CAR_Public/150310.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, March 10, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 49


                             Headlines

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: 7th Cir. Reluctant to Revive Depakote Claims
ALLERGAN INC: Restraints Availability of Botox(R), Suit Claims
ALPINE AUTO: Faces "Grady" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
AMERIGAL CONSTRUCTION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Hours
ANITA'S UPHOLSTERY: Faces "Triana" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

ANTHEM INC: Faces "Daniels" Suit Over Alleges Data Breach
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Douglass" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Hyde" Suit in Ind. Over Alleged Data Breach
ASSET RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Ramos" Suit Claims
ASSET RECOVERY: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, N.Y. Suit Says

ATLANTIC HARBOR: "Dubois" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
BANK OF AMERICA: Illegally Manipulates FX Prices, Suit Claims
BANK OF AMERICA: Illegally Manipulates LIBOR, Action Claims
BANKERS CAPITAL: Has Sent Unsolicited Faxes, Action Claims
BASIC RESEARCH: To Refund Customers Under Akavar Settlement

BIG MACK'S: "Hopkins" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
BIOZOOM INC: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Litigation
BP PLC: Court Denies $750-Mil. Oil Spill Insurance Claim
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
CAC FINANCIAL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

CALSONIC KANSEI: Mitsuba's Bid to Dismiss Class Action Denied
CHEMTEC CHEMICALS: Recalls Iron-Remover Products
CHICKEN-OUT INC: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Suit Claims
CLARFIELD OKON: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
CONTROLADORA VUELA: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports

CPM SERVICES: "Morales" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
CR BARD: In Talks to Settle Thousands of Pelvic Mesh Suits
DANZE INC: Sued in N.D. Ill. Over Damages Caused by Faucet Design
DENSO CORP: Bid to Dismiss End-Payors' Suit Denied
DWM CONSULTING: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

ECO WASTE & RECYCLING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
ELECTROLUX HOME: Removes "Grasso" Suit to Florida District Court
FAMILY DOLLAR: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
FEDERAL EXPRESS: ADA Suit Moved From Maryland to Pennsylvania
FREEDOM RAIN: Sued in Alabama for Exploiting Struggling Women

GE OIL & GAS: "Ramirez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
GERALEX INC: Faces "Oquendo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
GLASS AMERICA: "Aleman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
HANCOCK ROOFING: "Lovin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
HARUTH INC: "Cohen" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

HMSHOST CORP: Sued for Misclassifying Assistant Unit Managers
ICHIKOH INDUSTRIES: Dismissed From Auto Parts Antitrust Suit
JANSSEN PHARMA: Jury Awards $2.5MM Verdict in Risperdal Suit
JC LEWIS: Accused of Failing to Pay Proper Overtime Compensation
JOE WHEELER: Removes "Bates" Suit to Northern District of Alabama

JOHN SHORB: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
KIMMEN PLAZA: Facility Inaccessible to PWDs, "Kennedy" Suit Says
LA HACIENDA CAFE: Violates Fair Labor Standards Act, Suit Claims
LANDRY'S INC: Faces "Saechao" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
LEGGETT & PLATT: Direct Purchaser Settlements Get Final Approval

LENOVO GROUP: Faces "Pick" Suit Over Pre-Installed Spyware
LENOVO GROUP: Faces "Hunter" Suit Over Pre-Installed Spyware
MEGA CARE: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Kharibouch" Suit Says
MY BELLY'S: Faces "Castaneda" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
NAT'L BUREAU COLLECTION: Faces "Esppsito" Suit in S.D.N.Y.

NATIONAL FOOTBALL: White Gets OK to File Documents Under Seal
NAVISTAR: Recalls CE School Bus 2015 Models Due to Safety Hazard
NEIGHBORHOOD RESTAURANT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
NETFLIX INC: Walmart's Gift Card Settlement Okay, 9th Cir. Says
NEW YORK ASSOCIATES: Has Sent Unsolicited Faxes, Suit Claims

NEW YORK CITY, NY: Overhauls Solitary Policy in Rikers Island
NEW YORK FRESH: Faces "Cabrera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
NORDSTROM INC: Cal. Supreme Court Asked to Rule on Day Off Issue
OLYMPUS CORP: Sued Over Medical Scope-Linked Superbug Outbreak
QUANTUM3 GROUP: Removes "Ford" Suit to Georgia District Court

ROBERT HALF: Removes "Washington" Class Suit to N.D. California
ROCHE LABORATORIES: Judge Bars Expert Testimony in Accutane Suit
SCORPION DRILLING: "Garcia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
SCOTT TECHNOLOGIES: Ex-Firefighter Settles Equipment Failure Suit
SEAFOOD ON THE TABLE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

SHINY STAR: Recalls Jack 'N Jill Chicharron Products
SIDEWINDER DRILLING: Illegally Terminates Employees, Suit Claims
SIMON ROOFING: Faces "Warren" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SOUTH FLORIDA ELECTRIC: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
SPACELABS HEALTHCARE: Recalls Bedside and QUBE Compact Monitors

SUNVIEW VINEYARDS: June 11 Fairness Hearing on $4.5MM Settlement
TAKATA CORP: "Corticeiro" Suit Included in Airbag Products MDL
TAKATA CORP: "Martin" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL
TAKATA CORP: Air-Bag Litigation Hearing Begins in Miami
TAKATA CORP: Judge to Appoint Lead Counsel to Oversee Airbag Suit

TARGET BRANDS: Faces "Chamberlin" Suit Over Product Misbranding
TD BANK: Ordered to Pay $67 Million to Investor Group
TIMEKEEPERS INC: Faces "Limon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Faces Class Suit Alleging Product Liability
UNC-CHAPEL HILL: Hires Skadden to Defend Academic Fraud Suits

US WELL: Faces "Lackie Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
WATCH-U-WANT INC: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Claims
WOODLAWN ENTERPRISE: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
XENEX LABORATORIES: Recalls API - Meloxicam Products
XENEX LABORATORIES: Recalls API - Azelaic Acid Products

XENEX LABORATORIES: Recalls API - DMSO Products
XPRESS FINANCIAL: Has Sent Unsolicited Faxes, Suit Claims
YACHTING PROMOTIONS: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
YESO CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Cedillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT


                            *********


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: 7th Cir. Reluctant to Revive Depakote Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that the 7th
Circuit seemed reluctant February 20 to revive claims by health
benefit plans that reimbursed members for Depakote, an anti-
seizure drug that Abbott Laboratories has admitted to marketing
improperly.

Abbott Laboratories has already faced four False Claims Act suits
over Depakote, settling them in 2012 for $1.6 billion, and the
drugmaker had admitted to previous improper marketing of Depakote
for off-label purposes.

In this phase of the billion-dollar litigation, the plaintiffs are
multi-employer health benefit plans and service funds.  They
sought in 2013 to represent a class of third-party payers who, on
behalf of their members, reimbursed or paid for Depakote that
Abbott allegedly marketed for the treatment of dementia without
approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

A federal judge allowed a later shareholder suit, but U.S.
District Judge Sara Ellis threw out the RICO claims by the benefit
plans in this case for missing the statute of limitations.

"The funds allege they began paying for these prescriptions in
1998, and it was at that point that the funds could or should have
discovered they were paying for off-label uses," she wrote.  "A
reasonable plaintiff would have.  The funds' broad statement that
Abbott concealed its involvement in the marketing of Depakote is
not enough to excuse their lack of diligence."

Still able to refile their dismissed state-law claims, the
plaintiffs took the RICO issue to the 7th Circuit.  Their
attorney, James Sabella, insisted that normal diligence would not
have made a difference.

"The court dismissed the case not on the facts, but on its
speculation as to when a reasonable plan would have brought suit,"
he told the three-judge panel.

Judge Kenneth Ripple cut in: "But do we have any idea when the
payers became aware?"

"Not at all," Sabella replied. "We need more fact-finding.  They
didn't know the prescriptions were off-label."

Judge John Tinder failed to throw the attorney off by noting that
"a plan doesn't just pay any prescription."

"Actually that's a factual issue," Sabella said.  "Plans generally
pay if a doctor prescribes it.  Every plan pays for thousands of
prescriptions, and doctors often write prescriptions off-label."

Tinder pointed out that Abbott was being investigated as early as
2005, but Sabella insisted that this was not enough.

"I don't think that just paying a prescription amounts to
discovery of the issue," he said.

"The defense talks about qui tam suits being unsealed in 2011,"
the attorney added.  "That's hardly the kind of thing insurers can
discover, just a couple suits."

Citing 11th Circuit precedent, Sabella concluded: "The insurers
had to pay if the drug was prescribed, whether for approved or
off-label use."

Defense attorney William Cavanaugh disagreed. "A diligent third-
party payer would've discovered this before 2009," he said.  "The
first injury took place in 1998."

Tinder took up Sabella's logic: "But off-label uses are not
unusual."

"But 11 years went by," Cavanaugh said.  "Articles were published.
This is a sophisticated entity in the business of investigating
insurance claims, with a fiduciary duty."

Ripple noted "that may be true, but I don't know because I don't
have facts in front of me."

This echoed the call by plaintiffs for more discovery before
deciding the claim.

Tinder seemed skeptical.

"I don't see how the fiduciary duty helps you," the judge said.
"It runs to the beneficiaries."

"No," the attorney replied.  "They made a strategic decision to
focus on equitable estoppel of the statute of limitations, not
these other arguments.  There are no allegations of any
investigations."

Tinder replied: "But this is the complaint, in which they don't
have a duty to plead around the statute of limitations."

Cavanaugh took up the argument.  "You can plead yourself out of a
case, and they admitted that their injury goes back to 1998," the
judge said.

February 20 was Tinder's last regular sitting day before he
assumes senior status and retires.  In a brief speech to begin the
day, Judge Michael Kanne said: "Indiana's produced some
outstanding judges, but Judge Tinder is near if not at the top of
that list."  Both he and Ripple are from Indiana as well.

The Sidney Hillman Health Center of Rochester, a local Teamsters
chapter and a fund run by the United Food and Commercial Workers
Unions are the named plaintiffs in the class action at issue.


ALLERGAN INC: Restraints Availability of Botox(R), Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adel Tawfilis, DDS d/b/a Carmel Valley Center For Oral and
Maxillofacial Surgery, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Allergan, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-00307 (C.D.
Cal., February 24, 2015), arises out of the unlawful agreement
between the Defendant and Medytox, Inc. to restraint trade and
monopolize sale of Botox(R) in the U.S. market.

Allergan, Inc. is a Delaware based multinational pharmaceutical
company focusing on ophthalmic pharmaceuticals, dermatology,
neuroscience, urology, and cosmetics.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roy A. Katriel, Esq.
      THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM
      4225 Executive Square, Suite 600
      La Jolla, CA 92037
      Telephone: (858) 242-5642
      Facsimile: (858) 430-3719
      E-mail: rak@katriellaw.com

         - and -

      Ralph B. Kalfayan, Esq.
      Lynne M. Brennan, Esq.
      KRAUSE, KALFAYAN, BENINK & SLAVENS, LLP
      550 West C Street, Suite 530
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 232-0331
      Facsimile: (619-232-4019
      E-mail: ralph@kkbs-law.com
              lbrennan@kkbs-law.com


ALPINE AUTO: Faces "Grady" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Grady, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons v. Alpine Auto Recovery LLC, a Colorado limited liability
company, and Don Heald, Jr., Case No. 1:15-cv-00377 (D. Colo.,
February 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a tow truck company with its
principal place of business located at 6150 East 49th Avenue,
Commerce City, Colorado 80022.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian David Gonzales, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES
      123 North College Avenue, #200
      Fort Collins, CO 80524
      Telephone: (970) 212-4665
      Facsimile: (303) 539-9812
      E-mail: bgonzales@coloradotriallaw.com


AMERIGAL CONSTRUCTION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Hours
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nemecio Llamas Lopez and Ramiro Bravo, each on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated v. Amerigal Construction Co., Inc.
and Luis A. Ezequiel, Case No. 8:15-cv-00520 (D. Md., February 24,
2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company located in
Rockville (Montgomery County), Maryland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alvaro Augusto Llosa, Esq.
      Roberto N. Allen, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF ROBERTO ALLEN LLC
      11002 Veirs Mill Rd, Ste 700
      Wheaton, MD 20902
      Telephone: (301) 861-0202
      Facsimile: (410) 864-8895
      E-mail: allosa@robertoallenlaw.com
              rallen@robertoallenlaw.com


ANITA'S UPHOLSTERY: Faces "Triana" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Triana, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Anita's Upholstery, Inc. and Carlos Alvarez,
Case No. 1:15-cv-01612 (N.D. Ill., February 22, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a Reupholster and Furniture Repair
shop in Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Daniels" Suit Over Alleges Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Diane Daniels, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-10530 (D.
Mass., February 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to provide adequate security and protection for its
computer systems containing patient's personally identifiable
information and personal health information.

Anthem Inc. is an Indiana corporation that owns and operates a
managed health care company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lisa Lee, Esq.
      JANET, JENNER & SUGGS, LLC
      31 St. James Avenue, Suite 365
      Boston, MA 02116
      Telephone: (617) 933-1265
      Facsimile: (410) 653-9030
      E-mail: llee@MyAdvocates.com

         - and -

      Robert K. Jenner, Esq.
      Justin A. Browne, Esq.
      JANET, JENNER & SUGGS, LLC
      Commerce Centre East
      1777 Reisterstown Road, Suite 165
      Baltimore, MD 21208
      Telephone: (410) 653-3200
      Facsimile:  (410) 653-9030
      E-mail: rjenner@MyAdvocates.com
              jbrowne@MyAdvocates.com


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Douglass" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
Nanette Douglass, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Anthem, Inc. d/b/a Anthem Health, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:15-cv-00307 (S.D. Ind., February 23, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to provide adequate security and
protection for its computer systems containing patient's
personally identifiable information and personal health
information.

Anthem Inc. is an Indiana corporation that owns and operates a
managed health care company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Andrew N. Freidman, Esq.
      Douglas J. McNamara, Esq.
      Sally M. Handmaker, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      1100 New York Ave., NW
      East Tower, 5th Floor
      Washington, DC 20005
      Telephone: (202) 408-4600
      Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
      E-mail: afriedman@cohenmilstein.com
              dmenamara@cohenmilstein.com
              shadmaker@cohenmilstein.com


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Hyde" Suit in Ind. Over Alleged Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly T. Hyde, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Anthem Inc., d/b/a Anthem Health, et al.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00319 (S.D. Ind., February 24, 2015), s brought
against the Defendant for failure to provide adequate security and
protection for its computer systems containing patient's
personally identifiable information and personal health
information.

Anthem Inc. is an Indiana corporation that owns and operates a
managed health care company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott L. Starr, Esq.
      Mark S. Fryman Jr., Esq.
      Andrew B. Miller, Esq.
      STARR AUSTEN & MILLER LLP
      201 South Third Street
      Logansport, IN 46947
      Telephone: (574) 722-6676
      E-mail: starr@starrausten.com
              miller@starrausten.com
              fryman@starrausten.com

         - and -

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      Mark S. Reich, Esq.
      William J. Geddish, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 367-7100
      Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
      E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
              mreich@rgrdlaw.com
              wgeddish@rgrdlaw.com

          - and -

      Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
      Mark J. Dearman, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 750-3000
      Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
      E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
              mdearman@rgrdlaw.com
         - and -

      Michael I. Fistel Jr., Esq.
      JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
      40 Powder Springs Street
      Marietta, GA 30064
      Telephone: (770) 200-3104
      Facsimile: (770) 200-3101
      E-mail: michaelf@johnsonandweaver.com


ASSET RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Ramos" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Ramos, on behalf himself and all others similarly situated
v. Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00958
(E.D.N.Y., February 24, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants'
abusive and unfair practice of collecting alleged debt.

Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC is a debt collection firm that
maintains its principal business address at 2200 E. Devon Ave.,
Ste. 200, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abraham Kleinman, Esq.
      KLEINMAN LLC
      626 RXR Plaza
      Uniondale, NY 11556-0626
      Telephone: (516) 522-2621
      Facsimile: (888) 522-1692
      E-mail: akleinman@kleinmanllc.com


ASSET RECOVERY: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, N.Y. Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Ramos, an individual; on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, an Illinois
Limited Liability Company; Steven Fishbein, individually and in
his official capacity; Tony Eshaya, individually and in his
official capacity; Kirsten Bernheim, individually and in her
official capacity; Bureaus Investment Group Portfolio No. 15, LLC,
an Illinois Limited Liability Company; and John and Jane Does
Numbers 1 through 25, Case No. 2:15-cv-00958-JS-AKT (E.D.N.Y.,
February 24, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abraham Kleinman, Esq.
          KLEINMAN, LLC
          626 RXR Plaza
          Uniondale, NY 11556-0626
          Telephone: (516) 522-2621
          Facsimile: (888) 522-1692
          E-mail: akleinman@kleinmanllc.com


ATLANTIC HARBOR: "Dubois" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Norman David Dubois, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Atlantic Harbor Seawalls, Inc., and James Gorman, Case
No. 0:15-cv-60363 (S.D. Fla., February 21, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Atlantic Harbor Seawalls, Inc. is a Florida corporation based at
560 NE 42nd Court, Oakland Park, Florida 33334. It is engaged in
the business of marine construction and seawall building and
repairs throughout South Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Keith Michael Stern, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
      20937 Pacifico Terrace
      Boca Raton, FL 33433
      Telephone: (888) 505-9941
      Facsimile: (561) 807-0020
      E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Illegally Manipulates FX Prices, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Taylor, Steve Leaven and John Burnside, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Bank of America
Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01350 (S.D.N.Y., February
23, 2015), alleges that the Defendants illegally manipulate
foreign exchange (FX) prices.

Bank of America Corporation is a multinational banking and
financial services corporation with headquarter located at 100
North Tryon Street, Charlotte, North Carolina 28255.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David E. Kovel,Esq.
      Lauren Wagner Pederson, Esq.
      Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
      KIRBY McINERNEY LLP
      825 Third Avenue, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 371-6600
      Facsimile: (212)751-2540
      E-mail: dkovel@kmllp.com
              lpederson@kmllp.com
              telrod@kmllp.com

         - and -

      Anthony F. Fata, Esq.
      Jennifer W. Sprengel, Esq.
      CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER AND SPRENGEL LLP
      30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3200
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312)782-4880
      Facsimile: (312)782-4485
      E-mail: afata@caffertyclobes.com
              jsprengel@caffertyclobes.com

         - and -

      Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
      CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER AND SPRENGEL LLP
      1101 Market Street, Suite 2650
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215)864-2800
      Facsimile: (215)864-2810
      E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com

         - and -

      Karen L. Morris, Esq.
      Patrick F. Morris, Esq.
      R. Michael Lindsey, Esq.
      MORRIS AND MORRIS LLC
      4001 Kennett Pike, Suite 300
      Wilmington, DE 19807
      Telephone: (302) 426-0400
      Facsimile: (302) 426-0406
      E-mail: morris@morrisandmorrislaw.com
              pmorris@morrisandmorrislaw.com
              rmlindsey@morrisandmorrislaw.com

         - and -

      George Sang, Esq.
      1060 Edgebrook Lane
      Glencoe, IL 60022
      Telephone: (312) 648-2300
      E-mail: sang32@comcast.net


BANK OF AMERICA: Illegally Manipulates LIBOR, Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
National Asbestos Workers Pension Fund, et al., and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Bank Of America Corporation, et
al., Case No. 7:15-cv-01336 (S.D.N.Y., February 24, 2015), alleges
that the Defendants manipulate London Interbank Offered Rate
(LIBOR) in order to increase their own profits as well as to
create the illusion of financial strength by under reporting the
interest rates that they were being charged to borrow money.

Bank of America Corporation is a Delaware financial corporation
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 367-7100
      Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
      E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      Patrick W. Daniels, Esq.
      David W. Mitchell, Esq.
      Steven M. Jodlowski, Esq.
      Nathan W. Bear, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
      E-mail: patrickd@rgrdlaw.com
              davidm@rgrdlaw.com
              sjodlowski@rgrdlaw.com
              nbear@rgrdlaw.com


BANKERS CAPITAL: Has Sent Unsolicited Faxes, Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Al and Po Corporation, an Illinois corporation, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bankers Capital
Funding, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-01641 (N.D. Ill., February 24,
2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of sending
unsolicited junk faxes in bulk to unwilling recipients with
deficient opt-out notices.

Bankers Capital Funding, LLC  is in the business of providing
various financial services to other businesses, including merchant
cash advances, short term business loans, factoring, and
commercial real estate funding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ismael Tariq Salam, Esq.
      Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
      SIPRUT PC
      17 N. State Street, Suite 1600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 236-0000
      E-mail: isalam@siprut.com
              jsiprut@siprut.com


BASIC RESEARCH: To Refund Customers Under Akavar Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a Salt Lake City-based company
has agreed to pay refunds to consumers who purchased its weight-
loss tablets to settle a class-action lawsuit that claimed its
advertising slogan, "Eat All You Want & Still Lose Weight," was
deceptive.

Under the proposed settlement, Basic Research will pay a refund of
$25 per box after being sued by law firms on behalf of consumers
who purchased the product called Akavar beginning in 2007.

A Basic Research representative didn't respond to requests for
comment.  But the company has denied any wrongdoing and would
still be able to use the slogan under the proposed agreement.

Salt Lake City attorney Jon Harper, who represents consumers, told
The Salt Lake Tribune that he couldn't comment other than to say
the litigation was resolved "on terms satisfactory to the
parties."

In 2007, a proposed class-action lawsuit was filed in U.S.
District Court in Utah against Basic Research on behalf of
consumers who bought Akavar based on the company's advertising.  A
second similar complaint was filed in state court in California in
2008.

The two lawsuits, which were eventually consolidated into one
action in federal court in Utah, said the company lacked a
scientific basis for the weight-loss claims and was deceiving
consumers.

Akavar was sold by major retailers and marketed as a wonder pill
in which consumers could "Eat All You Want & Still Lose Weight
. . . (And we couldn't say it in print if it wasn't true!)"

The company sold 60 capsules for $39.99 and two bottles for $79.98
with a third one for free, and sales brought in millions of
dollars, according to court documents.

In 2006, the Federal Trade Commission fined Basic Research $3
million and reached a settlement requiring the company to have a
scientific basis for the claims of its products.

The FTC and Basic Research sued each other in 2009 in federal
court in Utah over whether the company was violating the 2006
deal.

But last year, U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups sided with Basic
Research, noting two of four case studies done in 2001 suggested
the herbal compounds in Akavar helped users to lose weight.  His
decision is cited in the proposed settlement of the class-action
lawsuit, The Tribune reported.


BIG MACK'S: "Hopkins" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Misty Hopkins, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Big Mack's Lounge, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-20761 (S.D. Fla.,
February 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Big Mack's Lounge, Inc. owns and operates an adult entertainment
club located at 1792 NW 79 St., Miami, FL 33147.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael N. Hanna, Esq.
      MORGAN AND MORGAN
      600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 318-0268
      Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
      E-mail: Mhanna@forthepeople.com


BIOZOOM INC: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
IN RE BIOZOOM, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, CASE NO. 1:14-CV-01087,
(N.D. Ohio) is a putative securities class action, wherein
Plaintiffs generally seek rescission or damages after the value of
Biozoom securities that Plaintiffs had purchased collapsed.
Plaintiffs purchased the stock in over-the-counter markets from
market makers. Plaintiffs contend the Biozoom securities were
unregistered and argue that the Defendant market makers are
strictly liable for selling the unregistered stock.

Plaintiffs make claims under Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities
Act of 1933 and under a variety of state-law theories. Defendants
have sought the dismissal of both the federal claims and the state
claims.

District Judge James S. Gwin granted in part and denied in part
the motions to dismiss.

"In sum, the Court grants Defendants' motion to dismiss Count 1 on
statute of limitations grounds as to all Defendants except KCG
Americas LLC, grants Defendants' motion to dismiss all of
Plaintiffs' state law claims except the breach of contract claims
due to implied preemption, and grants Defendants' motion to
dismiss Plaintiffs' breach of contract claims because Plaintiffs
have not plausibly pled an agreement to deliver registered
securities and have not plausibly pled contract damages.
Defendants' motion to dismiss Count 1 as to KCG is denied," wrote
Judge Gwin in his opinion and order dated February 26, 2015, a
copy of which is available at http://is.gd/I4SWytfrom Leagle.com.


BP PLC: Court Denies $750-Mil. Oil Spill Insurance Claim
--------------------------------------------------------
John Council, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that BP will not
be allowed to pass off massive costs associated with the 2010
Deepwater Horizon explosion onto insurance companies that wrote
$750 million worth of policies for another company that owned the
drilling rig, according to a recent decision by the Texas Supreme
Court.

The high court's 8-1 decision in In Re Deepwater Horizon resolves
one of the most expensive disputes on its docket and represents a
huge defeat for the giant oil company.  The background to the
insurance coverage dispute is as follows, according to the
majority decision.

BP made a demand for insurance coverage for the environment
disaster that claimed the lives of 11 workers and polluted the
Gulf of Mexico with millions of barrels of oil.  But the insurance
companies that wrote liability policies for Transocean -- the
company BP contracted with to use its mobile offshore drilling
platform -- refused to cover BP.

Instead, the insurance companies filed a declaratory judgment
action in federal court seeking a ruling that BP would not be
entitled to additional-insured coverage for subsurface pollution
claims arising from the Deepwater Horizon explosion.

The federal trial court denied BP coverage, but on appeal the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed that decision.  On
rehearing, the Fifth Circuit withdrew its opinion and instead sent
it to the Texas Supreme Court via certified question to be
resolved under the state's complicated insurance coverage case
law.

In resolving the case in the insurance companies' favor, a
majority of the court found that a provision in the drilling
contract between BP and Transocean indicated that the oil company
was responsible for liability resulting from subsurface pollution.
We "conclude that BP is an additional insured only as to
liabilities assumed by Transocean under the drilling contract and
no others.  Because Transocean did not assume liability for
subsurface pollution, Transocean was not 'obliged' to name BP as
an additional insured as to that risk," wrote Justice Eva Guzman
in the Feb. 13 majority opinion. "Because there is no obligation
to provide insurance for that risk, BP lacks status as an
'insured' for the same."

Justice Phil Johnson dissented, writing that insurance "coverage
is not limited to liabilities Transocean assumed in the drilling
contract."

The ruling is a big win in a case that's been closely watched by
the insurance industry, said Byron Keeling, a partner in Houston's
Keeling & Downes who represents one of Transocean's insurers.

"For the biggest disaster to ever hit the Gulf of Mexico, the most
important result is that BP, which is self-insured, is not going
to be able to rely on Transocean's insurance policy to cover its
own sins," Mr. Keeling said.

Geoff Morrell, BP's senior vice president for U.S. communications
and external affairs, said of the decision, "We are disappointed
and are considering our options."


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nelda Zamir, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc., Andrew S. Clark, and
Daniel J. Devine, Case No. 3:15-cv-00408 (S.D. Cal., February 24,
2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Bridgepoint Education, Inc. is a for-profit provider of
postsecondary education services. Its academic institutions
include Ashford University and University of the Rockies, as well
as online institutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Casey Edwards Sadler, Esq.
      GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      E-mail: csadler@glancylaw.com


CAC FINANCIAL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Chaim Bornstein, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CAC Financial Corp., Case No. 1:15-cv-00957-
MKB-RER (E.D.N.Y., February 24, 2015) accuses the Defendant of
violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Palace, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID PALACE
          383 Kingston Avenue, #113
          Brooklyn, NY 11213
          Telephone: (347) 651-1077
          Facsimile: (347) 464-0012
          E-mail: davidpalace@gmail.com


CALSONIC KANSEI: Mitsuba's Bid to Dismiss Class Action Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Marianne O. Battani denied defendants Mitsuba
Corporation and American Mitsuba Corporation's motion to dismiss
the dealership plaintiffs' consolidated amended class action
complaint and end-payor plaintiffs' consolidated amended class
action complaint in IN RE: AUTOMOTIVE PARTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION.
In Re: Radiators, NO. 12-MD-02311, (E.D. Mich.)

Judge Battani concluded that even if Mitsuba Defendants
manufactured and sold only radiator fans, one of the products
identified as making up a Radiator, they are not saved by the
limited product involvement. Mitsuba Defendants pleaded guilty to
price-fixing radiator fans as well as other component parts in the
MDL litigation involving different markets. A plea is not needed
to establish the viability of the complaints. Moreover, Mitsuba
Corporation's guilty plea does not dictate the parameters of the
antitrust claims alleged by Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs (IPPs).
IPPs use the term "Radiators" to encompass radiator fans. These
allegations are sufficient to state a claim. For these reasons,
Mitsuba Defendants' motion is denied, she said.

The Court's February 26, 2015 opinion and order, a copy of which
is available at http://is.gd/yKkyi5from Leagle.com, relates to
Dealership Actions 13-01003, End-Payor Actions 13-01002.


CHEMTEC CHEMICALS: Recalls Iron-Remover Products
------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 13, 2015
Posting date: February 13, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Chemicals
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Labelling and Packaging
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-43691

This recall involves Iron-Remover cleaning product sold in a white
454g container, UPC 06300900004.

Health Canada's auditing process has revealed that the product
does not meet labelling and child-resistant packaging requirements
for consumer chemical products under Canadian law.

The consumer product does not have proper hazard labelling and
child-resistant packaging required by the Consumer Chemicals and
Containers Regulations, 2001 under the Canada Consumer Product
Safety Act.  The lack of child-resistant packaging and improper
labelling could result in unintentional exposure to these products
and lead to serious illness, injury, or death.

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

Approximately 2,964 units of the affected product were sold at
retail locations in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

The recalled product was sold between January 2011 and December
2014.

Manufactured in Canada.

Manufacturer: Chemtec Chemicals
              Regina, Saskatchewan
              CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled product and
dispose of it according to Municipal Hazardous Waste Guidelines.

For additional information, consumers may contact Chemtec
Chemicals at 1-306-543-1788 or email or via Chemtec Chemicals
website.

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

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/Wx8gM9


CHICKEN-OUT INC: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Serrano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Chicken-Out Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00276
(D.D.C., February 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a week.

Chicken-Out Inc. owns and operates restaurants located in the
District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jamie L. Crook, Esq.
      RELMAN, DANE & COLFAX PLLC
      1225 19th Street, NW, Suite 600
      Washington, DC 20036
      Telephone: (202) 728-1888
      E-mail: jcrook@relmanlaw.com


CLARFIELD OKON: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Therese Sheldon and Carlos Faris, individuals, on behalf
themselves and others similarly situated v. Clarfield, Okon,
Salomone & Pincus, P.L., a Florida professional limited liability
company, Case No. 0:15-cv-60379-WJZ (S.D. Fla., February 24, 2015)
accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jennifer Thompson Harley, Esq.
          LEGAL AID SERVICE OF BROWARD COUNTY, INC.
          491 N. State Road 7
          Plantation, FL 33317
          Telephone: (954) 736-2488
          Facsimile: (954) 736-2484
          E-mail: jharley@legalaid.org

               - and -

          Patrick Christopher Crotty, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT D. OWENS
          3800 S. Ocean Drive, Suite 235
          Hollywood, FL 33019
          Telephone: (954) 589-0588
          Facsimile: (954) 337-0666
          E-mail: pccrotty@gmail.com

               - and -

          Scott David Owens, Esq.
          SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
          3800 S. Ocean Drive, Suite 235
          Hollywood, FL 33019
          Telephone: (954) 589-0588
          Facsimile: (954) 337-0666
          E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com


CONTROLADORA VUELA: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------
Dekalb County Employees Retirement System, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Controladora Vuela
Compania De Aviacion, S.A.B. de C.V., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-
01337 (S.D.N.Y., February 24, 2015), alleges that the Defendants
made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.

Controladora Vuela Compania De Aviacion, S.A.B. de C.V. is a
Mexican corporation that provides air transportation services for
passengers, cargo, and mail in Mexico and internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 367-7100
      Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
      E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com


CPM SERVICES: "Morales" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Omar Morales, Endy Aguila, Alexer Guerra and other similarly-
situated individuals v. CPM Services, Inc. and Carlos Mule, Case
No. 1:15-cv-20771 (S.D. Fla., February 24, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a full service construction
management and general contracting firm in Miami-Dade County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CR BARD: In Talks to Settle Thousands of Pelvic Mesh Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that medical device manufacturer C.R. Bard Inc. is in talks to
settle thousands of lawsuits filed by women over its pelvic mesh
products.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin on Feb. 12 appointed
Ellen Reisman, a partner in the Los Angeles office of Washington's
Arnold & Porter, "to facilitate settlement discussions" between
plaintiffs attorneys and Bard, which faces more than 14,000
lawsuits in state and federal courts nationwide.

Lawyers have met during the past few weeks with Ms. Reisman, said
Joseph Rice, co-founder of Motley Rice in Mt. Pleasant, S.C., who
is spearheading the talks with Henry Garrard of Athens, Ga.'s
Blasingame Burch Garrard Ashley, co-lead counsel in the Bard
litigation.

"She is working as a special master -- a go-between person who
will be able to talk more freely, but under court protection, with
both defendant and plaintiffs and help put together a resolution
if possible with Bard," Mr. Rice said.

Ms. Reisman was national settlement counsel for Endo International
PLC, which set aside $1.6 billion to resolve most of the 25,000
pelvic mesh cases against its American Medical Systems Inc.
subsidiary in 2014.

Judge Goodwin took a planned Feb. 18 bellwether trial against Bard
off the table after that case settled. Details of the settlement
weren't disclosed.  The judge on Jan. 9 rejected Bard's attempt to
halt the trial based on statements he made in court, later
published in an online news article, that the company faced
potentially "billions of dollars" in liability and should consider
settling its cases.

Representatives of Bard and the company's attorney, Michael Brown
-- mkbrown@reedsmith.com -- a partner in the Los Angeles office of
Reed Smith, did not respond to a request for comment.

Judge Goodwin is overseeing most of the pelvic mesh litigation in
the Southern District of West Virginia, where nearly 70,000 cases
have been coordinated against Bard and six other defendants
alleging their pelvic mesh devices have caused pain and subsequent
surgeries in women.  Thousands more have been filed in state
courts across the country over the products, which are used to
treat urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse.

On Feb. 5 and Feb. 6, Judge Goodwin held private conferences in
all the cases that involved in-house and outside lawyers for the
defendants "with full authority to make all decisions," including
settlement. During those meetings, Ms. Reisman outlined the
details of the Endo settlements, Mr. Rice said.  Afterward,
Goodwin met with just the defendants, and "there was a much more
in-depth discussion concerning the issues of resolution," Mr. Rice
said.

Soon afterward, Bard asked to meet with Ms. Reisman, he said.
Goodwin has put pressure on all the mesh defendants to settle.
Bard, based in Murray Hill, N.J., settled 500 mesh cases last year
but also has taken its chances at trial.

Bard lost the first pelvic mesh trial in the country in 2012. A
California appellate court upheld the $5.5 million verdict last
year. In 2013, Bard lost a $2 million verdict and settled two
lawsuits under confidential terms.

Judge Goodwin has laid out an aggressive schedule in which more
than 200 cases would be sent back this summer to their original
courts for trial against Bard.  That plan has led to "significant
additional litigation-related defense costs," Bard said in its
annual report on Feb. 18.


DANZE INC: Sued in N.D. Ill. Over Damages Caused by Faucet Design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Duncan Place Owners Association, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Danze, Inc., f/k/a Globe Union
America Corporation, and Globe Union Industrial Corporation, Case
No. 1:15-cv-01662 (N.D. Ill., February 24, 2015), arises out of
the extensive damages causes by design of Danze brand faucets.

The Defendants design, engineer and manufacture faucets, bath
accessories, and showerheads.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
      Susana Cruz Hodge, Esq.
      LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
      Two Gateway Center, Suite 1201
      Newark, NJ 07102
      Telephone: (973) 623-3000
      Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
      E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com
              scruzhodge@litedepalma.com

         - and -

      Anthony L. Rafel, Esq.
      Tyler B. Ellrodt, Esq.
      RAFEL LAW GROUP PLLC
      600 University St. Ste. 2520
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 838-2660
      Facsimile: (206) 838-2661
      E-mail: arafel@rafellawgroup.com
              tellrodt@rafellawgroup.com


DENSO CORP: Bid to Dismiss End-Payors' Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------
District Judge Marianne O. Battani issued an opinion and order on
February 26, 2015, in IN RE: AUTOMOTIVE PARTS ANTITRUST
LITIGATION. In Re: Motor Generators, MASTER FILE NO. 12-MD-02311,
(E.D. Mich.) denying motor generators defendants' joint motion to
dismiss the end-payors' consolidated amended class action
complaint and the automobile dealers' consolidated amended class
action complaints.  The ruling, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/hmDC3cfrom Leagle.com, relates to Dealership Action
2:13-cv-01502, End-Payor Action 2:13-cv-01503.

Defendants include DENSO Corporation and DENSO International
America, Inc., (together DENSO Defendants), Hitachi Automotive
Systems, Ltd. (HIAMS) and Hitachi Automotive Systems Americas,
Inc. (HIAMS-US) (together Hitachi Defendants).

At the January 28, 2015, oral argument, Hitachi Defendants
represented that they had reached a settlement in this case, and
have withdrawn from the motion. In addition, the parties informed
the Court that they had resolved their dispute as to the standing
of the End-Payor Plaintiffs and the Automobile Dealership
Plaintiffs. The parties waived oral argument on the remaining
issues.

In their motion, DENSO Defendants argued that Indirect Purchaser
Plaintiffs (IPPs) fail to allege a plausible conspiracy lasting
fourteen years inasmuch as IPPs reference only one specific
allegation of a coordinated set of bids relevant to one Original
Equipment Manufacturers (OEM).

Judge Battani disagreed saying, "IPPs' complaints allege an
overarching conspiracy to rig bids and fix the prices of Motor
Generators. The complaints detail international government
investigations that resulted in the guilty pleas of other
defendants for their part in the price-fixing and bid-rigging of
automotive component parts, including Motor Generators, as well as
the market conditions that facilitated the conspiracy. Here, HIAMS
pleaded guilty to an antitrust conspiracy from at least as early
as January 2000. DENSO Corporation pleaded guilty to antitrust
violations involving other component parts. These two Defendants
are linked to a specific example of bid rigging and pricefixing.
Defendants have no authority to support their argument that
dismissal of a civil complaint is required when the complaint
expanded beyond the conduct to which the defendants in an
antitrust criminal case have pleaded guilty, and this Court has
declined to dismiss complaints falling within 12-2311 on this
ground. The existence of the guilty pleas demonstrate that the
Motor Generators conspiracy existed, and the allegation that
Defendants conspired from as early as 2000 is not implausible,
particularly, when HIAMS' guilty plea is considered. The factual
allegations advanced in the IPPs' complaints create "a reasonable
expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of illegal
agreement" beyond the extent admitted by HIAMS."


DWM CONSULTING: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Byron Lopez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DWM Consulting, LLC, Case No. 6:15-cv-00425 (W.D. La.,
February 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per workweek.

DWM Consulting, LLC is a Texas limited liability company that is
engaged in the business of employing oil field personnel to work
for oil field services companies in need of alternative project
staffing for solids control operations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth W. DeJean, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH W. DEJEAN
      P.O. Box 4325
      Lafayette, LA 70502
      Telephone: (337) 235-5294
      Facsimile: (337) 235-1095
      E-mail: kwdejean@kwdejean.com


ECO WASTE & RECYCLING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marcus Martel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Eco Waste & Recycling, LLC, Hershel Hayes and Monique
Hayes, Case No. 4:15-cv-00501 (S.D. Tex., February 24, 2015), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages
for work in excess of 40 hours per workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a Garbage Collection Company
providing curbside door to door, backdoor, porter and recycling
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert J. Filteau, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF FILTEAU & SULLIVAN, LTD., LLP
      9894 Bissonnet Street, Suite 865
      Houston, TX 77036
      Telephone: (713) 236-1400
      Facsimile: (713) 236-1706
      E-mail: rfilteau@fso-lawprac.com


ELECTROLUX HOME: Removes "Grasso" Suit to Florida District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Grasso, et al. v. Electrolux
Home Products, Inc., was removed to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida (Miami).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20774-RNS to the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts claims for Contract Product Liability.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John Allen Yanchunis, Sr., Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joshua Clark Webb, Esq.
          Robert Craig Mayfield, Esq.
          HILL, WARD & HENDERSON, P.A.
          Bank of America Plaza
          101 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 3700
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 222-3165
          Facsimile: (813) 221-2900
          E-mail: jwebb@hwhlaw.com
                  cmayfield@hwhlaw.com


FAMILY DOLLAR: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aniko Steingruber, for and in behalf of herself and other
employees similarly situated v. Family Dollar Stores of Florida,
Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00199 (M.D. Fla., February 23, 2015), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Family Dollar Stores of Florida, Inc. owns and operates a discount
store in Duval County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kelly L. DeGance, Esq.
      Mark G. Alexander, Esq.
      ALEXANDER DEGANCE BARNETT
      Suite 1200, 225 Water St
      Jacksonville, FL 32202
      Telephone: (904) 345-3277
      Facsimile: (904) 345-3294
      E-mail: kelly.degance@adblegal.com
              mark.alexander@adblegal.com
         - and -

      Scott Thomas Fortune, Esq.
      FORTUNE LAW OFFICES
      1807 Third Street North
      Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250
      Telephone: (904) 246-2125
      Facsimile: (904) 246-1551
      E-mail: sfortune@fortunelegal.com


FEDERAL EXPRESS: ADA Suit Moved From Maryland to Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that a
suit against FedEx claiming the company discriminates against deaf
package handlers should be moved from Baltimore to Pittsburgh, a
federal court has ruled.

U.S. District Judge William M. Nickerson of the District of
Maryland ordered the case, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission v. FedEx Ground Package System, be transferred from the
Maryland district court to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania.  The decision granted FedEx's motion to
transfer venue.

According to Judge Nickerson, the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission has alleged that FedEx violated the
Americans with Disabilities Act by discriminating against or
failing to accommodate deaf and partially deaf package handlers
and people who applied to the position.  The case was filed on
behalf of 17 named people, as well as an unspecified number of
"similarly aggrieved individuals."

Although the EEOC had argued that its case focuses not on
corporation-wide policies but on how FedEx's policies were
implemented at facilities across the country, Judge Nickerson
noted that testimony about the development of those policies will
likely become important to the case.  And since many of the FedEx
employees who developed the policies likely reside in the
Pittsburgh area, where FedEx Ground Package System Inc. is
headquartered, the venue change was proper, Judge Nickerson said.

"In these cases, what happens at the local level is certainly
critical.  To determine the liability of the corporation under the
anti-discrimination statutes, however, the finder of fact also
needs to understand how the official policy is developed,
communicated and monitored," Judge Nickerson said.  "While the
understanding of what is happening at the different FedEx
distribution centers may come from witnesses dispersed around the
country, the understanding of the official policy will come from
witnesses who predominantly work and live in Pittsburgh."

The EEOC, according to Nickerson, has claimed the training and
orientation practices at FedEx did not sufficiently accommodate
for deaf or partially deaf people, and that the technology and
equipment was not properly modified or adapted for use by deaf or
partially deaf employees.

According to Judge Nickerson, FedEx brought a 28 U.S.C. Section
1404(a) motion to change the venue, arguing that Pittsburgh was
"undeniably" a more convenient venue for the litigation since it
is where most of the company's officers and directors reside.

FedEx also argued that Pittsburgh is where most of the company's
documents are housed, and further noted that some of the documents
that could be important to the litigation exist only as hard
copies in the Pittsburgh headquarters.

The EEOC, however, contended that the case should be held in
Baltimore because most of the investigation was centered in that
office, Judge Nickerson said.  The EEOC further argued that, while
it has a field office in Pittsburgh, the office is small and has
little support staff, and no one in the office worked on the FedEx
investigation.

Judge Nickerson said he considered access for witnesses,
convenience for parties and the interest of justice as factors in
determining the proper venue.  The EEOC, however, focused much of
its venue arguments on the convenience for the attorneys, which is
not a proper consideration, Judge Nickerson said.

According to Judge Nickerson, only one of the charging package
handlers named in the EEOC's case worked at a Maryland facility.
Nickerson further said that one of the facilities that allegedly
engaged in unlawful practice was located in Pittsburgh.

Regarding whether a venue transfer further facilitated the
interest of justice, Judge Nickerson noted the Western District of
Pennsylvania is much less congested than the Maryland district
court.

But ultimately, the decision hinged on the convenience of the
witnesses, Judge Nickerson said.

According to Judge Nickerson, FedEx argued its employees
responsible for developing and implementing the training and
orientation, as well as those who selected and developed the
equipment and technology package handlers use, work in Pittsburgh
and live in the area.  FedEx further argued that, because claims
in the case date back as far as 2006, some of those employees have
likely retired from the company but may still live in the
Pittsburgh area.

The EEOC countered that, because its case centered on the
"frontline" application of FedEx's policies, the key witnesses
will be the aggrieved individuals and the managers and human
resources officials from the company's distribution facilities.
Judge Nickerson, however, was not persuaded by the EEOC's line of
argument.

"While that may be true, only one of FedEx's distribution
facilities is located in Maryland, the rest are disbursed across
the country," Judge Nickerson said.  "Therefore, with the
exception of those potential witnesses connected with the
Hagerstown, Maryland, facility, Baltimore is no more convenient
than Pittsburgh."

Calls to both FedEx's attorney, Grace E. Speights --
gspeights@morganlewis.com -- of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, and EEOC
counsel Debra M. Lawrence were not returned.


FREEDOM RAIN: Sued in Alabama for Exploiting Struggling Women
-------------------------------------------------------------
A nonprofit set up to help struggling women and their children
allegedly used its "charitable facade" to exploit their
difficulties and make them work for substandard wages, a class
action claims, reports Tracey Dalzell Walsh at Courthouse News
Service.

In a lawsuit filed in the Birmingham, Ala. Federal Court, Briana
Walker says that Freedom Rain Inc., which does business as The
Lovelady Center, is a "tax exempt non-profit holding itself out as
a charity that adopts women in need and provides housing and
rehabilitative services to approximately 450 women, plus many
children daily."

The women who go to the Lovelady Center are often suffering from
physical and substance abuse, or have served time in prison.

"These women have no money and no options," the complaint says.

"Despite Lovelady's charitable facade and its representations on
the Internet that it is 'adopting' these women, in reality,
Lovelady exploits these women by employing them at substandard
wages, improperly taking credits against its minimum wage
obligations equal to the value of Lovelady's 'intake fees,'
'program fees,' and other charges, while also failing to pay them
overtime compensation," Walker says.

She says "Lovelady's operation can be compared to a soup kitchen
that solicits donations to feed the homeless but then charges the
homeless, at a profit, for each bowl of soup."

Walker, a former client of the nonprofit, maintains that Lovelady
clients have no choice but to submit to this treatment because if
they don't, they won't receive a certificate of completion from
the program.

"During the relevant times preceding this action, Lovelady forced
Plaintiff and others similarly situated to work for no wages or on
an hourly basis, depending on whether Lovelady, on its own,
characterized the work as voluntary," the complaint says.  "During
the three year period preceding the filing of this litigation,
Lovelady (1) failed to pay Plaintiff and others similarly situated
the federally required minimum wage and/or overtime due under the
Fair Labor Standards Act . . . (2) took improper credits towards
its minimum wage and overtime obligations under the act; and (3)
intentionally misclassified Clients as 1099 independent
contractors."

Walker says the women are initially forced to work at Lovelady's
program center in the laundry, cafeteria, maintenance department,
call center, nail salon, coffee shop, thrift store or daycare.
Many of these stores and facilities staffed by clients are open to
the public and offer a "healthy profit" to Lovelady.

The complaint states that the women are regularly required to work
in excess of 40 hours a week without any overtime compensation and
Lovelady will take money from their pay checks towards the fees
they are forced to pay.  Additionally, the complaint alleges that
Lovelady decides if some of the hours worked by the clients are
"voluntary" and the women never know when they are working for
free.

According to the complaint, Lovelady "utilizes several illegal
schemes to exploit the women it touts it protects in order to
cause these women to work for substandard wages" and it acts as a
"staffing company" by sending the women to work at other
businesses owned by family members of Lovelady's founder,
including a tax company, a retail store and two assisted living
facilities.

Walker claims Lovelady provides transportation for the women, but
charges them for the service and fines them if they are late for
pick up.  Clients are also fined $10 if they miss work, if they
are late or if they change a shift.

The complaint claims that Lovelady receives the checks for the
work performed by their clients and it will calculate how many
hours worked were voluntary and keep this money.  Lovelady will
then take a credit against any outstanding balances held by the
clients and the complaint states that often the women were left
with no money for their work.

"Lovelady has recently reached a settlement related to overtime
violations with the Department of Labor . . . covering 37 women
contracted to assisted living facilities," the complaint says.
"However, not all these 37 women agreed to settle their claims,
and these 37 women do not constitute all those employed at the
facilities made subject of the investigation.  Lovelady 'cherry
picked' the 37 and misrepresented to the DOL the number of women
actually employed at those locations."

Walker seeks declaratory relief, compensatory and liquidated wages
on the claimed violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

A representative of The Lovelady Center declined to comment on
Walker's allegations when contacted by CNS, explaining that had
been unaware of the lawsuit and not seen the complaint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Camp, Esq.
          WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS, FISHER & GOLDFARB LLC
          The Kress Building
          301 19th Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 314-0500
          Facsimile: (205) 254-1500
          E-mail: rcamp@wigginschilds.com


GE OIL & GAS: "Ramirez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Ramirez and Jonathan Barney, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. GE Oil & Gas Logging
Services, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00096 (S.D. Tex., February 23,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

GE Oil & Gas Logging Services, Inc. is a Texas corporation that
provides onshore and offshore cased whole services to oil, gas,
and power generation industries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Clifton Alexander, Esq.
      Craig M. Sico, Esq.
      SICO WHITE HOELSCHER & BRAUGH LLP
      900 Frost Bank Plaza
      802 N Carancahua Ste 900
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Telephone: (361) 653-3300
      Facsimile: (361) 653-3333
      E-mail: calexander@swhhb.com
              csico@swhhb.com

         - and -

      Timothy Dean Raub, Esq.
      RAUB LAW FIRM PC
      814 Leopard St
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Telephone: (361) 880-8181
      Facsimile: (361) 887-6521
      E-mail: timraub@raublawfirm.com


GERALEX INC: Faces "Oquendo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yesenia Oquendo, Maria Garcia, Marguerita Segura, and Delfino
Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Geralex, Inc. a/k/a Geralex Janitorial Services,
Geralex Simple Solutions, LLC, Gerardo Alvarado, and Alejandra
Alvarado, Case No. 1:15-cv-01634 (N.D. Ill., February 23, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a janitorial firm doing business in
the Chicago, Illinois area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey Grant Brown, Esq.
      JEFFREY GRANT BROWN, P.C.
      221 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1414
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 789-9700
      Facsimile: (312) 789-9702
      E-mail: jeff@jgbrownlaw.com

         - and -

      Angel Petrov Bakov, Esq.
      Glen Joseph Dunn Jr., Esq.
      GLEN DUNN & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
      221 N. LaSalle St., Suite 1414
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 546-5056
      Facsimile: (312) 546-5058
      E-mail: abakov@gjdlaw.com
              gdunn@gjdlaw.com


GLASS AMERICA: "Aleman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Aleman, and others similarly- situated v. Glass America
Midwest Inc. d/b/a Glass America, and Glass America Midwest LLC,
Case No. 1:15-cv-20756 (S.D. Fla., February 23, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants provide retail services of glass repair,
replacement, and installation to residents of Miami-Dade County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher F. Zacarias, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER F. ZACARIAS, P.A.
      5757 Blue Lagoon Dr, Suite 230
      Miami, FL 33126
      Telephone: (305) 403-2000
      Facsimile: (305) 459-3964
      E-Mail: czacarias@zacariaslaw.com

         - and -

      Isaac Mamane, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF ISAAC MAMANE, PA
      1150 Kane Concourse, Second Floor
      Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
      Telephone (786) 704 - 8898
      E-mail: mamane@gmail.com


HANCOCK ROOFING: "Lovin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Lovin, individually, and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons v. Hancock Roofing & Construction, LLC d/b/a Hancock
Claims Consultants, Case No. 1:15-cv-00540 (N.D. Ga., February 23,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Hancock Roofing & Construction, LLC is a limited liability company
with its principal place of business located at Alpharetta,
Georgia. It provides roof inspection services, ladder assist
services, direct inspections of roof damage and tarping services,
to insurance companies nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward D. Buckley, Esq.
      THE BUCKLEY LAW FIRM, LLC
      Promenade, Suite 900
      1230 Peachtree Street, NE
      Atlanta, GA 30309
      Telephone: (404) 781-1100
      Facsimile: (404) 781-1101
      E-mail: edbuckley@buckleylawatl.com


HARUTH INC: "Cohen" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Felisa Cohen, and other similarly-situated individuals v. Haruth,
Inc. and Craig Hershoff, Case No. 1:15-cv-20755 (S.D. Fla.,
February 23, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a retail Shell gas station,
convenience store, beverage, and liquor business located at 16800
Collins Avenue, Sunny Isles Beach, Florida.

The Plaintiff 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


HMSHOST CORP: Sued for Misclassifying Assistant Unit Managers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia D. McPherson and Dhropatie, Kawalsingh v. HMSHost
Corporation, Host International, Inc., and Host Services of New
York, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00959 (E.D.N.Y., February 24, 2015)
alleges that the Defendants misclassified the Plaintiffs as exempt
under federal and state overtime laws and failed to pay them for
all hours worked.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as "assistant unit
managers" at various food and beverage concessions within New
York.

The Defendants are Delaware corporations with their principal
place of business located in Bethesda, Maryland.  HMSHost
Corporation is wholly owned by Autogrill Group, Inc., a subsidiary
of Autogrill S.p.A., an Italian corporation.  Directly or through
wholly owned subsidiaries, including Defendants Host
International, Inc. and Host Services of New York, Inc., HMSHost
Corporation manages and oversees the operations of food and
beverage concessions at numerous United States airports and other
travel facilities.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Klafter, Esq.
          Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
          Michael H. Reed, Esq.
          KLAFTER, OLSEN & LESSER LLP
          Two International Drive, Suite 350
          Rye Brook, NY 10573
          Telephone: (914) 934-9200
          Facsimile: (914) 934-9220
          E-mail: slesser@klafterolsen.com
                  Jklafter@klafterolsen.com
                  frudich@klafterolsen.com
                  michael.reed@klafterolsen.com

               - and -

          Bradley I. Berger, Esq.
          BERGER & ASSOCIATES
          321 Broadway
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 571-1900


ICHIKOH INDUSTRIES: Dismissed From Auto Parts Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Marianne O. Battani granted a motion filed by
Ichikoh Industries, Ltd. to dismiss plaintiffs' consolidated
amended class action complaints in IN RE: AUTOMOTIVE PARTS
ANTITRUST LITIGATION. In re: HID Ballasts, MASTER FILE NO. 12-MD-
02311, (E.D. Mich.) for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Judge Battani held that defendant Ichikoh "lacks sufficient
minimum contacts for the Court to exercise personal jurisdiction.
Ichikoh has virtually no ties to the United States, and
Plaintiffs' stream of commerce and conspiracy theories are
unavailing. In addition, the Court declines to permit
jurisdictional discovery in this matter, as there is no reasonable
basis to expect that further discovery would reveal any evidence
to support an exercise of jurisdiction. See Chrysler Corp. v.
Fedders Corp., 643 F.2d 1229, 1240 (6th Cir. 1981). Therefore, the
Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Ichikoh, and it will be
dismissed from this action."

The February 26, 2015 ruling, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/dNBofvfrom Leagle.com, relates to Dealership Actions
2:13-cv-01702 and End-Payor Actions 2:13-cv-01703.


JANSSEN PHARMA: Jury Awards $2.5MM Verdict in Risperdal Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a Philadelphia jury has awarded $2.5 million to the plaintiff in
the first of roughly 1,250 Risperdal mass-tort cases in the city's
courts.

After roughly a day-and-a-half of deliberations, the 12-member
jury in Pledger v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals handed down the verdict
in Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Ramy I. Djerassi's
courtroom on Feb. 24.  The verdict, agreed upon by 11 of the
jurors, brought an end to the month-long trial.

The jury found defendant Janssen Pharmaceuticals negligent in
having failed to warn of the potential for Risperdal to cause
gynecomastia, a condition in which males grow enlarged breasts.

The plaintiff in the case, Austin Pledger, took Risperdal to
assist with behavioral symptoms related to autism and claimed to
have developed gynecomastia from taking the drug.

Kline & Specter co-founder Thomas R. Kline said the verdict set
the stage for the rest of the Risperdal cases set to go to trial.
He also remarked that, in 37 years of trying drug cases, "I have
never seen a worse case of corporate misconduct than I have seen
here."

That misconduct, Mr. Kline said, was exemplified by Janssen's
failure to turn over information to the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration about Risperdal's ability to elevate levels of
prolactin, the hormone that causes gynecomastia.

"The documents now in the public domain, including the
statistically significant association between elevated prolactin
levels and gynecomastia, which was never turned over to the FDA,
was seen by the jury for what it was," Mr. Kline said.

As for whether the amount of the verdict met his expectations,
Mr. Kline said, "The amount of the verdict speaks to the reaction
of the jury, not only to the evidence against Janssen -- which was
damning -- but to the injury caused to the most vulnerable members
of our society."

In a Janssen statement issued in response to the verdict, a
company spokeswoman said, "We are disappointed and will consider
all of our options going forward, including appeals.  We firmly
believe this verdict should be overturned."

The spokeswoman continued, "During the trial, Janssen presented
abundant evidence showing that the FDA-approved label properly
warned of the medication's potential side effects and the
plaintiff's physician was aware of those side effects.  The
evidence also showed that Mr. Pledger was not harmed by using
Risperdal and, in fact, his quality of life was significantly
improved during the time he was taking Risperdal."

The atmosphere of the trial itself was often combative, with
counsel for both parties verbally sparring with each other.
Frequent objections were commonplace as well as informal
criticisms of expert witnesses tossed around in open court.
Closing arguments in the case encapsulated the contentious nature
of the trial.

Weil, Gotshal & Manges attorney Diane Sullivan, who represented
Janssen, noted how much the plaintiff's experts, Dr. Mark P.
Solomon and former FDA commissioner Dr. David Kessler, earned as
testifying witnesses, and said the plaintiff had failed to bring a
specialist in endocrinology, which Sullivan argued would be the
medical field most directly related to the plaintiff's
allegations.

Ms. Sullivan also referred to Solomon, who is a plastic surgeon,
as "the Tom Brady of penile enlargement surgery," and said that as
an expert, Dr. Kessler "hasn't met a warning label he liked yet."

However, Mr. Kline, during the rebuttal portion of his argument,
referred to Sullivan's portrayal of Solomon as "disgusting crap,"
and noted the defendants did not call a pediatric endocrinologist.

"I brought in a commissioner of the FDA," Mr. Kline said, before
turning to Ms. Sullivan.  "Where's your commissioner of the FDA?"
Mr. Pledger, a 20-year-old from Alabama, claimed he grew large
breasts as a result of taking Risperdal when he was 8 years old,
and that -- barring a mastectomy -- the condition is permanent.
Mr. Kline alleged that Janssen knew about the increased risk of
gynecomastia associated with Risperdal relative to similar drugs,
but was not forthright in disclosing that information.

Mr. Pledger had used Risperdal beginning in 2002, but stopped
after the FDA provided a new warning label in 2006 outlining the
risks associated with gynecomastia.

                Closing Arguments Focus on Experts

Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
closing arguments in the first trial of Philadelphia's Risperdal
mass-tort actions focused largely on attacking the testimony and
backgrounds of the experts.

Plaintiffs attorney Thomas R. Kline of Kline & Specter referenced
a defense expert who came from Alabama as "Dr. Alabama," and
argued the doctor was less qualified than Kline's experts.

However, during the defense's portion of the arguments, counsel
for Janssen Pharmaceuticals, the defendant in the case, referred
to the plaintiff's experts as "regulars on the litigation
circuit."

The arguments, which were heard Feb. 20, came after nearly a month
of trial over whether the drugmaker failed to warn patients about
the risk of gynecomastia, a condition in which young males grow
breast tissue.

Although attorneys on both sides in the case, Pledger v. Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, outlined their arguments before the jury, and
went over their interpretations of the questions on the verdict
sheet, much of the contentious arguments focused on the experts.
Weil, Gotshal & Manges attorney Diane Sullivan, who represented
Janssen, noted how much the plaintiff's experts, Dr. Mark P.
Solomon and Dr. David Kessler, earned as testifying witnesses, and
said the plaintiff had failed to bring a specialist in
endocrinology, which Sullivan argued would be the medical field
most directly related to the plaintiff's allegations.

Ms. Sullivan also referred to Solomon, who is a plastic surgeon,
as "the Tom Brady of penile enlargement surgery," and said that as
an expert, Kessler, who was a former U.S. Food and Drug
Administration commissioner, "hasn't met a warning label he liked
yet."

However, Mr. Kline, during the rebuttal portion of his argument,
referred to Sullivan's portrayal of Solomon as "disgusting crap,"
and noted the defendants did not call a pediatric endocrinologist.
"I brought in a commissioner of the FDA," Mr. Kline said, before
turning to Ms. Sullivan.  "Where's your commissioner of the FDA?"
Plaintiff Austin Pledger's case is the first of roughly 1,250
cases claiming that Risperdal, an antipsychotic, causes
gynecomastia that have been filed in the city's court system.  The
trial, which was held before Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas
Judge Ramy I. Djerassi, began Jan. 23.

According to Mr. Kline, Mr. Pledger, a 20-year-old from Alabama,
grew large breasts as a result of taking Risperdal when he was 8
years old, and that, barring a mastectomy, the condition is
permanent.  Mr. Kline alleged that Janssen knew about the
increased risk of gynecomastia associated with Risperdal relative
to similar drugs, but was not forthright with the FDA or doctors
about those risks.

Mr. Pledger had used Risperdal beginning in 2002, but stopped
after the FDA provided a new warning label in 2006 outlining the
risks associated with gynecomastia.

Mr. Kline contended in closing arguments that the company hid data
from prescribing doctors, and focused on selling the drug instead
of studying its safety.

"When a pharmaceutical company is acting reasonably and prudently
they investigate it, they report it, they tell the FDA, they tell
the world," Mr. Kline said.  "Nobody knew all this risk, except
the insiders."

Mr. Kline said the drug caused Mr. Pledger to develop size 46 DD
breasts, and that the condition could not be due only to natural
hormonal changes of puberty.

"Is there any boy that you know who has 46 DD breasts that he got
from puberty?" Mr. Kline asked the jury.

The jury slip, which Mr. Kline and Ms. Sullivan both used to
outline their closing arguments, included a question on whether
Janssen was negligent, and a question on whether the negligence
was a causative factor in Mr. Pledger developing gynecomastia.

Kline pointed to testimony from both Mr. Pledger's mother and his
prescribing doctor to show that the doctor would have advised the
mother differently and the mother would not have decided to give
Mr. Pledger the drug had the warning label noted the relationship
to gynecomastia.

Ms. Sullivan countered that the treating doctor had prescribed
Pledger the drug in January 2007 after the new labeling was
issued, and the drug had been refilled a few times.  She also
noted that other drugs Mr. Pledger had taken were known to have
side effects including a fatal skin disease.

Numerous times in her closing argument Ms. Sullivan noted the case
did not begin after a doctor diagnosed Pledger with gynecomastia,
but instead after Mr. Pledger's mother saw a television
advertisement.  "1-800. Call.  We'll sue," she said.  "Plaintiffs
don't matter. Facts don't matter."
Ms. Sullivan also characterized the plaintiff's analysis of the
pharmaceutical testing data as "the height of cherry-picking," and
said several times that the plaintiff's case was "a show."
"Why would you measure for bra size?" Ms. Sullivan asked.  "Real
doctors don't do that."

During his rebuttal, Mr. Kline said Ms. Sullivan's case had been
largely based on distractions and personal attacks.

"It's a telltale sign when somebody smashes, mashes, bashes and
stomps," he said.  "An 800-lawyer? I'm proud to be a lawyer."


JC LEWIS: Accused of Failing to Pay Proper Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elliott D. Dawkins v. J.C. Lewis Primary Health Care, Aretha
Jones, CEO, Laura Adams, CFO, Hilton Fordham Human Resources
Liaison, Courtney Staley, Momentum Resources, Case No. 4:15-cv-
00043-BAE-GRS (S.D. Ga., February 24, 2015) alleges that the
Plaintiff was not paid overtime when he worked in excess of 40
hours for the Defendants.

J.C. Lewis Primary Health Clinic is an instrumentality of the
state of Georgia.  J.C. Lewis is located in Savannah, Chatham
County, state of Georgia.  The Individual Defendants are officers
and agents of J.C. Lewis.


JOE WHEELER: Removes "Bates" Suit to Northern District of Alabama
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Bates v. Joe Wheeler Electric
Membership Corporation, Case No. CV-2015-900048, was removed from
the Circuit Court of Morgan 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-00334-IPJ to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts claims for: (1) Declaratory,
Injunctive, and Equitable Relief; (2) Breach of Contract; (3)
Unjust Enrichment; and (4) Accounting.  The a class action is
brought on behalf of the current and former members of the
Defendant, an Alabama cooperative, for a declaration that the
putative Class is entitled to a refund of "Patronage Capital"
pursuant to the Alabama Code, together with interest, costs, and
any other appropriate relief.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas E. Baddley, Jr.
          Jeffrey P. Mauro
          John Parker Yates
          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 P. Campbell, Esq.
          John C. Guin, Esq.
          Stephen D. Wadsworth, Esq.
          CAMPBELL, GUIN, WILLIAMS, GUY & GIDIERE, LLC
          505 N. 20th Street North, Suite 1600
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          E-mail: andy.campbell@campbellguin.com
                  stephen.wadsworth@campbellguin.com
                  john.guin@campbellguin.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Cecil Caine, Esq.
          Trey Goldsmith, Esq.
          CAINE GOLDSMITH
          Post Office Box 667
          652 Walnut Street
          Moulton, AL 35650
          Telephone: (256) 974-1126
          Facsimile: (256) 974-1195
          E-mail: ccaine@legal-cg.com
                  tgoldsmith@legal-cg.com


JOHN SHORB: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos A. Hernandez, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. John Shorb Landscaping, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-00529
(D. Md., February 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40
hours weekly.

John Shorb Landscaping, Inc. is a Maryland corporation that own
and operates a landscaping business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alvaro Augusto Llosa, Esq.
      Roberto N. Allen, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF ROBERTO ALLEN LLC
      11002 Veirs Mill Rd, Ste 700
      Wheaton, MD 20902
      Telephone: (301) 861-0202
      Facsimile: (410) 864-8895
      E-mail: allosa@robertoallenlaw.com
              rallen@robertoallenlaw.com


KIMMEN PLAZA: Facility Inaccessible to PWDs, "Kennedy" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pat Kennedy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Kimmen Plaza LLC, Case No. 9:15-cv-80231 (S.D. Fla.,
February 23, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to adhere to the Americans with Disabilities Act's policy,
practice and procedure to ensure that all goods, services and
facilities are readily accessible to and usable by persons with
disabilities.

Kimmen Plaza LLC is a business establishment located at 1800-1940
N.W. Boca Raton Blvd. (2nd Ave.), Boca Raton, FL.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas B. Bacon, Esq.
      THOMAS B. BACON, P.A.
      4868 S.W. 103rd Ave.
      Cooper City, FL 33328
      Telephone: (954) 478-7811
      Facsimile: (954) 237-1990
      E-mail: tbb@thomasbaconlaw.com

         - and -

      Jeannette Elizabeth Albo, Esq.
      THOMAS B. BACON, P.A.
      9444 SW 69th Ct.
      Miami, FL 33516
      Telephone: (305) 502-4593
      E-mail: jalbo@bellsouth.net


LA HACIENDA CAFE: Violates Fair Labor Standards Act, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel A. Mayancela, individually and in behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. La Hacienda Cafe Corp. d/b/a
Tacqueria La Hacienda, jointly and severally; Alexander Molano,
jointly and severally; and Fernando Navarro, jointly and
severally, Case No. 1:15-cv-00964 (E.D.N.Y., February 24, 2015) is
brought over alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.


LANDRY'S INC: Faces "Saechao" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mouang Saechao, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Landry's, Inc., and McCormick & Schmick
Restaurant Corp, Case No. 4:15-cv-00815 (N.D. Cal., February 23,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Berkeley,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Cari Ann Cohorn, Esq.
      PHILLIPS ERLEWINE GIVEN & CARLIN LLP
      The Presidio
      39 Mesa Street, Suite 201
      San Francisco, CA 94129
      Telephone: (415) 398-0900
      Facsimile: (415) 398-0911
      E-mail: cac@phillaw.com


LEGGETT & PLATT: Direct Purchaser Settlements Get Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jack Zouhary granted final approval of "Leggett &
Platt and Carpenter Settlements" and a motion for an award of
attorneys' fees and for reimbursement of expenses in In re
Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, ANTITRUST CASE NO. 1:10 MD
2196, (N.D. Ohio).

Under the proposed settlements, and in exchange for a release of
all Direct Purchaser claims against Leggett & Platt and the
Carpenter Defendants, Direct Purchasers will receive:

* $39.8 million from Leggett & Platt, including an initial $4
million cash payment;

* $108 million from the Carpenter Defendants, including an initial
$20 million cash payment (the two funds together are referred to
as the Settlement Fund); and

* Trial testimony from up to two Leggett & Platt employees and up
to two Carpenter Defendant employees for the purpose of admitting
Leggett & Platt and Carpenter documents at trial.

Class Counsel have sought a $52,473,855.80 cut of the Settlement
Fund, including:

* Thirty percent of the Settlement Fund for attorneys' fees, or
roughly $44.34 million; and

* Reimbursement of Class Counsel's incurred expenses, amounting to
$8,133,855.80.

The Court concluded that Class Counsel's fee request is
reasonable. The Court also awarded Class Counsel $8,113,855.80 for
reimbursement of expenses. The Court granted Co-Lead Counsel
authority to "distribute the fees in a manner that, in the
judgment of Co-Lead Counsel, fairly compensates each firm for its
contribution to the prosecution of Plaintiffs' claims".

The Court certified the "Direct Purchaser Settlement Class" for
the purposes of this settlement. The Direct Purchaser Settlement
Class consists of the certified Direct Purchaser Litigation Class
minus the persons and entities who request exclusion from the
Direct Purchaser Settlement Class.

As to the Leggett & Platt Released Parties and the Carpenter
Released Parties, as defined in the Settlement Agreements, the
Class Action and any and all currently pending direct purchaser
class action lawsuits directly related to the subject matter of
this litigation are dismissed with prejudice and in their
entirety, on the merits, and, except as provided for in the
Settlement Agreement, without costs.

The Order does not settle or compromise any claims by Class
Representatives or the Direct Purchaser Settlement Class against
the Defendants or other persons or entities other than the Leggett
& Platt Released Parties or the Carpenter Released Parties, and
all rights against any other Defendant or other person or entity
are specifically reserved. The sales of Polyurethane Foam to
members of the Direct Purchaser Settlement Class by the Leggett &
Platt Released Parties and the Carpenter Released Parties will
remain against the non-settling Defendants as a basis for damage
claims, and will be part of any joint and several liability claims
against any non-settling Defendant or other person or entity other
than the Leggett & Platt Released Parties or the Carpenter
Released Parties.

A copy of the Court's February 26, 2015 memorandum opinion and
order is available at http://is.gd/wko5p2from Leagle.com.


LENOVO GROUP: Faces "Pick" Suit Over Pre-Installed Spyware
----------------------------------------------------------
Lukas Pick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lenovo (United States) Inc. and Superfish Inc., Case
No. 5:15-cv-00068 (E.D.N.C., February 24, 2015), seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of selling new computers with preinstalled
harmful and offensive spyware and malware.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dhamian A. Blue, Esq.
      Daniel T. Blue Jr., Esq.
      Daniel T. Blue III, Esq.
      BLUE STEPHENS & FELLERS LLP
      205 Fayetteville Street, Suite 300
      Raleigh, NC 27601
      Telephone: (919) 833-1931
      Facsimile: (919) 833-8009
      E-mail: dab@bluestephens.com

         - and -

      Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
      Mark J. Dearman, Esq.
      Holly W. Kimmel, Esq.
      Alex D. Kruzyk, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMA & DOWD LLP
      120 East Palmetto Park Rd., Suite 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 750-3000
      Facsimile: (561) 750-3363

         - and -

      Carmen A. Medici, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101-8498
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      Facsimile: (619) 231-7423


LENOVO GROUP: Faces "Hunter" Suit Over Pre-Installed Spyware
------------------------------------------------------------
David Hunter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lenovo (United States) Inc., and Superfish, Inc., Case
No. 5:15-cv-00819 (N.D. Cal., February 23, 2015), seeks to stop
the Defendants' practice of selling new computers with
preinstalled harmful and offensive spyware and malware.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel M. Lasser, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      1934 Divisadero Street
      San Francisco, CA 94115
      Telephone: (415) 994-9930
      Facsimile: (415) 776-8047
      E-mail: slasser@edelson.com

         - and -

      Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
      Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
      J. Dominick Larry, Esq.
      Amir C. Missaghi, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Telephone: (312) 589-6370
      Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
      E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
              brichman@edelson.com
              nlarry@edelson.com
              amissaghi@edelson.com


MEGA CARE: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Kharibouch" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abdellah Kharibouch, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated individuals v. Mega Care Ems, Inc. d/b/a Mega Care Ems,
Case No. 4:15-cv-00507 (S.D. Tex., February 24, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours per workweek.

Mega Care Ems, Inc. owns and operates an ambulance services
company doing business within the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shelly M. Davis-Smith, Esq.
      THE DAVIS LAW FIRM
      3100 Richmond Ave., Ste 480
      Houston, TX 77098
      Telephone: (713) 349-9299
      Facsimile: (713) 349-9244
      E-mail: info@thedavislawfirm.com


MY BELLY'S: Faces "Castaneda" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gregorio Castaneda, Jesus Quirino Velasquez, Jose Luis Romero
Toledano, Juan Sanchez Flores, Severiano Flores Alonso,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. My
Belly's Playlist LLC d/b/a My Belly's Playlist, Shawn Reilly, Ian
Behar and Ryan Sasson, Case No. 1:15-cv-01324 (S.D.N.Y., February
24, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime compensation for the hours over 40 per week.

The Defendants own and operate a sandwich shop under the name
located at 18 Murray Street, New York, NY 10007.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NAT'L BUREAU COLLECTION: Faces "Esppsito" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------
Denise Esposito, an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. National Bureau Collection Corp. et al, Case
No. 7:15-cv-01336 (S.D.N.Y., February 24, 2015), seeks to stop the
Defendants' abusive and unfair practice of collecting alleged
debt.

National Bureau Collection Corp. is debt collecting firm that
maintains its principal place of business at 150 White Plains
Road, 1st Fl., Tarrytown, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Louis Arleo, Esq.
      ROBERT L. ARLEO, ESQ.
      380 Lexington Avenue, 17th Floor
      New York, NY 10168
      Telephone: (212) 551-1115
      Facsimile: (518) 751-1801
      E-mail: RobertArleo@gmail.com


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: White Gets OK to File Documents Under Seal
-------------------------------------------------------------
REGGIE WHITE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, et
al., Defendants, NO. 4:92-CV-00906-MJD, (D. Minn.) came on before
the court on the Plaintiffs' motion to file under seal certain
portions of their memorandum of law, portions of several
declarations and certain exhibits which have been submitted in
support of Plaintiffs' Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 60(b) motion.

In an order entered March 3, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/MoIqaLfrom Leagle.com, Chief District Judge Michael
J. Davis granted the Plaintiffs' motion for permission to file the
documents under seal.


NAVISTAR: Recalls CE School Bus 2015 Models Due to Safety Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 12, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: School Bus
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Fuel Supply
Units affected: 645
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015066TC
ID number: 2015066
Manufacturer recall number: 15501

On certain school buses, a wiring harness may wear against a high
pressure fuel line. Overtime, this could cause a fuel leak in the
engine bay. Leaking fuel could come in contact with high
temperature components, increasing the risk of fire causing injury
and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will inspect and
replace any damaged fuel lines while adding a harness saddle to
prevent further damage to the fuel lines.

  Make      Model           Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----           ----------------------
  IC        CE SCHOOL BUS   2015


NEIGHBORHOOD RESTAURANT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Brown, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Neighborhood Restaurant Partners Florida,
LLC d/b/a Applebee's, Case No. 8:15-cv-00382 (M.D. Fla., February
23, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 during
any workweek.

Neighborhood Restaurant Partners Florida, LLC is a foreign for-
profit corporation that owns and operates Applebee's restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NETFLIX INC: Walmart's Gift Card Settlement Okay, 9th Cir. Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit affirmed the
district court's approval of a settlement in the case, IN RE
ONLINE DVD-RENTAL ANTITRUST LITIGATION, ANDREA RESNICK; BRYAN
EASTMAN; AMY LATHAM; MELANIE MISCIOSCIA; STAN MAGEE; MICHAEL
OROZCO; LISA SIVEK; MICHAEL WIENER, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
THEODORE H. FRANK, Objector-Appellant, v. NETFLIX, INC.; WAL-MART
STORES, INC.; WALMART.COM USA LLC, Defendants-Appellees. IN RE
ONLINE DVD-RENTAL ANTITRUST LITIGATION, ANDREA RESNICK; BRYAN
EASTMAN; AMY LATHAM; MELANIE MISCIOSCIA; STAN MAGEE; MICHAEL
OROZCO; LISA SIVEK; MICHAEL WIENER, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. JON
M. ZIMMERMAN, Objector-Appellant, v. NETFLIX, INC.; WAL-MART
STORES, INC.; WALMART.COM USA LLC, Defendants-Appellees. IN RE
ONLINE DVD-RENTAL ANTITRUST LITIGATION, ANDREA RESNICK; BRYAN
EASTMAN; AMY LATHAM; MELANIE MISCIOSCIA; STAN MAGEE; MICHAEL
OROZCO; LISA SIVEK; MICHAEL WIENER, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
EDMUND F. BANDAS, Objector-Appellant, v. NETFLIX, INC.; WAL-MART
STORES, INC.; WALMART.COM USA LLC, Defendants-Appellees. IN RE
ONLINE DVD-RENTAL ANTITRUST LITIGATION, ANDREA RESNICK; BRYAN
EASTMAN; AMY LATHAM; MELANIE MISCIOSCIA; STAN MAGEE; MICHAEL
OROZCO; LISA SIVEK; MICHAEL WIENER, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MARIA
COPE, Objector-Appellant, v. NETFLIX, INC.; WAL-MART STORES, INC.;
WALMART.COM USA LLC, Defendants-Appellees. IN RE ONLINE DVD-RENTAL
ANTITRUST LITIGATION, ANDREA RESNICK; BRYAN EASTMAN; AMY LATHAM;
MELANIE MISCIOSCIA; STAN MAGEE; MICHAEL OROZCO; LISA SIVEK;
MICHAEL WIENER, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. JOHN SULLIVAN, Objector-
Appellant, v. NETFLIX, INC.; WAL-MART STORES, INC.; WALMART.COM
USA LLC, Defendants-Appellees. IN RE ONLINE DVD-RENTAL ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, ANDREA RESNICK; BRYAN EASTMAN; AMY LATHAM; MELANIE
MISCIOSCIA; STAN MAGEE; MICHAEL OROZCO; LISA SIVEK; MICHAEL
WIENER, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. TRACEY KLINGE COX, Objector-
Appellant, v. NETFLIX, INC.; WAL-MART STORES, INC.; WALMART.COM
USA LLC, Defendants-Appellees, NOS. 12-15705, 12-15889, 12-15957,
12-15996, 12-16010, 12-16038.

Class members challenged the district court's approval of the
settlement between Walmart and a class of Netflix DVD subscribers,
arguing, among other matters, that the gift card portion of the
settlement constituted a coupon settlement within the meaning of
the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), Pub. L. No. 109-2, 119
Stat. 4 (2005).

In the settlement agreement, Walmart agreed to pay a total amount
of $27,250,000, comprising both a "Cash Component" and a "Gift
Card Component," in exchange for dismissal with prejudice of all
claims asserted in the complaint. The class consists of:
any person or entity residing in the United States or Puerto Rico
that paid a subscription fee to rent DVDs online from Netflix on
or after May 19, 2005, up to and including the date the Court
grants Preliminary Approval of the Settlement, or some other date
to be agreed to by the parties to this Agreement.

The Cash Component funded attorneys' fees and expenses, costs of
notice and administration, and incentive payments to class
representatives. The amount remaining constituted the Gift Card
Component and was used to provide class members with either gift
cards or, if they so chose, the cash equivalent of a gift card.
The gift card could only be used at the Walmart website and was
freely transferrable, although it could not be resold.

To receive payment, a class member was required to submit a claim
form. A claimant could submit a claim for a gift card via e-mail,
the class action website, or regular mail. A claimant could submit
a claim for cash by regular mail only, and had to include the last
four digits of his or her Social Security Number. Each claimant
received an equal share of the Gift Card Component. In other
words, the Gift Card Component (the amount remaining after
subtracting attorneys' fees and expenses, notice and
administration costs, and incentive payments) was split evenly
among all valid claimants, regardless of the specific damages each
individual claimant incurred.

Initial e-mail notice of the settlement was provided to some 35
million class members. Notice was mailed to more than 9 million
class members whose email addresses were invalid such that the
email notice "bounced back." The notice informed class members
about the settlement and claims-submission process; stated that
class counsel would seek $1.7 million in reimbursement of
litigation expenses and fees of 25% of the total settlement fund
of $27,250,000 and that Class Representatives would receive $5,000
each in incentive payments; it also set a deadline for filing a
claim, leaving the class, or objecting to the settlement of
February 14, 2012. The notice encouraged class members to visit
the class website for more details.

In response to the notice, 1,183,444 claims were submitted.
744,202 requests were for gift cards and 434,253 were for the
equivalent value in cash. 722 class members opted out of the class
and 30 lodged objections.

In approving the Settlement, the District Court concluded the
attorneys' fees were properly calculated as 25% of the settlement
fund, including administration and notice costs. It decided the
percentage amount was fair, especially given that the alternative
lodestar calculation would have resulted in attorneys' fees three
times larger than the amount class counsel requested.

The District Court approved attorneys' fees of $6,812,500 (25% of
the total fund of $27,250,000), reimbursement of some litigation
expenses totaling $1,700,000, incentive awards of $5,000 each for
nine class representatives (totaling $45,000), and payment of
notice and administration costs out of the fund. Administration
and notice costs totaled roughly $4.5 million, leaving roughly
$14.1 million in the settlement fund for the Gift Card Component.
Divided among almost 1.2 million claims, the Gift Card Component
will provide claimants with roughly $12 each.

Following the court's approval of the settlement, six objectors,
Theodore Frank, Tracey Klinge Cox, Maria Cope, Edmund F. Bandas,
John Sullivan, and Jon M. Zimmerman, timely appealed and their
cases were consolidated.

The Ninth Circuit held in its February 27, 2015 opinion, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/rz1GWufrom Leagle.com, that
the district court did not err in approving the settlement as
fair, reasonable, and adequate.  Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit
affirmed the district court's decision to approve the settlement
between the class of Netflix subscribers and Walmart, to certify
the settlement class, and to grant class counsels' motion for
attorneys' fees.

One of the Objectors raised the concerns that the gift cards will
not disgorge Walmart of ill-gotten gains and will force class
members to buy from the defendant in their class action.

The Ninth Circuit held, however, that giving thousands of
consumers the ability to purchase $12 in goods from the Walmart
website for free will not be insignificant to the retailer.  The
Ninth Circuit also said the case does not present the same
problems as one like Young v. Polo Retail, LLC, in which the class
members were former Polo Retail employees who complained about
being forced to purchase Polo clothing and were then given Polo
Retail gift cards. No. C-02-4546, 2006 WL 3050861, at *3-5 (N.D.
Cal. 2006) ("[W]hy would former employees, who allegedly were
forced to buy a great deal of unwanted Polo products, desire
product vouchers so that they could purchase even more clothes?").

"Here, class members are suing due to an online-DVD rental
agreement between Walmart and Netflix. Since Walmart sells many
products beyond DVDs, class members have less reason to be wary of
a gift card to the defendant retailer than did the plaintiffs in
Young," the Ninth Circuit explained.  "Moreover, the claimants in
this case had the option of obtaining cash instead of a gift card,
undercutting the argument that the settlement forces them to buy
from the defendant. In sum, we hold that the Walmart gift cards in
this case are not coupons that fall under the umbrella of CAFA."

Theodore H. Frank, (argued) -- tfrank@gmail.com -- Center for
Class Action Fairness, Washington, D.C.; Gary Sibley, Dallas,
Texas; Joseph Darrell Palmer -- darrell.palmer@palmerlegalteam.com
-- Law Offices of Darrell Palmer PC, Solana Beach, California;
Christopher A. Bandas -- cbandas@bandaslawfirm.com -- Bandas Law
Firm, P.C., Corpus Christi, Texas; Christopher V. Langone and
Grenville Pridham, Law Office of Christopher Langone, Ithaca, New
York; Joshua R. Furman -- jrf@furmanlawyers.com -- (argued),
Joshua R. Furman, Law Corp., Los Angeles, California, for
Objector-Appellants Frank, Cope, Cox, Bandas, Sullivan, and
Zimmerman.

Todd A. Seaver -- tseaver@bermandevalerio.com -- (argued), Joseph
J. Tabacco, Jr. -- jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com -- and Christopher
T. Heffelfinger -- cheffelfinger@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman
DeValerio, San Francisco, California, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.


NEW YORK ASSOCIATES: Has Sent Unsolicited Faxes, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Central Alarm Signal, Inc., a Michigan corporation, individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons
v. New York Associates Inc. and John Does 1-10, Case No. 2:15-cv-
10681 (E.D. Mich., February 24, 2015), seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of sending unsolicited facsimiles.

New York Associates Inc. is a Florida corporation that provides
engineering, architecture, planning, and program and project
management services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
      Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
      ANDERSON & WANCA
      3701 Algonquin Road
      Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
      Telephone: (847) 368-1500
      Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
      E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com
              buslit@andersonwanca.com


NEW YORK CITY, NY: Overhauls Solitary Policy in Rikers Island
-------------------------------------------------------------
Some light has shined inside Rikers Island's darkest holes on
February 21, reports Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service.

That's when the New York City Department of Corrections' new rules
take effect, imposing time limits on solitary confinement and
jettisoning the prison's "owed-time" policy.

Corrections Commissioner Joseph Ponte estimated at a press
conference in December that the reforms will eliminate pending
solitary confinement terms of thousands of Rikers inmates, and he
banned the placement of 16- and 17-year-olds in isolation earlier
this year.

These developments followed extensive federal litigation over
alleged civil rights abuses inside Rikers Island jails and
prisons.

Last year, Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara slammed what he
called a "Lord of the Flies" atmosphere facing teenagers inside
the juvenile lockups, where his investigation found beatings
occurred with "alarming frequency."

Four months after releasing the results that probe, on Dec. 18,
2014, Bharara's office joined a 4-year-old civil lawsuit, Nunez v.
City of New York, challenging the jailhouse's use of solitary
confinement.

The day after this development, the Corrections Department held a
public hearing to address a wide range of policies regarding so-
called "punitive segregation."

One of these included the rule forcing inmates released from
solitary before the end of their terms to make up for their "owed
time" later in their sentence.

Known as "bings" at Rikers, this policy also came under fire
nearly four months ago in Manhattan through the federal class
action, Bryant v. City of New York.

Lead plaintiff Ahlijah Bryant was 20 years old when his lawyers at
the Legal Aid Society and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
LLP filed the Oct. 30, 2014, complaint on behalf of the prison's
pretrial detainees.

When released on parole from Midstate Correctional Facility in
April 2013 for an attempted-robbery conviction, Bryant had not yet
completed his solitary confinement term, and he had to make up the
difference at Rikers after his first-degree robbery arrest last
year, records show.

Such a punishment is inconsistent with the presumption of
innocence, his lawyers say.

Calling solitary confinement a "dangerous practice," their
complaint notes that a Corrections Department-commissioned report
labeled it "one of the most severe forms of punishment that can be
inflicted on human beings short of killing them."

The Yale and New York University-affiliated psychiatrists who
wrote the report found that 41 percent of solitary inmates at
Rikers are mentally ill, isolation stints stretched up to 3,000
days, and that the "torture" of isolation could cause or aggravate
"psychosis."

The Corrections Department's board unanimously voted on Jan. 13
this year to overhaul their solitary practices.

Two weeks before these rules were memorialized, the prisons banned
solitary for inmates younger than 18.  The department plans to
raise a minimum age of 21 next year, if they obtained enough
resources and staffing to implement the change, according to the
15-page notice of the rules.

The mentally ill and the seriously physically disabled also will
be excluded starting on February 20, the rules state.

Inmates in solitary for nonviolent-jailhouse infractions will
spend at least seven out-of-cell hours a day, instead of one, and
maximum terms cap at 30 days, the notice says.

The new rules also beef up due-process protections for hearing
leading to solitary terms, train corrections officers working
those shifts, and mandate bimonthly reports monitoring the
prisons' compliance with the changes.

Commissioner Ponte said on Dec. 17 that the owed-time shelving
alone would eliminate 1,000 names from the solitary backlog.

"We are going to take all that historic time and wipe that off the
books," he said.  "So all those things -- guys that have gotten
out, coming back -- they're not going to owe time anymore."

The New York City Law Department told the judge hearing the Bryant
case that the shelving of the owed-time policy could lead to a
settlement in that case.

A Jan. 20 letter states that the parties need time to pour through
"relevant medical records" of the 10 named plaintiffs for their
discussions.

U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein adjourned proceedings until
March 26.

The Legal Aid Society's Barbara Hamilton, the lead attorney on
that case, called the new measures a "good step towards reform and
progress."


NEW YORK FRESH: Faces "Cabrera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adael Cabrera, Gustavo Gomez, Luis Gomez, Miguel Palacios,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. New
York Fresh Meat Inc. and Min J. Lee, Case No. 1:15-cv-01325
(S.D.N.Y., February 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime compensation for the hours over 40 per
week.

The Defendants own and operate a meat supply company located at
355 Food Center Drive, Bronx, New York 10474.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NORDSTROM INC: Cal. Supreme Court Asked to Rule on Day Off Issue
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that the 9th
Circuit on February 19 asked the California Supreme Court to
settle a question of "extreme importance" to tens of thousands of
workers: how many days they have to work without a day off.

Former Nordstrom salesman Christopher Mendoza filed a Superior
Court class action in 2009 against the fashion retailer, claiming
he had worked more than six days in a row without having a day
off.

Under California labor laws, Mendoza said, he should have had one
day's rest in every seven days he worked.

After the case was removed to Federal Court for a bench trial,
U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney said California law applies to
any rolling period in which an employee worked seven days in a
row, rather than by workweek.

But Carney found that Nordstrom did not violate labor laws because
Mendoza had worked less than six hours for at least one day during
the consecutive days on the job.

In addition, Nordstrom did not coerce Mendoza to work more than
seven consecutive days.  He had agreed to take them, Carney ruled.

On February 19, the 9th Circuit certified three questions to state
supreme court, noting that there is no controlling law or appeals
court precedent to guide its decision.

The panel asked the court to decide if under state labor laws the
day off rule is calculated based on a workweek or on any instance
in which a person works for seven days in row.  It also asked the
supreme court to rule on exemptions to the rest day requirement.

"Does that exemption apply when an employee works less than six
hours in any one day of the applicable week, or does it apply only
when an employee works less than six hours in each day of the
week?" Judge Susan P. Graber wrote.

The court also was unclear on what it means for an employer to
"cause" an employee to work more than six days in seven.

Does it mean "force, coerce, pressure, schedule, encourage,
reward, permit, or something else?" Graber asked.

"The answers to these questions of California law would be
dispositive of the appeal before us, and no clear controlling
California precedent exists," Graber wrote.  "Moreover, because
the questions that we certify are of extreme importance to tens of
thousands of employees in California, considerations of comity and
federalism suggest that the court of last resort in California,
rather than our court, should have the opportunity to answer the
questions in the first instance."

The 9th Circuit stayed the case pending the supreme court's
decision.

Judge Ronald M. Gould and Consuelo M. Callahan joined Graber on
the panel.

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          Andre E. Jardini, Esq.
          K.L. Myles, Esq.
          KNAPP PETERSEN AND CLARKE
          550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
          Glendale, CA 91203-1922
          Telephone: (818) 547-5000
          Facsimile: (818) 547-5329
          E-mail: aej@kpclegal.com
                  klm@kpclegal.com

The Plaintiff/Intervenor-Appellant is represented by:

          R. Craig Clark, Esq.
          James M. Treglio, Esq.
          Laura M. Cotter, Esq.
          CLARK & TREGLIO
          205 W Date Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-1321
          E-mail: cclark@clarklawyers.com
                  jim@clarktreglio.com
                  lcotter@clarkmarkham.com

               - and -

          David Roger Markham, Esq.
          THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM
          750 B St Ste 1950
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 399-3995
          Facsimile: (619) 615-2067
          E-mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com

The Defendant-Appellee is represented by:

          Julie A. Dunne, Esq.
          Dawn Fonseca, Esq.
          Lara K. Strauss, Esq.
          Michael G. Leggieri, Esq.
          Joshua D. Levine, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          501 W. Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 232-0441
          Facsimile: (619) 232-4302
          E-mail: jdunne@littler.com
                  dfonseca@littler.com
                  lstrauss@littler.com
                  mleggieri@littler.com
                  jdlevine@littler.com

The case is Christopher Mendoza, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff-
Appellant; Meagan Gordon, Plaintiff-Intervenor v. Nordstrom, Inc.,
a Washington Corporation authorized to do business in the State of
California, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 12-57130, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.


OLYMPUS CORP: Sued Over Medical Scope-Linked Superbug Outbreak
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that two lawsuits target the maker of
a medical scope linked to the outbreak of a superbug at Ronald
Reagan UCLA Medical Center.

The first was filed on Feb. 23 on behalf of 18-year-old Aaron
Young, who remains hospitalized after becoming infected.  The
Los Angeles Times reports that suit claims negligence and fraud by
Olympus Corp. of the Americas.

The company makes the difficult-to-clean duodenoscope involved in
the outbreak of the deadly and antibiotic-resistant bacteria known
as CRE.

On Feb. 25 the family of Antonia Torres Cerda also sued.  The 48-
year-old Corcoran woman died in November after allegedly becoming
infected following a liver transplant.

The Fresno Bee says her family is suing for wrongful death,
negligence and fraud.


QUANTUM3 GROUP: Removes "Ford" Suit to Georgia District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Ford v. Quantum3 Group, LLC, et
al., Case No. 14-01054-SDB, was removed from the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of Georgia to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Georgia (Augusta).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-00031-JRH-BKE to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher A. Cosper, Esq.
          HULL BARRETT, PC
          P.O. Box 1564
          Augusta, GA 30903-1564
          Telephone: (706) 722-4481
          Facsimile: (706) 722-9779
          E-mail: ccosper@hullbarrett.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Lisa Ritchey Craig, Esq.
          MCCULLOUGH, PAYNE & HAAN, LLC
          271 17th St., NW, Suite 2200
          Atlanta, GA 30363-1032
          Telephone: (404) 873-1386
          Facsimile: (404) 875-4817
          E-mail: lrcraig@mplawfirm.com


ROBERT HALF: Removes "Washington" Class Suit to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Washington v. Robert Half
International Inc., Case No. CIV 532207, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Mateo to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (Oakland).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:15-cv-00841-KAW to the proceeding.

The lawsuit seeks relief under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Adam P. KohSweeney, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 984-8700
          Facsimile: (415) 984-8701
          E-mail: akohsweeney@omm.com


ROCHE LABORATORIES: Judge Bars Expert Testimony in Accutane Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Pat Gallagher, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports
that In a ruling likely to impact thousands of pending cases, a
New Jersey judge has barred Accutane plaintiffs from presenting
expert testimony that the drug causes Crohn's disease.

The testimony failed to meet the standards of scientific
reliability required by New Jersey Rule of Evidence 702, Atlantic
County Superior Court Judge Nelson Johnson said in a decision made
public Feb. 23.

It is one thing to "stand alone in the world of science by
advancing a hypothesis that others do not accept," but "quite
another thing to advance a hypothesis that can only be supported
by disregarding valid scientific research," Judge Johnson said.

"The court embraces its obligation to be flexible in applying
scientific evidence to novel personal injury claims falling within
the penumbra of 'toxic torts,'" but claimants have "a reciprocal
obligation to be mindful of the scientific standards of the
scientific community," Judge Johnson added.

As of Feb. 18, there were more than 6,700 lawsuits consolidated
before Johnson on a multicounty litigation docket alleging that
Accutane, an acne medication made by Roche Laboratories, caused
harmful side effects such as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD),
ulcerative colitis, birth defects and extreme depression.

Crohn's, a type of IBD, is a chronic gastrointestinal disease, the
symptoms of which include abdominal pain, severe diarrhea,
fatigue, weight loss and rectal bleeding, and it can lead to
colorectal cancer, bowel perforation and other life-threatening
complications.

Roche stopped manufacturing Accutane in 2009 but the generic
versions, including Amnesteen, Claravis and Absorica, remain on
the market subject to restrictions on prescribing them.  In
addition, women users must take precautions against becoming
pregnant.

The decision to exclude the expert testimony could preclude
recovery on claims that Accutane caused Crohn's disease.

Just how many such claims there are is uncertain.  Judge Johnson
required defense counsel to provide him with the number of
affected lawsuits by March 6. He further stated that before
entering an order regarding those cases, he would allow the
plaintiffs to be heard on whether they were properly included.

Judge Johnson's decision was in response to a motion filed in
January by Roche and Hoffmann-La Roche, a co-defendant, seeking to
block the testimony of two experts: Dr. Arthur Kornbluth, who
teaches at the Mount Sinai Medical School, and David Madigan, a
statistics professor at Columbia University.

It followed the so-called Kemp hearing required by the Evidence
Rule 104, which entailed eight days of hearings in which
Dr. Kornbluth and Mr. Madigan testified, as did two defense
experts.

Before hearing the testimony, Johnson asked counsel on both sides
to provide him with all reports, treatises and other scientific
literature on which their experts relied and was provided with
more than 400 such items.

Judge Johnson said those materials were "invaluable" and enabled
him to conclude that the only thing that the scientific community
seemed to agree on was that the drug isotretinoin, sold as
Accutane, is the only medication effective in treating severe
nodular acne, but there was no consensus whatsoever on whether it
affects general health.

There is no study stating that isotretinoin causes IBD, Johnson
said.

Judge Johnson emphasized that his role as a gatekeeper was not to
determine whether a theory of causation had achieved general
acceptance in the scientific community but whether it was "derived
from a sound and well-founded methodology," one generally followed
by experts in the field.

Judge Johnson called Dr. Kornbluth and Mr. Madigan "exceptionally
learned and accomplished professionals," but concluded that their
testimony suffered from "multiple deficiencies," especially their
"finely tuned selectivity of the evidence on which they rely."

For instance, they relied heavily on studies involving 509 and 76
subjects while ignoring much larger epidemiological studies with a
combined total of more than 2 million subjects, Judge Johnson
noted.

"The reliance upon these two studies is fatal and reveals the
lengths to which legal counsel and their experts are willing to
contort the facts and torture the logic associated with
plaintiffs' hypothesis," Judge Johnson said.

Judge Johnson also said Dr. Kornbluth tried to have it both ways
by asking the court to reject the best evidence available because
of its flaws but to accept "evidence at the bottom of the medical
evidence hierarchy because it is all he can find to support his
hypothesis of causation."

Dr. Kornbluth's medical report "confirms that his hypothesis is a
muddle of ambiguities and that his report camouflages mere
speculation as true science," Judge Johnson said.

Judge Johnson called Mr. Madigan's opinion "conclusion-driven"
rather than methodology-based and referred to the "hired gun
phenomenon."

Judge Johnson called case studies largely "anecdotal" and said he
placed little value on animal studies, noting that dogs cannot
develop IBD, and adverse event reports filed with the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration, suggesting that lawyers were abusing the
system.

Johnson cited a study showing that of the 2,214 reports filed with
the FDA from 2003 to 2011 claiming isotretinoin caused IBD, 1,944,
or 87.8 percent, were submitted by lawyers, which the study
authors said was much higher than for other drug reactions.

"The courts should never underestimate the resourcefulness of some
attorneys," Johnson said.

Roche attorney Paul Schmidt -- pschmidt@cov.com -- of Covington &
Burling in Washington, D.C., referred a request for comment to
Roche spokeswoman Tara Iannuccillo.

Ms. Iannuccillo supplied a statement saying, "The scientific
record is now overwhelming that Accutane does not cause Crohn's
disease, and Judge Johnson's opinion recognizes that fact in
rejecting the unscientific opinions of plaintiffs' paid experts."
David Buchanan of Seeger Weiss in Newark, a lawyer for the
plaintiffs, said, "We are disappointed by the court's decision,
and will be pursuing an appeal."

Judge Johnson's decision contrasts with one by Judge Carol Higbee
in 2008.

Judge Higbee refused to toss out a $2.5 million verdict in
McCarrell v. Hoffmann-La Roche where the expert testimony on
causation was based in part on animal studies and case studies,
even though the federal judge in the Accutane Multi-District
Litigation had ruled there was no scientific basis for similar
testimony, a decision later affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit.

The Appellate Division agreed with Judge Higbee on the expert
testimony but vacated the verdict on other grounds and the case
was retried to a $25 million verdict in 2010.  An appeal of the
verdict is to be argued March 9.

Judge Johnson took over the Accutane cases from Higbee last
September after she became an appeals court judge.

In October, he dismissed four bellwether cases on statute-of-
limitations grounds that applied to an unknown number of other
cases.

Judge Johnson followed up in December by tossing out more than 600
suits for failure to comply with discovery.


SCORPION DRILLING: "Garcia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Omar Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Scorpion Drilling, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00098 (S.D.
Tex., February 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Scorpion Drilling, Inc. is a Texas corporation that provides
drilling services for the oil and natural gas industry throughout
South Texas and the surrounding areas within the Eagle Ford Shale.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Clifton Alexander, Esq.
      SICO WHITE HOELSCHER & BRAUGH LLP
      900 Frost Bank Plaza
      802 N Carancahua Ste 900
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Telephone: (361) 653-3300
      Facsimile: (361) 653-3333
      E-mail: calexander@swhhb.com


SCOTT TECHNOLOGIES: Ex-Firefighter Settles Equipment Failure Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Stashenko, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that a
former firefighter who laid in burning wreckage for 20 minutes
while other firemen tried to find him has reached a $10.6 million
settlement with a safety equipment manufacturer.

Mitchell Dryer Jr. was awarded the compensatory damages on Feb. 18
by a Madison County Supreme Court jury, following a trial before
Justice Eugene Faughnan.  As the jury was to begin considering
punitive damages against defendant Scott Technologies, Mr. Dryer's
attorneys said they reached a settlement.

Scott agreed not to appeal the verdict and to pay the compensatory
damage award by April 5 in return for not facing punitive damages.
The deal carried no confidentiality clause, said Walter Benson, a
partner in the Lynn Law Firm of Syracuse, which represented Dryer
and his wife, Aimee, in Dryer v. Scott Technologies, 2008-1622.
Dryer lost an arm and an ear during the off-hours fire on April
22, 2007 at a bowling alley in Oneida, New York.  He said that the
Personal Alert Safety System device he was wearing failed to send
out a piercing alarm and flashing red light when he became
immobilized so his fellow firefighters could locate him more
quickly.

Because they did not know precisely where he was, firefighters
said they could not use a chain saw to cut through the wreckage
and free Dryer sooner.

The manufacturer's bid to have the Dryer suit dismissed was
rejected by the Appellate Division, Third Department (NYLJ, May 6,
2014).

Scott Technologies was represented by Charles Eblen of Shook,
Hardy & Bacon in Kansas City.


SEAFOOD ON THE TABLE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Priscilla Mays, and other similarly-situated individuals v.
Seafood on The Table, Inc. d/b/a Aromas Del Peru, Carlos M. Vidal,
Case No. 1:15-cv-20760 (S.D. Fla., February 24, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Miami-Dade County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SHINY STAR: Recalls Jack 'N Jill Chicharron Products
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 13, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Gluten, Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Shiny Star Canada Ltd., APO Products Ltd.
Distribution: Ontario, Possibly National, Manitoba, New Brunswick,
Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9639

Industry is recalling Jack 'N Jill brand Chicharron products from
the marketplace because they contain wheat which is not declared
on the label. People with an allergy to wheat or sensitivity to
gluten should not consume the recalled products 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 wheat or sensitivity to gluten, do not
consume the recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-
threatening reaction.

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

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

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

  Brand name   Common name    Size  Code(s) on product   UPC
  ----------   -----------    ----  ------------------   ---
  Jack 'N Jill Chicharron ni 90 g   All codes where      4 800016
               Mang Juan -          wheat is not         10528
               Espesyal Suka't      declared on the
               Sili                 label.

  Jack 'N Jill Chicharron ni 90 g   All codes where      4 800016
               Mang Juan -          wheat is not         110511
               Sukang Paombong      declared on the
                                    label.

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


SIDEWINDER DRILLING: Illegally Terminates Employees, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Lord and Armando Reyes, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Sidewinder Drilling, Inc., Case No.
7:15-cv-00022 (W.D. Tex., February 24, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to provide 60 days advance written
notice in connection with a recent Mass Layoff and Plant Closing
at Midland, Texas single site.

Sidewinder Drilling, Inc. owns and operates a fleet of premium
land drilling rigs and provides contract drilling services to
exploration and production companies targeting unconventional
resource plays in North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SIMON ROOFING: Faces "Warren" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Warren, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated employees nationwide v. Simon Roofing and Sheet Metal
Corp., Case No. 4:15-cv-00359 (N.D. Ohio, February 24, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Simon Roofing and Sheet Metal Corp. is an Ohio corporation with
its headquarters at 70 Karago Avenue, Youngstown, Ohio 44512. It
is one of the nation's largest commercial roofing companies that
manufactures innovative roofing products and provides high-quality
roof repair, restoration and replacement services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SOUTH FLORIDA ELECTRIC: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Velie, James Dalton Holloway, and others similarly situated
v. South Florida Electric, LLC, and James R. Coleman, Case No.
9:15-cv-80236 (S.D. Fla., February 23, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours in a week.

South Florida Electric, LLC is a Florida Limited Liability Company
that provides commercial electrical service and repair in Palm
Beach County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rebecca Ann Radosevich, Esq.
      THE TICKTIN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      600 W. Hillsboro Boulevard, Suite 220
      Deerfield Beach, FL 33441
      Telephone: (954) 570-6760
      Facsimile: (954) 570-6760
      E-mail: Serv529@LegalBrains.com


SPACELABS HEALTHCARE: Recalls Bedside and QUBE Compact Monitors
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 14, 2015
Type of communication: Medical Device
Recall Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-43819

Spacelabs has received multiple reports of XPREZZON and qube
monitors failing to boot up or returning to factory default
configuration settings following power on or reset.

A failure to boot following power on or reset, resulting in a
failure in monitor operation loss of network connectivity, which
may result in i) an inability to display alarms and data from the
affected monitor on central stations and other bedside monitors,
or ii) a failure to transmit parameter and alarms from the
affected monitor to system printers and spacelabs' Intesys
Clinical Suite retrospective database (including the clinical
events interface remote notification feature) display of english
language when previously configured for another language (the
alarm messages displayed in the parameter waveform zone are not
affected, as these are stored on a command module and not on the
monitor) touchscreen failure where touching the screen does not
produce the expected response.

The parameter alarms and information are still present and correct
once the monitor has completely started up. No one has been
injured as a result of these issues.

Spacelabs believes this issue is caused by inadequate electrical
contact on one of its printed circuit board assemblies.

Affected products:

A. Bedside Monitor

Lot or serial number: More than 10 lots, please contact the
manufacturer.

Model or catalog number: 91393

B. QUBE Compact Monitor

Lot or serial number: More than 10 lots, please contact the
manufacturer.

Model or catalog number: 91390

Manufacturer: Spacelabs Healthcare Inc.
              35301 SE Center Street
              Snoqualmie, WA 98065


SUNVIEW VINEYARDS: June 11 Fairness Hearing on $4.5MM Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston granted preliminary approval
of a settlement in the class action captioned SANTIAGO ROJAS, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. MARKO ZANINOVICH, et al., Defendants, CASE NO.
1:09-CV-00705-AWI-JLT, (E.D. Cal.).

Under the proposed settlement, the parties agree to a "Maximum
Settlement Amount" totaling $4,550,000. Defendant Sunview agrees
to fund the Settlement for a class including "all current and
former non-exempt fieldworkers who were employed by Sunview in
California at any time from November 9, 2001 through and including
September 30, 2014."  Within five days of the Court's order
granting preliminary approval of the Settlement, Defendant will
pay 20% of the settlement funds into an escrow account at Bank of
America and then deposit 10% of the funds into the account every
thirty days thereafter until the "Maximum Settlement Amount has
been deposited or the Effective Date [is reached] whichever occurs
first.

Judge Thurston held that preliminary approval of the parties'
proposed settlement agreement, as modified by her order, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/y552wPfrom Leagle.com, is
granted.  The proposed notice plan is also approved.

Santiago Rojas, Josefino Rameriz, Catalina Robles, Juan Montes,
Benito Espino, and Guillermina Perez are appointed the Class
Representatives for the Settlement Class.

The law firms of Mallison & Martinez and Kingsley & Kingsley are
appointed as Class Counsel.

Rust Consulting is appointed as the Claims Administrator, with
responsibilities pursuant to the terms set forth in the Settlement
Agreement.

The Class Representative enhancement requests for Plaintiffs are
granted preliminarily up to the amount of $7,500, subject to a
petition and review at the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing.
Class Members and their counsel may support or oppose this
request, if they so desire, at the Final Approval and Fairness
Hearing.

Class Counsel's request for fees of not to exceed 33 1/3% of the
gross settlement amount and costs in an amount to be proven is
granted preliminarily, subject to counsel's petition for fees and
review at the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing. Class Members
and their counsel may also support or oppose this request, if they
so desire, at the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing.

The petition for attorneys' fees and for class representative
enhancement fee will be filed no later than May 21, 2015.

Costs of settlement administration will not exceed $70,000.

The Settlement Administrator must mail the approved Class Notice
Packet no more than March 16, 2015.

A class member who wishes to be excluded from settlement must
postmark the Exclusion Request no later than April 27, 2015.

Any objections to or comments on the Settlement Agreement must be
filed with the Court and mailed to Class Counsel no later than
April 27, 2015.

A Final Approval and Fairness Hearing is set for June 11, 2015, at
9:00 a.m. at the United States Courthouse located at 510 19th
Street, Bakersfield, California.

The Court reserves the right to vacate the Final Approval and
Fairness Hearing if no comments or objections are filed with this
Court on or before April 27, 2015.

Santiago Rojas, Plaintiff, represented by Hector Rodriguez
Martinez -- hectorm@themmlawfirm.com -- Mallison & Martinez,
Joseph Donald Sutton -- jsutton@themmlawfirm.com -- Mallison &
Martinez, Marco A. Palau -- mpalau@themmlawfirm.com -- Mallison &
Martinez, Stanley S. Mallison -- stanm@themmlawfirm.com --
Mallison and Martinez, Douglas D. Winter -- dwinter@balllawllp.com
-- McNicholas & McNicholas, LLP, Ira Lawrence Gottlieb --
igottlieb@bushgottlieb.com -- Geffner & Bush, Jeff S. Westerman --
jwesterman@jswlegal.com -- Westerman Law Corp. & Nicole Marie
Duckett -- nduckett@milberg.com -- Milberg Weiss LLP.

Josefino Ramirez, Plaintiff, represented by Hector Rodriguez
Martinez, Mallison & Martinez, Joseph Donald Sutton, Mallison &
Martinez, Marco A. Palau, Mallison & Martinez, Stanley S.
Mallison, Mallison and Martinez, Douglas D. Winter, McNicholas &
McNicholas, LLP, Ira Lawrence Gottlieb, Geffner & Bush, Jeff S.
Westerman, Westerman Law Corp. & Nicole Marie Duckett, Milberg
Weiss LLP.

Catalina Robles, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Bryce Kingsley --
eric@kingsleykingsley.com -- Kingsley & Kingsley APC, Hector
Rodriguez Martinez -- hectorm@themmlawfirm.com -- Mallison &
Martinez, Ira Lawrence Gottlieb -- igottlieb@bushgottlieb.com --
Geffner & Bush, Joseph Donald Sutton -- jsutton@themmlawfirm.com -
- Mallison & Martinez, Marco A. Palau -- mpalau@themmlawfirm.com -
- Mallison & Martinez, Matthew Sawaya McNicholas --
msm@mcnicholaslaw.com -- McNicholas and McNicholas, LLP., Nicole
Marie Duckett -- nduckett@milberg.com -- Milberg Weiss LLP,
Stanley S. Mallison -- stanm@themmlawfirm.com -- Mallison and
Martinez, Thomas Patrick Lynch, Marcos Camacho Law Corporation &
Douglas D. Winter -- dwinter@balllawllp.com -- McNicholas &
McNicholas, LLP.

Juan Montes, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Bryce Kingsley,
Kingsley & Kingsley APC, Hector Rodriguez Martinez, Mallison &
Martinez, Ira Lawrence Gottlieb, Geffner & Bush, Joseph Donald
Sutton, Mallison & Martinez, Marco A. Palau, Mallison & Martinez,
Matthew Sawaya McNicholas, McNicholas and McNicholas, LLP., Nicole
Marie Duckett, Milberg Weiss LLP, Stanley S. Mallison, Mallison
and Martinez, Thomas Patrick Lynch, Marcos Camacho Law Corporation
& Douglas D. Winter, McNicholas & McNicholas, LLP.

Benito Espino, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Bryce Kingsley,
Kingsley & Kingsley APC, Hector Rodriguez Martinez, Mallison &
Martinez, Ira Lawrence Gottlieb, Geffner & Bush, Joseph Donald
Sutton, Mallison & Martinez, Marco A. Palau, Mallison & Martinez,
Matthew Sawaya McNicholas, McNicholas and McNicholas, LLP., Nicole
Marie Duckett, Milberg Weiss LLP, Stanley S. Mallison, Mallison
and Martinez & Thomas Patrick Lynch, Marcos Camacho Law
Corporation.

Guillermina Perez, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Bryce Kingsley,
Kingsley & Kingsley APC, Hector Rodriguez Martinez, Mallison &
Martinez, Ira Lawrence Gottlieb, Geffner & Bush, Joseph Donald
Sutton, Mallison & Martinez, Marco A. Palau, Mallison & Martinez,
Matthew Sawaya McNicholas, McNicholas and McNicholas, LLP., Nicole
Marie Duckett, Milberg Weiss LLP, Stanley S. Mallison, Mallison
and Martinez, Thomas Patrick Lynch, Marcos Camacho Law Corporation
& Douglas D. Winter, McNicholas & McNicholas, LLP.

Sunview Vineyards of California, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Dennis John Sinclitico, Jr. -- dsinclitico@morganlewis.com --
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Eric Meckley --
emeckley@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, James
Norman Penrod -- jpenrod@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius Llp, Michael E. Molland -- mmolland@mollandlaw.com --
Molland Law, Oliver W. Wanger -- owanger@wjhattorneys.com --
Wanger Jones Helsley PC & Shannon Bettis Nakabayashi --
snakabayashi@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis and Bockius.


TAKATA CORP: "Corticeiro" Suit Included in Airbag Products MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Corticeiro v. Takata Corporation,
et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00616, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami).  The Florida
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20758-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: "Martin" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Martin, et al. v. Takata
Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00092, 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-20757-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: Air-Bag Litigation Hearing Begins in Miami
-------------------------------------------------------
Julie Kay, writing for Law.com, reports that more than 100 of the
nation's top class action lawyers packed a Miami federal courtroom
on Feb. 20 for the first hearing to establish rules for a
multidistrict litigation case against air-bag maker Takata Corp.
and major automakers.

U.S. District Judge Federico A. Moreno, who landed the massive
case alleging that exploding air bags caused deaths and injuries,
noted he recognized many of the same lawyers he dealt with in his
last MDL case against the managed care industry.

Peter Prieto -- pprieto@podhurst.com -- of Podhurst Orseck in
Miami spoke for the plaintiffs' lawyers, saying they decided to
pick five co-lead counsel.  When asked by Judge Moreno who would
apply, more than a dozen raised their hands, including famed
litigator David Boies of Boies, Schiller & Flexner.

The first fissure among the plaintiffs' attorneys appeared when
Mr. Prieto noted that 70 lawyers attended a strategy meeting on
Feb. 19 at Podhurst Orseck, and Boies did not attend.

Mr. Boies was the only one to oppose the five co-lead counsel
proposal, drawing sharp criticism from his colleagues.

"With all due respect to David Boies, he was not at our meeting,"
said Stuart Grossman of Grossman & Roth in Miami.  "We are not
interested in forming a bureaucracy.  But we don't have 250
lawyers at our plaintiff firms like Mr. Boies does.  We don't have
armies of lawyers to battle the thousands of (defense lawyers).
We think we're small but talented."

Other plaintiffs lawyers involved include Aaron Podhurst; Bobby
Gilbert -- rcg@grossmanroth.com -- of Grossman & Roth; Daniel
Becnel of the Becnel Law Firm in Louisiana; Harley Tropin --
hst@kttlaw.com -- of Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton in Coral Gables;
and Mary Barzee Flores -- mbarzeeflores@stearnsweaver.com -- of
Stearns Weaver Miller Alhadeff & Sitterson.

Local defense counsel include Guy Lewis and Michael Tein of Lewis
Tein for Mazda and Marty Steinberg -- msteinberg@bilzin.com -- of
Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod for Honda.

Judge Moreno questioned whether five lead co-counsel is "a lot."

Mr. Prieto said it wasn't, considering numerous class action and
personal injury cases have been consolidated, and the case will
involve considerable travel and depositions around the world.

Criteria for choosing the lead counsel will be quality of the
lawyers, and geographic, ethnic and gender diversity, Mr. Prieto
said.

Judge Moreno will sort through applications to make the final
selection.

"I feel like an admissions counselor," the judge joked.  "Do you
have any applications with SAT scores and GPAs?"

Michael Mallow -- mmallow@sidley.com -- of Sidley Austin, who also
represents Honda, said the defense doesn't care how many lead
counsel the plaintiffs choose and are only concerned about
consolidating all the federal and state cases to avoid significant
overlaps in discovery.

When asked whether he could call federal and state judges to ask
them to send their cases to the MDL, Judge Moreno said he would
not be comfortable doing so.  But, he said, he would agree to take
the cases if the judges called him.

"It has not been my practice to tell other judges what to do,"
Judge Moreno said, "especially in federal court, where there's a
mechanism in place to do so already."

Seventeen active personal injury cases against Japan's Takata are
in state court, said Rich Newsome of the Newsome Law Firm in
Orlando, which is handling four of them.

Judge Moreno exhibited his usual brand of humor and storytelling
at the hearing.  He invited out-of-town lawyers to speak first,
asking who had planes to catch. Laughter erupted when he recited a
letter from someone offering to be special master in the case.

"Where was he 15 years ago when I had the other MDL that went on a
little too long?" Moreno laughed. "Hey, maybe we do need a special
master."

David Bernick of Dechert, who represents Takata, noted, "Our
product has obviously been very controversial over the last few
months."  He said recalled air bags are not being preserved but
are being activated for testing purposes.

At least six deaths and 64 injuries have been blamed on air bag
inflators installed in an estimated 15 million U.S. vehicles made
by 10 auto companies.  A federal investigation and congressional
hearings are planned on the air bag issue.

On Feb. 20, the federal government announced it will start fining
Takata $14,000 per day for failing to fully cooperate with its
long-running investigation.

Takata has resisted demands to recall its driver's side air bags
nationwide although automakers have issued recalls themselves.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration also accuses
Takata of failing to explain a "deluge" of 2.4 million pages of
documents turned over without a catalog or index.


TAKATA CORP: Judge to Appoint Lead Counsel to Oversee Airbag Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Kay, writing for Law.com, reports that siding with the local
plaintiffs bar, U.S. District Judge Federico Moreno will appoint
five lead counsel and two liaison counsel to oversee the
consolidated Takata air bag case in Miami federal court.

In an order issued late on Feb. 24, Judge Moreno said any lawyers
interested in serving as lead counsel on the potentially lucrative
multidistrict litigation case should apply by March 6 listing
legal experience and financial resources.

Only one lawyer, David Boies -- dboies@bsfllp.com -- of Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, opposed the request, suggesting just three
lead counsel.

"The court recognizes the efficiency of appointing a small number
of lead counsel," the order said.  "However, due to the financial
requirements in undertaking this representation and the goal of
achieving some geographical diversity among lead counsel, the
court may appoint five lead counsel and two liaison counsel."

Judge Moreno also said he may name a general master to handle
details of the two tracks -- personal injury and class action
damages.  The judge also encouraged the defense lawyers to appoint
a defense leadership team and submit names by March 23.

Ten automakers have recalled more than 14 million U.S. cars with
Takata air bags since 2013. Six deaths have been linked to
exploding air bags in Hondas, and at least 64 injuries have been
reported, including 52 in Hondas.


TARGET BRANDS: Faces "Chamberlin" Suit Over Product Misbranding
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Chamberlin, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Target Corporation and Target Brands, Inc., Case No.
0:15-cv-00578 (D. Minn., February 24, 2015), alleges that the
Defendant mislabeled its Up & Up Herbal dietary supplement
products because they failed to contain the medical herbs
represented by the label.

The Defendants own and operate a retailing company with its
principal place of business in Minneapolis, Minnesota doing
business in the State of Arkansas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


TD BANK: Ordered to Pay $67 Million to Investor Group
-----------------------------------------------------
Carlos Harrison, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that a
Miami federal judge gave TD Bank until Feb. 26 to pay $67 million
to a group of investors in disbarred attorney Scott Rothstein's
failed $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme.

U.S. District Judge Marcia G. Cooke's order could finally bring an
end to a three-year battle over the $32 million in compensatory
damages and $35 million in punitive damages awarded by a jury to
Texas-based Coquina Investments LLC.

TD Bank's motion asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit to stay Cooke's order was denied by a three-judge panel
Feb. 20.

Coquina attorney David Mandel -- dmandel@mandel-law.com -- in
Miami called Judge Cooke's decision a welcome closure to the
lengthy legal fight.

"It's been more than five long years since TD Bank defrauded us
and a lot of other investors, and over three years since TD
cheated in spectacular fashion at the trial, and still lost," said
Mr. Mandel of Mandel & Mandel.  "Coquina is very pleased that it's
finally time for TD to pay the piper."

Judge Cooke authorized Mr. Mandel to collect from TD Bank's
appellate bond if the payment is late.

All may not be done, however.  TD Bank spokeswoman Judith Schmidt
on Feb. 23 said, "While TD Bank will comply with the court's
order, we are disappointed with the ruling, and we have filed an
appeal."

The lawsuit began in 2010 when Coquina alleged TD Bank employees
knew about Rothstein's settlement financing fraud and helped him
perpetrate it.  A jury awarded damages to Coquina in July 2012.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the verdict last July and refused to
rehear the case. In its motion to enforce the judgment, Coquina
noted the deadline to petition for a writ of certiorari with the
U.S. Supreme Court has passed.

"Judge, this is like a football game," Mandel said in his argument
before Cooke on Feb. 11.  "The game is over, the crowd has left,
and the cleaning crew is working in the stands.  In spite of TD's
numerous unsportsmanlike conduct penalties, the scoreboard shows
that we won 67 to nothing.  And despite everything, TD is here
today throwing a Hail Mary pass, not acknowledging that there is
no time left on the clock."

He accused the bank of stalling and noted, "Several of Coquina's
partners are elderly and, judge, shouldn't in fairness they get a
chance to use the money the jury awarded for their injuries during
their lifetimes?"

TD Bank attorney Mark W. Kinghorn -- mkinghorn@mcguirewoods.com --
of McGuireWoods argued Coquina would receive all but $7.5 million
of the $32 million in compensatory damages from the bankruptcy
trustee for Rothstein's law firm, Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler.  He
maintained payment from the bank would amount to a double recovery
for the investors.

Mandel agreed Coquina already received $9.1 million from the
bankruptcy trustee but asked the judge to order the amount to be
returned to the bankruptcy liquidator.  Judge Cooke agreed.

Mr. Rothstein was given a 50-year sentence after pleading guilty
in January 2010 to two counts of fraud and three counts of
conspiracy.  In December 2011, he testified former TD Bank
regional vice president Frank Spinosa aided him in defrauding
investors.

Mr. Spinosa invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-
incrimination 193 times when he was called to testify in the
Coquina trial.  He faces a fraud conspiracy indictment.


TIMEKEEPERS INC: Faces "Limon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fernando Limon III, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Timekeepers, Inc. and Tier One Security, Inc., Case
No. 5:15-cv-00143 (W.D. Tex., February 24, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours per workweek.

The Defendants provide security guard services for various
entities throughout Texas and Northern Louisiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carlos Adrian Solis, Esq.
      CARLOS ADRIAN SOLIS LAW OFFICES
      310 S. St. Mary's St., Suite 2900
      San Antonio, TX 78205
      Telephone: (210) 446-5000
      Facsimile: (210) 446-5001
      E-mail: csolis@hilley-solis.com


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Faces Class Suit Alleging Product Liability
---------------------------------------------------------------
La Crosse County, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Trinity Industries, Inc. and Trinity Highway Products,
LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-00117-slc (W.D. Wis., Feb. 24, 2015) asserts
claims for product liability.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron N. Halstead, Esq.
          Caitlin Marie Madden, Esq.
          HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
          222 W. Washington Avenue, Suite 450
          P.O. Box 2155
          Madison, WI 53701-2155
          Telephone: (608) 257-0040
          Facsimile: (608) 256-0236
          E-mail: ahalstead@hq-law.com
                  cmadden@hq-law.com

               - and -

          Jason S. Kilene, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: jkilene@gustafsongluek.com


UNC-CHAPEL HILL: Hires Skadden to Defend Academic Fraud Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nell Gluckman, writing for The Am Law Daily, reports that Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom has been hired to represent the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in litigation,
accreditation and regulatory matters resulting from a 2014 report
detailing widespread instances of academic fraud involving
thousands of students, many of whom were athletes.

The report, which resulted from an eight-month investigation
headed by Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft's white-collar defense and
investigations group chairman, Kenneth Wainstein, revealed that
over 3,100 students took so-called paper classes, which were not
taught by a professor and only required students to write one
essay to receive class credit.  These classes, where students
often got high grades despite poor-quality work, were popular
among athletes who had to meet eligibility requirements in order
to continue to participate on college teams, the report said.

Last year, two cases were filed against UNC regarding the academic
fraud, sibling publication Corporate Counsel reports.  In McAdoo
v. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a football player
is suing the university for allegedly failing to adequately
educate him, and in Willingham v. the University of North
Carolina, a university employee claims she was retaliated against
after she reported instances of academic fraud to The News &
Observer.

Skadden litigation partner Patrick Fitzgerald will represent UNC
in the litigation, as well as in matters related to the
investigation and the university's accreditation, which the
school's accrediting body announced it would review as a result of
revelations from Wainstein's report.  Also on the Skadden team are
litigation partners Stephen Robinson, Michael Scudder and Lisa
Gilford, as well as litigation associate Marianne Combs and other
Skadden attorneys on an as-needed basis, according to the firm's
contract, which was released to The News & Observer in response to
a public records request.

The contract says the Skadden partners will be paid a blended rate
of $990 an hour, "which represents a significant discount off
standard firm rates in recognition of the university's public
interest mission." Associates and counsel will bill between $450
and $975 an hour, the contract says.

The contract states that for each of the two cases against the
university, fees for litigating the motion to dismiss, including
oral arguments, will be capped at $325,000.

The contract says that Skadden may also work on separate
litigation relating to its sexual assault policies and response to
sexual assault claims and litigation alleging discrimination by
the university's admissions department.  As an example, the
contract cites Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North
Carolina, a case brought by a group of college applicants who
allege the university unfairly discriminated against Asian
applicants.  The group brought a similar case against Harvard
University.

"We wanted and needed a firm that had a national profile," says
David Parker, university interim vice chancellor and general
counsel. Given the scope of the matters at hand, he says the
university saw in Skadden "a firm that could cover a wide range of
litigation matters and in a sense step back and act as a
coordinator."

In hiring Mr. Fitzgerald, the university has selected a litigator
with a long track record working on high-profile cases.
Mr. Fitzgerald joined Skadden in 2012 after serving over a decade
as the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Illinois.  In
that post, he headed investigations and prosecutions of former
Illinois Governor George Ryan, convicted of fraud, racketeering
and lying to the FBI in 2006; former Hollinger International Inc.
chairman Conrad Black, convicted of fraud in 2007; and former
Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, convicted of public corruption
in 2011.  The Chicago-based attorney also tried the case of Lewis
"Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff who
was convicted in 2007 of lying about the leak of an undercover CIA
agent.

When he was hired by Skadden two years ago, Mr. Fitzgerald told
The American Lawyer that he was reticent about becoming a criminal
defense attorney and thus agreed to come aboard only to help
companies conducting internal investigations, work as a monitor or
advise boards of companies in trouble.  UNC would appear to fit
the bill.

"Skadden has extensive experience representing clients on their
most critical litigation issues," he said in a university press
release.  "We are committed to providing ongoing legal support and
counsel to Carolina."

The university has already been billed $3.1 million by Cadwalader
for its work on the report, which was released last October,
according to the university's website.  Those costs were covered
by a UNC-Chapel Hill Foundation account that is not tied to state
funding or tuition dollars, the website states.

"Given that we were brought in to conduct an outside, independent
investigation, we and the university thought it best to let
another firm serve as advocate for the university in these
particular lawsuits," Cadwalader said in response to questions
about why the firm will not continue to work with the university.

UNC is not the only public university facing litigation and
mounting legal fees. Pennsylvania State University has been billed
about $55.7 million in legal and consulting fees as a result of
revelations that former football coach Jerry Sandusky sexually
abused eight boys, the school's website states.


US WELL: Faces "Lackie Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Lackie, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. U.S. Well Services, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00695 (S.D.
Ohio, February 23, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a week.

U.S. Well Services, LLC is an oilfield services provider of well
stimulation services to the upstream oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
      NILGES DRAHER LLC
      4580 Stephen Circle, N.W., Suite 201
      Canton, OH 44718
      Telephone: (330) 470-4428
      Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
      E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com

         - and -

      Steven G. Thomakos, Esq.
      STEVEN G. THOMAKOS, LLC
      221 Front Avenue SW, PO Box 944
      New Philadelphia, OH 44663
      Telephone: (330) 308-0500
      Facsimile: (330) 364-4373
      E-mail: sthomakos@aol.com

         - and -

      Thomas A. Downie, Esq.
      46 Chagrin Falls Plaza #104
      Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
      Telephone: (440) 973-9000
      Facsimile: (440) 210-4610
      E-mail: tom@chagrinlaw.com


WATCH-U-WANT INC: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Izsak, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Watch-U-Want, Inc., a Florida corporation, Case No.
1:15-cv-01644 (N.D. Ill., February 24, 2015), seeks to stop the
Defendant's practice of sending unsolicited text messages to the
wireless telephones of the Plaintiff and each of the members of
the Class without prior express written consent.

Watch-U-Want, Inc. is in the business of buying, trading, and
consigning pre-owned luxury watches with its principal place of
business located in Broward County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ismael Tariq Salam, Esq.
      Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
      SIPRUT PC
      17 N. State Street, Suite 1600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 236-0000
      E-mail: isalam@siprut.com
              jsiprut@siprut.com


WOODLAWN ENTERPRISE: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marvin Lopez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Woodlawn Enterprise, LLC t/a Bestway Supermarket, et al., Case
No. 1:15-cv-00248 (E.D. Va., February 23, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

Woodlawn Enterprise, LLC is a Virginia limited liability company
that owns and operates a grocery store located in Mt. Vernon,
Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mitchell I. Batt, Esq.
      SULLIVAN TALBOTT & BATT
      77 S Washington St, Suite 304
      Rockville, MD 20850
      Telephone: (301) 340-2450
      Facsimile: (301) 424-8280
      E-mail: mbatt@verizon.net


XENEX LABORATORIES: Recalls API - Meloxicam Products
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 13, 2015
Posting date: February 25, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Drugs
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-43827

Lack of evidence of temperature control for cold storage

Depth of distribution: Wholesalers and compounding pharmacies

Affected products: API - Meloxicam, Nystatin, Retinoic Acid,
                   Omeprazole, Liothyronine Sodium, Levothyroxine
                   Sodium

DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM: N/A
Dosage form: Powder

Strength: N/A

Lot or serial number: All lots

Recalling Firm: Xenex Laboratories Inc.
               2402 Canoe Ave, Coquitlam
               V3K 6C2, British Columbia
               CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Not Applicable


XENEX LABORATORIES: Recalls API - Azelaic Acid Products
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 13, 2015
Posting date: February 25, 2015
Type of communication: Drug
Recall Subcategory: Drugs
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-43821

Lack of evidence product was fabricated specific to quality
standard for drugs.

Depth of distribution: Wholesalers and compounding pharmacies

Affected products: API - Azelaic Acid, Dichloroacetic acid sodium
                   salt

DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM: N/A

Dosage form: Powder

Strength: N/A

Lot or serial number: All lots

Recalling Firm: Xenex Laboratories Inc.
                2402 Canoe Ave, Coquitlam
                V3K 6C2. British Columbia
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Not Applicable


XENEX LABORATORIES: Recalls API - DMSO Products
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 13, 2015
Posting date: February 25, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Drugs
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-43825

Purified grade is not for direct human use.

Depth of distribution: Wholesalers and compounding pharmacies

Affected products: API - DMSO

DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM: N/A

Dosage form: Liquid

Strength: N/A

Lot or serial number: All lots

Recalling Firm: Xenex Laboratories Inc.
                2402 Canoe Ave, Coquitlam
                V3K 6C2, British Columbia
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Not Applicable


XPRESS FINANCIAL: Has Sent Unsolicited Faxes, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
New United, Inc., an Illinois corporation, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Xpress
Financial Inc. and John Does 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-01616 (N.D.
Ill., February 23, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice
of sending unsolicited facsimiles.

Xpress Financial Inc. is a Financial Services company located in
807 S Orlando Ave, Winter Park, Florida, United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
      Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
      ANDERSON + WANCA
      3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
      Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
      Telephone: (847) 368-1500
      Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
      E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
              rkelly@andersonwanca.com


YACHTING PROMOTIONS: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Danilo Lopez Garcia and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(B) v. Yachting Promotions, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-20776
(S.D. Fla., February 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of
40 hours weekly.

Yachting Promotions, Inc. is a Florida corporation that is engaged
in the business of promoting and producing yacht and boat shows in
the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
       JAMIE H. ZIDELL, PA
       300 71st Street, Suite 605
       Miami Beach, FL 33141
       Telephone: (305) 865-6766
       Facsimile: 865-7167
       E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


YESO CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Cedillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Cedillo and Alejandro Enriquez, individually and on behalf
of other employees similarly situated v. Yeso Construction, Inc.
and Nansalmaa Bold, Case No. 1:15-cv-01611 (N.D. Ill., February
22, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company in Lake
County, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


                             *********

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  * * *