CAR_Public/150309.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Monday, March 9, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 48


                             Headlines

996660 ONTARIO: Recalls Mortadella Products Due to Listeria
ACTIVISION: Shareholder to Object to $275 Million Settlement
ADT TRANSPORTATION: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Suit Says
ALLIANCE TIRE: Recalls Dual-Purpose Tires Due to Injury Risk
ALLIANCEONE: Faces Class Action Over Debt Collection Practices

ALTEC INDUSTRIES: Recalls Cranes Over Defective Parts
AMERICAN INTEGRITY: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Suit Says
AMIRA ENTERPRISES: Recalls Tahini Sauce Due to Salmonella
AMIRA NATURE: Pomerantz Files Class Action in California
ANTHEM INC: Morgan & Morgan Files Data Breach Class Action

ANTHEM INC: Weitz & Luxenberg Files Data Breach Class Action
ANTHEM INC: Faces Data Breach Class Action in Denver
ATLANTIC LOTTERY: Former Gambling Addict Mulls Class Action
AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Removes "Loposky" Suit to D. New Jersey
BANK OF AMERICA: Removes "Diaz" Suit to Florida District Court

BEACH ROAD: Faces Class Action Over Pre-1972 Recordings
BERKS CREDIT: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.J.
BIG UPS: Recalls Garden Lites Southwestern Souffle Due to Peanuts
BLL RESTAURANT: Sued by Wheelchair-Bound Man Over ADA Violations
BROOMFIELD CO: Recalls Cheddar Sandwich Crackers Due to Peanuts

CALIBER COLLISION: Faces Wage Class Action in California
CALIFORNIA: School Districts Eye Settlement of P.E. Class Action
CCMC F&B: Sued in Florida for Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
CHEVROLET: Recalls Cruz 2015 Models Due to Injury Risk
CHIQUITA BRANDS: Sued for Misrepresenting Environment Practices

CHRYSLER GROUP: Consumers Complain Over Vehicle TIPM Defects
COMCAST CORP: Accused of Bias by African-American Owned Media
CREDITSAFE USA: Settles Overtime Pay Class Action for $92,000
CSK AUTO: "Estrada" Suit Transferred From California to Missouri
CULLMAN ELECTRIC: Removes "Sparks" Class Suit to N.D. Alabama

DADE CITY CHEVROLET: Removes "See" Suit to Florida District Court
DIRECTV INC: Faces Wage-and-Hour Class Action in California
DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of FDCPA
DODGE: Recalls Charger and Challenger 2015 Models
ELECTROLUX HOME: Faces Class Action Over Moldy Washing Machines

FCNH INC: Removes "Zhou" Class Suit to Middle District of Florida
FERGUSON, MO: Justice Dep't Probes Race Bias Suit v. Police
FIELDSTON OPERATING: Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages
FLINT, MI: Mayor to Form Advisory Committee Amid Water Issues
FORD MOTOR: Recalls F350 & F250 Models Due to Safety Hazard

FOSTER WHEELER: Removes "Kahn" Asbestos Suit to S.D. New York
GENERAL MOTORS: Judge to Weigh on Bankruptcy Shield Challenge
HAMPDEN BANCORP: Faces Class Action Over Berkshire Bank Deal
HEARTWARE INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Ventricular System Controllers
HYUNDAI: Faces Class Action Over Blue Link Telematics System

HYUNDAI: Recalls Genesis 2015 Models Due to Safety Risk
HYUNDAI: Recalls Elantra Models Due to Safety Risk
JIM BEAM: Faces False Advertising Class Action
LADY YORK: Recalls Mortadella Products Due to Listeria
LADY YORK: Recalls San Danielle Mortadella Due to Listeria

LADY YORK: Recalls Sliced Mortadella Products Due to Listeria
LAXMI HOUSE: Recalls Masala Mixed Spices Sue to Sesame Seeds
LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls Bran Flakes Cereals
LUXURY SUITES: Condo Owners File Class Action Over Surcharges
MASTER TOYS: Recalls JA-RU's B'loonies Balloon Blowing Kits

MINNESOTA: Patients Testify in Sex Offer Program Suit
MONROE COLLEGE: Faces "Almansa" Suit Over Racial Discrimination
MORIS TABACINIC: FLSA Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
NEW YORK: Legal Battles Over Superstorm Sandy Insurance Continue
NEW YORK SPORTS CLUB: Workers File Wage Class Action

NEWTON SCHOOL SYSTEM: Settles Suit Over January 2013 Bus Accident
NISSAN: Recalls Altima 2013 Models Due to Safety Risk
NUCAL FOODS: June 22 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
PAPA JOHN'S: Settles Pizza Delivery Tax Class Action
PAYLESS SHOESOURCE: Settles OT Class Action for $2.9 Million

PREVOST: Recalls Mutiple Bus Models Due to Safety Hazard
PREVOST: Recalls Certain Buses with Kiddie Fire Extinguishers
PROFESSIONAL RECOVERY: Sued in New Jersey for Violating FDCPA
RESOURCE SOLUTIONS: Sued for Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
RJ REYNOLDS: Must Pay $2.12 Million to Smoker's Widow

S & F FOOD: Recalls Hungarian Paprika Product Due to Peanuts
SAFELITE AUTOGLASS: Seeks Dismissal of Overtime Class Action
SHAH BROTHERS: Recalls Kalonji Whole Products Due to Salmonella
SHORTER UNIVERSITY: Faces "Bishop" Suit Alleging Fraud Claims
SPEEDPAY INC: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Surcharges

STATE AUTO: Court Grants Motion to Strike Class Action Claims
SUBARU OF INDIANA: Sued for Replacing Staff With HR Manager's Son
SUCCESS APPAREL: Sued Over Claims of Bias and Sexual Harassment
SUNCOKE ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Steel Mill Emissions
SUNSET BAY DONUTS: Removes "Hollis" Class Suit to M.D. Florida

SYNGENTA: Says GMO Corn Trait Class Actions Without Merit
TAKATA CORP: "Tanner" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL
TAKATA CORP: "Knight" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL
TAKATA CORP: "McFarland" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL
TAKATA CORP: "Pedersen" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL

TALENTI(R) GELATO: Recalls Sea Salt Caramel Gelato Due to Peanuts
TALLGRASS BURGER: Faces "Hurley" Suit Alleging Violations of ADA
TELEXFREE: Interim Lead Counsel Responds to Stay Request
TINY'S GIANT: Lacks Reasonable Accommodations at Shop, Suit Says
TITLEMAX OF TEXAS: Accused of Not Having ADA-Compliant Parking

UNFI CANADA: Recalls Kids Dark Chocolate Coins Due to Milk
UNITED AUTO WORKERS: Sued for Breaching Implied Duty Under CBA
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Seeks Dismissal of Spying class Action
US ASSET MANAGEMENT: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
WELLS FARGO: Attorneys Seek $51MM in Fees in Overdraft Suit

* Bill Mulled to Avert Suits v. Companies Facing Cyber-Attacks
* Transport Canada Recalls Trailers With Chill Chaser Heater
* Transport Canada Recalls SUVs with TIPM-7 Fuel Pump


                            *********


996660 ONTARIO: Recalls Mortadella Products Due to Listeria
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 27, 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: 996660 Ontario Ltd.
Distribution: Alberta, Ontario, Possibly National, Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9671

996660 Ontario Ltd. is recalling Monticello brand Mortadella,
product of Italy, from the marketplace due to possible Listeria
monocytogenes contamination. Consumers should not consume and
retailers, restaurants and institutions should not to sell or use
the recalled product described below.

Starting on November 13, 2014, this product was sold clerk-served
from deli counters with or without a label or coding, and some
product packages may not bear the same brand or product name as
described above, or a brand at all. 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 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 confirmed illnesses associated with the
consumption of this product. The recalled product is undergoing
analysis to determine if is linked to any illnesses.

This recall was triggered by findings of the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency (CFIA), Toronto Public Health, Public Health
Ontario and other public health and food safety partners as part
of an ongoing food borne illness outbreak investigation in
Ontario. The CFIA continues to conduct 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.

  Brand name    Common name    Size       Code(s) on    UPC
  ---------     -----------    ----       product        ---
                                          -------
  Monticello    La Mortadella  Variable   LOT: 044293    None
                del Cuore -               BEST BEFORE:
                Mortadella                03/19/2015


ACTIVISION: Shareholder to Object to $275 Million Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, report that the question of
who should get the cash has now cropped up in the biggest-ever
derivative deal, a $275 million proposed settlement of claims that
Activision investors were shortchanged in the company's $6 billion
buyback of shares from Vivendi in 2013.  On Feb. 12, lawyers for
an Activision shareholder informed Vice-Chancellor Travis Laster
of Delaware Chancery Court that they intend to file an objection
to the proposed settlement.

Letters between those lawyers and lead counsel for the shareholder
who reached the $275 million settlement make it clear that the
objection centers on how settlement money should be allocated.

The structure of the proposed deal, according to the objecting
shareholder's counsel at Prickett Jones & Elliott and Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, gives no direct consideration to
Activision's current shareholders -- and, in fact, gives control
of the money, via the company treasury, to the board that
supposedly failed investors in the buyback.  By contrast, Prickett
and Kessler said in a Jan. 22 letter, a settlement proposed by the
objecting shareholder would have returned $70 million to
Activision investors in a special dividend.

But not all of the defendants would ever have struck that deal,
according to plaintiffs' lawyer Joel Friedlander of Friedlander &
Gorris in a Jan. 24 response to Prickett and Kessler.
Friedlander, who led the case for the shareholder who agreed to
the proposed $275 million settlement, said two of the defendants
that signed the settlement -- Vivendi, which put up $67.5 million,
and a special investment committee headed by Activision's
CEO -- simply wouldn't have acquiesced to a special dividend to
Activision's public shareholders. Both Vivendi and the special
committee retain big stakes in Activision stock but are
specifically excluded from the class of shareholders certified as
plaintiffs in the case.  They were willing to cough up settlement
money to benefit the company, Friedlander suggested, but wouldn't
have agreed to put up cash to be funneled to other shareholders.
(Friedlander also took issue with the supposed $70 million value
of the settlement proposed by Prickett's client, saying the return
to public shareholders in that deal would have been closer to $40
million.)

There's quite a bit of contentious history underlying the dispute
over the Activision settlement.  Shareholder litigation over the
stock buyback originally moved on two parallel tracks.  Prickett
and Kessler filed a shareholder class action and managed to win an
injunction halting the transaction.  While the defendants appealed
the injunction, Prickett and Kessler reached a $70 million
settlement with some, but not all, of the defendants.  That
settlement fell through when the Delaware Supreme Court reversed
the injunction in November 2013.

In the meantime, a different Activision shareholder represented by
Friedlander and Bragar Eagel & Squire continued with derivative
breach-of-duty claims.  His lawyers eventually amended his
complaint to include class action allegations.  At a hearing in
December 2013, both Friedlander and Michael Hanrahan --
mhanrahan@prickett.com -- of Prickett asked to be appointed lead
counsel.  (Prickett and Kessler disclosed the settlement they
almost obtained in accompanying lead plaintiff filings.)  Despite
Hanrahan's argument that Friedlander's client had "stolen" his
client's class action allegations, Judge Laster picked
Friedlander's client as lead plaintiff.

The fight over the Activision settlement is just getting started.
The letters between Prickett and Friedlander were ostensibly
procedural.  Prickett and Kessler will file their formal brief
opposing approval of the deal on Feb. 13, and, based on the letter
exchange, I'm expecting some unpleasantness over the proposed
$72.5 million fee request and $50,000 incentive award to the lead
plaintiff, in addition to debate over the allocation of the cash
payout.  Judge Laster is scheduled to hold a hearing on final
approval next month.  A lot of shareholder lawyers are going to be
interested in what he has to say about returning derivative
settlement money to shareholders.


ADT TRANSPORTATION: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Victor H. Monroy v. ADT Transportation, Inc. and Ana D. Trujillo,
Individually, Case No. 1:15-cv-20754-DPG (S.D. Fla., February 23,
2015) alleges that the Plaintiff earned, but did not receive from
the Defendants, minimum wage or overtime wages calculated at time
and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all time he spent
working over 40 hours per week.

ADT Transportation, Inc. is a Florida for-profit that conducts its
for-profit business in Florida.  Ana D. Trujillo is the president,
owner, and operator of ADT Transportation.  The Defendants
transport children to and from locations within South Florida for
their school schedule.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian H. Pollock, Esq.
          FAIRLAW FIRM
          8603 S. Dixie Highway, Suite 408
          Miami, FL 33143
          Telephone: (305) 230-4884
          Facsimile: (305) 230-4844
          E-mail: brian@fairlawattorney.com


ALLIANCE TIRE: Recalls Dual-Purpose Tires Due to Injury Risk
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 23, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Tire
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Tires
Units affected: 256
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015079TC
ID number: 2015079

On certain dual-purpose tires, tread belt separation could occur
between the steel belts and casing. If the belt was to separate,
this could result in rapid air loss and/or tire failure, which
could increase the risk of an accident causing injury and/or
property damage. Correction: Affected tires are to be removed and
scrapped and the manufacturer will arrange reimbursement.


ALLIANCEONE: Faces Class Action Over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
KIRO 7 Investigates a Washington debt collection company that has
the power to take away your driving rights.

AllianceOne collects debt for more than 80 state and municipal
agencies.  A newly-filed lawsuit claims the way the Gig Harbor-
based company threatens to collect cash is illegal, possibly
giving consumers a way to fight back.

Margaret Dibb is the plaintiff in the complaint, filed by the
Northwest Consumer Law Center in Seattle.

When KIRO 7 visited Ms. Dibb at her home recently, she would only
give a tour of Vashon Island from the passenger's seat.  The 62-
year old didn't want KIRO 7 to shoot video of her behind the
wheel, because she's been driving illegally for more than a year
and claims she can't get around the rural island any other way.

"So, you're always looking over your shoulder when driving?" asked
Amy Clancy.

"Correct," said Ms. Dibb.

When Ms. Dibb paid for Washington license plates and tabs after a
move from Oregon in 2012, her check bounced. The Washington state
Department of Licensing sent Ms. Dibb a letter notifying her the
check hadn't cleared, but Dibb -- who shares a mailbox -- claimed
she never got the letter, and that she didn't even know about the
overdraft until a year later when she went to the licensing office
on Vashon to renew.

By that time, the outstanding debt had been sent to a collection
agency called AllianceOne.  Ms. Dibb told KIRO once she learned
about the overdraft, she immediately paid the nearly $100 to
settle the dishonored check and the interest, but disputed the
more than $100 in AllianceOne fees, because she claims she was
never notified that the check had bounced.

As a result, her license tabs have expired, and she's unable to
get them renewed.

"AllianceOne has put a hold on my account with the State of
Washington that says I'm in arrears," Ms. Dibb said.  "I cannot
legally drive in the state of Washington."

KIRO 7 has found that Ms. Dibb isn't alone. Hundreds of complaints
against AllianceOne have been filed with the Washington State
Attorney General's Office, many of them by consumers whose driving
privileges have also been suspended and wages garnished, even
though they claim to have paid their tickets and fees.

Many, like Ms. Dib, claim they never received notice from
AllianceOne otherwise.

Seattle lawyer Katy Box, with the Northwest Consumer Law Center,
has filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of Ms. Dibb that may
someday represent all drivers in Washington state who's debts have
been, in her words, "unfairly" collected by AllianceOne.

The Gig Harbor-based collections company filed a civil suit to
collect from Dib, which is perfectly legal.  However, a letter
AllianceOne sent to Dib also threatens possible "criminal
charges."

According to Ms. Box, that claim violates federal law.

"They're just consistently violating the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act by threatening people with criminal prosecution for
bouncing checks," Ms. Box told KIRO 7.  "I mean, everyone's
bounced a check."

Ms. Box believes thousands of consumers statewide have also
received the same letter threatening criminal action but didn't
know it may violate federal regulations.  While she waits for more
clients to possibly join the class-action suit, Ms. Dibb continues
to drive around Vashon Island illegally, under the radar.

"I think it can and should be resolved," she told Ms. Clancy.
"And I think I'm going to come out the other side glad that I
didn't give-in."

AllianceOne's spokesman, Mark Pfeiffer, didn't respond to calls
and emails seeking comment.

Meanwhile, Christine Anthony, of Washington state's Department of
Licensing told KIRO 7, if consumers find themselves in Ms. Dibb's
position, they need to fight the charges with the court that
issued the ticket, as soon as possible, before collection fees
accrue.


ALTEC INDUSTRIES: Recalls Cranes Over Defective Parts
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 24, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Equipment
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Accessories
Units affected: 50
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015082TC
ID number: 2015082
Manufacturer recall number: CSN 610

On certain truck-mounted telescopic cranes equipped with a 24/40,
26/44, 31/55 extendable crane jib, the locking pin and placement
area may not be properly highlighted to the operator. Due to the
lack of visibility of the locking pin and indication of placement,
the operator could forget to use the pin or inadvertently insert
the pin in the wrong location, increasing the risk of unimpeded
movement of the extendable jib section within the base jib
section. This could result in injury and/or damage to property.
Correction: Manufacturer will provide a high visibility pinning
kit ensuring the proper placement of the pin.

  Make    Model   Model year(s) affected
  ----    -----   -----------------------
  ALTEC   AC38    2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012,
                  2013
  ALTEC   AC18    2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012,
                  2013
  ALTEC   AC23    2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012,
                  2013
  ALTEC   AC26    2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012,
                  2013
  ALTEC   AC30    2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012,
                  2013


AMERICAN INTEGRITY: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Schoebel, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
individuals v. American Integrity Insurance Company of Florida,
Case No. 8:15-cv-00380-SCB-AEP (M.D. Fla., February 23, 2015)
alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
          1110 N Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
                  lcabassa@wfclaw.com


AMIRA ENTERPRISES: Recalls Tahini Sauce Due to Salmonella
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 26, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Amira Enterprises Inc.
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9667

Amira Enterprises Inc. is recalling Amira brand Tahini Sauce from
the marketplace due to possible Salmonella contamination.
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 Salmonella may not look or smell spoiled
but can still make you sick. Young children, pregnant women, the
elderly and people with weakened immune systems may contract
serious and sometimes deadly infections. Healthy people may
experience short-term symptoms such as fever, headache, vomiting,
nausea, abdominal cramps and diarrhea. Long-term complications may
include severe arthritis.

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

This recall was triggered by findings by the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency (CFIA) during its investigation into a foodborne
illness outbreak. 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   UPC
  ---------   -----------   ----     product      ---
                                     -------
  Amira       Tahini Sauce  750 g    None         0 69467 40101 0

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/cE3n92


AMIRA NATURE: Pomerantz Files Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Feb. 18 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Amira Nature Foods Ltd. and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Central District of California, and docketed under
15-cv-00280, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased Amira securities between September 27, 2012
and February 9, 2015, inclusive.  This class action seeks to
recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the
federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Amira securities during the
Class Period, you have until April 13, 2015 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Amira is a British Virgin Islands Corporation with its principal
executive offices located in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.  Amira
has an office in this District at One Park Plaza, Suite 600,
Irvine, CA, 92614.  Amira processes, markets, and sells rice and
other food products.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
prospects and performance. Specifically, during the Class Period,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose related party transactions and overstatement of
revenues, rendering its financial statements false.

On February 9, 2015, third-party analyst firm Prescience Point
Research Group issued a report on ANFI.  Among other things, the
Prescience Report charged that: 1) ANFI had overstated its
India-produced Basmati rice revenue by at least 116.9% in 2014,
citing Indian government reports on Basmati rice exports; 2) ANFI
had engaged in material related-party transactions, including with
its largest distributor, and one of its largest suppliers; and
that 3) ANFI CEO Karan Chanana used company resources for personal
use, including to pay salaries for household help.

On this news, shares of Amira fell $3.45 per share to $9.95, or
more than 25.8%, on February 9, 2015.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 70 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members.


ANTHEM INC: Morgan & Morgan Files Data Breach Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Brinkmann, writing for Orlando Sentinel, reports that Florida
customers of Anthem named as plaintiffs in data breach lawsuit
Health insurer Anthem's huge data breach has attracted lawsuits
all over the country, and now Central Florida law firm Morgan &
Morgan is getting into the fray.

Morgan & Morgan filed a proposed class action against Anthem on
Feb. 17 in Orlando federal court. The representative plaintiffs
are David and Maria Haag of the Orlando area.

Florida was not named as one of the states that was hardest hit by
the data breach, but the new Florida lawsuit would only apply to
Florida customers of Indiana-based Anthem.  The lead attorney on
the case, John Yanchunis, said he didn't know yet how many people
in Florida may have been affected.

Mr. Yanchunis is also involved in suing over data breaches at
Target and Home Depot.  "I believe this is the most significant
data breach yet," Mr. Yanchunis said of the Anthem data breach.

Anthem is the nation's second largest health care insurance
company. It reported to the FBI in early February that 80 million
of its customers may have been exposed to the data breach.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Anthem didn't encrypt its
data, and investigators believe the attack originated with
Chinese-made malware.  There is no law that such data much be
encrypted, and some companies decline to encrypt the data so that
it is more accessible.

The new Orlando lawsuit alleges that Anthem was negligent in not
protecting the data more.  Mr. Yanchunis said encrypting data is
expensive, but data breaches are more expensive.

The stolen data includes name, date of birth, social security
number, health care ID number, home address, email address, and
income data. The company doesn't believe credit card information
was taken.

Anthem launched its own webpage for updates on the breach, where
the company says it is working with AllClear ID, an identity
protection provider, to offer 24 months of identity theft repair
and credit monitoring services to current or former members of an
affected Anthem plan dating back to 2004.

Anthem is an administrator for health plans offered by Blue Cross
and Blue Shield entities.

Anthem also set up a toll-free number to call for questions about
the breach, at 877-263-7995.


ANTHEM INC: Weitz & Luxenberg Files Data Breach Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., on Feb. 18 announced the filing of a
class action lawsuit against the nation's second-largest health
insurer, Indianapolis-based Anthem Inc., following disclosure
earlier this month that the private information of 80 million
Anthem customers was stolen in a massive online data breach.

Over a six-week span beginning in mid-December, hackers siphoned
from Anthem's computers a wealth of customer personal information,
including names, birthdates, Social Security numbers, employment
records and income data, the law firm said.

Security experts believe devastating financial losses may loom for
Anthem customers as identity thieves use the ill-gotten
information to ransack checking and savings accounts, abscond with
tax refunds, and apply for credit cards, mortgages and bank loans
in their victims' names, Weitz & Luxenberg said.

"Already, victims of the data breach are being targeted with email
phishing scams from criminals sending fake but real-looking
official Anthem correspondences," said Robin L. Greenwald, who
heads Weitz & Luxenberg's Environmental, Toxic Tort & Consumer
Protection Unit.

Details of the Anthem Data Breach Lawsuit:

Weitz & Luxenberg's class action alleges Anthem was negligent and
in violation of California consumer protection laws.

"We intend to hold Anthem responsible for neglecting to do what
was reasonable and prudent to safeguard its customers' personal
information," said Mr. Greenwald.

The complaint asks the court for an order forcing Anthem to take
all necessary steps to prevent future data breaches and for an
unspecified amount of monetary compensation to make up for the
financial losses members of the class suffer as a result of the
data breach.

The class action was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.  The lawsuit names a Santa Clarita,
California, mother of two as its representative plaintiff. She has
been an Anthem customer for 10 years.

According to the filing, data thieves pilfered personal
information on all 37 million of Anthem's current policy holders
as well as the private data on some 43 million former customers --
a total of 80 million consumers.

"This theft is the result of Anthem's failure to implement cyber
security measures commensurate with the duties it undertook by
storing vast quantities of sensitive customer data," said
Mr. Greenwald.

"Every business that collects and stores sensitive information
about its customers has a duty to safeguard that information and
ensure it is secure and remains private," Mr. Greenwald added.

"The data collected and stored by health insurance companies are
among the most highly sensitive personally identifiable
information," she continued.  "Health insurance companies, in
turn, bear the crucial responsibility to protect this data from
compromise and theft."

Anthem Data Breach Exposed Social Security Numbers:
The theft of Social Security numbers is profoundly worrisome
because they may be used by identity thieves to engage in a wide
range of financial transactions in the name of unsuspecting
others, Mr. Greenwald explained.

Worse, unlike the process of canceling and replacing a stolen
credit card, blocking the use of a stolen Social Security number
by an identity thief is no simple matter, she said.
On the list of crimes that may be committed with a stolen Social
Security number is tax fraud.
This possibility prompted the head of one state's tax-collection
agency to recommend that Anthem customers not postpone filing
their taxes for 2014, lest fraudsters beat them to it and snatch
away their refunds, said Mr. Greenwald.

Anthem insurance plans are sold under various banners. They are
Anthem Blue Cross, Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Blue Cross
and Blue Shield of Georgia, Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield,
Amerigroup, Caremore, Unicare, Healthlink and DeCare.
Individuals who now are or once were holders of one of these
brands' policies are urged to contact Weitz & Luxenberg for
information about how to participate in the class action lawsuit
against Anthem.

                     About Weitz & Luxenberg

weitzluxenbergWeitz & Luxenberg, P.C., is a personal injury law
firms.  Weitz & Luxenberg's numerous litigation areas include:
mesothelioma, defective medicine and devices, environmental
pollutants, consumer protection, accidents, personal injury and
medical malpractice.


ANTHEM INC: Faces Data Breach Class Action in Denver
----------------------------------------------------
CBS4 reports that angry customers are taking action against Anthem
after the insurance provider was hit hard by hackers and exposed
personal information.

Anthem's data breach is now sparking lawsuits.  In Denver District
Court two lawsuits were filed within days of each other, and one
of them calling for a class action. The lawsuits claim Anthem
failed to tell customers they didn't have adequate security
measures in place to protect their information.  One lawsuit
alleges that Anthem was able to charge higher premiums, and
customers were willing to pay for the security of their
information, when in reality they were not being protected.

Attorney Patrick Peluso filed the class action on behalf of his
client.

"Anthem included in their privacy policies and various parts of
their websites, as required by Hipaa, that they have to safeguard
people's information," Mr. Peluso said.  "They promised that they
did safeguard it.  They didn't as evidenced by the breach itself.
The data wasn't even encrypted."

The lawsuits also claim that Anthem waited nine days before
informing customers about the data breach.  The impact of the
breach, attorneys claim, were felt immediately when phishing
emails were sent to customers.  Those emails appeared to be from
Anthem asking people to verify credit card and personal health
information.

Anthem Colorado told CBS4 they can't make any comments on the
pending litigation.

Lawsuits have also been filed in other states -- California,
Indiana and Alabama.  In the Alabama case the plaintiff is asking
for lifetime consumer credit protection along with damages.


ATLANTIC LOTTERY: Former Gambling Addict Mulls Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sherri Borden Colley, writing for The Chronicle Herald, reports
that former gambling addict Bernie Walsh says the dismissal of his
appeal of a ruling that said the province and Atlantic Lottery
Corp. were not responsible for his illness is not the final step
for him.

Mr. Walsh, of Halifax, plans to file a class action, possibly with
hundreds of others adding their names to a suit to fight
government-owned video lottery terminals.

"(The appeal is) the end of the road, but I'm going to change the
pleadings that I had and make it a class action and bring in more
people," Mr. Walsh said in an interview on Feb. 17.

"And this time I'm going to be driving the bus rather than the
lawyer I had the last time.  I am going to be the one that guides
it through.  I didn't have much say. . . . This time I get to
control the thing all the way through."

When Mr. Walsh first took legal action in 2004 with Dick Murtha --
who later was disbarred as a lawyer -- he had 300 people sign up
under him within a week, he said.

But once Mr. Walsh retained a new lawyer, he decided to pursue his
original lawsuit as an individual.

"I can get all those people back again, plus a lot more,"
Mr. Walsh said.

In December 2013, Nova Scotia Supreme Court Justice Arthur LeBlanc
dismissed Walsh's lawsuit against the two defendants.

Mr. Walsh, who had previously been represented by a lawyer, argued
his own case at the Nov. 18 Appeal Court hearing in Halifax.

Mr. Walsh has said his VLT addiction began within a week of when
he first started playing the machines in 1991.

In his lawsuit, he sought general damages, special damages, costs
of future care and punitive damages.  He also wanted the machines
banned from the province.

In his decision, Justice LeBlanc -- noting that Mr. Walsh chose
not to seek help until 1997 -- said Mr. Walsh cannot expect the
court to absolve him of "all responsibility for the effects of
these autonomous choices."

In its decision issued on Feb. 13, the Nova Scotia Appeal Court
said Justice LeBlanc offered a "sound legal analysis" and there
was no basis for it to intervene.

Mr. Walsh had previously said that he lost his family, his home
and more than $50,000 because of his gambling addiction.

His statement of claim alleged the defendants introduced and
regulated VLT gambling in a negligent manner and should have known
of the potential dangers to individuals.

His lawsuit also alleged that the province and the lottery
corporation knew, or should have known, of the "inherent dangers
and deceptive nature" of VLTs and had an obligation to protect
citizens from them.  In separate defences filed in 2010, the
province and Atlantic Lottery Corp. denied the allegations.

"In his decision, (LeBlanc) addressed all three prongs of
Mr. Walsh's claim," according to the Appeal Court decision.

"First, he carefully reviewed the law of negligence as it applied
to state actors.  This led him to consider whether the applicable
legislation, namely the Gaming Control Act, created a potential
duty of care to Mr. Walsh.  He concluded that it did not.

"Further, the judge was, in any event, satisfied that the
government's actions reflected legitimate government policy which
the courts would respect."

Justice LeBlanc, the Appeal Court also noted, feared the
consequences of finding a specific duty owed to Walsh would open
the door to limitless liability.

Mr. Walsh said he's going to pursue the issue not just for himself
but "for everybody that has suffered difficulties because of the
machines, including the loss of lives."


AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Removes "Loposky" Suit to D. New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Loposky, et al. v. Avalonbay
Communities, Inc., et al., Case No. BER-L-00801-15, was removed
from the Superior Court, Law Division: Bergen County, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-01353-JLL-JAD to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts claims for property damage.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

Defendant Avalonbay Communities, Inc. is represented by:

          Ronald A. Giller, Esq.
          GORDON & REES LLP
          18 Columbia Turnpike, Suite 220
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Telephone: (973) 549-2500
          Facsimile: (973) 377-1911
          E-mail: rgiller@gordonrees.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Removes "Diaz" Suit to Florida District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Diaz, et al. v. Bank of
America, N.A., et al., Case No. Case No. 2015 CA 000483 AJ, was
removed from the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit
in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, West Palm Beach Division.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 9:15-cv-80224-KLR to
the proceeding.

According to the Complaint, the Plaintiffs seek to represent a
class defined as "[a]ll persons or entities in Florida who between
January 15, 2010 and the present, refinanced a mortgage on
property with the Defendant, Bank of America, . . . utilizing the
title/closing services of the Defendant, LandSafe, who were
wrongfully charged nonrecurring tax in such refinancing, in
violation of Fla. Stat. Section 199.145(4)."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James A. Bonfiglio, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAMES A. BONFIGLIO, P.A.
          P.O. Box 1489
          Boynton Beach, FL 33425-1489
          Telephone: (561) 734-4503
          Facsimile: (561) 734-1872
          E-mail: tilalawyer@aol.com

               - and -

          Keith W. Meisel, Esq.
          KEITH W. MEISEL, P.A.
          712 U.S. Highway One, Ste. 230
          North Palm Beach, FL 33408
          Telephone: (561) 842-1025
          Facsimile: (561) 842-1375
          E-mail: kwm@keithmeisellaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Liggio, Esq.
          LIGGIO BENRUBI, P.A.
          1615 Forum Place, Suite 3B
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401-2316
          Telephone: (561) 616-3333
          Facsimile: (561) 616-3266
          E-mail: jliggio@liggiolaw.com

               - and -

          Louis M. Silber, Esq.
          SILBER & DAVIS
          1806 Old Okeechobee Boulevard
          West Palm Beach, FL 33409-5207
          Telephone: (561) 615-6262
          Facsimile: (561) 615-6263
          E-mail: Isilber@silberdavis.com

Defendant Bank of America, N.A., is represented by:

          R. Eric Bilik, Esq.
          Emily Y. Rottmann, Esq.
          Daniel M. Mahfood, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          50 North Laura Street, Suite 3300
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 798-3200
          Facsimile: (904) 798-3207
          E-mail: ebilik@mcguirewoods.com
                  erottmann@mcguirewoods.com
                  dmahfood@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          Allen W. Burton, Esq.
          David K. Lukmire, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          7 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 326-2000
          Facsimile: (212) 326-2161
          E-mail: aburton@omm.com
                  dlukmire@omm.com


BEACH ROAD: Faces Class Action Over Pre-1972 Recordings
-------------------------------------------------------
Hausfeld, a global claimants' law firm, on Feb. 17 disclosed that
lawsuits have been filed on behalf of Beach Road Music LLC in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against Apple, Inc., Beats Electronics LLC, Sony
Computer Entertainment America, LLC, Sony Entertainment Network
International LLC, Rdio Inc., and Escape Media Group, Inc. and its
two owners (who operate Grooveshark) on behalf of owners of
musical performances that were recorded prior to February 15,
1972. The lawsuits seek to recover royalties and licensing fees
from the defendants, who are profiting by operating services that
stream pre-1972 recordings without obtaining a license or
permission from the recordings' owners.

The respective complaints allege that: (1) the plaintiff and
proposed class members are legal owners of a library of pre-1972
recordings; (2) the various defendants have been streaming to
their consumers in the states of California, Florida, and New York
pre-1972 recordings belonging to the plaintiff and proposed class
members; (3) the various defendants have not obtained permission
from the plaintiff and class members to stream their pre-1972
recordings; (4) the various defendants have not paid royalties or
licensing fees to the plaintiff and proposed class members for the
use of their pre-1972 recordings; (5) the various defendants have
been profiting from the unauthorized use of such recordings; and
(6) as a result of the forgoing, the various defendants have
violated plaintiff's and proposed class members' exclusive
ownership rights in their pre-1972 recordings.

As founding partner Michael Hausfeld explained, "While the rights
of artists in the pre-1972 music compositions they own are not
protected by federal copyright law, they are protected by state
common and statutory law, and some states, like California, have
enacted laws that give those rights a broad scope of protection.
The major music streaming services have consistently refused to
recognize those rights and declined to compensate artists for the
performance of musical compositions that they own. This situation
is intolerable and these lawsuits are intended to correct that
situation."

Hausfeld attorneys working on this case are Michael Hausfeld,
Michael Lehmann, Christopher Lebsock, Bonny Sweeney, Bruce Wecker,
James Pizzirusso, Nathaniel Giddings, and Stephanie Cho.

                         About Hausfeld

Hausfeld -- http://www.hausfeld.com-- is a global law firm with
offices in Brussels, London, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and
Washington, DC.  The firm has a broad range of complex litigation
expertise, particularly in antitrust/competition, financial
services, sports and entertainment, environmental, mass torts,
consumer protection, and human rights matters, often with an
international dimension.  Hausfeld aims to achieve the best
possible results for clients through its practical and commercial
approach, avoiding litigation where feasible, yet litigating
robustly when necessary.  Hausfeld's extensive experience with
alternative and innovative fee models offers clients a diverse
menu of engagement options and maximum flexibility in terms of
managing their cost exposure.


BERKS CREDIT: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.J.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
George Ralston, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Berks Credit & Collections, Inc., and John Does 1-25,
Case No. 3:15-cv-01424-FLW-DEA (D.N.J., February 20, 2015) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BIG UPS: Recalls Garden Lites Southwestern Souffle Due to Peanuts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 26, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Peanut
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Big Ups Inc.
Distribution: Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9668

  Brand    Common name    Size    Code(s)        UPC
  name     -----------    ----    on product     ---
  ----                            ----------
  Garden   Southwestern   198 g   Lot # 27814    7 04863 01720 4
  Lites    Souffle                EXP DATE
                                  4/5/2016


BLL RESTAURANT: Sued by Wheelchair-Bound Man Over ADA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fredkiey Hurley, individually v. BLL Restaurant Corp. d/b/a
Portobello Restaurant, a New York for profit corporation, Case No.
1:15-cv-01357 (S.D.N.Y., February 20, 2015) alleges that the
Defendant's Portobello Restaurant simply does not make any attempt
to accommodate disabled individuals, in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.

Mr. Hurley is permanently disabled and confined to a wheelchair.

BLL Restaurant Corp. is the operator of a bar and dining
establishment -- Portobello Restaurant -- located in New York
City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tara Anne Demetriades, Esq.
          ADA ACCESSIBILITY ASSOCIATES
          2076 Wolver Hollow Road
          Oyster Bay, NY 11771
          Telephone: (516) 595-5009
          E-mail: TDemetriades@Aol.com


BROOMFIELD CO: Recalls Cheddar Sandwich Crackers Due to Peanuts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Broomfield, CO. WhiteWave Foods is voluntarily recalling 7.5 oz
packages of Horizon Cheddar Sandwich Crackers because they may
contain undeclared peanuts. People who have an allergy or
sensitivity to peanuts run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product. No
illnesses have been reported to date.

We believe fewer than 62,160 boxes of product have been shipped to
retailers and wholesalers in the states of Alabama, Arizona,
Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida,
Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New
York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.

The recall is taking place due to an inadvertent packaging error.
The outer package is labeled as a cheddar sandwich cracker and the
inner package contains the peanut butter sandwich crackers.

WhiteWave's sales team is working with distributors to actively
recover any impacted product remaining on store shelves, and the
Company has implemented measures to prevent this from happening in
the future.

Consumers should check the top of the individual box and look for
a "best before" date of 17 May 2015, and check the bottom of the
box for a Universal Product Code (UPC) of 42365 00464. This is the
only product involved in the recall.

Product safety and consumer confidence is of utmost importance to
WhiteWave. Consumers who purchased the product may return it to
the place of purchase for a full refund or exchange. Consumers
with questions can contact the Company at 1-866-663-4349 during
extended business hours on February 20, until 10 p.m. central
time. On February 21-22, consumers with questions can contact the
Company from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. central time Monday-Friday. The call
center will resume normal business hours as of February 23 (8 a.m.
to 5 p.m. central time).

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been notified of this
recall, and we are coordinating our communication efforts with the
organization Food Allergy Research & Education (FARE).

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm435173.htm


CALIBER COLLISION: Faces Wage Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Ryan, writing for Law360, reports that auto repair chain
Caliber Collision was hit on Feb. 17 with a putative class action
in California state court, accusing the company of systematically
shorting its mechanics on wages by not paying them for time spent
waiting for work.

Lead plaintiff Samuel Castillo claims Caliber Bodyworks of Texas
Inc., which operates its car repair outposts under the well-known
Caliber Collision name, pays its mechanic employees on a piece-
rate system for each task they perform, and that the workers are
assigned piece-rate hours per tasks, regardless of the time it
actually takes them to perform.  Though he recorded his hours
worked, Caliber only paid him under the piece-rate system.

"As a result, defendants did not pay plaintiff for all hours
worked at the minimum wage, as defendants failed to pay plaintiff
for nonproductive hours, i.e. hours that he was not performing
piece-rate work," the complaint said.

Mr. Castillo worked for Caliber from 2007 through this past
January as a nonexempt technician under the piece-rate system,
according to the suit.  Mr. Castillo says that, under Caliber's
pay system, if a task were assigned a value of 0.8 hours, the
mechanic would be paid for 0.8 hours of work, regardless of
whether the task took 10 or 90 minutes to perform.

The worker alleges that Caliber uses an averaging method of
meeting their minimum wage obligations -- dividing daily piece-
rate earnings by daily hours worked -- which is unlawful in
California.  He also claims that Caliber paid Mr. Castillo
nondiscretionary bonuses and other forms of compensation that
aren't excludable from the regular rate of pay.

"Despite defendants' payment of incentive pay to plaintiff,
defendants failed to include all forms of incentive pay when
calculating plaintiff's regular rate of pay, thereby further
causing plaintiff to be underpaid all of his required overtime
wages," the complaint said.

According to the suit, Mr. Castillo thus regularly worked more
than eight hours per work day and over 40 hours each week, without
receiving overtime compensation.  And because the company only
pays its workers in the piece-rate system, it also fails to
maintain any compensation system for compensating rest periods.

"As a result of defendants' failure to pay all overtime and
minimum wages, defendants maintained inaccurate payroll records
and issued inaccurate wage statements to plaintiff," the suit
says.

The suit further claims that the company requires its workers to
purchase tools necessary to perform the job duties, without
reimbursing them for the cost of the tools.

The complaint asks the court to certify classes of workers denied
minimum wage, overtime hours, expense reimbursements and more.

The plaintiff is represented by Paul K. Haines --
phaines@bollaw.com -- and Fletcher W. Schmidt --
fschmidt@bollaw.com -- of Boren Osher & Luftman LLP.

The suit is Castillo et al. v. Caliber Bodyworks of Texas Inc. et
al., case number BC572767, in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles.


CALIFORNIA: School Districts Eye Settlement of P.E. Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jill Tucker, writing for San Francisco Chronicle, reports that
three dozen California school districts are looking to settle an
unprecedented class-action lawsuit over the time students spend in
gym class -- a battle that has cost taxpayers $1.1 million in fees
paid to an Albany attorney, in addition to untold millions in
legal costs incurred by the districts.

The suit, which includes San Francisco Unified School District, is
unprecedented in its scope, with district officials questioning
the motives behind the legal action, even as attorney Donald
Driscoll is poised to sue countless other districts over the same
issue.

Mr. Driscoll sued 37 school districts across the state, claiming
they're not providing the physical education hours required by
state law: 200 minutes every 10 days for elementary students and
400 minutes for middle and high school students, although it's
less of an issue in the upper grades because students take P.E. as
part of their daily class schedule.

The lawsuit, filed in October 2013, names small, medium and large
districts across the state, including Solana Beach in San Diego,
Cotati-Rohnert Park, Walnut Creek, West Contra Costa and Los
Angeles.  None have opted to fight the suit, saying it would be
expensive or difficult to prove compliance.

Mr. Driscoll filed a similar suit against Oakland Unified in
November, which is pending.  Countless other districts have been
contacted by Mr. Driscoll with inquiries or complaints similar to
those received by the 37 districts before they were sued.

One lawyer described it as the equivalent of a legal shakedown.
District officials say it's easy pickings for a lawsuit because
it's virtually impossible to prove that every student is getting
the required P.E. time every two weeks.

Mr. Driscoll, however, says he is fighting for the well-being of
children, to force schools to do what they're required to do.

"They just have this system where they think it's enough to say
we're providing the P.E. and nobody is supposed to be
questioning," Mr. Driscoll said.  "When we try to do something
about it, we're the bad guys for trying to do something."

Still, the case in San Francisco Superior Court is unusual if not
bizarre, with an inconspicuous plaintiff, Alameda resident
Marc Babin, who hasn't had children in California schools for 20
years.

An unincorporated association called Cal200, which advocates for
compliance with the state's P.E. requirements, is also named as a
plaintiff in the lawsuit.  But Driscoll is the driving force
behind it all.  Mr. Babin acknowledged that the attorney drafted
him to participate in the lawsuit and financially backed the
creation of the Cal200 website.

The website doesn't provide any contact information or list any
officers or organizers.  It is routed through a server in Utah
that masks the origin and owner.  Cal200 is not officially a
nonprofit and therefore has no paper trail.

It all seems a bit sketchy, said Frank Zotter, an attorney with
School and College Legal Services of California, a law firm that
represents school districts across the state, although none of
those listed in the original suit.

"It really does seem like this is legalized extortion," Mr. Zotter
said.  "It's like a slot machine -- you pull the handle and
eventually coins come out."

Messrs. Driscoll and Babin, however, say it's all about kids.

Past studies have shown that as many as half the state's districts
aren't providing the required amount of physical education.
Teachers say they have so much to teach and so little time that
art, music, science, history and even P.E. are pushed aside to
make time for subjects like English and math, which are on
standardized tests.

P.E. is just as important, said Mr. Babin, who has made few if any
public comments about the case.

"Why don't they do what they're required to do instead of spending
$100,000 to defend yourself?" he said.  "Why are they wasting
taxpayer money fighting against physical education?"

Mr. Babin, a former insurance claims adjuster, said he wouldn't
get any money from the lawsuits. Driscoll acknowledged that he
would under the pending settlements, but said that districts have
spent far more to fight the case than they're giving him in legal
fees.

Indeed, San Francisco has paid $117,000 in outside legal fees, "in
addition to substantial in-house attorney time," district
spokeswoman Gentle Blythe said.  In addition, the district would
pay $70,000 of the $1.1 million in Mr. Driscoll's legal fees under
the terms of the proposed settlement.

The settlements would also require districts to document
compliance by obtaining class schedules from every teacher,
posting those schedules on websites or in classrooms, requiring
spot checks by principals, and reporting results to the school
board every semester.

Flexibility would be nice, said teacher Frank Lara, a fourth-grade
teacher at San Francisco's Buena Vista Horace Mann K-8 school.

"As a teacher, this piles on other requirements that happen in the
classroom," he said.  "A hundred minutes (each week) -- that's a
hard requirement."

The settlement agreements are expected to be finalized by San
Francisco Superior Court next month.

Mr. Driscoll's legal push to enforce physical education laws
actually goes back to 2010, when he filed the same kind of
physical education lawsuit against Albany Unified.  The suit was a
test case, which resulted in a California Court of Appeal ruling
in Sacramento that parents or community members could sue a school
district for failing to provide the required P.E. minutes.

The plaintiff in the case was an unidentified student.
Mr. Driscoll now acknowledges that the student was his then-third-
grade son.  The ruling paved the way for the lawsuit against the
37 districts and perhaps many more.

In Oakland, district officials are expected to settle the suit as
well.

"Whatever his motives are, the fact is, physical education is a
key part of health and wellness," said Troy Flint, Oakland Unified
spokesman.  "We are going to go above and beyond what's required
of us in physical education, as well as health and wellness."

Mr. Driscoll's reputation as a legal bounty hunter goes back more
than 20 years.

In the early 1990s, he sued large grocery chains as well as mom-
and-pop stores, alleging they illegally sold cigarettes to
underage youth.  Mr. Driscoll's lawsuit claimed the sales were a
violation of the Unfair Competition Act, giving the stores an edge
in making a profit.  He, with his mother, created the Stop Youth
Addiction organization, and paid 16- and 17-year-old kids to try
to buy cigarettes and sued the stores that sold them.

The case, Stop Youth Addiction vs. Lucky Stores is now cited as a
seminal case allowing consumers or companies to sue over unfair
business practices.


CCMC F&B: Sued in Florida for Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
D'Andre Peacock, on behalf of himself and all similarly-situated
individuals v. CCMC F&B, LLC d/b/a Beef 'O Brady's and Beef 'O
Brady's, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-00378-CEH-MAP (M.D. Fla., February
23, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
          1110 N Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
                  lcabassa@wfclaw.com


CHEVROLET: Recalls Cruz 2015 Models Due to Injury Risk
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 23, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Brakes
Units affected: 329
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015080TC
ID number: 2015080
Manufacturer recall number: 15135

On certain vehicles, the left-rear or right-rear parking brake
cable brackets may not have been properly fastened during the
assembly process. If the fastening bolts backed out completely,
the parking brake bracket would separate causing the parking brake
to fail. If this were to occur, the vehicle could roll away, which
could result in a crash causing injury and/or damage to property.
Correction: Dealers will inspect the left-rear and right-rear
parking brake bracket bolts and, if necessary, tighten the bolts
to the correct torque specification.

  Make        Model    Model year(s) affected
  ----        -----    ----------------------
  CHEVROLET   CRUZ     2015


CHIQUITA BRANDS: Sued for Misrepresenting Environment Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
proposed class action has been filed against Chiquita Brands
International Inc., one of the world's largest producers and
marketers of fruits and vegetables, for allegedly misrepresenting
its environmental and harvesting practices.

Plaintiff Justin Jablonowski filed his complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California Feb. 9.

Mr. Jablonowski claims Chiquita misleads consumers in terms of how
its bananas are grown.

He contends, in the 28-page complaint, that the company's bananas
are manufactured in ways that are harming Guatemalan residents and
destroying the region's ecosystems.

"When a company falsely represents itself as an exemplar of
environmental stewardship and/or omits the truth about its
environmental and harvesting practices, which would be material to
a reasonable consumer, and thereby induces consumers to buy its
products, that company has engaged in unfair and deceptive
business practices," lawyers for the proposed class wrote.  "This
consumer class action arises from such practices."

According to the complaint, Chiquita places its iconic "blue
sticker" on each banana, indicating that it has been produced in
compliance with the company's "strict standards" and is of the
highest quality.

Among Chiquita's "strict standards" are practices that "conserve
wildlife habitats, national resources and promote community well
being."

"In fact, some of Chiquita's bananas -- including bananas grown in
impoverished areas of Guatemala -- are produced in a way that
destroys natural ecosystems, contaminates the drinking water of
local communities, and poisons local residents," the complaint
alleges.

"Chiquita fails to disclose in its marketing materials and at the
point of sale that its production methods contaminate water
supplies, destroy the crops of local communities, and cause
illnesses in children."

According to the complaint, Chiquita purchases millions of pounds
of bananas per year from plantations that have caused
environmental harm to ecosystems that have historically provided
sustenance and livelihoods to more than 7,000 Guatemalan people.

Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
the consumer-rights class-action law firm that is representing the
proposed class, said the company knowingly hid the fact that its
production practices were environmentally harmful.

"Chiquita knew that consumers valued environmentally sound
production methods, and used its deceptive marketing to cover up
its foul production methods," he said.

He continued, "Chiquita's blue sticker is supposedly an 'iconic
symbol for high quality fruit,' but Chiquita's trademark sticker
is only serving as a subterfuge to blindside consumers for its own
profits."

Hagens Berman launched its investigation into the claims against
Chiquita in May.

The proposed class action alleges that the company's false claims
to its customers violate the California Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, the California Unfair Competition Law and California Common
Law in relation to fraud and unjust enrichment.

Mr. Jablonowski, a San Diego resident, notes in the complaint that
had he been informed of the "damaging methods" used to produce
Chiquita bananas, he would not have purchased them.

"We strongly believe that Chiquita knew about these harmful
practices that have been so damaging to local ecosystems," Berman
said.

"No company should be able to get away with such a blatant
disregard for the environment and community in which it operates,
especially when a company profits so heavily by misleading
consumers, as we allege Chiquita has done."

Representatives for Chiquita, headquartered in Charlotte, N.C.,
could not immediately be reached for comment on the lawsuit.


CHRYSLER GROUP: Consumers Complain Over Vehicle TIPM Defects
------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Strickland, writing for WSB-TV, reports that drivers across
the country say their vehicles act like something out of the movie
"Poltergeist."

Owners report flickering dash lights, blaring horns and gauges
going haywire.

Mr. Strickland, Channel 2's Consumer Investigator, found that it's
not demonic, but it can be dangerous.  Mr. Strickland learned that
the problem potentially affects 5 million Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep
SUVs and cars.

Chrysler built those vehicles with an electronic "brain in a box."

It's a module located inside the engine bay that sends electricity
to everything from the car's convenience features like the wipers,
radio and air conditioning to the ignition and safety features
like airbag sensors.

There is even a YouTube page where more than 150 owners documented
the craziness that occurs when the module malfunctions.

"Wipers going for no reason.  I can't shut them off because
they're off," said one driver in a post to a YouTube page titled
"Chrysler Electrical Problems."

"The keys are out of the ignition and the car is still running,"
another driver said, holding up the car key with the engine
running.

"The radio is completely dead.  No controls.  Nor do the A/C and
heat controls (work)," according to another video.

Dozens of videos show dashboards of Chrysler vehicles with gauge
needles bouncing up and down and various warning lights on while
the car is moving.

"I worry about it every day," Nic Cooper of Winder told
Strickland.

The problems with his 2011 Dodge Durango began when it wouldn't
start.

"(It's a) high-end vehicle, and all of a sudden it wouldn't
crank," Mr. Cooper said.

Mr. Cooper said he'd have to coax the car to start five times a
day.  A dealer told him to try popping off the push-button start
button and use the key instead.

It helped some, but Mr. Cooper was still concerned.

"This is what carries my family around.  My wife and daughter
drive in this every day," he said.

The problem

A mechanic told Cooper that the problem was in the Durango's
"Totally Integrated Power Module," or TIPM.  It's a black box
located inside the engine compartment.

The box is filled with fuses, relays and a computer processor that
control all of the essential electrical systems.

"Some people refer to it as the Totally Insane Power Module," said
Clarence Ditlow, who runs the Center for Auto Safety in Washington
D.C.

Mr. Ditlow has received about 250 complaints about the TIPM.

"Any one of those number of the malfunctions from that module can
cause a crash," Mr. Ditlow said.

Mr. Ditlow points to a wreck last November in Virginia.  A
tractor-trailer rear-ended a 2007 Jeep Patriot. Investigators said
the Jeep came to a dead stop in the center lane with no hazard
lights or turn signals.

Mr. Ditlow said that could be a telltale sign of a defective TIPM.
The Jeep's driver died.

"I mean, you spend money on a car, thinking you're getting
something durable, close to what I spend on my house payment, for
a vehicle that I want to be reliable for my wife and newborn baby,
and to have issues like this," Mr. Cooper said.

The recall

Last September, Chrysler recalled 188,723 Dodge Durangos and Jeep
Grand Cherokees from 2011 for engine stalls.

Cooper's Durango was included.

The problem lies in the fuel pump relay, a part of the TIPM.
Cooper showed Strickland the fix: an electronic fuel control that
bypassed the TIPM.

"It was more or less a patch -- a roundabout way of fixing the
issue without replacing the total problem," Mr. Cooper told
Mr. Strickland.

The Center for Auto Safety wants a wider recall and petitioned the
National Highway Safety Administration.  A class-action lawsuit
filed in May 2014 in federal court in California is working its
way through the judicial process.

It demands actual and punitive damages and a repair for the TIPM.

Chrysler says the TIPM is not defective.

A recall in 2007 is blamed not on the TIPM, but on its software.

A spokesman said the recall affecting Cooper covered a bad portion
of the TIPM (the fuel relay), not the TIPM itself.

Mr. Ditlow isn't convinced.

"Chrysler knows they have a serious defect on their hands," he
said.  "The government is doing an investigation, and Chrysler
should in fact do a recall without waiting for the government
because it is such a bad problem."

Mr. Cooper just hopes for no more TIPM trouble.  "I'm upside down
on the payment," he said.  "Basically, I'm stuck with the car."


COMCAST CORP: Accused of Bias by African-American Owned Media
-------------------------------------------------------------
National Association of African-American Owned Media, a California
limited liability company; and Entertainment Studios Networks,
Inc., a California corporation v. Comcast Corporation, a
Pennsylvania corporation; Time Warner Cable Inc., a Delaware
corporation; National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People, a New York corporation; National Urban League, Inc., a New
York corporation; Al Sharpton, an individual; National Action
Network, Inc., a New York corporation; Meredith Attwell Baker, an
individual; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-
01239-TJH-MAN (C.D. Cal., February 20, 2015) is about alleged
racial discrimination in the contracting process by Defendants
Comcast and Time Warner Cable -- the two largest cable television
companies in the United States -- against 100% African American-
owned media.

Comcast refuses to treat 100% African American-owned media
companies, including Entertainment Studios, the same as similarly-
situated white-owned media companies, the Plaintiffs allege.

Plaintiff Entertainment Studios is a 100% African American-owned
media company involved in the production and distribution of
television programming through broadcast television, its seven
cable television channels, and its subscription-based Internet
service.  The Company is the only 100% African American-owned
video programming producer and multi-channel operator/owner in the
United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Louis R. Miller, Esq.
          Amnon Z. Siegel, Esq.
          Lauren R. Wright, Esq.
          MILLER BARONDESS, LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 552-4400
          Facsimile: (310) 552-8400
          E-mail: smiller@millerbarondess.com
                  asiegel@millerbarondess.com
                  lwright@millerbarondess.com


CREDITSAFE USA: Settles Overtime Pay Class Action for $92,000
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Boyle, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reports that a
provider of online company credit reports agreed on Feb. 16 to pay
more than $92,000 to settle a Fair Labor Standards Act class
action suit over lack of compensation for overtime hours filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The agreement between lead plaintiff Nicholas DeJesus, of
Bethlehem, and his former employer, CreditSafe USA, Inc., is
pending approval by federal Judge Jeffrey Schmehl.

According to the consent motion, CreditSafe admits no liability
for the accusations, in return for a global settlement amount of
$92,500.

Eligible members of the class, described as current and former
employees who worked in the telesales department for CreditSafe
between Jan. 1, 2012 and Aug. 13, 2014, will receive a share of
$59,167. Attorney fees and costs will be covered by the remaining
$33,333.

Mr. DeJesus originally filed the class action July 14, 2014,
claiming that managers at the CreditSafe offices in Allentown
underpaid the more than 100 workers in the telesales department.
He has requested a $3,500 service award for bringing the matter to
the court.

According to the complaint, Creditsafe required these employees to
arrive to work early, prior to their scheduled shift start time,
and log into various computer applications to be ready to begin
placing calls at the beginning of their paid shift.  Creditsafe
also allegedly ordered these employees to stay late, beyond their
paid, scheduled shift, in order to reach production quotas
established by the company.

The claim says that telesales executives were paid an annual
salary based on 40 hour work weeks, with each shift scheduled to
start at 8:30 a.m. and end at 5 p.m., with an unpaid half-hour for
lunch.  The plaintiff claimed that he and his co-workers were
expected to arrive to the office at least 10 to 15 minutes early,
start up their computers and access the applications necessary to
perform their duties.

Following a daily 8:30 a.m. meeting, the telesales staff would be
ready to immediately start making service calls. Failure to arrive
early and have the computer ready was considered being late for
work, the complaint said.  The claim also alleged that it was
common for the telesales executives to stay at the office until at
least 7 p.m. in order to complete their production quotas.

The complaint says that previous U.S. Supreme Court rulings,
namely IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, have upheld that preparatory work
duties that are integral and indispensable to the principal work
activity are compensable under the FLSA.  The FLSA also requires
the payment of at least one and-a-half times the normal rate of
pay for any work performed beyond 40 hours in a week.

According to the consent motion, both parties exchanged
information prior to a Jan. 8 settlement meeting and came to the
conclusion that the case would produce a lengthy and complicated
trial.  The court documents say the bona fide negotiations
resulted in a fair and reasonable agreement.

The plaintiffs are represented by Larry Weisberg of McCarthy
Weisberg Cummings, PC, in Harrisburg. CreditSafe is represented by
attorneys from Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP.


CSK AUTO: "Estrada" Suit Transferred From California to Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Estrada v. CSK Auto, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:14-cv-02888, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Missouri (Kansas City).  The
Missouri District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-00134-GAF
to the proceeding.

The class action arises from the Defendants' acquisition and use
of consumer and investigative consumer reports to conduct
background checks on the Plaintiff and other prospective, current,
and former employees.  The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants
routinely obtain and use information from background reports in
connection with their hiring processes without complying with
state and federal mandates for doing so, including violations of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raul Perez, Esq.
          Melissa Grant, Esq.
          Arnab Banerjee, Esq.
          Alexandria Witte, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 450
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          E-mail: Raul.Perez@Capstonelawyers.com
                  Melissa.Grant@Capstonelawyers.com
                  Arnab.Banerjee@Capstonelawyers.com
                  Alexandria.Witte@Capstonelawyers.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Douglas Wayne Robinson, Esq.
          SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP
          5 Park Plaza, #1600
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 475-1500
          Facsimile: (949) 475-0016
          E-mail: dwrobinson@shb.com


CULLMAN ELECTRIC: Removes "Sparks" Class Suit to N.D. Alabama
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Sparks v. Cullman Electric
Cooperative, Case No. 25-CV-2015-900033.00, was removed from the
Circuit Court of Cullman County, Alabama, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Northeastern).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-00322-IPJ to the
proceeding.

Plaintiff Stewart P. Sparks, III, brought the lawsuit on behalf of
the current and former members of the Defendant for a declaration
that the putative class is entitled to a refund of "Patronage
Capital," together with interest, costs and other appropriate
relief.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas E. Baddley, Jr., Esq.
          Jeffrey P. Mauro, Esq.
          John Parker Yates, Esq.
          BADDLEY & MAURO LLC
          850 Shades Creek Parkway, Suite 310
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Telephone: (205) 939-0090
          Facsimile: (205) 939-0064
          E-mail: tbaddley@baddleymauro.com
                  jpmauro@baddleymauro.com
                  jpy@baddleymauro.com

               - and -

          Andrew Phillip Campbell, Esq.
          Stephen D. Wadsworth, Esq.
          John C. Guin, Esq.
          CAMPBELL GUIN WILLIAMS GUY AND GIDIERE LLC
          505 20th Street North, Suite 1600
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 224-0750
          E-mail: andy.campbell@campbellguin.com
                  stephen.wadsworth@campbellguin.com
                  john.guin@campbellguin.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Timothy P. Culpepper, Esq.
          CULPEPPER & TURNER LLC
          206 9th Street, SW, Suite 102
          Cullman, AL 35055
          Telephone: (256) 737-0740
          Facsimile: (256) 737-6030
          E-mail: tculpepper@cullmanlawyers.net


DADE CITY CHEVROLET: Removes "See" Suit to Florida District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled See v. Dade City Chevrolet, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 15-CA-000742, was removed from the Thirteenth
Judicial Circuit, in and for Hillsborough 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-00377-VMC-EAJ
to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is a collective action brought pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and other applicable laws to recover
alleged unpaid wages and overtime, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael P. Schuette, Esq.
          Ashleigh Renee Shelver, Esq.
          JOHN BALES ATTORNEYS
          9700 Dr. MLK Jr. St. N, Suite 400
          St. Petersburg, FL 33702
          Telephone: (727) 823-9100
          Facsimile: (727) 579-9109
          E-mail: mschuette@johnbales.com
                  ashelver@johnbales.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Laura E. Prather, Esq.
          Matthew L. Ransdell, Esq.
          AKERMAN LLP
          401 E Jackson St., Suite 1700
          Tampa, FL 33602-5250
          Telephone: (813) 209-5069
          Facsimile: (813) 223-2837
          E-mail: laura.prather@akerman.com
                  matthew.ransdell@akerman.com


DIRECTV INC: Faces Wage-and-Hour Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Harding, Carolina Bolado and Ben James, writing for
Law360, report that DirecTV Inc. forced hourly employees in
California to work through breaks in violation of state labor
laws, according to a proposed class action filed on Feb. 13 by a
former maintenance worker.

Steven Spratt accused the satellite provider of improperly
instituting an alternative workweek schedule of four 10-hour days
and failing to pay overtime and other wages to more than 100
employees who worked for the company in California beginning in
February 2011.  Mr. Spratt, who worked for DirecTV from 2002 to
September 2013, filed the suit in Los Angeles Superior Court.

In the suit, he claimed DirecTV "engaged in a uniform policy and
systematic scheme of wage abuse against their non-exempt
employees."

Mr. Spratt said he and others worked more than eight hours in a
day or 40 hours in a workweek without receiving overtime pay.
DirecTV also instituted the alternative workweek without holding
an election prior to implementing it, he said.

California labor law requires employers to give employees two
30-minute meal breaks if they work more than 10 hours in a day.
Mr. Spratt said DirecTV "routinely interrupted and/or failed to
permit" him and others to take the meal breaks and failed to pay
the "full meal period premium" owed to the employees for working
through the breaks.

Mr. Spratt also said he and others were forced to work through the
10-minute rest period required by state labor law for employees
working in more for more than four-hour increments.

Mr. Spratt is seeking is less than $75,000 and requested
injunctive relief to stop DirecTV from continuing its pay
practices.

DirecTV already is facing 41 federal Fair Labor Standards Act
suits from technicians accusing the company of misclassifying them
as independent contractors to avoid wage-and-hour laws.

In 2012, a California superior judge rejected a class
certification bid brought by installation and maintenance workers
over meal and rest breaks against DirecTV because the plaintiffs
failed to identify an ascertainable class.  The company said at
the time it didn't have the business records necessary for
identifying class members.

Mr. Spratt is represented by Douglas Han and Shunt Tatavos-
Gharajeh of the Justice Law Corp.

The case is Steven Spratt v. DirecTV Enterprises LLC, case number
BC 572409, in Los Angeles Superior Court.


DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Berkovits, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Diversified Adjustment Services, Inc. and John Does 1-
25, Case No. 3:15-cv-01402-MAS-TJB (D.N.J., February 23, 2015)
alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DODGE: Recalls Charger and Challenger 2015 Models
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 26, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Fuel Supply
Units affected: 148
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015086TC
ID number: 2015086
Manufacturer recall number: R07

On certain vehicles equipped with a 6.2L supercharged engine, the
fuel rail crossover hose may leak in the engine compartment.
Leaking fuel in the presence of an ignition source could lead to a
fire causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers
will replace the fuel rail crossover hose.

  Make      Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----        ----------------------
  DODGE     CHARGER      2015
  DODGE     CHALLENGER   2015


ELECTROLUX HOME: Faces Class Action Over Moldy Washing Machines
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ginger Allen, writing for CBS DFW, reports that Electrolux Home
Products faces a class action over front-load washing machines.

It's helped tackle dirty laundry, using less energy, less water,
and less detergent.  However, front-load washing machines may be
triggering more service calls, more trouble, and more lawsuits
than manufacturers ever expected.

Michael Vogler says it's left him high and dry.  "You could say it
was a clothes spoiler, instead of a clothes washer."

Mr. Vogler is one of the lead plantiffs in a class-action lawsuit
against Electrolux Home Products, the maker of his Frigidaire
front-load machine.  He walked us to the back of his house to a
shed where he says he is storing the "evidence."

"This is where the problem is," Mr. Vogler said, pointing to the
machine.

Mr. Vogler says he noticed his allergies worsening, his clothes
smelling, and he found a streak of mold on one of his clean
shirts.  That's when he discovered what was hidden inside the
front seal of his machine.

"It was black and slimy.  This is stained and permeated in the
rubber," Mr. Vogler said.

Class-action lawsuits have been filed against several top washing
machine makers -- Electrolux, Frigidaire, Sears, Kenmore, LG
Electronics, Bosch and Whirlpool Corporation.  The lawsuits claim
the machines are defective in their designs and airtight seals,
creating breeding grounds for slimy, smelly black bacteria, also
known as "biofilm."

"In our case, we have a service bulletin on this," said attorney
Ed Wallace, who represents Mr. Vogler and others in the litigation
against Electrolux Home Products.

"The company knew there was a problem as early as April 2007. And
rather than recall the machines and let consumers know, they
continued to sell the machines," Mr. Wallace said.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs are also arguing that when customers
complain, manufacturers often place the blame on them for not
cleaning their machines.

"So this is something I'm responsible for?" says I-Team Senior
Investigative Reporter Ginger Allen.

Ms. Allen called several of the customer service lines and was
repeatedly told this was something she was responsible for, and a
problem she could prevent, if she followed the manuals.  Some of
them also told Ms. Allen this was not a very common problem.

However, the plumbers and appliance service companies, which have
inspected the moldy machines, told the I-Team they could not
disagree more.

"Yeah.  Oh my gosh yes!" said one plumber, when Ms. Allen asked
whether he'd heard of the problem.

When asked whether the problem rests with just one brand, an
appliance serviceman said: "No, it's all front loaders."
The repairmen told us how "common" was to have standing water,
mold and odors in front-load washers.

"You can't imagine how it smells, like somebody died. I have to go
outside," said one serviceman.

In court documents, Whirlpool is said to have marketed a product
called Affresh to "combat" mold.  The product, according to the
documents, could generate an estimated $195 million in sales
revenue, even though the company said it had "few" consumer
complaints about bacteria.

Mr. Vogler says when he complained to Frigidaire, he was told to
buy a new $200 part.

"Companies rip people off, $200 to $300 at a time. It's just not
fair," Mr. Wallace said.

Mr. Vogler's son was a baby when his lawsuit began.  Now, seven
years later, they do laundry together in a top-load machine,
waiting for their day in court.  "It's just a principle thing.  I
just feel like someone needs to stand up to these people,"
Mr. Vogler said.


FCNH INC: Removes "Zhou" Class Suit to Middle District of Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Zhou, et al. v. FCNH, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2014-CA-010113-O, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Orange to the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Orlando).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:15-cv-00281-RBD-DAB
to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Carole Carter Schriefer, Esq.
          George F. Indest, III, Esq.
          Lance O'Neal Leider, Esq.
          THE HEALTH LAW FIRM
          1101 Douglas Ave.
          Altamonte Springs, FL 32714
          Telephone: (407) 331-6620
          Facsimile: (407) 331-3030
          E-mail: CSchriefer@TheHealthLawFirm.com
                  gindest@thehealthlawfirm.com
                  lleider@thehealthlawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brian J. Perreault, Jr., Esq.
          Stephen Hunter Johnson, Esq.
          LYDECKER DIAZ
          1221 Brickell Ave., 19th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 416-3180
          Facsimile: (305) 416-3190
          E-mail: bp@lydeckerdiaz.com
                  stephenhunterjohnson@yahoo.com


FERGUSON, MO: Justice Dep't Probes Race Bias Suit v. Police
-----------------------------------------------------------
Adam B. Lerner and Josh Gerstein, writing for Politico, report
that in weighing whether to bring discrimination charges against
the Ferguson Police Department, the Justice Department has been
"seriously examining" allegations that the city's enforcement of
minor offenses discriminated against minorities and often led to
jail time and to fines that lined the city's coffers, a law
enforcement official confirmed to POLITICO.

Justice Department lawyers handling the investigation have
repeatedly met with lawyers for a St. Louis nonprofit that filed a
federal lawsuit alleging that the city of Ferguson and its
neighbor, Jennings, were running what amounted to modern-day
debtors' prisons, people familiar with the meetings said.

The organization, Arch City Defenders, has been investigating for
months allegations that the city of Ferguson engaged in a pattern
of discrimination and encouraged its police department to target
low-income residents and jail those who could not pay the fines.

Thomas Harvey, executive director of Arch City Defenders, told
POLITICO that he and his colleagues have consulted Justice
Department lawyers and that he met one-on-one with Christy Lopez,
the deputy chief of the department's Civil Rights Special
Litigation Section.  Ms. Lopez has been tasked with leading the
Justice Department's larger investigation of the Ferguson police.

"All discussions [with the Justice Department have focused on what
we believe to be a connection between the allegations of police
misconduct and the erosion of trust between members of communities
of color and their government," Mr. Harvey said.

In public comments Feb. 17, Attorney General Eric Holder didn't
discuss the direction of the federal probe, but emphasized that he
expects the investigation to wrap up by the time he leaves office
-- likely within the next few weeks.

"I'm satisfied with the progress that we have made, and also I'm
comfortable saying that I'm going to be able to make those calls
before I leave office," Mr. Holder told reporters at the National
Press Club on Feb. 17.

Ferguson became a focus of national attention last August after
Michael Brown, an unarmed black man, was killed by a Ferguson
police officer, Darren Wilson, leading to civil rights protests.

In announcing its investigation into the shooting, the Department
of Justice said it would examine whether the Ferguson Police
Department has "engaged in systemic violations."

Arch City Defenders joined with the St. Louis University Law
School and another nonprofit, Equal Justice Under Law, to bring
the lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri.

The private lawsuit filed against the city details a number of
plaintiffs who claim local police mistreated them.  The lawyers
are seeking class-action status to broaden the scope of the
charges.

Alec Karakatsanis, a lawyer with the nonprofit Equal Justice Under
Law, says the pattern of fines and arrest warrants each year in
Ferguson creates an "everyday brutality" that "fundamentally
alters the relationship between police and community," which the
lawyers believe contributed to the animus behind Michael Brown's
shooting.

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment on whether
this alleged culture of mistrust created by excessive fines and
debtors' jails could play a role in the department's
investigation.

But the department gave a hint of its thinking on the issue in a
filing on Feb. 13 in another federal case against the city of
Clanton, Alabama.  In that case, the Department of Justice argued
that "incarcerating individuals solely because of their inability
to pay for their release, whether through the payment of fines,
fees, or a cash bond, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment."

In the Ferguson matter, the Department of Justice reportedly is
unlikely to pursue charges against Mr. Wilson.  But it previously
authorized a second autopsy of Michael Brown, and Attorney General
Holder met personally with Brown's family and local officials in
Ferguson last year.

The private lawsuit alleges that the city of Ferguson has violated
citizens' constitutional rights by placing them in unsanitary,
overcrowded jails for outstanding debt to the city.  These jails,
the lawyers claimed, are often coated in mucus, dirt and feces.
Jails in neighboring Jennings have reported two suicides in the
past two years.

The Ferguson Police Department, the lawsuit claims, excessively
fined residents because of pressure to generate revenue for the
town.  Missouri law limits the amount of a city's operating budget
that can come from traffic fines to 30 percent, though The New
York Times reported that many cities either ignore this law or
fail to report their figures.

Various Missouri lawmakers have proposed reducing the state's cap
on the portion of a city's budget that can come from tickets to 10
percent.

The Ferguson Police Department issued a statement disputing the
lawsuit's claims, asserting that no prisoner is held in city jails
for longer than 72 hours, that the jails are sanitary and that
those in custody have access to "toilet, wash-basin, and drinking
water."

"We believe this lawsuit is disturbing because it contains
allegations that are not based on objective facts," Ferguson Mayor
James Knowles III said in a statement.

But Mr. Harvey believes that his investigation could provide key
insight into the anger exhibited by protesters after Michael
Brown's shooting.  "They're just pissed off because they're being
exploited; they're not dangerous."


FIELDSTON OPERATING: Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Gottlieb v. Fieldston Operating LLC d/b/a Fieldston Lodge
Care Center, Case No. 1:15-cv-01242-LGS (S.D.N.Y., February 20,
2015) is brought to remedy alleged unpaid minimum wages and unpaid
overtime compensation in willful violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law.

Fieldston is a for-profit domestic limited liability corporation,
duly organized and existing in the state of New York, with its
principal place of business located in the County of Bronx.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Blit, Esq.
          LEVINE & BLIT, PLLC
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3601
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 967-3000
          Facsimile: (212) 967-3010
          E-mail: mblit@levineblit.com


FLINT, MI: Mayor to Form Advisory Committee Amid Water Issues
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Fonger, writing for MLive, reports that some of the
individuals and groups that have had the most to say about Flint's
drinking water issues didn't get an invitation to join a new
citizen advisory committee.

Mayor Dayne Walling and emergency manager Jerry Ambrose formally
invited about 40 business owners, elected officials and members of
community organizations to serve on the committee.

A news release from the city says the purpose of the group will be
to provide the community with information on Flint's work "to
maintain a safe water supply and to improve quality."

"In addition to gathering information from the city to share
during their interactions with the community, committee members
will also be expected to share the concerns they receive from the
community in order for those concerns to be addressed," the
statement says.

In addition to those who were asked to serve on the committee in a
letter, Mr. Walling has invited others who have an interest in
being part of the group to contact him at mayor@cityofflint.com

"The water advisory committee is expected to be a large, diverse
group," he said on Feb. 17.

Florlisa Fowler, who helped start a Facebook group -- Flint Water
Class Action Group, which has more than 1,800 members -- said she
hopes that's true.

"I wrote him an email, requesting an invitation -- politely,"
Ms. Fowler said.  "I asked if he could pick me or another group
member . . . We should have at least one."

Flint Water Class Action members helped interest environmentalist
Erin Brockovich in Flint water issues and has shared information
about the city's struggles with water quality and safety since it
began using the Flint River as its source of drinking water in
April.

Another group that has sponsored a series of bottled water drives
and meetings at churches in Flint -- the Democracy Defense League
-- also wasn't invited to the new committee.

Nayyirah Shariff, a spokeswoman for the DDL, said she's not sure
she would personally want to participate -- even if she were
invited.

The DDL as a group would consider whether to send a representative
to the committee "if this is a fit with our values," she said.

"My concern with this whole process is what will be the purpose of
the committee?" Ms. Shariff said.  "When I looked at most of those
groups" that were invited -- "they've been silent" on the water
issues.

Among those who have been invited are representatives of
hospitals, universities and colleges, and hospitals as well as
elected city and county officials.

Although two members of the City Council were invited, 1st Ward
Councilman Eric Mays was not.

Mr. Mays has pushed for the city to reconnect to Lake Huron water
as a customer of the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department as it
waits for completion of the Karegnondi Water Authority pipeline.

The city and Genesee County are partners in the KWA.

"The mayor is politicizing this," said Mays, who has said he
expects to run against Walling in this year's mayoral election.
"Him and the emergency managers . . . made significant mistakes .
. . bad decisions . . . (affecting) the quality of water and the
price."

Mr. Walling said he expects to have additional discussions with
members of the City Council about the advisory committee and
doesn't want the new group's work to "appear to take the place of
officials City Council activity."

Flint officials hope to return to compliance this year from a
current violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act because of excess
total trihalomethanes (TTHM) in the city's water supply last year.
The city says the water is now safe to drink.

Residents have also said Flint's water -- the most expensive in
Genesee County -- has caused rashes and has been cloudy, smelly or
been unusual colors since the city began using the Flint River as
its water source.


FORD MOTOR: Recalls F350 & F250 Models Due to Safety Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 24, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Light Truck & Van
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Steering
Units affected: 21
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015081TC
ID number: 2015081
Manufacturer recall number: 15S08

On certain vehicles equipped with diesel engines, service
replacement steering gears, installed after June 30, 2014, may not
properly mount to the frame rail due to insufficient clearance.
This could result in insufficient clamp load on the joints, which
over time may cause fatigue of one or more of the steering gear
retention bolts. If the steering gear bolts were to fatigue, one
or more of the bolts could fracture, which could result in a loss
of steering control, increasing the risk of a crash causing injury
and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will install
spacers between the gear and the frame rail to add clearance and
ensure adequate clamp load to the joints.

  Make    Model     Model year(s) affected
  ----    -----     ----------------------
  FORD    F350      2008
  FORD    F250      2008


FOSTER WHEELER: Removes "Kahn" Asbestos Suit to S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant General Electric Company removed the lawsuit entitled
Kahn, et al. v. Foster Wheeler LLC, et al., Case No. 190024/2015,
from the Supreme Court of New York, County of New York, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-
01262-ER to the proceeding.

The Complaint included allegations that Plaintiff Jeffrey Kahn was
exposed to asbestos while serving in the United States Navy from
1958 to 1964, and while performing maintenance work aboard the USS
Constellation.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark Bibro, Esq.
          THE EARLY LAW FIRM, LLC.
          360 Lexington Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 986-2233

Defendant General Electric Company is represented by:

          Afigo Okpewho-Fadahunsi, Esq.
          SEDGWICK LLP
          One Newark Center
          1085 Raymond Boulevard, 16th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 242-0002
          Facsimile: (973) 242-8099
          E-mail: afigo.fadahunsi@sedgwicklaw.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Judge to Weigh on Bankruptcy Shield Challenge
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Checkler and Mike Spector, writing for The Wall Street
Journal, report that a federal judge expressed concerns on Feb. 17
over whether General Motors Co. should be allowed to keep a
bankruptcy shield blocking legal claims by some customers seeking
damages over a defective ignition switch.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Gerber heard arguments over whether
GM can keep the shield, which he previously approved as part of
the auto maker's 2009 government-brokered sale to the U.S.
Treasury.  The shield prevents customers from suing for
compensation for declining resale values and injuries tied to
older GM compact cars that were equipped with the defective
ignition switch.

Judge Gerber's decision is pivotal for plaintiffs seeking billions
of dollars in damages in purported class-action suits on account
of the defective switch, which can jostle out of the run position
and cut power to air bags and other safety features.  Kenneth
Feinberg, a lawyer administering a GM-established compensation
fund for victims killed and injured as a result of the defective
switch, has so far tied at least 56 deaths and 87 injuries to the
defect.

But other plaintiffs are duking it out in court over whether they,
too, can seek redress from GM over the safety lapse, which the
Detroit auto giant knew about for more than a decade before
finally recalling older Chevrolet Cobalts and other models in
early 2014.

"Your problem is to convince me I would've issued the same exact
order," Judge Gerber said to a GM lawyer during the hearing,
referring to his previous decision approving the sale and the auto
maker's ensuing bankruptcy shield that left liabilities behind
with the company's estate, often called Old GM.

Arthur Steinberg, a lawyer representing GM, said the new GM has no
"independent duty" to assume new liabilities beyond the ones
spelled out in the sale order.  "We assumed certain, specific
things," Mr. Steinberg said, citing liabilities new GM took on,
including those tied to lemon laws.  "We didn't assume anything
else."

If Judge Gerber allows GM to keep the bankruptcy shield, the
plaintiffs will remain relegated to seeking recompense from an Old
GM unsecured creditors trust that lacks the resources to address
all their claims.  A lawyer for the trust said in court Feb. 17
that the new iteration of GM, not the old one, should be on the
hook.

Edward Weisfelner -- eweisfelner@brownrudnick.com -- a lawyer at
Brown Rudnick LLP representing plaintiffs, said GM was using the
bankruptcy shield as a "get out of jail free card" to avoid
compensating his clients, echoing a comment Judge Gerber made
earlier.

The plaintiffs argue they would have objected to GM's bankruptcy
sale had they known about the defective ignition switches.
Mr. Weisfelner said that because GM knew of the ignition-switch
problems years earlier, it had a duty to disclose the problem and
advise customers on the nature of their claims in the bankruptcy
case.

While leaving behind liabilities is a bedrock principle governing
bankruptcy sales, GM's longtime knowledge of the ignition-switch
defect "makes this issue tougher," said Damian Schaible --
damian.schaible@davispolk.com -- a bankruptcy lawyer at Davis Polk
& Wardwell LLP who isn't involved in the case.  But he said the
notices GM provided during its bankruptcy were "absolutely
standard for . . . unknown and often times even known creditors in
a bankruptcy asset sale" and removing the legal shield could chill
bidding in future deals from buyers concerned rules could be
changed later.

If Judge Gerber rules in favor of the plaintiffs, another judge
presiding over potential class-action suits against GM would
ultimately be the one to decide how much they get, if anything.
The bankruptcy-court hearing was scheduled to continue Feb. 18.
Judge Gerber hasn't said when he would rule.


HAMPDEN BANCORP: Faces Class Action Over Berkshire Bank Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Ryan, writing for Boston Business Journal, reports that
Hampden Bancorp and its board of directors have been slapped with
a class action lawsuit by a shareholder claiming Berkshire Hills
Bancorp's recent $109 million acquisition of the Springfield bank
was driven by board members scared of an activist coup and a CEO
who stood to gain personally from the deal.

The suit, filed Feb. 11 by Hampden shareholder Brian Levy, alleges
Hampden's directors rushed through the deal because they were
concerned they'd be replaced by activist shareholder MHC Mutual
Conversion Fund and affiliate Clover Partners, according to Levy.
The board neglected to shop Hampden to any other banks, he says.
The transaction presented a conflict of interest to Hampden CEO
and President Glenn Welch, since under the deal he would become a
senior executive at a much larger bank and receive a $350,000 base
salary, a 34 percent increase over his salary at Hampden, Levy
says.

The bank and the board put its own interests above those of
shareholders, according to Mr. Levy, who is being represented by
Boston law firm Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP.  He is asking the
Superior Court of Massachusetts in Hampden County to award
monetary damages to a class of Hampden shareholders and to put a
stop to the deal.

In a statement, Hampden called the lawsuit "baseless and without
merit" and said it would contest the allegations in court.

Hampden's board members are also accused of concealing material
information from shareholders in a proxy statement, including the
compensation Hampden financial advisor Sterne Agee has gained from
buying securities from and selling securities to Berkshire.

Pittsfield-based Berkshire is also named as a defendant in the
suit.  Berkshire helped Hampden board members breach their duties
to Hampden shareholders, Mr. Levy says.  Like Hampden, the bank
has said the claims are baseless.

Mr. Levy says Hampden is poised for greater growth as a stand-
alone bank, pointing to the record net income and earnings per
share it had for the 12 months ended June 30, 2014.


HEARTWARE INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Ventricular System Controllers
---------------------------------------------------------------
HeartWare International, Inc. (Nasdaq: HTWR), is issuing a
voluntary Urgent Medical Device Recall in the United States
related to older HeartWare(R) Ventricular Assist System
Controllers, which were distributed in the U.S. during the
clinical trial period prior to Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
approval in 2012. HeartWare has commenced this field action in
other countries in recent weeks. In letters to clinicians and
patients, the company advises that affected clinical trial
controllers exhibit a higher susceptibility to electrostatic
discharge (ESD) than newer, commercial controllers. An ESD event
could result in a pump stop, which could cause serious injury or
death. Since HeartWare has made design enhancements to the newer,
commercial controllers to improve immunity to ESD, this recall
does not affect newer, commercial controllers.

This recall of HeartWare controllers (product codes 1400 and
1401XX) distributed during the ADVANCE and ENDURANCE clinical
trial periods with Serial Numbers CON000001 through CON005472 is
an expansion of HeartWare's voluntary Field Safety Corrective
Action, FSCA APR2013.  HeartWare estimates the recall will impact
approximately 120 patients in the U.S.

As part of the 2013 Notice, HeartWare provided information to
assist clinicians and patients in monitoring controller
performance and reducing the potential for an ESD event, which is
a known risk for electronic equipment. As stated in the 2013
Notice, patients can reduce the risk of ESD by avoiding dry
environments, certain fabrics and materials such as silk clothing
and carpeting, electronic devices prone to static electricity and
certain activities such as vacuuming and removing clothes from a
dryer. Since the 2013 Notice, HeartWare has received reports of
one additional death and one additional serious injury in which
ESD may have caused or contributed to a pump stop.

Clinicians are being asked to identify patients with recalled
controllers, review the applicable risks with the patient and, if
medically advisable, exchange the recalled controllers under
medical supervision with a new controller (serial number CON005473
or higher). It is the treating physician's responsibility to
assess a patient's status and determine if the related risks are
acceptable. Patients should not attempt to exchange recalled
controllers, as controller exchanges may not be suitable for all
patients. It is recommended that exchanges of recalled controllers
be performed in a controlled setting under medical supervision.

Patients with questions about this announcement should contact
their physician or VAD Coordinator at their hospital center.
Clinicians who wish to return affected product or with questions
should contact their HeartWare representative, call HeartWare's
24-hour Clinical Support line at (888) 494-6365 or email
FSCA@heartware.com.

HeartWare has advised FDA of this action. Adverse reactions or
quality problems experienced with the use of this product may be
reported to FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program either
online, by regular mail or by fax.

Complete and submit the report Online:
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm
Regular Mail or Fax: Download form
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form. Then, complete and return the form to
the address on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-
FDA-0178.

HeartWare International develops and manufactures miniaturized
implantable heart pumps, or ventricular assist devices, to treat
patients suffering from advanced heart failure. For additional
information, visit the company's website at www.heartware.com.
Investor and media contact:

   Christopher Taylor
   HeartWare International, Inc.
   Email: ctaylor@heartware.com
   Phone: +1 508 739 0864


HYUNDAI: Faces Class Action Over Blue Link Telematics System
------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that Guy Coss filed a class action lawsuit
in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
Feb. 10 against Hyundai claiming its Blue Link Telematics System
is rendered permanently disabled if the owner of the vehicle lets
the subscribed services lapse for a year.

The Blue Link system allows owners to remotely access some vehicle
functions, get emergency assistance and receive self-diagnostic
vehicle reports.  Hyundai first installed the Blue Link system in
its 2012 model year vehicles.

The equipment was put in as standard equipment, but vehicle owners
have to pay for the service after a free trial expires.  Hyundai
allegedly told vehicle owners who had let their service lapse and
didn't have it reactivated by Jan. 15 that the Blue Link system
would be permanently disabled.

New equipment, costing a minimum of $500, would be needed if the
owner or a future owner of the vehicle would want to reactivate
the system, the suit says.  The lawsuit claims Hyundai never told
owners that the system would need to be replaced if deactivated
for more than a year.  The suit further claims the move unfairly
lowers the value of the vehicle if an owner wants to sell it.

The suit claims the move amounts to a breach of contract terms,
which includes the Blue Link System as a standard feature.  The
lawsuit seeks class status, more than $5 million in damages plus
court costs.

Mr. Coss is represented by Richard D. McCune, David C. Wright and
Jae K. Kim of McCue Wright, LLP, Redlands, Calif.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California case
number 2:15-cv-00974.


HYUNDAI: Recalls Genesis 2015 Models Due to Safety Risk
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 27, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Electrical
Units affected: 1927
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015090TC
ID number: 2015090
Manufacturer recall number: R0096

On certain vehicles, water could enter the rear combination lamp
assemblies due to an improper seal. In some instances, accumulated
water could affect the range switch signals. If this were to occur
while the vehicle is stopped and the shifter were to be moved from
Park to Reverse or Drive, or the shifter is moved from Drive to
Reverse or Park, it could result in one or more of the following
symptoms: the incorrect gear is displayed in the instrument panel,
illumination of malfunction indicator lamp(s) and/or a delay in
the engagement of the selected gear. An incorrect gear being
selected could cause unintended vehicle movement, which could
result in injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers
will apply pads to prevent water intrusion into the combination
lamp housing.

   Make      Model      Model year(s) affected
   ----      -----      ----------------------
   HYUNDAI   GENESIS    2015


HYUNDAI: Recalls Elantra Models Due to Safety Risk
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 27, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety
TC System: Steering
Units affected: 58320
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015089TC
ID number: 2015089
Manufacturer recall number: R0095

Certain vehicles equipped with electric power steering (EPS) may
experience a sudden loss of power steering assist that could occur
at any time while driving. If the electronic control unit (ECU)
were to sense a discrepancy in the torque sensing circuitry of the
steering system, and indicator lamp would illuminate in the
instrument cluster to inform the driver that steering assist is no
longer provided. Steering control could be maintained, as the
vehicle will revert to a manual steering mode, but would require
greater driver effort. The sudden change in steering may increase
the risk of a crash causing injury and/or property damage.
Correction: Dealers will update the electric power steering (EPS)
control unit.

  Make      Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----      ----------------------
  HYUNDAI   ELANTRA    2008, 2009, 2010, 2009, 2010


JIM BEAM: Faces False Advertising Class Action
----------------------------------------------
Shaneken News Daily reports that following high-profile class
action lawsuits against brands like Tito's and Maker's Mark, Beam
Suntory's flagship Jim Beam Bourbon has now been targeted by a
suit alleging false advertising for claiming on its labels that
it's "handcrafted."  California-based law firms Kazerouni Law
Group APC and Hyde & Swigart -- the same groups behind a similar
Maker's Mark labeling suit filed in December -- filed a proposed
class action in federal court on Feb. 17 seeking to stop Jim Beam
from advertising the whiskey as such, Law360 reports.

The plaintiff, Scott Welk, contends that Jim Beam's claim of being
handmade on its label duped him into paying a premium price for a
product whose production resembles "a modern day assembly line
involving little to no human supervision, assistance or
involvement."

In an email to SND, Beam Suntory's senior vice president,
corporate communications and public affairs, Clarkson Hine, said,
"This claim is frivolous.  We will defend our case vigorously and
we are confident that we will prevail."

In the ongoing suit against Maker's Mark, Beam Suntory's lawyers
have argued that a reasonable consumer would understand that
having "handmade" on a label does not infer that no machines were
used throughout the entire production process.  Plaintiff's
attorney Abbas Kazerounian of Kazerouni Law Group told Law360 the
Jim Beam case has merit, and, similar to the actions against
Maker's Mark and Tito's, is seeking to clean up label
representations in California.

The Jim Beam brand was up 7% to 7.4 million cases globally last
year, according to Impact Databank.


LADY YORK: Recalls Mortadella Products Due to Listeria
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 25, 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: Lady York Foods
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9662

Lady York Foods is recalling sliced Mortadella, product of Italy,
sold on February 11, 2015 from the marketplace due to possible
Listeria monocytogenes contamination. Consumers should not consume
the recalled products described below.

If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The following products were sold from Lady York Foods, 2939
Dufferin St., North York, Ontario.

This recall applies to Italian Mortadella products sliced and sold
from the deli counter at Lady York Foods on February 11, 2015.
Consumers who are unsure if they have purchased the affected
products are advised to contact the 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 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 confirmed illnesses associated with the
consumption of these products sold on February 11, 2015. The
recalled products are undergoing analysis to determine if they are
linked to any illnesses.

This recall was triggered by findings of the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency (CFIA), Toronto Public Health, Public Health
Ontario and other public health and food safety partners as part
of an ongoing food borne illness outbreak investigation in
Ontario. The CFIA continues to conduct a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products.

  Brand name  Common name    Size     Code(s) on        UPC
  ---------   -----------    ----     product           ---
                                      -------
  None        Mortadella     Variable PACKED ON 2015.   Variable
              Variable -              FEB.11
              Prod. of Italy

  None        Ferrarini      Variable PACKED ON 2015.   Variable
              Mortadella -            FEB.11
              Prod. of Italy

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/3ds8vy


LADY YORK: Recalls San Danielle Mortadella Due to Listeria
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 25, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Lady York Foods
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9665

The food recall warning issued earlier has been updated to include
additional product information. This additional information was
identified during the ongoing food borne illness outbreak
investigation in Ontario.

Lady York Foods is recalling San Danielle Mortadella - Regular or
Lean sold on February 18, 2015 from the marketplace due to
possible Listeria monocytogenes contamination. Consumers should
not consume the recalled product described below.

If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The following product was sold from Lady York Foods, 2939 Dufferin
St., North York, Ontario.

This recall applies to San Danielle Spicy Mortadella sliced and
sold from the deli counter at Lady York Foods on February 18, 2015
but labelled as "San Danielle Mortadella - Regular or Lean".
Consumers who are unsure if they have purchased the affected
product are advised to contact the 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 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 confirmed illnesses associated with the
consumption of this product sold on February 18, 2015. The
recalled product is undergoing analysis to determine if it is
linked to any illnesses.

This recall was triggered by findings of the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency (CFIA), Toronto Public Health, Public Health
Ontario and other public health and food safety partners as part
of an ongoing food borne illness outbreak investigation in
Ontario. The CFIA continues to conduct a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products.

  Brand name  Common name    Size     Code(s) on        UPC
  ---------   -----------    ----     product           ---
                                      -------
  None        San Danielle   Variable PACKED ON 2015.   Variable
              Mortadella -            FEB.18
              Regular or
              Lea


LADY YORK: Recalls Sliced Mortadella Products Due to Listeria
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 28, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Lady York Foods
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9678

The food recall warning issued February 25, 2015 has been updated
to include additional product information. This additional
information was identified during the ongoing food borne illness
outbreak investigation in Ontario.

Lady York Foods is recalling sliced Mortadella products from the
marketplace due to possible Listeria monocytogenes contamination.
Consumers should not consume the recalled products described
below.

If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The following products were sold from Lady York Foods, 2939
Dufferin St., North York, Ontario.

This recall applies to all Mortadella products sliced and sold
from the deli counter at Lady York Foods from December 2, 2014 to
February 24, 2015. Consumers who are unsure if they have purchased
an affected product are advised to contact the 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 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 reported illnesses associated with the consumption
of these products.

This recall was triggered by findings of the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency (CFIA), Toronto Public Health, Public Health
Ontario and other public health and food safety partners as part
of an ongoing food borne illness outbreak investigation in
Ontario. The CFIA continues to conduct a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products.

  Brand name   Common name   Size       Code(s) on      UPC
  ---------    -----------   ----       product          ---
                                         -------
  None         Sliced        Variable   All PACKED ON    Variable
               Mortadella               dates from 2014.
                                        DEC.02 to 2015.
                                        FEB.24s


LAXMI HOUSE: Recalls Masala Mixed Spices Sue to Sesame Seeds
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 26, 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: Laxmi House of Spice Canada Inc.
Distribution: Alberta, Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9664

  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.


LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls Bran Flakes Cereals
---------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 25, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Extraneous Material
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Loblaw Companies Limited
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9661
Loblaw Companies Limited is voluntarily recalling PC Blue Menu
brand Bran Flakes Cereal from the marketplace due to possible
plastic contamination. 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.

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

This warning was triggered by the company. Loblaw Companies
Limited is voluntarily recalling the potentially affected product
from the marketplace.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is verifying that
industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace.

  Brand name  Common name   Size     Code(s) on     UPC
  ---------   -----------   ----     product        ---
                                     -------
  PC Blue     Bran Flakes   775 g    Best before    0 60383
  Menu                               dates 2015     74782 4
                                     AU 26 up to
                                     and including
                                     2016 JA 07


LUXURY SUITES: Condo Owners File Class Action Over Surcharges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that three California consumers have sued a
group of Nevada hotel businesses, alleging breach of contract and
good faith in a property-ownership regulation dispute dating back
to 2006.

Alice Sinanyan, James Koury and Sehak Tuna filed a class action
complaint against Luxury Suites International (LSI), RE/MAX
Properties and JetLiving Hotels, d/b/a Jet Luxury Resorts,
alleging breach of contract in Clark County District Court in
Nevada on Jan. 5.  A month later, JetLiving removed the case to
federal court.

The suit said Ms. Sinanyan purchased two condo units in the
Signature at MGM Grand in Las Vegas on Aug. 16, 2010.  Mr. Koury
bought two units on Dec. 5, 2006, and Tuna acquired one unit on
Nov. 21, 2006.

The complaint said all three plaintiffs received marketing
materials advertising an introductory rate for a rental program,
wherein RE/MAX would agree to rent the condo units to third
parties.

Each plaintiff signed such an agreement between 2009 and 2014,
they say.  Owners are required to pay monthly assessments and fees
for hotel-type amenities and Internet access.

The complaint says LSI charged renters additional surcharges
without informing the unit owners.  A dispute ensued regarding
rent-collection terms.

The plaintiffs allege breach of fair dealing and fiduciary duty,
intentional misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and fraudulent
concealment.  The suit alleges each of them suffered damages
exceeding $10,000, and they are seeking compensatory and punitive
damages, attorneys and experts fees and other expenses.

The plaintiffs are represented by Don Springmeyer, Justin Jones
and Royi Moas of Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin inLas
Vegas.

JetLiving removed the case to federal court under the Class Action
Fairness Act.

U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada case 2:15-cv-00225


MASTER TOYS: Recalls JA-RU's B'loonies Balloon Blowing Kits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 25, 2015
Posting date: February 25, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Children's Products, Toys
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Chemical Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-43875

These toys consist of a solvent mixture in a tube and one or more
short plastic straws for blowing. Children can form balloons or
bubbles by slowly squeezing out a ball of the mixture from the
tube and sticking it on the end of the straw.  The child then
blows through the straw to create a bubble.  The JA-RU's B'loonies
balloon blowing kits come with 8 tubes (4 assorted colours) and 8
pink straws.

Children's balloon blowing kits are prohibited in Canada. The
safety concern is that blowing the balloons exposes a child to
inhaling the vapours of any solvents present.  Children can be
fascinated with these products, and if they blow balloons for
extended periods they may experience early symptoms of central
nervous system depression or dysfunction, including euphoria,
hallucinations, dizziness, and difficulties with coordination of
voluntary movements.  Prolonged exposure can lead to more serious
symptoms including muscular twitching, unconsciousness, and coma.

Health Canada, retailer Carlton Cards, and distributor Master Toys
have not received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries
related to the use of these particular balloons blowing kits.

For some tips to help consumers choose safe toys and to help them
keep children safe when they play with toys, see the General Toy
Safety Tips.

The recalled products were sold from November 7, 2014 to February
12, 2015.

Approximately 765 of the balloon blowing kits were distributed to
Carlton Card Retail locations across Canada.

Manufactured in Taiwan.

Manufacturer: JA-RU Inc.
              Jacksonville, Florida
              UNITED STATES
Distributor:  Master Toys Inc.
              Vernon, California
              UNITED STATES

Retailer: Carlton Cards
          Various store locations across Canada

Consumer should immediately take any balloon blowing kits, no
matter where purchased, away from children.  Consumers may return
JA-RU's B'loonies Balloon Blowing Kits to local Carlton Cards
stores for a full refund, or if the consumer prefers, dispose of
the product in regular household trash in such a way that the kits
cannot be reused.

For more information, consumers may contact retailer Carlton Cards
by telephone at 1-800-333-6724. Retailers may contact distributor
Master Toys by telephone at 1-323-582-8881.

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/ciTbe0

                           *     *     *

Starting date: February 25, 2015
Posting date: February 25, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Children's Products, Toys
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Chemical Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-43875
Affected products What you should do

These toys consist of a solvent mixture in a tube and one or more
short plastic straws for blowing. Children can form balloons or
bubbles by slowly squeezing out a ball of the mixture from the
tube and sticking it on the end of the straw.  The child then
blows through the straw to create a bubble.  The JA-RU's B'loonies
balloon blowing kits come with 8 tubes (4 assorted colours) and 8
pink straws.

Children's balloon blowing kits are prohibited in Canada. The
safety concern is that blowing the balloons exposes a child to
inhaling the vapours of any solvents present.  Children can be
fascinated with these products, and if they blow balloons for
extended periods they may experience early symptoms of central
nervous system depression or dysfunction, including euphoria,
hallucinations, dizziness, and difficulties with coordination of
voluntary movements.  Prolonged exposure can lead to more serious
symptoms including muscular twitching, unconsciousness, and coma.

Health Canada, retailer Carlton Cards, and distributor Master Toys
have not received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries
related to the use of these particular balloons blowing kits.

For some tips to help consumers choose safe toys and to help them
keep children safe when they play with toys, see the General Toy
Safety Tips.

The recalled products were sold from November 7, 2014 to February
12, 2015.

Approximately 765 of the balloon blowing kits were distributed to
Carlton Card Retail locations across Canada.

Manufactured in Taiwan.

Manufacturer: JA-RU Inc.
              Jacksonville, Florida
              UNITED STATES

Distributor: Master Toys Inc.
             Vernon, California
             UNITED STATES

Consumer should immediately take any balloon blowing kits, no
matter where purchased, away from children.  Consumers may return
JA-RU's B'loonies Balloon Blowing Kits to local Carlton Cards
stores for a full refund, or if the consumer prefers, dispose of
the product in regular household trash in such a way that the kits
cannot be reused.

For more information, consumers may contact retailer Carlton Cards
by telephone at 1-800-333-6724. Retailers may contact distributor
Master Toys by telephone at 1-323-582-8881.

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/ciTbe0


MINNESOTA: Patients Testify in Sex Offer Program Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Bill Hudson, writing for WCCO, reports that for the first time,
we're hearing from patients in Minnesota's sex offender program.
They say the state's system of treatment is broken.

It's the second week of testimony in the class action lawsuit,
which seeks to have the program ruled unconstitutional.  Fourteen
sex offenders now in treatment are suing the state.  They claim
placement in the program equates to a life term with no chance of
release.

In the program's 20-plus years, more than 700 sex offenders have
been civilly committed.  But only three have been released from
treatment.

After hearing from the expert witnesses who weighed in on the sex
offender treatment program, we're now hearing from those civilly
committed, the plaintiffs who say they've lost any hope of ever
getting out.

When Dennis Steiner pleaded guilty to having sex with young boys
back in 1992, he was told he'd spend four years of treatment in
St. Peter's Sex Offender Program.  Twenty three years later, he's
still waiting for release.

"Mr. Steiner is going to testify of the number of times the
program has changed and the setback and frustrations with the
program," Attorney Dan Gustafson said.

Mr. Steiner is one of 14 sex offenders, suing the state for
alleged unconstitutional civil commitments.

"The system has not given him an opportunity to progress and be
reintegrated into the community and how difficult and despairing
it is," Mr. Gustafson said.

In 1996, he was moved to Moose Lake after nearly completing
treatment.  That's when Mr. Steiner said he was forced to start
all over again, saying, "The program changed four to five times
over my (his) 23 years."

And when asked how many therapists he's had, Mr. Steiner answered,
"24 or so."

On the state's cross examination, Mr. Steiner admitted having "31
reported victims between the ages of 8 and 16."

And his offense cycle was triggered by "loneliness and a sense of
power and control."

Mr. Steiner petitioned for release at least three times, and each
time was denied.  Until last month, when he was told he'd be
transitioned to a step down program at St. Peter.  When asked why
now, he said because of this lawsuit.


MONROE COLLEGE: Faces "Almansa" Suit Over Racial Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jairo Almansa v. Monroe College, Ltd., Marc Jerome, David F.
Dimond, Mark Goodman, Clair Hicks and Cynthia Crowell, Case No.
1:15-cv-01296-PKC (S.D.N.Y., February 23, 2015) alleges that the
Defendants unlawfully discriminated against the Plaintiff based on
his race and national origin by giving him fewer hours of work and
less-favorable job assignments than similarly situated employees,
who are the same race as his immediate supervisors.

Mr. Almansa has worked as a bus driver for Monroe College since
2009.  He was born in Colombia and has lived in the United States
since 1978.  He is fluent in English and Spanish.

Monroe College Ltd. is a New York for-profit corporation with a
principal place of business located in Bronx, New York.  The
Company owns and operates Monroe College campuses in Bronx and New
Rochelle.  The Individual Defendants are officers and agents of
the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John J. P. Howley, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOHN HOWLEY
          350 5th Avenue, 59th Floor
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 601-2728
          Facsimile: (347) 603-1328
          E-mail: jhowley@johnhowleyesq.com


MORIS TABACINIC: FLSA Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ciria Cabrera v. Moris Tabacinic and Wife Lilian Tabacinic, Case
No. 1:15-cv-20735-MGC (S.D. Fla., February 23, 2015) is brought by
the Plaintiff and those similarly-situated to recover from the
Defendants unpaid minimum wages, as well as an additional amount
as liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Moris Tabacinic and Lilian Tabacinic are Miami Dade County
residents, who employed the Plaintiff as a domestic employee in
their private home located in Bal Harbour, 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


NEW YORK: Legal Battles Over Superstorm Sandy Insurance Continue
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Lane, writing for National Public Radio, reports that it's
been more than two years since Superstorm Sandy flooded homes in
New York and New Jersey. Yet the legal battles continue over how
much insurance should pay.

About a thousand homeowners have disputed in court what they call
"lowball" estimates for repairs.  Also, some insurance companies
have been accused of falsifying the engineering reports used to
lower those estimates.

And then there's this: the legal fees to defend the estimates
could surpass what it would cost just to pay the claims outright.

Dan and Eileen Stapleton live in Long Beach, N.Y., a narrow dash
of land between the bay and the ocean.

"When the insurance company came in, they tried to even fight us
over inches of water," Eileen says.  "We had to watch our own home
and truck go under water."

Dan adds, "It's documented, we're not scamming."

They have flood insurance through the National Flood Insurance
Program, the NFIP, which is different than a typical homeowners
policy.

NFIP policies are administered by normal insurance companies like
Allstate or Fidelity, but the claims are paid by taxpayers.

"We've paid for our flood insurance for 20 years.  This is the
only time we would ever need help," Dan says.

Taxpayers also pay the legal fees to defend the claims when
homeowners like the Stapletons say they're being shortchanged.

"I feel bad for some guy in Iowa or some guy upstate -- he's
paying for this," Dan says.

The Stapletons and scores of other homeowners affected say the
insurance companies who manage the NFIP polices are being overly
litigious in fighting flood claims.

Their lawyer says this is intentional.  Denis Kelly has banded
together with other lawyers who have clients like the Stapletons
and they filed a RICO lawsuit alleging racketeering and organized
fraud.

Mr. Kelly says, "The defense attorneys, their adjusters, their
engineers . . . I believe their goal is to drag out this process
for as long as they possibly can."

According to Mr. Kelly's complaint, the scheme starts with the
lowball estimate.  The Stapleton's had to completely rebuild their
house for $220,000.  But the insurance company only offered them
$98,000 because it says the foundation was damaged before Sandy.
Kelly says the lower claim was designed to incite litigation.

And then, once in litigation insurance lawyers have a broad menu
of tactics to "drag out" the case for years.  So far, insurance
lawyers have questioned electronic signatures, demanded on-site
inspections, and subpoenaed numerous government employees.

"They wanted to take the deposition of one contractor who issued a
paid receipt for $500," Mr. Kelly says.  "How much does that whole
process cost relative to what it is they're claiming? Are we going
to have more than $55,000 worth of legal fees here to address a
$55,000 claim?"

In court documents, lawyers for insurance companies estimate that
legal fees could top $100 million.  Federal Magistrate Gary Brown
called that number a "really, really big problem" because that
would be far more than the disputed amount.

But the insurance companies and their lawyers say they have to
spend that much money because they have the fiduciary
responsibility to protect tax dollars.

Don Griffin chairs a coalition of flood insurance companies
contracted by the NFIP.  He told senators in July that insurance
companies, their adjustors, and their lawyers are just following
FEMA's rules.

"The flood claim's adjustor determines the amount payable on any
claim based on very specific guidelines and rules established by
the NFIP," he says.

In an interview later, Griffin says sometimes there's good reason
for insurance companies to spend more fighting a claim than the
claim is worth.  He says, "It may not be as an expensive as a
claim as you might think for this time, but the next time it could
be tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars. For
other claims that would come, that would be similar."

EMA has since warned insurance companies to keep legal fees in
check and mediate with policy holders.  But homeowners like Eileen
Stapleton says the mediations are just more opportunity to pad
legal bills.

"How many lawyers, how many paralegals -- 'I need my assistant, I
need the guy who makes the good coffee for me,' -- that whole
traveling pack of people just cost a small fortune.  All of that
money that they are wasting on mediation -- just because they
don't want to pay us?" she says.

FEMA doubts legal fees for Sandy will reach $100 million, but it
didn't disagree with the court that it would be cheaper just to
pay the disputed claims outright rather than fight them.

In addition to the two RICO lawsuits, homeowners have joined a
series of class action suits.  Also, New York's attorney general
and the Department of Homeland Security's inspector general have
ongoing investigations.


NEW YORK SPORTS CLUB: Workers File Wage Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Julia Marsh, writing for New York Post, reports that Manhattan's
largest gym chain cheats workers out of wages, according to a new
class action lawsuit.

Lead plaintiff Ramon Johnson was hired as a janitor at the New
York Sports Club on Madison Avenue near 36th Street in February
2013, according to the Manhattan Supreme Court suit.  He was
promoted to front desk attendant and moved to five different NYSC
outposts until he left the job in April 2014.

Mr. Johnson, who made $8-an-hour, says in the suit that he was
forced to work through unpaid lunch breaks, was denied overtime
and had to do off-the-clock tasks like picking up towels, taking
out garbage and closing the facility.  His manager even told him
to change his hours on the gym computer because he had worked too
much, the suit says.

Mr. Johnson routinely put in 46-hour work weeks and was only paid
for 38 hours.  The class action includes all employees in similar
situations who have worked at the Sports Clubs since 2009.  It
seeks $2,500 per employee.

A rep for the gym chain declined to comment on the pending
litigation.


NEWTON SCHOOL SYSTEM: Settles Suit Over January 2013 Bus Accident
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alice Queen, writing for Newton Citizen, reports that a settlement
has been reached in a lawsuit filed in connection with a Newton
County School System school bus accident in January 2013.

A 10-year-old girl who was injured in the accident was awarded
$250,000 in the settlement.  The lawsuit named the Newton County
School System, two school bus drivers and the Georgia School
Boards Association Risk Management Fund.  The defendants denied
any negligence in the incident.

According to a court order filed Feb. 11 approving the settlement,
the $250,000 award will be divided as follows: $100,000 to
plaintiff's attorney Michael Neff; $2,297 to Medicaid; $16,665 in
litigation costs; and $4,000 to $7,000 to certified elder and
special needs attorney Ruthann Lacy.  The net proceeds of $123,937
to $126,937 will go to the victim.  The court ordered the child's
grandmother, who filed the suit on behalf of the child, to
petition the Probate Court to appoint a conservator to establish a
trust to protect the funds for the child until she reaches
majority.

According to court documents, the child was a passenger at the
rear of a school bus when it was rear-ended by another bus on Ga.
Highway 162 near Rocky Plains Elementary School.  She sustained a
concussion, required eye surgery, and "suffered a loss of quality
of life," according to the settlement agreement.

The accident occurred at about 2:30 p.m. on Jan. 22, 2013, when
bus driver Gloria Inscore ran into the back end of the bus driven
by Rhonda F. Wilson, who had stopped to unload passengers.

Forty elementary school students and the two bus drivers were
transported to area hospitals as a result of the accident.
Inscore was cited by the Georgia State Patrol for following too
closely and was terminated by the school system.

In a separate court action, the father of two of the other
children who were injured filed a class-action lawsuit against the
school system in September 2013.  Conyers attorney Sal Serio said
he represented a number of children in that case, which was
previously settled for $500,000.


NISSAN: Recalls Altima 2013 Models Due to Safety Risk
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 25, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Structure
Units affected: 15000
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015083TC
ID number: 2015083

On certain vehicles, if the vehicle is driven with only the
secondary latch engaged, the secondary hood latch may fail to hold
the hood closed. As a result, the hood could open suddenly and
compromise the driver's ability to see the road and its users, as
well as cause damage to the windshield. These issues could result
in a crash causing injury and/or property damage. Correction: To
be determined. Note: This is an expansion of recall 2014401.

  Make      Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----      ----------------------
  NISSAN    ALTIMA     2013


NUCAL FOODS: June 22 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Weinstein Kitchenoff &
Asher LLC regarding the In re Processed Egg Products Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 08-md-02002.

Legal Notice

If you purchased Shell Eggs or Egg Products produced in the United
States directly from any producer from January 1, 2000 through
December 19, 2014, you could be a Class Member in a proposed class
action settlement.

This legal notice is to inform you of proposed Settlements between
Plaintiffs and Defendants NuCal Foods, Inc. ("NuCal"), Hillandale
Farms of Pa., Inc. ("Hillandale Pa."), and Hillandale-Gettysburg,
L.P. ("Hillandale-Gettysburg"), reached in the class action
lawsuit In re Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, Case
No. 08-md-02002, pending in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Who is included in the Settlements?
The Settlement "Classes" include all persons and entities in the
United States that purchased Shell Eggs and Egg Products in the
United States directly from any producer from January 1, 2000
through December 19, 2014.

What is this case about?
Plaintiffs claim that Defendants conspired to limit the supply of
Shell Eggs and Egg Products, which raised the price of Shell Eggs
and Egg Products and, therefore, violated the Sherman Antitrust
Act, a federal statute that prohibits agreements that unreasonably
restrain competition.  The settling Defendants deny all of
Plaintiffs' allegations.

What do the Settlements provide?
Under the Settlements, Plaintiffs will release all claims against
NuCal, Hillandale Pa., Hillandale-Gettysburg, Hillandale Farms
East, Inc., and Hillandale Farms, Inc. In exchange, NuCal will pay
$1,425,000, and Hillandale Pa. and Hillandale-Gettysburg will
collectively pay $3,000,000, into a settlement fund for the
benefit of the Classes.  Plaintiffs also will receive documents
and information that Plaintiffs' attorneys believe will aid in
their analysis and prosecution of this Action.

What do I do now?
If you are a Class Member your legal rights are affected, and you
now have a choice to make.

Participate in the Settlements: No action is required to remain
part of the recent Settlements.  If the Court grants final
approval to the Settlements, they will be binding upon you and all
other Class Members.  By remaining part of the Settlements, you
will give up any potential claims that you may have against NuCal,
Hillandale Pa., Hillandale-Gettysburg, Hillandale Farms East,
Inc., and Hillandale Farms, Inc., relating to the claims alleged
in this lawsuit.  You may be eligible to receive a settlement
payment at a future date.

Ask to be excluded: If you wish to exclude yourself from the
recent Settlements and wish to retain your rights to pursue your
own lawsuit relating to the claims alleged in this lawsuit, you
must formally exclude yourself from the Classes by sending a
signed letter to the Claims Administrator postmarked on or before
May 22, 2015.

Object: You may notify the Court that you object to the recent
Settlements by mailing a statement of your objection(s) to the
Court, Plaintiffs' Counsel, and Defense Counsel postmarked by
May 22, 2015.  Detailed instructions on how to participate, opt
out or object are on the settlement website.

Who represents you?
The Court appointed Steven A. Asher of Weinstein Kitchenoff &
Asher LLC; Michael D. Hausfeld of Hausfeld LLP; Stanley D.
Bernstein of Bernstein Liebhard LLP; and Stephen D. Susman of
Susman Godfrey LLP as Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel.  You do not
have to pay them or anyone else to participate.  You may hire your
own lawyer at your own expense.

When will the Court decide whether to approve the Settlements?
At 10:00 a.m. on June 22, 2015, at the United States District
Court, James A. Byrne Federal Courthouse, 601 Market Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19106, the Court will hold a hearing to determine
the fairness and adequacy of the recent Settlements, and consider
any motion for an award of attorneys' fees and incentive awards
and reimbursement of litigation costs.  You may appear at the
hearing, but are not required to do so.

Please note that the Court may change the date and/or time of the
Fairness Hearing. Settlement Class Members are advised to check
www.eggproductssettlement.com for any updates.

How can I learn more?
This notice is only a summary.  For more information, visit
www.eggproductssettlement.com


PAPA JOHN'S: Settles Pizza Delivery Tax Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Lance Duroni, Peter Kang, Lisa Ryan and Khadijah M. Britton,
writing for Law360, report that Papa John's International Inc. has
reached a tentative deal to settle a class action accusing the
pizza chain of unlawfully sticking customers with sales taxes on
delivery charges, with a Florida federal judge on Feb. 17 agreeing
to remand the case to state court to finalize the deal.

U.S. District Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington granted a
joint motion from Papa John's and the plaintiffs to send the case
back to state court, a day after the parties revealed in their
motion that they have reached an "agreement in principle" to
resolve the suit upon remand.

The remand motion -- which said the federal court lacked subject
matter jurisdiction under the Tax Injunction Act -- gave few
details on the terms of the proposed settlement, other than that
the plaintiffs have agreed to withdraw their bid for attorneys'
fees stemming from a previous dispute over removing the case to
federal court.

The plaintiffs allege that Papa John's collected more than $74.5
million of delivery fees in the state since April 2010, which was
taxed at 6 percent to 7.55 percent, translating to more than $5
million in sales taxes that were never owed and should not have
been charged to customers.

The tentative deal comes after the plaintiffs won a pair of
important early rulings in the case.  On Dec. 8, Judge Covington
denied the pizza chain's bid to dismiss the suit, saying the claim
that one of the plaintiffs lacked standing and arguments over the
interpretation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act will not be considered until the summary judgment stage of
litigation.

A week later, the judge certified a class of potentially tens of
thousands of Papa John's Florida customers. After winning class
certification, the plaintiffs immediately moved for summary
judgment, saying Florida law clearly prohibits a tax on separately
stated delivery fees.

Lead plaintiffs Bruce Schojan, Sean Timmons and Christopher
Tollerton originally filed suit in March in Florida's Hillsborough
County Circuit Court, but Papa John's removed the case to federal
court in May.  The suit claims that the delivery tax problem stems
from a 1998 misinterpretation of Florida law by Papa John's former
counsel, which was then incorporated into a computerized ordering
and billing system called PROFIT, required to be used in all
company-owned and franchise stores.

The plaintiffs alleged that Papa John's not only unlawfully
charged a sales tax that customers did not owe, but deceived them
by presenting invoices, emails and other statements that misled
customers into believing that a specific, lawful tax is owed under
Florida law.

Papa John's is also facing a similar suit in Illinois regarding
the alleged illegal collection of state sales taxes on delivery
fees.

The plaintiffs are represented by Alan Frederick Wagner and Jason
Kyle Whittemore of Wagner Vaughan & McLaughlin PA.

The defendants are represented by David Barnett Weinstein --
weinsteind@gtlaw.com -- and Andrew J. Patch -- patcha@gtlaw.com --
of Greenberg Traurig LLP.

The case is Schojan et al. v. Papa John's International Inc. et
al., case number 8:14-cv-01218, in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida.


PAYLESS SHOESOURCE: Settles OT Class Action for $2.9 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Harding, writing for Law360, reports that Payless
Shoesource Inc. will pay $2.9 million to settle a class action
alleging the shoe retailer misclassified store managers to avoid
paying overtime, according to an agreement filed on Feb. 17 in
Connecticut federal court.

One-third of the settlement will go to the plaintiffs' attorneys
while the rest will be divided among the 2,197 class members, the
majority of whom worked as store leaders or managers at Payless
stores beginning in March 2011.  The settlement resolves the Fair
Labor Standards Act case that began in March 2014 when former
store managers and leaders Mark Shallin and Bryan Winslow accused
the company of misclassifying them as exempt employees.

"Plaintiffs' counsel's efforts have brought about significant
changes on how Payless compensates its Store Leaders and whether
they classify Store Leaders as exempt or not, and have called
their attention to the practice of District Managers who compelled
Store Leaders to work off the clock," plaintiff attorney Mitchell
L. Feldman wrote in a memorandum of support arguing that the court
approve the settlement and the distribution of attorneys' fees.

Payless denied any unlawful activity or failure to comply with the
law in the settlement agreement.

In the original complaint, the former store supervisors accused
Payless of purposefully misclassifying store leaders or managers
as exempt employees even though they spent more than half their
time in stores alone and primarily performed nonmanagerial duties
such as operating cash registers, cleaning, greeting customers and
answering phones.  The store leaders or managers then were forced
to work overtime without being paid a premium, the complaint said.

"Defendants' unlawful pay practice saves them hundreds of millions
of dollars," the complaint said.  "In fact, years of litigation
(even if unsuccessful), is more cost effective then complying with
the law due to its rolling statute of limitations."

The plaintiffs also claimed that the practices violated the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act but voluntarily dismissed
those claims.

A group of employees in New York filed a similar FLSA suit against
Payless in August.  After negotiations with the retailer, the
Connecticut plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in December 2014
that combined the two suits.

Payless has faced similar suits in the past.  In 2006, employees
in Mississippi accused the store of violating the FLSA by
regularly requiring managerial employees to work 60 to 90 hours a
week without paying them overtime while requiring them to perform
nonmanagerial tasks.  The case was dismissed after the parties
agreed to a confidential settlement.

A Missouri store manager also filed a similar FLSA suit against
Payless in 2010 but voluntarily dismissed her suit a few months
later.

The plaintiffs are represented by Mitchell L. Feldman of Feldman
Law Group PA.

The defendants are represented by Kevin E. Hyde -- khyde@foley.com
-- and Leonard V. Feigel -- lfeigel@foley.com -- of Foley &
Lardner LLP.

The case is Shallin et al v. Payless Shoesource, Inc. et al, case
number 3:14-cv-00335, in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut.


PREVOST: Recalls Mutiple Bus Models Due to Safety Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 26, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Bus
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Fuel Supply
Units affected: 164
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015088TC
ID number: 2015088
Manufacturer recall number: SR15-04

On certain buses, a fuel line retaining clip may be missing, which
can result in the fuel line rubbing against a braided coolant
hose. If there was contact, the fuel line may be compromised over
time, which can result in spraying fuel onto hot exhaust
components potentially resulting in an engine fire causing injury
and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will inspect and
replace the fuel line, as necessary, and ensure that the fuel and
coolant lines are properly secured.

  Make      Model          Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----          ----------------------
  PREVOST   H3-45 VIP      2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012
  PREVOST   XL2-45 COACH   2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012
  PREVOST   H3-45 COACH    2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012
  PREVOST   X3-45 COACH    2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012


PREVOST: Recalls Certain Buses with Kiddie Fire Extinguishers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 26, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Bus
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Accessories
Units affected: 66
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015087TC
ID number: 2015087
Manufacturer recall number: SR15-03

On certain buses, the handheld Kidde plastic valve disposable fire
extinguisher may not function as designed. In certain instances,
the extinguisher may fail to fully discharge when the lever is
pressed multiple times. In case of fire, failure of the
extinguisher to function could result in injury and/or property
damage. Correction: Dealers will provide a replacement
extinguisher.

  Make      Model         Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----         ----------------------
  PREVOST   H3-45 VIP     2014, 2015, 2014, 2015
  PREVOST   H3-41 COACH   2014, 2015
  PREVOST   H3-45 COACH   2014, 2015
  PREVOST   X3-45 COACH   2014, 2015


PROFESSIONAL RECOVERY: Sued in New Jersey for Violating FDCPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yosaif Richter, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Professional Recovery Services, Inc. and John Does 1-
25, Case No. 3:15-cv-01400-MAS-DEA (D.N.J., February 23, 2015)
alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RESOURCE SOLUTIONS: Sued for Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnny Lane, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
individuals v. Resource Solutions Group, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-
00376-SDM-AEP (M.D. Fla., February 23, 2015) alleges violations of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
          1110 N Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
                  lcabassa@wfclaw.com


RJ REYNOLDS: Must Pay $2.12 Million to Smoker's Widow
-----------------------------------------------------
Richard Craver, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reports that a
Florida District Court jury has determined that R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co. owes $2.12 million to a widow in the latest Engle
progeny cases to reach a verdict.

The jury ruled Feb. 11 that Reynolds and Charles Sowers were
responsible equally for the illness that contributed to his death.
The jury did not list punitive damages against Reynolds.

Reynolds spokesman David Howard said on Feb. 17 it is company
policy not to comment on pending litigation.

Engle cases have been scrutinized since they sprang from a
decision in 2006 by the Florida Supreme Court that decertified a
$145 billion class-action lawsuit initially filed by Howard Engle.
That ruling allowed former class members to file individual
lawsuits stating that cigarettes caused their respective
illnesses.

The most current total for Engle jury verdicts has at least 86
finding for the plaintiff and at least 40 for the manufacturers.
As of Dec. 31, Reynolds has paid $55.97 million in compensatory
damages and $106.1 million in punitive damages in settled Engle
cases.  Another $136.1 million in compensatory damages and $163.2
million in punitive damages are under various forms of appeal.

Reynolds is not responsible for paying damages while a verdict is
under appeal.  However, it also could take years, millions of
dollars in legal fees and require the placing of a $5 million
appeal bond.

In January, a Florida Circuit Court judge drastically reduced --
to $16.9 million from $23.6 billion -- the punitive damages
Reynolds faces in the largest Engle jury verdict.

On July 20, an Escambia Court jury awarded to the widow of Michael
Johnson Sr., Cynthia Robinson, one of the largest punitive-damages
awards in U.S. corporate and legal history even though the jury
determined Johnson was 30 percent responsible for his illness.

Circuit Court Judge Terry Terrell wrote in his January ruling that
the punitive damages award "is admittedly and clearly
constitutionally excessive."  He said awarding an equal amount in
compensatory and punitive damages "is reasonable and just."

Ms. Robinson's attorney, Willie Gary, urged the jury to send a
message to Reynolds and other big tobacco companies "that will
force them to stop putting the lives of innocent people in
jeopardy."  Gary is one of the nation's foremost and controversial
attorneys involved in personal-injury lawsuits.

Judge Terrell denied Reynolds' request to set aside the verdict.
Reynolds can choose to either accept the lowered amount of
punitive damages or object and request a new trial on the amount
of punitive damages.

Jeff Raborn, assistant general counsel for Reynolds, said the
company is appealing the overall ruling.

"We believe and will argue on appeal that the entire verdict
should be set aside and a new trial granted on all issues,"
Mr. Raborn said.

Even at $16.9 million, the punitive damages in the Robinson
verdict remain the fifth-highest amount Reynolds faces in the 44
Engle lawsuits listed in a Feb. 10 regulatory filing, many of
which have been appealed.

It remains the fourth-highest combined amount of compensatory and
punitive damages.


S & F FOOD: Recalls Hungarian Paprika Product Due to Peanuts
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 23, 2015
Type of communication: Recall Alert
Sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Peanut
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: S & F Food Importers Inc.
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9655

S & F Food Importers Inc. is recalling Pride of Szeged brand
Hungarian Paprika from the marketplace because it may contain
peanut which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy
to peanut 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.

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

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

This recall was triggered by a recall in another country. The
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (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   ---
                                    ----------
  Pride of    Hungarian     142 g   091717        0 780060 0010 2
  Szeged      Exquisite             PAHU05PS
              100 % Sweet
              Delicacy
              Paprika

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/I3SqV4


SAFELITE AUTOGLASS: Seeks Dismissal of Overtime Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Reed, writing for glassBYTEs.com, reports that a former
Safelite AutoGlass technician who sued the company alleging he had
been denied overtime wages has asked both the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals and the U.S. District Court of Central California to
dismiss his case.  He was seeking class action status; however, no
other named plaintiffs appeared.

In his lawsuit filed against Safelite in 2010, Joseph Perez, a
California resident, alleged that he and other associates in the
state had been denied overtime wages he believes they were owed
for working more than eight hours per day and 40 hours per week.

"Perez's individual claims alleged in the complaint against
defendant Safelite Group, Inc. are hereby dismissed," the U.S.
District Court judge wrote on March 6, 2012.

However, the judge added, "that plaintiff specifically retains a
personal stake in the class claims as a representative of the
class."

Mr. Perez appealed the dismissal and an order of the District
Court entered on April 22, 2011, denying plaintiff's motion for
class certification.

The case was not selected for mediation in Circuit Court.

In mid-January, the U.S. District Court asked both parties "to
show cause in writing why the action should not be dismissed for
lack of a named plaintiff.

"The parties timely responded on January 23, 2015.  Upon
consideration of court records and the parties' responses, the
court hereby dismisses the action in its entirety for lack of a
named plaintiff," according to the court's decision in early
February.

"In response to the court's order to show cause dated January 15,
2015, plaintiff Joseph Perez respectfully requests that this
action should be dismissed," his attorney wrote in a U.S. District
Court filing.

Both parties then asked the Circuit Court to dismiss the appeals.

"The parties have agreed that each side shall bear its own costs
and fees on appeal," according to the court document.


SHAH BROTHERS: Recalls Kalonji Whole Products Due to Salmonella
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 28, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Shah Brothers Imports
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9674

Shah Brothers Imports is recalling Shabros brand Kalonji Whole
from the marketplace due to possible Salmonella contamination.
Consumers should not consume the recalled product described below.

The following product has been sold nationally.

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 Salmonella may not look or smell spoiled
but can still make you sick. Young children, pregnant women, the
elderly and people with weakened immune systems may contract
serious and sometimes deadly infections. Healthy people may
experience short-term symptoms such as fever, headache, vomiting,
nausea, abdominal cramps and diarrhea. Long-term complications may
include severe arthritis.

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

This recall was triggered by findings by the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency (CFIA) during its investigation into a foodborne
illness outbreak. 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     Common name    Size     Code(s)      UPC
  name      -----------    ----     on product   ---
  ----                              ----------
Shabros     Kalonji Whole  170 g    Batch #597   0 59011 01037 9

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/YjAC4n


SHORTER UNIVERSITY: Faces "Bishop" Suit Alleging Fraud Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Bishop, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Shorter University, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-00033-HLM
(N.D. Ga., February 20, 2015) asserts fraud-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Lee Hagenbush, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PLLC
          P.O. Box 57007
          191 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 4200
          Atlanta, GA 30343-1007
          Telephone: (404) 965-1782
          Facsimile: (404) 496-7352
          E-mail: ahagenbush@forthepeople.com


SPEEDPAY INC: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Surcharges
--------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a Florida woman has sued a funds-
transmission service company on Feb. 10 in Florida federal court,
alleging unlawful surcharges on her utility bills from 2011 to the
present.

Caryn Pincus of Palm Beach County filed a class action complaint
against Speedpay, Inc., of New York, alleging that the service
does not appear to be appropriately licensed and that it
improperly tacks on additional fees to customers' business
transactions.

The complaint said the bill-processing service company added
illegal surcharges to the plaintiff's and others' utility bills on
a regular basis.

Ms. Pincus has been a customer of Florida Power & Light Company
since 2000.  The utility company depends on Speedpay to process
bills for more 4 million residential customers and more than a
half-million commercial vendors, the suit says.

When the plaintiff called the Speedpay to pay her most recent
monthly electric bill on Feb. 6, she was transferred to an
automated phone system, which tacked on the $3.25 surcharge.

Alleging deceptive and unfair trade practices and citing unjust
enrichment, Pincus seeks injunctive relief and reimbursement of
all surcharges, attorneys fees and other costs.  The disputed
charges are estimated to total more than $5 million.  She is
represented by Bret Lusskin of Aventura, Fla., and Scott Owens of
Hollywood, Fla.

U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida case number 9:15-
cv-80164


STATE AUTO: Court Grants Motion to Strike Class Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Greenfield, Esq. and Ben Seessel, Esq., of Carlton Fields
Jorden Burt, in an article for JDSupra, report that the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted
defendant State Auto's motion to strike plaintiffs' class
allegations, holding that the complaint itself demonstrated that
the proposed class was not ascertainable and could not satisfy
Rule 23(a)'s commonality and typicality requirements, nor the
predominance and superiority requirements of Rule 23(b).  The
complaint alleged that State Auto committed fraud, breached the
duty of good faith and fair dealing, and violated the Ohio
Deceptive Trade Practices Act in connection with a "Defender
Endorsement" in some of its homeowners policies.  State Auto
allegedly marketed the Defender Endorsement as providing "100%
replacement cost coverage," with an additional bonus of up to 25%
of policy limits if losses exceeded limit limits.  Plaintiffs'
alleged that this language created a mistaken impression that the
Endorsement was required in order for a policyholder to be
adequately insured.  In addition, plaintiffs alleged that State
Auto was able to increase policy limits through the Defender
Endorsement, which resulted in higher premiums and eliminated any
chance that State Auto would need to pay the 25% bonus.  Further,
plaintiffs alleged that they were charged for a benefit that they
would never need nor realize due to State Auto's intentional
overstatement of the costs to rebuild homes.  Plaintiffs sought to
certify a class of persons who purchased a policy with a Defender
Endorsement, "and subsequently had their policy limits and
premiums unilaterally increased . . . under the guise of providing
adequate replacement cost coverage."

The court held that the class was not ascertainable because
individual inquiries on a property-by-property basis were required
to determine class membership. Similarly, the court held that the
commonality requirement of Rule 23(a) and the predominance
requirement of Rule 23(b) could not be satisfied.  The court found
that individual issues regarding replacement costs and appropriate
coverage limits would ultimately overwhelm any common questions
because State Auto's liability would hinge on a home-by-home
analysis.  Additionally, the court rejected plaintiffs' argument
that reliance could be presumed or inferred for purposes of the
fraud claims.  Thus, an individual policyholder inquiry would be
required in order to determine whether a particular policyholder
paid inflated premiums based on consultations and conversations
regarding the characteristics and value of their homes.

Finally, because the court found that the predominance and
commonality requirements could not be satisfied, the court held
that the superiority and typicality requirements for class
certification would likewise fail.  Accordingly, the court struck
plaintiffs' class allegations.


SUBARU OF INDIANA: Sued for Replacing Staff With HR Manager's Son
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kenny Lester v. Subaru of Indiana Automotive, Inc., Case No. 4:15-
cv-00015 (N.D. Ind., February 20, 2015) seeks declaratory,
injunctive and equitable relief, as well as compensatory,
liquidated and punitive damages, to redress Subaru's alleged
unlawful employment practices in violation of the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act and Indiana's Labor Law
prohibiting age discrimination in employment.

Mr. Lester, age 50, is a resident of Crawfordsville, Indiana.  He
began his employment with Subaru in 1999 as a second-shift body
associate, and in 2007 became a team leader until his termination
from employment on August 29, 2014, based on allegations that he
violated Subaru's sexual harassment policy.

Mr. Lester alleges that these 'complaints' were fabricated against
him for the purpose of terminating him so as to replace him with a
substantially younger, less qualified individual known as Rick
Johnson -- who is the son of Subaru's Human Resources Manager,
Richard Johnson.

Subaru is a for-profit Indiana domestic corporation headquartered
in Lafayette, Indiana.  Subaru operates an automotive
manufacturing facility located in Lafayette.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Robert Panico, Esq.
          PANICO LAW LLC
          9465 Counselors Row, Suite 200
          Indianapolis, IN 46240
          Telephone: (317) 759-7464
          Facsimile: (765) 298-9260
          E-mail: jpanico@discriminationlawgroup.com


SUCCESS APPAREL: Sued Over Claims of Bias and Sexual Harassment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Donna Schaff v. Success Apparel, LLC, and Gila Dweck Goodman,
Individually, Case No. 1:15-cv-01241-GBD (S.D.N.Y., February 20,
2015) is brought to redress alleged discrimination and harassment
on the basis of sex/sexual harassment and disability, hostile work
environment and retaliation in the terms and conditions of
employment under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990, the NYS Executive Law and the NYC
Administrative Code.

New York City-based Success Apparel, LLC, is a duly organized and
existing limited liability company under the laws of the state of
New York.  Gila Dweck Goodman served in an executive capacity and
was the Chief Executive Officer of Success.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Blit, Esq.
          Parveen Husain, Esq.
          LEVINE & BLIT, PLLC
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3601
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 967-3000
          Facsimile: (212) 967-3010
          E-mail: mblit@levineblit.com
                  phusain@levineblit.com


SUNCOKE ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Steel Mill Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for The Madison-St. Clair
Record, reports that a Granite City steel mill removed to federal
court a putative class action lawsuit alleging five plaintiffs
were driven from their home due to emissions from the mill.

Plaintiffs Peggy Keltner of 2304 Iowa St., Jerome and Beverly
Johnson of 2426 Lincoln St., Melinda Duniphan of 2460 Sheridan
Ave., and Shelby Siebert of 2415 Lincoln St., in Granite City
filed the complaint on Nov. 10 against defendants SunCoke Energy,
Gateway Energy and Coke Company and U.S. Steel Corporation. They
claim they are unable to fully enjoy the use of their properties
because of suspended particulates generated by U.S. Steel.

SunCoke produces raw material, called coke, which U.S. Steel then
uses to manufacture steel. During the steel mill's operation,
odorous gases and total suspended particulates are produced, which
are then released into the atmosphere, the suit states.

Due to the environmental threats presented by the generation of
various materials, the United States Environmental Protection
Agency sued SunCoke.  The company settled the claim and agreed to
pay a penalty of $1.995 million, plus to contribute $255,000 to
the St. Louis Lead Prevention Coalition, the complaint states.

Due to environmental concerns, the plaintiffs claim they
experienced annoyance and discomfort, including an inability to
open their windows and to breathe clean and fresh air.  They blame
the defendants for negligently failing to capture emissions of
odors so they are not released into the atmosphere, failing to
maintain equipment to prevent the release of odors and failing to
store and transport coke properly, the suit states. They also
allege temporary nuisance and trespass against the defendants.

SunCoke Energy and Gateway Energy filed a notice of removal on
Dec. 17 to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois.  They argue that the Class Action Fairness Act
authorizes federal jurisdiction over proposed class actions when a
member of the proposed class is a citizen of another state, when
the proposed class is composed of more than 100 claimants and when
the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.

The plaintiffs in this case allege two classes.  The first
proposed class consists of anyone who owned or resided on real
property in Madison County contaminated with "total suspended
particles" and "offensive odors discharged or emitted from the
Steel Mill" from Nov. 11, 2009, until present.  The second
proposed class consists of anyone who is a leaseholder and resides
on real property within Madison County that has been contaminated
with "total suspended particles" or "offensive odors" from the
Steel Mill since Nov. 11, 2009.

However, diversity exists in the case because United States Steel
is a citizen of Delaware and Pennsylvania.

The defendants also argue that the number of class members range
from hundreds to a few thousand claimants, meaning the amount in
controversy would exceed $5 million even if each member was
awarded the minimum amount requested by plaintiffs, $50,000.

Furthermore, the defendants assert removal is proper when a case
involves laws of the United States.  Specifically, this case
includes allegations that SunCoke violated the Clean Air Act and a
Consent Agree entered by a federal court.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory and/or restorative damages of
more than $150,000, plus costs and other relief the court deems
just.

Ted Gianaris -- tgianaris@simmonsfirm.com -- of Simmons, Hanly and
Conroy in Alton represents the plaintiffs.

John E. Galvin -- JGalvin@FoxGalvin.com -- Suzanne P. Galvin and
Katherine M. Fowler -- KFowler@FoxGalvin.com -- of Fox Galvin,
LLC, in St. Louis represent SunCoke Energy and Gateway Energy &
Coke Company.

Madison County Circuit Court case number 14-L-1540


SUNSET BAY DONUTS: Removes "Hollis" Class Suit to M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Hollis v. Sunset Bay Donuts, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 15-CA-297, was removed from the Thirteenth
Judicial Circuit, in and for Hillsborough 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-00370-SCB-AEP
to the proceeding.

The lawsuit seeks relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ashleigh Renee Shelver, Esq.
          Michael Schuette, Esq.
          JOHN BALES ATTORNEYS
          9700 Dr MLK Jr. St. N, Suite 400
          St. Petersburg, FL 33702
          Telephone: (727) 823-9100
          E-mail: ashelver@johnbales.com
                  mschuette@johnbales.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gail E. Farb, Esq.
          Nancy A. Beyer, Esq.
          KUNKEL, MILLER & HAMENT
          235 N Orange Ave., Suite 200
          Sarasota, FL 34236
          Telephone: (941) 365-6006
          Facsimile: (941) 365-6209
          E-mail: Gail@kmhlaborlaw.com
                  nancy@kmhlabor.com


SYNGENTA: Says GMO Corn Trait Class Actions Without Merit
---------------------------------------------------------
David Bennett, writing for Delta Farm Press, reports that
genetically-modified-organism traits have become common, everyday
occurrences in agriculture.  Farmers plant Roundup Ready,
LibertyLink, Widestrike and other traited crops with scarcely a
second thought.  But the world outside agriculture continues to
view GMOs with some suspicion even though no one has ever proved
plants containing the traits are any more harmful to humans than
those from conventional crops.

Syngenta's Agrisure Viptera GMO trait -- Vip is short for
Vegetable Insecticide Protein -- was supposed to be the latest in
a series of successful products that would help growers control
hard-to-kill insects in corn.  Because it was a different kind of
protein than the Bt genes, it was expected to help prevent
resistance in corn insect pests.

In 2010, Syngenta's Agrisure Viptera GMO trait -- aimed at worm
pests in corn -- was approved by the U.S. government for
production.  Soon, U.S. producers planted corn with the trait.
Approval of the trait, however, had yet to come from China, a key
export market for U.S. corn, and that set off a tumble of
dominoes.

When China discovered the unapproved trait in shipments, it closed
the export pipeline to a trickle. Unhappy with the lost market and
the hit to bottom lines, many of those in the U.S. corn export
chain filed hundreds of lawsuits against Syngenta.  Those suits
have now been consolidated in federal court.

Asked for comment, Paul Minehart, Syngenta's head of corporate
communications -- North America, says the company believes it did
what it was supposed to do.

"We developed a superior product that helps farmers; we applied
for and received government approvals from the U.S. and major
export markets at the time; and we submitted an import application
to the Chinese government that was timely, accurate and complete,"
he noted.

"Syngenta believes the lawsuits are without merit and strongly
upholds the right of growers to have access to approved new
technologies that can increase both their productivity and crop
yields.  The issues involved in these cases are extremely
important and affect every American farmer's right to benefit from
new technologies that help grow better crops.  When a U.S.-
approved product like Agrisure Viptera (event MIR162) is kept out
of a market for political and economic reasons, farmers -- and
consumers -- lose."

Attorneys for the farmers in the consolidated lawsuits said the
problem occurred because Syngenta decided to commercialize the
trait before it jumped through all the regulatory hoops required
for GMO introductions.

"Basically, what happened is Syngenta -- a biotech company -- had
a decision to make in 2010.  They'd just gotten a new GM trait
(MIR162) approved, which was in their Agrisure Viptera corn," said
Don Downing, attorney for one group of producers.

"Earlier, they'd pledged to others in the industry, including
stakeholders and farmers, that they wouldn't commercialize any new
GM trait unless and until all major export markets had approved
it. Everyone was concerned, obviously, that if such a trait wasn't
approved then a major market could be lost."

Downing contends Syngenta commercialized the trait in late 2010 or
early 2011.  The Chinese government, testing for the trait, found
it in a shipment from Cargill in December of 2013.  The Chinese
began to reject virtually all U.S. corn shipments after that.

Along with Mr. Minehart's statement, the company provided the
following background:

"On December 22, 2014, Syngenta announced that it had received the
safety certificate for the Agrisure Viptera trait from China's
regulatory authorities, formally granting import approval.  The
approval covers corn grain and processing byproducts, such as
dried distillers grains (DDGs), for food and feed use.

"The Agrisure Viptera trait was approved for cultivation in the
U.S. in 2010.  Syngenta commercialized the trait in full
compliance with regulatory and legal requirements.  Syngenta also
obtained import approval from major corn importing countries.
Syngenta has been fully transparent in commercializing the trait
over the last four years.  During this time Agrisure Viptera has
demonstrated major benefits for growers, preventing significant
yield and grain quality losses resulting from damage by a broad
spectrum of lepidopteran pests."

China has approved the 162 trait.  But the resumption of trade
isn't at the level it was when the trait was discovered, Downing
says.

"One of the reasons we're concerned about this is in addition to
the Agrisure Viptera trait, in 2014 Syngenta introduced another
variety, Agrisure Duracade with another GM trait, 5307.  That new
trait is also not approved in China."


TAKATA CORP: "Tanner" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Tanner, et al. v. Takata
Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-02407, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
(Miami).  The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-
cv-20707-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 Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard S. Frankowski, Esq.
          THE FRANKOWSKI FIRM, LLC
          231 22nd Street South, Suite 203
          Birmingham, AL 35233
          Telephone: (205) 390-0399
          Facsimile: (205) 390-1001
          E-mail: Richard@frankowskifirm.com

               - and -

          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
          Joseph D. Cohen, 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
                  jcohen@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          David R. Scott, Esq.
          Stephen J. Teti, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
          156 South Main Street
          P.O. Box 192
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Telephone: (860) 537-5537
          Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
          E-mail: david.scott@scott-scott.com
                  steti@scott-scott.com


TAKATA CORP: "Knight" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Knight, et al. v. Takata
Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-29670, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
(Miami).  The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-
cv-20739-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: "McFarland" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled McFarland v. Takata Corporation,
et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00153, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami).
The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20741-
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: "Pedersen" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Pedersen, et al. v. Takata
Corporation, et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-00014, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
(Miami).  The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-
cv-20740-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.


TALENTI(R) GELATO: Recalls Sea Salt Caramel Gelato Due to Peanuts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Talenti(R) Gelato & Sorbetto, a Unilever company, is voluntarily
recalling a limited number of jars of Talenti(R) Gelato & Sorbetto
Sea Salt Caramel Gelato because they may inadvertently contain
peanuts (as peanut butter), which are not listed as an ingredient
on the label. Persons who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to
peanuts run the risk of a serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume this product.

The affected product was distributed in one pint (473 mL) clear
plastic jars marked with a unit UPC of 8685200024 located on the
side of the jar, and a best by date of 05/19/2016 located on the
bottom of the jar. No other best by dates are affected.

The product was distributed nationwide in retail stores. No
product was shipped outside the U.S.

Quart-sized containers of the Talenti(R) Gelato & Sorbetto Sea
Salt Caramel Gelato are not affected by this limited voluntary
recall. No other Talenti brand gelato or sorbetto products are
affected. No allergic reactions have been reported to date.

The company initiated the recall as a result of a consumer
complaint.

Consumers who have purchased jars of the above product with the
affected UPC and best by date are asked to immediately discontinue
use of the product, retain the plastic jar and call 877-270-7393,
which is operational 24 hours a day seven days a week, to request
a replacement coupon.

This limited voluntary recall is being conducted with the
knowledge of the U.S. Food & Drug Administration.

The company is placing a notification on the Food Allergy Research
& Education (FARE) website www.foodallergy.org and the FAACT
website www.foodallergyawareness.org

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm436022.htm


TALLGRASS BURGER: Faces "Hurley" Suit Alleging Violations of ADA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fredkiey Hurley, individually v. Tallgrass Burger Company Inc., a
New York for profit corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-01228-AT
(S.D.N.Y., February 20, 2015) seeks injunctive relief pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act, which entitles the Plaintiff
to all attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and costs incurred in
pursuing an action to enforce and obtain compliance with
provisions of the ADA.

Mr. Hurley is permanently disabled and confined to a wheelchair.

The property at issue is located in New York City and is being
operated as a food service establishment by the Defendant, which
is a tenant on the Property.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tara Anne Demetriades, Esq.
          ADA ACCESSIBILITY ASSOCIATES
          2076 Wolver Hollow Road
          Oyster Bay, NY 11771
          Telephone: (516) 595-5009
          E-mail: TDemetriades@Aol.com


TELEXFREE: Interim Lead Counsel Responds to Stay Request
--------------------------------------------------------
Scott O'Connell, writing for The MetroWest Daily News, reports
that the interim lead counsel for the class action against
TelexFREE said the case is proceeding, but that it is "handcuffed"
by the criminal investigation into the company's co-owners.

Robert Bonsignore, who along with an executive committee, is
pressing a number of lawsuits aimed at TelexFREE, said "right now
we're just trying to get the case going."

The class action cases consolidated in U.S. District Court in
Worcester, like the federal and state agencies that have also
filed complaints against the company, claim TelexFREE was an
international pyramid scheme that defrauded hundreds of thousands
of investors.

The Justice Department has criminally charged company co-owners
James Merrill of Ashland and Carlos Wanzeler of Northborough with
wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud for their role in
the alleged scheme.  The Securities and Exchange Commission has
also lodged a civil case against TelexFREE that has been put on
hold temporarily until the criminal proceedings are done.

The Justice Department asked Mr. Bonsignore and the executive
committee to allow discovery to be delayed in their case as well.
They responded last month saying they did not agree to a complete
stay, and instead suggested a partial stay that would still allow
them to access materials from TelexFREE's bankruptcy case.

In addition to allowing the lawsuits to proceed, that compromise
"would also pose no threat to the DOJ's prosecutorial efforts, as
no third party would be forced to provide anything to the
(Plaintiffs' Interim Executive Committee)," the response submitted
to the court says.

"We're willingly doing it," Mr. Bonsignore on Feb. 17 said of
cooperating with the Justice Department.  "But we have our own job
to do, and (we're) biting at the bit."

It's been almost a year since TelexFREE allegedly closed the
accounts of its customers, many of whom lost thousands to tens of
thousands of dollars as a result.  According to a status report in
the bankruptcy case filed two weeks ago by the government's
trustee, Stephen B. Darr, the company made as much as $1.8 billion
in about two years of operation before collapsing last April.

"A lot of people involved placed a great deal of their life
savings, or a big chunk of their disposable income, into this
fraud," Mr. Bonsignore said.  "I can't begin to imagine the
frustration some people are feeling."

But he also said victim compensation efforts should be focused on
ensuring TelexFREE participants are paid back "effectively and
cost efficiently," not just quickly.  Mr. Bonsignore and the
executive committee are setting up a website to explain the
process, he added.


TINY'S GIANT: Lacks Reasonable Accommodations at Shop, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fredkiey Hurley, individually v. Tiny's Giant Sandwich Inc. d/b/a
Tiny's Giant Sandwich Shop, a New York for profit corporation,
Case No. 1:15-cv-01226-LTS (S.D.N.Y., February 20, 2015) accuses
the Company of not having reasonable accommodations at Tiny's
Giant Sandwich Shop, in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Mr. Hurley is permanently disabled and confined to a wheelchair.

Tiny's Giant Sandwich Inc., doing business as Tiny's Giant
Sandwich Shop is the operator of a bar and dining establishment
located in New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tara Anne Demetriades, Esq.
          ADA ACCESSIBILITY ASSOCIATES
          2076 Wolver Hollow Road
          Oyster Bay, NY 11771
          Telephone: (516) 595-5009
          E-mail: TDemetriades@Aol.com


TITLEMAX OF TEXAS: Accused of Not Having ADA-Compliant Parking
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Tovar v. TitleMax of Texas, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00034
(S.D. Tex., February 20, 2015) alleges that the Defendant refused
to provide the Plaintiff and others similarly situated with
sufficient Americans with Disabilities Act-compliant parking in
the parking lot that serves the TitleMax San Benito.

Mr. Tovar is a Vietnam Veteran with a 100% Disability Rating.  He
has mobility impairments and uses a cane, walker, and wheelchair
for mobility.

TitleMax of Texas, Inc., is a Delaware Corporation headquartered
in Savannah, Georgia.  The Company owns and operates the TitleMax
San Benito retail store located in San Benito, Texas.  As a
"hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental
establishment," the business is a place of public accommodation,
operated by a private entity, whose operations affect commerce
within the meaning of the ADA and Texas Accessibility Standards.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Omar W. Rosales, Esq.
          THE ROSALES LAW FIRM, LLC
          PO BOX 6429
          Austin, TX 78762-6429
          Telephone: (512) 520-4919
          Toll-Free: (866) 402-8082
          Facsimile: (512) 309-5360
          E-mail: talon_eye@yahoo.com


UNFI CANADA: Recalls Kids Dark Chocolate Coins Due to Milk
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 23, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: UNFI Canada Inc.
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9660

UNFI Canada Inc. is recalling Streit's brand Kids Dark Chocolate
Coins from the marketplace because they may contain milk which is
not declared on the label. People with an allergy to milk 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.

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

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

This recall was triggered by a recall in another country. The
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (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   UPC
  ----------    -----------   ----      product      ---
                                        ----------
  Streit's      Kids Dark     24 x 0.5  1814         70227 50121
                Chocolate     oz (15g)
                Coins         mesh bag

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/Oej3w3


UNITED AUTO WORKERS: Sued for Breaching Implied Duty Under CBA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Marzillo v. United Auto Workers Local 551 a/k/a
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America Local 551 and, Ford Motor Company,
and, Grant Morton, Former Chairman, UAW, Local 551 Alan "Coby"
Millender, Current Chairman, UAW, Local 551, and, Greg Poet, and,
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Impemement Workers of America, Case No. 1:15-cv-01572 (N.D. Ill.,
February 20, 2015) is a hybrid action for breach of the implied
duty of fair representation (against the union) and breach of
contract (against the employer).

The complaint alleges the malfeasance or nonfeasance of the Unit
Chairperson of UAW LOCAL 551 in the exercise of his authority and
discretion relative to the assignment, rotation and equalization
of Union overtime under the Collective Bargaining Agreement and
the January 11, 1995 Letter of Understanding between the United
Auto Workers' Union and Ford.  The complaint also seeks injunctive
relief to require the Defendants to follow the requirements of the
CBA in assigning overtime as to union representatives.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Cook County, Illinois.  He is
employed by Ford at its Torrence Avenue facility in Cook County.
The Plaintiff is a Ford employee as well as a union representative
with United Auto Workers Local 551, also known as International
Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America Local 551.

Ford is a Delaware corporation that transacts business in
Illinois.

From June 2010 to June 23, 2013, Grant Morton was the Chairman of
UAW LOCAL 551.  From June 23, 2013, to the current date, Alan
"Coby" Millender was, and continues as, the Chairman of UAW LOCAL
551.  From 2011 to the current date, Greg Poet has been employed
by UAW as an International Representative.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ralph J. Schindler, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RALPH J. SCHINDLER, JR.
          53 W. Jackson, Suite 818
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 554-1040
          Facsimile: (312) 554-1041
          E-mail: ralphjschindler@SBCglobal.net


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Seeks Dismissal of Spying class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremiah Dobruck, writing for The Daily Pilot, reports that
lawyers representing University of California officials have asked
a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit that alleges top brass at the
UC Irvine Police Department placed cameras and high-powered
microphones at the agency's headquarters to spy on employees and
the public.

In a court filing Feb. 13, the lawyers argued in part that the
suit failed to show that police employees had a reasonable
expectation of privacy, even though some conversations allegedly
were recorded in hallways, offices and restrooms at the campus
police station.

The response arrived about three months after the union
representing campus police officers filed a class-action lawsuit
accusing the UC Board of Regents, the UCI Police Department and
its chief and assistant chief of participating in an "illegal
recording scheme."

The Federated University Police Officers Assn.'s complaint also
names Johnson Controls Inc., the company that installed the
recording gear, which the suit says is sensitive enough to pick up
conversations through walls.

Though the union says the surveillance system captured talk in
"non-public" areas, lawyers for the UC system argued that the
lawsuit should be thrown out because it didn't explain why workers
expected privacy in and around the station.

"The reasonableness of an employee's expectation of privacy is
dependent on the operational realities of the specific workplace,"
their filing states.

David Mastagni, a lawyer for the union, called that assertion
"ludicrous."

"If you and I are walking down the sidewalk in the middle of town,
we have no expectation of privacy if we're conversing?" he said.

Though Mr. Mastagni said the surveillance was no different from
surreptitiously recording a phone call, the UC lawyers argued that
the lawsuit failed to show that Police Department and university
officials were intentionally eavesdropping.

"Although plaintiffs elsewhere plead that confidential
conversations were audio recorded, nowhere does the complaint
plead facts to establish that defendants installed the recording
system with the intent to record conversations in locations where
plaintiffs may reasonably have had an expectation of privacy," the
response stated.

The microphones and cameras were installed as part of an upgrade
of the UCI police dispatch center, the lawyers said.

Mr. Mastagni shot back that someone who, for instance, runs a stop
sign would deserve a ticket regardless of whether he intended to
break the law.  He also noted an allegation in the lawsuit that
police officials deleted portions of tapes recorded around the
station.

"They wouldn't have deleted them if it was nothing," Mr. Mastagni
said.

Johnson Controls in January asked for dismissal of the lawsuit on
similar grounds, with an added argument that the company can't be
held liable for putting in the equipment.

According to the lawsuit, UCI Police Department employees
discovered the surveillance system in December 2013 but don't know
how long it had been in place or if it is still recording.

The suit seeks unspecified damages and an injunction to stop the
surveillance.


US ASSET MANAGEMENT: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Hochhauser, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. US Asset Management, Inc. d/b/a EOS CHECK IF CA, Case
No. 7:15-cv-01298-NSR (S.D.N.Y., February 23, 2015) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aryeh L. Pomerantz, Esq.
          POMERANTZ & POMERANTZ
          3 College Rd.
          Monsey, NY 10952
          Telephone: (845) 547-2600
          Facsimile: (845) 547-2601
          E-mail: Aryeh@pom-law.com


WELLS FARGO: Attorneys Seek $51MM in Fees in Overdraft Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Lowrey and Michael Lipkin, writing for Law360, report that
counsel for a class of consumers who won a $203 million judgment
against Wells Fargo Bank NA on Feb. 17 asked a California federal
judge for more than $51 million in attorneys' fees and costs,
saying the fees are reasonable because they amount to the Ninth
Circuit's 25 percent benchmark.

While most of the amount would come from the overall restitution
award, class counsel from Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP
and McCuneWright LLP argued that the court should order Wells
Fargo to pay $4.9 million of the fees exclusive from the class
award under a statute allowing fee shifting in cases involving
enforcement in the public interest.

The counsel said fees are more than warranted because the case was
difficult and involved substantial risk from beginning to end, and
that they achieved full restitution for the class -- even
surviving two appeals.

"Under these unique and compelling circumstances, it would be
reasonable and appropriate for the court to award a fee
significantly in excess of the 25 percent 'benchmark' applied in
the Ninth Circuit and regularly awarded in settled cases in
California and elsewhere," according to the motion for attorneys'
fees.  "Nevertheless, class counsel is limiting their fee request
to the benchmark 25 percent."

The Ninth Circuit in October upheld the $203 million judgment
against Wells Fargo, slamming the bank in its opinion by saying
"the record is replete with examples of Wells Fargo's false and
misleading statements," and that the district court's calculation
of the restitution award was justified because it was "based on
factual findings that are not clearly erroneous."

The panel rejected Wells Fargo's arguments that restitution was
barred by the federal Due Process Clause or Rules Enabling Act.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup had reinstated the entire $203
million penalty in May 2013, finding that the bank's marketing
materials violated fraud provisions of the state's consumer
protection law.  But Wells Fargo argued on Feb. 11 that the judge
based the award on an expert's calculation that didn't quantify
damages solely from the misrepresentation claims.

In the case filed in 2008, Veronica Gutierrez claimed she was
billed $143 on a $49 overdraft, while Erin Walker complained of
being charged $506 in overdraft fees because she exceeded her
balance by $120.  They alleged that the bank let customers believe
that transactions would be posted in chronological order, when
instead Wells Fargo was deducting money in a high-to-low fashion
that depleted nest eggs more quickly and helped the company levy
more than $1.4 billion in overdraft charges from 2005 to 2007.

After a bench trial, Judge Alsup initially ruled in August 2010
that Wells Fargo had reinforced customers' belief that deductions
would be made in the sequence purchases were made, and hid its
high-to-low practices, ordering the bank to pay $203 million in
restitution.

In its first appeal in January 2013, the Ninth Circuit had ruled
that Wells Fargo was free to deduct money from customers' accounts
in a high-to-low fashion, and that the practice is considered a
pricing decision allowed by federal law.

The plaintiffs are represented by Richard M. Heimann, Michael W.
Sobol, Roger Heller and Jordan Elias of Leiff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein LLP and Richard D. McCune and Eddie Jae K. Kim of
McCuneWright LLP.

Wells Fargo is represented by Sonya D. Winner -- swinner@cov.com
-- David M. Jolley and Emily Johnson Henn -- ehenn@cov.com -- of
Covington & Burling LLP.

The case is Sanchez et al. v. Wells Fargo & Co. et al., case
number 3:07-cv-05923, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


* Bill Mulled to Avert Suits v. Companies Facing Cyber-Attacks
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Lumb, writing for Fast Company, reports that President Obama
on Feb. 13 gave an interview to Re/code Co-CEO Kara Swisher about
the state of cybersecurity in the U.S. and the need for the tech
sector to combat hacking threats from across the globe.
Unsurprisingly, the president pushed for an even cozier
relationship between private companies and the government.

But one of Obama's most pointed responses to Swisher echoed his
speech at the White House Summit on Cybersecurity and Consumer
Protection on Feb. 13: that encryption is only as strong as its
weakest link.  "You can have nine companies that have great
protocols, authentication systems, you name it.  You have one
that's not doing a good job, and that penetrates the entire
system," Obama said.

Hence Obama's recent push for private companies to share
information with the government when they face cyberattacks, both
to mitigate the damage of the breach and, ideally, to prevent
similar hacks in the future.  To incentivize cooperation, Obama is
proposing a bill to Congress that "provides companies with some
selective liability protections so that when they share
information, they're not vulnerable to future lawsuits" -- say,
from class-action lawsuits that could arise when a company admits
it had not adequately protected customer data from hackers.

Obama's words might have sounded familiar to someone following
tech new.  On Feb. 11, Facebook announced ThreatExchange, a new
site based on Facebook's internal threat reporter, ThreatData,
that invites private companies to share data on cyberthreats.
Pinterest, Tumblr, Twitter, and Yahoo have already joined the
digital security cabal, with Bitly and Dropbox soon to follow.

The idea behind Facebook's new site sounds just like Obama's push
for companies to share data, but there's a major difference:
ThreatExchange cuts out the government entirely and lets private
companies share only as much data they are comfortable disclosing.
If ThreatExchange becomes a dominant tool for security
professionals, it could frustrate Obama's plans for a tight
relationship between the tech sector and government.

Getting tech companies to work together is crucial to security.
Without collaboration, companies end up spending time and
resources to work out security issues that other companies have
already solved.  The question is whether ThreatExchange can be the
bridge that connects rival companies, though its member list is
already a string of some of the biggest social sites of the
Western Internet, with tech titan Google notably missing.  The
CEOs of Google and Facebook declined to attend last week's White
House cybersecurity summit, which was considered a snub to Obama.

As a solid conceptual alternative that offers companies the
ability to control how much data they disclose, ThreatExchange is
a serious challenger to Obama's government partnership push.
Obama's plan could gain traction by compromising on how much
information companies would have to share, but given Obama's push
to increase law enforcement's access to company data, that's a
doubtful course.  It will take concrete proof that private
companies can't survive in the coming cyber-trenches alone to get
Facebook, Yahoo, and Google lining up.


* Transport Canada Recalls Trailers With Chill Chaser Heater
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 25, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Travel Trailer
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Electrical
Units affected: 3
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015084TC
ID number: 2015084

Certain travel trailers equipped with the Chill Chaser option may
have been manufactured with loose wiring and/or excessive
insulating foam around the opening of the Chill Chaser's heating
element. If the foam insulation or wiring were to come into
contact with the heating element, it could melt, and could
potentially result in a fire causing injury and/or damage to
property. Correction: Dealers will inspect and ensure that the
foam insulation and wiring are secured away from the heating
element.

                           *     *     *

Starting date: February 25, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Travel Trailer
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Electrical
Units affected: 3
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015084TC
ID number: 2015084

Certain travel trailers equipped with the Chill Chaser option may
have been manufactured with loose wiring and/or excessive
insulating foam around the opening of the Chill Chaser's heating
element. If the foam insulation or wiring were to come into
contact with the heating element, it could melt, and could
potentially result in a fire causing injury and/or damage to
property. Correction: Dealers will inspect and ensure that the
foam insulation and wiring are secured away from the heating
element.


* Transport Canada Recalls SUVs with TIPM-7 Fuel Pump
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 26, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: SUV
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Fuel Supply
Units affected: 18991
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015085TC
ID number: 2015085
Manufacturer recall number: R09

On certain vehicles, a fuel pump relay within the Totally
Integrated Power Module (TIPM-7) could fail, causing the engine to
stall or to fail to start. Engine stalling would result in a loss
of motive power, which, in conjunction with driver reactions and
traffic conditions, could increase the risk of a crash resulting
in injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will
install a revised fuel pump relay external to the TIPM-7.


                             *********

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  * * *