, Esq.
          Jay F. Hirsch, Esq.
          Kimberly J. Johnson, Esq.
          Caroline G. McGlamry, Esq.
          POPE, McGLAMRY, KILPATRICK, MORRISON & NORWOOD, P.C.
          Lenox Overlook, Suite 300
          3391 Peachtree Road, N.E.
          P.O. Box 191625 (31119-1625)
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Telephone: (404) 523-7706
          Facsimile: (404) 524-1648
          E-mail: timmorrison@pmkm.com
                  kimjohnson@pmkm.com
                  carolinemcglamry@pmkm.com

               - and -

          Thomas P. Willingham, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS P. WILLINGHAM, P.C.
          3800 Colonnade Parkway, Suite 330
          Birmingham, AL 35243
          Telephone: (205) 298-1011
          Facsimile: (205) 298-1012
          E-mail: tom@tpwpc.com


TAKATA CORP: "Considine" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Considine, et al. v. Takata
Corporation, et al., Case No. 8:14-cv-02958, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami).
The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20688-
FAM to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is included in the multidistrict litigation known as
In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1:15-
md-02599-FAM.

The actions in the litigation 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 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.


TAKATA CORP: "Leger" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Leger v. Takata Corporation, et
al., Case No. 4:14-cv-03392, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami).  The
Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20700-FAM
to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is included in the multidistrict litigation known as
In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1:15-
md-02599-FAM.

The actions in the litigation 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 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.


TAKATA CORP: Three Suits From Pennsylvania Included in Airbag MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Three class action lawsuits were transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami).
The lawsuits are:

   (1) Vukadinovic v. Takata Corporation, et al.,
       Case No. 2:14-cv-06648.  The Florida District Court Clerk
       assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20696-FAM to the proceeding;

   (2) Raiken, et al. v. Takata Corporation, et al.,
       Case No. 2:14-cv-06391.  The Florida District Court Clerk
       assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20694-FAM to the proceeding; and

   (3) Schafle, et al. v. Takata Corporation, et al.,
       Case No. 2:14-cv-06628.  The Florida District Court Clerk
       assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20695-FAM to the proceeding.

The lawsuits are included in the multidistrict litigation known as
In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1:15-
md-02599-FAM.

The actions in the litigation 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 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.


TATITLEK SUPPORT: Removes "Chalupa" Class Suit to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Chalupa v. Tatitlek Support
Services, Inc., Case No. CIVDS1500452, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Riverside).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 5:15-cv-00298 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges four claims for relief stemming
from his employment with the Defendant.  The Plaintiff's claims
allege "failure to pay overtime," "failure to provide meal and
rest periods," and "failure to provide accurate wage statements"
under the California Labor Code, as well as a derivative claim for
violations of the California Business and Professions Code.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James W. Johnston, Esq.
          JOHNSTON LAW OFFICE
          3877 Twelfth Street
          Riverside, CA 92501
          Telephone: (213) 291-0648
          Facsimile: (877) 571-0091
          E-mail: jj@johnstonlawoffice.com

               - and -

          Larry R. Hoddick, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LARRY R. HODDICK, P.C.
          74-000 Country Club Drive, Suite C5
          Palm Desert, CA 92260
          Telephone: (760) 636-5256
          Facsimile: (760) 299-4220
          E-mail: lhoddick@dc.rr.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jon D. Meer, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Telephone: (310) 277-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
          E-mail: jmeer@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          John R. Giovannone, Esq.
          Jon D. Meer, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          333 S. Hope Street, Suite 3900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 270-9600
          Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
          E-mail: jgiovannone@seyfarth.com
                  jmeer@seyfarth.com


TEXAS BRINE: Wants to Halt Evacuation Assistance Check Payments
---------------------------------------------------------------
David J. Mitchell, writing for The Advocate, reports that Texas
Brine Co. is asking the Louisiana Office of Conservation to allow
it to stop $875 evacuation assistance checks the company pays
weekly to a few remaining residents and property owners in Bayou
Corne.

Texas Brine has been making the payments at a total cost of nearly
$12 million since Aug. 17, 2012, two weeks after the sinkhole
appeared near the Bayou Corne community in Assumption Parish and
forced a mandatory evacuation order still largely in place.

Texas Brine attorney Troy Charpentier said the company recently
made its case in a hearing at the state Department of Natural
Resources that methane and stability conditions around the
sinkhole have improved greatly and merit an end to the checks.

"We think we've proved neither the subsidence nor the gas pose any
risk to the residences," Mr. Charpentier said.

Office of Conservation scientists believe years of salt dome
mining by the Houston company triggered formation of the sinkhole
when mining got too close to the outer face of the dome, a large,
solid, underground salt deposit.  A breach opened in the hollow
cavern created by years of past mining, and surrounding sediments
filled the void.

The sinkhole's formation also cracked open natural deposits of
methane gas that posed an explosion risk to homes if the invisible
and odorless gas built up inside or under the homes, the
scientists said.

Under pressure from Gov. Bobby Jindal in 2013 to allow people who
wanted to leave to be made whole, Texas Brine directly bought out
65 property owners and, more recently, bought out another 87 in a
$48.1 million federal class-action settlement.

Mr. Charpentier said the few remaining weekly checks go to
residents who continue to live in eight homes in Bayou Corne and
to five landowners who were excluded from the class-action.

Residents who continued to collect evacuation assistance checks
through the end of 2014 -- the checks were retroactive to the
start of the evacuation on Aug. 3, 2012 -- took in about $112,000
per family.

Donaldsonville attorney Sidney Marchand III, who attended the
hearing in January at DNR, represents some of the families who
remain in Bayou Corne and who have their own pending damages
lawsuit against Texas Brine.  He said his clients oppose ending
the weekly checks.

"The payments were started when the evacuation order was issued,
and it's still in effect, and they feel subject to the evacuation
order, they have to be ready to evacuate, and nothing has changed.
The payments should continue," Mr. Marchand said.

Residents who took home buyouts from Texas Brine continued to
receive their evacuation assistance payments until sales closed.

"Equal treatment is a factor," Mr. Marchand said of his clients,
who aren't seeking home buyouts but have damage claims against
Texas Brine.

With exception of one property in bankruptcy, buyouts through the
class-action suit were completed by Jan. 31, said Sonny Cranch,
Texas Brine spokesman.

Underpinning Texas Brine's bid to end the weekly checks is its
assessment of conditions in and around the sinkhole.  Both the
threat of gas and the sinkhole's instability were factors in the
evacuation order that came the same day the sinkhole was
discovered, Aug. 3, 2012, parish officials have said.

Under the terms of a 1982 salt dome drilling permit with the
Office of Conservation, Texas Brine must provide assistance to
residents required to evacuate "if the area of collapse appears to
threaten any residents."

Mr. Charpentier said the company's experts and officials believe
the 31-acre sinkhole is not a threat to homes.  They pointed out
that the breached cavern, whose once-great empty space drove the
sinkhole's formation, has been completely filled with surrounding
sediments.  The sinkhole is now only finding its final, natural
shape along its edges, they claim.

Meanwhile, gas removal is winding down, and methane has not been
measured in homes over the past two years, Mr. Charpentier said.
Methane gas still bubbles in area bayous, however, and tremors
still periodically intensify and rattle around the sinkhole and in
the nearby dome.

Bruce Martin, Texas Brine vice president of operations, said the
bubble sites are greatly diminished and the tremors are not as
severe as they had been previously.

The mandatory evacuation remains in place over Bayou Corne but has
been reduced a notch to "voluntary" in nearby Grand Bayou while
authorities seek to verify Texas Brine's claims that the gas risk
there has been mitigated.  Parish officials have said they expect
Texas Brine to submit data soon that could result in a similar
voluntary order for the northern half of Bayou Corne.

Patrick Courreges, DNR spokesman, said on Feb. 13 that the Office
of Conservation, which is part of DNR and oversees salt dome
mining, is evaluating the request and has 30 days from the Jan. 28
hearing to make a decision.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls 2015 Yaris Due to Injury Risk
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 17, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Suspension
Units affected: 72
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015070TC
ID number: 2015070
Manufacturer recall number: SRC R04

On certain vehicles, the rear axle hub bearing assembly bolt may
not have been tightened properly. This could cause the bolts to
become loose and detach from the hub assembly, which could damage
the rear brake components. This could increase stopping distances
and could also potentially cause wheel lock up, resulting in
vehicle instability increasing the risk of a crash causing injury
and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will inspect bolts
and tighten to specification. If bolts are missing, the rear axle
hub bearing assembly and rear brake components will be replaced.

  Make      Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----       ----------------------
  TOYOTA    YARIS       2015


TRINITY UNIVERSAL: Court Tosses Bid to Remand "Burton" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS E. BURTON, Plaintiff, v. TRINITY UNIVERSAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, ALPHA PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, FINANCIAL
INDEMNITY COMPANY, MERASTAR INSURANCE COMPANY, KEMPER CORPORATION
and SYDNEY MARIE GARBEDIAN, Defendants, NO. CV 14-242-M-DWM, (D.
Mont.) alleges that Mr. Burton suffered bodily and property damage
as a result of an automobile accident and that his insurer,
Trinity Universal Insurance Company, aided and abetted by the
other defendant insurance companies, Alpha Property & Casualty
Insurance Company, Financial Indemnity Company, Merastar Insurance
Company, and Kemper Corporation, illegally sought subrogation from
the at-fault driver before he was made whole. Plaintiff claims
Defendants are part of a common scheme to deny insured Montanans
appropriate benefits through wrongful collection of subrogation
funds and seeks to represent a class of individuals who have
suffered similar injuries. Defendants removed the case on the
theory that it is a class action with diversity of citizenship and
an amount in controversy of more than $5 million. Plaintiff is
unhappy with Defendants impeding his choice of forum and has filed
a motion to remand. Plaintiff insists removal was improper because
Defendants have failed in their burden to demonstrate that the
amount in controversy meets the necessary $5 million threshold for
class action diversity jurisdiction.

According to District Judge Donald W. Molloy, "Plaintiff argues
that Defendants have failed to meet their burden because
Defendants' amount in controversy calculation is excessive as to
the compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and
injunctive relief sought in the Complaint. However, Defendants
have shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the
compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees at
issue exceed $5,000,000.00."

Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to remand is denied, ruled Judge
Molloy.

The Court further ordered that Defendants' Motion to Compel
Appraisal and Dismiss or Stay or, Alternatively, Dismiss Counts
Three Through Eight and Dismiss the Action as to Kemper
Corporation, is no longer stayed. Plaintiff's Response must be
filed no later than March 17, 2015. Defendants' optional Reply
must be filed in accordance with Local Rule 7.1(d)(1)(C).

A copy of the February 24, 2015 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/LrvrdGfrom Leagle.com.

Dennis E. Burton, individually and on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alan J.
Lerner -- lerner@lernerlawmt.com -- LERNER LAW FIRM, Allan M.
McGarvey, McGARVEY HEBERLING SULLIVAN & McGARVEY, Judah M. Gersh,
VISCOMI & GERSH, PLLP & Brian Joos, VISCOMI & GERSH, PLLP.

Trinity Universal Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Peter F. Habein -- phabein@crowleyfleck.com -- CROWLEY FLECK PLLP.

Alpha Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Defendant,
represented by Peter F. Habein, CROWLEY FLECK PLLP.

Financial Indemnity Company, Defendant, represented by Peter F.
Habein, CROWLEY FLECK PLLP.

Merastar Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Peter F.
Habein, CROWLEY FLECK PLLP.

Kemper Corporation, Defendant, represented by Peter F. Habein,
CROWLEY FLECK PLLP.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: California Court Rulings Ominous, Atty. Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marshall Martin, Esq., in an article for Albuquerque Journal,
reports that two federal courts in California have just sent an
ominous message to Uber and Lyft.  Whether the message will reach
New Mexico or have nationwide impact is uncertain.

Former Lyft and Uber drivers brought separate class-action suits
against Uber and Lyft under California wage and hours laws,
alleging they were "employees" and therefore due minimum wage, and
other employee benefits and protections.

Uber and Lyft are Internet application-based transportation
companies, often referred to as "car-booking companies."  The
basic Uber and Lyft business models are similar: A customer uses a
mobile phone application to summon a driver who uses his or her
own automobile to transport the customer to a destination. The
driver must insure the automobile for liability.  Usually, the
fare is collected by credit card over the application.  Uber and
Lyft consider the drivers to be independent contractors, not
employees.

In New Mexico, Uber and Lyft have been under attack by taxicab
interests and the Public Regulation Commission for not complying
with state motor carrier law.

In January, in two separate cases, O'Connor v. Uber Technologies
Inc. and Cotter v. Lyft Inc., two federal judges in California
stated in court that they have concluded that Uber and Lyft
drivers are company employees and not independent contractors.
The courts have not released formal opinions. It is difficult to
judge how broad the final court opinions will be.

In addition, the cases are at the start of the class-action
litigation process that is long and uncertain, and usually ends in
settlements.  However, the message is grim for Uber and Lyft, and
it may be replayed in several states, including New Mexico --
although the California cases do not directly control New Mexico
Uber and Lyft operations.

What are the practical implications of the Uber and Lyft drivers
being employees under New Mexico or federal law? Without
attempting to compile a complete list, under New Mexico law, the
companies might be required to obtain workers' compensation
insurance, meet the state wage and hour requirements, and pay
unemployment compensation and minimum wage.  Employees would be
due federal wage and hour, minimum wage, overtime and other
benefits.  What looks like a simple, innovative business model
using modern technology may be seriously impaired if the Uber and
Lyft drivers are employees.

It is difficult to predict how the New Mexico courts or
governmental agencies would decide the question of Lyft and Uber
driver classification as employees.  The state Legislature's
current legislative efforts to deal with regulation of car-booking
companies may impact the final decision.

Some minimal precedent exists in the business model in which
taxicab companies use taxi drivers who own their own cabs but use
the taxicab companies' dispatch service.  Such arrangements have
resulted in the drivers being considered independent contractors
in New Mexico to date, usually based on skillfully drafted
agreements between the company and drivers.

The car-booking business may be a harbinger of many different
types of Internet application-based business.  However, it is in a
state of flux, with litigation and controversy surrounding it.

If Uber did not have enough problems, Bloomberg just reported that
Google -- in 2013, a $258 million investor in Uber -- is looking
at getting into the business in direct competition with Uber,
perhaps using robot cars. Technology may make legal decisions
irrelevant.

Attorney Marshall G. Martin is in private practice in Albuquerque.
He has experience in complex litigation, including securities,
antitrust and lender liability law. He also has represented banks,
and private and public companies. He can be reached at 505-768-
1500 or mgm@marshallgmartin.com.


UNITED COLLECTION: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sungsoo Park, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
United Collection Bureau, Inc. and John Does 1 to 10, Case No.
2:15-cv-01306-SRC-CLW (D.N.J., February 19, 2015) accuses the
Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Ave., 2nd Floor
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273-7117
          Facsimile: (201) 273-7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com


UNITED INSURANCE: Denial of Bid to Compel Arbitration Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------
In CELESE M. COOK et al., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. UNITED
INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendant and Appellant, NO.
A139456, United appealed the denial, in part, of its motion to
compel arbitration. This appeal raises a single issue: Did the
trial court correctly deny United's petition to compel arbitration
of plaintiff Celeste Cook's cause of action filed pursuant to
Labor Code section 2698, et seq. (the Private Attorney General Act
(PAGA))?

According to the Court of Appeals of California, First District,
Division Three, in an opinion entered February 25, 2015, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/XV2NpVfrom Leagle.com,
"[b]ecause our Supreme Court has held that an arbitration
agreement requiring an employee to relinquish the right to bring a
representative PAGA action in any forum is contrary to public
policy, the trial court was correct to deny arbitration. (Iskanian
v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348
(Iskanian).) We affirm."


UNITED KINGDOM: 500 Investors Join Class Action Against FCA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Walmsley, writing for Citywire, reports that the number of
EEA Life Settlements investors set to take action against the
Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in a bid to secure compensation
for the fund's failure has swelled over seven times to 513, with
the group looking to claim GBP60 million from the regulator.

In January New Model Adviser(R) reported the group, which at the
time had around 70 investors with a total of GBP7 million in the
fund, had joined forces in a potential class action against the
regulator to claim compensation from it after the fund's
suspension.  The group's numbers have increased dramatically in
the month after its launch.

The EEA Life Settlements Action group closed its registration this
week with 513 investors and will send an initial letter outlining
its legal argument to the regulator.  If no settlement is reached,
the group will take the case to the European Court of Human
Rights.

Under UK law the FCA is exempt from liability in damages, which is
why the investors turned to the European Court of Human Rights.

In November 2011 the FCA's predecessor, the Financial Services
Authority sparked outrage when managing director Margaret Cole
branded life settlement funds "toxic".  The GBP600 million EEA
Life Settlements was the largest of those funds, and was forced to
suspend trading after it was struck by a wave of redemptions
directly following Ms. Cole's comments.

The group, founded by investor Peter Lihou in February 2014, has
claimed the FSA "restricted the right of investors to the peaceful
enjoyment of their possessions through a disproportional use of
force".  This, the group claimed, is in breach of Article 1 of the
first protocol of the Human Rights Act.

The group has a total of œ47 million invested in the fund, and are
looking to claim this back from the FCA, alongside œ13 million in
loss of returns.  The returns were calculated on a basis of 8% per
year for three years to 1 June 2015.

Peter Lihou, an investor in EEA Life Settlements, founded the
group and said he was 'delighted' with the progress and its case
could set a legal precendence for other investors.

"When I first started this off I was asked how many investors I
wanted if we took this to the European Court of Human Rights, and
I optimistically suggested 500, and we have got just over that."

"If we win in court it will set a legal precedent for investors in
other funds that were equally affected by the FSA's comments on
life settlements.  If a legal precedent is set the total value of
claims could be in the billions," he said.

The FCA did not comment on the case but a spokesman referred to
comments made by the regulator's director of supervision Nausicaa
Delfas in September 2014 that the FCA believed Cole's intervention
was "justified".


UNITED STATES: VA to Help Homeless Vets in L.A. After Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Hlad, writing for Stars and Stripes, reports that the
Department of Veterans Affairs released a plan on Feb. 13 to use a
387-acre tract of land in west Los Angeles to help end veteran
homelessness in the city.

There's a real focus on getting homeless veterans into housing
quickly, said Gary Blasi, one of the attorneys with Public
Counsel, which represented veterans in a lawsuit against the VA
over the use of its West Los Angeles campus.  There is also a new
focus on providing immediate temporary housing for homeless
veterans while they wait for permanent housing to become
available, Mr. Blasi said.

Recently, veterans have been waiting about 100 days for that
permanent housing, and did not have access to "bridge" housing
before.  And instead of just providing housing to veterans, the
plan includes increasing the support services and therapy for
those already in permanent housing, so they can succeed there and
not return to the streets.

"Nobody falls through the cracks," Mr. Blasi said.

The plan specifies that within the next 100 days, the VA will hire
experienced people to help get homeless veterans into permanent
housing, increase funding to support for veteran families, and
make temporary housing available for those who cannot immediately
move into permanent housing.  By April, 650 veterans will get
homes through a partnership with the Home for Good organization,
according to the plan.

Beyond 100 days, the VA will coordinate with the Los Angeles
mayor's office to improve access to affordable housing, work with
the Department of Labor and other organizations to increase job
opportunities and access to federal, state and local services for
homeless veterans, and open a 62-bed work therapy facility on the
West LA campus.

In 2011, attorneys working on behalf of homeless veterans filed a
class-action suit against the VA, saying its benefits programs
discriminated against veterans who are homeless as a result of
severe mental disabilities.

The lawsuit also accused the VA of misusing its West LA campus.
The land was deeded to the federal government in 1888 to provide a
home for disabled veterans, but it currently houses several rental
tenants, including a hotel laundry facility and the UCLA baseball
stadium.

Los Angeles has the largest concentration of homeless veterans in
the country, and although the West campus had previously housed
thousands of veterans, much of the land has been rented for other
uses for the past several decades, Mr. Blasi said.

"This was a huge resource, and there wasn't a single unit of
permanent supportive housing on it," he said.

In late January, the VA agreed to a settlement that required
officials to create a plan for using the land to house homeless
veterans.

During a January swing through the Los Angeles area, VA Secretary
Robert A. McDonald said he was sending $50 million and 400 workers
to the region, according to a Los Angeles Times report.

The VA is expected to immediately begin working to return the
property to its intended use, but won't release its master plan
for the campus until October.

Ending veteran homelessness is a real challenge, Mr. Blasi said,
but it is "nothing compared to what the veterans have done."

"We have to step up," he said.


VAUGHN ENERGY: "Wedel" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Dustin Wedel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Vaughn Energy Services, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00093
(S.D. Tex., February 20, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Vaughn Energy Services, LLC supplies a range of directional survey
services and technologies to the oilfield industries with its
corporate headquarters is located in Robstown, Nueces County,
Texas located within this District and Division.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VICTORY CHRISTIAN: "Mauldin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Kristy Mauldin, Jennifer Briggs and Adrienne Romero, on behalf of
themselves and those employees similarly situated v. Victory
Christian Center of Austin, Incorporated, Case No. 1:15-cv-00153
(W.D. Tex., February 23, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Victory Christian Center of Austin, Incorporated owns and operates
a state-licensed childcare center with its principal place of
business is within Travis County, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kerry Vincent O'Brien, Esq.
      O'BRIEN LAW FIRM PC
      1011 Westlake Drive
      Austin, TX 78746
      Telephone: (512) 410-1960
      Facsimile: (512) 410-6171
      E-mail: ko@obrienlawpc.com


VITEL COMMUNICATIONS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gabe Allen v. Vitel Communications, Inc. d/b/a JNET
Communications, LLC, SCI Companies, and David Jefferson, Case No.
3:15-cv-01363 (D.N.J., February 20, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Defendants own and operate a communications installation
services company in New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP PA
      Lawrence Office Park
      Building 2, Suite 220
      168 Franklin Corner Road
      Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
      Telephone: (201) 687-9977
      Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
      E-mail: aglenn@jaffeglenn.com


WA ANGELS: Former Players Mull Wage Suit Against Owner
------------------------------------------------------
WAToday reports that a storm in a D-cup is brewing between former
players and the owner of a lingerie-clad gridiron team in Perth,
with both sides threatening legal action.

A number of players from the Western Australian Angels team have
grabbed their skimpy outfits and walked away from the Legends
Football League after a spat with owner and founder Mitchell
Mortaza.

Fairfax Media understands Mr. Mortaza still owes players and
coaches around $30,000 in payments after he cancelled the 2014/15
season two weeks before it was about to kick off.

The defecting Angel players are planning to play in a breakaway
national competition called the Ladies Gridiron League as the West
Coast Angels.

Former WA Angels coach J.R Rogers says Mr. Mortaza still owes him
$6500.  He said a number of former support staff were organizing a
class action in the America state of Nevada, where the company is
registered.

It's not the first time Mr. Mortaza has been dragged to the
courts.  Former players in American Legends Football sued Mr.
Mortaza in August last year, saying he wrongly classified them as
independent contractors in order to skimp on their wages.

But Mr. Mortaza has hit back, saying he was planning to take out a
court injunction against the West Coast Angels for using a similar
name and outfit to his Perth franchise team.  He claimed Mr.
Rogers had not returned equipment and would not be paid until he
did so.

"He knows that and is under contractual obligation to return
[items of equipment]," he told Fairfax Media.

The stoush between Mr. Mortaza and former staff and players of WA
Angels doesn't end there.  Former LFL player Nicole Harvey said a
number of players  were fuming their photos had popped up on the
WA Angels Facebook page promoting tryouts for the Legends Football
League 2015/16 season.  The Facebook page also describes the new
LGL as a "knockoff" competition.

"I'm sitting next to a girl now who is in that photo and she is
furious," Ms Harvey told Fairfax Media.

"It implies she is playing for the Legends Football League, when
she is not."

Mr. Mortaza again returned serve saying he owned the images in
question and was free to do what he liked with them.

Former LFL players, including Ms Harvey and quarterback
Leah Werner, say Mr. Mortaza failed to respect them as athletes
and reacted in an over-the-top manner to losses.

Ms. Harvey said players from the LGL were planning to protest at
the tryouts for the new LFL season at Charles Court Reserve in
Nedlands on February 21.

"We are going to train next to them to show the [new] girls how it
is done," she said.

Ms. Werner said Mr. Mortaza failed to make good on promises
concerning the Angels' on-field apparel.

"He made a promise he would make the uniforms bigger, but he made
them smaller," she said.

Mr. Rogers said players and staff were shocked when the season was
cancelled two weeks from the start of the season.

"It was really shocking for the girls who altered their life plans
and sacrificed a lot to be ready for the start of the season," he
said.

"Two of the girls from the states who were coming to Australia
were actually at the airport waiting to come to Perth to play when
they found out."

Mr. Mortaza said he cancelled the 2014/15 season because he
couldn't secure TV rights.

"We had a successful first year so and as we don't fill stadiums,
we rely on television coverage," he said.


WET SEAL: Appellate Court Dismissed Challenge to Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------
Presiding Justice Norman L. Epstein of the Court of Appeals of
California, Second District, Division Four affirmed the order of
the trial court in the case ELIZABETH MONTANO, Plaintiff and
Respondent, v. THE WET SEAL RETAIL, INC., Defendant and Appellant,
NO. B244107 (Cal. App.)

The plaintiff Elizabeth Montano filed a putative class action
against Wet Seal, alleging that it failed to offer all required
meal and rest periods to its California non-exempt retail
employees; failed to provide all regular and overtime pay when due
or when employment terminated; and failed to provide accurate
semi-monthly itemized wage statements, in violation of the Labor
and Business and Professions Codes, Industrial Welfare Commission
Wage Order No. 7, and Title 8 of the California Code of
Regulations. She brought this action on behalf of herself and, as
a class action, on behalf of all persons similarly situated and
damaged by the alleged conduct during the specified time period.
Her complaint included a representative claim under the Private
Attorneys General Act (PAGA) (Lab. Code, Section 2699).

Montano propounded various discovery requests to Wet Seal, which
responded with objections but no substantive information. After an
unsuccessful effort to meet and confer, Montano filed a motion to
compel discovery responses. Wet Seal moved to compel arbitration
of Montano's individual claims based on the mutual agreement to
arbitrate claims, in which Montano had signed, and to stay the
action pending completion of arbitration.

The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration and
granted the motion to compel discovery. Wet Seal timely appealed
from the order denying the motion to compel arbitration.

The appellate court affirmed the order denying the motion to
compel arbitration and dismiss the challenge to the discovery
order as non-appealable.

A copy of Presiding Justice Epstein's decision dated January 7,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/QIDDmIat Leagle.com.

Ryan D. McCortney -- rmccortney@sheppardmullin.com -- Jason M.
Guyser -- at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, for Defendant
and Appellant

Matthew R. Bainer -- mrbainer@scalaw.com -- Molly A. DeSario --
mdesario@scalaw.com -- at Scott Cole & Associates, for Plaintiff
and Respondent

The Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division Four
panel consists of Presiding Justice Norman L. Epstein and
Associate Justices Thomas L. Willhite, Jr. and Nora M. Manella.


WILLIAM SONOMA: Suit Over Unpaid OT Sent Back to Superior Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that truck divers suing William
Sonoma for unpaid overtime persuaded a federal judge to send their
case back to Middlesex County Superior Court.

The case is Camillo Echavarria, et al. v. William Sonoma, Inc.,
J&J Trucking, Inc. (a/k/a JJP), MXD, INC. (f/k/a Exel Direct,
Inc.), ABC Corp., & Jane and John Does, Case No. 3:14-cv-07207-
AET-LHG, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.


YAMAHA MOTOR: Recalls Shark RAW Helmets Due to Non-compliance
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 20, 2015
Posting date: February 20, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Sports/Fitness
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fall Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-43799

This recall involves Shark RAW Helmets in sizes medium and extra-
large. The products have serial numbers sewn on the chip strap
label of the helmets.

The serial numbers for the recalled products fall within one of
the following ranges:

  050418/J-035343 to 050418/J-045065
  DOT/X64-004061 to DOT/X64-007110

Shark Helmets S.A.S. has determined that certain Shark RAW Helmets
in size medium and extra-large failed impact attenuation
requirements during testing. In the event of an accident, the
helmet could fail to prevent injuries, posing a hazard to
consumers.

Neither Health Canada nor Shark Helmets S.A.S. has received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to this product.

Approximately 349 recalled helmets were sold in Canada through
various retailers.

The recalled products were sold from November 2013 to August 2014.
Manufactured in Portugal.

Manufacturer: Shark Helmet S.A.S.
              Marseille
              FRANCE
Distributor:  Yamaha Motor Canada Ltd.
              Toronto
              Ontario
              CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled helmets and
return them for a free replacement in the same size. Consumers can
return the helmet to their nearest Yamaha Motor Canada Ltd. Dealer
or return it by mail to Yamaha Motor Canada Ltd. For more
information, consumers may contact Yamaha Motor Canada Ltd. at 1-
416-498-1911, Monday to Friday, from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm EST.
Consumers may also visit Yamaha Motor Canada's website for
instructions on how to return your helmet.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/jkkRy7


* Central European Borrowers Mull Suit Over Swiss Franc Loans
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vanessa Gera and Alison Mutler, writing for Associated Press,
report that on Jan. 15, the Swiss national bank ended a policy
meant to limit the franc's value against the euro -- causing the
franc to surge.  That move by one of Europe's richest countries is
adding to the financial despair of hundreds of thousands of people
across some of the poorest regions of the continent due to
mortgages taken out years ago in Swiss francs.

Many of the borrowers were in their 20s and 30s who took out loans
in the boom years before the crisis of 2008.  They were supposed
to be the first generation to benefit fully from the economic
promise that came with the fall of communism and the entry into
the European Union.  Mortgages in foreign currencies were
particularly popular because they came with lower interest rates.

Instead, these borrowers now find themselves stuck in a new kind
of servitude, their fates tied to the ups and downs of a currency
that many have never held in their hands.

The pain of the borrowers is turning into a key political issue in
many countries, primarily Poland and Croatia, where elections are
on the horizon. Many of the borrowers feel they were tricked by
the banks into financial products that are now called "toxic" --
and have been banned in many countries.  They want governments to
push banks to give them some relief.

It's a tricky position for leaders: do you force banks to take a
financial hit to help people who willingly entered into risky
contracts?

Responses by governments have varied.

The Hungarian government forced banks in November to convert Swiss
franc loans to the local currency at the exchange rate of the
time.  In hindsight, the timing prevented financial disaster for
many Hungarian borrowers come January.

The government of Croatia, where there are 60,000 such loans,
froze the franc-kuna exchange rate at pre-Jan. 15 levels for one
year to help borrowers.

Other countries, like Poland and Romania, are still debating what
to do, but have ruled out a Hungarian-style solution. Polish
authorities are urging banks to take voluntary steps to help
borrowers.

Wiktor Nozycki, a 31-year-old Pole who has a mortgage on an
apartment in Poznan, says what the Polish authorities have
proposed primarily benefits the banks and that he considers the
government and bankers to be acting like gangsters.

"No one warned the consumers about any risks," he said.  "Banks
here are above the law."

The anger is huge in Poland, where there are more than 550,000
outstanding loans, and class-action lawsuits against banks are in
the works.  In Slovenia an association of affected citizens is
also threatening to sue the banks.

Economist Piotr Bujak with Bank PKO BP said many of the
accusations against the banks are unfair and that customers were
generally informed of the exchange rate risks.

"As long as the servicing of mortgages in Swiss francs was
cheaper, customers were happy, while now they want others --
banks, taxpayers -- to cover the increased costs," Mr. Bujak said.

Many borrowers now owe more on their homes than they are worth and
cannot sell without incurring significant loss, also because
property prices have fallen since the boom years.  The media have
reported cases of people so desperate they have sought treatment
in psychiatric hospitals.  In Romania, the suicide of a borrower
prompted a consumer protection agency to investigate whether the
loans were fairly handled.


* Clinic Launches Registry to Track Illegal Billing Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that a community-oriented medical clinic in one
of Montreal's poorest neighborhoods has launched an online
registry to keep track of illegal and abusive billing practices in
Quebec.

The Pointe St-Charles Community Clinic decided to launch the
registry to help residents complaining of excess medical fees.

"Some doctors are charging fees in some clinics," said
Genevieve McCready, a member of the clinic's "fight for health"
committee.

"Some of those fees are illegal, so the doctors are not allowed to
charge them, but they still do it.  Some doctors charge way over
what it actually costs -- for example, it could be an anaesthetic
to get stitches, and people can be charged $45 for this
anaesthetic, while it costs $2 or $3 for the doctor."

Ms. McCready said other fees may be technically legal, but they
contribute to the restrictions people on fixed incomes face when
trying to get appropriate medical care.

She said the committee has heard from some patients who decided
not to continue seeking care after being informed of doctors' fees
they couldn't afford.

Abusive and illegal fees

Ms. McCready pointed out, as one example, an invoice a woman
received after taking her two-month-old son to get vaccinated.

The clinic she went to charged her $10 for a physician's assistant
and $15 for each vaccine -- vaccines that are in accordance with
the province's immunization schedule and which are usually covered
by the province's public health insurance plan (RAMQ).

The woman's bill totalled $55, but that visit should have cost her
nothing.

Ms. McCready said RAMQ is aware of clinics and doctors charging
illegal and abusive fees, and it has the right to impose
penalties.  However, she said RAMQ chooses not to enforce the law.

She said RAMQ reimburses people on a case-by-case basis who take
the time to call and complain about excessive or illegal fees.

"We want to build this registry," Ms. McCready said.  "We want
people to fill in the registry, so we can get a good portrait of
what's happening in Quebec, and therefore we can put pressure on
the government and the RAMQ to apply the law with the coercive
methods that they actually have."

She said the clinic will collect all the data and issue a report
in a year's time to paint a better picture of what's going on in
the province's medical clinics.

Ms. McCready also said people can also choose to join a class-
action lawsuit for medical overbilling led by lawyer Bruno
Grenier.


* Huge Jury Verdicts Foretell Bad News for Carmakers
----------------------------------------------------
Margaret Cronin Fisk, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that
huge jury verdicts against companies over fatal flaws in their
products made a comeback last year, which may foretell more bad
news for carmakers with defective parts.

Absent for a decade, billion-dollar verdicts returned in product-
defect suits in 2014. The largest was for $23.6 billion in favor
of the family of a smoker who died at 36. Coming in second was one
for $9 billion to a New Yorker who linked his bladder cancer to a
diabetes medication.

The re-emergance of huge verdicts comes at a bad time for the auto
industry.  It experienced a year of almost constant recalls,
congressional hearings and scores of lawsuits against companies
such as General Motors Co. and the air-bag maker Takata Corp.

"People now come into the jury room really suspicious, instead of
wondering is this ambulance-chasing lawyer trying to squeeze money
out of a company," said Erik Gordon, a law and business professor
at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.  "Jurors now come in
expecting to hear a story of corporate wrong-doing and are being
very receptive to these stories."

The biggest awards were for punitive damages, meant to punish
companies for bad conduct and not to cover actual losses.  One
silver lining for the companies: based on past court rulings, it's
unlikely anything close to the initial verdict amounts will ever
be paid.

Of the 10 largest punitive verdicts against corporations in U.S.
history, none survived post-trial trimming by judges, according to
Bloomberg data.  The largest, $145 billion in a Florida tobacco
class-action in 2000, was tossed out entirely on appeal.

Haunting Effect

Even so, that case continues to haunt the tobacco industry, as
multiple findings on the companies' blameworthiness are being used
in individual cases, including the one that produced last year's
$23.6 billion award.

After being slashed, large punitive verdicts often have lingering
effects, said attorney Victor Schwartz, who represents defendants
in complex lawsuits.

"It can affect their business," Schwartz said in a phone
interview. "It can affect the reputation of the company.  The
stock can go down."

Some effects become permanent, he said.  "No one would name any
product a Pinto again," a reference to a Ford Motor Co.'s model
linked to deaths from exploding fuel tanks.

Big verdicts attract more plaintiffs and raise the ceiling for
settlement talks, said Gordon, the Michigan academic.

"When it's knocked down, the story is on page 6" he said.  "It's
the initial headline that attracts the attention."

Mark Behrens, an appellate defense attorney, said the threat of
punitive damages increases the risk to the companies he
represents.

Settlement Impact

"Punitive damages are used as leverage by the plaintiffs' lawyers,
both as a tool to force a settlement before trial and after a
verdict to inflate the value of the settlement," he said.

The family of Michael Johnson Sr., a Florida laborer who had
smoked since his early teens, was awarded $16.9 in actual damages
and $23.6 billion in punitive damages by a jury in Pensacola,
Florida

The verdict was cut to $16.9 million, the same amount as the
jury's compensatory verdict.  The trial judge offered Reynolds the
choice of paying or getting a new trial on punitive damages.
Reynolds chose the new trial.

The company doesn't consider any of the verdict justified, said
Jeff Raborn, assistant general counsel for R.J. Reynolds.

"We believe the entire verdict should be set aside," Mr. Raborn
said in an e-mailed statement.

In the drug company case, Terrence Allen and his wife sued Takeda
Pharmaceutical Co. and Eli Lilly & Co., contending he developed
cancer because of their diabetes drug Actos.  The jury awarded
them $1.5 million in compensatory damages and $9 billion in
punitive damages.

Reduced Awards

The trial judge sliced Takeda's punitive damages to $27.7 million
and Lilly's to $9.2 million.

The remaining judgment is still too high, a Takeda spokesman said
in an e-mailed statement.

"We believe a damage award of any amount is not justified based on
the evidence presented in this trial and have multiple grounds for
appeal," said Kenneth D. Greisman, general counsel of Takeda
Pharmaceuticals U.S.A.

Lilly is also appealing.

"The evidence did not support claims that Actos caused the
plaintiff's bladder cancer," Candace Johnson, a Lilly spokeswoman,
said in an e-mail.

Switch Recalls

Amid this anti-company sentiment, GM has settled multiple death
and injury claims connected to its 2014 ignition switch recalls,
primarily through a program overseen by attorney Kenneth Feinberg
that is an alternative to litigation.

The company still faces lawsuits throughout the U.S. by accident
victims claiming product defects that aren't part of the Feinberg
process.

"The public is well aware of the poor choices GM made in the name
of economy," said Mark Lanier, who won the $9 billion Actos
verdict and represents GM accident victims.  He said he'd take a
GM case to a jury "right now in a heartbeat."

The ninth-biggest verdict last year was against a car company,
Hyundai Motor Co., over the deaths of two Montana teenagers,
cousins Tanner and Trevor Olson, for which the families blamed a
steering defect.  It was the largest ever against that company.
Of a total award of $248 million, $240 million was for punitive
damages.

Confidential Accord

The suit was settled on confidential terms, Jim Trainor, a Hyundai
spokesman, said in an interview.  The company didn't admit any
wrongdoing or concede any flaws in the vehicle, he said.
John Bohyer, the Olsons' lawyer, confirmed the settlement and
declined to comment further.

The tobacco and Actos verdicts were the only ones for more than $1
billion in 2014.

The rest of the top five were against Trinity Industries for $525
million over alleged withholding of information from the U.S. over
changes to its highway guardrail system; Royal Philips NV for
$466.7 million in a medical-device patent-infringement suit by
Masimo Corp.; and Medtronic Inc., $393.6 million in an Edwards
Lifesciences Corp. heart-valve device patent case.


* Transport Canada Recalls Certain Vehicles Due to Crash Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 20, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Steering
Units affected: 574
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015078TC
ID number: 2015078
Manufacturer recall number: 215-C

On certain vehicles, the tie rod end clamp bolts may not have been
tightened to the correct specification. As a result, the tie rod
ends could loosen, corrode, and eventually separate from the tie
rod, resulting in a loss of steering control, increasing the risk
of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction:
Dealers will replace tie rod assembly where the factory installed
assembly has not been replaced.


* Transport Canada Recalls Certain Vehicles Due to Incorrect Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 18, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: RV Chassis
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Label
Units affected: 260
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015074TC
ID number: 2015074

On certain vehicles, the certification and tire and loading
information labels do not contain correct tire dimension and tire
pressure information. The labels incorrectly indicate a tire size
of ST225/75R15D with 65 PSI while the correct tire size is
ST205/75R15D with 50 PSI. As a result, the tire may inadvertently
be overinflated and the vehicle may be fitted with incorrect
replacement tires. Overinflated tires may lead to poor vehicle
handling characteristics and increase the risk of tire failure,
which could result in a crash causing injury and/or damage to
property. Correction: manufacturer will mail updated labels.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Continues to Defend Stearns Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation continues to defend itself against multiple
lawsuits relating to alleged personal injuries due to alleged
presence of asbestos in certain brakes and clutches previously
manufactured by the company's Stearns division, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014.

Multiple lawsuits (with approximately 700 claimants) are pending
in state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions relating to
alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos
in certain brakes and clutches previously manufactured by the
Company's Stearns division and/or its predecessor owners. Invensys
and FMC, prior owners of the Stearns business, have paid 100% of
the costs to date related to the Stearns lawsuits. Similarly, the
Company's Prager subsidiary is a defendant in two pending multi-
defendant lawsuits relating to alleged personal injuries due to
the alleged presence of asbestos in a product allegedly
manufactured by Prager. Additionally, there are numerous
individuals who have filed asbestos related claims against Prager;
however, these claims are currently on the Texas Multi-district
Litigation inactive docket. The ultimate outcome of these asbestos
matters cannot presently be determined. To date, the Company's
insurance providers have paid 100% of the costs related to the
Prager asbestos matters. The Company believes that the combination
of its insurance coverage and the Invensys indemnity obligations
will cover any future costs of these matters.

Rexnord Corporation (Rexnord) is a multi-platform industrial
company. The Company comprises of two platforms, Process & Motion
Control and Water Management. Rexnord's Process & Motion Control
product portfolio includes gears, couplings, industrial bearings,
aerospace bearings and seals, FlatTop chain, engineered chain and
conveying equipment, and are marketed and sold globally under
brands, including Rexnord, Rex, Falk and Link-Belt. Its Water
Management platform operates in the commercial construction market
for water management products and the municipal water and
wastewater treatment markets. Its Water Management product
portfolio includes drainage products, flush valves and faucet
products, backflow prevention pressure release valves, PEX piping
and engineered valves and gates for the water and wastewater
treatment markets. In April 2014, the Company acquired Green
Turtle Technologies Ltd., Green Turtle Americas Ltd. and Filamat
Composites Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Continues to Defend Falk Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation continues to defend itself against lawsuits
relating to alleged personal injuries due to alleged presence of
asbestos in certain brakes and clutches previously manufactured by
The Falk Corporation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2014.

In connection with the acquisition of The Falk Corporation,
Hamilton Sundstrand has provided the Company with indemnification
against certain products-related asbestos exposure liabilities.
The Company believes that, pursuant to those indemnity
obligations, Hamilton Sundstrand is obligated to defend and
indemnify the Company with respect to the asbestos claims, and
that, with respect to these claims, those indemnity obligations
are not subject to any time or dollar limitations.

Falk, through its successor entity, is a defendant in multiple
lawsuits pending in state or federal court in numerous
jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the
alleged presence of asbestos in certain clutches and drives
previously manufactured by Falk. There are approximately 100
claimants in these suits.  The ultimate outcome of these lawsuits
cannot presently be determined.  Hamilton Sundstrand is defending
the Company in these lawsuits pursuant to its indemnity
obligations and has paid 100% of the costs to date.

Rexnord Corporation (Rexnord) is a multi-platform industrial
company. The Company comprises of two platforms, Process & Motion
Control and Water Management. Rexnord's Process & Motion Control
product portfolio includes gears, couplings, industrial bearings,
aerospace bearings and seals, FlatTop chain, engineered chain and
conveying equipment, and are marketed and sold globally under
brands, including Rexnord, Rex, Falk and Link-Belt. Its Water
Management platform operates in the commercial construction market
for water management products and the municipal water and
wastewater treatment markets. Its Water Management product
portfolio includes drainage products, flush valves and faucet
products, backflow prevention pressure release valves, PEX piping
and engineered valves and gates for the water and wastewater
treatment markets. In April 2014, the Company acquired Green
Turtle Technologies Ltd., Green Turtle Americas Ltd. and Filamat
Composites Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Continues to Defend PI Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Automation, Inc., continues to defend itself against
various lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure
to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended December 31, 2014.

The Company states: "Various lawsuits, claims and proceedings have
been or may be instituted or asserted against us relating to the
conduct of our business, including those pertaining to product
liability, environmental, safety and health, intellectual
property, employment and contract matters. Although the outcome of
litigation cannot be predicted with certainty and some lawsuits,
claims or proceedings may be disposed of unfavorably to us, we
believe the disposition of matters that are pending or have been
asserted will not have a material effect on our business,
financial condition or results of operations.

"We (including our subsidiaries) have been named as a defendant in
lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos that was used in certain components of our products many
years ago. Currently there are a few thousand claimants in
lawsuits that name us as defendants, together with hundreds of
other companies. In some cases, the claims involve products from
divested businesses, and we are indemnified for most of the costs.
However, we have agreed to defend and indemnify asbestos claims
associated with products manufactured or sold by our former Dodge
mechanical and Reliance Electric motors and motor repair services
businesses prior to their divestiture by us, which occurred on
January 31, 2007. We are also responsible for half of the costs
and liabilities associated with asbestos cases against the former
Rockwell International Corporation's (RIC's) divested measurement
and flow control business. But in all cases, for those claimants
who do show that they worked with our products or products of
divested businesses for which we are responsible, we nevertheless
believe we have meritorious defenses, in substantial part due to
the integrity of the products, the encapsulated nature of any
asbestos-containing components, and the lack of any impairing
medical condition on the part of many claimants. We defend those
cases vigorously. Historically, we have been dismissed from the
vast majority of these claims with no payment to claimants.

"We have maintained insurance coverage that we believe covers
indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured
retentions, for claims arising from our former Allen-Bradley
subsidiary. Our insurance carrier entered into a cost share
agreement with us to pay the substantial majority of future
defense and indemnity costs for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims. We
believe that this arrangement will continue to provide coverage
for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims throughout the remaining life of
the asbestos liability.

"The uncertainties of asbestos claim litigation make it difficult
to predict accurately the ultimate outcome of asbestos claims.
That uncertainty is increased by the possibility of adverse
rulings or new legislation affecting asbestos claim litigation or
the settlement process. Subject to these uncertainties and based
on our experience defending asbestos claims, we do not believe
these lawsuits will have a material effect on our financial
condition or results of operations.

"We have, from time to time, divested certain of our businesses.
In connection with these divestitures, certain lawsuits, claims
and proceedings may be instituted or asserted against us related
to the period that we owned the businesses, either because we
agreed to retain certain liabilities related to these periods or
because such liabilities fall upon us by operation of law. In some
instances, the divested business has assumed the liabilities;
however, it is possible that we might be responsible to satisfy
those liabilities if the divested business is unable to do so.

"In connection with the spin-offs of our former automotive
component systems business, semiconductor systems business and
Rockwell Collins avionics and communications business, the spun-
off companies have agreed to indemnify us for substantially all
contingent liabilities related to the respective businesses,
including environmental and intellectual property matters.

"In connection with the sale of our Dodge mechanical and Reliance
Electric motors and motor repair services businesses, we agreed to
indemnify Baldor Electric Company for costs and damages related to
certain legal, legacy environmental and asbestos matters of these
businesses arising before January 31, 2007, for which the maximum
exposure would be capped at the amount received for the sale."

Rockwell Automation, Inc. (Rockwell Automation) is a provider of
industrial automation power, control and information solutions
that help manufacturers achieve a competitive advantage for their
businesses. The Company operates in two segments: Architecture &
Software and controls Products & Solutions. In the United States,
Canada and certain other countries, the Company sells primarily
through the independent distributors in conjunction with its
direct sales force. In the remaining countries, the Company sells
through a combination of its direct sales force.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Corp. Has 41,000 AO Respiratory Claimants
----------------------------------------------------------------
There were 41,000 claimants in pending cases asserting claims
against Cabot Corporation's American Optical Corporation
subsidiary in connection with the unit's respiratory products,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
December 31, 2014.

The Company states: "We have exposure in connection with a safety
respiratory products business that a subsidiary acquired from
American Optical Corporation ("AO") in an April 1990 asset
purchase transaction. The subsidiary manufactured respirators
under the AO brand and disposed of that business in July 1995. In
connection with its acquisition of the business, the subsidiary
agreed, in certain circumstances, to assume a portion of AO's
liabilities, including costs of legal fees together with amounts
paid in settlements and judgments, allocable to AO respiratory
products used prior to the 1990 purchase by the Cabot subsidiary.
In exchange for the subsidiary's assumption of certain of AO's
respirator liabilities, AO agreed to provide to the subsidiary the
benefits of: (i) AO's insurance coverage for the period prior to
the 1990 acquisition and (ii) a former owner's indemnity of AO
holding it harmless from any liability allocable to AO respiratory
products used prior to May 1982. The respirator liabilities
generally involve claims for personal injury, including
asbestosis, silicosis and coal worker's pneumoconiosis, allegedly
resulting from the use of respirators that are alleged to have
been negligently designed and/or labeled.

"As of both December 31, 2014 and September 30, 2014, there were
approximately 41,000 claimants, respectively, in pending cases
asserting claims against AO in connection with respiratory
products. We have a reserve to cover our expected share of
liability for existing and future respirator liability claims. At
December 31, 2014 and September 30, 2014, the reserve was $12
million and $13 million, respectively. Cash payments related to
this liability were $1 million and $2 million in the first three
months of fiscal 2015 and 2014, respectively."

Cabot Corporation (Cabot) is a global specialty chemicals and
performance materials company. The Company's principal products
are rubber and specialty grade carbon blacks, fumed metal oxides,
inkjet colorants, aerogels and cesium formate drilling fluids.
Cabot and its affiliates have manufacturing facilities and
operations in the United States and approximately 20 other
countries. The Company operates in four business segments:
Reinforcement Materials; Performance Materials; Advanced
Technologies; and Purification Solutions. It is organized into
three geographic regions: The Americas; Europe, Middle East and
Africa, and Asia Pacific.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Trezza" Suit Remanded to Missouri State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Audrey G. Fleissig of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, in a
memorandum and order dated Feb. 24, 2015, remanded to the Twenty-
Second Judicial Circuit Court for the State of Missouri the
asbestos-related lawsuit styled ANTHONY TREZZA, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. 84 LUMBER CO., et al., Defendants, CASE NO.
4:14CV01282 AGF (E.D. Mo.).  A full-text copy of Judge Fleissig's
Decision is available at http://is.gd/Up09h1from Leagle.com.

Anthony Trezza, Plaintiff, represented by Ryan P. Horace, Esq.,
NAPOLI AND BERN & Sean Patrick Barth, Esq., NAPOLI AND BERN.

Peggy Trezza, Plaintiff, represented by Ryan P. Horace, NAPOLI AND
BERN & Sean Patrick Barth, NAPOLI AND BERN.

84 Lumber Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by
Gary L. Smith, Esq., HERZOG CREBS LLP & James D. Maschhoff, HERZOG
CREBS LLP.

American Biltrite Co., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Jennifer M. Valentino, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ,
Lindsay A. Dibler, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ, Jerry S. Warchol, KUROWSKI
SHULTZ LLC & Lacy M. Fields, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ.

Bird, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Lawrence
S. Denk, Esq., FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P., Michael R. Dauphin,
Esq., FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P. & Robert J. Brummond, Esq.,
FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P..

Borgwarner Morse Tec Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by Daniel G. Donahue, Esq., FOLEY AND
MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P. & James D. Maschhoff, HERZOG CREBS LLP.

CBS Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by
Daniel G. Donahue, FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P. & Michael R.
Dauphin, FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P..

Certainteed Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by Gregory C. Flatt, Esq., HEYL AND ROYSTER
& Kent L. Plotner, Esq., HEYL AND ROYSTER.

Conwed Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by
Mark D. Bauman, Esq., HINSHAW AND CULBERTSON.

Crane Co., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Benjamin John Wilson, HEPLER BROOM & Carl J.
Geraci, HEPLER BROOM.

DAP, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Jennifer
M. Valentino, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ, Lindsay A. Dibler, KUROWSKI
SCHULTZ, Jerry S. Warchol, KUROWSKI SHULTZ LLC & Lacy M. Fields,
KUROWSKI SCHULTZ.

DOMCO Products Texas Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Beth Kamp Veath, Esq., BROWN AND JAMES,
P.C..

Eaton Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by
J. Todd Applegate, Esq., PITZER SNODGRASS, P.C. & Brian J.
Connolly, REEG LAWYERS, LLC.

Flowserve Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by Jennifer M. Valentino, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ
&Lindsay A. Dibler, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ.

FMC Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by
Dennis J. Dobbels, Esq., POLSINELLI PC & Marcie J. Vantine, Esq.,
SWANSON AND MARTIN, LLP.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Robert Drake Andrekanic, CRIVELLO AND CARLSON.

General Electric Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Raymond R. Fournie, Esq., ARMSTRONG
TEASDALE, LLP, Anita Maria Kidd, Esq., ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP,
Julie Fix Meyer, Esq., ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP & Melanie R. King,
Esq., ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP.

Goulds Pumps, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Mark
D. Bauman, HINSHAW AND CULBERTSON.

Honeywell International Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Anthony L. Springfield, Esq., POLSINELLI PC.

J.P. Bushnell Packing Supply Co., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Stephen J. Maassen, HOAGLAND AND FITZGERALD.

John Crane, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Albert J. Bronsky, Esq., BROWN AND JAMES, P.C. &
Agota Peterfy, CARMODY MACDONALD P.C..

Kohler Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Gregory C. Flatt, HEYL AND ROYSTER.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant and Cross
Defendant, represented by Charles L. Joley, Esq., JOLEY AND
OLIVER.

Navistar, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by
Anthony L. Springfield, POLSINELLI PC.

Patterson Pump Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Leslie G. Offergeld, WALKER AND WILLIAMS,
P.C..

Pneumo Abex, LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Thomas L. Orris, Esq., WILLIAMS AND VENKER, LLC,
Mary Dianne Rychnovsky, Esq., Williams Venker & Sanders LLC,
Matthew E. Pelikan, Esq., WILLIAMS AND VENKER, LLC & Ross S.
Titzer, Esq., WILLIAMS AND VENKER, LLC.

Rockwell Automation, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Jennifer M. Valentino, KUROWSKI
SCHULTZ,Lindsay A. Dibler, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ, Jerry S. Warchol,
KUROWSKI SHULTZ LLC & Lacy M. Fields, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ.

RSCC Wire & Cable LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by Gregory C. Flatt, HEYL AND ROYSTER & Kent
L. Plotner, HEYL AND ROYSTER.

Schneider Electric Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Anthony L. Springfield, POLSINELLI PC.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Jeffrey T. Bash, Esq., LEWIS AND BRISBOIS, LLP,
Charles S. Anderson, Esq., LEWIS AND BRISBOIS, LLP, Matthew J.
Morris, Esq., LEWIS AND BRISBOIS, LLP &Matthew W. Schuh, Esq.,
LEWIS AND BRISBOIS, LLP.

Viking Pumps, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Gregory C. Flatt, HEYL AND ROYSTER.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Raymond R. Fournie, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP,Anita
Maria Kidd, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, ARMSTRONG
TEASDALE, LLP &Melanie R. King, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP.

Welco Manufacturing Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by James D. Maschhoff, HERZOG CREBS LLP.

Young Group Ltd., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by
Anastasios T. Foukas, Esq., SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE.

Young Insulation Group of St. Louis, Inc., Cross Defendant,
represented by Anastasios T. Foukas, SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE.

Zurn Industries, LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by John D. Risvold, Esq., SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens' Bid to Exclude Testimony in PI Suit OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the asbestos exposure cases captioned GARY SUOJA, individually
and as special administrator for the estate of Oswald F. Suoja,
Plaintiff, v. OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC., Defendant, NO. 99-CV-475-BBC
(W.D. Wis.), and BARBARA CONNELL, individually and as special
administrator for the estate of Daniel Connell, Plaintiff, v.
OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC., Defendant, NO. 05-CV-219-BBC (W.D. Wis.),
Judge Barbara B. Crabb of the United States District Court for the
Western District of Wisconsin, granted as unopposed defendant
Owens-Illinois's motions to exclude (1) expert testimony related
to the theory that "any exposure" to asbestos, no matter how
slight, could have caused the diseases at issue in these cases;
(2) evidence of experiments conducted by William Longo and his
company Materials Analytical Services that are related to asbestos
exposure; and (3) expert testimony from Barry Castleman.

A full-text copy of Judge Crabb's order dated Feb. 13, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/cRv5tefrom Leagle.com.

Suoja, Delores Agnes, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P.
Cascino, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., Robert G. McCoy,
Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd. & Jill A. Rakauski, CASCINO
VAUGHAN LAW OFFICES, LTD.

Oswald F. Suoja, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P. Cascino,
Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., Robert G. McCoy, Cascino
Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd. & Jill A. Rakauski, CASCINO VAUGHAN LAW
OFFICES, LTD..

Owens-Illinois Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew John
Fischer, Esq. -- mfischer@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff Hardin LLP,
Brian O'Connor Watson, Esq. -- bwatson@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff
Hardin LLP, Edward M. Casmere, Esq. -- ecasmere@schiffhardin.com -
- Schiff Hardin, LLP, Rachel Allison Remke, Esq. --
rremke@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff Hardin LLP & Robert H. Riley,
Esq. -- rriley@schiffhardin.com -- SCHIFF, HARDIN & WAITE.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Reconsider Fibro Summary Judgment Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David C. Norton of the United States District Court for the
District of South Carolina, Charleston Division, issued an order
dated Feb. 19, 2015, granting a motion for reconsideration filed
by plaintiffs Terence J. Sparkman and Leonard Sparkman from a Dec.
29, 2014, order granting defendant Goulds Pumps, Inc.'s motion for
summary judgment.  The court, in the December order, based its
ruling on the plaintiffs' failure to establish exposure to
asbestos-containing products manufactured or otherwise supplied by
Goulds, and further determined that Goulds was not subject to a
duty to warn consumers about potential dangers from exposure to
parts of its product which it did not manufacture or otherwise
supply.

Judge Norton, in granting the motion for reconsideration, agreed
with the plaintiffs that ignoring the holding in Garvin v. Agco
Corp., No. 2012-CP-40-6675 (Richland, S.C., Ct. Common Pleas, Dec.
10, 2014), amounts to manifest injustice.  The Plaintiffs assert
that Garvin indicates that the South Carolina Supreme Court would
not adopt the bare metal defense; rather, it would impose a duty
to warn consumers about potential dangers from exposure to parts
of its product which it did not manufacture or otherwise supply.
The Plaintiffs further contend that there is sufficient evidence
of exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured or
otherwise supplied by Goulds.

The case is TERENCE J. SPARKMAN AND LEONARD SPARKMAN, personal
representatives of the estate of ELIJAH SPARKMAN, JR., deceased,
Plaintiffs, v. GOULDS PUMPS, INC. and RESEARCH-COTTRELL, INC.
n/k/a AWT AIR COMPANY, INC; Defendants, NO. 2:12-CV-02957-DCN
(D.S.C.).  A full-text copy of Judge Norton's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/GX0j3Yfrom Leagle.com.

Terrence J Sparkman, Plaintiff, represented by John Eugene
Herrick, Motley Rice, V Brian Bevon, Motley Rice, William
Christopher Swett, Motley Rice & Benjamin David Cunningham, Motley
Rice.

Leonard Sparkman, Plaintiff, represented by John Eugene Herrick,
Motley Rice, V Brian Bevon, Motley Rice, William Christopher
Swett, Motley Rice & Benjamin David Cunningham, Motley Rice.

Goulds Pumps Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Moffatt Grier
McDonald, Esq. -- mmcdonald@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth Sinkler
Boyd, Scott E Frick, Esq. -- sfrick@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth
Sinkler Boyd & William David Conner, Esq. --
dconner@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd.

Research-Cottrell Inc, Defendant, represented by David Michael
Burkoff, Esq. -- dburkoff@HunterMaclean.com -- Hunter Maclean
Exley and Dunn, Erik David Nadolink, Esq. -- nadolink@wtotrial.com
-- Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, John Michael Fitzpatrick, Esq. --
fitzpatrick@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLp, Nicholas
J Laybourn, Esq. -- nlaybourn@HunterMaclean.com -- Hunter Maclean
Exley and Dunn, Robert Bates Lovett, Esq., Hunter Maclean Exley
and Dunn & Saunders Aldridge, Esq. -- saldridge@HunterMaclean.com
-- Hunter Maclean Exley and Dunn.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fraser's Bid to Dismiss "McCrossin" Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert J. Bryan of the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Tacoma, on Feb. 23, 2015, issued
an order denying defendant Fraser's Boiler Service, Inc.'s motion
for summary judgment in the asbestos-related wrongful death and
survivorship lawsuit filed by Connie M. McCrossin.

The case is CONNIE M. McCROSSIN, Individually and as Personal
Representative of the Estate of JOHN L. McCROSSIN, Plaintiff, v.
IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to
DE LAVAL TURBINE, INC.; LOCKHEED SHIPBUILDING COMPANY; LONE STAR
INDUSTRIES, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to
PIONEER SAND & GRAVEL COMPANY; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; and
FRASER'S BOILER SERVICE, INC., Defendants, CASE NO. 3:14-CV-05382-
RJB (W.D. Wash.).  A full-text copy of Judge Bryan's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/tI2dLGfrom Leagle.com.

Connie M. McCrossin, Plaintiff, represented by Brian F Ladenburg,
BERGMAN DRAPER & LADENBURG PLLC, Chandler H Udo, BERGMAN DRAPER &
LADENBURG PLLC, Anna D Knudson, BERGMAN DRAPER & LADENBURG PLLC,
Glenn S Draper, BERGMAN DRAPER & LADENBURG PLLC & Matthew Phineas
Bergman, BERGMAN DRAPER & LADENBURG PLLC.

IMO Industries Inc, Defendant, represented by James Edward Horne,
Esq. -- jhorne@gth-law.com -- GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL & Michael
Edward Ricketts, Esq. -- mricketts@gth-law.com -- GORDON THOMAS
HONEYWELL.

Lockheed Shipbuilding Company, Defendant, represented by Guy
Glazier, Esq. -- glazier@glazieryee.com -- GLAZIER YEE, Geoff J M
Bridgman, Esq. -- gbridgman@omwlaw.com -- OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE
PLLC, Jeffrey D Dunbar, Esq. -- jdunbar@omwlaw.com -- OGDEN MURPHY
WALLACE PLLC & Robert Gregory Andre, Esq. -- randre@omwlaw.com --
OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE PLLC.

Lone Star Industries Inc, Defendant, represented by Howard (Terry)
I. Hall, FOLEY & MANSFIELD & Zackary A Paal, WILLIAMS KASTNER &
GIBBS.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Diane J.
Kero, Esq. -- dkero@gth-law.com -- GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL.

Fraser's Boiler Service Inc, Defendant, represented by Melissa K
Roeder, Esq. -- mroeder@forsberg-umlauf.com -- FORSBERG & UMLAUF &
William Chris Gibson, Esq. -- cgibson@forsberg-umlauf.com --
FORSBERG & UMLAUF.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Dismiss Appeal in NY PI Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of New York, in a decision dated Feb. 24,
2015, denied a motion to dismiss an appeal in the lawsuit styled
IN THE MATTER OF NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to
RUBY E. KONSTANTIN, ETC., Respondent, v. 630 THIRD AVENUE
ASSOCIATES, ET AL., Defendants, TISHMAN LIQUIDATING CORPORATION,
Appellant, MOTION NO. 2015-45 (N.Y. App.).  A full-text copy of
the Decision is available at http://is.gd/5iNFimfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurer Can't Annual Eagle & USF&G Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Fourth
Circuit, in an opinion dated Feb. 25, 2015, reversed a trial
court's grant of a summary judgment in favor of OneBeacon America
Insurance Company and OneBeacon Insurance Company annulling a
settlement agreement between Eagle, Inc., and United States
Fidelity and Guaranty Company.

OneBeacon, as the insurer of Eagle, is a named defendant in an
underlying asbestos exposure lawsuit.  Pearson Long filed a
petition for damages against his employers and various
manufacturers of asbestos containing products alleging asbestos
exposure from 1958 to 1979.  During the years of alleged exposure,
OneBeacon issued several primary Comprehensive General Liability
policies of insurance to Eagle.  USF&G issued the primary CGL
policies to Eagle from 1977 to 1980.

The coverage in the CGL policies issued by OneBeacon and USF&G to
Eagle provided for defense costs.  OneBeacon and USF&G shared in
the defense costs of the litigation until USF&G notified OneBeacon
that all funds associated with the policies issued to Eagle had
been exhausted and USF&G was no longer obligated to pay costs and
expenses for Eagle's defense.  That assertion was based on the
terms and conditions agreed upon by USF&G and Eagle in a 2003
Settlement Agreement.  Subsequent to USF&G's withdrawal from
participating in Eagle's defense, OneBeacon filed a third party
demand against USF&G seeking to have the trial court declare that
USF&G was obligated to pay its share of the defense costs and for
reimbursement of expenses expended on USF&G's behalf.

The trial court rendered judgment in favor of OneBeacon, granting
its motion for summary judgment.  According to the trial court's
judgment, it concluded that pursuant to La. R.S. 22:1262 and
Washington v. Savoie, the Settlement Agreement violated Louisiana
law.  USF&G appeals that judgment.

In reversing the trial court, Judge Roland L. Belsome, writing for
the Court of Appeals, held that the plain language of La. R.S.
22:1262 prohibits insurers and insureds from retroactively
rescinding or annulling policy contracts by agreement post-
concurrence to the detriment of an injured third party.  Similar
to the Washington holding, the focus of the statute is to protect
third party tort victims, not insurance companies that contracted
to cover a particular risk, Judge Belsome said.  Simply put, the
protections set forth in Washington and La. R.S. 22:1262 do not
apply to OneBeacon, Judge Belsome added.  Accordingly, Judge
Belsome did not find that OneBeacon can have the settlement
agreement between USF&G and Eagle declared null and void.

The case is PEARSON LONG, v. EAGLE, INC., ET AL., NO. 2014-CA-0889
(La. App.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/xw131Pfrom Leagle.com.

Samuel M. Rosamond III, Esq. -- srosamond@twpdlaw.com -- Adam D.
deMahy, Esq. -- ademahy@twpdlaw.com -- Taylor Wellons Politz &
Duhe APLC, 1515 Poydras Street, Ste 1900, New Orleans, LA 70112,
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEES/ONEBEACON AMERICA INSURANCE, COMPANY AND
ONEBEACON INSURANCE.

Simeon B. Reimonenq, Jr., Esq. -- sreimonenq@lawla.com --
Katherine O. Hannan, Esq. -- khannan@lawla.com -- LUGENBUHL,
WHEATON, PECK, RANKIN & HUBBARD, 601 Poydras St, Ste 2775, New
Orleans, LA 70130, Frank Winston, Jr., Esq. --
fwinston@steptoe.com -- Sarah D. Gordon, Esq. --
sgordon@steptoe.com -- STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP, 1330 Connecticut
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036-1795, COUNSEL FOR THIRD-PARTY
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Cos. Obtain Summary Judgment in "Laurent" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants BMW of North America, LLC, Daimler North America
Corporation, and Volkswagen Group of America, filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment in the wrongful death and survival action filed
by Scott Laurent arising from death of his father, Frederick
Laurent, who contracted mesothelioma as a result of exposure to
asbestos.

In an order and reasons dated Feb. 25, 2015, Judge Carl J. Barbier
of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana, granted the motion after finding that the Plaintiff has
failed to show that there exists a genuine factual dispute
precluding summary judgment or that the Court should defer ruling
on the motion pending discovery.

The case is LAURENT, v. NEW ORLEANS CITY ET AL., CIVIL ACTION NO.
14-2022 (E.D. La.).  A full-text copy of Judge Barbier's Decision
is available at http://is.gd/bjLQj4from Leagle.com.

Scott Laurent, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin C. Schoenberger,
Kevin C. Schoenberger, APLC.
Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Janika D. Polk,
Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Amber B. Barlow,
Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Deborah DeRoche
Kuchler, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Lee Blanton
Ziffer, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC & Monique M.
Weiner, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by John Joseph
Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C.,
James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot
L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott Zotti,
Frilot L.L.C..

Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher
Kelly Lightfoot, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, Anne
Elizabeth Medo, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, Edward
J. Lassus, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale & Richard
J. Garvey, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel,
III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H.
Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C. &
Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C..

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Rebecca Abbott Zotti,
Frilot L.L.C..

Foster Wheeler, LLC, Defendant, represented by John Joseph
Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C.,
James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot
L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott Zotti,
Frilot L.L.C..

New Orleans City, Defendant, represented by Derek M. Mercadal,
City Attorney's Office & Cherrell R. Simms, City Attorney's
Office.

American Honda Motor Company Inc, Defendant, represented by Andrew
D. Weinstock, Esq. -- andreww@duplass.com -- Duplass, Zwain,
Bourgeois, Pfister & Weinstock.

McCarty Corporation, Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn,
Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine,
Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Nicole M. Loup, Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP & Stephen Jared Austin, Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Humphries" Suit Remanded to La. State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lance M. Africk of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana, in an order and reasons dated Feb.
20, 2015, remanded to the Civil District Court for the Parish of
Orleans, State of Louisiana, the asbestos-related lawsuit styled
JOHN CALVIN HUMPHRIES, v. ONEBEACON AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY, ET
AL., Section I, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-5426 (E.D. La.).  A full-text
copy of Judge Africk's decision is available at
http://is.gd/Wf81gSfrom Leagle.com.

John Calvin Humphries, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit
Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel &
Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph
Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement.

OneBeacon America Insurance Company, as successor to Commercial
Union Insurance Company and Employers Commercial Union Insurance
Company, Defendant, represented by Samuel Milton Rosamond, III,
Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC, Adam Devlin deMahy, Taylor,
Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC & Angela J. O'Brien, Taylor, Wellons,
Politz & Duhe, APLC.

Pennsylvania General Insurance Company, formerly known as American
Employers Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Samuel
Milton Rosamond, III, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC, Adam
Devlin deMahy, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC & Angela J.

O'Brien, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC.
Eagle, Inc., formerly known as Eagle Asbestos & Packing Company,
Inc., Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon, Peragine,
Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Watson Redfearn, Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP & Michael David Harold, Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP.

Bayer CropScience, Inc., Defendant, represented by Deborah DeRoche
Kuchler, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC.

Bayer CropScience, Inc., as successor of liability to Rhone
Poulenc AG Company formerly known as Amchem Products, Inc.
formerly known as Benjamin Foster Company, Defendant, represented
by Ernest G. Foundas, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC,
Francis Xavier deBlanc, III, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner &
Richeson, LLC, McGready Lewis Richeson, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner
& Richeson, LLC, Michael H. Abraham, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner &
Richeson, LLC & Milele N. St. Julien, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner &
Richeson, LLC.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by John Joseph
Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C. &
James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C..

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Frilot L.L.C.,
Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Frilot
L.L.C..

Uniroyal, Inc., Defendant, represented by Forrest Ren Wilkes,
Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP & Jason K. Elam,
Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP.

Riley Power, Inc., formerly known as Babcock Borsig Power, Inc.
formerly known as DB Riley, Inc. formerly known as Riley Stoker
Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jennifer E. Adams, Deutsch,
Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Arthur Wendel Stout, III, Deutsch,
Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Douglas R. Elliott, Pugh, Accardo, Haas,
Radecker &Carey, Theodore Leighton White, Deutsch, Kerrigan &
Stiles, LLP & William Claudy Harrison, Jr., Deutsch, Kerrigan &
Stiles, LLP.

Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher
Kelly Lightfoot, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, Anne
Elizabeth Medo, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, Edward
J. Lassus, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale & Richard
J. Garvey, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale.

Anco Insulations, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jamie Hebert
Baglio, Esq. -- jbaglio@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, Haas,
Radecker & Carey, Arthur Wendel Stout, III, Esq. --
astout@dkslaw.com -- Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Douglas R.
Elliott, Esq. -- lpugh@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, Haas,
Radecker & Carey, Duris Lee Holmes, Esq. -- dholmes@dkslaw.com --
Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Jennifer E. Adams, Esq. --
jadams@dkslaw.com -- Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Margaret M.
Joffe, Esq. -- mjoffe@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, Haas,
Radecker &Carey, Theodore Leighton White, Deutsch, Kerrigan &
Stiles, LLP & William Claudy Harrison, Jr., Esq. --
wharrison@dkslaw.com -- Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP.

McCarty Corporation, Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn,
Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Watson Redfearn, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Michael David Harold, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford's Summary Judgment Win in PI Suit Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, in a decision dated Feb. 26, 2015, affirmed the order
by the Supreme Court, New York County, entered on or about Oct.
27, 2014, denying defendant Ford Motor Company's motion for
summary judgment dismissing the asbestos-related complaint filed
by Raymond Finerty.

The case is RAYMOND FINERTY, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v.
ABEX CORPORATION, FORMERLY KNOWN AS AMERICAN BRAKE SHOE COMPANY,
ET AL., Defendants, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, LTD., Defendant-Appellant.
RAYMOND FINERTY, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Respondents, ABEX CORPORATION,
ET AL., Defendants, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant,
190187/10, 14344, 14343 (N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the
Decision is available at http://is.gd/OMCf7Lfrom Leagle.com.

Aaronson Rappaport Feinstein & Deutsch, LLP, New York (Elliott J.
Zucker, Esq. -- ejzucker@arfdlaw.com -- of counsel), for
appellant.

Levy Konigsberg LLP, New York (Amber R. Long of counsel), for
respondents.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 62 Cos. Dropped as Defendants in "Desimone" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth A. Desimone, as Personal Representative of the Estate of
Emilio J. Marchionne, and 62 of the defendants in an asbestos-
related personal injury lawsuit, have moved pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) to dismiss all claims against
those defendants with prejudice and without costs.  The parties
state that the remaining defendant, Yarway Corporation, has filed
for bankruptcy and is not included in the motion.

Judge George A. O'Toole of the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, found the terms of the joint motion
for dismissal proper and, accordingly, granted the motion.  The 62
defendants and all of the claims as to those defendants are
dismissed with prejudice and without costs.  In light of the
representation that the remaining defendant has filed for
bankruptcy protection, the case is stayed pending resolution of
the bankruptcy.

The case is ELIZABETH A. DESIMONE, as Personal Representative of
the Estate of EMILIO J. MARCHIONNE, Plaintiff, v. METROPOLITAN
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-
10223-GAO (D. Mass.).  A full-text copy of Judge O'Toole's Order
dated Feb. 25, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/AXOV8jfrom
Leagle.com.

Elizabeth A. Desimone, Plaintiff and Cross Defendant, represented
by Andrew S. Wainwright, Thornton Law Firm LLP & David J.
McMorris, Thornton Law Firm LLP.

A.W. Chesterton Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by John T. Hugo, Esq. -- jhugo@mgmlaw.com --
Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Meghan J. Donegan, Manion Gaynor &
Manning LLP & Shaina A. Rasmussen, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, represented by Sarah
E. O'Leary, Governo Law Firm LLC.

Alfa Laval, Inc., Defendant and Claimant, represented by Brian D.
Gross, Esq. -- bgross@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP,
Meghan J. Donegan, Esq., Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP & Shaina A.
Rasmussen, Esq., Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP.

API Heat Transfer Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by John J. Robinson, McCarter & English,
LLP, Patrick J. Comerford, McCarter & English, LLP & Stephen P.
Hall, Esq. -- stephen.hall@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight, LLP.

Armstrong International, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Adam C. Martin, Esq. -- amartin@cetllp.com --
Cetrulo LLP & Francis M. Lynch, Esq. -- flynch@cetllp.com --
Cetrulo LLP.

Aurora Pump Co., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by
Craig R. Waksler, Esq. -- cwaksler@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert
Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC & Jennifer A. Whelan, Esq. --
jwhelan@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC.

Bayer Cropscience, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Katharine
S. Perry, Esq. -- kperry@apslaw.com -- Adler, Pollock & Sheehan PC
& Michael Kiely, Esq. -- mkiely@apslaw.com -- Adler Pollock &
Sheehan P.C..

BW/IP International, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Brian D. Gross, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP &
Meghan J. Donegan, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP.

BWIP, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant
represented by Brian D. Gross, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP &
Shaina A. Rasmussen, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP.

Carrier Corporation a/k/a Bryant Heating & Cooling Systems, Inc.,
Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan F. Tabasky,
Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Judith A. Perritano, Esq. --
jperritano@piercedavis.com -- Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP &
Meghan J. Donegan, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP.

Carrier Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by Joel F. Pierce, Esq. --
jpierce@piercedavis.com -- Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP,
Jonathan F. Tabasky, Esq. -- jtabasky@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor
& Manning LLP, Maria E. DeLuzio, Esq. -- mdeluzio@piercedavis.com
-- Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP, Meghan L. Riordan, Esq. --
mriordan@piercedavis.com -- Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP &
Shaina A. Rasmussen, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP.

CBS Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by
Anthony M. Moccia, Esq. -- amoccia@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert
Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC.

Cornell Pump Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by Katharine S. Perry, Adler, Pollock &
Sheehan PC.

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Bryna Rosen Misiura, Governo
Law Firm LLC.

Defense Liaison Counsel, Cross Defendant, represented by Francis
M. Lynch, Cetrulo LLP, Lawrence G. Cetrulo, Esq. --
lcetrulo@cetllp.com -- Cetrulo & Capone LLP & Stephen T. Armato,
Esq. -- sarmato@cetllp.com -- Cetrulo LLP.

Dunham-Bush, Inc.;, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by John Egan, Esq. -- jegan@rubinrudman.com -- Rubin &
Rudman LLP.

Electro Dynamic Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
Clinton J. Wolbert, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP.
Electro Dynamic Corporation, Defendant, represented by Clinton J.
Wolbert, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP.

Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Joel F. Pierce, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP,
Judith A. Perritano, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP, Maria E.
DeLuzio, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP & Meghan L. Riordan,
Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP.

Federal Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, Defendant, Cross
Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Jonathan F. Tabasky,
Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Meghan J. Donegan, Manion Gaynor &
Manning LLP & Shaina A. Rasmussen, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP.

Flowserve Corporation f/k/a The Duriron Co., Inc., Defendant,
Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Brian D.
Gross, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP & Shaina A. Rasmussen, Manion
Gaynor & Manning LLP.

Flowserve Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Brian D. Gross, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP & Meghan J.
Donegan, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP.

Flowserve US, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by
John J. Bogdanski, Esq. -- jbogdanski@hl-law.com -- Howd & Ludorf
LLC, Joni K. Mackler, Esq. -- jmackler@hl-law.com -- Howd &
Ludorf, LLC, Mark J. Claflin, Esq. -- mclaflin@hl-law.com -- Howd
& Ludorf & David A. Brosnihan, Esq. -- dbrosnihan@hl-law.com --
Howd & Ludorf, LLC.

FMC, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by
Kevin J. Fleming, Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP & Paul E. Dwyer, Jr.,
Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and
Cross Claimant, represented by Katharine S. Perry, Adler, Pollock
& Sheehan PC.

Gardner Denver, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Joel F. Pierce, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP, Judith A.
Perritano, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP, Maria E. DeLuzio,
Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP & Meghan L. Riordan, Pierce, Davis
& Perritano, LLP.

General Electric Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by Stephen P. Hall, Holland & Knight, LLP &
Patrick J. Comerford, McCarter & English, LLP.

Goulds Pumps Incorporated, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by A. Bernard Guekguezian, Adler, Cohen,
Harvey, Wakeman & Guekguezian LLP & Kara L. Lisavich, Adler,
Cohen, Harvey, Wakeman & Guekguezian LLP.

Graver Technologies LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Joel F. Pierce, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP,
Judith A. Perritano, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP, Maria E.
DeLuzio, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP & Meghan L. Riordan,
Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP.

Harsco Corporation, Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by
John S. Stadler, Esq. -- jstadler@nixonpeabody.com -- Nixon
Peabody, LLP.

IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Joel F. Pierce, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP, Judith A.
Perritano, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP, Maria E. DeLuzio,
Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP & Meghan L. Riordan, Pierce, Davis
& Perritano, LLP.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by A. Bernard Guekguezian, Adler, Cohen, Harvey, Wakeman &
Guekguezian LLP & Deirdre Kirby Lydon, Adler, Cohen, Harvey,
Wakeman & Guekguezian LLP.

ITT Corporation as Successor to Bell & Gossett, Hoffman Pumps and
Kennedy Valves, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by
Kathleen A. Federico, Esq. -- kfederico@melicklaw.com -- Melick &
Porter, LLP, Robert S. Ludlum, Esq. -- rludlum@melicklaw.com --
Melick & Porter, LLP & Theodorus D.J. Urbanski, Esq. --
durbanski@melicklaw.com -- Melick & Porter, LLP.

John Crane, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Jonathan F. Tabasky, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP,
Meghan J. Donegan, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP & Shaina A.
Rasmussen, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP.

Marmon Wire & Cable LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Joel F. Pierce, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP,
Judith A. Perritano, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP, Maria E.
DeLuzio, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP & Meghan L. Riordan,
Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP.

Marotta Controls, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Kathleen A. Federico, Melick & Porter, LLP, Robert S. Ludlum,
Melick & Porter, LLP & Theodorus D.J. Urbanski, Melick & Porter,
LLP.

Marshall Engineered Products Company, LLC, Defendant and Cross
Defendant, represented by John Egan, Rubin & Rudman LLP.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant
and Cross Claimant, represented by James W. Sexton, Esq. --
sexton@litchfieldcavo.com -- Litchfield Cavo LLP.

Milwaukee Valve Company, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Adam C. Martin, Cetrulo LLP & Francis M. Lynch,
Cetrulo LLP.

Neles-Jamesbury, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Adam C. Martin, Cetrulo LLP & Susan A. Jackson, Esq. --
sjackson@cetllp.com -- Cetrulo LLP.

Owens-Illinois Glass Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Daniel J. Mitchell, Esq. --
dmitchell@bernsteinshur.com -- Bernstein Shur Sawyer & Nelson &
Peter J. Rubin, Esq. -- prubin@bernsteinshur.com -- Bernstein,
Shur, Sawyer & Nelson.

Owens-Illinois, Inc, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by
Daniel J. Mitchell, Bernstein Shur Sawyer & Nelson & Peter J.
Rubin, Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer & Nelson.

Parker-Hannifin Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Adam C. Martin, Cetrulo LLP & Susan A. Jackson.

Quaker Chemical Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Adam C. Martin, Cetrulo LLP & Susan A. Jackson.

Rapid American Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Mark G. Furey, Thompson, McNaboe, Ashley & Bull.
Roper Industries, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Katharine S. Perry, Adler, Pollock &
Sheehan PC.

Roth Pump Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by
James W. Sexton, Litchfield Cavo LLP.

Selby, Battersby & Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Adam C. Martin, Cetrulo LLP & Susan A. Jackson.

Sepco Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by
Adam C. Martin, Cetrulo LLP & Francis M. Lynch, Cetrulo LLP.

Spirax Sarco, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by
Joel F. Pierce, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP, Judith A.
Perritano, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP, Maria E. DeLuzio,
Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP & Meghan L. Riordan, Pierce, Davis
& Perritano, LLP.

SPX Cooling Technologies, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Adam C. Martin, Cetrulo LLP & Francis M. Lynch,
Cetrulo LLP.

Sterling Fluid Systems (USA), Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant,
and Cross Claimant, represented by Kevin J. Fleming, Edwards
Wildman Palmer LLP & Paul E. Dwyer, Jr., Edwards Wildman Palmer
LLP.

Taco, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Kevin E.
Young, Esq. -- kyoung@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans Cherin &
Mellott, LLC & Nathaniel J. Dudley, Esq. --
ndudley@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC.

The Fairbanks Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Joel F. Pierce, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP, Judith A.
Perritano, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP, Maria E. DeLuzio,
Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP & Meghan L. Riordan, Pierce, Davis
& Perritano, LLP.

The Gorman-Rupp Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Cheryl A. Enright, Morrison Mahoney LLP.

Tyco Valves & Controls, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and
Cross Claimant, represented by Kevin J. Fleming, Edwards Wildman
Palmer LLP & Paul E. Dwyer, Jr., Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP.

Velan Valve Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Patrick J. Comerford, McCarter & English,
LLP & Stephen P. Hall, Holland & Knight, LLP.

Viad Corp., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Peter C.
Netburn, Hermes, Netburn, O'Connor & Spearing.

Viking Pumps, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Joel F.
Pierce, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP, Judith A. Perritano,
Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP, Maria E. DeLuzio, Pierce, Davis &
Perritano, LLP & Meghan L. Riordan, Pierce, Davis & Perritano,
LLP.

Viking Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joel F. Pierce,
Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP, Judith A. Perritano, Pierce, Davis
& Perritano, LLP, Maria E. DeLuzio, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP
& Meghan L. Riordan, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP.

Warren Pumps LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Joel F. Pierce, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP,
Judith A. Perritano, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP, Maria E.
DeLuzio, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP & Meghan L. Riordan,
Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP.

Yarway Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by
Jeffrey D. Adams, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Patrick S. Tracey,
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Todd S. Holbrook, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP.

York International Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Joel F. Pierce, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP,
Judith A. Perritano, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP, Maria E.
DeLuzio, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP & Meghan L. Riordan,
Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP.

Yuba Heat Transfer LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Katharine S. Perry, Adler, Pollock &
Sheehan PC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5th Cir. Affirms Ruling in Anco's Insurance Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
From approximately 1972 through the early 1980s, Anco Insulations,
Incorporated, sold, installed, repaired, and distributed
insulation materials that contained asbestos.  As a result, Anco
was named a defendant in approximately 2,700 asbestos-related
lawsuits filed in Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi.  In 1987,
National Union Fire Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, issued a
primary general liability insurance policy to Anco for the policy
period January 1, 1987 to January 1, 1988.  The Policy did not
contain an asbestos exclusion.

In September 2007, Anco filed a complaint seeking a declaratoy
judgment against several of its excess liability insurers.
National Union was not named as a defendant in the initial
complaint.  During the course of discovery, Anco became aware of
the existence of the Policy and of the fact that it did not
contain an asbestos exclusion.  In April 2009, Anco forwarded all
suits to National Union and tendered them to National Union under
the Policy.  Anco also added National Union as a party-defendant
to its pending declaratory judgment action against its excess
insurers.

A federal district court granted National Union's motion for
partial summary judgment, reasoning that, because Anco had failed
to tender claims timely under the terms of the Policy, National
Union was not obligated to reimburse Anco for any legal costs that
it incurred in defending the untimely tendered lawsuits.  The
district court also granted National Union's motion for partial
summary judgment on Anco's claim for statutory penalties under
La.R.S. Sections 22:1973, 22:1892.

In an opinion dated Feb. 25, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court
correctly ruled that National Union was not obligated to reimburse
Anco for legal costs because Anco had failed to tender claims
timely under the terms of the Policy and that Anco is precluded
from asserting claims for statutory penalties under La.R.S.
Sections 22:1973, 22:1892.

The appeals case is ANCO INSULATIONS, INCORPORATED, a Louisiana
Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA, Defendant-Cross Defendant-
Appellee. ROYAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation; ZURICH
AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN GUARANTEE; LIABILITY
INSURANCE COMPANY, Cross Claimants-Appellants, NO. 13-31313 (5th
Cir.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/BCPQX9from Leagle.com.


                             *********

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

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

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

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

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

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



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *