CAR_Public/150311.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, March 11, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 50


                             Headlines

AEGON USA: Bailey & Glasser Files 401(k) Plan Class Action
ALIBABA GROUP: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Securities Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Chehrazi" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Fessia" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach

ANTHEM INC: Faces "Foley" Suit in Ind. Over Alleged Data Breach
APPLIED CONSULTANTS: "Fenley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
ARES ON FOWLER: Faces "Pratts" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ARIZONA: Judge Approves Prison Reform Class Action Settlement
AUSTRALIA: Class Action Mulled Over Heritage Changes

BP SUB EXPRESS: "Lara" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Atlanta Fund's Suit to Proceed as Class
BRIGHT WAY: "Zhou" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
BRYANT PARK: Faces "Jones" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CALMAR CORPORATION: Faces "Banegas" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

CARRIER IQ: 3rd Amended Complaint in Consumer Suit Due March 23
CERNER CORPORATION: Sued in W.D. Mo. Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: 50 Pa. Landowners File Suit Over Leases
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Attorney Ordered to Stop Interfering in Case
CHOP STICKS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages

COVENANT SECURITY: Faces "Stubbs" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CPS SECURITY: Cal. Supreme Court Ruled on On-Call Guards' Suit
CVS PHARMACY: Settlement in "Ceja-Corona" Wins Court Okay
DYCKMAN ELECTRONICS: "Moran" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
EASY MOBILE: Faces "Levine" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

EURO CAR: Faces "Vargas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Sued in Cal. Over False Consumer Reports
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Real Name Policy
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT: Accused of Illegal Electronic Fund Transfer
FIRST GROCERY: Faces "Mendez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

FLORIDA: Red-Light Camera Ticket Refunds Uncertain
GARDEN HOMES: Faces "Fayziev" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
GNC HOLDINGS: Faces "Shen" Suit in N.Y. Over Product Misbranding
GRANDELL REHABILITATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
HUNT COUNTY: Judge Recommends Venue Transfer of Juvenile Suit

IM SOLUTIONS: E.D. Okla. Court Dismissed "Allen" Suit
JOY CONSTRUCTION: "Kone" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
JIMMY JOHN'S: Faces "Whiton" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
JUST ENERGY: Faces "McLeod" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces "Feaver" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

KAPLAN INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Olver" Suit Claims
LAGRANGE COUNTY, IN: Nears Deal in Inmate Over-Detention Suit
LAKESIDE LAWN: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Black-Elk" Suit Says
LEWIS ENERGY: "Ramirez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
MARTIN MARIETTA: N.Y. Court Denied Approval of Preliminary Deal

MAXLINEAR INC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Company Merger
MIMEDX GROUP: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
MODEL N: Securities Class Action Sent Back to State Court
NAT'L HOCKEY: Support for Concussion Litigation Gains Momentum
NEBRASKA: Sanitary and Improvement District Can Levy Taxes

NIKODEMO OPERATING: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Tepi" Suit Claims
NORDIC NATURALS: Judge Dismissed Second Class Action Complaint
NORMAN'S CAY: "Reynoso" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
NTN BROTHERS: Faces "Colon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
OPPENHEIMERFUNDS INC: Net Settlement Fund Distribution Ordered

PHILLIPS COUNTY, AK: Sued Over First-Court Appearance Delays
PLEASURE ISLAND: Remand of "Balgord" Suit Recommended
RADIENT PHARMACEUTICALS: Nguyen Suit Settlement Gets Final Okay
RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL: $235MM Class Suit Accord Has Initial Okay
ROYAL GROUP: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

RSI ENTERPRISES: "Mavris" Suit in D. Ariz. Goes to Trial
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Sued in Cal. Over Defective Remote Control
SAN JUAN CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Barry" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
SCHIFF NUTRITION: Falsely Marketed Omega-3 Supplements, Suit Says
SECURITAS SECURITY: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Duffy" Suit Says

SHOWA CORP: Bid to Dismiss Dealership, End-payor Suits Denied
SIGNAL INT'L: Judge Awards $14 Million to Indian Workers
SONY CORP: Hearing on Bid for Award of Atty. Fees on May 14
SOUTH STATE MATERIALS: "Taylor" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
SPARTAN ENERGY: "Fernandez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

ST JOSEPH SERVICES: Court Dismisses Data Breach Class Action
STATE FARM: Court Allows Discovery in TCPA Class Action
STONEHAM DRILLING: Illegally Terminates Workers, Suit Claims
TALK OF THE TOWN: Servers' Suit Wins Conditional Certification
TANCORDE FINANCE: Class Certification Granted in "Chester" Suit

TENNCARE: Changes Cause Problems for Nursing Home Applications
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY: Fails to Pay OT, "Olive" Suit Claims
TIMELESS HOSPITALITY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
TRATTORIA DIMEO: "Barcenas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
TREND PAINTING: Faces "Rangel" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

UNC-CHAPEL HILL: Declined to Comment on Legal Strategy
UNITED STATES: Defendant in Child Porn Case Loses Certiorari Bid
VORNADO REALTY: Faces "Robles" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
VW CREDIT: Faces "Hellman" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
W.R. THOMAS: Cal. Appeals Court Upholds Arbitration Order

WARRIOR SPORTS: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over NOCSAE Symbol
WEST 12TH: "Khereed" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
XPO LOGISTICS: Faces "Lenar" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

* Florida Legislators Propose Bill to Snuff Tobacco Damages


                            *********


AEGON USA: Bailey & Glasser Files 401(k) Plan Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
On February 6, 2015, Bailey & Glasser LLP filed a class action
lawsuit against AEGON USA, the U.S. subsidiary of Dutch insurance
giant AEGON NV.  The class action complaint says that AEGON forced
its employees' retirement savings accounts into high-priced AEGON
investments and retirement programs. AEGON routinely charged its
employees unnecessary and exorbitant fees in their 401(k) plan.
AEGON's employees pay much higher average costs than employees of
other billion-dollar retirement plans.  Thus the class action
complaint concludes that AEGON and its officers violated federal
pension law by putting their profit motive ahead of the interests
of their employees' retirement savings.  The plaintiffs estimate
that AEGON has taken millions of dollars in excessive fees from
its employees' retirement savings.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Los Angeles, California,
where many AEGON subsidiaries operate.  Gregory Y. Porter --
gporter@baileyglasser.com -- a partner at Bailey & Glasser's
Washington, D.C. office, leads the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

Founded by Ben Bailey and Brian Glasser in 1999 in Charleston,
West Virginia, Bailey & Glasser LLP has grown to include nearly 50
lawyers, with offices in seven states and the District of
Columbia.  The firm's complex litigation practice focuses on high-
stakes commercial litigation; class actions for consumers,
insureds, investors, and retirement plan participants;
catastrophic injury and defective product cases; antitrust; and
whistleblower lawsuits.  The firm has extensive experience in
energy law, and litigates energy cases in trial courts, bankruptcy
courts, regulatory agencies, and appellate courts.  It has a major
corporate practice, and handles business matters ranging from
assisting Chinese investors in acquiring US assets, to IPOs, to
the negotiation and execution of billions of dollars in commercial
transactions.


ALIBABA GROUP: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
James and Christine Ziolkowski, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Alibaba Group Holding Limited, Jack
Yun Ma, Joseph C. Tsai, Jonathan Zhaoxi Lu, and Maggie Wei Wu,
Case No. 1:15-cv-01405 (S.D.N.Y., February 25, 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.

Alibaba Group Holding Limited is a China-based online and mobile
commerce company with retail and wholesale trading operations, as
well as cloud computing and other services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David R. Scott, Esq.
      Donald A. Broggi, Esq.
      SCOTT & SCOTT, LLC
      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
              dbroggi@scott-scott.com
         - and -

      Joseph Peter Guglielmo, Esq.
      SCOTT + SCOTT, L.L.P.
      405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
      New York, NY 10174
      Telephone: (212) 223-6444
      Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
      E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com


AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Securities Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
William Bourbonnais and Thomas and Donna Tesch filed a class
action suit for securities fraud against Paul Renard, their former
financial advisor, and the two broker-dealers with whom Renard was
registered during the allegedly fraudulent transactions,
Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. (Ameriprise), and SII
Investments, Inc. (SII). Plaintiffs' complaint asserts that the
defendants sold them and the class members securities they knew to
be unsuited for their needs and goals in violation of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section
78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint also
asserts several related state law claims of negligence and
violations of the Wisconsin Uniform Securities Law, Wis. Stats.
Section 551.501(2), and the Wisconsin Organized Crime Control Act,
Section 946.80 et seq. The case is now before the court on the
defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state
a claim. Defendants also moved to strike the class allegations and
compel arbitration.

Chief District Judge William C. Griesbach, in a decision and order
entered February 24, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/STnLR9from Leagle.com, granted the motion to dismiss
with leave to plead over.

"Plaintiffs' [Section] 10(b) securities fraud claim will be
dismissed. And because the remaining claims arise under state law,
they will be dismissed also for lack of federal jurisdiction. . .
. The dismissals are without prejudice, however, and Plaintiffs
may re-file an amended complaint within 30 days. It appears clear
that Plaintiffs will be able to state a [Section] 10(b) claim with
the required particularity directly against at least Renard and
perhaps under principles of respondeat superior or apparent
authority against Ameriprise and SII. Of course, if a [Section]
10(b) claim is asserted, the court will have supplemental
jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claims. The motions for
class certification and to strike the class allegations are denied
as moot," Judge Griesbach concluded.

The case is WILLIAM BOURBONNAIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AMERIPRISE
FINANCIAL SERVICES INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 14-C-966,
(E.D. Wisc.).

William Bourbonnais, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Charles J
Crueger -- ccrueger@hrdclaw.com -- Hansen Reynolds Dickinson
Crueger LLC, Erin K Dickinson -- edickinson@hrdclaw.com -- Hansen
Reynolds Dickinson Crueger LLC, James F Guckenberg --
jfg@hallingcayo.com -- Halling & Cayo SC, Patrick T O'Neill --
pto@hallingcayo.com -- Halling & Cayo SC & Sean M Sweeney --
sms@hallingcayo.com -- Halling & Cayo SC.

Thomas Tesch, Plaintiff, represented by Charles J Crueger, Hansen
Reynolds Dickinson Crueger LLC, Erin K Dickinson, Hansen Reynolds
Dickinson Crueger LLC, James F Guckenberg, Halling & Cayo SC,
Patrick T O'Neill, Halling & Cayo SC & Sean M Sweeney, Halling &
Cayo SC.

Donna Tesch, Plaintiff, represented by Charles J Crueger, Hansen
Reynolds Dickinson Crueger LLC, Erin K Dickinson, Hansen Reynolds
Dickinson Crueger LLC, James F Guckenberg, Halling & Cayo SC,
Patrick T O'Neill, Halling & Cayo SC & Sean M Sweeney, Halling &
Cayo SC.

Ameriprise Financial Services Inc, Defendant, represented by
Leanne L Matchen -- matchen.leanne@dorsey.com -- Dorsey & Whitney
LLP, Peter W Carter -- carter.peter@dorsey.com -- Dorsey & Whitney
LLP & Theresa M Bevilacqua -- bevilacqua.theresa@dorsey.com --
Dorsey & Whitney LLP.

SII Investments, Inc., Defendant, represented by James C Remington
-- jremington@whdlaw.com -- Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek SC, Jeffrey
Allen McIntyre -- jmcintyre@whdlaw.com -- Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek
SC & Ross A Anderson -- randerson@whdlaw.com -- Whyte Hirschboeck
Dudek SC.

Paul J Renard, Defendant, represented by Stephen M Ferris --
SFerris@GerbersLaw.com -- Gerbers Law Offices SC.


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Chehrazi" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Chehrazi and Helen Braynis, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc., Docket No. 1:15-cv-
00326 (S.D. Ind., February 25, 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 -

      Robert S. Green, Esq.
      James Robert Noblin, Esq.
      GREEN & NOBLIN, PC
      700 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 275
      Telephone: (415) 477-6700
      Facsimile: (415) 477-6710
      E-mail: gnef@classcouncel.com


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Fessia" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Fessia, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. Anthem, Inc. et al, Case No. 3:15-cv-00431 (S.D. Cal.,
February 25, 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:

      Ari Basser, Esq.
      BASSER LAW
      1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (858) 525-3660
      E-mail: abasser@basserlaw.com

         - and -

      J. Gerard Stranch IV, Esq.
      Micheal G. Stewart, Esq.
      BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
      227 Second Avenue North, 4th Floor
      Nashville, TN 37201
      Telephone: (615) 254-8801
      Facsimile: (615) 250-3937
      E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com
              mikes@bsjfirm.com


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Foley" Suit in Ind. Over Alleged Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maureen Foley, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v Anthem, Inc. f/k/a Wellpoint, Inc., an
Indiana corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-00330 (S.D. Ind., February
25, 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:

      William R. Riley, Esq.
      Joseph N. Williams, Esq.
      James A. Piatt, Esq.
      PRICE WAICUKAUSKI & RILEY, LLC
      301 Massachusetts Avenue
      Indianapolis, IN 46204
      Telephone: (317) 633-8787
      Facsimile: (317) 633-8797
      E-mail: wriley@price-law.com
              jwilliams@price-law.com
              jpiatt@price-law.com


APPLIED CONSULTANTS: "Fenley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tommy L. Fenley, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. Applied Consultants, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
00259 (W.D. Pa., February 25, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

Applied Consultants, Inc. is a servicing corporation providing
pipeline inspections to oil and gas companies throughout the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-4656
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      E-mail: scarson@bm.net


ARES ON FOWLER: Faces "Pratts" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Griselle M. Pratts, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Ares on Fowler, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00124
(M.D. Fla., February 25, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked in excess
of 40 hours a workweek.

Ares on Fowler, LLC owns and operates an adult entertainment club
at 5960 Fowler Street, Lee County, Fort Myers, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Collins McQuagge, Esq.
      MCQUAGGE & MORGAN, LLP
      2267 First St
      Ft Myers, FL 33901
      Telephone: (239) 334-4455
      Facsimile: (239) 334-4426
      E-mail: Christine@mcquaggelaw.com


ARIZONA: Judge Approves Prison Reform Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Hendley, writing for Phonenix NewTimes, reports that
big-time reforms are in store for Arizona prisons after a federal
judge approved a settlement in a class-action lawsuit filed on
behalf of 34,000 prisoners in the state.

The lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the
Prison Law Office over the conditions at Arizona's prisons was set
to go to trial last year, but this settlement prevented the trial,
as the state has agreed to a variety of health care and prison-
condition reforms.

At the time the settlement was reached in October, David Fathi,
the director of the ACLU's National Prison Project, told New
Times, "It's one of the largest, if not the largest settlement in
a prison-conditions case in recent years."

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit alleged that the prison health care
system in Arizona was so inadequate it was causing preventable
deaths.

In one case mentioned in the lawsuit, a prisoner requested HIV
testing twice while in ADC custody, which he didn't receive, but
he later died from an AIDS-related illness.  In another case, a
prisoner died of untreated Hodgkin's lymphoma.  A doctor's review
of the medical records points to delay after delay in his care,
and calls the prisoner's death "shocking."

The ADC doesn't admit wrongdoing as part of the settlement, but
the department does have to meet dozens of health care performance
measures.

Don Specter, the director of the Prison Law Office, has said that
these changes "will save lives."

Among the changes are monitoring of patients with any number of
chronic illnesses, upgraded care for pregnant inmates, and
upgraded dental care.

In addition to the health care reforms, there are also some
changes in prison conditions. There's a provision to limit the
solitary confinement of prisoners with serious mental illnesses,
and restricts officers' use of pepper spray on these inmates. The
plaintiffs in the case also get 20 "tour days" at state prisons to
take a look at the facilities.


AUSTRALIA: Class Action Mulled Over Heritage Changes
----------------------------------------------------
Gerry Georgatos, writing for The Stringer, reports that on
Feb. 17, the fledgling Aboriginal Heritage Alliance held a rally,
small in numbers but heavy with high profile individuals, outside
the offices of Western Australia's Department of Aboriginal
Affairs.  They oppose the State Government's proposed amendments
to the Aboriginal Heritage Act which appear to water down heritage
listing in favor arguably of mining interests.

When the amendments were proposed last year it drew a storm of
dissent from Traditional Owners and Aboriginal Land Councils.
Many believe the whole deal behind the proposed amendments is one
and the same with the agenda they argue is behind the touting of
the dispossession or shut down of remote homelands -- up to 150
Aboriginal communities. Many believe it is all about making it
easier for mining applications, licenses and tenements.  They
believe the Government wants to see less registered Aboriginal
heritage sites and also less demonstrable physical connection to
Country.

The Feb. 17 rally drew Noongar cultural expert and former
Government worker, Dr Noel Nannup, radio personality and former
Government worker, Clayton Lewis, high profile entertainer
Ernie Dingo, Yindjibarndi Aboriginal Corporation CEO, Michael
Woodley, high profile Goldfields desert Elders Richard Evans and
Geoffrey Stokes.  High profile lawyers were present, Ron Bowers
and Chau Hunyh, with Mr. Bowers holding a banner with a meme about
preserving Aboriginal Heritage. Once upon a time, Mr. Woodley and
Mr Bowers squared off against each other in a native title dispute
but life is not simple relationships! Archaeologist Liz Vaughn and
anthropologist Dr Stephen Bennetts were part of a suite of
speakers.  Former Mabo Barrister, Greg McIntyre is part of the
legal muscle for the Aboriginal Heritage Alliance.

"In the last three and half years, Aboriginal heritage site
registrations have decreased by 74 per cent," said Ms Vaughn.

Dr. Bennetts said that "a class action is being worked towards."

"We want as many Traditional Owners as possible to contact us to
join the class action against the State Government and the
Department of Aboriginal Affairs."

Mr. Lewis said that there appears "a sad synergy between the
threat to close down communities and the watering down of the
Aboriginal Heritage Act."

"It appears that there is an agenda to make it easier for certain
interests."

"We strongly oppose these agendas and we need to galvanize our
peoples to stand up, stick together on these issues and take
control, direct control, of our heritage rights."

Dr. Nannup said that connection to Country is vital to healthy
psychosocial identity.

"People have a right to their history, their heritage, to who they
are.  They have a right to walk on their Country and to visit and
celebrate what is sacred to them in one way or another.  Our
peoples have a right to their song lines, to their ceremonial and
cultural sites, to their spirituality."

Pastor Stokes said that despite Government sanctioned systematic
decimation of culture that "our spiritual connections to our lands
can never and will never be broken."

"But despite the impossibility of interrupting our spiritual
connection Governments should nevertheless not hurt us with
physical dispossession. Governments must learn the true meanings
of consultation, engagement and in doing what is right."

Ngalla Maya post prison employment director, Mervyn Eades said,
"Many bad things are coming at our people at this time.  If only
we can stand together against these threats."

Outside the Department of Aboriginal Affairs' Perth headquarters,
spokesperson Clayton Lewis released the group's open letter to the
State Government and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs.
Following the rally, a delegation from the Alliance met with the
CEO of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, Cliff Weeks.

The open letter included, "We have no confidence in the current
DAA Executive's management of Aboriginal cultural heritage in
Western Australia."

"We call on you to withdraw the AHA Amendment Bill immediately,
and to establish a Parliamentary Select Committee to properly
review the AHA and adequately consult with Aboriginal people."

There is some sign that the proposed amendments will have a rowdy
passage through State Parliament.  Shadow Aboriginal Affairs
Minister, Ben Wyatt opined that the "Aboriginal voice is almost
absent in the Bill."  His late father once headed the DAA.

Ms. Vaughn stated that the dramatic drop in the number of sites
being assessed by the DAA bespeaks of the agenda behind the
proposed amendments.  According to the Alliance the 74 per cent
drop in sites assessed by the AHA is a "shift towards industry-
friendly site assessment outcomes" coinciding "with the
appointment of several recent recruits to the DAA executive from
industry backgrounds who have no qualifications in Aboriginal
heritage management."

On Feb. 17, MLC Robin Chapple introduced into the Legislative
Assembly a petition by the Kimberley Land Council against the
Heritage amendments.

On Feb. 17, protest action also honored victims of the Flying Foam
Massacres which occurred on the same day in 1868 when virtually
all the Yaburara inhabitants of the Murujuga (Burrup Peninsula)
were wiped out by a posse in a horrific slaughtering of young and
older.  The Murujuga is widely regarded as one of the most
important archaeological sites on earth. But the former Labor
State Government in 2007/8 approved removal of hundreds of rock
art panels from Murujuga to make way for Woodside's Pluto
liquified natural gas plant.


BP SUB EXPRESS: "Lara" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Lara, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. BP Sub Express Inc., and Benjamin Grossman, Case No.
1:15-cv-00982 (E.D.N.Y., February 25, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, illegally retained
gratuities, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant with a principal place
of business at 5217 13th Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11219.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 209-3933
      Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
      E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Atlanta Fund's Suit to Proceed as Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jeffrey T. Miller of the Southern District of
California granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification in
the case entitled, In re BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, CASE NO. 12-CV-1737 JM (JLB) (S.D. Cal.)

Bridgepoint Education, Inc. is a for-profit post-secondary
education company that owns and operates Ashford University.
Ashford's main campus is in Clinton, Iowa, but the vast majority
of its students attend classes exclusively online.

In 2010, the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central
Association of Colleges and Schools (HLC), Ashford's only
accreditor, announced a substantial presence requirement, which
would become effective on July 1, 2012. Under the new requirement,
institutions accredited by HLC would be required to have a
majority of their educational administration activities, business
operations, and leadership located substantially in the 19-state
north-central region of the country. Although Ashford is in Iowa,
the majority of Bridgepoint's operations are located in San Diego,
California, so Ashford would not qualify for accreditation under
the new requirement. Ashford sought accreditation from the Western
Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC), whose jurisdiction
includes California.

According to plaintiffs, Defendants made a series of false and
misleading statements and omissions about the quality of education
at Ashford, Bridgepoint's efforts to address the problem areas
WASC had identified the likelihood that WASC would grant
accreditation, and Bridgepoint's financial forecasts.

On December 21, 2012, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint.
They asserted claims for violations of three provisions of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934: (1) securities fraud, under
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5; (2) control-person liability, under
Section 20(a); and (3) insider trading, under Section 20A.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.

Judge Miller granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification
and appointed City of Atlanta General Employees Pension Fund and
Teamsters Local 677 Health Services & Insurance Plan as class
representatives, and appointed their counsel, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, as class counsel.

A copy of Judge Miller's order dated January 15, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/Viaf60from Leagle.com.

City of Atlanta General Employees Pension Fundand Teamsters Local
677 Health Services & Insurance Plan, Lead Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs,
represented by Austin P. Brane -- ABrane@rgrdlaw.com -- Jonah H.
Goldstein -- jonahg@rgrdlaw.com -- Laurie Largent --
llargent@rgrdlaw.com -- Regis C Worley, Jr -- rworley@rgrdlaw.com
-- Danielle Suzanne Myers -- danim@rgrdlaw.com -- at Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP; Frank J. Johnson, Jr --
FrankJ@JohnsonandWeaver.com -- at Johnson & Weaver, LLP; Francis
A. DiGiacco -- at U.S. Attorney's Office

Luke Sacharczyk, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- at Pomerantz, Grossman, Hufford,
Dahlstrom & Gross, LLP; Lionel Z Glancy -- lglancy@glancylaw.com
-- at Glancy Binkow and Goldberg

David Stein, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff S Westerman --
jwesterman@jswlegal.com  -- at Westerman Law Corp.

Donald K. Franke, Plaintiff, represented by David C Walton --
davew@rgrdlaw.com -- Danielle Suzanne Myers -- danim@rgrdlaw.com
-- at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP

Bridgepoint Education, Inc., Andrew S. Clark, Daniel J. Devine,
Jane McAuliffe, Defendants, represented by Ignacio E. Salceda --
isalceda@wsgr.com -- Edmundo Clay Marquez -- ecmarquez@wsgr.com --
Joni L. Ostler -- jostler@wsgr.com -- Nina F Locker --
nlocker@wsgr.com -- at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C.

Jorge Ernesto Machicao Argiro, Movant, represented by Richard M
Heimann -- rheimann@lchb.com -- at Lieff Cabraser Heimann and
Bernstein LLP


BRIGHT WAY: "Zhou" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yi Ming Zhou, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Bright Way Cabinets & Home Center LLC d/b/a Bright Way
Supply Inc. d/b/a Fort Way Supply Corp. d/b/a Hamilton Services
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01003 (E.D.N.Y., February 26,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Bright Way Cabinets & Home Center LLC owns and operates furniture
stores in various locations in New York and New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Klein Law Group, Esq.
      Xian Ming Lei, Esq.
      THE KLEIN LAW GROUP PC
      11 Broadway, Suite 960
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 344-9022
      Facsimile: (212) 344-0301
      E-mail: darren@thekleinlawgroup.com
              xlei@thekleinlawgroup.com


BRYANT PARK: Faces "Jones" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Shorn Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Bryant Park Market Events, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-01369
(S.D.N.Y., February 25, 2015), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Bryant Park Market Events, LLC owns and operates restaurants, and
bars within the State of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abdul Karim Hassan, Esq.
      ABDUL K. HASSAN LAW GROUP PLLC
      215-28 Hillside Avenue
      Queens Village, NY 11427
      Telephone: (718) 740-1000
      Facsimile: (718) 740-2000
      E-mail: courtpoint@courtpoint.com


CALMAR CORPORATION: Faces "Banegas" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Banegas, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly
situated v. Calmar Corporation and Michel D. Richard and Don
Allen, Case No. 2:15-cv-00593 (E.D. La., February 25, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours a workweek.

Calmar Corporation maintains a principal place of business in
Kenner, Louisiana. It is and expert in both the residential and
commercial spray foam insulation and fireproofing industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Henry Beaumont, Esq.
      WILLIAM H. BEAUMONT LAW
      3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
      New Orleans, LA 70119
      Telephone: (504) 483-8008
      E-mail: whbeaumont@gmail.com


CARRIER IQ: 3rd Amended Complaint in Consumer Suit Due March 23
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen of the Northern District of
California granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion
to dismiss in the case entitled IN RE CARRIER IQ, INC., CONSUMER
PRIVACY LITIGATION, NO. C-12-MD-2330 EMC (N.D. Cal.)

The plaintiffs are 18 individuals from 13 different states have
filed a second consolidated amended complaint (SCAC) against
defendants Carrier IQ, Inc. and a number of manufacturers of
mobile device. Each plaintiff's mobile device came with the
Carrier IQ Software and implementing or porting software pre-
installed. In addition to using his devices to make phone calls,
the plaintiff has used it for web browsing and text messaging,
including accessing, inputting, and transmitting personal,
private, confidential, and sensitive information.

Plaintiffs allege that Carrier IQ is the designer, author,
programmer, and vendor of the IQ Agent software and provided the
mobile device manufacturers the guide or template needed for the
related implementing or porting software known as the CIQ
Interface.

The remaining defendants in this action are a number of mobile
device manufacturers, like HTC America, Inc. and HTC Corporation,
Huawei Device USA, Inc., LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc.
and LG Electronics, Inc., Motorola Mobility LLC, Pantech Wireless,
Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, Inc. and Samsung
Electronics Co., Ltd. Each Defendant is alleged to have installed
the Carrier IQ Software and CIQ Interface software on at least
some of their mobile device models.

Plaintiffs made the following allegations in SCAC:

Count 1: Violation of the Federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. Section
2551)

Count 2: Violation of State Privacy Laws: Plaintiffs assert their
claims on behalf of all residents of the United States under Cal.
Penal Code Section 502 and on behalf of citizens of the following
35 states under those states' respective privacy laws: Arizona,
California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho,
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,
Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Count 3: Violation of State Consumer Protection Acts: Asserted on
behalf of residents of the following 21 states under those states'
respective consumer protection statutes: Arkansas, California,
Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Kansas, Maryland,
Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma,
Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont,
Washington, and West Virginia.
Count 4: Violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (15 U.S.C.
Section 2301-2312): Asserted on behalf of the residents of the
following 34 states (and the District of Columbia): Alaska,
Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia,
Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico,
North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West
Virginia, and Wyoming.

Count 5: Violation of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability:
asserted on behalf of residents of the states enumerated under
Count 4.

Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the SCAC in its
entirety.

Judge Chen granted in part and denied in part defendants' joint
motion, and afforded plaintiffs leave to file a third consolidated
amended complaint, which will be filed by March 23, 2015.

A copy of Judge Chen's order dated January 21, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/ui3UT3from Leagle.com.

Patrick Kenny, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert F Lopez, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP &
Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP

Justin Sharp, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert F Lopez, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
&Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP

Jeremy Feitelson, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E. Scarlett,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert F Lopez, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP &Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP

Greg Feitelson, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E. Scarlett,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert F Lopez, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP &Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP

Eric Steiner, Plaintiff, represented by Paul R. Kiesel, Kiesel Law
LLP

Eric Thomas, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert F Lopez, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
&Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP

Benjamin Lancaster, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E. Scarlett,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,Robert F Lopez, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP

Daniel Pipkin, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel L. Warshaw,
Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Aaron M. Sheanin, Pearson, Simon &
Warshaw, LLP, Bobby Pouya, Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Bruce Lee
Simon, Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Clifford H. Pearson, Pearson,
Simon & Warshaw LLP, Robert F Lopez, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, Robert George Retana, Pearson Simon Warshaw & Penny LLP,
Thomas Kay Boardman, Pearson Simon, Warshaw and Penny, LLP &
William James Newsom, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP

Chad Ulrich, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel L. Warshaw, Pearson,
Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Aaron M. Sheanin, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw,
LLP, Bobby Pouya, Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Bruce Lee Simon,
Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Clifford H. Pearson, Pearson, Simon
& Warshaw LLP, Thomas Kay Boardman, Pearson Simon, Warshaw and
Penny, LLP & William James Newsom, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP

Rowena Silvera, Plaintiff, represented by Andrea S. Hirsch, Herman
Gerel, LLP, Christopher V. Tisi, Herman Gerel, LLP, Mark G.
Crawford, Skikos Crawford Skikos Joseph & Millican & Steven James
Skikos, Skikos Crawford Skikos Joseph & Millican
Andrew Sanders, Plaintiff, represented by Andrea S. Hirsch, Herman
Gerel, LLP, Christopher V. Tisi, Herman Gerel, LLP, Mark G.
Crawford, Skikos Crawford Skikos Joseph & Millican & Steven James
Skikos, Skikos Crawford Skikos Joseph & Millican

Jennifer Sue Patrick, Plaintiff, represented by Ira P. Rothken,
Rothken Law Firm, LLP, Jared Robinson Smith, Rothken Law Firm &
John R. Parker, Jr., Kershaw Cutter & Ratinoff, LLP

Scott Lewis, Plaintiff, represented by Ira P. Rothken, Rothken Law
Firm, LLP, Jared Robinson Smith, Rothken Law Firm & John R.
Parker, Jr., Kershaw Cutter & Ratinoff, LLP

Lindsay Padilla, Plaintiff, represented by Heather Baker Dobbs,
Kirtland & Packard, LLP, Behram Viraf Parekh, Kirtland & Packard
LLP & Michael Louis Kelly, Kirtland & Packard LLP

Steven Watts, Plaintiff, represented by Heather Baker Dobbs,
Kirtland & Packard, LLP, Behram Viraf Parekh, Kirtland & Packard
LLP & Michael Louis Kelly, Kirtland & Packard LLP

Eliezer Pilowsky, Plaintiff, represented by Heather Baker Dobbs,
Kirtland & Packard, LLP, Behram Viraf Parekh, Kirtland & Packard
LLP & Michael Louis Kelly, Kirtland & Packard LLP

Rodney Shively, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory B Scarlett,
Wasserman Comden Casselman Esensten LLP & Melissa Meeker Harnett,
Wasserman Comden Casselman & Esensten, L.L.P.

Justin Conley, Plaintiff, represented by David I. Cates, Cates Law
Firm

Brandon Ivy-Perry, Plaintiff, represented by David I. Cates, Cates
Law Firm

Laura Lebryk, Plaintiff, represented by David I. Cates, Cates Law
Firm

Jeremy Bain, Plaintiff, represented by David I. Cates, Cates Law
Firm

Joseph Cosme, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Davis Holland,
Holland, Groves, Schneller and Stolze

Craig Schmidt, Plaintiff, represented by Cameron Wayne Wilson,
Dolan Law Firm, Daniel Dennis Dolan, II, Haggard Parks Haggard &
Lewis, Manuel Dobrinsky, Andrew Mitchell Moss, Litigation
Partners, PL, David A. Straite, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Eric
Bluestein, Freidin & Dobrinsky PA, Ralph N. Sianni, Stewarts Law
US LLP & Randy Rosenblum

Leron Levy, Plaintiff, represented by Cameron Wayne Wilson, Dolan
Law Firm, Daniel Dennis Dolan, II, Haggard Parks Haggard & Lewis,
Manuel Dobrinsky, Andrew Mitchell Moss, Litigation Partners, PL,
David A. Straite, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Eric Bluestein,
Freidin & Dobrinsky PA, Ralph N. Sianni, Stewarts Law US LLP &
Randy Rosenblum
Ilya Torchinsky, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Mitchell Moss,
Litigation Partners, PL & Eric Bluestein, Freidin & Dobrinsky PA

Hayley Medrano, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Mitchell Moss,
Litigation Partners, PL & Eric Bluestein, Freidin & Dobrinsky PA

Lisa McClaskey, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Mitchell Moss,
Litigation Partners, PL & Eric Bluestein, Freidin & Dobrinsky PA

John Leinicke, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Mitchell Moss,
Litigation Partners, PL & Eric Bluestein, Freidin & Dobrinsky PA

Margaret Elliott, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Davis Holland,
Holland, Groves, Schneller and Stolze

Elizabeth Lammert, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Davis Holland,
Holland, Groves, Schneller and Stolze

Lisa Rosenburg, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Davis Holland,
Holland, Groves, Schneller and Stolze

Jeffrey Pacilli, Plaintiff, represented by David A. Straite,
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP & Ralph N. Sianni, Stewarts Law US LLP

Saima Mian, Plaintiff, represented by David A. Straite, Kaplan Fox
& Kilsheimer LLP & Ralph N. Sianni, Stewarts Law US LLP

Amandeep Singh, Plaintiff, represented by David A. Straite, Kaplan
Fox & Kilsheimer LLP & Ralph N. Sianni, Stewarts Law US LLP

Marilyn Robledo, Plaintiff, represented by David A. Straite,
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP & Ralph N. Sianni, Stewarts Law US LLP

Dylan T Ferreira, Plaintiff, represented by John T. Longo, Law
office of John T. Longo

Joshua Libby, Plaintiff, represented by Gary E. Klein, Roddy Klein
& Ryan, Kevin Costello, Roddy Klein & Ryan & Shennan Alexandra
Kavanagh, Roddy, Klein and Ryan

Erin Janek, Plaintiff, represented by Steven J. Stolze, Holland,
Groves, Schneller & Stolze, LLC, Charles E. Schaffer, Levin
Fishbein Sedran Berman, Christopher M Ellis, Bolen Robinson &
Ellis, LLP, Eric Davis Holland, Holland, Groves, Schneller and
Stolze, Kevin Douglas Wilkins, Holland, Groves, Schneller &
Stolze, Llc, Shane M Mendenhall, Bolen, Robinson & Ellis & Steven
Lee Groves, Holland Groves Schneller Stolze

Jeffrey Wilson, Plaintiff, represented by Judy L. Cates, Cates Law
Firm

Melissa J. Link, Plaintiff, represented by Peter Wasylyk, Law
Offices of Peter Wasylyk

Daniel Schlanger, Plaintiff, represented by Michael M. Weinkowitz,
Levin Fishbein Sedran & Berman Esqs

Chad Maron, Plaintiff, represented by David S Ratner, Morelli
Ratner, P.C.

Thomas Naudus, Plaintiff, represented by David S Ratner, Morelli
Ratner, P.C.

Israel Olivares, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Russell Strange,
Strange & Carpenter & Joseph H Malley, Law Office of Joseph H.
Malley, PC

Clarissa Portals, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Russell Strange,
Strange & Carpenter & Joseph H Malley, Law Office of Joseph H.
Malley, PC

Sam Stoltenbury, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Lee Low, Kotchen
and Low LLP

Amber Westenberger, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Lee Low,
Kotchen and Low LLP

Peter Medine, Plaintiff, represented by Lionel Z. Glancy, Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Marc Lawrence Godino, Glancy Binkow &
Goldberg LLP, Marc Ian Gross, Pomerantz LLP, Matthew Laurence
Tuccillo, Pomerantz LLP & Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Pomerantz Haudek
Block Grossman & Gross LLP

Colleen Fischer, a Wisconsin resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert F
Lopez, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP

Kurt Fairfield, a Wisconsin resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert F
Lopez, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP

David Sarafian, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E. Scarlett,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert F Lopez, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP &Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP

David Williams, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E. Scarlett,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert F Lopez, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP &Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP

Stephanie Wirth, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E. Scarlett,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert F Lopez, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP &Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP

John Swafford, a Florida resident, Plaintiff, represented by Shana
E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert F Lopez,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP

Luke Szulczewski, an Illinois resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert F
Lopez, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP

Richard Rosenfeld, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E. Scarlett,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert F Lopez, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP &Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP

Michael Zemartis, a New Jersey resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert F
Lopez, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP

Timothy Dodson, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E. Scarlett,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert F Lopez, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP &Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP

Evan Brooks, a Washington resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert F
Lopez, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP

Marcus Neal, a Washington resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert F
Lopez, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP

Brian Sandstrom, a Washington resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert F
Lopez, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP

John Woods, a Washington resident, Plaintiff, represented by Shana
E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert F Lopez,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP

Leonard Hobbs, a Nevada resident, Plaintiff, represented by Shana
E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert F Lopez,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP
Kenneth Tishenkel, an Ohio resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert F
Lopez, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP

Josephine Gonzalez, Plaintiff, represented by James Byron Hardin,
Newport Trial Group & Ryan Mark Ferrell, Newport Trial Group

Lawrence Regis House, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Melissa
Meeker Harnett, Wasserman Comden Casselman & Esensten, L.L.P.

Dao Phong, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Punzalan, Punzalan Law,
P.C., Danielle A Stoumbos, Finkelstein Thompson LLP & Rosemary M.
Rivas, Finkelstein Thompson LLP

Edward Shumate, Plaintiff, represented by Paul R. Kiesel, Kiesel
Law LLP

Yonatan Wadler, Plaintiff, represented by Paul R. Kiesel, Kiesel
Law LLP, Jay P. Salzman, Schoengold & Sporn, PC & Paul O. Paradis,
Horwitz Horwitz & Paradis

Adam Schwartz, Plaintiff, represented by Paul R. Kiesel, Kiesel
Law LLP

Daniel Massey, Plaintiff, represented by Paul R. Kiesel, Kiesel
Law LLP

Laureen Briggs, Plaintiff, represented by Dale Bernardo Ratner,
Dale Bernardo Ratner, Esq. & David S Ratner, Morelli Ratner, P.C.

Robert Kleer, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn A. Williams, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,Christopher Collins, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP & Frank James Janecek, Jr., Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP

Michael Allan, Plaintiff, represented by Michael W. Sobol, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP &Nicholas Diamand, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP

Matthew Thornton, Plaintiff, represented by Paul R. Kiesel, Kiesel
Law LLP

Matthew Hiles, Plaintiff, represented by Helen U Kim, Arias,
Ozzello & Gignac LLP, J. Paul Gignac, Arias, Ozzello & Gignac LLP,
Peter J. Bezek, Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis, LLP & Robert A.
Curtis, Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis, LLP

Mark Laning, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Russell Strange,
Strange & Carpenter & Joseph H Malley, Law Office of Joseph H.
Malley, PC

Matthew Branson, Plaintiff, represented by Allan Steyer, Steyer
Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Gabriel Dash Zeldin,
Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez Smith LLP & Hamilton P.
Lindley, Goldfard Branham, LLP
Amy Roberts, Plaintiff, represented by Brett Louis Rosenthal &
Peter J. McNulty, McNulty Law Firm

Dennis Patrick, an individual Plaintiff, represented by Reginald
Von Terrell, The Terrell Law Group

James Douglas White, an individual Plaintiff, represented by Brian
Russell Strange, Strange & Carpenter &Joseph H Malley, Law Office
of Joseph H. Malley, PC

Andre Lavertue, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Andrew Chavez,
Chavez & Gertler LLP & Nance Felice Becker, Chavez & Gertler LLP

Roseanne Castro, Plaintiff, represented by James Byron Hardin,
Newport Trial Group & Ryan Mark Ferrell, Newport Trial Group

Accident Investigative Services, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Charles E. Schaffer, Levin Fishbein Sedran Berman

Cameron Jones, Plaintiff, represented by Eric J. O'Bell, Law
Offices of Eric J. O'Bell, LLC & Paul Marett Brannon, Brannon Law
Firm, L.L.C.

George Howell, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel E Gustafson,
Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel C. Hedlund, Gustafson Gluek PLLC &
Joseph C Bourne, Gustafson Gluek PLLC

Andy Kacmarcik, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and
Associates, P.C., Blake Anthony Strautins, Barnow and Associates,
P.C., Corey M Mather, David J Syrios, Ademi & O'Reilly LLP, Guri
Ademi, Ademi & O'Reilly LLP & Shpetim Ademi,

Jerimiah Thomas Moree, Plaintiff, represented by Burton
Rosenblatt, Ely Bettini Ulman et al, Eric Davis Holland, Holland,
Groves, Schneller and Stolze, Steven Lee Groves, Holland Groves
Schneller Stolze &Steven J. Stolze, Holland, Groves, Schneller &
Stolze, LLC

Jay Katz, Plaintiff, represented by David I. Pankin, Law Offices
of David I. Pankin, P.C.

David Yastrab, Plaintiff, represented by Bernard Daskal, Lynch
Daskal Emery LLP

William White, IV, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew F. Knopf,
Newsome Law Firm & C. Richard Newsome, Newsome Law Firm

Curtis Dubberly, Plaintiff, represented by Marc A. Wites, Wites &
Kapetan, P.A. & Jonathan Stephen Burns, Wites & Kapetan PA

Ryan McKeen, Plaintiff, represented by Peter M. Van Dyke, Eagan,
Donohue, Van Dyke & Falsey, LLP

Vlad Twerskoi, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Davis Holland,
Holland, Groves, Schneller and Stolze &Richard Joseph Arsenault,
Neblett Beard & Arsenault

Mario Jackson, Plaintiff, represented by D. Scott Kalish, John R.
Climaco, Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox, & Garofoli, Co., LPA,
John A. Peca, Jr., Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli &
Patrick G. Warner, David P. Meyer & Associates Co., LPA

Ashley L. Jones, Plaintiff, represented by John R. Climaco,
Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox, & Garofoli, Co., LPA, John A.
Peca, Jr., Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli, Kip T.
Bollin, Thompson Hine &Patrick G. Warner, David P. Meyer &
Associates Co., LPA

Caprice Ieyoub, Plaintiff, represented by Rebecca S Tinio, Susman
Godfrey, Warren T Burns, Susman Godfrey LLP, Arthur M Murray,
Murray Law Firm, Daniel H Charest, Susman Godfrey LLP, Korey
Arthur Nelson, Murray Law Firm, Stephen B. Murray, Murray Law Firm
& Terrell W. Oxford, Susman Godfrey L.L.P.

Richard Lucarelli, Plaintiff, represented by David M Finn, Milner
Finn Price

Elizabeth Fosson, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel L. Germain,
Rosman & Germain LLP

Matthew Fosson, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel L. Germain,
Rosman & Germain LLP

Duane Frisbie, Plaintiff, represented by David S Ratner, Morelli
Ratner, P.C.

Jannet Linder, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Collins,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Frank James Janecek, Jr.,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP

Melissa Slater, Plaintiff, represented by David S Ratner, Morelli
Ratner, P.C.

Samuel Slaughter, Plaintiff, represented by David S Ratner,
Morelli Ratner, P.C.

Caryl Wolff, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Gudmundson, Daniel L.
Germain, Rosman & Germain LLP,David M. Cialkowski, Zimmerman Reed,
PLLP, Paula Michelle Roach, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP &Timothy
G. Blood, Blood Hurst & O'Rearden, LLC

Kristina Cerrone, Plaintiff, represented by Michael M. Weinkowitz,
Levin Fishbein Sedran & Berman Esqs &Charles E. Schaffer, Levin
Fishbein Sedran Berman

Lisa Clark, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Russell Strange,
Strange & Carpenter & Brian R Strange, Strange and Carpenter

Felipe Garcia, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Russell Strange,
Strange & Carpenter & Brian R Strange, Strange and Carpenter

Mark Rottschafer, Plaintiff, represented by Charles E. Schaffer,
Levin Fishbein Sedran Berman,Christopher M Ellis, Bolen Robinson &
Ellis, LLP, Eric Davis Holland, Holland, Groves, Schneller and
Stolze, Jon D. Robinson, Bolen, Robinson & Ellis, LLP, Scott L.
Keniley, The Keniley Law Firm, Shane M Mendenhall, Bolen, Robinson
& Ellis, Steven Lee Groves, Holland Groves Schneller Stolze &
Steven J. Stolze, Holland, Groves, Schneller & Stolze, LLC

Robert Spradley, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Russell Strange,
Strange & Carpenter & Brian R Strange, Strange and Carpenter

Cheryl Eakins, Plaintiff, represented by Curtis D. Johnson, Jr.,
Johnson & Brown, PC

Michael Siegel, Plaintiff, represented by Larry Daniel Drury,
Larry D. Drury, LTD.

Kenneth Cassine, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Shub, Seeger
Weiss LLP, Donna F Solen, Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, Gary E.
Mason, Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, Jamie E. Weiss, Eric D. Freed
Law Office & Jason S Rathod, Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP

Vishal Shah, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Shub, Seeger Weiss
LLP, Donna F Solen, Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, Gary E. Mason,
Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, Jamie E. Weiss, Eric D. Freed Law
Office &Jason S Rathod, Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP

Carrier IQ, Inc, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by
Rodger R. Cole, Fenwick & West LLP,Annasara Guzzo Purcell, Fenwick
and West LLP, Christopher E. Carey, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker,
Carey & Hymel, Eugene J. Podesta, Jr., Baker, Donelson, Bearman,
Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C., James Christie, Christie Pabarue
Mortensen & Young, Jennifer Jane Johnson, Fenwick & West LLP,
Jennifer J Johnson, Fenwick & West LLP, Molly Roberta Melcher,
Fenwick and West LLP, Tyler Alexander Baker, Fenwick & West LLP &
Tyler Griffin Newby, Fenwick & West LLP

HTC America Inc, a Washington corporation, Defendant, represented
by Rosemarie Theresa Ring, Esq., Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP,
Albert G. Bixler, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott LLC, Bryan H.
Heckenlively, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP, Catherine A. Miller,
Freeborn & Peters, Ellen D. Bailey, Eckert Seamans, J Thad
Heartfield, The Heartfield Law Firm, Jennifer Amy Baker, Roshka
DeWulf & Patten PLC, Michael Benjamin Alexander, Preis & Roy, PLC,
Rosemarie T Ring, Munger Tolles and Olson,Ross Eric Morrison,
Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Sean F. O'Shea, O'Shea Partners LLP &
Warren L. Soffian, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC

Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, a Korean company, Defendant,
represented by Lance Allan Etcheverry, Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom LLP

Samsung Electronics America Inc, a New York corporation,
Defendant, represented by Lance Allan Etcheverry, Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Eugene J. Podesta, Jr., Baker,
Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C. & Shouying Sheryl
Leung, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom LLP

Samsung Telecommunications America, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant, represented by Lance Allan Etcheverry, Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, R. Patrick Vance, Jones Walker, Eugene
J. Podesta, Jr., Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz,
P.C. & Shouying Sheryl Leung, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and
Flom LLP

Peter Lowden, Defendant, represented by Cameron Wayne Wilson,
Dolan Law Firm, Daniel Dennis Dolan, II, Haggard Parks Haggard &
Lewis, Manuel Dobrinsky, Andrew Mitchell Moss, Litigation
Partners, PL,David A. Straite, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Eric
Bluestein, Freidin & Dobrinsky PA, Ralph N. Sianni, Stewarts Law
US LLP & Randy Rosenblum

Motorola Mobility, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher
Joseph Letkewicz, Winston and Strawn LLP,Krista M. Enns, Winston &
Strawn LLP, Norman Kenneth Beck, Winston and Strawn LLP & Peter
Charles McCabe, III, Winston and Strawn LLP

AT&T Mobility LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher John
Kelly, Mayer Brown LLP, Evan Tager, Mayer Brown LLP & Archis Ashok
Parasharami, Mayer Brown LLP

Sprint Spectrum LP, Defendant, represented by Timothy L. Alger,
Perkins Coie LLP, Amanda J Beane &Kevan A. Fornasero, Perkins Coie
LLP

Sprint Communications Company L.P., Defendant, represented by
Timothy L. Alger, Perkins Coie LLP,Eugene J. Podesta, Jr., Baker,
Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C., Amanda J Beane &
Kevan A. Fornasero, Perkins Coie LLP

Sprint Nextel, Defendant, represented by Timothy L. Alger, Perkins
Coie LLP, Eugene J. Podesta, Jr., Baker, Donelson, Bearman,
Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C., Amanda J Beane & Kevan A. Fornasero,
Perkins Coie LLP

LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc., Defendant, represented by
Jeff Eric Scott, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Lori Chang, Greenberg
Traurig LLP, Rebekah Susanne Strawn Guyon, Greenberg Traurig LLP &
Ian Ballon, Greenberg Traurig LLP

Pantech Wireless, Inc., Defendant, represented by Oluwaseun O.
Ajayi, H.C. Park and Associates, PLC

Huawei Device USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Simon J.
Frankel, Covington & Burling LLP &Katherine RH Gasztonyi.
David Ratner, Amicus, represented by David S Ratner, Morelli
Ratner, P.C.

Google Inc., Miscellaneous, represented by Michael Henry Page,
Durie Tangri LLP & Ragesh K. Tangri, Durie Tangri LLP


CERNER CORPORATION: Sued in W.D. Mo. Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Boderocco, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Cerner Corporation, Case No. 4:15-cv-00144 (W.D. Mo.,
February 25, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime compensation on violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Cerner Corporation is a Delaware corporation that supplies health
care information technology solutions, services, devices, and
hardware to hospitals and clinics throughout the United States and
abroad.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric L. Dirks, Esq.
      WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
      1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
      Kansas City, MO 64105
      Telephone: (816) 876-2600
      Facsimile: (816) 221-8763
      E-mail: dirks@williamsdirks.com

         - and -

      William E. Parsons, Esq.
      David C. Zoeller, Esq.
      Caitlin M. Madden, Esq.
      HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
      Post Office Box 2155
      Madison, WI 53701-2155
      Telephone: (608) 257-0040
      Facsimile: (608) 256-0236
      E-mail: wparsons@hq-law.com
              dzoeller@hq-law.com
              cmadden@hq-law.com

         - and -

      Daniel A. Rottier, Esq.
      Jason Knutson, Esq.
      Breanne L. Snapp, Esq.
      HABUSH HABUSH & ROTTIER, S.C.
      150 East Gilman St., Suite 2000
      Madison, WI 53703
      Telephone: 608/255-6663
      Facsimile: 608/255-0745
      E-mail: rottier@habush.com
              jknutson@habush.com
              bsnapp@habush.com


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: 50 Pa. Landowners File Suit Over Leases
----------------------------------------------------------
David Conti, writing for TribLive, reports that a group of more
than 50 property owners with natural gas leases in northeastern
Pennsylvania lodged the latest claims that the state's largest
Marcellus shale gas producer and related companies shortchanged
their royalty checks.

The federal lawsuit filed in Scranton accuses Oklahoma City-based
Chesapeake Energy Corp. of improperly taking out fees and using
phony prices for royalty calculations, as well as conspiring with
pipeline company Access Midstream to pad profits.

"The use of such artificial prices and deductions violates the
express language of the leases, which requires royalties to be
calculated based on the market value at the well of gas sold, and
does not permit the deduction of post-production costs in
calculating the royalty payable under the lease," wrote attorneys
for the royalty owners in Bradford, Sullivan and Wyoming counties.

Chesapeake, which has more than 700 producing shale wells in the
state, declined to comment.  The other defendants, which include
Texas-based Anadarko Petroleum -- the ninth-biggest shale gas
producer in the state -- and Tulsa-based pipeline company Williams
Partners, which last year acquired Access Midstream, did not
return a call for comment.

Similar accusations have prompted federal and state
investigations, Chesapeake has acknowledged, and led to several
other lawsuits.  The company agreed to pay $11 million to settle a
class-action claim filed by thousands of leaseholders over
deductions that state lawmakers are seeking to limit.

"Plaintiffs have varying royalty provisions in their respective
leases and oil and gas law varies from state to state.  Royalty
owners and producers differ in their interpretation of the legal
effect of lease provisions governing royalty calculations,"
Chesapeake wrote in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing in
December.

State Attorney General Kathleen Kane's office last year said it
would review whether it had jurisdiction to investigate royalty
check complaints.  The office said on Feb. 19 it could not confirm
or deny the existence of an investigation.

Lawmakers expect to reconsider a bill that did not pass last year
which would have banned producers from deducting certain fees from
the royalties paid to the owners of gas rights tapped by wells.

The state Senate this year passed two other bills that require
companies to provide accounting of prices and fees to leaseholders
who request it, and bars companies from retaliating against
leaseholders who do.  Those are awaiting action in the state
House.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit seek unspecified damages and a full
accounting of how much money companies collected from each well.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Attorney Ordered to Stop Interfering in Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Max Baker, writing for Star-Telegram, reports that Fort Worth
attorney Dan McDonald has recruited thousands of clients suing
Chesapeake Energy over royalty payments through billboards, a
website and public meetings.  He has been so successful that his
lawsuits are started to clog the courts in Texas.

But an Oklahoma judge overseeing a class action settlement against
the Oklahoma City energy giant is not so happy with McDonald's
tactics and has told the lawyer to cut it out -- now.

State District Judge Jon Parsley signed a temporary restraining
order prohibiting Mr. McDonald's firm from encouraging Oklahoma
royalty owners to opt out of a proposed $119 million settlement
with Chesapeake.

On Feb. 23, Judge Parsley was set to hold a hearing to decide if
the restraining order against Mr. McDonald should stay in place,
possibly shutting down his attempts to take on Chesapeake in its
home state.

Mr. McDonald denies doing anything wrong, saying that he is simply
questioning a settlement he is convinced will pay plaintiffs
pennies on the dollar while attorneys could get up to about $48
million in fees.

"I ain't rolling over.  I'm fighting," Mr. McDonald said.  "This
settlement stinks."

Attorneys Rex Sharp and Arthur Schmidt, who requested the
restraining order against McDonald, did not return repeated phone
calls from the Star-Telegram seeking comment.

Settling an old case

Judge Parsley is presiding over a class action lawsuit that was
filed in 2010 when John W. Fitzgerald accused Chesapeake of
underpaying oil and gas royalties by improperly deducting post-
production costs, claims similar to those being made by McDonald
and other attorneys in lawsuits in North Texas.

Classified as a class action by Parsley in February 2013, it
covers drilling going back to 2004 and claims by tens of thousands
of royalty owners covering possibly 10,000 wells, records show.

At first, Chesapeake fought handling the cases as a group, saying
that there wasn't enough commonality in the issues since at least
75,000 individual leases were involved dealing with varying
qualities of gas to be processed from 1,100 different fields.

The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals agreed with Chesapeake in
February 2014. It reversed Parsley's certification and sent the
case back to his court.

But by January Chesapeake was willing to settle the case, paying
out $119 million to "avoid the time, expense and uncertainty" of
continuing with the case, records show.  Attorneys' fees of up to
40 percent would be paid from that total, which could leaving
about $71 million for the plaintiffs.

"We are pleased to reach this fair and reasonable agreement and
look forward to further strengthening our relationships with our
Oklahoma royalty owners," Gordon Pennoyer, a spokesman for
Chesapeake, said in a prepared statement.

Chesapeake, which has grown tired of fighting similar individual
lawsuits by Mr. McDonald and others in Texas, has sought to group
about 100 of them together in hopes of moving the cases along more
efficiently and hopefully encourage plaintiffs to settle.  It
recently filed for multidistrict litigation status, which would
send them to one court for pretrial decisions.

Judge Parsley set a schedule that would have notices describing
the pros and cons of the settlement going out to plaintiffs no
later than Feb. 25. He then set an April 1 deadline for
individuals to tell the court if they are objecting or opting out
of the settlement and hiring their own lawyer.

The attorneys have already established a website with information
about the settlement.

On April 17, Judge Parsley is set to hold a "settlement fairness
hearing" at his remote Oklahoma panhandle courtroom in Beaver
County to hear final arguments on the case.

"It is not something I would do"

But before many of the plaintiffs had time to consider the
settlement, Mr. McDonald swung into action.

He sent out mass mailings, put ads in newspapers and held public
meetings in several cities earlier in February where he encouraged
plaintiffs to opt out. In the newspaper ads, his firm pronounced
in big letters that the proposed deal could net them "pennies on
the dollar."

Messrs. Sharp and Schmidt a few days later asked for the temporary
restraining order in which they accused Mr. McDonald's law firm of
conducting an "unethical solicitation campaign" that would cause
"unnecessary and costly" confusion, documents show.

Mr. McDonald said he has made similar appeals for clients in Texas
without complaint and that he is following American Bar
Association guidelines on reaching out to people involved in the
Oklahoma class action.  "It's not a matter of my opinion. I have
not done anything wrong," he said.

To make his case that he can continue to pursue Oklahoma
residents, Mr. McDonald was set to bring to the hearing on
Feb. 23 an ethics expert from St. Mary's University School of Law
and an expert from Harvard University on class action to bolster
his case that the settlement is too low.

A memo prepared by Harvard professor William Rubenstein argues
that the class certification cannot be accepted for a myriad of
reasons including the varying interests of the class members and
limited information about the dollar value of their claims.

Mr. McDonald said if his outreach to those involved in the
settlement means that it falls apart, then so be it.  "If it falls
apart, then that is the way this is supposed to work. There are a
lot of problems with this settlement," he said.

But Terry Stowers, an attorney and executive director of the
Coalition of Oklahoma Surface and Mineral Owners who settled the
first class action lawsuit against Chesapeake in 2004, said he has
problems with some of McDonald's public statements.

He also said he has issues with the Fort Worth lawyer's conduct
under Oklahoma's rules regarding attorney conduct. "It is not
something I would do," Mr. Stowers said.


CHOP STICKS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
------------------------------------------------------------
Ismael Hernandez v. Chop Sticks, Inc. d/b/a Hashi Sushi
Georgetown, Joo Hoon Lee, and Yoon Mee Lee, Case No. 1:15-cv-00287
(D.D.C., February 25, 2015), seeks to recover overtime
compensation, and damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Hashi Sushi Georgetown restaurant
in the District of Columbia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dennis A. Corkery, Esq.
      WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE
         FOR CIVIL RIGHTS & URBAN AFFAIRS
      11 Dupont Circle, NW, Suite 400
      Washington, DC 20036
      Telephone: (202) 319-1000
      Facsimile: (202) 319-1010
      E-mail: dennis_corkery@washlaw.org


COVENANT SECURITY: Faces "Stubbs" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Stubbs, individually and on behalf of all employees
similarly situated v. Covenant Security Services, Ltd. et al, Case
No. 3:15-cv-00888 (N.D. Cal., February 26, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours per week.

Covenant Security Services, Ltd. owns and operates a security
services company doing business within the State of Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roxanne Allyson Davis, Esq.
      DAVIS GAVSIE HAKIM, LLP
      1755 Ocean Avenue, Suite 511
      Santa Monica, CA 90401
      Telephone: (310) 899-2059
      Facsimile: (310) 789-2249
      E-mail: Roxanne@DGHLawyers.com


CPS SECURITY: Cal. Supreme Court Ruled on On-Call Guards' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Carol Corrigan of the Supreme Court of California ruled on
the parties' appeal in the case TIM MENDIOLA et al., Plaintiffs,
Cross-defendants and Respondents, v. CPS SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC.,
et al., Defendants, Cross-complainants and Appellants; and
FLORIANO ACOSTA et al., Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and
Respondents, v. CPS SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., Defendants,
Cross-complainants and Appellants, NO. S212704 (Cal.)

CPS Security Solutions, Inc. employed on-call guards to provide
security at constructions worksites. Part of each guard's day was
spent on active patrol. Each evening, guards were required to be
on call at the worksite and to respond to disturbances should the
need arise. By written agreement, an on-call guard was required to
reside in a trailer provided by CPS. The guards were compensated
as follows. They were paid hourly for time spent patrolling the
worksite. They received no compensation for on-call time unless
(1) an alarm or other circumstances required that they conduct an
investigation or (2) they waited for, or had been denied, a
reliever. Guards were paid for the actual time spent investigating
disturbances. If three or more hours of investigation were
required during on-call time, the guard was paid for the full
eight hours.

Two class action lawsuits were filed in 2008 by CPS guards. The
complaints alleged, that CPS's on-call compensation policy
violated minimum wage and overtime obligations imposed by the
applicable Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) wage order and
Labor Code statutes. The trial court consolidated the cases and
certified the class. Both sides sought declaratory relief as to
the lawfulness of CPS's on-call compensation policy. The parties
filed cross-motions for summary adjudication of the declaratory
relief claims.

The trial court granted plaintiffs' motion, concluding that CPS's
compensation policy violated Wage Order 4. Citing the extent of
CPS's control during on-call hours and the fact that the guards'
presence on worksites primarily benefitted CPS, the court
concluded that the on-call hours constituted compensable hours
worked" within the meaning of the wage order. CPS sought review.
The Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part. Both
parties petitioned for review to the state Supreme Court.

Justice Corrigan affirmed the Court of Appeal's conclusion that
plaintiffs' on-call time constituted hours worked within the
meaning of Wage Order 4 and the same is subjected to the wage
order's minimum wage and overtime provisions.  However, the lower
court's conclusion that the state and federal regulations that
permitted CPS to exclude sleep time from plaintiff's 24-hour
shifts is reversed.

A copy of Justice Corrigan's decision dated January 8, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/JPIBrtfrom Leagle.com

Howard M. Knee -- knee@blankrome.com -- at Blank Rome LLP; Jim D.
Newman -- jnewman@cpssecurity.com -- at CPS Security Solutions,
Inc., fir Defendants, Cross-complainants and Appellants

Cathe L. Caraway-Howard -- cathe@carawaylaw.com -- at Law Offices
of Cathe L. Caraway-Howard; Caesar S. Natividad --
csnlaw@yahoo.com -- at Natividad Law Firm; Miles E. Locker --
mlocker@lockerfolberg.com - at Locker Foldberg, for Plaintiffs,
Cross-defendants and Respondents

Hina B. Shah for Women's Employment Rights Clinic of Golden Gate
University School of Law, Asian Americans Advancing Justice --
Asian Law Caucus, Katharine and George Alexander Community Law
Center, Legal Aid Society -- Employment Law Center, the
Maintenance Cooperation Trust Fund, National Lawyers Guild --
Labor and Employment Committee, UC Hastings Civil Justice Clinic,
UCLA Labor Center and Worksafe Inc., as Amici Curiae on behalf of
Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and Respondents

David A. Sanders; Carroll, Burdick & McDonough, Gregg McLean Adam
and Jennifer S. Stoughton for California Correctional Peace
Officers' Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs,
Cross-defendants and Respondents

The Supreme Court of California panel of Justices consists of
Chief Justices Tani Cantil-Sakauye and Kathryn Werdegar, Justices
Carol Corrigan, Ming Chin, Goodwin Liu, Marvin R. Baxter and
Richard D. Fybel.


CVS PHARMACY: Settlement in "Ceja-Corona" Wins Court Okay
---------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone of the Eastern District of
California recommended preliminary approval of a settlement
reached in the case LETICIA CEJA-CORONA, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
CVS PHARMACY, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 1:12-CV-01868-AWI-SAB
(E.D. Cal.)

Plaintiffs Leticia Ceja-Corona and Margarita Rubio Armenta were
employed by CVS Pharmacy, Inc. in the County of Stanislaus in
California. Plaintiffs' complaint raises six causes of action: 1)
for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime, 2) for failure to
provide reporting time pay, 3) for failing to provide accurate
earnings statements, 4) for failure to timely pay wages upon
termination, 5) for unfair competition under California Business &
Professions Code Section 17200, and 6) for failure to pay wages
and overtime for off-the-clock work, and 7) for penalties under
California's Private Attorney's General Act, California Labor Code
Section 2699.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement on July 30, 2014. An amended motion was filed on
October 22, 2014.

On October 30, 2014, the court issued a findings and
recommendations which recommended that the motion be denied. The
Court found that the proposed class action settlement was
fundamentally unfair to a subset of class members because it
required class members to release reporting time claims which
plaintiffs admitted were not amenable to class treatment because
those claims lacked commonality.

On November 10, 2014, plaintiffs withdrew their motion for
preliminary approval before the findings and recommendations were
addressed by the district judge assigned to the case.

Plaintiffs filed the present motion on December 12, 2014.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Defendant agrees to
pay $900,000.00 in cash to resolve the claims of any class members
who do not timely and validly opt out. The parties seek to approve
two classes for purposes of settlement. The first class, is the
California Claims Class and the second class, is the PAGA Claims
Class. The parties report that the California Claims Class
consists of 2,270 people and the PAGA Claims Class consists of
1,759 people.

Magistrate Judge Boone finds that the class certification is
appropriate and the proposed settlement is fundamentally fair,
adequate, and reasonable. He recommended that plaintiffs' motion
for preliminary approval of the class action settlement be
granted.  A copy of Magistrate Judge Boone's findings and
recommendations dated January 14, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/8YoKCqfrom Leagle.com.

Leticia Ceja-Corona, Plaintiff, represented by David Harmik
Yeremian -- david@yeremianlaw.com -- Hugo Ernesto Gamez -- at
David Yeremian & Associates, Inc.

CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Defendant, represented by Caryn M Anderson --
Jody Landry -- jlandry@littler.com -- Ofelia Mishell Parreno-
Taylor -- mtaylor@littler.com -- at Littler and Mendelson


DYCKMAN ELECTRONICS: "Moran" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Marco Antonio Hernandez Moran, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Dyckman Electronics Center Inc. d/b/a
Dyckman Electronics Center, Front Row Electronics LLC d/b/a Front
Row Electronics, Avraham OZ and Nuriel Guedalia, Case No. 1:15-cv-
01401 (S.D.N.Y., February 25, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Defendants own and operate electronics stores located at 151
Dyckman Street, New York, New York 10040.

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


EASY MOBILE: Faces "Levine" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Diane Levine, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Easy Mobile Labs, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00180 (M.D. Tenn.,
February 25, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

Easy Mobile Labs, Inc. owns and operates a hospital located 149
Space Park S Nashville, TN 37211.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael L. Russell, Esq.
      Emily S. Emmons, Esq.
      GILBERT RUSSELL MCWHERTER PLC
      341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230
      Franklin, TN 37067
      Telephone: (615) 354-1144
      E-mail: mrussell@gilbertfirm.com
              eemmons@gilbertfirm.com


EURO CAR: Faces "Vargas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Vargas, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b) v. Euro Car Dealer, Inc., CJ Towing and Transportation,
Inc., JS Auto Repairs Inc., EJ Aircraft Part Sales, Inc., J & J
Aviation Services, Inc., Euro Caribbean Auto Center, Inc., Juan
Carlos Donoso, Case No. 0:15-cv-60389 (S.D. Fla., February 24,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a used car dealership company in
Broward County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Sued in Cal. Over False Consumer Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Kline and Rebecca Kline, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00436 (S.D. Cal., February 26, 2015), alleges
that the Defendant reported false information on
Plaintiff and Class member's credit reports and files as well as
failed to follow reasonable procedures and failed to conduct
reasonable investigations with respect to such information.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc. is consumer reporting agency
and credit bureau doing business in the State of Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
              ml@kazlg.com

          - and -

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      Sara Khrosroabadi, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
              sara@westcoastlitigation.com


FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Real Name Policy
------------------------------------------------------
Marie Cabural, writing for ValueWalk, reports that Facebook Inc.
will be dealing with a class action lawsuit related to its real
name policy, which requires people to use their true identity in
their account profiles on the social network.

A Native American is planning to lead the complaint against the
social network giant in behalf all the people whose accounts were
suspended for not using real names in their Facebook profiles.

Facebook received criticism from different sectors of society
worldwide including domestic abuse survivors, the LGBT community,
political activists, and others after implementing its real name
policy.

Dana Lone Hill, a Native American decided to file a class action
lawsuit after Facebook suspended her account for changing her
profile name from her mother's last name, Lone Hill to her
father's last name Lone Elk.  The social network giant restored
access to her account after her case was reported by national news
outlets.

Lone Hill said, "I want to bring this lawsuit for Native America
because these are our real names, these are the names that we were
given, these were the names we were born with."  According to her,
she wants Facebook to fix its system.

Facebook won court battle against German privacy watchdog
In 2012, Germany's Privacy Commissioner Thilo Weichert issued a
decree indicating its demand for Facebook to allow people to use
pseudonyms.  At the time, Mr. Weichert said, "It is unacceptable
that a U.S. portal like Facebook violates German data protection
law unopposed and with no prospect of an end.

Facebook vowed to "vigorously fight" the decree and argued that
its real name policy complies with the data protection laws in
Europe.  The social network giant explained that its real name
policy protects users. It also makes the platform safe and
reliable.

In 2013, the social network giant won a court battle against the
German privacy watch dog to keep its real name policy. The court
ruled that German users cannot use pseudonyms and nicknames as
identity on their Facebook profiles.

Last year, the social network giant's real name policy received
renewed criticism from the LGBT community when Facebook suspended
the accounts of its members.

The social network giant discussed the situation and apologized to
the LGBT community.  Facebook also made a commitment to make
changes in its real name policy that would allow users to choose
names that reflect their authentic selves online, according to
Mark Snyder, senior manager of communications at the Transgender
Law Center.

Facebook's real name policy makes users more accountable
Chris Cox, chief product officer of Facebook recently explained
that the social network giant implemented its real name policy not
to offend the LGBT community.  Its primary intention is to prevent
trolling, impersonation and cyberbullying.  He added that Facebook
is already developing better tools to authenticate people's
identity while protecting the social network from bad actors.

"Having people use their authentic names makes them more
accountable, and also helps us root out accounts created for
malicious purposes, like harassment, fraud, impersonation and hate
speech," according a statement released by a spokesperson from
Facebook.


FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT: Accused of Illegal Electronic Fund Transfer
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aisha Dearion, individually and on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Financial Management Systems, Inc.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-01731 (N.D. Ill., February 26, 2015) seeks to
stop the Defendant's practice of debiting the Plaintiff and Class
members' bank accounts on a recurring basis without obtaining a
written authorization signed or similarly authenticated for
preauthorized electronic fund transfers from their accounts.

Financial Management Systems, Inc. is an Illinois corporation that
provides revenue recovery and payment integrity services to
government agencies with compliance-driven portfolio needs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Pooja Dosi, Esq.
      Michael S. Agruss, Esq.
      AGRUSS LAW FIRM, LLC
      4619 N. Ravenswood Avenue, Suite 303A
      Chicago, IL 60640
      Telephone: (312) 224-4695
      Facsimile: (312) 253-4451
      E-mail: pooja@agrusslawfirm.com
              michael@agrusslawfirm.com


FIRST GROCERY: Faces "Mendez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Mendez, et al., individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. First Grocery Inc. d/b/a Food Depot, Cafe 19
Corp. d/b/a Cafe 19, Mi Ae Pae, Dae Bae Young, and Youngho Ho Pae,
Case No. 1:15-cv-01400 (S.D.N.Y., February 25, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a deli located at 138 5th Avenue,
New York, New York 10011.

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


FLORIDA: Red-Light Camera Ticket Refunds Uncertain
--------------------------------------------------
Michael Mayo, writing for Sun Sentinel, reports that legal fights
and lawsuits over red-light cameras have a long road to travel.

So, you've paid one of those $158 red-light camera tickets and now
that the legality of the program is up in the air you want a
refund? Sorry, not so fast.

"You could go to the city where the infraction took place and ask
for a refund -- but it's doubtful they'll say yes," said attorney
Ted Hollander of the Ticket Clinic law firm.

It's going to be a long time before class-action suits against
South Florida cities play out, say some lawyers involved in the
fight. And even if the lawsuits are successful, those who paid
tickets might only get back a fraction of what they paid.

And even though the Fourth District Court of Appeal in West Palm
Beach has struck a blow against red-light cameras, ruling that the
way some cities have delegated police authority to a private
vendor in Arizona is improper and illegal, you can't just tear up
a ticket if you get one in the mail in coming weeks.

You might have a better chance of successfully fighting a red-
light ticket now, said Mr. Hollander, but you can't just ignore
it.  Some people are now challenging the tickets in traffic court
by showing up with a printout of the Fourth DCA's ruling against
Hollywood (from October 2014). Confronted with that ruling, some
magistrates have been dismissing tickets.

The camera program was authorized by the Florida Legislature in
2010.  If you've gotten a ticket since then and have paid your
fine, then you might be eligible to be included in the settlement
of a class-action suit.

But with no class-action suits deemed "viable" yet, Mr. Hollander
said it's still unclear who'll be eligible to seek refunds: Those
who paid the $158 "Notice of Violation" (NOVs) sent by the vendor,
those who waited 60 days until the NOVs turned into $265 state
Uniform Traffic Citations (UTCs), or both.  It's also unclear if
those who challenged a ticket in court and lost would be eligible.

Attorney Gary Kollin, an attorney who said he's involved in class-
action suits against Davie, Fort Lauderdale, Hallandale Beach and
Sunrise, wrote me an email indicating that only those who let
violations lapse into state citations would be eligible.  But
Mr. Hollander said he believed all those who paid fines -- whether
NOVs or UTCs -- would be eligible. (You know the old joke; put 10
lawyers in a room, you'll get 11 different opinions).

Mr. Hollander said those who are on record as having paid fines
will automatically be notified if a class-action suit involving
their city/infraction succeeds.

All we know is it's very early in the process, and the final
verdict on red-light cameras still isn't in, as cities might take
the issue to the Florida Supreme Court.

Class-action suits could take a long time to play out, and if
you've had any experience with being part of one (such as with a
cell phone carrier, bank or credit-card company), you might end up
getting a settlement check for $5 or $10.

"We're looking at many years down the road," Mr. Hollander said.

Until then -- whether cameras remain or not -- everyone should
just hit the brakes and try their best not to blow through red
lights.  The life you save may be your own.


GARDEN HOMES: Faces "Fayziev" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yuriy Fayziev v. Garden Homes Management, et al., Case No. 2:15-
cv-01428 (D.N.J., February 24, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Garden Homes Management owns and operates a chain of residential
apartment complexes and developments with its principal place of
business located at 820 Morris TPKE, Short Hills, NJ 07078.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
      HARRISON HARRISON & ASSOCIATES
      110 Highway 35, 2nd Floor
      Red Bank, NJ 07701
      Telephone: (732) 239-4410
      E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com


GNC HOLDINGS: Faces "Shen" Suit in N.Y. Over Product Misbranding
----------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Shen and Ying Kong, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. GNC Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
00984 (E.D.N.Y., February 25, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's
false and misleading labeling, advertising, and marketing campaign
GNC Herbal Plus Standardized St. John's Wort Product as a dietary
supplement containing the primary labeled ingredient St. John's
wort, when in fact it does not contain the primary labeled
ingredient St. John's wort but rather contains other ingredients
that are not identified on the label.

GNC Holdings, Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation that owns and
operates a network of retail stores, selling health, wellness and
performance products, including vitamins, minerals and herbal
supplement products, sports nutrition products and diet products,
throughout the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      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.
      Erin Green Comite, 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
              ecomite@scott-scott.com


GRANDELL REHABILITATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marie Y. Pierre, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Grandell Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, Inc.,
Docket No. 2:15-cv-00967 (E.D.N.Y., February 26, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Grandell Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, Inc. is a New York
corporation that owns and operates a nursing home located at 645
W. Broadway, Long Beach, N.Y. 11561.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis Ginsberg, Esq.
      Matthew Cohen, Esq.
      LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
      1613 Northern Blvd.
      Roslyn, NY 11576
      Telephone: (516) 625-0105
      Facsimile: (516) 625-0106
      E-mail: lg@louisginsberglawoffices.com
              matthewcohen21@gmail.com


HUNT COUNTY: Judge Recommends Venue Transfer of Juvenile Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Andrew W. Austin of the Western District of
Texas, Austin Division recommended that the defendants' motion be
granted in the case of CHANCE CLYCE, DONNA CLYCE, AND MARK CLYCE,
(AND ON BEHALF OF THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED v. NADINE BUTLER, ET
AL., NO. A-14-CV-588-LY (W.D. Tex.)

Chance Clyce was a juvenile detained at the Hunt County Juvenile
Detention Center in Dallas, Texas from February 25, 2008, to March
12, 2008. Chance and his parents, Donna Clyce and Mark,
alleged that the Detention Center staff failed to provide
reasonable medical care to Chance for a life-threatening
methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection,
which resulted in Chance undergoing numerous surgical procedures
and suffering serious bodily injury.

The Clyces filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas,
Dallas Division, against Hunt County, Texas, the Hunt County
Juvenile Board, and numerous individual detention officers,
alleging various constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. Section
1983 and claims under the Texas Tort Claims Act.  The Northern
District of Texas granted the individual defendants' motion for
summary judgment based on qualified immunity, it also granted Hunt
County's and Hunt County Juvenile Board's motion for summary
judgment and entered a Final Judgment against the Clyces, finding
that they had failed to provide sufficient summary judgment
evidence to support a claims of deliberate indifference, failure
to train or supervise, or a violation of the Texas Tort Claims
Act.

The Clyces filed a petition for certiotari before the Supreme
Court, which was denied by the latter. The Clyces, this time
proceeding pro se, filed a lawsuit on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of all those similarly situated. In addition to suing the
Hunt County Juvenile Detention Center and several of its
employees, Plaintiffs also sue the Texas Juvenile Justice
Department (TJJD) and several of its employees. Plaintiffs once
again allege that Chance Clyce was denied medical care in
violation of his constitutional rights. Plaintiffs also allege
that the Detention Center, TJJD, and their employees failed to
properly investigate abuse allegations against the Detention
Center.

Defendants TJJD, David Reilly, Kevin Dubose, Lesly Jacobs, Conrad
Jones and Nadine Butler have now filed a Motion to Transfer the
case to the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Texas, Dallas Division. The various defendants have also filed
Motions to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

The District Court referred the motions to the Magistrate Judge
for a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
636(b) and Rule 1(c) of Appendix C of the Local Rules of the
United States District Court for the Western District of Texas,
Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States
Magistrate Judges.

Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Austin recommended that the District
Court grant the defendants' opposed motion to transfer venue and
transfer the cause of action to the Dallas Division of the
Northern District of Texas.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Austin's report and recommendation
dated January 15, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/upvinyfrom
Leagle.com.

Chance Clyce, and on behalf of all those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, Pro Se

Donna Clyce, and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff,
Pro Se

Mark Clyce, and on behalf of all those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, Pro Se

Nadine Butler, individually and in her official capacity, Lesly
Jacobs, Investigator fro TJJD, individually and in his official
capacity, Kevin Dubose, individually and in his official capacity,
Conrad Jones, individually and in his official capacity, David
Reilly, Interim Executive Director, and Texas Juvenile Justice
Department, Defendants, represented by:

Christopher L. Lindsey
Seth Byron Dennis
Office of the Texas Attorney General
300 W. 15th Street
PO Box 12548
Austin, TX 78711-2548
Telephone: 512-475-4413
Facsimile: 512-475-2994

Frederick Farley, Investigator and Supervisor for Hunt County
Juvenile Detention Center, individually and in his official
capacity, Kenneth Wright, individually and in his official
capacity, Shanigia Williams, individually and in her official
capacity, Defendants, represented by Jason Eric Magee --
e.magee@allison-bass.com -- Allison, Bass & Associates, LLP


IM SOLUTIONS: E.D. Okla. Court Dismissed "Allen" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge James H. Payne of the Eastern District of Oklahoma
granted defendants' motion to dismiss the case ANTHONY L. ALLEN,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. IM SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al., Defendants, CASE
NO. CIV-14-213-JHP (E.D. Okla.)

Anthony Allen is a resident of Muskogee, Oklahoma, and practices
as a member of the firm of Allen & Wisner, LLC, which has its
principal office in Muskogee.  James E. Blount, IV is a resident
of Shelby County, Tennessee and practices as a member of the firm
of Blount Law Firm, PLLC, which has its principal office in
Collierville, Tennessee.

IM Solutions, LLC (IMS) is alleged to be a Nevada limited
liability company with its principal place of business in Dallas,
Texas.  LeadingResponse is alleged to be a limited liability
company formed under the laws of an unknown jurisdiction and
having its principal place of business in Stamford, Connecticut.
However, the O'Sullivan Declaration states that "LeadingResponse"
is not a limited liability company but is the assumed name by
which RME Group Holding Company, a Delaware corporation (RME),
does business.

Plaintiffs allege that IMS and RME along with other defendants
engaged in unfair competition in violation of Lanham Act Section
43(a), 15 U.S.C. Section 1125(a), committed deceptive trade
practices that violate Okla. Stat. tit. 78, Sections 51 et seq.,
tortiously interfered with plaintiffs' prospective economic
advantage protected by common law, and engaged in a civil
conspiracy with the other defendants. IMS and RME allegedly did so
by causing pop-up advertisements to appear on plaintiffs' websites
through which legal services would be solicited for lawyers who
bought client leads from defendants. Plaintiffs allege that IMS
engages or affiliates with companies that use adware or malware
browser plug-ins on the computers of millions of consumers without
their authorization or knowledge.

Defendants alleged that IMS uses the internet to generate client
leads for law firms and advocacy groups, but that IMS does not
generate leads by placing or causing others to place pop-up ads on
individual computers. IMS avers that it does not download adware
or malware to computer users' browsers, and it has not authorized
or directed any third person or entity to do so. IMS denies that
the pop-ups copied in plaintiffs' complaint were authorized or
directed by IMS.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction.

Judge Payne granted defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction. The claims of Anthony L. Allen, Allen &
Wisner, LLC, James E. Blount, IV, and Blount Law Firm, PLLC
against defendants are dismissed for lack of personal
jurisdiction.

A copy of Judge Payne's opinion and order dated January 6, 2015,
is available at http://is.gd/F9upwufrom Leagle.com.

The Plaintiffs are represented by David A. Stampley, KamberLaw,
LLC, Lawrence R. Murphy, Jr, Richards & Connor, Michael Burrage,
Whitten Burrage, Scott A. Kamber, KamberLaw, LLC, Stuart L.
Cochran, KamberLaw, LLC & Mariann M. Atkins, Richards & Connor

Reed Elsevier Inc., Defendant, represented by John R. Woodard,
III, Franden, Woodard, Farris, Quillin & Goodnight & Kristine R.
Argentine, Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Internet Brands, Inc., Defendant, represented by David G. Graves,
The Barkley Law Firm, Wendy E. Giberti, iGeneral Counsel, PC &
Brad Smith, The Barkley Law Firm


JOY CONSTRUCTION: "Kone" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Issa Kone, Adama Diomande, Aly Camara, on behalf of themselves
individually and on behalf of Class Members v. Joy Construction
Corporation, Amnon Shalhov, Nisan Lobel, and John Does 1-10, Case
No. 1:15-cv-01328 (S.D.N.Y., February 24, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, illegally retained
gratuities, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company with its
principal place of business located at 40 Fulton Street, 21st
Floor, New York, NY 10038.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen H. Penn, Esq.
      PENN PROEFRIEDT SCHWARZFELD & SCHWARTZ
      114 West 47th Street-19th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 354-7700
      Facsimile: (212) 997-5070
      E-mail: shpenn@nmmlaw.com


JIMMY JOHN'S: Faces "Whiton" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Whiton, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. Jimmy John's, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-
01681 (N.D. Ill., February 25, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages as
required by the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Jimmy John's, LLC is a fast-food sandwich company with over
2,000 nearly identical, standardized sandwich shops located
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jacie C. Zolna, Esq.
      Alexandra Leigh Nickow, Esq.
      Myron Milton Cherry, Esq.
      MYRON M. CHERRY & ASSOCIATES
      30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2300
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 372-2100
      E-mail: jzolna@cherry-law.com
              anickow@cherry-law.com
              mcherry@cherry-law.com


JUST ENERGY: Faces "McLeod" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dalvon McLeod, Peter Gordon, and Timothy Joiner, on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Just Energy Marketing Corp., Commerce
Energy Inc., d/b/a Just Energy, d/b/a Commerce Energy of Ohio,
Inc. and Just Energy Group Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00368 (N.D.
Ohio, February 26, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per
week.

The Defendants are in the business that primarily involves the
marketing and sale of natural gas and electricity supply to
residential and commercial customers. They operate in Canada and
in the United States across approximately 13 states.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Frank A. Bartela, Esq.
      Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq.
      Richard N. Selby II, Esq.
      Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
      DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN-PAINESVILLE
      60 South Park Place
      Painesville, OH 44077
      Telephone: (440) 352-3391
      E-mail: fbartela@dworkenlaw.com
              nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com
              rselby@dworkenlaw.com
              pperotti@dworkenlaw.com

         - and -

      James A. DeRoche, Esq.
      GARSON JOHNSON
      1600 Midland Bldg.
      101 Prospect Avenue, W
      Cleveland, OH 44115
      Telephone: (216) 696-9330
      Facsimile: (216) 696-8558
      E-mail: jderoche@garson.com

         - and -

      Murray Richelson, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF DAVID A. KATZ
      842 Terminal Tower, 50 Public Square
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 696-5250
      Facsimile: (216) 696-5256
      E-mail: Mrichelson@aol.com


KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces "Feaver" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Feaver, Artin Adamian, and Myungshun Shim, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kaiser Foundation
Health Plan, Inc., Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, and Does 1 through
50, Inclusive, Case No. 3:15-cv-00890 (N.D. Cal., February 26,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a nonprofit public-benefit
corporation that contracts with individuals and groups to arrange
comprehensive medical and hospital services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq.
      STONEBARGER LAW, APC
      75 Iron Point Circle, Suite 145
      Folsom, CA 95630
      Telephone: (916) 235-7140
      Facsimile: (916) 235-7141
      E-mail: gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com


KAPLAN INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Olver" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert G. Olver, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Kaplan, Inc., Kaplan Higher Education, LLC,
and Iowa College Acquisition, LLC d/b/a Kaplan University, Case
No. 1:15-cv-00549 (N.D. Ga., February 24, 2015), seeks to stop
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited telemarketing calls to
the telephones of consumers nationwide.

The Defendants provide educational services to individuals of all
ages with postsecondary education, test preparation, professional
training and K12 services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin Hans Crumley, Esq.
      CRUMLEY & WOLFE, P.A.
      Suite 202, 140 Lakes Blvd.
      Kingsland, GA 31548
      Telephone: (912) 673-7499
      Facsimile: (904) 374-0113
      E-mail: ben@cwbfl.com

         - and -

      W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
      Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
      HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
      2700 Post Oak Blvd., Ste. 1120
      Galleria Tower I
      Houston, TX 77056
      Telephone: (713) 554-2377
      Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
      E-mail: craft@hughesellzey.com
              jarrett@hughesellzey.com


LAGRANGE COUNTY, IN: Nears Deal in Inmate Over-Detention Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca S. Green, writing for The Journal Gazette, reports that
two more area lawsuits involving overdetention of jail inmates are
nearing their ends.

On Feb. 19, a U.S. District judge in South Bend held a fairness
hearing, and neither side objected to the administrative closure
of the case of Amanda Strunk v. the LaGrange County sheriff.  The
case of Lawrence Bickel v. the Whitley County sheriff also appears
to be ending.

The LaGrange County case, one of a handful of class-action
lawsuits filed against Indiana sheriffs in recent years --
including in Allen County -- accused then-Sheriff Terry Martin of
violating the constitutional rights of arrested individuals by not
bringing them promptly before a judge.

Whitley County's suit was filed in 2008 and pertains to those
detained between March 30, 2006, and Dec. 31, 2009, according to
court documents.  It is scheduled for a fairness hearing early in
March.  The Whitley County settlement is $725,000, with $380,249
going to the plaintiffs, according to court documents.

The lawsuits stem from a 1991 U.S. Supreme Court decision in a
case from Riverside County, California, in which the high court
established a guideline on how weekend or holiday arrests should
be handled, setting a 48-hour time limit.

In October, the class administrator in the LaGrange County case
mailed the class and settlement notice to those whose rights had
been admittedly violated by the sheriff's department.

In the mailing, class members were told the case was settled for
$1 million, with about $400,000 going to Fort Wayne attorney Chris
Myers and his firm.  The remaining $580,000 would be divided among
the class members using a formula to take into account how long
they were overdetained, multiplied by an hourly rate of $40 an
hour, or $6.69 per minute, according to court documents.

Earlier court documents identified about 238 individuals who had
been overdetained and comprised the LaGrange County class.

While the judge has not yet determined the LaGrange County case to
be closed, the court docket said the judge was likely to soon
approve the request to close it and grant the final approval of
the class.

The likely end of the LaGrange case comes just a few weeks after a
lawsuit against Allen County's version of the lawsuit was
resolved.  In January, about 900 former inmates were placed into
categories for purposes of paying out about $360,000 among them
after a brief jury trial to determine the damages in the case,
according to court documents.


LAKESIDE LAWN: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Black-Elk" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Black-Elk, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Lakeside Lawn & Landscape, Inc. and Travis Gauthier,
Case No. 2:15-cv-10723 (E.D. Mich., February 26, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of providing lawn care
and landscaping services in Waterford, Michigan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Armin Halilovic, Esq.
      GOLD STAR LAW, P.C.
      2701 Troy Center Dr., Suite 400
      Troy, MI 48084
      Telephone: (248) 434-7382
      E-mail: ahalilovic@goldstarlaw.com


LEWIS ENERGY: "Ramirez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Luis A. Ramirez, Raymond R. Romero, Ramiro Vazquez, Lawrence E.
Miller, Jose A. De La Cruz, Raul Rodriguez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lewis Energy Group,
L.P. and Lewis Resource Management, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-00034
(S.D. Tex., February 25, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate an oil and gas company doing
business within the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Curt Christopher Hesse, Esq.
      Melissa Moore, Esq.
      MOORE & ASSOCIATES
      440 Louisiana Street, Ste 675
      Houston, TX 77002-1637
      Telephone: (713) 222-6775
      Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
      E-mail: curt@mooreandassociates.net
              melissa@mooreandassociates.net


MARTIN MARIETTA: N.Y. Court Denied Approval of Preliminary Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Shirley Werner Kornreich of the Supreme Court of New York
County, denied plaintiffs' motion in the case CITY TRADING FUND,
LAWRENCE BASS and ANDRES CARULLO AS ALL OF THE PARTNERS OF CITY
TRADING FUND, A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, SUING ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES
and ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. C. HOWARD NYE,
STEPHEN P. ZELNAK, JR., SUE W. COLE, DAVID G. MAFFUCCI, WILLIAM E.
McDONALD, FRANK H. MENAKER, JR., LAREE E. PEREZ, MICHAEL J.
QUILLEN, DENNIS L. REDIKER, RICHARD A. VINROOT, MARTIN MARIETTA
MATERIALS, INC., and TEXAS INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendants,
651668/2014 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County)

On January 28, 2014, Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. (MMM) and
Texas Industries, Inc. (TXI) entered into a merger agreement,
which provided that MMM would acquire all of TXI's outstanding
stock. The merger is subject to approval by the shareholders of
both companies. City Trading Fund (CTF) commenced an action by
filing a complaint asserting 2 causes of action alleging
inadequacies in the disclosure provided by MMM to its share
holders in connection of the merger.

On June 2, 2014, CTF moved by order to show cause (OSC) for a
temporary restraining order (TRO) to enjoin the merger, expedited
discovery, and a preliminary injunction. After reviewing the
complaint and CTF's moving papers, the court refused to issue a
TRO or order expedited discovery. On June 16, one day before
defendants' opposition papers were due, defendants moved by OSC to
dismiss the action because of CTF's failure to comply with New
York General Business Law (GBL) Section 130, which prohibits
general partnerships, such as CTF, from maintaining an action in
the present court if they do not file a certificate with the
County Clerk attesting that the partnership is validly registered
to do business in New York. The following day, defendants filed
their opposition to CTF's injunction motion.

On June 19, 2014, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint containing
allegations that are virtually identical to those in the original
complaint, but added Lawrence Bass and Andres Carullo, the owners
of CTF, as plaintiffs. In their opposition to defendants' motion
to dismiss, plaintiffs took the position that CTF is not carrying
on business in New York and, hence, need not comply with GBL
Section 130.  However, CTF explained that it amended its complaint
to add Bass and Carullo to resolve any questions regarding
plaintiffs' capacity to maintain the action.

Before the court can decide on plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
injunction, the parties called the attention of the court that
both sides have settled the case. Plaintiffs now ask the court for
approval of its motion for preliminary approval of the parties'
settlement and preliminary certification of the class.

Justice Kornreich denied plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
approval of their settlement with defendants and directed the
defendants to file an answer or move to dismiss the suit.

According to Justice Kornreich, approving the settlement in this
case would both undermine the public interest and the interests of
MMM's shareholders. It would incentivize plaintiffs to file
frivolous disclosure lawsuits shortly before a merger, knowing
they will always procure a settlement and attorneys' fees under
conditions of duress -- that is, where it is rational to settle
obviously frivolous claims.  Without the court serving as a
gatekeeper, plaintiffs who file such litigation will continue to
unjustifiably extract money from shareholders, who get no benefit
from the litigation but nonetheless end up paying two sets of
attorneys, both plaintiffs' and defendants'.

A copy of Justice Kornreich's decision dated January 7, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/dSUl9Nfrom Leagle.com.

For Plaintiffs:

THE BRUALDI LAW FIRM, P.C.
29 Broadway, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: 212-952-0602
Facsimile: 212-952-0608

For Defendants:

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
Worldwide Plaxa
825 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10019-7475
Telephone: 212-474-1000
Facsimile: 212-474-3700
Email: newyork@cravath.com

     - and -

WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ
51 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: 212-403-1000
Facsimile: 212-403-2000


MAXLINEAR INC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Company Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Badolato, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated and derivatively on behalf of Entropic
Communications Inc. v. Maxlinear, Inc., Excalibur Acquisition
Corporation, Excalibur Subsidiary, LLC, Umesh Padval, Theodore
Tewksbury, William G. Bock, Kenneth A. Merchant, Keith E.
Bechard and Robert L. Bailey, and Entropic Communications, Case
No. 3:15-cv-00426 (S.D. Cal., February 25, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for breaches of fiduciary duty in
connection with the sale of Entropic to MaxLinear, in an unfair
process and to an unfair price.

Maxlinear, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Carlsbad, California.is a leading provider of radio-frequency and
mixedsignal semiconductor solutions for broadband communications
applications.

Entropic Communications is recognized for pioneering the MoCA(R)
(Multimedia over Coax Alliance) home networking standard,
inventing Direct Broadcast Satellite outdoor unit single-wire
technology, and developing the industry's first set-top box SoC
platform based on the ARM(R) processor with advanced OpenGL
graphics.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
      Edward M. Gergosian
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
      E-mail: dwissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com
              egergosian@rgrdlaw.com


MIMEDX GROUP: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Feb. 19 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against MiMedx Group, Inc. and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under
15-cv-1221, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased MiMedx securities between February 26, 2014
and December 31, 2014, inclusive.  This class action seeks to
recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the
federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased MiMedx securities during
the Class Period, you have until April 20, 2015 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237.  Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

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

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
the Company was in violation of federal regulations by engaging in
improper marketing and sales practices; and (2) as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On December 31, 2014, after the close of trading, the Company
issued a press release announcing the receipt of a civil subpoena
from the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health
and Human Services.  Moreover, the Company announced the same day
that it had filed a lawsuit against one of its competitors,
Organogenesis, Inc., for tortious interference of contract,
alleging that it had interfered with MiMedx's dealings with the
Veterans Administration.   Within a matter of weeks, MiMedx
voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit.

On this news, MiMedx securities declined $1.79 per share, or more
than 15%, to close at $9.74 per share on January 2, 2015, the next
trading day.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation.


MODEL N: Securities Class Action Sent Back to State Court
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William H. Orrick of the Northern District of
California granted plaintiff's motion in the case PLYMOUTH COUNTY
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Plaintiff, v. MODEL N, INC., et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV-04516-WHO (N.D. Cal.)

Plymouth County Retirement System brings a securities class action
on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
common stock of Model N, Inc., pursuant to the registration
statement and prospectus issued in connection with Model N's March
20, 2013 initial public stock offering. The complaint asserts
three causes of action, each for violations of the Securities Act,
against Model N, certain Model N officers and directors, and the
underwriters of the initial public stock offering. Plymouth filed
the action with the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of San Mateo. On October 8, 2014, defendants removed
the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. Section 1441(a).
Plaintiff argues that the Securities Act of 1933 (prohibits
removal of cases, like this one, that are filed in state court and
that assert only Securities Act claims. Plaintiff filed a motion
to remand.

Judge Orrick granted plaintiff's motion to remand and the action
is remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of San Mateo.

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

Plymouth County Retirement System, Plaintiff, represented by
Christopher Paul Seefer -- chriss@rgrdlaw.com -- Shawn A. Williams
-- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- David William Hall-- dhall@rgrdlaw.com --
Mary K. Blasy -- mblasy@rgrdlaw.com -- Samuel H. Rudman --
SRudman@rgrdlaw.com -- Patrick J. Coughlin -- patc@rgrdlaw.com -
John J. Stoia -- johns@rgrdlaw.com -- at Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP; Christopher J. Keller -- ckeller@labaton.com -- Michael
Walter Stocker -- mstocker@labaton.com -- at Labaton Sucharow LLP

Model N, Inc., Defendant, represented by Felix Shih-Young Lee --
flee@fenwick.com -- Michael M Davis-Wilson --
mdaviswilson@fenwick.com -- Susan Samuels Muck --
smuck@fenwick.com -- at Fenwick & West LLP

Zack Rinat, Sujan Jain, James W. Breyer, Sarah Friar, Mark
Garrett, Charles J. Robel, Defendants, represented Felix Shih-
Young Lee -- flee@fenwick.com -- Michael M Davis-Wilson --
mdaviswilson@fenwick.com -- Susan Samuels Muck --
smuck@fenwick.com -- Alexandra Page Grayner --
agrayner@fenwick.com -- at Fenwick & West LLP

J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Stifel,
Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, Pacific Crest Securities LLC,
Piper Jaffray & Co., Raymond James & Associates, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Norman J. Blears -- nblears@sidley.com -- Matthew
James Dolan -- mdolan@sidley.com -- at Sidley Austin LLP


NAT'L HOCKEY: Support for Concussion Litigation Gains Momentum
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Branch, writing for New York Times, reports that it was more
than a year ago that a group of 10 former N.H.L. players sued the
league for, in essence, ignoring the growing evidence surrounding
the long-term effects of concussions.

For the past 15 months, amid the quiet consolidation of subsequent
suits and obscure legal wrangling, the case against the N.H.L. has
been a faint echo of the similarly constructed class-action suit
against the N.F.L. That case involved thousands of former players
and was settled in 2013 for $765 million. (The cap was
subsequently lifted to cover unlimited damages and still awaits
judicial approval.)

Two events in recent weeks nudged hockey's face-off over
concussions back to center ice. First, 29 more former players
joined the class-action suit, nearly doubling the number of named
plaintiffs.  Then Steve Montador, a 10-year N.H.L. veteran with a
history of concussions, was found dead at 35 in his Ontario home
on Feb. 15.

"As more and more players learn about the claims and see the
medical challenges their fellow alumni are experiencing, there is
increased momentum in support of the litigation," said
Charles Zimmerman, co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs.  "The
N.H.L. can no longer ignore the impact of repeated head trauma and
must finally acknowledge the serious conditions that retired
players are facing."

The N.H.L., through the spokesman Frank Brown, declined to comment
on Feb. 18 on the concussion litigation or the impact of the
recent news.

The case against the N.H.L. got a boost when 29 former players
filed a lawsuit against the league, bringing the number of named
plaintiffs past 70.  The additions also brought extra star power
to the proceedings.  Among those joining the case were Butch
Goring, a center for the Islanders during their four-year
championship run beginning in 1980, and Manny Legace, who won 187
games as an N.H.L. goaltender before retiring in 2012.

But as the N.F.L. case showed, with the premature deaths of
several former players during the years of litigation, tragedy has
a way of bringing attention to an issue like nothing else.

Mr. Montador's career was ended by concussions, and he said he
struggled with depression in his final years.  His cause of death
has not been released, and may never be, but officials ruled out
suicide or foul play.

His brain was donated to scientists, who may find more clues to
what caused his problems.  If Mr. Montador is found to have had
chronic traumatic encephalopathy, the degenerative brain disease
known commonly as C.T.E. and caused by repetitive hits to the
head, he will join a list of hockey players posthumously found to
have the affliction, including Bob Probert and Derek Boogaard.

Mr. Boogaard died of an accidental overdose of alcohol and
prescription painkillers in 2011 at age 28.  Within months, the
recently retired Wade Belak, 35, and Rick Rypien, 27, were dead of
apparent suicides.

All three were considered enforcers, on-ice bodyguards who
regularly fought opponents with their bare knuckles in response to
threats against teammates.  While Mr. Montador was rarely defined
that way, he engaged in more N.H.L. fights than Mr. Boogaard -- 66
to 61, according to HockeyFights.com -- though Mr. Boogaard's
total came in roughly half as many games.

About a month before he died, Mr. Montador retained William Gibbs,
a lawyer involved in the lawsuit against the N.H.L., with plans to
add his name as a plaintiff, Mr. Gibbs said.

"Derek's tragic death, and subsequent C.T.E. findings, began a
conversation about the brains of those playing professional
hockey," said Mr. Gibbs, from the Chicago law firm of Corboy &
Demetrio, which also represents N.F.L. players.  "If anything,
Steve's recent death furthers that conversation.  And it's a
conversation that's long overdue."

Mr. Gibbs also represents the Boogaard family in an ongoing
wrongful-death lawsuit against the league.  The Boogaards have not
joined the broader class-action suit.

The class-action suit originated in late 2013, shortly after the
preliminary N.F.L. settlement, when 10 former players sued the
N.H.L. over concussions. Much like the N.F.L. suit, which began
small and grew, it alleged that the league did little to address
head injuries, profiting from in-game violence amid mounting
evidence over the long-term ramifications of concussions.  The
former players asked for unspecified damages and a jury trial.

Subsequent lawsuits, including one filed by the former star
Bernie Nichols and others, were similarly crafted.  In August, the
cases were transferred and consolidated in United States District
Court in Minnesota.

The N.H.L., while arguing that it had done everything it could to
promote player health, offered a two-pronged argument for why the
case should be dismissed. Like the N.F.L., the league said that
the matter was pre-empted by federal labor law because of
collective-bargaining agreements with the players' association.
The N.H.L. also said that most complaints had surpassed the
statute of limitations.

Judge Susan Richard Nelson heard those arguments in January.  A
ruling is expected at any time.

In between, though, the number of named plaintiffs nearly doubled
and another former player struggling with head injuries has died
in a matter of about one week.  According to lawyers for the
plaintiffs, more than 200 former players have now retained counsel
to be included in the case, and roughly 500 have expressed
interest and support.

The arc is a familiar one, last seen in the N.F.L. -- deaths,
lawsuits, more lawsuits and more death.  A judge may put a sudden
end to it, but hockey's quiet battle over concussions echoes
louder.


NEBRASKA: Sanitary and Improvement District Can Levy Taxes
----------------------------------------------------------
Chief Justice Michael G. Heavican of the Supreme Court of Nebraska
reversed and remanded the appealed case of SANITARY AND
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1, BUTLER COUNTY, NEBRASKA, ON BEHALF OF
ITSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, APPELLANT AND CROSS-
APPELLEE, v. KAREY ADAMY, COUNTY TREASURER OF BUTLER COUNTY,
NEBRASKA, ET AL., APPELLEES AND CROSS-APPELLANTS. SANITARY AND
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1, BUTLER COUNTY, NEBRASKA, ON BEHALF OF
ITSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, APPELLANT AND CROSS-
APPELLEE, v. BEVERLY DAVIS, COUNTY TREASURER OF ADAMS COUNTY,
NEBRASKA, ET AL., APPELLEES AND CROSS-APPELLANTS, NOS S-13-1091,
S-13-1092 289 Neb. 913 (Neb.)

Sanitary and Improvement District No. 1 (SID #1) of Butler County
filed a class action complaint on December 21, 2012, alleging that
the county treasurers collected assessments of municipal
improvements on behalf of SID #1 and collected, for their services
rendered, a sum of money equal to two percent (2%) of the funds
they received on such special assessments, rather than a sum equal
to one and one half percent (1-1/2%) of the special assessments
collected, as is provided by Neb. Rev. Stat. Section 33-114[(4).

On March 28, 2013, SID #1 filed its second class action complaint
alleging that defendant county treasurers collected municipal
taxes on behalf of SID #1 and collected, for their services
rendered, a sum of money equal to two percent (2%) of the funds
they received on such taxes, rather than a sum equal to one
percent (1%) of the taxes, as is provided by Neb. Rev. Stat.
Section 33-114(3). Both complaints are filed in Cass County,
Nebraska and both suits alleged that defendant county treasurers
unlawfully deducted an incorrect percentage of assessments
collected on behalf of SID #1 as well as other similarly situated
sanitary and improvement districts.

The various defendant county treasurers filed motions to dismiss,
which were granted, with the district court similarly concluding
in two separate orders that the counties had waived sovereign
immunity and SID #1 was not a municipal corporation and thus could
not make assessments for municipal improvements or municipal
taxes. As such, the district court concluded that SID #1 failed to
state a claim upon which relief could be granted. SID #1 appealed.
Defendant county treasurers cross-appealed.

The Supreme Court of Nebraska reversed the order and remanded the
case to Cass County Nebraska expressing that a sanitary and
improvement district can levy municipal taxes and make municipal
improvements and SID #1 has stated a cause of action under Section
31-114.

A copy of Chief Justice Heavican's decision dated January 16,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/6wx87ufrom Leagle.com.

For Appellant:

Raymond E. Baker, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RAYMOND E. BAKER
3310 26th Street
Columbus, NE 68601
Telephone: 402-564-1362

     - and -

Jacqueline M. De Wispelare, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JACQUELINE M. DE WISPELARE, L.L.C.
3310 26th Street
Columbus, NE 68602
Telephone: 402-835-4392
Facsimile: 402-564-1363

     - and -

Michael W. Heavey, Esq.
COLOMBO & HEAVEY, P.C.
848 South Washington Street
Papillion, NE 68046
Telephone: 402-597-9750
Facsimile: 402-597-9666

Charles W. Campbell -- amvc@windstream.net -- of Angle, Murphy &
Campbell, P.C., L.L.O., for appellees Karey Adamy et al.

Donald W. Kleine -- contact@donkleine.com -- Malina Dobson --
@douglascounty-ne.gov -- at Douglas County Attorney's Office, for
appellees

Edmond E. Talbot III, Deputy Washington County Attorney, for
appellees Marjorie Hoier and Washington County

Joe Kelly, Lancaster County Attorney, and Brittany L. Behrens, for
appellees Andy Stebbing and Lancaster County

The Supreme Court of Nebraska panel consists of Chief Justice
Michael G. Heavican and Justices John F. Wright, William M.
Connolly, Kenneth C. Stephan, Michael McCormack, Lindsey Miller-
Lerman and William B. Cassel.


NIKODEMO OPERATING: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Tepi" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Salomon Tepi, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Nikodemo Operating Corp. d/b/a Floridian Diner,
Dimitrios Kaloidis, Ioanis Paraponiaris and Steve Zaharakis, Case
No. 1:15-cv-00979 (E.D.N.Y., February 25, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 2301
Flatbush Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11234.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NORDIC NATURALS: Judge Dismissed Second Class Action Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan D. Wigenton of the District of New Jersey
tossed the case HAROLD HOFFMAN, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NORDIC NATURALS, INC.,
Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-3291 (SDW)(SCM) (D.N.J)

Nordic Naturals, Inc. is the producer and manufacturer of Nordic
Naturals Ultimate Omega.

Harold Hoffman first filed a class action complaint against Nordic
Naturals, Inc. in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County,
Law Division on August 15, 2012. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself
and a putative nationwide class of similarly situated consumers,
alleged that defendant falsely represented that its product Nordic
Naturals Ultimate Omega, an Omega-3/Omega-9 fatty acid fish oil
supplement, adhered to stringent quality, testing and labelling
standards. Nordic Naturals removed the matter to federal court
pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(d)(2).  On April 17, 2014, the court dismissed the
case without prejudice and granted plaintiff leave to file an
amended complaint.

On April 29, 2014, rather than amending his complaint, plaintiff
filed another class action complaint in the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Bergen County, Law Division. Plaintiff reasserts his
contention that defendants misrepresented the safety, potency, and
health benefits of the ingredients in Ultimate Omega in connection
with the sale, marketing and/or advertisement of the product.
Plaintiff alleges five counts of New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act
(NJCFA) violations including Unconscionable Commercial Practice
(Count I); Deception (Count II); Fraud (Count III); False
Pretense, False Promise and/or Misrepresentation (Count IV); and
Knowing Concealment, Suppression and/or Omission of Material Facts
(Count V). Plaintiff filed a motion for limited discovery on the
issue of subject matter jurisdiction, while defendant filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint.

Judge Wigenton granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint
and denied plaintiff's motion for limited discovery. The complaint
is dismissed with prejudice.

A copy of Judge Wigenton's opinion dated January 14, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/zH8dg5from Leagle.com

HAROLD M. HOFFMAN, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by HAROLD M HOFFMAN

NORDIC NATURALS, INC., Defendant, represented by MICHAEL R.
MCDONALD -- mmcdonald@gibbonslaw.com -- JENNIFER MARINO THIBODAUX
-- jthibodaux@gibbonslaw.com -- at GIBBONS, PC.


NORMAN'S CAY: "Reynoso" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jose F. Cortorreal Reynoso, individually and in behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Norman's Cay Group LLC, Ryan
Chadwick, and Callum M. McLaughlin, Case No. 1:15-cv-01352
(S.D.N.Y., 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 restaurant located
at 74 Orchard Street, New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandon David Sherr, Esq.
      John Gurrieri, Esq.
      Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
      277 Broadway, Suite 408
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 229-2249
      Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
      E-mail: bsherr@zellerlegal.com
              jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com
              Jazeller@zellerlegal.com


NTN BROTHERS: Faces "Colon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Colon v. NTN Brothers Corporation d/b/a Chillers Grill,
and Nick Stathatos, Case No. 2:15-cv-01426 (D.N.J., February 24,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate restaurant located in Fort Lee,
Bergen County, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
      Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      Lawrence Office Park
      168 Franklin Corner Road
      Building 2, Suite 220
      Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
      Telephone: (201) 687-9977
      Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
      E-mail: AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com
              JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com


OPPENHEIMERFUNDS INC: Net Settlement Fund Distribution Ordered
--------------------------------------------------------------
IN RE: OPPENHEIMER ROCHESTER FUNDS GROUP SECURITIES LITIGATION,
MASTER DOCKET NO. 09-MD-02063-JLK-KMT, (D. Col.) came before the
court on lead plaintiff's counsel's motion for distribution of net
settlement funds made pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Stipulations
and Agreements of Settlement approved by the Court on July 31,
2014, which requires lead plaintiffs' counsel to apply to the
court, on notice to defendants' counsel, for an order approving
the claims administrator's administrative determinations
concerning the acceptance and rejection of claims submitted and
directing payment of the Net Settlement Funds to authorized
claimants.

In an order entered March 2, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/DCETbufrom Leagle.com, Senior District Judge John L.
Kane held, among other things, that:

* At least 30 days have passed since the filing of Lead
Plaintiffs' Counsel's Motion for Distribution of the Net
Settlement Funds, and no Claimant has filed a response to that
Motion.

* The administrative determinations of the Claims Administrator
accepting Claims are approved, and said Claims are accepted.

* The administrative determinations of the Claims Administrator
rejecting Claims are approved, and said Claims are rejected.

* The balance of the Settlement Fund and interest accrued thereon
after deducting the payments and reserves previously allowed will
be distributed to Authorized Claimants.

* Authorized Claimants who do not negotiate their initial
distribution checks before the stale date on such checks, or who
do not request reissue of such checks within six months of the
date of issue, will irrevocably forfeit all recovery from the
Settlements. The funds allocated to all stale-dated checks will be
available to be redistributed to other Authorized Claimants in
subsequent distributions.

* No Claim submitted after February 4, 2015 may be included in the
initial distribution for any reason whatsoever.

The ruling relates to all actions except those involving the
Oppenheimer California Municipal Fund.


PHILLIPS COUNTY, AK: Sued Over First-Court Appearance Delays
------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Hogan, writing for Helena-Arkansas, reports that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Phillips County and the city
of Helena-West Helena claiming denial of a prompt first court
appearance according to a legal notice submitted to The Helena
World.  The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas.

The notice states Gary Covington alleges that the city and county
violated his constitutional rights by failing to provide a court
appearance within 72 hours of his arrest.  It goes on to say that
Covington is seeking damages for himself and others who were
allegedly denied a prompt first court appearance.

Mr. Covington's incident dates back to June 22, 2009.

The document adds that the city of Helena-West Helena has denied
that it violated the Constitution and denies any liability to
Covington or any other pre-trail detainees.  A trial will be held
to determine the city's possible liability.

If Mr. Covington wins the suit, the court will be asked to approve
payment of litigation expenses and attorney fees.  Luther Sutter
of Sutter and Gillham, PLLC, Attorneys at Law of Benton is
representing Covington.

The document did not specify the amount of damages being sought in
the lawsuit.


PLEASURE ISLAND: Remand of "Balgord" Suit Recommended
-----------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Sonja F. Bivins of the Southern District of
Alabama, Southern Division recommended that the plaintiff's motion
to remand be granted in the case MATTHEW R. BALGORD, Plaintiff, v.
PLEASURE ISLAND LAND CO., INC., et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION
NO. 14-00431-KD-B (S.D. Ala.)

The plaintiff Matthew R. Balgord had purchased two properties in
Orange Beach, Alabama, namely 32571 River Road and 32516 Sandpiper
Drive, and that both properties were financed by mortgages secured
from Gulf State Bank. In 2008, RBC acquired First Gulf Bank. In
2012, PNC Bank, National Association acquired RBC.

In 2007, plaintiff leased the Sandpiper property to defendant
James E. Bridges, III, an attorney who was providing legal
representation to him at the time. Bridges signed the Sandpiper
lease as president of Pleasure Island Land Co. (PILC). Later, the
lease was modified into an agreement that provided for the
purchase of the Sandpiper property by PILC for $575,000. Per the
parties' agreement, PILC was responsible for making 15 monthly
payments in the amount of $2,050, and a final balloon payment on
February 1, 2011. In addition to the modified lease agreement,
plaintiff and PILC also executed a vendor's lien deed, in which
Bridges signed the documents as president of Pleasure Island Land
Co.

Plaintiff commenced an action in the Circuit Court of Baldwin
County, Alabama on August 12, 2014 against Defendants Pleasure
Island Land Company, Inc., James E. Bridges, III, and PNC Bank,
National Association. In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that he
is a resident of Alabama, that Bridges is a resident of Alabama,
that PILC is an Alabama corporation with its principal place of
business in Alabama, and that PNC Bank is a District of Columbia
corporation with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania.

On September 15, 2014, Defendant PNC Bank filed a Notice of
Removal. In the Notice, PNC Bank asserts that the citizenship of
defendants PILC and Bridges should be disregarded because they
have been fraudulently joined. PNC Bank argues that there are no
common facts or issues with respect to plaintiff's claims against
the defendants, nor is there any joint or several liability among
PNC Bank and the non-diverse defendants. PNC Bank contends that
given the lack of connection between the claims, the citizenship
of PILC and Bridges should be disregarded because they have been
misjoined. Plaintiff's filed a motion to remand.

Magistrate Judge Bivins recommended that plaintiff's motion to
remand be granted and that the present action be remanded to the
Circuit Court of Baldwin County, Alabama.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Bivins's report and recommendation
dated December 30, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/Rf7abFfrom
Leagle.com.

Matthew R. Balgord, Plaintiff and Counter Defendant, represented
by:

George R. Irvine, III
Laura C. Strachan
STONE, GRANADE & CROSBY, P.C.
8820 Highway 90
Daphnie, AL 36526
Telephone: 251-626-6696
Facsimile: 251-626-2617

Pleasure Island Land, Co., Inc., James E. Bridges, III, Defendants
and Counter Claimants, represented by:

James E. Bridges, III
JAMES E BRIDGES III ATTORNEY AT LAW PC
132 Cove Avenue
Gulf Shores, AL 36547-0297
Telephone: 251-968-3025
Facsimile: 251-968-3140

PNC Bank, National Association, Defendant and Counter Defendant,
represented by Gregory M. Taube -- greg.taube@nelsonmullins.com
-- at Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP


RADIENT PHARMACEUTICALS: Nguyen Suit Settlement Gets Final Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge David O. Carter issued an order and final judgment
in the case captioned VINH NGUYEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. RADIENT
PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION AND DOUGLAS C. MACLELLAN, Defendants,
CASE NO.CV-11-0406-DOC-(MLGX), (C.D. Cal.).

Pursuant to the Court's Order dated November 26, 2012, this
Litigation was certified as a class action on behalf of all
persons who purchased the publicly traded common stock of Radient
from January 18, 2011 through March 4, 2011, and who were damaged
thereby.

In Judge Carter's February 27, 2015 order, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/5JqpzBfrom Leagle.com, he held that the
Settlement is approved as fair, reasonable and adequate, and in
the best interests of the Class. Lead Plaintiffs and the Settling
Defendants were directed to consummate the Settlement in
accordance with the terms and provisions of the Stipulation.

The Court dismissed the Litigation and the Complaint with
prejudice and without costs.

The Court found that the proposed Plan of Allocation is a fair and
reasonable method to allocate the Net Settlement Fund among Class
Members.

Nothing in the Stipulation will apply to bar or otherwise affect
any claim for insurance coverage by any Settling Defendant.

Vinh Nguyen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan R Horne --
jhorne@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm PA, Laurence M Rosen
-- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm PA & Phillip Kim --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm PA.

Reydel Quintana, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan R Horne,
The Rosen Law Firm PA, Laurence M Rosen, The Rosen Law Firm PA &
Phillip Kim, The Rosen Law Firm PA.

Agnes Choa, individuall and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan R Horne,
The Rosen Law Firm PA, Laurence M Rosen, The Rosen Law Firm PA &
Phillip Kim, The Rosen Law Firm PA.

Radient Pharmaceuticals Corportion, Defendant, represented by
Perrie M Weiner -- perrie.weiner@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP US
& Robert David Weber -- robert.weber@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper US
LLP.

Douglas C MacLellan, Defendant, represented by Ho-El Park --
hpark@hparklaw.com -- Ho-El Park Law Offices & Mark David Hunter -
- mhunter@htwlaw.com -- Hunter Taubman Weiss LLP.

Akio Ariura, Defendant, represented by Ho-El Park, Ho-El Park Law
Offices & Mark David Hunter, Hunter Taubman Weiss LLP.

Laurence D Paskowitz, Objector, represented by David N Lake, Law
Offices of David N Lake PC & Roy L Jacobs --
rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com -- Roy Jacobs and Associates.


RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL: $235MM Class Suit Accord Has Initial Okay
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge on Feb. 19 granted preliminary approval to a $235
million settlement with the underwriters involved in the class
action lawsuit brought by purchasers of mortgage-backed securities
(MBS) issued by Residential Accredit Loans, Inc. (RALI), according
to Lead Plaintiffs' counsel Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

Led by the New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund, the settlement with
underwriters Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Goldman Sachs & Co.,
and UBS Securities LLC, along with the previously approved $100
million settlement with RALI, its affiliates, and the individual
Defendants in 2013, brings the total case settlement to $335
million.

"We are pleased with the preliminary approval of this settlement,"
said Plaintiffs' lead attorney Joel P. Laitman --
jlaitman@cohenmilstein.com -- of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
PLLC.  "It was a long and complex litigation that lasted over six
years. Plaintiffs overcame many obstacles including an initial
denial of class certification and we believe the $335 million
settlement provides a meaningful recovery to investors in the
class."

Added Cohen Milstein Managing Partner Steven J. Toll --
stoll@cohenmilstein.com -- whose firm was Lead Counsel in the
consolidated class action, "This settlement will at long last give
closure and substantial monetary relief to investors who suffered
losses in connection with these RALI mortgage-backed securities.
The perseverance of our litigation team was key to achieving this
terrific result for the Class of investors we represented, and we
are all grateful for their efforts."

Preliminarily approved by Judge Katherine Failla, of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, the
settlement -- upon final approval -- will mark the end of years of
intense, complicated litigation over MBS offerings issued and sold
to the New Jersey fund and other investors from 2006 through 2007
by RALI and certain of its affiliates.

The Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants, including the
underwriters, committed Securities Act violations in connection
with the public offerings of these MBS and systematically
disregarded the applicable underwriting guidelines when
originating the mortgage loans underlying the securities at issue.
Further complicating the legal action, in May 2012, RALI and its
affiliates sought voluntary Chapter 11 Bankruptcy.  Despite this,
in 2013, the plaintiffs were able to secure a $100 million
settlement against RALI and its affiliates.  That settlement
amount is being held in escrow until the settlement with the
underwriters receives final approval.  Judge Failla will hold a
final approval hearing on July 31, 2015.

The $235 million settlement with the underwriter defendants was
reached in November 2014 after years of mediation before retired
Judge Daniel Weinstein, a well-regarded national mediator.

In addition to Messrs. Laitman and Toll, the Lead Plaintiffs are
represented by attorneys Christopher Lometti, Michael Eisenkraft,
Joshua Devore, Richard A. Speirs, Daniel B. Rehns, Kenneth M.
Rehns, and S. Douglas Bunch, all of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
PLLC.

For more information about the case, New Jersey Carpenters Health
Fund, et al., v. Residential Capital, LLC, et al., visit
http://www.cohenmilstein.com/cases/233/rali-mbs-litigation

Founded in 1969, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC is a national
leader in plaintiff class action lawsuits and litigation. As one
of the firms in the country handling major complex cases,
including securities fraud actions, Cohen Milstein, with over 80
attorneys, has offices in Washington, D.C., New York,
Philadelphia, Chicago, Palm Beach Gardens, Fla., and Denver, Colo.


ROYAL GROUP: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Natasha Johnson, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated employees v. The Royal Group, LLC, d/b/a Royal
Impressions Communications Group, Case No. 1:15-cv-01378
(S.D.N.Y., February 25, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours
per week.

The Royal Group, LLC owns and operates a real estate, construction
and development company with its main office located at 460 W.
34th St., 5th Floor, New York, NY 10001.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis Ginsberg, Esq.
      Matthew Eric Cohen, Esq.
      LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
      55 John St.-10th Fl.
      New York, NY 10038
      Telephone: (516) 625-0105
      Facsimile: (516) 625-0106
      E-mail: louisginsberg@1800lostjob.com
              matthewcohen21@gmail.com


RSI ENTERPRISES: "Mavris" Suit in D. Ariz. Goes to Trial
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Neil V. Wake of the District of Arizona denied
defendant's motion for summary judgment, or alternatively summary
adjudication in the case Joanna F. Mavris, Plaintiff, v. RSI
Enterprises Incorporated, Defendant, NO. CV-14-01058-PHX-NVW (D.
Ariz.)

Joanna F. Mavris received a medical treatment at a hospital
operated by Scottsdale Healthcare on two occasions. The hospital
created separate billing account for each visits, one ending in
0028 and the other ending in 0403 respectively.

Scottsdale Healthcare assigned the 0028 account and the 0403
account to RSI Enterprises Incorporated for servicing. Defendant
sent various billings/letter invoices to plaintiff on behalf of
Scottsdale Healthcare.

Plaintiff filed a putative class action suit against RSI seeking
statutory and actual damages on behalf of herself and other
members of the proposed class under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq., notably,
plaintiff alleges that defendant ran afoul of 15 U.S.C. Section
1692 e(2)(A), which prohibits a debt collector from using any
false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in
connection with the collection of any debt, such as the false
representation of the character, amount, or legal status of any
debt.

At their scheduled conference, the parties agreed to stay
discovery on the question of class certification until after
resolution of any dispositive motions regarding plaintiff's
individual case. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, or
alternatively, summary adjudication.

A copy of Judge Wake's order dated January 16, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/QJ36TEfrom Leagle.com.

Joanna F Mavris, On Behalf of Herself and Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael L Greenwald --
mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com -- at Greenwald Davidson PLLC

RSI Enterprises Incorporated, an Arizona Corporation, Defendant,
represented by David J Kaminski -- kaminskid@cmtlaw.com -- Charles
R Messer -- messerc@cmtlaw.com -- Keith Alexander Yeomans --
yeomansk@cmtlaw.com -- at Carlson & Messer LLP


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Sued in Cal. Over Defective Remote Control
---------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Bravo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., a New York
corporation, Case No. 3:15-cv-00885 (N.D. Cal., February 26,
2015), arises out of the Defendant's two-sided remote control with
defective power supply that leads to excessive heat and premature
device failure, which can cause the remote's batteries to
catastrophically fail and leak their harmful acidic contents.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. is a New York with its principal
place of business located at 105 Challenger Road, Ridgefield Park,
New Jersey 07660. It is one of the largest manufacturers of
electronic products and appliances.

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


SAN JUAN CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Barry" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Barry, and Chris Moore, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. San Juan Construction, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-00382 (D. Colo., February 25, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours per week.

San Juan Construction, Inc. is a full service general contractor
that maintains a principal place of business at 401 E. Main
Street, Montrose, Colorado.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brendan John Donelon, Esq.
      DONELON, P.C.
      420 Nichols Road, Suite 200
      Kansas City, MO 64112
      Telephone: (816) 221-7100
      Facsimile: (816) 709-1044
      E-mail: brendan@donelonpc.com


SCHIFF NUTRITION: Falsely Marketed Omega-3 Supplements, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Seth Sultan, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Schiff Nutrition International, Inc., Case No. 2:15-
cv-01351 (C.D. Cal., February 25, 2015), arises out of the
Defendant's false and fraudulent advertising of MegaRed Omega-3
Krill Oil dietary supplements.

Schiff Nutrition International, Inc. is manufacturer of
nutritional supplements and a wholly owned subsidiary of the
international consumer products conglomerate, Reckitt Benckiser
Group.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Mark S. Greenstone, Esq.
      GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9150
      E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
              mgreenstone@glancylaw.com

      Stuart E. Scott, Esq.
      Daniel Frech, Esq.
      SPANGENBERG SHIBLEY & LIBER LLP
      1001 Lakeside Avenue East, Suite 1700
      Cleveland, OH 44114
      Telephone: (216) 696-3232
      Facsimile: (216) 696-3924
      Email: sscott@spanglaw.com
             dfrech@spanglaw.com


SECURITAS SECURITY: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Duffy" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Duffy v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., Case No.
3:15-cv-01427 (D.N.J., February 25, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. is a division of the largest
security firm in the world, with over 90,000 security guards in
its United States operations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
      Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      Lawrence Office Park
      168 Franklin Corner Road
      Building 2, Suite 220
      Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
      Telephone: (201) 687-9977
      Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
      E-mail: AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com
              JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com


SHOWA CORP: Bid to Dismiss Dealership, End-payor Suits Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Marianne o. Battani issued an opinion and order on
March 2, 2015, denying defendants Showa Corporation and American
Showa, Inc.'s separate motions to dismiss the dealership and end-
payor plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaints for lack of
personal jurisdiction in IN RE: AUTOMOTIVE PARTS ANTITRUST
LITIGATION In re: Electric Powered Steering Assemblies, MASTER
FILE NO. 12-MD-02311, (E.D. Mich.).

The ruling, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/p0uUGy
from Leagle.com, relates to Dealership Actions No. 2:13-cv-01902.
End-Payor Actions No. 2:13-cv-01903.

Although the motions to dismiss were filed separately against the
Plaintiff classes, the Court consolidated them for purposes of its
opinion.

"It is undisputed that Defendants have numerous contacts with the
United States. Showa USA is incorporated in the United States and
maintains offices, employees, and sells products in the United
States. Showa Japan pleaded guilty to "causing a consequence" in
the United States by participating in a conspiracy to rig bids and
fix the prices of EPS Assemblies sold to customers in the United
States. It also admitted to traveling to the United States to meet
with coconspirators. In addition, Showa Japan is alleged to have
controlled the actions of its United States-based subsidiary
during the class period. Defendants' contacts with the forum are
not random and attenuated, but instead, purposefully directed at
the forum. Thus, it is clear that Defendants purposefully availed
themselves of the privilege of doing business in the United
States," Judge Battani pointed out.  "[T]he Court's exercise of
specific personal jurisdiction over Defendants satisfies due
process," he added.


SIGNAL INT'L: Judge Awards $14 Million to Indian Workers
--------------------------------------------------------
Vice.com reports that in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in
2005, hundreds of Indian men traveled to the US Gulf Coast to work
as welders and pipe fitters on damaged oilrigs, lured by the
promise of permanent US residency and a good job.  Instead, they
became trapped in what advocates are calling "one of the largest
labor trafficking cases in US history."

The men paid between $10,000 and $20,000 each to their recruiter,
some selling all their family's possessions to make the trip.  But
they never got the green cards promised to them and their families
by the recruiter, and they traveled to the US on short-term "guest
workers" visas instead.

Once in the US, they were separated from their employer's
non-Indian workers and forced to live in isolated, guarded, and
cramped labor camps -- for which their paychecks were docked
$1,050 each month.

On Feb. 18, a federal jury awarded five of the men, who were
employed at a Pascagoula, Mississippi shipyard, $14 million in
compensation after finding their employer -- the Alabama-based
firm Signal International, a New Orleans immigration lawyer, and
an Indian recruiter guilty of labor trafficking, fraud,
racketeering, and discrimination.  Signa International was ordered
to pay $12 million, while the two co-defendants were ordered to
pay $915,000 each.

The jury also found that one of the men was a victim of false
imprisonment and retaliation -- as the company responded to
workers who complained and sought outside help with threatening
deportation.

Signa International did not respond to VICE News' requests for
comment.  The office of Malvern Burnett, the immigration lawyer,
also declined to comment.  Sachin Dewan, the Indian recruiter,
could not be reached for comment.

In addition to the five plaintiffs in the case, almost 500 others
were victim of the same scheme and were subjected to the same
treatment.  The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and other civil
rights groups that took up their case tried to file the lawsuit as
a class action -- but this was denied by a New Orleans judge.

"We were seeking to represent the whole group in a class action
because extremely similar tactics were used on everyone: everyone
was promised a green card, everyone traveled on a temporary 10-
month H-2B visa, everyone paid more than $10,000 in recruitment
fees, everyone was sent to one of two signal labor camps -- one in
Pascagoula, Mississippi and one in Texas," Naomi Tsu, a senior
attorney at the SPLC, told VICE News.

"Guest workers" on temporary visas are not allowed to change jobs,
which would cause them to lose their visas -- and the money they
paid for them -- if they quit.

"All the Indian workers were treated differently than Signal's
non-Indian workers.  All had to have $35 a day deducted from their
paycheck in order to pay for the 'man camps,'" she added,
referring to the cramped living quarters the men were forced to
share -- where guests were rarely allowed and the company
regularly searched through workers' belongings.  When some men
sought housing outside, they were told they still had to pay the
$35 per day fee -- though the company told the men they were not
required to live in the camps.

In 2007, some workers were detained as Signal's private security
raided their residences overnight.  Two of them were detained and
threatened with deportation; following the incident one of the men
attempted suicide, the SPLC said.

Still, a judge denied class action status on the grounds that
separate cases would be required, because of different
individuals' reliance on fraudulent promises and the emotional
harm the discriminatory practices had on them.

"That left 400 people who had contacted us just out in the cold,"
Ms. Tsu said.  The SPLC proceeded to reach out to "everyone we
knew" Ms. Tsu added, and 12 more labor standards complaints were
filed to represent 230 other workers bringing similar grievances
against the company.

Lawyers in the case now hope the $14 million will be only the
first in a series of settlements.

"The trial that just concluded is the very first of all those
cases," Ms. Tsu said.  "We think the evidence is powerful,
everyone suffered the same harm, and we're hopeful that everyone
will get the same kind of jury verdict that we got Feb. 18."


SONY CORP: Hearing on Bid for Award of Atty. Fees on May 14
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard Seeborg approved on March 2, 2015, a notice
to class and a proof of claim form in IN RE OPTICAL DISK DRIVE
ANTITRUST LITIGATION, CASE NO. 3:10-MD-02143 RS, (N.D. Cal.).  The
Court also set a schedule for claims, and a hearing for attorneys'
fees, costs, and incentive awards.  The order, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/u0FcpMfrom Leagle.com, relates to all
direct purchaser actions.

According to Judge Seeborg, the proposed notice regarding
allocation of the settlements totaling $37,750,000 and the
proposed proof of claim form are appropriate. Class Counsel was
directed to file their motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and
incentive awards within 14 days from entry of the Order. Within 21
days, Gilardi & Co. LLC, the Claims Administrator, will
disseminate the Notice and the Claim Form to those members of the
classes who can reasonably be contacted through electronic or
direct mail.

The Notice will also be published within 21 days in the Wall
Street Journal. Comments or objections to Class Counsel's motion
for attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive awards are due within 42
days from the entry of Order. Class Counsel may file a reply in
support of their motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive
awards within 52 days of entry of Order. A hearing will be held on
Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive
awards 66 days from entry of this Order. Class members will have
90 days from mailing of the Notice to complete the Claim Form and
submit it to the Claims Administrator. In order to provide
certainty, the last date for class members to submit their Claim
Form to the Claims Administrator will be June 22 2015.

Class Counsel must file their Motion for an Award of Attorneys'
Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses, and Class Representative
Incentive Awards within 14 days from the entry of the Order. A
hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees,
Reimbursement of Expenses, and Class Representative Incentive
Awards is set for May 14, 2015 at 1:30pm in Courtroom 3. In
addition, any class member wishing to comment or object to
Plaintiffs' Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement
of Expenses, and Class Representative Incentive Awards may do so
by filing with the Court any comments or objections on or before
April 13, 2015. Plaintiffs may file a reply in support of their
Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses,
and Class Representative Incentive Awards by April 23, 2015.


SOUTH STATE MATERIALS: "Taylor" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Terry L. Taylor v. South State Materials LLC, and Chester Ottinger
Jr., Case No. 1:15-cv-01439 (D.N.J., February 25, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate two high volume asphalt
manufacturing facilities in the state of New Jersey. They are also
highway, paving and utilities contractors performing work
throughout Central and Southern New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP PA
      Lawrence Office Park
      Building 2, Suite 220
       168 Franklin Corner Road
       Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
       Telephone: (201) 687-9977
       Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
       E-mail: aglenn@jaffeglenn.com


SPARTAN ENERGY: "Fernandez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Fernandez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Spartan Energy Services, LLC, Case No. 5:15-
cv-00153 (W.D. Tex., February 26, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime, liquidated damages, attorney fees, and costs pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Spartan Energy Services, LLC is an oilfield services company with
locations throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
      FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
      1150 Bissonnet
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: ADunlap@fibichlaw.com


ST JOSEPH SERVICES: Court Dismisses Data Breach Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Gavrila Brotz, Magda Rodriguez of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, in
an article for JDSupra, reports that dismissing a class action
based on a data breach, the Southern District of Texas added to
the growing number of decisions that find an alleged risk of
future identity theft due to a data breach is not an injury that
creates standing to bring federal claims.  The plaintiff, Beverly
Peters, a former St. Joseph patient, brought a class action
lawsuit against the medical provider after receiving notification
that her personal information and protected health information had
been compromised.  St. Joseph moved to dismiss the complaint for
lack of standing and failure to state a claim for relief.

During the course of her treatment at St. Joseph, Ms. Peters
provided personal information that was stored on St. Joseph's
computer network.  Hackers subsequently invaded St. Joseph's
computer network, obtaining access to the personal information of
approximately 405,000 individuals.

Despite the fact that St. Joseph had no evidence that any personal
information had been misused, it automatically enrolled all
potentially affected individuals in a free credit monitoring and
identity theft protection service for one year.

Ms. Peters's complaint alleged violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act along with various state and common law tort and
contract claims. Her core allegation was that she and similarly
situated individuals were at "an elevated risk of future identity
theft/fraud" due to the breach of St. Joseph's computer network.
In support, she pointed to several incidents: (1) an attempt at a
fraudulent charge on her Discover credit card; (2) a fraudulent
attempt to access her Amazon.com account using her son's name,
which was contained in St. Joseph's records; (3) receipt of "daily
telephone solicitations from medical products and services
companies"; and (4) receipt of unsolicited marketing materials and
emails regarding the medical condition listed in St. Joseph's
records.

The Southern District Court of Texas, in an issue of first
impression, cited Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA and Susan B.
Anthony List v. Driehaus to support its finding that the injury
alleged by Ms. Peters failed to rise to the level of "certainly
impending" or "substantial" risk to establish the requisite
Article III standing. Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 133 S. Ct.
1138 (2013); Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 134 S. Ct. 2334
(2014).

The court reasoned that Ms. Peters's allegations of future harm
had numerous variables, including time and manner.  The court also
noted the difficulty in determining whether any misuse of her
personal information could be traced to St. Joseph's breach.  Most
importantly, the Court found that:

Even if the injuries were traceable to St. Joseph's alleged
failures under the FCRA, it is not likely that a favorable
decision from this Court would redress the harm she has
experienced.  St. Joseph argues that Peters has not alleged any
quantifiable damage or loss she has suffered as a result of the
Data Breach.  This Court agrees.

Peters v. St. Joseph Svcs. Corp., Civ. No. 4:14-CV-2872 (S.D.
Texas Feb. 11, 2015).


STATE FARM: Court Allows Discovery in TCPA Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Christine M. Reilly and Marc Roth of Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP,
in an article for Lexology, reports that a defendant in a
Telephone Consumer Protection Act lawsuit was unable to strike
class allegations in the case, although the Illinois federal
district court judge did toss one of the named plaintiffs.

In a consolidated class action complaint filed in February 2014,
five plaintiffs alleged that State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Company was vicariously liable for telemarketing calls
made on its behalf by third party Variable Marketing in violation
of the TCPA.

After losing its motion to dismiss the suit, State Farm sought to
dismiss the individual claims of two of the plaintiffs and strike
the class allegations, arguing that the plaintiffs had set forth a
fail-safe class definition.

The complaint proposed the following class definition: "All
persons within the United States who received a non-emergency
telephone call from Variable, placed while Variable was acting on
behalf of State Farm, to a cellular telephone through the use of
an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or
prerecorded voice."

Because the members of the class necessarily depend on a future
decision on the merits -- specifically, which calls Variable made
"on behalf of" State Farm -- the class definition was
impermissible, the defendant told the court.

Alternatively, the plaintiffs contended that the motion was
premature and that they should be allowed to conduct discovery
before the court ruled on the issue of class certification.  U.S.
District Court Judge Amy St. Eve sided with the plaintiffs . "It
may be that Variable, State Farm, or a third party maintained
records that identify which Variable calls were directed to State
Farm agents," she wrote.  "Simply put, Plaintiffs need additional
discovery to determine the extent to which they can link calls
made by Variable to State Farm.  At this point, it is not clear
that Plaintiffs allege a 'fail-safe' class."

Other arguments against certification from State Farm -- that the
class is not ascertainable, that the plaintiffs' claims require
individualized determinations, and that the factual and legal
differences in the theories of vicarious liability overwhelmed
commonalities -- were also brushed aside by the court.

"While State Farm may ultimately prevail on one or more of these
arguments at the class certification stage, Plaintiffs are first
entitled to conduct further class discovery to determine the
extent to which they can refute these arguments by linking the
Variable calls to State Farm," the judge said.

However, the court did agree that one of the named plaintiffs
should be tossed from the suit.  State Farm challenged two of the
plaintiffs, Matt Clark and Josh Friedman.  While Mr. Clark made a
sufficient allegation in which he stated the phone number that
placed a call to him and linked it to a telemarketer placing calls
on behalf of State Farm, Friedman did not.

Mr. Friedman stated only that he "received a telephone call to his
cell phone from [a telephone number] via an automatic telephone
dialing system and using an artificial or prerecorded voice."  He
did not allege that he received the call from State Farm or from
anyone calling on State Farm's behalf; nor did he allege to whom
the phone number belongs.  Mr. Friedman "cannot state a cause of
action against [State Farm] by pleading only that he received a
phone call from an unknown number," Judge St. Eve said, dismissing
his claims without prejudice.

Why it matters: While some courts have agreed with TCPA defendants
that plaintiffs have constructed an impermissible fail-safe class
(like an Ohio federal court last year in a suit against CVS
Pharmacy), the Illinois judge was not persuaded by State Farm's
position. The plaintiff's vicarious liability allegations and the
possibility that a third party might have records of the calls
made on State Farm's behalf were sufficient to keep the class
claims alive, at least for now.


STONEHAM DRILLING: Illegally Terminates Workers, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Brossette, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Stoneham Drilling Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-00389
(D. Colo., February 25, 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
Williston, North Dakota site.

Stoneham Drilling Corporation is a foreign for Profit Corporation
organized under the laws of the State of Oklahoma that owns and
operates numerous drilling rigs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Allen Ryan Vaught, Esq.
      BARON & BUDD, P.C.
      3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
      Dallas, TX 75219-4283
      Telephone: (214) 521-3605
      Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
      E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com


TALK OF THE TOWN: Servers' Suit Wins Conditional Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington of the Middle
District of Florida granted plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification in the case JOHN CIANI and SCOTT GREEN, Plaintiffs,
v. TALK OF THE TOWN RESTAURANTS, INC., D/B/A CHARLEY'S STEAKHOUSE,
Defendant, Case No. 8:14-CV-2197-T-33AEP (M.D. Fla.)

John Ciani and Scott Green worked for Charley's Steakhouse from
March of 2011 - January of 2013 and February of 2009 - May of 2014
respectively. Green asserted that he was paid an hourly rate of
approximately $4.91 for the 30 hours he worked per week and he
usually worked four to five days per week, while Ciani asserted
that he was paid an hourly rate of approximately $4.91 for the 35-
45 hours he worked per week and typically worked four to six days
per week without overtime pay.

Plaintiffs contend that they were paid less than the federal
minimum wage, that defendant has been taking advantage of the tip
credit, which allows defendant to include in its calculation of
wages a portion of the amounts employees receive in tips.
Plaintiffs argue that plaintiffs were subject to a company-wide
policy whereby they were not paid all overtime compensation earned
when they worked in excess of forty hours during any given week,
and were also not paid minimum wage. Charley's also had a
mandatory policy in place which required all servers who worked
banquets to pay directly from their tips 3% of the gross sales
earned calculated on a pro rata basis per server.

Plaintiffs filed the action in Circuit Court but the case was
removed from the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for
Hillsborough County, Florida, by Charley's.  The Complaint seeks
payment of unpaid back wages and overtime compensation pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), as well as
other relief. Plaintiffs seek an order for court authorized notice
and an order conditionally certifying the case as a collective
action consisting of "all 'servers' and 'bartenders' who worked
for defendant within the last three years who believe they: (1)
were not paid proper overtime or minimum wage compensation during
any work week of their employment within the applicable statute of
limitations period; and (2) were subject to Defendant's 'tip-pool'
policies."

Charley's asserts that conditional certification is not
appropriate because plaintiffs have not demonstrated that a
sufficient number of other individuals desire to opt into this
lawsuit to justify a collective action throughout central Florida.

Judge Covington granted plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification and court-authorized notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b).  Charley's was directed to produce to Ciani and
Green a list containing the names and last known addresses of
putative class members.

A copy of Judge Covington's order dated January 16, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/dlL5Sbfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Brandon J. Hill -- bhill@wfclaw.com --
Donna V. Smith -- dsmith@wfclaw.com -- at Wenzel Fenton Cabassa,
PA

Talk of the Town Restaurants, Inc., doing business as Charley's
Steakhouse, Defendant, represented by Aaron L. Zandy --
azandy@fordharisson.com -- Andrew R. Lincoln --
dlincoln@fordharrison.com -- at Ford & Harrison, LLP

Mary A. Lau, Mediator, represented by Mary A. Lau --
mlau@laulane.com -- at Lau, Lane, Pieper, Conley & McCreadie, PA


TANCORDE FINANCE: Class Certification Granted in "Chester" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge James A. Parker of the District of New
Mexico granted plaintiff's motion for class certification in the
case DARREN CHESTER, Plaintiff, v. TANCORDE FINANCE, INC.,
Defendant, NO. 14-CV-92 JAP/KK (D.N.M.)

Defendant Tancorde Finance, Inc. extends short-term credit to the
public in Gallup New Mexico in a form of holiday and instant cash
loans.

The plaintiff Darren Chester applied for and obtained two separate
holiday loans on November 16 and December 10, 2013. Plaintiff
alleges that the loan agreements he signed violated the Truth In
Lending Act of 1968 (TILA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1601 et seq., and 12
C.F.R. Section 226 et seq. because they do not disclose the
finance charge, amount financed, number of payments, due date for
payments and security interest for the loans, failure to disclose
an accurate annual percentage rate and failure to give meaningful
disclosure of credit terms.

Plaintiff filed a putative class action seeking statutory damages,
costs and fees on behalf of all natural persons who entered into
'holiday loans' or 'Instant Cash' loans, or both, with defendant,
beginning one year prior to the filing of the complaint. Plaintiff
then filed a motion for class certification.

Judge Parker granted plaintiff's motion and certified the
following class: "All natural persons who entered into "holiday
loans" or "Instant Cash" loans, or both, with Tancorde Finance,
Inc., on or after February 2, 2013."

Judge Parker appointed plaintiff's counsel as class counsel and
ordered that the class counsel.

A copy of Senior District Judge Parker's memorandum opinion and
order dated January 12, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/E8rb7j
from Leagle.com.

Darren Chester, Plaintiff, represented by Charles M Delbaum -
consumerlaw@nclc.org -- at National Consumer Law Center, Inc.;
Richard N. Feferman -- consumer@nmconsumerwarriors.com -- at
Feferman & Warren

Tancorde Finance, Inc., Defendant, represented by:

Lynn Isaacson
Patrick Thomas Mason
MASON & ISAACSON PA
104 East Aztec
Gallup, NM 87310
Telephone: 505-722-4463


TENNCARE: Changes Cause Problems for Nursing Home Applications
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Wilemon, writing for The Tennessean, reports that nursing home
applications got so backed up when TennCare changed its processing
system that administrators reported more than half of their
patients did not get timely eligibility determinations.

Jesse Samples, executive director of Tennessee Health Care
Association, which represents nursing homes, told TennCare
Director Darin Gordon in an email that the problem was causing
serious cash flow issues for its members and stressful
circumstances for patients.

Gordon responded that the agency's internal statistics showed
better performance but admitted its "more limited approach" in
communicating applications was causing frustrations.

The emails obtained by The Tennessean through an open records
request reveal that TennCare cannot place all the blame for its
backlogged Medicaid applications on the federal government.  After
a class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of people seeking
coverage, the state agency argued in court papers that
healthcare.gov, the federal insurance exchange, had caused the
issues.  But nursing home applications were not filed through that
website.

Nursing home applications got backlogged because TennCare stopped
having state employees with the Department of Human Services
process them and outsourced that work to a private contractor.
The applications got sent to a new service center operated by
Cognosante LLC, which was awarded a four-year, $31 million
contract.

The responsibilities of the new service center, the Tennessee
Health Connection, included answering calls from people seeking
Medicaid coverage who had applied on healthcare.gov as well as
processing the paper documents sent by nursing homes.  But the
call center failed to adequately perform its duties.

The state wound up taking punitive actions, levying a fine of
almost $1 million, said Sarah Tanksley, a TennCare spokesperson.

"TennCare's new service center, Tennessee Health Connection,
experienced an unexpectedly high volume of applications in the
first quarter of 2014 while also experiencing some technical
difficulties associated with the startup of this new call center,"
Ms. Tanksley said.  "As a result, the state took significant
actions to address the problems and levied significant fines
against the vendor."

Cognasante and TennCare then worked for several weeks to improve
the service, she said, and resolved the application problems early
last year.

Mr. Samples said while there has been a significant decline, the
system still doesn't work as well as it did when the Department of
Human Services processed applications.

The association's projections on backlogged applications are still
higher than they were before Jan. 1, 2014, when the state made the
change.

"The outstanding balance decreased from 1,200 to 600 over the last
six months of 2014," Mr. Samples said.  "This positive trend is a
result of TennCare working collaboratively with providers to try
and resolve the issues surrounding the new financial eligibility
process -- which was an average of around 230 individuals -- it is
still encouraging."

Besides the problems with the call center, TennCare faced more
trouble with a new computer system that was supposed to have
processed Medicaid income guidelines that changed because of the
Affordable Care Act.  Although these changes did not affect
nursing home patients, they did apply to other Medicaid enrollees.

TennCare had expected the new computer system to be working when
making the decision to stop having Department of Human Services
employees process applications.

The $35.7 million computer system was so far behind schedule that
TennCare had to give up control of its Medicaid enrollment duties.
TennCare made most Medicaid applicants seek coverage through
healthcare.gov.

In January, TennCare ended its contract with Northrop Grumman and
must find another vendor to build the computer system.  The system
was supposed to be ready to roll by Oct. 1, 2013.

Northrop Grumman received $6.2 million toward its contract -- and
most of that was federal dollars.  The state's share was $628,000.

TennCare on trial

The Tennessee Justice Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center and
the National Health Law Program filed a federal lawsuit in July
asking U.S. District Judge Todd Campbell to force the state to
correct barriers to people applying for Medicaid.

The action came after Cindy Mann, the federal director of Medicaid
programs, put Tennessee on notice in June that it was in violation
of U.S. laws in regard to processing applications in a timely
fashion. She also directed TennCare to set up a presumptive
eligibility program for newborns.

In September Campbell issued an injunction ordering TennCare to
set up appeal hearings for people who filed for Medicaid and have
waited for months for eligibility determinations.  Tennessee
challenged the order and is asking the U.S. Court of Appeals in
Cincinnati to set it aside.  However, it is scheduling hearings
for people who can prove they applied for coverage.


TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY: Fails to Pay OT, "Olive" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Danny Olive, Jr., Leslie Hill, Marion Holden and Eric McMillen, an
individual, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated
v. Tennessee Valley Authority and William D. Johnson, Case No.
5:15-cv-00350 (N.D. Ala., February 26, 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 the Browns Ferry Plant located in
Athens, Alabama.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher Sean Hamer, Esq.
      HAMER LAW GROUP LLC
      205 20th Street North, Suite 710
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 218-4436
      Facsimile: (888) 908-7234
      E-mail: chris.hamer@hamerlawgroup.com


TIMELESS HOSPITALITY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos De Castro, Stephanie Cooper, Rudy Martinez, Rafael
Ferreira, Abel Alarcon, and Konrad Wroblewski, individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Timeless Hospitality
Group, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01374 (S.D.N.Y., February 25,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Timeless Hospitality Group, LLC owns and operates Doppio
restaurants in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alison Gayle Lobban, Esq.
      Brent Edward Pelton, Esq.
      Taylor Bell Graham, Esq.
      PELTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      111 Broadway, Suite 1503
      New York, NY 10000
      Telephone: (212) 385-9700
      Facsimile: (212) 385-0800
      E-mail: lobban@peltonlaw.com
              pelton@peltonlaw.com
              graham@peltonlaw.com


TRATTORIA DIMEO: "Barcenas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ricardo Barcenas, on behalf of himself and FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs v. Trattoria Dimeo Cafe Corp. d/b/a Trattoria Di Meo
and Salvatore Dimeo, Case No. 1:15-cv-01364 (S.D.N.Y., February
25, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages,
illegally retained gratuities, liquidated damages and  attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 183 Roslyn
Rd, Roslyn Heights, New York 11577.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TREND PAINTING: Faces "Rangel" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Rangel, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Trend Painting & Decorating, Inc., and
George W. Perschon, Case No. 1:15-cv-01718 (N.D. Ill., February
25, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a painting and wall covering
contracting company doing business within the State of Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNC-CHAPEL HILL: Declined to Comment on Legal Strategy
------------------------------------------------------
John McCann, writing for Herald Sun, reports that lawyers
representing former student-athletes who played for the University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill have put the ball in the hands of
UNC and the NCAA, both of them defendants in a class-action
lawsuit challenging those two institutions to make good on what
are claimed to be irregular course offerings that failed to
provide sound academics in exchange for what ballplayers did on
the fields and courts of competition.

UNC and the NCAA either can answer the complaint or file a motion
to have it dismissed, said attorney Sathya Gosselin, one of the
lawyers fighting for the former student-athletes.

"We will not have a comment," NCAA spokeswoman Emily James said.

"We are not going to comment on legal strategy," UNC spokeswoman
Karen Moon said.

Former UNC basketball player Rashanda McCants and former UNC
football player Devon Ramsay are the formal plaintiffs, but there
is leeway to amend the lawsuit to make room for more former UNC
student-athletes, Mr. Gosselin said.  The class nature of the
lawsuit is to prevent the courts from becoming clogged with
individual cases, he said.  The lawsuit is limited to individuals
who had scholarships to play sports at UNC.  Some of those former
student-athletes have reached out about joining the lawsuit,
Mr. Gosselin said.

A similar lawsuit filed by former UNC football player
Michael McAdoo was limited to former UNC football players, Mr.
Gosselin said.

The McCants-Ramsay complaint, filed in January at the Durham
County Courthouse, claims both UNC and the NCAA were complicit in
steering hundreds of UNC student-athletes to substandard classes
that lacked faculty involvement or attendance requirements.  That
was done to keep athletes eligible to play at UNC, a fact
documented by an investigation led by former federal prosecutor
Kenneth Wainstein, whom UNC hired to get to the bottom of the
issue.

McCants and Ramsay, according to their lawyers, are just two
former UNC athletes "who were victims of one of the largest
academic scandals in college sports history."

Among the desired outcomes of the lawsuit is reforms that ensure
UNC and the NCAA deliver the quality educations that they promise,
Mr. Gosselin said.

Ramsay attended UNC on a football scholarship from 2007-12.
McCants attended UNC on a basketball scholarship from 2005-09.
Their years of attendance coincide with the time -- 1993-2011 --
when irregular classes were offered in UNC's Department of African
and Afro-American Studies.  While non-athletes took the classes,
those courses literally were designed to keep UNC athletes
eligible by not requiring them to attend classes in order to
receive passing grades.  Coursework for those classes was known to
consist solely of writing assignments that a secretary -- not a
professor -- graded with short shrift.  The scheme impacted
roughly 3,100 students, according to Mr. Wainstein's report.

"That portion of their education was unsound, in the words of
investigator Wainstein and others," Mr. Gosselin said.

The McCants-Ramsay complaint actually traces the fraudulent
classes further back than Mr. Wainstein did.

"It is fair to say that our claims reaching back as far as 1989
are the results of a thorough investigation that we have conducted
to date, although we anticipate considerably more evidence coming
forth in the process," Mr. Gosselin said.

It's too soon to know whether the McCants-Ramsay lawsuit would
call into question the validity of bachelor's degrees obtained
with the irregular classes, said Pamela Cravey, spokeswoman for
the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on
Colleges, the accrediting agency for UNC.  SACSCOC and UNC have
been in touch, she said.

"After the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission
on Colleges reviews the institution's response to our letter, we
will review the institution against our accreditation standards to
determine ongoing compliance and any collateral effects from
noncompliance," Ms. Cravey said.

But that's not at the heart of the McCants-Ramsay lawsuit,
Mr. Gosselin said.

"There is no argument that their bachelor's degrees are somehow
invalid and don't represent bachelor's degrees," Mr. Gosselin
said.  "The argument is, rather, that certain classes taken in
pursuit of their education didn't satisfy the criteria for
academically sound classes -- faculty involvement, attendance
requirements of some sort, the expectation of the rigor associated
with the University of North Carolina classes."


UNITED STATES: Defendant in Child Porn Case Loses Certiorari Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Delaware issued an order on February 27,
2015, IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF THOMAS E. NOBLE FOR A WRIT
OF CERTIORARI, NO. 39, 2015.

In January 2014, Mr. Noble was indicted for multiple counts of
Dealing in Child Pornography under 11 Del. C. Section 1109.  He
filed multiple petitions for extraordinary writs in connection
with these criminal charges. He has been confined to the Delaware
Psychiatric Center for treatment until he was capable of standing
trial.

On December 29, 2014, Mr. Noble filed a class action complaint in
the Superior Court alleging that 11 Del. C. Section 1109 was
unconstitutional. Mr. Noble named the governor, all members of the
general assembly who voted in favor of Section 1109, the attorney
general, and "anyone else responsible" as defendants. In an order
dated December 31, 2014, the Superior Court dismissed the
complaint as factually frivolous, legally frivolous, and on the
ground that it plainly appeared from the face of the complaint
that Mr. Noble was not entitled to relief. He did not appeal the
Superior Court's order. Instead, on February 2, 2015, he filed a
petition in the Court for issuance of a writ of certiorari.  He
claims he is entitled to relief because the Superior Court erred
in dismissing the complaint, his complaint should have been
construed liberally because he was acting pro se, and the
prothonotary did not handle his filings properly. The State
answered the petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari and
moved to dismiss.

A writ of certiorari is an extraordinary remedy that is used to
correct irregularities in the proceedings of a trial court.
Certiorari is available to challenge a final order of a trial
court where the right of appeal is denied, a grave question of
public policy and interest is involved, and no other basis for
review is available.

According to the Delaware Supreme Court's ruling, a copy of which
is available at http://is.gd/8Pab85from Leagle.com, there is no
basis for the issuance of a writ of certiorari in this case. Mr.
Noble could have appealed the Superior Court's order dismissing
his complaint, but chose not to do so. He has not shown that his
right of appeal was denied or that a grave question of public
policy is involved. Because he has not met the threshold
requirements for the issuance of a writ of certiorari, his
petition for a writ of certiorari must be dismissed.

The Supreme Court further concluded that Mr. Noble's petition for
a writ of certiorari is legally frivolous.

The State's motion to dismiss was granted.


VORNADO REALTY: Faces "Robles" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paula Robles, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Vornado Realty Trust, Urban Edge Properties,
Howard Goodman, Komal Kalvani, Alison Brett, ABC Companies 1-10
and John Does 1-10, Case No. 2:15-cv-01406 (D.N.J., February 24,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a real estate investment firm that
maintains a principal place of business at 210 Route 4 East,
Paramus New Jersey, 07652.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony M. Rainone, Esq.
      BRACH EICHLER LLC
      101 Eisenhower Parkway
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Telephone: (973) 228-5700
      Facsimile: (973) 228-7852
      E-mail: arainone@bracheichler.com


VW CREDIT: Faces "Hellman" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Kelley Hellman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. VW Credit, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01693 (N.D. Ill.,
February 25, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours a
workweek.

VW Credit, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that is in the business
of extending credit to customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
      WERMAN SALAS P.C.
      77 West Washington, Suite 1402
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 419-1008
      Facsimile: (312) 419-1025
      E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com


W.R. THOMAS: Cal. Appeals Court Upholds Arbitration Order
---------------------------------------------------------
Justice Judith L. Haller of the Court of Appeals of California,
Fourth District, Division One, affirmed the order of the trial
court in the appealed case entitled WENDY HERNANDEZ et al.,
Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. W.R. THOMAS, INC., Defendant and
Respondent, NO. D064036 (Cal. App.)

The plaintiffs Wendy and Sandra Hernandez bought a used 2007 Dodge
Caliber from Direct Auto, with a purchased price of approximately
$15,000. Both plaintiffs signed the sales contract containing an
arbitration agreement.  After several months, plaintiffs filed a
complaint against Direct Auto alleging negligence and intentional
misrepresentation, violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act,
breach of warranty, violation of the Rees-Levering Motor Vehicle
Sales and Finance Act and violation of the Unfair Business
Practices Act. Plaintiffs sought to represent a class of Direct
Auto customers whose down payments were not adequately identified
on the sales contract and/or whose vehicles did not receive a smog
certification before the sale.

Direct Auto responded by petitioning to compel arbitration based
on an arbitration provision in the parties' purchase agreement.
The arbitration provision contained a class action waiver.
Plaintiffs objected to the petition, asserting the arbitration
clause was not enforceable because various provisions were
unconscionable under California law.

The trial court rejected the unconscionability defense and ordered
the matter to arbitration. On appeal, plaintiffs contend the
arbitration provision is procedurally and substantively
unconscionable under California law.

Justice Haller affirmed the order of the trial court, expressing
that the parties' arbitration agreement contains certain elements
of procedural and substantive unconscionability, but these
elements are insufficient to preclude the enforceability of the
arbitration agreement.

A copy of Justice Haller's unpublished opinion dated January 8,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/2iMgJLfrom Leagle.com.

John W. Hanson -- john@thesandiegolemonlawyer.com -- Elisa M.
Swanson -- elisa@thesandiegolemonlawyer.com -- at The Hanson Law
Firm, for Plaintiffs and Appellants

Gregory E. Flynn -- gregflynn@flynnlaw.org -- at Flynn & Flynn;
Stephen M. Hogan -- stephen.hogan@sbcglobal.net, for Defendants
and Respondents

The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One
panel consists of Presiding Justice Judith McConnell and Justices
Judith L. Haller and James A. McIntyre.


WARRIOR SPORTS: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over NOCSAE Symbol
--------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Horner, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Warrior Sports, Inc. d/b/a Warrior Lacrosse, and New
Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-10716 (E.D. Mich.,
February 26, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' unlawful
practice of using the National Operating Committee on Standards
for Athletic Equipment (NOCSAE) symbol on their Regulator helmet
when, in fact, the helmets do not meet the applicable NOCSAE
standards.

Warrior Sports, Inc. was founded in 1992 and is headquartered in
Warren, Michigan. It describes itself out as a premier
manufacturer of innovative, high performance, cutting-edge
equipment, footwear and apparel for lacrosse and hockey.

New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc. is the parent company of Warrior
Sports, and holds itself out as a leading manufacturer and
marketer of athletic equipment and apparel.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrick E. Cafferty, Esq.
      CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
      101 North Main Street, Suite 565
      Ann Arbor, MI 48104
      Telephone: (734) 769-2144
      Facsimile: (734) 769-1207
      E-mail: pcafferty@caffertyclobes.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq.
      Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
      Alison G. Gushue, Esq.
      Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
      CHIMICLES &TIKELLIS LLP
      One Haverford Centre
      361 West Lancaster Avenue
      Haverford, PA 19041
      Telephone: (610) 642-8500
      Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
      E-mail: Nick@chimicles.com
              jgs@chimicles.com
              agg@chimicles.com
              awf@chimicles.com


WEST 12TH: "Khereed" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Haas Khereed, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and
the Class v. West 12th Street Restaurant Group LLC, East 6th
Street Restaurant Group LLC, Jason Soloway, Xavier Herit, and
Brendan Mchale, Case No. 1:15-cv-01363 (S.D.N.Y., February 25,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages,
illegally retained gratuities, liquidated damages and  attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate restaurants within the State of New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


XPO LOGISTICS: Faces "Lenar" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alina Lenar, on behalf of herself, and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated known and unknown v. XPO Logistics, LLC, Case
No. 1:15-cv-01736 (N.D. Ill., February 26, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

XPO Logistics, LLC provides transportation logistics services in
North America facilitating over 37,000 deliveries a day through
more than 10,000 employees at approximately 200 locations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Meghan A. Vanleuwen, Esq.
      John William Billhorn, Esq.
      BILLHORN LAW FIRM
      53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 840
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Telephone: (312) 853-1450
      E-mail: mvanleuwen@billhornlaw.com
              jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com


* Florida Legislators Propose Bill to Snuff Tobacco Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mary Ellen Klas, writing for Miami Herald, reports that the
powerful cigarette industry reignited Florida's tobacco wars on
Feb. 18 with a one-sentence bill that would strip away the right
of thousands of Florida victims from collecting millions in
damages.

The proposal by Sen. Garrett Richter, R-Naples, would
retroactively apply a 1999 cap on punitive damages to "all civil
actions in which judgment has not been entered."  It is aimed at
snubbing 4,500 smokers and their families who have sued cigarette
makers but are still awaiting trial over claims that the industry
deceived them about the dangerous and addictive properties of
cigarettes.

The industry has already lined up its troops, hiring 95 lobbyists
including a who's who of players close to Gov. Rick Scott and key
Republican legislative leaders, and distributing $218,000 in
campaign contributions in the last election cycle.

Opposing the bill are trial lawyers, who were top contributors to
Democrat Charlie Crist's failed gubernatorial campaign.  They have
staffed up for the fight and created a website to court public
opinion called NoBigTobaccoBailout.com.

The issue stems from the 1994 landmark class-action lawsuit known
as the Engle case.  It was brought by Miami lawyers Stanley and
Susan Rosenblatt on behalf of Howard A. Engle, a Miami
pediatrician.  He had been addicted to cigarettes since college,
when tobacco companies handed out free cigarettes to students.

The Engle case was the first smokers' class action to come to
trial in a U.S. court.  A Miami-Dade jury, after hearing 157
witnesses in two years, decided that the industry had
intentionally misled smokers about cigarettes' dangers and awarded
a record-breaking $145 billion in damages in 2000.

The industry appealed and, in 2006, the Florida Supreme Court
tossed out the award and ruled that smokers must prove
individually that cigarettes caused their illness.  The high court
also decertified the class-action filed on behalf of approximately
700,000 smokers, but let stand that the tobacco manufacturers
committed fraud by deceiving smokers about the addictive nature
and harmful effects of cigarettes.

Of the 700,000 smokers identified in the Engle case, about 9,500
sued the industry by the 2007 deadline set by the court.  Since
then, courts have awarded $388 million to Floridians for punitive
damages, which were intended to punish the industry for bad
behavior, and $266 million in compensatory damages for lost wages.

Richter's bill, SB 978, would put an end to all punitive damages
that have not yet been claimed by imposing the 1999 cap, which
allows a company to be charged only once for punitive damages.

"Tobacco will pay their compensatory damages, but these lawsuits
were filed eight or nine years after the punitive cap was in
place," he said.

But for Bob Wilcox, 49, a Miami-Dade police lieutenant in the
homicide bureau, the bill is an "outrageous" attempt to shield an
industry that deserves to be punished for lying to people like his
father, Cleston Roy "Red" Wilcox, a Marine veteran who died of
lung cancer at age 70.  Mr. Wilcox's 91-year-old mother won a
$15.5 million judgment in September, but is expecting an appeal.
She has been a widow since her husband's death in 1994.  The
family first filed the lawsuit against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco in
2007, and it took seven years to bring it to trial.

"I firmly believe they engaged in a practice of delay, delay,
delay hoping my mother would die," Mr. Wilcox told the
Herald/Times.  "I was lucky it was heard.  How about all the other
people who have passed away while their case has been delayed?"

"Today, there has been a societal change because of the lawsuits,
but if this would have started in the early 1950s and, if they
would not have lied, maybe my father would have had the ability to
quit," he said.

Mr. Richter noted that the tobacco industry will continue to pay
its debt to the state, in the form of the annual multimillion
dollar payments from the landmark tobacco settlement that "they
will be paying until they go out of business."

It is an argument expected to be made by the companies who have
lined up the dozens of lobbyists -- RAI Services, (R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco), Altria (Phillip Morris), Vector Tobacco (Liggett),
Lorillard Tobacco Company, the American Tort Reform Association,
the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, the Florida Justice
Reform Institute and Associated Industries of Florida.

Mr. Wilcox now has no sympathy for the arguments on behalf of the
industry.

"Is it because they are losing these cases [that] they don't want
to have the punitive damages?" he asked.  "What does that say for
the system? They are going to change the law to accommodate a
business?"

Meanwhile, he hopes that his family's case will be resolved in
time for his mother to benefit from it.

"Does my mother deserve a little bit more comfort at this stage in
her life?" Mr. Wilcox asked.  "She's a blind 91-year-old who has
been denied her partner over 20 years.  She gave up a lot."


                             *********

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  * * *