CAR_Public/150312.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, March 12, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 51


                             Headlines

A & S CONTRACTING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Ohio Suit Claims
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Settles Shareholder Suit for $275 Million
ALHADEFF LAW: Removes "Del Busto" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
APOTHAKER SCIAN: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
APPLE INC: Kicks Off Repair Program After MacBook Pro Complaints

ARAB ELECTRIC: Removes "Kritner" Suit to Alabama District Court
ARIZONA PIPE TRADES: Class Certified in "Bryant" Action
ASTRAZENECA: Class Certification in Nexium Drug Suit Affirmed
AUTOZONERS LLC: Faces "Carr" Suit in Alabama Over FLSA Violations
BRONX-LEBANON HOSPITAL: Removes "Recio" Suit to S.D. New York

CANDICA LLC: Sued in Fla. for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
CARGILL INC: Accused of Harassment and Bias by Female Ex-Worker
CBE GROUP: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, "Shasho" Suit Says
CHATTEM INC: Removes "Wiltz" Suit to California District Court
CITIMORTGAGE INC: Removes "Kester" Suit to Arizona District Court

COMMUNITY HEALTH: "Lutz" Suit Included in Security Breach MDL
COMMUNITY HEALTH: "Maes" Suit Included in Security Breach MDL
COMMUNITY HEALTH: "Murphy" Suit Included in Security Breach MDL
COMPLETE PAYMENT: Judge Narrows Claims in "Zarichny" Suit
CSX CORP: Faces Class Action Over Train Derailment Damages

DANIEL C. CONSUEGRA: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
DIAMOND SUPPLY: Removes "Nall" Suit to California District Court
DOLE FOOD: CEO Heads to Court to Defend 2013 Buyout
DREAM ON ME: Recalls 2-in-1 Bassinet to Cradles
EBAY INC: Faces New Class Suit for Collecting of Final Value Fees

ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued for Misrepresenting Testosterone Drug
ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS: Faces "Fisher" Suit Alleging FCRA Violations
ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Faces Suit Over Patients' Records
EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Settles Wage Class Action for $4 Million
EVEREST COLLEGE: Ottawa Lawyer Mulls Class Action

FLOW SPORTS: Recalls Snowboard Bindings Due to Fall Hazard
FOOD SERVICE: Faces Class Action in Conn. Over FLSA Violations
FOREST LABORATORIES: 1st Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Lexapro Suit
FORTEGRA FINANCIAL: Settles Class Action Over Tiptree Merger
FPI MANAGEMENT: Nordrehaug & Bhowmik Files Class Action in Calif.

FRESENIUS USA: Suit Over GranuFlo & NaturaLyte Stays in Dist. Ct.
GADSDEN, AL: Accused of Running a Debtor's Prison for Poor People
GHIRARDELLI CHOCOLATE: $5.25MM Deal in Fake White Choco Suit OK'd
GOOGLE INC: Suit Alleging Monopoly Dismissed With Leave to Amend
GOOLE INC: Judge Approves $415MM No Poach Class Action Settlement

HARTFORD ACCIDENT: Removes "O'Brien" Suit to District of Montana
HAWAII: Discriminates Against Non-English Natives, Suit Says
HOMELAND SECURITY: Ordered by Court to Stop Detaining Immigrants
HONDA MOTOR: Faces Suit Over Faulty Transmissions in Acura TLX i4
HSBC BANK: Settlement in "Mills" Class Action Approved

INTEGRATED TRANSPORTATION: Removes "Pace" Suit to C.D. California
JB HUNT: Faces "Hyatt" Class Suit Alleging Violations of TCPA
KOHLL'S PHARMACY: Sup. Court Agrees to Decide on Moot Class Claim
KTM NORTH AMERICA: Recalls Children's Pajamas Due to Burn Risk
L&L ENERGY: Class Action Settlement Awaits Final Court Approval

LENOVO GROUP: Faces "Bennett" Suit Over Superfish Spyware
MARSHALL-DEKALB ELECTRIC: Removes "Lake" Suit to N.D. Alabama
MELVILLE DIRECT: Recalls Aquarium Motion Lamps Due to Fire Hazard
MINNESOTA: Testimony Continues in Sex Offer Program Class Action
MONARCH RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

NATIONAL RETAIL: Sued Over Accessibility Barriers at Facilities
NEATO BURRITO: Employee Withdraws Wage Class Action
NEW YORK, NY: 2nd Circuit Junks Occupy Marchers' Mass-Arrest Suit
NORAMPAC HOLDINGS: May 21 Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set
NORMARK CORPORATION: Recalls Lithium Lazer(TM) Ice Augers

NORTHLAND GROUP: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
NVIDIA CORP: Faces GTX 970 False Advertising Class Action
PACE UNIVERSITY: Moves "Williams" Suit to New York District Court
PASADENA, CA: Officials Hid $6.4MM Embezzlement Scheme, Suit Says
PARAMOUNT CITRUS: Faces Wage-and-Hour Class Action in California

PATRIOT PAYMENT: Faces "Mey" Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Sales
PICTORIAL OFFSET: New Jersey Suit Seeks to Collect Unpaid Wages
PLY GEM HOLDINGS: Sued in Wisconsin for Trademark Infringement
RALPH LAUREN: Removes "Polanco" Suit to Florida District Court
REGIS CORP: Removes "Watson" Suit to California District Court

RESURGENT CAPITAL: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
RJM ACQUISITIONS: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
ROCHE: Homeowners Mull Class Action Over Environmental Issues
ROYAL APPLIANCE: Recalls Hand Vac Turbo Tool Accessories
RUSSELL SIGLER: Removes "Sanchez" Class Suit to C.D. California

SCHIFF NUTRITION: Misrepresents MegaRed Supplement, Suit Claims
SCM I INVESTMENTS: Faces Class Suit Alleging Job Discrimination
SIOUX CITY, IA: Supreme Court Upholds Traffic Camera Ordinance
SMARTHEAT INC: Class Certification Bid in "Sicav" Suit Denied
SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Removes "Esqueda" Class Suit to S.D. California

SUCCESSFULMATCH.COM: Violates Confidentiality Promise, Suit Says
TAKATA CORP: "Herring" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL
TAKATA CORP: First Hearing Begins in Airbag Class Action
TARGET CORP: Faces Suit for Misrepresenting Herbal Supplements
TIME WARNER: Ruling in Dodgers-Lakers Bundling Suit Affirmed

TOTAL WEALTH: Judge Appoints Receiver; Class Action Pending
TOYS "R" US: Post-Appeal Settlement Approved in Consumer Suit
TRANS-CONTINENTAL CREDIT: Sued in New Jersey for Violating FDCPA
TREMCO INC: Ohio Appellate Court Flips Judgment in "Wholf" Suit
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Wants Judge to Decertify Fraud Class Action

TULE RIVER: E.D. Cal. Judge Revives "Medina" Suit
TYLER STAFFING: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
UBER TECH: Lawsuits May Alter Sharing Economy
UNITED STATES: Ruling in "Burwell" Medicare Suit Upheld in Part
UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: "Franco" Case May Proceed; Stay Dissolved

VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
VISA INC: Accused by Arizona of Restraining Trade & Fixing Prices
WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Dubanoski" Suit Alleging TCPA Violations
WATERFORD HARBOR: Tex. App. Rules in Lot Owner's Suit
WCOU RADIO: Sued for Non-Compliance With ADA Standards

WELLS FARGO: Removes "Eggers" Suit to Southern District of Iowa
WHIRLY WEST: Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages and Damages


                            *********


A & S CONTRACTING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Ohio Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
James M. Rosser v. A & S Contracting, Inc., Dave Sudlow, Adam
Sudlow and Renee Sudlow, Case No. 2:15-cv-00711-EAS-NMK (S.D.
Ohio, February 25, 2015) is a "collective action" brought as a
result of the Defendants' alleges that the Defendants violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards
Act by failing to pay non-exempt employees overtime compensation
for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.

Hocking County, Ohio-based A & S Contracting, Inc. is an Ohio for-
profit corporation.  A & S provides construction related services
throughout the United States, including the installation of truck
scale foundations, scale extensions, Pit scale foundations and
extensions, above ground pier scales, floating slab scale
foundations, axel scale foundations, and highway DOT weigh in
motion scale foundations.  The Individual Defendants are each
incorporators of A & S.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
          Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
          SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
          815 Superior Ave. E., Suite 1325
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (440) 498-9100
          E-mail: jfscld@yahoo.com


ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Settles Shareholder Suit for $275 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Randall Chase, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
Delaware judge signaled on March 4 that he will approve a $275
million settlement in a shareholder lawsuit alleging that
videogame maker Activision Blizzard was shortchanged in a
$6 billion buyback of shares from French media conglomerate
Vivendi SA in 2013.

Following a hearing on March 4, Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster
said there are outstanding legal and procedural issues he needs to
address, but that the settlement appears reasonable.

"I'm viewing this settlement favorably in terms of ending the
case," he said.

The lawsuit alleged that Activision executives and directors,
including Vivendi officials, breached their fiduciary duties by
entering into a deal that improperly benefited CEO Bobby Kotick
and co-chairman Brian Kelly.  The two men formed a partnership
that paid $2.3 billion for 172 million shares from Vivendi at the
same discount price at which Activision acquired 429 million
shares for $5.8 billion.  The company paid an additional $675
million for certain favorable tax attributes.

Joel Friedlander, an attorney for the lead shareholder plaintiff
in the case, told Vice Chancellor Laster that the $275 million
settlement is the largest ever in a derivative suit, in which
shareholders sue on behalf of a company.

"Any delay in its implementation will come at significant cost to
Activision and its stockholders," he said.

But Michael Hanrahan, an attorney for a shareholder who objected
to the settlement, argued that stockholders were not receiving any
consideration for the release of their damage claims because all
the settlement money was going to the company itself, instead of
shareholders.

Mr. Friedlander argued that the settlement does indeed benefit
shareholders of Santa Monica, Calif.-based Activision, maker of
the popular "World of Warcraft" and "Call of Duty" games.  He
noted that the deal calls for the addition of two new independent
directors to Activision's board and reduces the voting power of
Messrs. Kotick and Kelly.

The settlement calls for Vivendi to pay $67.5 million, with $207.5
million coming from the Activision defendants and their insurers.

Plaintiffs' attorneys are seeking $72 million of the settlement
proceeds for their fees and expenses, an amount that they
negotiated with the defendants and are asking the judge to
approve.


ALHADEFF LAW: Removes "Del Busto" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Del Busto v. The Alhadeff Law
Group, P.L., et al., Case No. 15-01042 CC 05, was removed from the
County Court in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20804-JAL to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit seeks relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edilberto O. Marban, Esq.
          1600 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 902
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 448-9292
          Facsimile: (305) 448-9477
          E-mail: marbanlaw@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Alexander Stephen Orlofsky, Esq.
          THE ORLOFSKY LAW FIRM, P.L.
          767 Arthur Godfrey Road
          Miami Beach, FL 33140
          Telephone: (305) 538-2344
          Facsimile: (305) 907-5248
          E-mail: alex@orlofskylawfirm.com


APOTHAKER SCIAN: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Simone Freeman, on behalf of herself and a class of similarly
situated persons v. Apothaker Scian P.C., David J. Apothaker,
Benjamin J. Cavallaro and Kimberly Scian, Case No. 2:15-cv-00981-
NIQA (E.D. Pa., February 25, 2015) accuses the Defendants of
violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter J. Kreher, Esq.
          KREHER & TRAPANI LLP
          1325 Spruce Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 907-7290
          Facsimile: (215) 907-7287
          E-mail: pete@krehertrapani.com


APPLE INC: Kicks Off Repair Program After MacBook Pro Complaints
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashleigh Allsopp, writing for MacWorld, reports that reports of
failing MacBook Pros have been flooding in since 2013, with many
owners of 2011 models with AMD graphics suffering from system
crashes and hardware problems that have been described as
"critical".  After a long wait, Apple has finally announced a
repair program.

Apple kicks off MacBook Pro repair program (at last)
Good news everyone! Apple on February 19, 2015 announced that it
is kicking off a repair program for some MacBook Pro models
suffering from the graphics issues we've described in this
article.

It's not officially a replacement program, but instead is titled
"MacBook Pro Repair Extension Program for Video Issues."

On its support page, Apple reveals that "it has determined that a
small percentage of MacBook Pro systems may exhibit distorted
video, no video or unexpected system restarts."

Affected MacBook Pros were apparently sold between February 2011
and December 2013, so if your MacBook was purchased during that
period of time then you may be eligible.

The specific symptoms described by Apple include distorted or
scrambled video on the computer screen, no video on the computer
screen (or external display) even though the computer is on, and
the computer restarts unexpectedly.

So, if you've got a MacBook Pro (15-inch Early 2011), MacBook Pro
(17-inch Early 2011), MacBook Pro (15-inch Late 2011), MacBook Pro
(17-inch Late 2011), MacBook Pro (Retina, 15-inch, Mid 2012),
MacBook Pro (Retina, 15-inch, Early 2013) then you're eligible to
take part in the repair program.

How to get your MacBook Pro repaired as part of Apple's program
If your Mac is eligible, you'll now need to back up your MacBook
Pro, and then bring it to an Apple Retail Store or Apple
Authorised Service Provider.  An Apple technician will then run a
diagnostic test to verify eligibility, and let you know how long
it'll take to repair.

Note, though, that if there is other damage to your MacBook Pro
that "prevents the repair" such as a cracked screen, they'll
charge you for the replacement of that. Aside from that, though,
the repair program is completely free (and so it should be!).

You'll be notified when your MacBook Pro has been fixed and is
ready to be collected, and fingers crossed the issue will have
been resolved.

The repair program kicks off in the US and Canada on February, 20
and in other countries from 27 February, and will run until
February 27, 2016 or three years from its original date of sale,
whichever of those provides longer coverage.

Since first publishing this story, we've had more than 750 readers
get in touch to let us know that they're experiencing the same
issue.  The huge thread on Apple's Support Communities has now
been viewed more than 4 million times and has more than 12,100
replies.

In August 2014, a petition that started last year urging Apple to
recall the affected MacBook Pro laptops to fix the problem passed
the 10,000-signature mark, and in October 2014 it soared past the
20,000 supporters mark, and it reached a total of 38,205 before
Apple finally addressed the issue.  It may in part also be due to
the class action lawsuit Apple was hit with in October in a
California court.

The lawsuit claims that the defect in the 2011 MacBook Pro comes
from the lead-free solder that's used to connect one of the
processing chips to the main circuit board in the computer.
According to the complaint, the frequent changes in temperature
that occur while using the MacBook Pro cause the lead-free solder
to crack, which in turn causes the graphics issues as described
above.

A very similar lawsuit was been filed in Canada, against Apple
Canada.

The problem, which first emerged in February 2013, escalated
throughout 2014 as more and more owners of the affected models
began to experience issues.  While playing games, watching HD
video or performing another graphics-intensive task, users have
witnessed their displays distorting, or sometimes going completely
blank.  Rebooting the machine temporarily resolves the issue, but
it almost always returns.

Eventually, many users found that their MacBook boots to a blue or
grey screen.  Currently, the only permanent resolution is to get a
replacement logic board, but that can prove quite costly without
Apple Care.  It's believed that overheating is to blame for the
issue.

Some of the readers who've been in touch have said that Apple has
replaced their 2011 MacBook Pro's logic board thanks to Apple
Care, with some customers even claiming to have had their logic
board replaced multiple times.

In the past, Apple has offered replacement hard drives for iMacs
containing 1TB Seagate hard drives that have been known to fail,
replacement MagSafe adapters, iBook logic board replacements back
in 2004, and, most recently, a MacBook Air flash storage drive
replacement program for June 2012 to June 2013 models.

Concerned owners of afflicted MacBooks have even set up a website
on which they've been sharing their photographs, plus a Facebook
page and a petition.


ARAB ELECTRIC: Removes "Kritner" Suit to Alabama District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Kritner v. Arab Electric
Cooperative, Case No. 50-CV-2015-900035.00, was removed from the
Marshall County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama (Middle).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-00341-VEH to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over contract dispute claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Clint L. Maze, Esq.
          BURKE BEUOY & MAZE, PC
          725 North Brindlee Mtn Parkway
          Arab, AL 35016
          Telephone: (256) 586-9000
          Facsimile: (256) 586-4162
          E-mail: clmaze@charter.net


ARIZONA PIPE TRADES: Class Certified in "Bryant" Action
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge G. Murrat Snow of the District of Arizona granted
in part and denied in part plaintiff's motion for class
certification in the case Wayne Bryant, Plaintiff/
Counterdefendant, v. Arizona Pipe Trades Pension Trust Fund, et
al., Defendants/Counterclaimants, CV-13-01563-PHX-GMS (D. Ariz.)

Plaintiff Wayne Bryant worked in the pipe trade profession subject
to collective bargaining agreements. He is a member of the America
Pipe Trades Pension Trust Fund (Pension Plan), a defined benefits
plan, and the Arizona Pipe Trades Defined Contribution Plan (DC
Plan). Pursuant to local union contracts, Mr. Bryant's employers
were required to make contributions to the Plans on Mr. Bryant's
behalf. Like many union members, Mr. Bryant's trade frequently
required him to work for employers outside of his local
jurisdiction, including in states such as Nevada and Colorado that
are covered by the United Association Reciprocity Program for
Pension Funds.

In 2004, the Trustees of the Plans allegedly approved Amendment 1
to the pension Plans, which provided that, for employees on whose
behalf reciprocal contributions were made at rates higher than
those required under the collective bargaining agreements, any
excess over the current hourly contribution rate would be paid
into participants' individual accounts in the DC Plan and credit
for the full amount of such excess contributions shall be given to
the participant. In May of 2004, the Plans were purportedly
amended again to provide that if a participant had not earned a
full pension credit during a year that reciprocal contributions
were paid on his behalf, all reciprocal contributions would be
paid into the Pension Plan and no money would be paid into the DC
Plan until after the participant had earned a full pension credit.

As a result, excess contributions were withheld from the DC Plan
for months longer than authorized under Amendment 1, without
interest. Amendment 2 amended the Plans retroactively, the parties
dispute whether it did so without notice to participants.

On August 24, 2007, Mr. Bryant began receiving installment
payments from the DC Plan. In January 2012, defendants asserted
that it had overpaid Mr. Bryant and requested that he repay the
alleged overpayments at eight percent interest. In July 2013,
plaintiff filed a putative class action on behalf of participants
in the Pension Plan for the Arizona Pipe Trades Defined
Contribution Plan brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. Section 1001 et
seq., for miscalculations of pension contributions in accordance
with the terms of the Plans, resulting in a loss of entitled
benefits for participants, and for breaches of the fiduciary duty
owed to the putative plaintiff class by defendants.

Plaintiff proffers two classes and one sub-class for
certification. Class 1 represents all DC plan participants who had
accrued benefits on or after June 1, 2002 and their eligible
spouses and beneficiaries. Sub-Class 1 includes all Class 1
members who had an account between June 1, 2002 and June 24, 2004,
and for whom excess contributions were received by the Pension
Plan on or after June 1, 2002. Class 2 comprises all participants
in the DC Plan as of November 30, 2008, for whom contributions
were received by Defendant Plans between June 1, 2008 and November
30, 2008 and their eligible spouses and beneficiaries. Plaintiff
contends that his and others' future benefits were diminished as a
result, and that the Defendants' actions violated various
provisions of the Plans and ERISA, and amounted to a breach of the
Trustees' fiduciary obligation.

Judge Snow granted in part and denied in part plaintiff's motion
for class certification, appointed Wayne Bryant as class
representative and the law firm of Martin & Bonnett P.L.L.C. as
class counsel.

The following classes are certified under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 for prosecution of Counts I, II, and III.

     1. Class 1: All DC plan participants who had accrued benefits
on or after June 1, 2002 and their eligible spouses and
beneficiaries.

     2. Sub-class 1: All Class 1 members who were DC Plan
participants between June 1, 2002 and June 24, 2004, and for whom
excess contributions were received by the Pension Plan on or after
June 1, 2002.

     3. Class 2: All participants in the DC Plan as of November
30, 2008 for whom contributions were received by the Plans between
June 1, 2008 and November 30, 2008 and their eligible spouses and
beneficiaries.

A copy of Judge Snow's order dated January 22, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/hRTW8ifrom Leagle.com.

Wayne Bryant, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Lynn Kroll,
Martin & Bonnett PLLC & Susan Joan Martin, Martin & Bonnett PLLC

Arizona Pipe Trades Pension Trust Fund, named as: Pension Plan for
the Arizona Pipe Trades Pension Trust Fund, Defendant, represented
by Jeffrey Dale Gardner, Jennings Strouss & Salmon PLC, Keith F
Overholt, Jennings Strouss & Salmon PLC & Michael James Keenan,
Ward Keenan & Barrett PC

Arizona Pipe Trades Pension Trust Board of Trustees, Plan
Administrator of the Pension Plan for the Arizona Pipe Trades
Pension Plan, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Dale Gardner,
Jennings Strouss & Salmon PLC, Keith F Overholt, Jennings Strouss
& Salmon PLC & Michael James Keenan, Ward Keenan & Barrett PC

Arizona Pipe Trades Defined Contribution Plan, Defendant,
represented by Jeffrey Dale Gardner, Jennings Strouss & Salmon
PLC, Keith F Overholt, Jennings Strouss & Salmon PLC & Michael
James Keenan, Ward Keenan & Barrett PC

Arizona Pipe Trades Defined Contribution Plan Board of Trustees,
Plan Administrator of the Arizona Pipe Trades Defined Contribution
Plan, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Dale Gardner, Jennings
Strouss & Salmon PLC, Keith F Overholt, Jennings Strouss & Salmon
PLC & Michael James Keenan, Ward Keenan & Barrett PC

Arizona Pipe Trades Defined Contribution Plan, Counter Claimant,
represented by Jeffrey Dale Gardner, Jennings Strouss & Salmon
PLC, Keith F Overholt, Jennings Strouss & Salmon PLC & Michael
James Keenan, Ward Keenan & Barrett PC

Arizona Pipe Trades Pension Trust Fund, named as: Pension Plan for
the Arizona Pipe Trades Pension Trust Fund, Counter Claimant,
represented by Jeffrey Dale Gardner, Jennings Strouss & Salmon
PLC,Keith F Overholt, Jennings Strouss & Salmon PLC & Michael
James Keenan, Ward Keenan & Barrett PC

Arizona Pipe Trades Defined Contribution Plan Board of Trustees,
Plan Administrator of the Arizona Pipe Trades Defined Contribution
Plan, Counter Claimant, represented by Jeffrey Dale Gardner,
Jennings Strouss & Salmon PLC, Keith F Overholt, Jennings Strouss
& Salmon PLC & Michael James Keenan, Ward Keenan & Barrett PC

Arizona Pipe Trades Pension Trust Board of Trustees, Plan
Administrator of the Pension Plan for the Arizona Pipe Trades
Pension Plan, Counter Claimant, represented by Jeffrey Dale
Gardner, Jennings Strouss & Salmon PLC, Keith F Overholt, Jennings
Strouss & Salmon PLC & Michael James Keenan, Ward Keenan & Barrett
PC

Wayne Bryant, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Counter Defendant, represented by Jennifer
Lynn Kroll, Martin & Bonnett PLLC & Susan Joan Martin, Martin &
Bonnett PLLC

Arizona Pipe Trades Defined Contribution Plan, Counter Claimant,
represented by Jeffrey Dale Gardner, Jennings Strouss & Salmon
PLC, Keith F Overholt, Jennings Strouss & Salmon PLC & Michael
James Keenan, Ward Keenan & Barrett PC

Arizona Pipe Trades Pension Trust Board of Trustees, Plan
Administrator of the Pension Plan for the Arizona Pipe Trades
Pension Plan, Counter Claimant, represented by Jeffrey Dale
Gardner, Jennings Strouss & Salmon PLC, Keith F Overholt, Jennings
Strouss & Salmon PLC & Michael James Keenan, Ward Keenan & Barrett
PC

Arizona Pipe Trades Defined Contribution Plan Board of Trustees,
Plan Administrator of the Arizona Pipe Trades Defined Contribution
Plan, Counter Claimant, represented by Jeffrey Dale Gardner,
Jennings Strouss & Salmon PLC, Keith F Overholt, Jennings Strouss
& Salmon PLC & Michael James Keenan, Ward Keenan & Barrett PC

Arizona Pipe Trades Pension Trust Fund, named as: Pension Plan for
the Arizona Pipe Trades Pension Trust Fund, Counter Claimant,
represented by Jeffrey Dale Gardner, Jennings Strouss & Salmon
PLC,Keith F Overholt, Jennings Strouss & Salmon PLC & Michael
James Keenan, Ward Keenan & Barrett PC

Wayne Bryant, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Counter Defendant, represented by Jennifer
Lynn Kroll, Martin & Bonnett PLLC & Susan Joan Martin, Martin &
Bonnett PLLC


ASTRAZENECA: Class Certification in Nexium Drug Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Timothy B. Dyk of the United States Court of
Appeals, First District, affirmed a district court's decision
granting class certification in the appealed case entitled IN RE
NEXIUM ANTITRUST LITIGATION. ASTRAZENECA AB, et al., Defendants-
Appellants, v. UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNIONS AND
EMPLOYERS MIDWEST HEALTH BENEFITS FUND, et al., Plaintiffs-
Appellees, NOS. 14-1521, 14-1522 (1st Cir.)

AstraZeneca sells a heartburn drug called Nexium and owns several
patents related to the Nexium compound, a method of using Nexium,
and the process for manufacturing Nexium. Three generic drug
companies, Ranbaxy, Teva, and DRL, sought to market generic forms
of Nexium. AstraZeneca sued these generic companies for
infringement of some of the Nexium patents. AstraZeneca eventually
settled with each generic manufacturer. Under the settlement
agreements, AstraZeneca paid the generic defendants significant
sums in the form of cash or debt forgiveness in exchange for not
challenging the validity of the Nexium patents and for delaying
the launch of their respective generic products until the two main
patents covering the drug product itself expired on May 27, 2014.

Plaintiffs are union health and welfare funds that reimburse plan
members for prescription drugs including Nexium. Plaintiffs
alleged that the Nexium patents are invalid because they would
have been obvious in light of earlier AstraZeneca patents and
other references. The European Patent Office and the Canadian
courts have held that the European and Canadian Nexium patents are
invalid.

Plaintiffs alleged that the settlement agreements between
AstraZeneca and the 3 generic companies constituted unlawful
agreements not to compete because of the likely invalidity of the
Nexium patents, the size of AstraZeneca's payments to the generic
defendants, and the fact that generic companies provided nothing
to AstraZeneca other than an agreement not to compete. Plaintiffs
contend that but for the 3 generic companies anti-competitive
conduct, a generic version of Nexium would have been available as
early as April 2008, thereby lowering the price through
competition. They asserted that AstraZeneca overcharged for Nexium
from April 14, 2008, to at least May 27, 2014. They claim damages
under the antitrust and consumer protection laws of 24 states and
the District of Columbia.6 The plaintiffs sought class
certification for a class of third-party payors, such as the named
plaintiffs, and individual consumers.

The district count handling the case granted plaintiffs' motion
for class certification. The defendants sought to appeal the class
certification.

Judge Dyke affirmed the decision of the district court in granting
the motion for class certification, expressing that the lower
court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class and
determining that at the certification stage, it had not shown that
the future proceedings would not be manageable consistent with
defendants' Seventh Amendment and due process rights.

A copy of Judge Dyk's opinion dated January 21, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/28BD0Cfrom Leagle.com.

Kannon K. Shanmugam, with whom Dane H. Butswinkas, Paul B.
Gaffney, John E. Schmidtlein, Williams & Connolly LLP, Laurence A.
Schoen, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., Jay
P. Lefkowitz,Karen N. Walker, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Kevin D.
McDonald, Jonathan Berman, Jones Day, Timothy C. Hester, Covington
& Burling LLP, Michael P. Kelly, William A. Zucker, McCarter &
English, LLP, Leslie F. Su, Minerva Law, P.C., J. Douglas
Baldridge, Lisa Jose Fales, Danielle R. Foley, Sarah Choi, and
Venable LLP were on brief, for defendants-appellants

Kenneth A. Wexler, with whom Wexler Wallace LLP, Steve D.
Shadowen, Hillard & Shadowen LLC, J. Douglas Richards, Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC, Jayne A. Goldstein, Pomerantz
Grossman Hufford, Dahlstrom & Gross LLP, Glen DeValerio, and
Berman DeValerio were on brief, for plaintiffs-appellees

Kathryn Comerfold Todd, Tyler R. Green, National Chamber
Litigation Center, Inc., Jeffrey S. Bucholtz,Ashley C. Parrish,
Karen F. Grohman, and King & Spaulding LLP, on brief for Chamber
of Commerce of the United States of America, as amicus curiae in
support of defendants-appellants

Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Prof. Joshua P. Davis,
Albert A. Foer, Richard Brunell, andRandy M. Stutz, on brief for
American Antitrust Institute, as amicus curiae in support of
plaintiffs-appellees

Ellen Meriwether, Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel, LLP, and
David A. Balto, on brief for Community Catalyst, Inc., National
Legislative Association for Prescription Drug Prices, United
States Public Interest Research Group, and American Independent
Business Alliance, as amici curiae in support of plaintiffs-
appellees

Scott L. Nelson and Julie A. Murray, on brief for Public Citizen
Litigation Group, as amicus curiae in support of plaintiffs-
appellees

The First Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges Timothy B. Dyk,
Juan R. Torruella and William J. Kayatta, Jr.


AUTOZONERS LLC: Faces "Carr" Suit in Alabama Over FLSA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hope M. Carr, Dwight Bryant, Jr., Allen S. Mobley, Jr., Mark W.
Clark, Jr., and Paul Loy, on behalf of themselves and other
persons similarly situated v. Autozoners LLC and AutoZone Stores
Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-00356-IPJ (N.D. Ala., February 27, 2015)
seeks relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John A. Wilmer, Esq.
          Walter A. Kelley, Esq.
          WILMER & LEE PA
          100 Washington Street, Suite 200
          P O Box 2168
          Huntsville, AL 35804-2168
          Telephone: (256) 533-0202
          Facsimile: (256) 533-0302
          E-mail: jwilmer@wilmerlee.com
                  wkelley@wilmerlee.com

               - and -

          Kevin W. Jent, Esq.
          Rocco Calamusa, Jr., Esq.
          WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER & GOLDFARB
          The Kress Building
          301 19th Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203-3204
          Telephone: (205) 314-0549
          Facsimile: (205) 254-1500
          E-mail: kjent@wigginschilds.com
                  rcalamusa@wigginschilds.com

               - and -

          Mitchell K. Shelly, Esq.
          ALEXANDER CORDER PLUNK & SHELLY, PC
          P O Box 1129
          Athens, AL 35612
          Telephone: (256) 232-1130
          Facsimile: (256) 232-6699
          E-mail: mshelly@acpbs.com


BRONX-LEBANON HOSPITAL: Removes "Recio" Suit to S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled Recio v. Bronx-Lebanon Hospital Center, Case
No. 20059/2015E, was removed from the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, County of the Bronx, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York (Foley Square).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01422-JGK to the proceeding.

The action alleges race and national origin discrimination,
disability discrimination and retaliation.  Plaintiff Marlene
Recio is a registered nurse licensed in the state of New York.
She is a Latina female and a United States citizen of Dominican
descent.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christine A. Rodriguez, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTINE A. RODRIGUEZ
          1350 Avenue of the Americas, 2nd Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 430-6525
          Facsimile: (888) 349-2932
          E-mail: christine@crodriguezlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Roy W. Breitenbfich, Esq.
          Courtney A. Rogers, Esq.
          GARFUNKEL WILD, P.C.
          111 Great Neck Road
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 393-2238
          Facsimile: (516) 466-5964
          E-mail: rbreitenbach@garfunkelwild.com
                  crogers@garfunkelwild.com


CANDICA LLC: Sued in Fla. for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Hansen, Beverly Hansen and Amy Lynn Mullins, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Candica, LLC, a
foreign limited liability company; Weinstein & Riley, P.S., Inc.
f/k/a Weinstein, Pinson & Riley, P.S., Inc., a foreign profit
corporation; Ophrys, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; and
Antio, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, Case No. 8:15-cv-
00425-CEH-TGW (M.D. Fla., February 27, 2015) alleges violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory Harrison Lercher, Esq.
          Ian Richard Leavengood, Esq.
          J. Andrew Meyer, Esq.
          LEAVENGOOD, DAUVAL, BOYLE & MEYER PA
          3900 First St N, Suite 100
          St. Petersburg, FL 33703-6109
          Telephone: (727) 327-3328
          Facsimile: (727) 327-3305
          E-mail: glercher@leavenlaw.com
                  ileavengood@leavenlaw.com
                  ameyer@leavenlaw.com


CARGILL INC: Accused of Harassment and Bias by Female Ex-Worker
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rita Carey v. Cargill, Inc.; Cargill, Inc. dba Cargill Salt; and
Does 1-50 inclusive, Case No. 3:15-cv-00922-WHO (N.D. Cal.,
February 27, 2015) alleges that for the duration of her
employment, the Plaintiff experienced harassment and
discrimination because she is a woman.

Cargill, Inc., doing business as Cargill Salt, is a 150-year old
multinational corporation that provides food, agriculture,
financial and industrial products to the world.  The Company does
business as Cargill Salt in Newark, California.  At the Newark
facility, Cargill processes and packages food and industrial grade
salt.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hunter Pyle, Esq.
          Tanya P. Tambling, Esq.
          SUNDEEN SALINAS & PYLE
          428 Thirteenth Street, 8th Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 663-9240
          Facsimile: (510) 663-9241
          E-mail: hpyle@ssrplaw.com
                  ttambling@ssrplaw.com


CBE GROUP: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, "Shasho" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Shasho, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. The CBE Group, Inc., John Does and John Does 1-25,
Case No. 3:15-cv-01549-FLW-LHG (D.N.J., February 27, 2015) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHATTEM INC: Removes "Wiltz" Suit to California District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Wiltz v. Chattem, Inc., et al.,
Case No. BC569573, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Los
Angeles).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-
01352 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts fraud-related claims.

Defendant Chattem, Inc. is represented by:

          Christopher M. Young, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP
          401 B Street, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101-4297
          Telephone: (619) 699-2700
          Facsimile: (619) 699-2701
          E-mail: christopher.young@dlapiper.com


CITIMORTGAGE INC: Removes "Kester" Suit to Arizona District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Kester v. CitiMortgage
Incorporated, et al., Case No. CV2014-014330, was removed from the
Maricopa County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona (Phoenix Division).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-00365-NVW to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of "All property owners in
Arizona whose properties were the subject of recordations by
Defendants Citi and CR in the Office of the County Recorder during
the applicable statutory limitations period that were notarized in
the State of Arizona by employees of Defendants at a time when
their Notary Licenses had been revoked or suspended."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
          Patricia Nicole Syverson, Esq.
          BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT PC
          2325 E Camelback Rd., Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 776-5902
          Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
          E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com
                  psyverson@bffb.com

               - and -

          David N. Lake, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID N LAKE
          16130 Ventura Blvd., Suite 650
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 788-5100
          Facsimile: (818) 788-5199
          E-mail: david@lakelawpc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Lauren Elliott Stine, Esq.
          QUARLES & BRADY LLP
          Renaissance One
          Two North Central Avenue
          Phoenix, AZ 85004-2391
          Telephone: (602) 229-5200
          E-mail: lauren.stine@quarles.com

               - and -

          Lucia Nale, Esq.
          Thomas V. Panoff, Esq.
          Christopher S. Comstock, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          71 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 782-0600
          Facsimile: (312) 701-7711
          E-mail: lnale@mayerbrown.com
                  tpanoff@mayerbrown.com
                  ccomstock@mayerbrown.com


COMMUNITY HEALTH: "Lutz" Suit Included in Security Breach MDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Lutz v. Community Health
Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-06433, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Alabama (Southern).  The Alabama District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:15-cv-00280-KOB to the proceeding.

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

The actions in the litigation arose from the alleged electronic
theft of personally identifiable information and personal health
information of approximately 4.5 million customers or patients of
common defendants Community Health Systems, Inc., and Community
Health Systems Professional Services Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian D. Penny, Esq.
          GOLDMAN SCARLATO KARON & PENNY PC
          101 E. Lancaster Ave., Suite 204
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Telephone: (484) 342-0700
          E-mail: penny@gsk-law.com

Defendant Community Health Systems Inc. is represented by:

          Daniel A. Cutler, Esq.
          Stuart Turville O'Neal, III, Esq.
          BURNS WHITE LLC
          100 Four Falls Suite 515
          1001 Conshohocken State Road
          West Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (484) 567-5700
          E-mail: soneal@burnswhite.com
                  dacutler@burnswhite.com

Defendant Community Health Systems Professional Services
Corporation is represented by:

          Theodore J. Kobus, III, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          45 Rockefeller Plaza
          New York, NY 10111
          Telephone: (212) 589-4200
          Facsimile: (212) 589-4201
          E-mail: tkobus@bakerlaw.com


COMMUNITY HEALTH: "Maes" Suit Included in Security Breach MDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Maes, et al. v. Community Health
Systems Professional Services Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:14-
cv-01090, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Mexico to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama (Southern).  The Alabama District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-00317-KOB to the proceeding.

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

The actions in the litigation arose from the alleged electronic
theft of personally identifiable information and personal health
information of approximately 4.5 million customers or patients of
common defendants Community Health Systems, Inc., and Community
Health Systems Professional Services Corporation.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Turner W. Branch, Esq.
          Margaret Moses Branch, Esq.
          Mary Lou Boelcke, Esq.
          BRANCH LAW FIRM
          2025 Rio Grande Blvd. NW
          Albuquerque, NM 87104
          Telephone: (505) 243-3500
          Facsimile: (505) 243-3534
          E-mail: tbranch@branchlawfirm.com
                  mbranch@branchlawfirm.com
                  mlboelcke@branchlawfirm.com

Defendant Community Health Systems Professional Services
Corporation is represented by:

          William C. Madison, Esq.
          Michael J. Dekleva, Esq.
          MADISON & MROZ PA
          201 Third Street NW, Suite 1600
          Albuquerque, NM 87102
          Telephone: (505) 242-2177
          Facsimile: (505) 242-7184
          E-mail: wcm@madisonlaw.com
                  mjd@madisonlaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel R. Warren, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP
          PNC Center, Suite 3200
          1900 E. 9th Street
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 621-0200
          Facsimile: (216) 696-0740
          E-mail: dwarren@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          1801 California Street, Suite 4400
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 861-0600
          Facsimile: (303) 861-7805
          E-mail: pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com


COMMUNITY HEALTH: "Murphy" Suit Included in Security Breach MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Murphy v. Community Health
Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00031, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
(Southern).  The Alabama District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:15-cv-00281-KOB to the proceeding.

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

The actions in the litigation arose from the alleged electronic
theft of personally identifiable information and personal health
information of approximately 4.5 million customers or patients of
common defendants Community Health Systems, Inc., and Community
Health Systems Professional Services Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clinton H. Scott, Esq.
          GILBERT RUSSELL MCWHERTER PLC
          101 North Highland Ave.
          Jackson, TN 38301
          Telephone: (731) 664-1340
          Facsimile: (731) 664-1540
          E-mail: cscott@gilbertfirm.com

               - and -

          Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq.
          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LTD
          PNC Park
          115 Federal Street Suite 210
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com
                  glynch@carlsonlynch.com
                  jetzel@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Evan Buxner, Esq.
          THE BUXNER LAW FIRM
          230 S Bemiston Avenue, Suite 500
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 863-6000

               - and -

          J. Douglas Gramling, Esq.
          ESTES, GRAMLING & ESTES PLC
          19 E Dickson Street
          Fayetteville, AR 72701
          Telephone: (479) 439-4124
          Facsimile: (479) 521-6730

               - and -

          Julia A. Beasley, Esq.
          BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES PC
          PO Box 4160
          Montgomery, AL 36103-4160
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: julia.beasley@beasleyallen.com

               - and -

          Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
          Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com
                  kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com


COMPLETE PAYMENT: Judge Narrows Claims in "Zarichny" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Stewart Dalzell of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion
in the case SANDRA ZARICHNY v. COMPLETE PAYMENT RECOVERY SERVICES,
INC. et al., CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-3197 (E.D. Pa.)

Plaintiff Sandra Zarichny is a college student who has on occasion
rented course books from her college. Over a six-month period in
2013, she received 11 phone calls from the defendant Complete
Payment Recovery Services, Inc. (CPRS) on her cell phone from
(800) 873-5869, a number unknown to her that appeared to have been
initiated by an automatic telephone dialing system, the last call
made was on November 23, 2013. At the time she was receiving such
call, she has no debt whatsoever.

Following the November 23, 2013 phone call, Zarichny called the
800 number to inquire why she was receiving these calls.  An
unidentified female informed her that she owed money for two
textbooks she had rented but not returned.  Zarichny disputed that
she owed money because she specifically remembered returning all
of her rented course books, and contends no debt ever existed and
she was never in default.

Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendants Fidelity National
Information Services (FIS) and CPRS, a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Fidelity. Plaintiff made an amended complaint and alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15
U.S.C., Section 1692 et se., and the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act of 1991 (TCPA), 447 U.S.C. Section 227 et seq. Plaintiff seeks
to bring this putative class action on behalf of herself and two
classes of similarly situated individuals pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.
P. 23.

Defendants move to dismiss the first amended complaint and strike
the putative class action claims. Defendants move to strike
Zarichny's class action allegations and dismiss all claims
asserted under the TCPA and FDCPA. They offer two reasons that
Zarichny's allegations against FIS must be dismissed in their
entirety. First, they contend that she failed to allege that FIS
placed any calls to her as the TCPA requires or acted as a debt
collector as the FDCPA defines that role. Second, they argue that
CPRS's acts may not be imputed to its parent company because
Zarichny has failed to allege that FIS dominates CPRS, or that
CPRS is either an instrumentality of FIS or a sham corporation.

Judge Dalzell granted in part and denied in part defendants'
motion. Judge Dalzell granted defendants' motion to dismiss
defendant FIS; and motion to strike the class allegations. He also
granted their motion to dismiss plaintiff's claim against CPRS
pursuant to the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692c, 1692d and 1692f,
but denied defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's claim against
CPRS pursuant to the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 et seq., and her
claim against CPRS pursuant to the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g.

A copy of Judge Dalzell's memorandum dated January 21, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/7eO4mLfrom Leagle.com.

SANDRA ZARICHNY, Plaintiff, represented by Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq.
-- ERayz@kalraylaw.com -- at KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC

     - and -

Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq.
CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP
2200 Renaissance Boulevard
King of Prussia, PA 19406
Telephone: 610-822-3700
Facsimile: 610-822-3800

COMPLETE PAYMENT RECOVERY SERVICES, INC., Defendant, represented
by Gerald E. Arth, Esq. -- garth@foxrothschild.com -- FOX
ROTHSCHILD O'BRIEN & FRANKEL LLP, Joshua Horn, Esq. --
jhorn@foxrothschild.com -- FOX ROTHSCHILD O'BRIEN & FRANKEL LLP &
Nicholas T. Solosky, Esq. -- nsolosky@foxrothschild.com -- at FOX
ROTHSCHILD LLP.


CSX CORP: Faces Class Action Over Train Derailment Damages
----------------------------------------------------------
Meghan Carr, writing for WNS-TV, reports that clean-up isn't the
only thing the CSX Corporation is dealing with now, a class action
lawsuit is filed against C-S-X and West Virginia American Water.

On Feb. 16 a train derailed in Mount Carbon, WV, causing several
towns surrounding the site to be evacuated immediately.

"A lot of folks left with the clothes on their back which were
pajamas and house slippers.  So it wasn't a situation where
anybody had any advanced warning and that's dramatic," said
Anthony Salvatore, a lawyer in the class action lawsuit.

As of Feb. 16 most of the residents affected by the train
derailment were allowed to return to their homes, and now
they begin to assess the damage done.  On Feb. 18 a class action
lawsuit was filed on behalf of Frank's Pizza and a resident in
Fayette County.  While there are only two named plaintiffs,
hundreds of people could be affected.

"The lawyers in the case will identify certain types of classes of
the multitudes of people.  Certain types of classes of claims for
example property damage only, injury claims only, property and
injury claims only," said Mr. Salvatore.

Mr. Salvatore says he's not representing big businesses, instead
small business owners and hardworking people.

"It's the corner pizza shop, it's the lady down the street, it's
the neighbor next door, it's average ordinary people that have
been displaced and have suffered in some form or another," said
Mr. Salvatore.

Mr. Salvatore said one reason they have filed this class action
suit is so they can bring in their own investigators to the site.
The Federal Railroad Association has said the train that derailed
was only going 33 mph in a 50 mph zone.  They have not commented
on whether the weather could have been a factor.


DANIEL C. CONSUEGRA: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ruben Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Law Office of Daniel C. Consuegra, P.L., a Florida Professional
Limited Liablity Company, and Dyck-O'Neal, Inc., a Texas
Corporation, Case No. 9:15-cv-80261-WPD (S.D. Fla., February 26,
2015) is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian William Warwick, Esq.
          Janet Robards Varnell, Esq.
          VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A.
          P.O. Box 1870
          Lady Lake, FL 32158
          Telephone: (352) 753-8600
          Facsimile: (352) 753-8606
          E-mail: bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com
                  jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com

               - and -

          Austin Tyler Brown, Esq.
          PARKER , DUFRESNE, P.A.
          8777 San Jose Blvd., Suite 301
          Jacksonville, FL 32217
          Telephone: (904) 733-7766
          Facsimile: (904) 733-2919
          E-mail: abrown@jaxlawcenter.com


DIAMOND SUPPLY: Removes "Nall" Suit to California District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Marcus Nall v. Diamond Supply
Company, et al., Case No. BC527457, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Central
District, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Los Angeles).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:15-cv-01420-PA-PLA to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges a cause of action arising under the laws of
the United States, including the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Alan Harris, Esq.
          HARRIS AND RUBLE
          4771 Cromwell Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90027
          Telephone: (323) 962-3777
          Facsimile: (323) 962-3004
          E-mail: aharris@harrisandruble.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          David H. Boren, Esq.
          Gregory N. Weisman, Esq.
          RITHOLZ LEVY SANDERS CHIDEKEL AND FIELDS LLP
          421 South Beverly Drive, 8th Floor
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 282-9449
          Facsimile: (310) 282-2549
          E-mail: dboren@rlscf.com
                  gweisman@rlscf.com


DOLE FOOD: CEO Heads to Court to Defend 2013 Buyout
---------------------------------------------------
Tom Hals, writing for Reuters, reports that Pineapple king
David Murdock was set to head to a Delaware court on Feb. 23 to
defend his 2013 buyout of Dole Food Co. Inc. against shareholders
who claim they were short-changed and want more cash.

Shareholders allege that Mr. Murdock, 91, drove down the value of
Dole, the world's largest fruit and vegetable producer, through
dealings that allowed him to buy the 60 percent of the company he
did not own for $13.50 a share, or about $1.6 billion.

Shareholders have taken aim at Mr. Murdock and Deutsche Bank,
which provided financing and is alleged to have aided Murdock's
scheme.

Mr. Murdock's lawyers said in court papers he overpaid for Dole
stock, and ran a fair and thorough sale process.

The union pension funds that brought the Delaware case focused on
the cozy relationship between Mr. Murdock and Deutsche Bank, which
are alleged to have carried out his plan in a bid for financing
fees.

The bank financed Mr. Murdock's previous management buyout of Dole
in 2003 and acted as an underwriter when he took the company
public in 2009.

Mr. Murdock, a self-made billionaire, was expected to testify on
Feb. 23 about his relations with the special committee of Dole's
board that was meant to negotiate for shareholders.

"There is evidence that Murdock had previously threatened and
taken punitive action against directors who did not accede to his
wishes," wrote Travis Laster, the judge hearing the case, in a
Feb. 5 order which sent the dispute to the nine-day trial.

Mr. Laster of the Court of Chancery in Delaware, where Dole was
incorporated, has earned a reputation for his tough line with
conflicted advisers and bankers in the sales of the ambulance
operator Rural/Metro and Del Monte Foods Co.  Shareholders in both
cases ended up recovering around $90 million, in part by showing
bankers rigged the sale process to secure financing fees.

Deutsche Bank declined to comment and Dole did not respond to a
request for comment.

The Dole trial will determine the outcome of two different
lawsuits.

One is a class action on behalf of all former Dole shareholders,
which turns in part on whether the sale process was fair.

Separately, several hedge funds have brought an appraisal action
in which they asked Mr. Laster to determine a fair price for their
Dole stock, regardless of the process.

The cases are In re Dole Food Co Inc Stockholder Litigation and In
re Appraisal of Dole Food Co Inc, Delaware Court of Chancery, Nos.
8703 and 9079.


DREAM ON ME: Recalls 2-in-1 Bassinet to Cradles
-----------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Dream on Me Inc., of South Plainfield, N.J., announced a voluntary
recall of about 13,000 2-in-1 Bassinet to Cradle. Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The wire supports on the sides of the bassinet can disconnect
causing the fabric sides to lower; posing a risk that infant can
fall out or become entrapped and suffocate.

This recall involves the 2-in-1 Bassinet to Cradle, sold in pink,
blue, green, and white. The bassinet has metal frame supports and
fabric sides with a removable half-canopy on the top.  The frame
can also be adjusted with two rocking legs on each end of the
bassinet. It is designed with fabric handles and the option to
remove the bassinet from the frame to use the bassinet portion as
a "by the bed" sleeper product. The recalled model numbers are
439-A, 439-B, 439-G, 439-P and 439-W and can be found on a tag
which is located under the mattress pad of the bassinet. This tag
is a removable tag you see in the store but is removed prior to
use.

Dream on Me has received one incident of the wire frame support
bracket failing and the fabric portion of the bassinet collapsing
while an infant was asleep in the cradle.  No injuries have been
reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/vh9khW

The recalled products were manufactured in China by Shanghaid
Daafu Baby, of China and sold at Amazon.com, Walmart.com,
Wayfair.com, ToysRUs.com and Kohls.com from May 2012 to October
2014 for about $60.

Consumers should immediately stop using the product and contact
Dream On Me to obtain a free repair. In the meantime, parents are
urged to find an alternate, safe sleeping environment for the
child, such as a crib that meets current safety standards or play
yard depending on the child's age.


EBAY INC: Faces New Class Suit for Collecting of Final Value Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EBay collects "final value fees" on unfinished transactions,
despite assurances that it does not, a class alleges, echoing
claims from ongoing federal litigation.

The case is captioned Joel Duncan v. EBay Inc., in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara.


ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued for Misrepresenting Testosterone Drug
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Smith and Christina Smith v. Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., Endo
International, PLC, Watson Laboratories, and Actavis Pharma, Inc.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-01767 (N.D. Ill., February 27, 2015) is brought
on behalf of the Plaintiff, who was prescribed and supplied with,
received and who has taken and applied the prescription drug
Testosterone Enanthate manufactured, produced and sold by the
Defendants.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants misrepresented that
Testosterone Enanthate is a safe and effective treatment for
hypogonadism or "low testosterone," when in fact the drugs cause
serious medical problems, including life threatening cardiac
events, strokes, and thrombolytic events.

Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Malvern, Pennsylvania.  Endo Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Endo International PLC -- a
corporation headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.

Watson Laboratories, Inc., is a Nevada Corporation, a subsidiary
of Watson Pharmaceuticals, with its principal place of business in
Corona, California.  Actavis Pharma, Inc., is a Delaware
corporation headquartered in Parsippany, New Jersey.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
          Corey G. Lorenz, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 W. Monroe St. Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60614
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
          E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
                  cgr@wexlerwallace.com


ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS: Faces "Fisher" Suit Alleging FCRA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Keana Fisher, individually, and on behalf of of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Enterprise Holdings, Inc., a Missouri
Corporation, and Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of Los Angeles,
LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-00372-AGF (E.D. Mo., February 26, 2015)
alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Christopher Wehrle, Esq.
          WEHRLE LAW LLC
          7750 Clayton Road, Suite 102
          St. Louis, MO 63117
          Telephone: (314) 614-4843
          E-mail: chris@wehrlelaw.com


ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Faces Suit Over Patients' Records
------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Monica Pais reports that the
operators of Aventura Hospital in Miami failed to safeguard
patient records, leaving them vulnerable to identity theft and
exposure of their personal health information, a class claims in
court.

In a complaint filed in Miami Federal Court, named plaintiff
Kellie Lynn Case says she is one of thousands of current and
former patients whose personal information was entrusted to
defendants Hospital Corporation of America and Envision Healthcare
Corporation.

Unfortunately, she says, defendants failed to safeguard their
patients' sensitive information, including their names, dates of
birth, and protected health information as defined by the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act or HIPAA.

Upon admission to their hospitals and facilities defendants
provided patients with a "Notice of Privacy Practices" stating
that they would keep their information confidential.  This notice
is also available on their websites.

Case says that defendants used their data security and management
practices statements through their privacy policies and public
representations "to falsely inflate the advertised utility of
their services, thus allowing Aventura Hospital to charge patients
higher costs for treatment."

On September 2014, Case claims that defendants told their patients
that without authorization an employee managed to get access to
over 85,000 patient records at the Aventura Hospital during a
period of nearly two years, from September 13, 2012 thru June 9,
2014.

"Unfortunately, it took a large-scale medical data breach to
reveal -- for the third time -- that defendants failed to provide
their patients with the level of data protection that they
promised and paid for," the complaint says.

The complaint claims that due to their lack of security services
and failure to protect their patients' electronically-stored
confidential information defendants violated the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act and the Industry Standard Data
Protection Protocols.

According to Florida Statutes the "patient's records are
confidential and must not be disclosed without the consent of the
patient or his or her legal representative."

Defendants failed to properly train and supervise their employees
who were in charge of viewing and accessing the records of their
patients; making it easier for them to steal and misuse sensitive
information, the complaint claims.

Case says that she did not receive all of the services that she
paid for in the Aventura Hospital, and that that if she would have
known of defendants' failure to protect their patients
information, she would have paid less for their services or would
not have paid anything at all.  She seeks compensatory damages for
breach of express contract, breach of implied contract and unjust
enrichment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edmund Normand, Esq.
          NORMAND LAW PLLC
          4381 New Broad Street
          Orlando, FL 32814-6045
          Telephone: (407) 625-9043
          E-mail: Ed@EdNormand.com


EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Settles Wage Class Action for $4 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Lowrey and Ben James, writing for Law360, report that
Equinox Holdings Inc. will pay up to $4 million to settle claims
that it failed to fully pay or provide breaks to more than 1,000
massage therapists, aestheticians and nail technicians in
California under a deal preliminarily approved on Feb. 20,
according to a court official.

The proposed settlement includes a maximum payout of $4 million,
including $1.2 million in attorney's fees, a Private Attorney
General Act payment of $18,750 to the California Labor and
Workforce Development Agency, and payments of $25,000 each to the
three named plaintiffs.  Up to $2.6 million will be available for
class members' claims, and Equinox will pay class members at least
$1.3 million, according to the motion for preliminary approval of
the deal.

Plaintiffs Nicole Leisinger-Reed, Tanya L. Fox and Ve Magni sued
in March 2012, alleging Equinox failed to pay all wages owed to
its non-exempt service providers at 18 California locations failed
to provide meal and rest breaks.  All three worked at Equinox's
club in West Hollywood.

The parties reached their agreement while the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification was pending.  The plaintiffs dropped the
motion in October while negotiating the terms of the deal,
according to court documents.

The deal gives participating class members at least $22.94 for
each shift worked during the class period from March 2008 to
October 2014, according to the settlement motion.  In exchange,
the class will release Equinox of claims from March 29, 2008
through Oct. 7, 2014 that could reasonably have arisen from the
same facts.

Equinox recently settled another class action brought by
California workers alleging labor law violations.

In April 2014, Equinox paid $2.9 million to hundreds of membership
sales advisers who said they weren't paid proper overtime wages or
provided meal breaks.

The class is represented by Michael D. Singer, Jeff Geraci and
Kimberly D. Neilson -- kneilson@ckslaw.com -- of Cohelan Khoury &
Singer, and Andrea L. Cook and Julie A. Langslet --
contactus@alcooklaw.com -- of Andrea Cook & Associates.

Equinox is represented by Frank M. Liberatore --
LiberatF@jacksonlewis.com -- Chad D. Bernard --
BernardC@jacksonlewis.com -- Shagha Balali and Nancy Villarreal of
Jackson Lewis LLP.

The case is Nicole Leisinger-Reed et al. v. Equinox Holdings Inc.
et al., case number BC481860, in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Los Angeles.


EVEREST COLLEGE: Ottawa Lawyer Mulls Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Meghan Hurley, writing for Ottawa Citizen, reports that on the
same day Everest College filed for bankruptcy protection following
the closure of its 14 Ontario campuses, an Ottawa lawyer says he's
considering a class-action lawsuit against the school and its
California-based parent company.

Michael Crystal with Ottawa's Spiteri and Ursulak law firm said
he's been in contact with several students since the Ministry of
Training, Colleges and Universities suspended the career college's
registration in the province.

"(Students) should have been advised that there could be
complications in completing their year," Mr. Crystal said.  "It
sounds like a number of them were caught off-guard and were about
to graduate."

Mr. Crystal said many of the students affected are single mothers
who took out loans to pay for school and paid for their children
to attend daycare while they completed their education.

As Mr. Crystal investigated the impact of the school closure on
potential clients, Everest College's parent company, Corinthian
Colleges, said in a statement it was forced to file for bankruptcy
protection when the Ministry of Training, Colleges and
Universities suspended its registration.

"We are extremely disappointed that the ministry has taken these
abrupt actions," Jack Massimino, the chairman and CEO of
Corinthian Colleges, said in a statement.  "Our Canadian
subsidiary had been working with the ministry for an extended
period of time with the goal of achieving a satisfactory outcome
for students, employees and other stakeholders in Canada."

Reza Moridi, minister of Training, Colleges and Universities,
released a statement on Feb. 20 on the Everest College situation.

The minister said the province and the superintendent of private
career colleges would "work to assess student access to training
completion opportunities or refunds, depending on student choice.
The Superintendent and Ministry staff will do everything they can
to facilitate training completions.  The government is also
committed to helping displaced workers and affected communities
get back on their feet as soon as possible."

Corinthian Colleges said Everest College had about 2,450 students
and 450 employees in Ontario at the time the campuses were closed.

Shocked students gathered outside the St. Laurent Centre campus on
Feb. 19, struggling to understand what happened.

Students were told they might get only a partial refund of their
tuition, which would make it almost impossible for many to switch
to another school.

On Feb. 20, some students seemed to catch a break. Michelle Scott,
a single mother who was taking the personal support worker
program, said she has enrolled in Herzing College's personal
support worker program.

The offer to transfer to Herzing College still stands even if
Scott doesn't receive a full refund from Everest College, Scott
said.

"I've never had anybody in my entire life do something out of the
kindness of their heart in such a great way," Scott said. "It's
the most beautiful thing. I couldn't believe it."

Dave McCormick, the president of Herzing College's St. Laurent
Centre campus, said the school will absorb the cost of Scott's
course if she isn't given a refund from Everest College.

Mr. McCormick said Herzing College is trying to accommodate as
many displaced students as they can by reducing tuition by
whatever students have already paid to Everest College.

When Algonquin College president Cheryl Jensen --
rachelj@rgrdlaw.com -- heard about the closure, she contacted the
ministry to let them know the college is available to help.

Ms. Jensen said a meeting will be planned so displaced students
can get information about transferring to Algonquin College.  Ms.
Jensen said she encourages all students -- even those without a
high school education -- to apply to a similar program at
Algonquin College.  As a mature student, they can still be
considered for the program.

Everest College was looking for a new owner last July after its
parent, Corinthian Colleges, said it planned to sell or close all
Ontario campuses.

The company previously came under scrutiny when allegations that
Corinthian Colleges falsified job-placement data in marketing
claims led to an investigation by the U.S. Department of
Education, which resulted in financial strains when federal funds
were withheld.

Corinthian Colleges then agreed to close about a dozen campuses in
the U.S. and place the rest up for sale.

In the Feb. 20 news release, the minister of Training, Colleges
and Universities included "important facts" for students:

   * Affected students are encouraged to assemble and maintain
detailed records regarding their progress in their program, and
any payments they may have made to Everest College in relation to
that program.

   * Students can contact the ministry by e-mail at
TCAF-TCU@ontario.ca or at (416) 314-0500 or toll free 1-866-330-
3395. Staff of Everest College can call the Employment Ontario
hotline at 1-800-387-5656 for assistance.

   * Information packages, including information on how to
complete a TCAF student claim package, were distributed to
students at Everest campuses on Feb. 19.  Affected students who
were not able to receive an information package, or have more
questions related to TCAF, should contact the ministry at TCAF-
TCU@Ontario.ca

   * It is the superintendent's role to arrange training
completions.  Students who make their own arrangements may
inadvertently impact their eligibility for funding from the
Training Completion Assurance Fund.

   * Students who are seeking training completions through the
Training Completion Assurance Fund (TCAF) should ensure the
superintendent has their contact information.  They may also wish
to collect the necessary documents and information in preparation
for submitting their TCAF student claim package.  They should
contact the ministry if they need an information package or have
any further questions.

   * For OSAP students who choose to complete their training at
another institution, the government will ensure that their loans
do not enter repayment until six months after the completion date
of their new training.  For students who choose not to complete
their training at another institution, loans will not be due for
repayment until six months after the date that they would have
completed their program had Everest College not closed.


FLOW SPORTS: Recalls Snowboard Bindings Due to Fall Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Flow Sports Inc., of San Clemente, Calif., announced a voluntary
recall of about 10,400 Flow 2014 Flite-series snowboard bindings.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

A pin can disengage and cause the binding to open, posing a fall
hazard.

This recall involves Flow 2014 Flite-series snowboard bindings
with model names Flite, Haylo, Micron Youth, Flite LTD and Flite
MTN. The bindings have a snaplock lever on the rear, a cable
adjustment dial on the side of the baseplate, a matte texture
finish on the baseplate and a glossy "Flow" and Flow's logo on the
hiback. They are black; black and white; black, white and blue; or
black, white, blue and yellow. "Flow" is printed on the side of
the bindings.

Flow Sports has received 30 reports of the pins disengaging from
the bindings. No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/Has0fS

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Dick's Sporting Goods, EVO, SNSboards, Sport Chalet, The House,
Wired Sport, Zumiez and other stores nationwide and online from
July 2014 through February 2015 for between $110 and $150 for the
bindings.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled snowboard
bindings and contact Flow Sports for a free repair or to return
the bindings for free replacement bindings or a full refund.


FOOD SERVICE: Faces Class Action in Conn. Over FLSA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Harding and Ben James, writing for Law360, report that a
food service management company that serves 8 million meals a day
is accused of shirking overtime pay by misclassifying assistant
managers, in a Fair Labor Standards Act class action filed on
Feb. 19 in a Connecticut federal court.

Carla Rosario, who worked in a cafe in the Mohegan Sun Casino in
Montville, Conn., accused Compass Group USA of classifying her and
other assistant managers as exempt employees even though they
regularly spend more than 50 percent of their time performing
manual labor, including cooking, baking, replenishing the salad
and soup bar, and washing dishes.

"The primary value of assistant managers to defendant is not any
managerial tasks they may perform, but rather the nonexempt,
manual labor they perform for defendant," the complaint said.

In addition to dining services in schools, arenas, museums and
other locations, Compass also has provided catering services for
the U.S. Open, the Academy Awards and the 2002 Olympic Winter
Games, according to its website.

According to the complaint, Ms. Rosario worked in the cafe from
11:00 p.m. to 9 a.m. five days per week, and frequently worked
more than the 50 hours she was scheduled.

"Assistant managers are paid on a salaried basis, at a flat weekly
rate, regardless of how many hours they worked per week," the
complaint said.  "Assistant managers' compensation is comparable
to that of defendant's nonexempt employees when the overtime they
spend on the job is taken into account."

Ms. Rosario said she did not have the authority to hire or fire
employees without approval from the human resources department,
was closely supervised by more senior employees, and did not have
to "exercise discretion or independent judgment on matters of
significance," the complaint said.

She is seeking unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.  The
potential size of the class is not stated in the complaint.
Compass employs more than 220,000 associates in North America,
according to its website.

In February 2014, Compass agreed to pay a maximum of $5 million to
settle a class action brought on behalf of an estimated 22,000
current and former workers.  A former baker filed the suit in a
California court in 2010 accusing Compass of failing to pay hourly
and overtime wages and failure to provide rest and meal periods.
The plaintiffs claimed Compass' work demands led to employees
working off the clock, which resulted in workers not getting the
proper hourly and overtime pay.

Ms. Rosario is represented by Richard E. Hayber --
rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com -- of Hayber Law Firm LLC.

The case is Rosario v. Compass Group USA LLC, case number 3:15-cv-
00241, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.


FOREST LABORATORIES: 1st Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Lexapro Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parents in California cannot compel manufacturers to replace FDA-
approved labels of antidepressant Lexapro, which they say
overstates the effectiveness of the drug, reports Rose
Bouboushian, citing a 1st Circuit ruling.

Randy and Bonnie Marcus filed a class action in Los Angeles
Federal Court in May 2013, claiming Forest Laboratories Inc. and
Forest Pharmaceuticals Inc. falsely advertised antidepressant
medication Lexapro, in violation of state consumer protection
laws.  The couple says they bought Lexapro to treat their
adolescent son's depression in April 2009, based on its FDA-
approved label, only to find it no more effective than a placebo.

According to the complaint, the FDA's standards for approving
antidepressants are "minimal," as the agency accepted "flawed" and
"fraudulent" data from studies of Lexapro and Celexa, another
selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor.

The Marcuses say that "data was manipulated to create the
appearance of statistical significance" in the Celexa study, while
the Lexapro study showed a clinically insignificant difference
between that drug and a placebo for acute treatment of depression
in adolescents.

The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction on behalf of all
Californians who purchased Lexapro for an adolescent from March
2009 to present, and assert violations of the state's Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition
Law.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the
case to Massachusetts as part of In re Celexa and Lexapro
Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation.

The Massachusetts court then granted Forest's motion to dismiss,
relying on Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act preemption and
California's safe harbor doctrine.

The 1st Circuit affirmed the lower court's ruling February 20,
finding that federal law impliedly preempts the Marcuses' claims
because the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act prohibits Forest
from independently changing its FDA-approved label.

The judge tossed aside the plaintiffs' request that Forest change
Lexapro's label, which federal law says must reflect "newly
acquired" information.

"We find only two fleeting references to academic articles
published after the FDA's approval of the Lexapro label," Judge
William Kayatta, said, writing for the three-judge panel.
"Plaintiffs make no claim that these two academic articles are
based on new data.  They instead contend that these two studies
are metaanalyses that were not included in Forest's submission to
the FDA."

The judge later added: "We can find no precedent -- and plaintiffs
point to none -- that would have allowed Forest to use the
[changes being effected] CBE procedure to alter the FDA label in
the manner that plaintiffs allege is necessary so as to render it
not 'misleading.'  Indeed, plaintiffs seem to concede this in
their prayer for relief, as they ask the court to 'direct[] Forest
to seek FDA approval of a new [drug] label.'

"Plaintiffs are thus stymied: Forest could not independently
change its label to read as plaintiffs say it should have read in
order to comply with California law," the ruling continues.  "That
construction of California law upon which plaintiffs rely -- even
assuming it is correct notwithstanding the safe harbor doctrine --
is therefore preempted by federal law."

Actavis, which acquired Forest last year, reportedly earned more
than $4.63 billion in revenue in 2014.

The Appellant is represented by:

          R. Brent Wisner, Esq.
          BAUM, HEDLUND, ARISTEI & GOLDMAN, P.C.
          12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 207-3233
          E-mail: RBWisner@baumhedlundlaw.com

The Appellee is represented by:

          Edwin G. Schallert, Esq.
          DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP
          919 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 909-6000
          Facsimile: (212) 909-6836
          E-mail: egschall@debevoise.com

The appellate case is Randy and Bonnie Marcus, on behalf of
themselves and all other persons similarly situated Plaintiffs,
Appellants v. Forest Laboratories, Inc. and Forest
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Defendants, Appellees, Case No. 14-1290, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.  The
District Court case is Randy and Bonnie Marcus v. Forest
Laboratories, Inc. and Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No.
13-11343-NMG, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.


FORTEGRA FINANCIAL: Settles Class Action Over Tiptree Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Schulte Roth & Zabel
LLP regarding the Fortegra Financial Corporation Securities
Litigation:

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
IN AND FOR DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA

IN RE FORTEGRA FINANCIAL
CORPORATION SHAREHOLDER
LITIGATION

Case No. 16-2014-CA-005825-XXXX-MA

SUMMARY NOTICE

IF YOU HELD COMMON STOCK OF FORTEGRA FINANCIAL CORPORATION ON
AUGUST 12, 2014, YOU COULD BE A CLASS MEMBER IN A CLASS-ACTION
SETTLEMENT

A settlement has been proposed in a class-action lawsuit pending
in the Circuit Court for the Fourth Judicial Circuit, in and for
Duval County, Florida between plaintiffs Shiva Y. Stein and Carol
Hickey ("Plaintiffs"); Fortegra Financial Corporation
("Fortegra"); Tiptree Operating Company, LLC, Tiptree Financial
Inc., Caroline Holdings, LLC, and Carolina Merger Sub, Inc.
(together, "Tiptree"); and certain individual defendants that
comprise Fortegra's Board of Directors (together, with Fortegra
and Tiptree, the "Defendants").  If you are a class member in the
class-action settlement (a "Settlement Class Member"), you (1)
will be bound by any judgment entered in this Action whether or
not you actually receive this Notice; and (2) may not opt out of
the Settlement Class.

Class Membership. You are a Settlement Class Member if you were a
record holder or beneficial owner of common stock of Fortegra
(together with its predecessors, successors, parents,
subsidiaries, divisions, and affiliates) on August 12, 2014 and
held such shares through and including December 4, 2014, the
closing date of the merger.

Subject Matter of Lawsuit.  On August 11, 2014, Fortegra and
Tiptree entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, pursuant to
which Tiptree would acquire Fortegra for $10.00 per share of
Fortegra common stock (the "Merger").  In connection with the
execution of the Merger Agreement, certain majority stockholders
executed a Written Consent of Stockholders in Lieu of Meeting,
thereby approving the Merger and eliminating the need for a
shareholder vote on it.  Fortegra and Tiptree jointly announced
the Merger the following day.  The Plaintiffs challenged the
merger on the grounds that, among other things, the Fortegra board
of directors breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the
Merger, the Agreement and Plan of Merger, and the disclosures made
by Fortegra concerning the Merger.

Settlement Terms.  In consideration for the settlement and, among
other things, the dismissal with prejudice of the class-action
lawsuit, the Company and Tiptree agreed to make and made the
Supplemental Disclosures regarding the Merger in a Form 8-K filed
with the SEC on or about October 14, 2014.

Options for Class Members.  Any Settlement Class Member may, but
is not required to, appear at the Settlement Hearing in person or
by counsel and be heard in support of, or in opposition to, the
Settlement, the entry of the Order and Final Judgment, or any
other matter to be considered at the Settlement Hearing.  If a
Settlement Class Member wishes to oppose or contest the Settlement
at the Settlement Hearing, the Settlement Class Member must follow
the procedures set forth in the "Notice of the Settlement to
Settlement Class Members," available on the website at
www.fortegrafinancialshareholderlitigation.com.

For more information:  Call toll free 1-877-297-1200; visit the
website at www.fortegrafinancialshareholderlitigation.com or write
to Fortegra Financial Shareholder Litigation, c/o Gilardi & Co.
LLC, P.O. Box 990 Corte Madera, CA 94976-0990.


FPI MANAGEMENT: Nordrehaug & Bhowmik Files Class Action in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed on December 23, 2014 by the San
Francisco employment attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik
against FPI Management, Inc.  The complaint alleges that FPI
Management, Inc. failed to compensate their California hourly
employees the proper overtime wages and also allegedly failed to
provide the proper meal and rest periods.  The FPI Management
class action, Case No. 34-2014-00173218 is currently pending in
the Sacramento County Superior Court for the State of California.

The class action lawsuit alleges that FPI Management, Inc. failed
to provide their California employees paid on an hourly basis the
correct overtime wages.  The California Labor Code makes it
mandatory for employers to pay their employees overtime wages at
1.5 times the employees' regular rate of pay when an employee
works more than eight hours in a workday and/or in excess of forty
hours in a workweek.

Furthermore, the complaint alleges that FPI Management, Inc. did
not provide their employees with thirty minute uninterrupted meal
breaks prior to their fifth hour of work due to the company
allegedly failing to have a proper meal break policy.

In addition, the Class Action also asserts a claim for alleged
unpaid reporting time wages stemming from Defendant's alleged
requirement that their California employees respond to calls and
engage in additional work performing various maintenance tasks
and/or providing assistance to tenants who have been locked out of
their apartments, among other things.  California law requires an
employer to pay an employee for two (2) hours at the employee's
regular rate of pay when an employee is required to report to work
for a second time in any one workday and is given less than two
(2) hours of work on the second reporting.

For more information about the class action lawsuit against FPI
Management, Inc. call (866) 771-7099 to speak to an experienced
San Francisco employment attorney today.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is a San Francisco employment law
firm that represents employees in California who have been
wrongfully terminated, denied proper overtime pay, denied payment
of earned commission wages, and also employees who have been
improperly denied their meal and rest breaks.


FRESENIUS USA: Suit Over GranuFlo & NaturaLyte Stays in Dist. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Jesus G. Bernal of the Central District of
California denied plaintiffs' motion to remand the case Jeretha
Baker, et al. v. Fresenius USA, Inc., et al., CASE NO. 14-9698-JGB
(AGRX) (C.D. Cal.)

Jeretha Baker and 49 other individuals filed a complaint against
the defendants Fresenius USA, Inc., Fresenius USA Manufacturing,
Inc., Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc., Fresenius Medical
Care North America, Inc., Fresenius USA Marketing, Inc., Walter L.
Weisman, Ben Lipps, and fictitious persons in the Superior Court
of California, County of Los Angeles, on June 27, 2014. The
complaint asserted products liability claims related to personal
injuries and death resulting from the use of defendants' products
GranuFlo Dry Acid Concentrate and NaturaLyte Liquid Acid
Concentrate.

Numerous other "GranuFlo/NaturaLyte" cases were also filed in
California state courts and on July 16, 2014, the plaintiffs filed
a request to coordinate their claims into the  judicial council
coordinated proceedings (JCCP) in which the JCCP court granted the
petition.

Defendants filed their Notice of Removal on December 18, 2014.
Plaintiffs moved to remand on January 20, 2015.

Chief District Judge Bernal denied plaintiffs' motion to remand
and vacated a March 2, 2015, hearing, expressing that the
defendants timely removed within 30 days following the issuance of
a case that changed the law so as to render removable a previously
non-removable case.

A copy of Chief Judge Bernal's order dated February 26, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/UHDlTyfrom Leagle.com.

Jeretha Baker, Plaintiff, represented by Baharak Dejban, Khorrami
Boucher, LLP, Helen E Zukin, Kiesel Law LLP, Matthew A Young,
Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Raymond Paul
Boucher, Khorrami Boucher LLP & Shawn Khorrami, Khorrami Boucher,
LLP

Johnnie Costello, Plaintiff, represented by Baharak Dejban,
Khorrami Boucher, LLP, Helen E Zukin, Kiesel Law LLP, Matthew A
Young, Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Raymond Paul
Boucher, Khorrami Boucher LLP & Shawn Khorrami, Khorrami Boucher,
LLP
Sharon Burns, Plaintiff, represented by Baharak Dejban, Khorrami
Boucher, LLP, Helen E Zukin, Kiesel Law LLP, Matthew A Young,
Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Raymond Paul
Boucher, Khorrami Boucher LLP & Shawn Khorrami, Khorrami Boucher,
LLP

Don'Nitta Carter, Plaintiff, represented by Baharak Dejban,
Khorrami Boucher, LLP, Helen E Zukin, Kiesel Law LLP, Matthew A
Young, Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Raymond Paul
Boucher, Khorrami Boucher LLP & Shawn Khorrami, Khorrami Boucher,
LLP

Freida Jackson, Plaintiff, represented by Baharak Dejban, Khorrami
Boucher, LLP, Helen E Zukin, Kiesel Law LLP, Matthew A Young,
Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Raymond Paul
Boucher, Khorrami Boucher LLP & Shawn Khorrami, Khorrami Boucher,
LLP

Reynaldo Echeverria, Plaintiff, represented by Baharak Dejban,
Khorrami Boucher, LLP, Helen E Zukin, Kiesel Law LLP, Matthew A
Young, Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Raymond Paul
Boucher, Khorrami Boucher LLP & Shawn Khorrami, Khorrami Boucher,
LLP

Conrad Henderson, Plaintiff, represented by Baharak Dejban,
Khorrami Boucher, LLP, Helen E Zukin, Kiesel Law LLP, Matthew A
Young, Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Raymond Paul
Boucher, Khorrami Boucher LLP & Shawn Khorrami, Khorrami Boucher,
LLP

Suzette Barnes, Plaintiff, represented by Baharak Dejban, Khorrami
Boucher, LLP, Helen E Zukin, Kiesel Law LLP, Matthew A Young,
Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Raymond Paul
Boucher, Khorrami Boucher LLP & Shawn Khorrami, Khorrami Boucher,
LLP

Michael Barnett, Plaintiff, represented by Baharak Dejban,
Khorrami Boucher, LLP, Helen E Zukin, Kiesel Law LLP, Matthew A
Young, Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Raymond Paul
Boucher, Khorrami Boucher LLP & Shawn Khorrami, Khorrami Boucher,
LLP

Carmen Carey, Plaintiff, represented by Baharak Dejban, Khorrami
Boucher, LLP, Helen E Zukin, Kiesel Law LLP, Matthew A Young,
Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Raymond Paul
Boucher, Khorrami Boucher LLP & Shawn Khorrami, Khorrami Boucher,
LLP

Francisco J. Casarez, Plaintiff, represented by Baharak Dejban,
Khorrami Boucher, LLP, Helen E Zukin, Kiesel Law LLP, Matthew A
Young, Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Raymond Paul
Boucher, Khorrami Boucher LLP & Shawn Khorrami, Khorrami Boucher,
LLP

Adam Chairez, Plaintiff, represented by Baharak Dejban, Khorrami
Boucher, LLP, Helen E Zukin, Kiesel Law LLP, Matthew A Young,
Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Raymond Paul
Boucher, Khorrami Boucher LLP & Shawn Khorrami, Khorrami Boucher,
LLP

Edward Cherry, Plaintiff, represented by Baharak Dejban, Khorrami
Boucher, LLP, Helen E Zukin, Kiesel Law LLP, Matthew A Young,
Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Raymond Paul
Boucher, Khorrami Boucher LLP & Shawn Khorrami, Khorrami Boucher,
LLP

Mary De La Paz, Plaintiff, represented by Baharak Dejban, Khorrami
Boucher, LLP, Helen E Zukin, Kiesel Law LLP, Matthew A Young,
Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Raymond Paul
Boucher, Khorrami Boucher LLP & Shawn Khorrami, Khorrami Boucher,
LLP

Saul Evans, Plaintiff, represented by Baharak Dejban, Khorrami
Boucher, LLP, Helen E Zukin, Kiesel Law LLP, Matthew A Young,
Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Raymond Paul
Boucher, Khorrami Boucher LLP & Shawn Khorrami, Khorrami Boucher,
LLP

Christine Faison, Plaintiff, represented by Baharak Dejban,
Khorrami Boucher, LLP, Helen E Zukin, Kiesel Law LLP, Matthew A
Young, Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Raymond Paul
Boucher, Khorrami Boucher LLP & Shawn Khorrami, Khorrami Boucher,
LLP

Annette Alexander, Plaintiff, represented by Baharak Dejban,
Khorrami Boucher, LLP, Helen E Zukin, Kiesel Law LLP, Matthew A
Young, Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Raymond Paul
Boucher, Khorrami Boucher LLP & Shawn Khorrami, Khorrami Boucher,
LLP

Fermin Flores, Plaintiff, represented by Baharak Dejban, Khorrami
Boucher, LLP, Helen E Zukin, Kiesel Law LLP, Matthew A Young,
Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Raymond Paul
Boucher, Khorrami Boucher LLP & Shawn Khorrami, Khorrami Boucher,
LLP

Betty Gilbert, Plaintiff, represented by Baharak Dejban, Khorrami
Boucher, LLP, Helen E Zukin, Kiesel Law LLP, Matthew A Young,
Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Raymond Paul
Boucher, Khorrami Boucher LLP & Shawn Khorrami, Khorrami Boucher,
LLP

Demetrice Walker, Plaintiff, represented by Baharak Dejban,
Khorrami Boucher, LLP, Helen E Zukin, Kiesel Law LLP, Matthew A
Young, Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Raymond Paul
Boucher, Khorrami Boucher LLP & Shawn Khorrami, Khorrami Boucher,
LLP

Ramsey Hall, Plaintiff, represented by Baharak Dejban, Khorrami
Boucher, LLP, Helen E Zukin, Kiesel Law LLP, Matthew A Young,
Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Raymond Paul
Boucher, Khorrami Boucher LLP & Shawn Khorrami, Khorrami Boucher,
LLP

Joy Cox, Plaintiff, represented by Baharak Dejban, Khorrami
Boucher, LLP, Helen E Zukin, Kiesel Law LLP, Matthew A Young,
Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Raymond Paul
Boucher, Khorrami Boucher LLP & Shawn Khorrami, Khorrami Boucher,
LLP

Barbara Henry, Plaintiff, represented by Baharak Dejban, Khorrami
Boucher, LLP, Helen E Zukin, Kiesel Law LLP, Matthew A Young,
Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Raymond Paul
Boucher, Khorrami Boucher LLP & Shawn Khorrami, Khorrami Boucher,
LLP

Amos Jackson, Plaintiff, represented by Baharak Dejban, Khorrami
Boucher, LLP, Helen E Zukin, Kiesel Law LLP, Matthew A Young,
Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Raymond Paul
Boucher, Khorrami Boucher LLP & Shawn Khorrami, Khorrami Boucher,
LLP.
George Jackson, Plaintiff, represented by Baharak Dejban, Khorrami
Boucher, LLP, Helen E Zukin, Kiesel Law LLP, Matthew A Young,
Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Raymond Paul
Boucher, Khorrami Boucher LLP & Shawn Khorrami, Khorrami Boucher,
LLP

Patricia Jefferson, Plaintiff, represented by Baharak Dejban,
Khorrami Boucher, LLP, Helen E Zukin, Kiesel Law LLP, Matthew A
Young, Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Raymond Paul
Boucher, Khorrami Boucher LLP & Shawn Khorrami, Khorrami Boucher,
LLP

Sharon Jones, Plaintiff, represented by Baharak Dejban, Khorrami
Boucher, LLP, Helen E Zukin, Kiesel Law LLP, Matthew A Young,
Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Raymond Paul
Boucher, Khorrami Boucher LLP & Shawn Khorrami, Khorrami Boucher,
LLP

Trevor Jones, Plaintiff, represented by Baharak Dejban, Khorrami
Boucher, LLP, Helen E Zukin, Kiesel Law LLP, Matthew A Young,
Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Raymond Paul
Boucher, Khorrami Boucher LLP & Shawn Khorrami, Khorrami Boucher,
LLP

Jarvis Jones, Plaintiff, represented by Baharak Dejban, Khorrami
Boucher, LLP, Helen E Zukin, Kiesel Law LLP, Matthew A Young,
Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Raymond Paul
Boucher, Khorrami Boucher LLP & Shawn Khorrami, Khorrami Boucher,
LLP

Marilyn Kuilan, Plaintiff, represented by Baharak Dejban, Khorrami
Boucher, LLP, Helen E Zukin, Kiesel Law LLP, Matthew A Young,
Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Raymond Paul
Boucher, Khorrami Boucher LLP & Shawn Khorrami, Khorrami Boucher,
LLP

Levi Lewis, II, Plaintiff, represented by Baharak Dejban, Khorrami
Boucher, LLP, Helen E Zukin, Kiesel Law LLP, Matthew A Young,
Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Raymond Paul
Boucher, Khorrami Boucher LLP & Shawn Khorrami, Khorrami Boucher,
LLP

Jeff Lintz, Plaintiff, represented by Baharak Dejban, Khorrami
Boucher, LLP, Helen E Zukin, Kiesel Law LLP, Matthew A Young,
Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Raymond Paul
Boucher, Khorrami Boucher LLP & Shawn Khorrami, Khorrami Boucher,
LLP

Onika Ford, Plaintiff, represented by Baharak Dejban, Khorrami
Boucher, LLP, Helen E Zukin, Kiesel Law LLP, Matthew A Young,
Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Raymond Paul
Boucher, Khorrami Boucher LLP & Shawn Khorrami, Khorrami Boucher,
LLP

Delores Maxwell, Plaintiff, represented by Baharak Dejban,
Khorrami Boucher, LLP, Helen E Zukin, Kiesel Law LLP, Matthew A
Young, Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Raymond Paul
Boucher, Khorrami Boucher LLP & Shawn Khorrami, Khorrami Boucher,
LLP

Michael Frenke, Plaintiff, represented by Baharak Dejban, Khorrami
Boucher, LLP, Helen E Zukin, Kiesel Law LLP, Matthew A Young,
Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Raymond Paul
Boucher, Khorrami Boucher LLP & Shawn Khorrami, Khorrami Boucher,
LLP

Roosevelt Brim, Plaintiff, represented by Baharak Dejban, Khorrami
Boucher, LLP, Helen E Zukin, Kiesel Law LLP, Matthew A Young,
Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Raymond Paul
Boucher, Khorrami Boucher LLP & Shawn Khorrami, Khorrami Boucher,
LLP

Shane Mosley, Plaintiff, represented by Baharak Dejban, Khorrami
Boucher, LLP, Helen E Zukin, Kiesel Law LLP, Matthew A Young,
Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Raymond Paul
Boucher, Khorrami Boucher LLP & Shawn Khorrami, Khorrami Boucher,
LLP

Blanka Clare, Plaintiff, represented by Baharak Dejban, Khorrami
Boucher, LLP, Helen E Zukin, Kiesel Law LLP, Matthew A Young,
Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Raymond Paul
Boucher, Khorrami Boucher LLP & Shawn Khorrami, Khorrami Boucher,
LLP

Rick Myers, Plaintiff, represented by Baharak Dejban, Khorrami
Boucher, LLP, Helen E Zukin, Kiesel Law LLP, Matthew A Young,
Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Raymond Paul
Boucher, Khorrami Boucher LLP & Shawn Khorrami, Khorrami Boucher,
LLP

Rona Napier, Plaintiff, represented by Baharak Dejban, Khorrami
Boucher, LLP, Helen E Zukin, Kiesel Law LLP, Matthew A Young,
Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Raymond Paul
Boucher, Khorrami Boucher LLP & Shawn Khorrami, Khorrami Boucher,
LLP

Rodney Newman, Plaintiff, represented by Baharak Dejban, Khorrami
Boucher, LLP, Helen E Zukin, Kiesel Law LLP, Matthew A Young,
Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Raymond Paul
Boucher, Khorrami Boucher LLP & Shawn Khorrami, Khorrami Boucher,
LLP

Jaime Patrick, Plaintiff, represented by Baharak Dejban, Khorrami
Boucher, LLP, Helen E Zukin, Kiesel Law LLP, Matthew A Young,
Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Raymond Paul
Boucher, Khorrami Boucher LLP & Shawn Khorrami, Khorrami Boucher,
LLP

Gloria Predregon, Plaintiff, represented by Baharak Dejban,
Khorrami Boucher, LLP, Helen E Zukin, Kiesel Law LLP, Matthew A
Young, Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Raymond Paul
Boucher, Khorrami Boucher LLP & Shawn Khorrami, Khorrami Boucher,
LLP

Anthony Ferguson, Plaintiff, represented by Baharak Dejban,
Khorrami Boucher, LLP, Helen E Zukin, Kiesel Law LLP, Matthew A
Young, Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Raymond Paul
Boucher, Khorrami Boucher LLP & Shawn Khorrami, Khorrami Boucher,
LLP

Tammy Ramey, Plaintiff, represented by Baharak Dejban, Khorrami
Boucher, LLP, Helen E Zukin, Kiesel Law LLP, Matthew A Young,
Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Raymond Paul
Boucher, Khorrami Boucher LLP & Shawn Khorrami, Khorrami Boucher,
LLP

Mary Leavitt, Plaintiff, represented by Baharak Dejban, Khorrami
Boucher, LLP, Helen E Zukin, Kiesel Law LLP, Matthew A Young,
Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Raymond Paul
Boucher, Khorrami Boucher LLP & Shawn Khorrami, Khorrami Boucher,
LLP

Cathy Schran, Plaintiff, represented by Baharak Dejban, Khorrami
Boucher, LLP, Helen E Zukin, Kiesel Law LLP, Matthew A Young,
Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Raymond Paul
Boucher, Khorrami Boucher LLP & Shawn Khorrami, Khorrami Boucher,
LLP

Daniel Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Baharak Dejban, Khorrami
Boucher, LLP, Helen E Zukin, Kiesel Law LLP, Matthew A Young,
Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Raymond Paul
Boucher, Khorrami Boucher LLP & Shawn Khorrami, Khorrami Boucher,
LLP

Paula Montgomery-Spencer, Plaintiff, represented by Baharak
Dejban, Khorrami Boucher, LLP, Helen E Zukin, Kiesel Law LLP,
Matthew A Young, Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP,
Raymond Paul Boucher, Khorrami Boucher LLP & Shawn Khorrami,
Khorrami Boucher, LLP

Doris Vega, Plaintiff, represented by Baharak Dejban, Khorrami
Boucher, LLP, Helen E Zukin, Kiesel Law LLP, Matthew A Young,
Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Raymond Paul
Boucher, Khorrami Boucher LLP & Shawn Khorrami, Khorrami Boucher,
LLP

Fresenius USA Manufacturing, Inc., Defendant, represented by David
H Stern, Hughes Hubbard and Reed LLP, Juanita Rose Brooks, Fish
and Richardson PC & Carolin Sahimi, Hughes Hubbard and Reed LLP

Fresenius USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by David H Stern,
Hughes Hubbard and Reed LLP, Juanita Rose Brooks, Fish and
Richardson PC & Carolin Sahimi, Hughes Hubbard and Reed LLP

Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc., Defendant, represented by
David H Stern, Hughes Hubbard and Reed LLP, Juanita Rose Brooks,
Fish and Richardson PC & Carolin Sahimi, Hughes Hubbard and Reed
LLP

Fresenius USA Marketing, Inc., Defendant, represented by David H
Stern, Hughes Hubbard and Reed LLP

Ben Lipps, Defendant, represented by David H Stern, Hughes Hubbard
and Reed LLP, Juanita Rose Brooks, Fish and Richardson PC &
Carolin Sahimi, Hughes Hubbard and Reed LLP

Walter L. Weisman, Defendant, represented by Colin H Murray, Baker
and McKenzie LLP & Keith L Wurster, Baker and McKenzie LLP

Fresenius Marketing USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by David H
Stern, Hughes Hubbard and Reed LLP,Juanita Rose Brooks, Fish and
Richardson PC & Carolin Sahimi, Hughes Hubbard and Reed LLP


GADSDEN, AL: Accused of Running a Debtor's Prison for Poor People
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Gadsden, Ala. runs a
"debtor's prison" by jailing people who are too poor to pay their
traffic fines, a class action claims in Alabama Federal Court.


GHIRARDELLI CHOCOLATE: $5.25MM Deal in Fake White Choco Suit OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Nick McCann reports that a
federal judge approved a $5.25 million class action settlement
that claims Ghirardelli's white chocolate chips do not contain any
white chocolate.

Lead plaintiff Scott Miller bought a package of Ghirardelli white
chocolate chips in June 2012, and thought they did not taste like
white chocolate.

"He reviewed the ingredients list on the packaging and noticed
that the white chips contained no white chocolate, cocoa, or cocoa
butter," according to U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler's
summary of the complaint.

The class accused Ghirardelli of misrepresenting the white
chocolate content in its chocolate chips, wafers, white chocolate
flavor, mocha mix and frappes.  It alleged violations of U.S. Food
and Drug Administration regulations, and state law infractions
including false advertising, unfair competition and fraud.

Miller, of Auburndale, Fla., sued in San Francisco, where
Ghirardelli is based.  The confectioner removed the case to
Federal Court and sought dismissal, arguing that Miller lacks
standing to sue over white chocolate products he did not buy.

In April 2013, Beeler tossed all the allegations that did not
pertain to white chocolate chips.

The parties entered into mediation, and last year told the court
they had settled the case.

Beeler granted preliminary approval of the settlement in October,
and after conducting a final fairness hearing, issued a final
order approving the settlement on February 20.

Ghirardelli will pay $5.25 million into a common fund to be
distributed among the class and the plaintiffs' attorneys.

Class members who make a claim will receive $1.50 for each
purchase of the disputed white chocolate chips and 75 cents for
each purchase of Ghirardelli products labeled "all natural."

If there is money left over in the common fund, it will be donated
equally to four organizations: Consumers Union, The National
Consumer Law Center, and the food science departments at
University of California-Davis, and Florida State University.

Ghirardelli also agreed to not use the phrase "all natural" on its
packages of white chocolate chips.

The lead plaintiffs also will receive a $5,000 incentive award.

Plaintiffs' attorneys were awarded more than $1.5 million in fees,
and $87,000 in litigation costs.

The case is Scott Miller, et al. v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Company,
Case No. 3:12-cv-04936-LB, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.


GOOGLE INC: Suit Alleging Monopoly Dismissed With Leave to Amend
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arvin Temkar at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge dismissed, with leave to amend, a class action claiming
Google monopolizes the search engine market by making secret deals
with cell phone manufacturers.

Lead plaintiff Gary Feitelson claimed in May 2014 that
manufacturers that want to preload Google apps such as YouTube and
Google Play onto their devices must agree to make Google the
default search engine on the phone.

Feitelson claimed these confidential deals "quash competition for
default search engine status" for competitors such as Bing and
Yahoo "before it can even begin."

Google sought dismissal in July 2014, claiming that the plaintiffs
failed to state a claim, and that the Clayton Act applies only to
"tangible commodities," which Google does not offer.

U.S. District Judge Beth Freeman dismissed the case on Feb. 20,
with leave to amend.

Freeman said the plaintiffs need to "more plausibly allege the
relationship between [the confidential agreements] and competition
in the market for handheld general search."  She gave them 21 days
to amend "in order to adequately allege causal antitrust injury
. . . in the relevant alleged markets."

Freeman also dismissed plaintiffs' unfair competition claim,
because neither of the named plaintiffs live in California.

The amended complaint must include a plaintiff from California.

The case is Gary Feitelson, et al. v. Google Inc., Case No. 5:14-
cv-02007-BLF, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, San Jose Division.


GOOLE INC: Judge Approves $415MM No Poach Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge has tentatively
approved a $415 million settlement in a major class action lawsuit
by Silicon Valley workers who accused Apple Inc., Google Inc. and
other tech companies of making an illegal agreement not to hire
each other's employees.

Judge Lucy Koh had rejected an earlier settlement offer, saying it
didn't offer enough compensation to about 64,000 workers affected
by the case.  She cited evidence of a corporate conspiracy to make
it difficult for tech workers to negotiate better jobs at rival
companies.

Judge Koh said she was satisfied after the companies increased
their earlier offer of $324.5 million.  She invited final comments
on the deal before she grants final approval at a hearing on
June 9.

If Judge Koh approves the latest settlement, it would avoid a
potentially embarrassing trial for the companies

The lawsuit also included Intel Corp. and Adobe Systems Inc.


HARTFORD ACCIDENT: Removes "O'Brien" Suit to District of Montana
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned O'Brien v. Hartford Accident
and Indemnity Company, et al., Case No. DDV-2014-807, was removed
from the 1st Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana (Helena).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:15-cv-00014-CCL to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Hartford Defendants have engaged in
concerted action with each other in the procedures for collecting
excessive premiums.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan J. Lerner, Esq.
          LERNER LAW FIRM
          PO Box 1158
          Kalispell, MT 59903-1158
          Telephone: (406) 756-9100
          Facsimile: (406) 756-9105
          E-mail: lerner@lernerlawmt.com

               - and -

          John M. Morrison, Esq.
          MORRISON, SHERWOOD, WILSON & DEOLA, PLLP
          401 N Last Chance Gulch
          PO Box 557
          Helena, MT 59624
          Telephone: (406) 442-3261
          Facsimile: (406) 443-7294
          E-mail: john@mmslawgroup.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Viscomi, Esq.
          VISCOMI & GERSH
          121 Wisconsin Ave.
          Whitefish, MT 59937
          Telephone: (406) 862-7800
          Facsimile: (406) 862-7820
          E-mail: viscomi@bigskyattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Peter F. Habein, Esq.
          CROWLEY FLECK PLLP
          PO Box 2529
          490 N. 31st ST, Suite 500
          Billings, MT 59103-2529
          Telephone: (406) 252-3441
          E-mail: phabein@crowleyfleck.com


HAWAII: Discriminates Against Non-English Natives, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Hawaii discriminates against
people whose native language is not English, a class action claims
in Hawaiian Federal Court.


HOMELAND SECURITY: Ordered by Court to Stop Detaining Immigrants
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mothers and children held in immigration prisons since the summer
of 2014 must be set free while the court decides the
constitutionality of the policy that put them there, reports
Amanda Loviza-Vickery at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal
court ruling.

The Department of Homeland Security expanded its detention
policies last summer when increased violence and instability in
Central America and Mexico led to a surge in immigration,
particularly of children.

DHS and its immigration enforcement arm stepped up detention to
try to deter immigration, though many of the detainees were found
to have a "credible fear" of persecution in their home country,
which could qualify them for political asylum.

On Feb. 20, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ordered the DHS and
its Immigration and Customs Enforcement arm to stop it.

Boasberg found that detaining immigrants as a means of deterring
others from crossing the border violates the Fifth Amendment, the
Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedure Act
and DHS regulations.  He granted an injunction in R.I. L-R et al.
v Jeh Charles Johnson, et al., ordering the DHS director to
release the detainees and stop the automatic detention policy
while its merits are examined.

The class action complaint was filed Jan. 6.  Ten immigrant
mothers and their minor children, the lead plaintiffs, claimed
they all had been found to have a credible fear of persecution in
their home country.  None had a criminal history and all have
family members in the United States who offered shelter and
support while the families go through asylum proceedings, Boasberg
wrote in his 40-page order.

Each plaintiff was refused bond after establishing credible fear
of persecution.  Although they were eventually released, the
families filed the class action to fight what they say is an
illegal DHS policy.

They claimed, and Boasberg agreed, that the DHS policy to detain
immigrants despite their credible fears, in order to deter others
from immigrating, violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, is
arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act
and ICE policies, and violates constitutional guarantees of due
process.

In Zadvydas v. Davis, Boasberg wrote, the court determined that
"government detention violates [the Due Process Clause] unless the
detention is ordered in a criminal proceeding with adequate
procedural protections, or, in certain special and narrow non-
punitive circumstances, where a special justification, such as
harm-threatening mental illness, outweighs the individual's
constitutionally protected interest in avoiding physical
restraint."

DHS and ICE argued that the plaintiffs are not U.S. citizens and
entered the country illegally, so they have very few due process
protections.  But Boasberg found that courts have made it clear
that once a person is in the United States, he or she has due
process rights.

"[A]liens who have once passed through our gates, even illegally,
may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional
standards of fairness encompassed in due process of law," Boasberg
wrote, citing Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S.
206, 212 (1953).

As people apprehended within the United States and with the
possibility of legitimate claims to asylum, Boasberg said, the
plaintiffs have clear rights to due process.  To justify the
detention, the government must be "preventing flight" or
"protecting the community."

The government's interest in this case is particularly
insubstantial, Boasberg wrote, because it argues only vague
"national security interests" and complains that the influx of
migrants "force[s] ICE to 'divert resources from other important
security concerns' and 'relocate' their employees," but does not
claim that the diversion or relocation will weaken the agency.

"Defendants have not conjured up the specter of an influx's
overwhelming the country's borders or wreaking havoc in
southwestern cities," Boasberg wrote.  "The simple fact that
increased immigration takes up government resources cannot
necessarily make its deterrence a matter of national security,
with all the attendant deference such characterization entails."

The government's power over immigration is subject to significant
constitutional limitations, Boasberg said.  The plaintiffs and
their class suffer irreparable harm by the DHS's continued
detention, and that harm is not balanced by the public interest in
this case.

As asylum-seekers, the plaintiffs have slightly different legal
status than refugees.  Refugees apply for protected status while
outside of the United States; if accepted they enter the country
legally as refugees.

Asylum-seekers apply for the protection after having entered the
United States, legally or illegally.  Because the asylum process
was set up to enable this protection, once an asylum-seeker has
submitted an application, called an I-589, he or she is in the
country legally, awaiting a decision.

Immigration agencies customarily released asylum-seekers pending
resolution of their case, until the Central American wars of the
late 1970s and 1980s brought millions of asylum-seekers to the
United States.  The Reagan administration then began jailing the
vast majority of them, to deter others.  Though that policy
eventually was found to be illegal, it took 10 years of litigation
to establish.

In 2014, faced with the influx of families, the Obama
administration in effect reinstituted the Regan-era policies,
opening new immigration prisons, often in remote places, expanding
others, and handing out contracts to private agencies to act as
jailers.  The Obama administration made no secret of the fact that
it was doing this for the deterrent effect.

Boasberg enjoined the policy.

The case is R. I. L-R, et al. v. Jeh Charles Johnson, et al., Case
No. 15-11 (JEB), in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia.


HONDA MOTOR: Faces Suit Over Faulty Transmissions in Acura TLX i4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Honda 2015 Acura TLX i4
vehicles have defective transmissions, a class action claims in
California Federal Court.


HSBC BANK: Settlement in "Mills" Class Action Approved
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James S. Holderman of the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, granted plaintiffs' motion for
approval of class action settlement in the case MICHAEL WILKINS
and KENNETH MILLS, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. HSBC BANK NEVADA, N.A. and HSBC CARD
SERVICES, INC., Defendants, NO. 14 C 190 (N.D. Ill.)

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action complaint against
defendants HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. and HSBC Card Services, Inc.,
alleging that between 2010 and 2014, HSBC contacted tens of
thousands of other cardholders on their cell phones through the
use of an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or
prerecorded voice in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA).

On July 25, 2014, the court granted Plaintiffs' unopposed request
for preliminary approval of class settlement and entered an order
conditionally certifying a settlement class, preliminarily
approving the class action settlement, approving the notice plan,
and appointing a claims and notice administrator.

The parties estimate that the class includes 9,065,262 members and
that HSBC made 344,351,123 phone calls in alleged violation of the
TCPA. The Settlement Agreement requires HSBC to establish a non-
reversionary settlement fund of $39,975,000. Plaintiffs now moved
for the final approval of the class action settlement and for
approval of attorneys' fees.

Judge Holderman granted plaintiffs' motion for final approval of
the class action settlement, expressing that the settlement is
fair, reasonable, and adequate. Class Counsel's motion for
approval of attorneys' fees is granted in part and denied in part.
The court awards attorneys' fees and costs in the total amount of
$9,495,000 (approximately 23.75% of the $39,975,000 settlement
amount) and incentive awards of $5,000 to each of the two class
representatives.

A copy of Judge Holderman's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
February 27, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/dqmDQKfrom
Leagle.com.

Michael Wilkins, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander Holmes Burke, Burke
Law Offices, LLC, Beth Ellen Terrell, Terrell Marshall Daudt &
Willie PLLC, Daniel M. Hutchinson, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein Llp, Jonathan D. Selbin, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein, Llp, Joshua Branden Swigart, Hyde & Swigart, Nicole
Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein Llp, Seyed Abbas
Kazerounian, Kazerouni Law Group, Apc, Douglas J Campion, Law
Offices of Douglas J Campion, APC, Jennifer Rust Murray, Terrell
Marshall Daudt & Willie Pllc, Matthew R. Wilson, Meyer Wilson Co.
LPA, Michael Joseph Boyle, Jr., Meyer Wilson Co., Lpa & Samuel
Strauss, Terrell Marshall Daudt & Willie Pllc

Kenneth Mills, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel M. Hutchinson,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein Llp,Jonathan D. Selbin, Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Llp, Joshua Branden Swigart, Hyde &
Swigart,Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein
Llp, Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Kazerouni Law Group, Apc, Douglas J
Campion, Law Offices of Douglas J Campion, APC, Jennifer Rust
Murray, Terrell Marshall Daudt & Willie Pllc, Matthew R. Wilson,
Meyer Wilson Co. LPA, Michael Joseph Boyle, Jr., Meyer Wilson Co.,
Lpa, Samuel Strauss, Terrell Marshall Daudt & Willie Pllc &
Alexander Holmes Burke, Burke Law Offices, LLC

HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., Defendant, represented by Julia B
Strickland, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, LLP, Lisa Marie Simonetti,
Vedder Price LLP, Angad Singh Nagra, Pilgrim Christakis LLP, Ani
Azadian, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan Llp, Arjun Patibandla Rao,
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan Llp & Jeffrey D. Pilgrim, Pilgrim
Christakis LLP

HSBC Card Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Julia B
Strickland, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, LLP, Lisa Marie Simonetti,
Vedder Price LLP, Angad Singh Nagra, Pilgrim Christakis LLP, Ani
Azadian, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan Llp, Arjun Patibandla Rao,
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan Llp & Jeffrey D. Pilgrim, Pilgrim
Christakis LLP


INTEGRATED TRANSPORTATION: Removes "Pace" Suit to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Eric Pace v. Integrated
Transportation Services, Inc., et al., Case No. BC570662, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (Los Angeles).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-01416-MMM-E to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiff minimum wages and proper overtime compensation, in
violation of among other laws, the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          John L. Barber, Esq.
          Paul A. Mata, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD AND SMITH LLP
          633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 250-1800
          Facsimile: (213) 250-7900
          E-mail: john.barber@lewisbrisbois.com
                  paul.mata@lewisbrisbois.com

               - and -

          Tracy Wei Costantino, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          221 North Figueroa Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90012
          Telephone: (213) 250-1800
          Facsimile: (213) 250-7900
          E-mail: tracy.costantino@lewisbrisbois.com


JB HUNT: Faces "Hyatt" Class Suit Alleging Violations of TCPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Hyatt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc., an Arkansas
corporation, and J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., a Georgia corporation,
Case No. 5:15-cv-05056-TLB (W.D. Ark., February 25, 2015) alleges
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Westbrook Doss, Jr., Esq.
          DOSS LAW FIRM, PA
          121 N. School
          Fayetteville, AR 72701
          Telephone: (479) 303-5500
          Facsimile: (800) 986-1136
          E-mail: west@dosslaw.biz


KOHLL'S PHARMACY: Sup. Court Agrees to Decide on Moot Class Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kirk Jenkins of Sedgwick LLP in article for JDSupra reports that
the plaintiff files a skeletal class certification motion the same
day as his putative class complaint.  Subsequently, the defendant
tenders a check to the plaintiff representing everything the
plaintiff could recover for his action. Is the plaintiff's class
claim moot? That's the question that the Illinois Supreme Court
agreed to decide in the closing days of its January term in
Ballard RN Center, Inc. v. Kohll's Pharmacy and HomeCare, Inc., a
decision of the First District, Division 4.

The plaintiff's complaint alleged that he received an unsolicited
fax advertisement from the defendant.  The fax purportedly lacked
the required "opt out" notice; the plaintiff had no prior
relationship with the sender, and had not given general permission
for such faxes to be sent.  The complaint asserted that the fax
sent to plaintiff was part of a mass broadcast of fax
advertisements which had been received by at least forty other
persons in Illinois.  Plaintiff purported to state one claim for
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, one for
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, and one for
conversion.

On the same day that the plaintiff filed its complaint, plaintiff
filed a motion seeking certification of three classes.  The motion
contained no factual allegations justifying certification, and
stated that plaintiff would file a memorandum of law "in due
course."

Defendant moved for partial summary judgment on Count I, the TCPA
claim, alleging that on three separate occasions, it had made an
unconditional tender of a sum covering all damages the plaintiff
could possibly recover under the Act.  The defendant argued that
plaintiff had not filed a sufficient motion for class
certification to satisfy the standard of Barber v. American
Airlines, and his TCPA claim was therefore moot.  The trial court
denied the motion for summary judgment, holding that Barber merely
requires the filing of some sort of motion for class
certification; there are no particular prerequisites for the
motion.  The court subsequently certified a class, and defendant
appealed.

The Appellate Court found that commonality appeared to exist, as
there were significant common issues of fact and law pertaining to
all class members.  The court declined to hold that evidence of
consent among class members was sufficient to defeat
certification, or that recipients whose faxes were routed straight
to a computer, and thus had never printed the blast fax out, might
present different issues.  The court further found that a class
action was appropriate, rejecting the defendants' view that there
was something fundamentally wrong with notifying class members by
unsolicited faxes that they were members of a class arising from
sending of unsolicited faxes.

Nevertheless, plaintiff's TCPA claim was moot, the Appellate Court
held.  Barber held that payment to the class representative
doesn't moot a class claim when the class representative has filed
a motion for certification sufficient to bring the interests of
the class before the court.  Accordingly, the Appellate Court
held, a motion sufficient to satisfy Barber had to include
sufficient factual allegations to bring the absent class members'
interests before the court.  The plaintiff's motion hadn't done
that, the court found; the plaintiff had merely filed a "shell"
motion, and if a shell motion was sufficient to block Barber
mootness, then Barber means nothing.

The Appellate Court reversed class certification as to the TCPA
claim, but affirmed in all other respects.

Sedgwick LLP expects Ballard RN to be decided in eight to ten
months.


KTM NORTH AMERICA: Recalls Children's Pajamas Due to Burn Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
KTM North America, Inc., of Amherst, Ohio, announced a voluntary
recall of about 2,800 Children's Pajamas. Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The pajamas fail to meet federal flammability standards for
children's sleepwear, posing a risk of burn injuries to children.

This recall involves children's onesies and two-piece KTM
motocross pajamas. The Baby Racing Body onesies are 95% cotton and
5% elastane and were sold in three prints. One is orange with
white sleeves and the KTM brand logo on the left chest. The second
is white and orange with the KTM brand logo in bold orange printed
on the center front of the chest and on the left and right hip.
The third onesie is yellow with orange and black detailing and the
KTM brand logo printed on the left. All onesies are long-sleeved
and have snap closures from the neck to the left ankle and were
sold in sizes 18 months to 2T.

The two-piece, long-sleeve and pant pajama sets are 100% cotton
and were sold in two prints. The Kids Racing Gear pajama is white
with black, orange and grey detailing on the top and pant with a
black elastic waistband and KTM printed on the left side of the
chest. This set was sold in sizes 2T through 5T. The Kids Gravity
Gear pajama two-piece set is white with blue, and orange detailing
on the top and pant with an elastic waistband in orange and KTM
printed on the left side of the chest and on the right hand wrist.
This set was sold in sizes XXS through L

No consumer incidents have been reported.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
authorized KTM motorcycle shops nationwide from August 2012
through January 2015 for between $28 and $32.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled pajamas away from
children, stop using them and return them to KTM North America,
Inc. for a full refund.


L&L ENERGY: Class Action Settlement Awaits Final Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Ax, writing for Reuters, reports that the founder of coal
company L&L Energy Inc was sentenced to five years in prison on
Feb. 20 for lying to U.S. regulators about who was operating the
company and issuing shares to Chinese investors without disclosing
the existence of a regulatory probe.

Dickson Lee, 66, pleaded guilty to two counts of securities fraud
in September and was sentenced in federal court in Seattle,
Washington.

L&L Energy, which had all of its operations in China and Taiwan,
also pleaded guilty in January.

Prosecutors said Mr. Lee falsely reported in U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission filings that he had a chief financial officer
in place, as well as adequate internal controls, in an effort to
get the company listed on a national stock exchange.

In addition, Mr. Lee issued 730,000 shares of stock to third-party
investors whom Mr. Lee then instructed to sell the stock in order
to generate revenue for the cash-strapped company, authorities
said.  Mr. Lee, however, failed to disclose that the SEC had
already opened an investigation into the company, according to
prosecutors.

Mr. Lee's lawyer, Russ Aoki, said in an email that Mr. Lee had
tried his best to make L&L successful and accepted his sentence
with "his head up."

"It was his creation, his job, and most of all his passion,"
Mr. Aoki said.  "But Mr. Lee recognizes now that he did not have
the experience to run a rapidly growing publicly traded company."

Mr. Lee is facing a parallel civil case by the SEC.

An investor class action filed against the company for false
filings and other misconduct in New York federal court recently
settled for $3.5 million and is awaiting final approval from a
U.S. judge.

The case is U.S. vs. Lee et al., U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, No. 14-24.


LENOVO GROUP: Faces "Bennett" Suit Over Superfish Spyware
---------------------------------------------------------
Lenovo loads computers with Superfish spyware that invades the
privacy of customers by learning their Internet browsing habits, a
class action claims, reports Jamie Ross, writing for Courthouse
News Service.

Lead plaintiff Jessica N. Bennett sued Lenovo and Superfish on
Feb. 19 in Federal Court, alleging violations of the California
Invasion of Privacy Act, the Federal Wiretap Act, trespass and
unfair competition.  A similar federal class action was filed on
February 23 in San Jose.

Bennett claims that the defendants "unlawfully used and damaged"
her computer "to make money for themselves, while willfully
disregarding plaintiff's rights to use and enjoy her personal
property."

Bennett bought a Lenovo Yoga 2 laptop in 2014 to use in her
blogging business.  She soon began to see pop-ups on Web sites,
but initially thought the pop-ups were on Web sites that had been
hacked.

"Plaintiff was writing a blog post for a client when she noticed
spam advertisements involving scantily clad women appearing on her
client's website," the complaint states.  "Plaintiff looked at a
couple of other sites and did not see any advertisements, so she
assumed the client's website was the problem."

A few hours later, Bennett says she saw the same batch of
scandalous ads on a different, well-known Web site and realized
her laptop was infected with spyware.

"Plaintiff searched web forums for help on removing the malicious
spyware on her computer and learned that numerous other consumers
were experiencing similar problems with the Superfish product on
their recently purchased Lenovo laptop," the lawsuit states.  "It
was only after further research did plaintiff learn that the
Lenovo laptops came pre-installed with the Superfish spyware."

Bennett says the spyware slows down laptops because it "takes up
bandwidth over an Internet connection, uses up memory on a
computer, causes the loss of data, compromises computer security
features and frustrates computer users."

The life of a computer is also affected, because users are forced
to run their computers longer due to slow performance time, which
in turn uses more electricity.

Bennett says the spyware tracked her Internet use and invaded her
privacy.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security issued an alert on the
third week of February claiming that Lenovo pre-installed the
Superfish spyware on some of their computers beginning in
September 2014.  The alert detailed instructions for users who
seek to remove the spyware from their computers.

Lenovo issued a statement on the third week of February, claiming
that in January it shut down server connections that enabled the
software, and has since provided resources for users who want to
remove the spyware.

"We acted swiftly and decisively once these concerns began to be
raised," Lenovo said.  "We apologize for causing any concern to
any users for any reason -- and we are always trying to learn from
experience and improve what we do and how we do it."

In the statement, Lenovo denied installing the software "on any
ThinkPad notebooks, nor any desktops, tablets, smartphones or
servers; and it is no longer being installed on any Lenovo
device."

Bennett seeks class certification, statutory damages, and
disgorgement of profits.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander M. Schack, Esq.
          Natasha A. Naraghi, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDER M. SCHACK
          16870 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 400
          San Diego, CA 92127
          Telephone: (858) 485-6535
          Facsimile: (858) 485-0608
          E-mail: amslawoffice@aol.com

Ms. Bennett is also represented by Geoffrey J. Spreter of Spreter
Legal Services APC and E. Elliot Adler of Adler Law Group APLC.

The case is Jessica N. Bennett v. Lenovo (United States) Inc. et
al., case number 3:15-cv-00368, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California.


MARSHALL-DEKALB ELECTRIC: Removes "Lake" Suit to N.D. Alabama
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Lake v. Marshall-DeKalb
Electric Cooperative, Case No. 50-CV-2015-900034.00, was removed
from the Marshall County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama (Middle).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-00339-VEH to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Phillip Campbell, Esq.
          CAMPBELL GUIN WILLIAMS GUY AND GIDIERE LLC
          505 20th Street North, Suite 1600
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 224-0750
          E-mail: andy.campbell@campbellguin.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Charles R. Hare, Jr., Esq.
          GULLAHORN & HARE PC
          310 W Main Street
          Albertville, AL 35950
          Telephone: (256) 878-1891
          Facsimile: (256) 878-1965
          E-mail: chare@gullahornhare.com


MELVILLE DIRECT: Recalls Aquarium Motion Lamps Due to Fire Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Melville Direct of Lawrenceburg, Indiana, announced a voluntary
recall of about 3,600 Aquarium Motion Lamp. Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The lamp can overheat and spark when plugged in, posing a fire
hazard.

The Aquarium Lamp simulates a tropical coral reef. The plug-in
lamp contains no water. Lights illuminate colorful fish and
dolphins that swim back and forth with a 3D effect. The scene is
framed by a beveled glass mirror frame. The lamp case and stand
are made of plastic. The lamp measures 7 « inches tall x 12 ¬
inches wide x 3 inches deep.  Style 45458 is printed on the
original box.

Eleven incidents have been reported of the item overheating or
sparking when plugged in. No injuries have been reported.
Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/0AZhS6

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively through the Bits and Pieces catalogue and online at
www.bitsandpieces.com from September 1, 2014 through January 9,
2015 for about $30.

Consumer should unplug the lamp. Melville Direct is contacting
customers whose lamp shipped after September 1, 2014. The letter
includes a return form and a merchandise return label. Customers
should complete the return form and affix the postage-paid return
label to the outside of the box. Customers may contact Melville
Direct to receive the form and label.


MINNESOTA: Testimony Continues in Sex Offer Program Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trisha Volpe, writing for KARE, reports that testimony continued
on Feb. 19 in the case against Minnesota's sex offender treatment
program.

One of the 14 named plaintiffs suing the state alleging the
program is unconstitutional, testified about feelings of
hopelessness and years of treatment without, he believes, a chance
to get out.

Craig Bolte is one of several civilly committed sex offenders who
committed their crimes -- in his case sexually assaulting young
girls -- when they were just kids.

Offenders with so-called 'juvenile-only' crimes are among those a
group of court-appointed experts say should not have been civilly
committed in the first place.

More than 60 men who are committed to the state's sex offender
treatment program in Moose Lake and St. Peter have no adult
criminal convictions. Experts have suggested that most boys who
commit sex offenses mature out of that behavior as adults.

Mr. Bolte, who is now 27, told the court that he is not the
violent kid he was, but feels hopeless about the treatment
program.

"All your hopes and dreams are taken away . . . you pretty much
know you're going to die there . . . that's how you get out," Mr.
Bolte testified.

And that's a main issue in the class action lawsuit against the
state, alleging the program unconstitutionally keeps people locked
up indefinitely.

Mr. Bolte detailed behavioral marks on this record during his time
in the program.  For example, he testified that he was punished
for sharing food and attending a religious service without signing
up first -- marks not related to sexual violence, but holding him
back Mr. Bolte and his attorney believe from getting out.

"The balance is tilted too much toward security and not enough
toward therapy," plaintiff's attorney Dan Gustafson said.

Minnesota is one of the only states to allow civil commitment of
juveniles.

Attorneys for the state have argued that the treatment program is
constitutional and run by skilled professional.


MONARCH RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Esther Gluck, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Monarch Recovery Management, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
01054-JHS (E.D. Pa., February 27, 2015) accuses the Defendant of
violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aryeh L. Pomerantz, Esq.
          POMERANTZ & POMERANTZ, PLLC
          3 Whisper Lane
          Suffern, NY 10901
          Telephone: (845) 547-2600
          Facsimile: (845) 547-2601
          E-mail: Aryeh@pom-law.com


NATIONAL RETAIL: Sued Over Accessibility Barriers at Facilities
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Mielo and Joseph Snyder, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. National Retail Properties, Inc.
and National Retail Properties Trust, Case No. 2:15-cv-00263-CRE
(W.D. Pa., February 25, 2015) alleges violations of the Americans
with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations, in
connection with accessibility barriers at various properties
owned, operated, controlled and leased by the Defendants.

The Plaintiffs have mobility disabilities and are dependent upon
wheelchairs for mobility.

The Defendants are headquartered in Orlando, Florida.  The
Defendants own, operate, control and lease places of public
accommodation.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
          Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA LLP
          PNC Park
          115 Federal Street, Suite 210
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com
                  bsweet@carlsonlynch.com


NEATO BURRITO: Employee Withdraws Wage Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Matt Miller, writing for PennLive, reports that little more than a
month after she filed it, a former employee of Neato Burrito has
withdrawn a federal fair wage lawsuit against the midstate
restaurant chain.

A one-sentence notice filed in U.S. Middle District Court by
Arrianna Ruggiero, who also is identified in filings as Arrianna
Applegate, states only that the case is to be marked "dismissed,
withdrawn and settled."

No details were available.  Ms. Ruggiero's lawyer Jonathan M.
Crist and Shayne Edmunds, one of Neato Burrito's owners, did not
respond to inquiries about the case.

Ms. Ruggiero, a former Neato Burrito store manager, claimed in the
suit that managers for the company routinely were required to pick
up supplies, do scheduling and perform other tasks on their own
time without pay.  She had sought to have the suit declared a
class action so other workers could join it.

The withdrawal notice was filed before Neato Burrito could file a
response with the court concerning the allegations.


NEW YORK, NY: 2nd Circuit Junks Occupy Marchers' Mass-Arrest Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that the same 2nd
Circuit panel that allowed Occupy Wall Street protestors to sue
New York City police for a mass arrest on the Brooklyn Bridge four
years ago suddenly had a change of heart.

Reversing a prior 2-to-1 holding, the judges dismissed the lawsuit
without a hearing on February 23.

Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, representing the protesters for the
Washington-based group Partnership for Civil Justice, said in a
phone interview that the judges did not give her clients a chance
to argue their case before making their "extraordinary" decision
and that the protestors are "evaluating all avenues of response"
for an appeal.

"I think it's a very telling ruling in the political context in
America when the people of the country are crying out for police
reform that the judiciary here is unwilling to hold the police
accountable for the egregious violation of people's rights," the
attorney said.

The case stems from the NYPD's mass arrest of more than 700
protesters who had gathered on the Brooklyn Bridge on Oct. 1,
2011.

Although police called it a clear-cut case of civil disobedience,
protesters alleged in a federal class action that officers "led
the march on the bridge" in order to arrest them for disorderly
conduct.

U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff let the protesters take their case
to discovery in 2012.  Two years later, a majority of the 2nd
Circuit panel affirmed that decision.

In that opinion, U.S. Circuit Judge Gerard Lynch wrote that
footage of the protest signaled a "Rashomon-like quality of the
case."

Together with his colleague Guido Calabresi, Lynch found it
"impossible" to know "at this stage" whether police had probable
cause to execute the mass arrest.

In a scathing dissent, Judge Debra Ann Livingston warned that the
ruling "threatens the ability of police departments in this
circuit lawfully and reasonably to police large-scale
demonstrations."

Months after that decision, the refusals of grand juries across
the United States to indict police officers for the killings of
unarmed black men sparked large-scale protests like the one
involved in this case.

Shortly after those demonstrations snarled New York City traffic,
Mayor Bill de Blasio's administration sought to rehear the case
through in banc review, a rare maneuver that would have brought
the appeal the entire 2nd Circuit.

But the case never made it to the 14-judge panel and Lynch and
Calabresi reversed their original ruling, finding that the
officers deserved qualified immunity from the lawsuit.

Where the majority previously spotted "Rashomon-like" complexity,
the now-unanimous panel found stark simplicity.

Speaking of the protesters, Lynch wrote for the panel: "They were
also certainly aware that no official had expressly authorized the
protesters to cross the bridge via the roadway.  To the contrary,
the officers would have known that a police official had attempted
to advise the protestors through a bullhorn that they were
required to disperse."

Protesters contend that only demonstrators in the front of the
crowd heard the warnings, an assertion the majority previously
found credible.

Verheyden-Hilliard called the about-face "extraordinary" and
"shocking."

"This is a message to the people of New York that if they
participate in a police-led escorted march they can be suddenly
kettled, corralled and mass-arrested," she said.

City law department spokesman Nick Paolucci said that the evidence
supported the police from the start.

"The Second Circuit panel has properly recognized that the
defendant officers are entitled to qualified immunity from damages
in this case," he said.  "As we have consistently maintained, the
alleged facts and multiple videotapes of the events do not show
that the plaintiffs were ever granted permission to march onto and
block all vehicular traffic on the roadway of the Brooklyn
Bridge."

The Plaintiffs-Appellees are represented by:

          Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, Esq.
          Andrea Hope Costello, Esq.
          Carl Messineo, Esq.
          PARTNERSHIP FOR CIVIL JUSTICE FUND
          617 Florida Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 232-1180

The Defendants-Appellants are represented by:

          Ronald E. Sternberg, Esq.
          Leonard Koerner, Esq.
          Arthur G. Larkin, Esq.
          Assistant Corporation Counsel
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 788-0303
          Facsimile: (212) 788-0367

The appellate case is Karina Garcia, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
and Marcel Cartier, Plaintiff v. Jane and John Does 1-40,
Defendants-Appellants, and Raymond W. Kelly, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 12-2634-cv, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.


NORAMPAC HOLDINGS: May 21 Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
If you purchased Containerboard Products in the United States from
February 15, 2004 through November 8, 2010, your rights could be
affected by a Proposed Settlement.

What is This Case About?
Plaintiffs allege that International Paper, Cascades Canada, ULC,
Norampac Holdings U.S. Inc., Weyerhaeuser Company, Georgia Pacific
LLC, Temple-Inland Inc., TIN Inc., and Smurfit-Stone Container
Corporation (now known as RockTenn CP, LL) (collectively,
"Defendants") conspired to fix the prices of Containerboard
Products in violation of U.s. antitrust laws.  A settlement was
previously reached with Packaging Corporation fo America in the
amount of $17,600,000.  The Court granted final approval to that
settlement on September 9, 2014.  Defendants deny any liability
and the Court has not ruled on the merits of the claims or
defenses.

What are Containerboard Products?
"Containerboard Products" include linerboard, corrugated medium,
corrugated sheets and corrugated products, including boxes and
other containers.

The Settlement
A settlement has been reached with Defendants Cascades Canada,
ULC/Norampac Holdings U.S., Inc. (collectively "Norampac").
Pursuant to the settlement, Norampac will pay the sum of
$4,800,000 (four million eight hundred thousand dollars) and other
consideration to the settlement class.  Norampac denies liability
but has settled to avoid further expense, inconvenience and
distraction of the litigation.  The litigation is continuing
against the remaining Non-Settling Defendants: International
Paper, Weyerhaeuser Company, Georgia Pacific LLC, Temple-Inland
Inc., TIN Inc., Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation n/k/a RockTenn
CP, LLC.

Norampac has many customers in Canada, however this Settlement
only applies to Containerboard Products that were directly
purchased for use or delivery in the United States.

Who is a Class Member?
You are a class member if, at some point between February 15, 2004
and November 8, 2010, you purchased Containerboard Products
directly from any of the Defendants in the litigation for use or
deliver in the United States.  Defendants in the litigation are:
Packaging Corporation of America, International Paper, Norampac,
Weyerhaeuser Company, Georgia Pacific LLC, Temple-Inland Inc., TIN
Inc., or Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation in the United States.
Additional information is contained in the full Notice, including
information on who is or is not a Class Member.

Will I Get a Payment?
It is not anticipated that any distribution will be made to Class
Members at this time from the proceeds of this settlement.
Members of the Settlement Class may receive distributions in the
future.  See the full Notice for more details.

What Are My Rights?

If you do nothing, you will be considered part of the settlement
class and you will release certain legal rights against the
settling defendant, Norampac, as set forth in the settlement
agreement.  At a later date, you may be eligible to submit a claim
to receive money.  If you do not want to take part in the
settlement, you have the right to opt out.  To opt out of the
settlement, you must do so by April 27, 2015.  Class members also
have the right to object to the settlement.  If you object, you
must do so by April 27, 2015.  Additional information about your
rights is contained in the full Notice.  You may speak to your own
attorney at your own expense for help.

Final Approval Hearing
A Final Approval Hearing is scheduled to be held at the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in
Courtroom 1941 on May 21, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. (Central Time).  The
date and location for this hearing may be changed on further Order
of the Court.

This is a Summary; Where Can I Get More Information?
You can get complete Settlement information, including a copy of
the full Notice, by visiting
https://containerboardproductscase.com/
calling 888-764-8864, or writing to Container Products Class
Action, c/o Rust Consulting, Inc., P.O. Box 1919, Faribault, MN
55021-1942.

Do not contact the Court in connection with the Settlement.

If you have any questions or comments you may contact Co-Lead
Counsel for the Class:

Michael J. Freed
FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN, LLC
2201 Waukegan Rd.,
Suite 130
Bannockburn, IL 60015
Telephone: (224) 632-4500
Fax: (224) 632-4521

Daniel J. Mogin
THE MOGIN LAW FIRM, P.C.
707 Broadway, Suite 1000
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 687-6611
Fax: (619) 687-6610


NORMARK CORPORATION: Recalls Lithium Lazer(TM) Ice Augers
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Normark Corporation d/b/a Rapala USA of Minnetonka, Minn.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 3,000 StrikeMaster(R)
Lithium Lazer(TM) Ice Augersin the United States and 60 in Canada.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The trigger switch on the auger could fail and the unit will not
turn off, posing an injury hazard.

The Lithium Lazer(TM) ice auger is used by ice fishermen to cut
circular holes in ice to access the water and fish below.  The
Lithium Lazer(TM) ice auger is a 24-pound black and red unit
powered by an electric motor and a rechargeable 50-volt lithium
ion battery.  The auger has two handles, a power switch, a trigger
switch and a drill, and is identified with the logo for
StrikeMaster Ice Augers on the front of the powerhead.  It also is
identified as a Lithium Lazer(TM) on the top of the powerhead.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at Cabela's, Gander Mountain, Joe's Sporting Goods, Kirkwood
Scheels Sports, Reed's Sporting Goods and other sporting goods
stores from September 2014 through January 2015 for about $600.

Return to the place where purchased for a full refund, or return
to Rapala for a full refund or $700 credit toward a new product on
www.rapala.com


NORTHLAND GROUP: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Kraus, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
consumers v. Northland Group, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01005-ENV-LB
(E.D.N.Y., February 26, 2015) accuses the Defendant of violating
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          483 Chestnut Street
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516
          Telephone: (516) 791-4400
          Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


NVIDIA CORP: Faces GTX 970 False Advertising Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
James Niccolai, writing for PCWorld, reports that gaming
enthusiasts have been griping for months that Nvidia's GeForce GTX
970 graphics chip doesn't operate up to snuff, and now someone has
taken the company to court over it.

Nvidia was hit with a class action lawsuit on Feb. 19 that claims
it misled customers about the capabilities of the GTX 970, which
was released in September.

Nvidia markets the chip as having 4GB of performance-boosting
video RAM, but some users have complained the chip falters after
using 3.5GB of that allocation.

The lawsuit says the remaining half gigabyte runs 80 percent
slower than it's supposed to.  That can cause images to stutter on
a high resolution screen and some games to perform poorly, the
suit says.  It was filed in the U.S. District Court for Northern
California and names as defendants Nvidia and Giga-Byte
Technology, which sells the GTX 970 in graphics cards.

Nvidia declined to comment on the lawsuit on Feb. 20 and Giga-Byte
couldn't immediately be reached.

Responding to the issue in January, Nvidia acknowledged that the
GTX 970 uses a different memory subsystem design than its higher-
end GTX 980, but it said that difference has a negligible impact
on performance.  It has also said that, due to an error, the
original specifications it published for the GTX 970 were
incorrect.

Some gamers are unhappy and want their money back.  A discussion
thread about the topic at the GeForce.com website runs for 360
pages.  There's also a petition at Change.org with more than 8,000
signatures asking regulators in Europe and the U.S. to force
Nvidia to provide refunds.

The Feb. 19 lawsuit seeks a jury trial and whatever damages apply
under California law.  It was filed on behalf of all consumers in
the U.S. who bought graphics or video cards with the GTX 970.  It
will be up to the judge to decide whether the lawsuit can proceed
as a class action.


PACE UNIVERSITY: Moves "Williams" Suit to New York District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Williams v. Pace University, Case No.
150707/2015, was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, New York County, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (Foley Square).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01424-PKC to the proceeding.

Plaintiff Nicolette Williams alleges that Pace discriminated
against her because she was given a failing grade on her
comprehensive exam and denied her degree from the Dyson College of
Arts and Sciences of Pace University on the basis of her race.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stewart Lee Karlin, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF STEWART L. KARLIN, P.C.
          9 Murray Street, 4W
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 792-9670
          E-mail: slk@stewartkarlin.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Edward Cerasia II, Esq.
          Alison L. Tomasco, Esq.
          CERASIA & DEL REY-CONE LLP
          150 Broadway, Suite 1517
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (646) 525-4235
          E-mail: ed@cdemploymentlaw.com
                  alison@cdemploymentlaw.com


PASADENA, CA: Officials Hid $6.4MM Embezzlement Scheme, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pasadena city officials kept a $6.4 million embezzlement scheme at
City Hall under wraps for months, allowing three council members
to run uncontested for their seats, a voter claims in a federal
class action, reports Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service.

James Lomako sued Pasadena and its council members on Feb. 20,
asking a judge to stop the March primary election.

Pasadenans were outraged when news of public works official Danny
Ray Wooten's arrest broke late last year.  Angry residents
questioned how city officials had allowed a $6.4 million
embezzlement scheme to go unnoticed for years.

The city fired Wooten in June 2014 after uncovering his alleged
11-year scheme to embezzle $6,432,810.98 in public money.

Lomako claims the city delayed going public for another six
months, allowing council members Margaret McAustin, Gene Masuda
and Steve Madison to run uncontested for their seats.

Lomako says the city did not reveal details of the scheme until
Dec. 30, 2014, about two weeks after the nomination period for
city elections had closed.

City officials said they did not want to compromise the Los
Angeles County District Attorney's investigation.

But Lomako claims that did not "provide a rational basis" for
withholding details to Pasadenans before Wooten's Dec. 30, 2014
arrest.

Lomako claims that as a prospective District Two Pasadena city
councilman he would have "sought and received the nomination" had
the city gone public before nominations closed.

But city spokesman William Boyers told Courthouse News that Lomako
is not on the March ballot because he missed the filing deadline
by two months.

Boyer forwarded a copy of a Feb. 17, 2015 letter addressed to
Lomako.  The letter says that Lomako asked for a blank nomination
form on Feb. 13 this year, and returned it on Feb. 17 -- but the
filing deadline was Dec. 12, 2014.  The city clerk's letter also
states that the clerk told Lomako on Feb. 13 that he could file a
write-in candidate statement, but Lomako "declined to do so."

As it stands, incumbent District Two Councilwoman Margaret
McAustin is running for the seat unopposed.

"The practical impact of the disclosure delay is that the public
was kept unaware of vital public information during the
nominations period," Lomako claims.  "By the time it was disclosed
to the public, the nominations period was closed and three
incumbent council members -- defendants Margaret McAustin, Gene
Masuda, and Steve Madison -- were running for their offices
unopposed."

Lomako, whom McAustin defeated when he ran in the 2007 election,
claims the District Attorney's Office had asked that the city keep
its involvement confidential to ensure the "integrity of the
investigation and prosecution."

City Manager Michael Beck and City Attorney Michele Bagneris in
the summer of 2014 issued a gag order on the D.A.'s investigation
to city department heads, Mayor Bill Bogaard and city councilmen
and councilwomen, Lomako says.  It was not until after the city
commissioned firm KPMG to forensically audit Wooten that the city
went public, according to the complaint.

Wooten, formerly an analyst at Pasadena's public works department,
is accused of falsifying invoices from 2004 until 2014 as he
managed the task of moving all of the city's utility lines
underground.  He allegedly diverted $2 million in public money to
the owner of an electric company, Tyrone Collins, and $40,000 in
city money to Melody Jenkins, a temporary city employee.

Collins and Jenkins were also charged in a 60-count criminal
complaint with embezzlement, conflict of interest and grand theft.

Prosecutors claim Wooten also diverted money to two churches he
belonged to, the Southern California Evangelist Jurisdiction
Center and the New Covenant Christian Fellowship Center in Pomona.

Boyers told Courthouse News that the city had not been served with
the lawsuit.

"We can't really comment on something we haven't seen," Boyers
said.

"Since there was apparently a lawsuit filed, there probably won't
be much more comment from the city beyond this letter [above],"
Boyer said.

Lomako wants the court to block the March 10 primary and the April
17 elections, calling them deprivation of rights under color of
authority of law, interference with rights, and illegal
expenditure or waste of taxpayer funds.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip Koebel, Esq.
          KOEBEL LAW OFFICES
          1015 N Lake Ave., Suite 210
          PO Box 94799
          Pasadena, CA 91109
          Telephone: (626) 629-8199
          Facsimile: (626) 410-1149
          E-mail: LawOfPEK@gmail.com


PARAMOUNT CITRUS: Faces Wage-and-Hour Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Vehling, writing for Law360, reports that seasonal field
workers on Feb. 19 hit Paramount Citrus Cooperative Inc. with a
proposed class action in a California federal court, accusing the
grower of failing to pay its migrant workers for non-harvesting
tasks such as traveling between fields, which fall outside of
their typical fruit-picking duties.

The workers say that the nation's largest citrus grower failed to
pay them minimum wage for work hours spent doing "non-piecework"
-- waiting on standby before beginning to do piecework, time spent
waiting before being sent home for a lack of work, traveling
between fields during the work and for rest periods -- in
violation of California Labor Code and the Migrant and Seasonal
Agricultural Worker Protection Act.

"To date, defendant has not paid plaintiffs any of the minimum
wages still owed to them or any of the penalty wages owed to them
under [California Labor Code]," the suit says.

The six-count complaint also includes claims of unfair competition
and violations of a failure to pay all wages upon termination and
a failure to provide wage statements.  The suit asks for damages,
civil penalties for the wage statement claims and restitution,
among other things.  It also seeks certification of five classes
each with more than 50 workers categorized by the claims in the
complaint.

The suit, brought by main plaintiffs Marcelina Peralta and
Rigoberto Monjaraz, stems from seasonal field work undertaken each
year at various locations affiliated with Paramount Citrus in Kern
County, California, outside of Bakersfield, according to the
complaint.  The workers were required to report to work at a time
of day specified by Paramount Citrus, and often had to wait an
hour or more before starting work, the complaint says, noting that
sometimes the workers would wait that duration before getting sent
home for a lack of work.  They were also required either to walk
or drive from one field to another to conduct their piecework, but
during that time they were not paid their piecework rates, the
suit says.

One of the co-op's constituent farms paid the workers only $2 an
hour to pick fruit and $4 an hour to clean equipment during one
point in the 2013-2014 season, according to the suit.  The workers
weren't compensated at all for the two 15-minute rest periods they
would take during their shifts, the complaint says.

After that season was over, and the workers laid off, the co-op
failed to compensate the field workers for all hours worked, the
suit says.

Among Paramount Citrus' products are Halos-brand mandarin oranges
and Blue Goose Minneola Tangelos, according to its website.

The plaintiffs are represented by Gregory Karasik of Karasik Law
Firm and Santos Gomez of the Law Offices of Santos Gomez.

The case is Peralta et al. v. Paramount Citrus Cooperative Inc.,
case number 1:15-cv-00263, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California.


PATRIOT PAYMENT: Faces "Mey" Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Sales
--------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Mey, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons
and entities similarly situated v. Patriot Payment Group, LLC,
Case No. 5:15-cv-00027-FPS (N.D. W. Va., February 27, 2015) is
brought over alleged unsolicited telephone sales.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony Paronich, Esq.
          Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
          BRODERICK LAW, P.C.
          125 Summer St., Suite 1030
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 738-7080
          E-mail: anthony@broderick-law.com
                  ted@broderick-law.com

               - and -

          John W. Barrett, Esq.
          Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
          209 Capitol St.
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 345-6555
          Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
          E-mail: jbarrett@baileyglasser.com
                  jmarshall@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE
          1 South Avenue, Suite 3
          Natick, MA 01760
          Telephone: (508) 655-1415
          Facsimile: (508) 319-3077
          E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net


PICTORIAL OFFSET: New Jersey Suit Seeks to Collect Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Domerstad, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Pictorial Offset Corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-01457-
KM-SCM (D.N.J., February 26, 2015) is brought to collect alleged
unpaid wages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul A. Carbon, Esq.
          MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
          400 Connell Drive, Suite 5400
          Berkeley Heights, NJ 07922
          Telephone: (908) 790-7771
          Facsimile: (908) 790-1486
          E-mail: pcarbon@margolisedelstein.com


PLY GEM HOLDINGS: Sued in Wisconsin for Trademark Infringement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Kraemer, On behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Ply Gem Windows, Ply Gem
Prime Holdings, Inc., Ply Gem Industries, Inc., MWM Holding, Inc.,
and MW Manufacturers, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00127 (W.D. Wis.,
February 27, 2015) alleges claims for trademark infringement
(Lanham Act).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Modl, Esq.
          AXLEY BRYNELSON, LLP
          Two East Mifflin Street, Suite 200
          P.O. Box 1767
          Madison, WI 53701
          Telephone: (608) 257-5661
          Facsimile: (608) 257-5444
          E-mail: mmodl@axley.com


RALPH LAUREN: Removes "Polanco" Suit to Florida District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Polanco v. Ralph Lauren Retail,
Inc., et al., Case No. 14-29139CA01, was removed from the Circuit
Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade
County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida (Miami).  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:15-cv-20803-DPG to the proceeding.

The action is brought for alleged unpaid wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and for damages pursuant to the Civil Rights
Act of 1866 to redress injuries resulting from the alleged
unlawful, race and national origin-based discriminatory treatment
of the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Michael Hoogerwoerd, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          44 West Flager Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: pmh@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Susan N. Eisenberg
          AKERMAN LLP
          One Southeast Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 374-5095
          Facsimile: (305) 374-5600
          E-mail: susan.eisenberg@akerman.com

               - and -

          Melissa S. Zinkil
          AKERMAN LLP
          777 South Flagler Drive
          Suite 1110, West Tower
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 653-5000
          Facsimile: (561) 659-6313
          E-mail: melissa.zinkil@akerman.com


REGIS CORP: Removes "Watson" Suit to California District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Sheri Watson v. Regis Corporation,
et al., was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (Los Angeles).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-01484-SVW-JC to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from labor-related disputes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth H. Yoon, Esq.
          Stephanie Emi Yasuda, Esq.
          KENNETH H YOON LAW OFFICES
          One Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2200
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-3383
          Telephone: (213) 612-0988
          Facsimile: (213) 947-1211
          E-mail: kyoon@yoon-law.com
                  syasuda@yoonlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Catherine M. Dacre, Esq.
          Emily Eschenbach Barker, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          560 Mission Street, Suite 3100
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 397-2823
          Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
          E-mail: cdacre@seyfarth.com
                  ebarker@seyfarth.com


RESURGENT CAPITAL: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Hansen, Beverly Hansen and Amy Lynn Mullins, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Resurgent Capital
Services, L.P., A Delaware limited partnership; PYOD, LLC, a
foreign limited liability company; and LVNV Funding, LLC, a
foreign limited liability company, Case No. 8:15-cv-00426-JDW-TBM
(M.D. Fla., February 27, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory Harrison Lercher, Esq.
          Ian Richard Leavengood, Esq.
          J. Andrew Meyer, Esq.
          LEAVENGOOD, DAUVAL, BOYLE & MEYER PA
          3900 First St N, Suite 100
          St. Petersburg, FL 33703-6109
          Telephone: (727) 327-3328
          Facsimile: (727) 327-3305
          E-mail: glercher@leavenlaw.com
                  ileavengood@leavenlaw.com
                  ameyer@leavenlaw.com


RJM ACQUISITIONS: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Stern, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. RJM Acquisitions, LLC and John Does 1-25, Case No.
3:15-cv-01450-PGS-DEA (D.N.J., February 26, 2015) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ROCHE: Homeowners Mull Class Action Over Environmental Issues
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Gicas, writing for Clifton Journal, reports that homeowners
neighboring Roche's Route 3 campus claim environmental issues have
damaged their property values and, as a result, intend to file a
class action lawsuit against the pharmaceutical giant as well as
the City of Clifton, officials said.

Because the confidential item was discussed during a closed
session at the Feb. 17 Clifton City Council meeting, few details
are currently available regarding the potential litigation.

However, sources told Clifton Journal the lawsuit is imminent and
will include a significant number of Clifton taxpayers, as many as
60 homeowners, whose homes are adjacent to the eastern side of the
Roche property.

The City has retained the Teaneck law firm of DeCotiis,
Fitzpatrick & Cole, LLP to serve in an advisory capacity regarding
such potential lawsuits.

An official source said the municipal council will explore the
possibility of hiring the firm to represent the City if the legal
matter progresses from potential litigation to an actual lawsuit.

The pharmaceutical giant has maintained plans to vacate the
headquarters in 2015 for a property in New York City's East Side
medical corridor.

In preparing for the sale of the Route 3 site, the company tapped
TRC Environmental Corp. to carry out an environmental
investigation of the property.

An inspection of the sewer last spring by engineering firm Paulus,
Sokolowski & Sartor PC showed a substantial amount of underground
chemical contaminants near the campus' Route 3 entrance which TRC
said likely originated in areas north of the drug company's
facility.

The investigation revealed several cracks in the sewer line
running beneath the Roche site which are believed to be
responsible for contaminants making their way into the
groundwater.  The damaged sanitary sewer pipe beneath the Route 3
campus necessitated a multi-million dollar repair which the City
plans to fund during its current budget season.

Sources said the contamination discovered during Roche's
environmental investigation occurred near the center of the site.

On Feb. 18, Roche representatives said the company is aware of the
class action lawsuit filed by two nearby residents regarding its
environmental investigation.  Although Darien Wilson, Roche's
director of public affairs, said the drug maker has a long
standing policy of not commenting about pending litigation, she
did provide a company statement.

"Since operations ceased on the Roche site at the end of 2013, the
company has undertaken a comprehensive environmental investigation
under the oversight of the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
and Licensed Site Remediation Professionals (LSRPs), licensed by
the state of New Jersey," according to the statement.  "Roche
conducted investigations both on its site and in the surrounding
area and remedial investigation reports were submitted to the
NJDEP prior to May 2014 and accepted as complete.  It should be
noted, that Roche is in compliance with all state and federal
regulatory guidelines and has already begun approved remediation
on-site."

Potential litigation can include an individual threatening to sue,
filing a notice of claim against the City which preserves the
right to sue or, in this case, a document filed against another
party that Clifton's legal department projects will ultimately
connect to the municipality.  Potential only becomes actual
litigation once the City is named in court papers.

Officials said they do not believe Nutley will be named in the
lawsuit because the area in question is Roche's property and the
sanitary pipeline is owned by Clifton.

In January, Roche held a press conference at the site to announce
a deal between the Hackensack University Medical Network and Seton
Hall University which would bring New Jersey's first private
medical school to the vacated campus.

City officials say they are optimistic the medical school will
serve as the magnet which draws additional corporate entities to
the 118-acre Roche property and ultimately reestablishes much of
the tax ratable that has been lost in the drug maker's absence.

According to Roche representatives, before the drug company began
tearing down vacant buildings, it paid about $14 million in
property taxes each year, with about $9 million going to Nutley
and $4.5 million to Clifton.

The Roche campus is fairly evenly split, with approximately 66
acres located within Clifton and 52 acres within Nutley.
Including its U.S. sales force, at its peak, the site employed as
many as 10,000 employees, officials said.


ROYAL APPLIANCE: Recalls Hand Vac Turbo Tool Accessories
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Royal Appliance Manufacturing Co., of Glenwillow, Ohio, announced
a voluntary recall of about 22,000 Dirt Devil(R) Scorpion(R) Turbo
Quick Flip Hand Vac Turbo Tool Accessory in the United States and
about 2,500 in Canada. Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The interior fan of the Turbo Tool accessory can break and eject
from the tool housing, posing a laceration hazard to the user or
bystanders.

The recalled Dirt Devil Turbo Tool attachment was sold as a vacuum
accessory with the corded Dirt Devil Scorpion Turbo Quick Flip
Hand Vac. The accessory tool is a plastic, clear yellowish green
attachment with a black turbine fan and black brush roll with
white bristles. "Royal," model number "08225" and a five-digit
manufacture date code ending in 12A U, 13A U, 13B U or 14B U are
printed on a label on the bottom of the hand vacuum. The Turbo
Tool measures about 5-3/4 inches long by 4-1/2 inches wide.
Consumers can continue to use the Dirt Devil hand vacuum without
the turbo tool accessory attachment.

Royal Appliance received six reports of the Turbo Tool accessory
breaking. No injuries have been reported.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Home
improvement stores nationwide and online at Amazon.com,
Walmart.com and other online retailers from January 2012 through
February 2015 for about $30 for the hand vac including the
accessory tool.

Consumers should immediately stop using the Turbo Tool accessory
and contact the firm for instructions on receiving a free
replacement tool accessory.


RUSSELL SIGLER: Removes "Sanchez" Class Suit to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Steven Sanchez v. Russell Sigler,
Inc., Case No. BC569545, was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Los
Angeles)).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-
01350 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges employment discrimination.

The Defendant is represented by:

          William Hays Weissman, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600
          Walnut Creek, CA 94597
          Telephone: (925) 927-4545
          Facsimile: (925) 891-2551
          E-mail: wweissman@littler.com


SCHIFF NUTRITION: Misrepresents MegaRed Supplement, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Seth Sultan, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Schiff Nutrition International, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, Case No. 8:15-cv-00315-DOC-JCG (C.D. Cal., Feb. 25,
2015) arises from the Defendant's alleged false and fraudulent
advertising of MegaRed Omega-3 Krill Oil, a dietary supplement.

MegaRed's key ingredients are the omega-3 fatty acids
eicosapentaenoic acid ("EPA") and docosahexaenoic acid ("DHA"),
which some research has suggested may help reduce the risk of
coronary heart disease.

Schiff Nutrition International, Inc., is a Delaware corporation
with its principal place of business in Utah.  Schiff is a wholly
owned subsidiary of the international consumer products
conglomerate, Reckitt Benckiser Group.  The Defendant
manufactures, markets and distributes MegaRed, which is sold in
retail stores across the United States.

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) 201-9160
          E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
                  mgreenstone@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          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
          E-mail: sscott@spanglaw.com
                  dfrech@spanglaw.com


SCM I INVESTMENTS: Faces Class Suit Alleging Job Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michaelene Rodrigues, an individual; Suzanne Forte, an individual;
and Christiane Levesque, an individual, and other similarly
situated individuals v. SCM I Investments, LLC d/b/a The Wine Loft
of Naples, a Florida limited liability company, Case No. 2:15-cv-
00128-JES-CM (M.D. Fla., February 27, 2015) asserts claims over
alleged job discrimination.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sundeep K. Mullick, Esq.
          MCGLINCHEY STAFFORD, PLLC
          1 E. Broward Blvd., Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 356-2516
          Facsimile: (954) 252-3808
          E-mail: smullick@mcglinchey.com


SIOUX CITY, IA: Supreme Court Upholds Traffic Camera Ordinance
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Smith, writing for KCRG.com, reports that the Iowa Supreme
Court on Feb. 20 said local traffic camera ordinances in Iowa that
hold the owner of a vehicle responsible for violations even if
someone else is driving are not unconstitutional or in violation
of law.

The ruling addresses a fundamental design of the traffic
enforcement camera industry as well as a complaint voiced by some
in every community with the cameras in place, including Cedar
Rapids.

Mayor Ron Corbett on Feb. 20 said the court ruling was good news
for Cedar Rapids because it appears to "negate" a different
lawsuit brought against Cedar Rapids and the city's camera vendor
that contends that the city's camera setup violates the
constitutional rights of motorists.

However, Jim Larew, the Iowa City attorney who has brought the
class-action lawsuit, on Feb. 20 said the Iowa Supreme Court
ruling involves some issues related to his case, but not other
"substantially different" ones.

"We will continue to advocate our clients' positions on those
issues in state and federal courts," Mr. Larew said.

Meanwhile, Cedar Rapids' more immediate concern is a pending
decision on traffic enforcement cameras from the Iowa Department
of Transportation, which is deciding which cameras can remain in
place across Iowa and which can't.  A couple of places where Cedar
Rapids has some of its cameras are not in accord with new DOT
rules on camera placement.

"We worked with the DOT to place those cameras back in 2010, and
so we feel we're on solid ground," Mayor Corbett said.

In the Feb. 20 Iowa Supreme Court ruling, authored by Justice
Brent Appel, the court affirmed an earlier ruling in Woodbury
County where a magistrate and District Court judge found motorist
Michael Jacobsma responsible for speeding in 2012 despite
Mr. Jacobsma's claim that the city of Sioux City couldn't prove he
was driving.

In Justice Appel's ruling, the Iowa justice cited federal court
rulings in similar cases in Chicago and Washington, D.C., in which
courts found that the cities classified vehicles caught by
enforcement cameras as civil cases, not criminal cases, and as a
result had a different burden of proof.

Mr. Jacobsma, a Sioux Center, Iowa, attorney, had argued that the
burden of proof incorrectly had shifted to him to prove he was not
driving, and instead should have remained with the city of Sioux
City to prove that he actually was behind the wheel when a traffic
camera caught his vehicle speeding in 2012.

Justice Appel, though, cited the ruling in a Washington, D.C.,
case in which the court found that the motorist was not denied due
process because there was a "rational connection" to presume that
the owner of the vehicle caught on cameras was the violator.

"(I) t is entirely rational to presume that a vehicle is in the
care, custody, or control of its registered owner," the judge in
the Washington, D.C., case said and Justice Appel wrote in his
ruling.

In the Chicago case, Justice Appel's ruling said the federal court
similarly found the Chicago traffic cameras passed the "rational
basis test." The Chicago ruling goes on to suggest that the
cameras make law-enforcement sense.

Justice Appel quoted the Chicago ruling, which in part stated,
"(A) system of photographic evidence reduces the costs of law
enforcement and increases the proportion of all traffic offenses
that are detected (and that) these benefits can be achieved only
if the owner is held responsible."

The court in the Chicago case, said Justice Appel, "observed that
vicarious liability is rational because it encourages owners to
'take more care when lending their cars, and often they can pass
the expense on to the real wrongdoer.'"

Justice Appel then states of the Chicago court ruling that "the
take away point . . . is that even if an ordinance imposes
liability on registered owners without an opportunity to show that
someone else was driving the vehicle at the time of the
infraction, such an ordinance would satisfy substantive due
process under the United States Constitution."

In an earlier case, Justice Appel said the Iowa Supreme Court
itself found that the owner of a vehicle ticketed for a parking
violation in Iowa City is responsible to pay the ticket, and that
the city doesn't need to ticket the person, if other than the
owner, who illegally parked it.

In that case, Justice Appel said the Iowa Supreme found, in part,
that "The inference created by (the ordinance) does not deny due
process to the defendant by placing the burden upon him, but
rather merely shifts to him the burden of going forward with
evidence that the vehicle was not operated by one who the City has
the right to presume was operating the automobile with its owner's
consent."


SMARTHEAT INC: Class Certification Bid in "Sicav" Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the Southern District of New
York denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the case
STREAM SICAV and TIEN CHLING, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JAMES JUN WANG,
SMARTHEAT, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-4, Defendants, NO. 13 CIV 6682
(PAE) (S.D.N.Y.)

The plaintiffs claim that SmartHeat, Inc. violated federal
securities laws by secretly amending a written lock-up agreement
under which certain company insiders were barred from selling
shares of SmartHeat stock until the start of 2012, and which
SmartHeat had publicly touted as a sign of its executives'
confidence in the company. Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of
all persons who purchased or acquired shares of SmartHeat, Inc.
stock between February 24, 2010 and May 30, 2012. On March l7,
2014, the Court issued an order denying, without prejudice,
plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Plaintiffs filed a
renewed motion for class certification.

Judge Engelmayer denies plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, on the grounds that plaintiffs' submission is
insufficiently rigorous, and fails to satisfy multiple
requirements for class certification set by Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23, including those of typicality, adequacy, and
predominance.

Judge Engelmayer said the plaintiffs may move again for class
certification.  If the plaintiffs file a new certification motion,
the defendants' opposition papers will be due March 16, 2015.

A copy of Judge Englemayer's opinion and order dated January 21,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/r25zSZfrom Leagle.com.

Stream Sicav, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Phillip C. Kim --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- Jonathan Richard Horne --
jhorne@rosenlegal.com -- Kevin Koon-Pon Chan --
kchan@rosenlegal.com -- Laurence Matthew Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- at The Rosen Law Firm P.A.

Stream Sicav, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Richard Horne--
jhorne@rosenlegal.com -- Laurence Matthew Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- Yu Shi -- yshi@rosenlegal.com -- at The
Rosen Law Firm. P.A.

Dharanendra Rai and Tien Chung, Plaintiffs, represented by Phillip
C. Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- Jonathan Richard Horne --
jhorne@rosenlegal.com -- Kevin Koon-Pon Chan --
kchan@rosenlegal.com -- Laurence Matthew Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- Yu Shi -- yshi@rosenlegal.com -- at The
Rosen Law Firm. P.A.

Ben Sheng, Movant, represented by Thomas James McKenna --
tjmckenna@gme-law.com -- at Gainey McKenna & Egleston

Smartheat, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alan Ross Pearlson --
rpearlson@wolffsamson.com - Marisa Ann Rauchway --
mrauchway@wolffsamson.com -- at Wolff & Samson, P.C.; James L.
Kopecky -- jkopecky@ksblegal.com -- at Kopecky, Schumacher &
Bleakley, P.C.


SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Removes "Esqueda" Class Suit to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Esqueda v. Sonic Automotive, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 30-2014-00750850-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Orange, Central Justice Center, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California (San Diego).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-00444-JM-NLS to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ian Gregory Robertson, Esq.
          FINE, BOGGS & PERKINS LLP
          111 West Ocean Blvd., 2425
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (714) 768-5135
          Facsimile: (562) 490-8561
          E-mail: irobertson@employerlawyers.com


SUCCESSFULMATCH.COM: Violates Confidentiality Promise, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Successfulmatch.com dba
PositiveSingles.com, a dating site for people with STDs, shares
customers' information with other sites in violation of its
promise of confidentiality, Jane Doe claims in a class action in
California Superior Court.


TAKATA CORP: "Herring" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Herring v. Takata Corporation, et
al., Case No. 4:15-cv-00056, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami).  The
Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20785-FAM
to the proceeding.

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

The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from
allegations that certain Takata-manufactured airbags are defective
in that they can violently explode and eject metal debris,
resulting in injury or even death.  The Plaintiffs allege that
Takata and the various motor vehicle manufacturer defendants
became aware of the defect years ago, but concealed their
knowledge from safety regulators and the public.


TAKATA CORP: First Hearing Begins in Airbag Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
CBS Miami reports that the first hearing was set for dozens of
lawsuits filed around the country seeking damages for allegedly
defective auto airbags made by Japan's Takata Corp.

The lawsuits are being consolidated for pretrial rulings before
U.S. District Judge Federico Moreno.

Judge Moreno set the Feb. 20 hearing to set a schedule to discuss
other issues.

More than 70 potential class-action lawsuits claim the airbags are
defective because they can explode and cause injury or death with
flying debris. At least six deaths have been linked to Takata air
bags, sparking federal investigations.

The lawsuits mostly claim unspecified economic damages stemming
from the lost value of the vehicles containing the airbags.  None
of the current cases seek damages for personal injury, but some
could be added later.


TARGET CORP: Faces Suit for Misrepresenting Herbal Supplements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Boss, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Target Corporation and Target Brands, Inc., Case No.
4:15-cv-00855-DMR (N.D. Cal., February 25, 2015) alleges that as a
direct and proximate result of Target's false advertising, the
Plaintiff and Class members have suffered injury in fact and lost
money or property, in that they purchased certain herbal
supplements when they otherwise would not have.

As the second-largest discount retailer in the United States,
Target has sold supplements under its store brand "up & up" for
years, Ms. Boss says.  In the case of at least three of these
products, however -- Ginkgo biloba, St. John's wort, and valerian
root -- Target has not been selling the supplement listed on the
packages' label.  Instead, she alleges, the packages contain
fillers that are not believed to have the same properties or
provide the same benefits as the marketed herbal supplements.

Target Corporation is a Minnesota corporation that maintains its
principal place of business in Minneapolis, Minnesota.  Target
conducts substantial business in the Northern District of
California.  There are 1,793 Target stores in the United States
and 262 in California alone, representing Target's largest United
States presence.  Target Brands, Inc. is a Minnesota corporation
also based in Minneapolis.  Target Brands is owned by Target
Corporation and it owns the trademark on many of Target's private
brands, including its "up & up" line of herbal supplements.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          Adam E. Polk, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street, 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com
                  ehg@girardgibbs.com
                  aep@girardgibbs.com


TIME WARNER: Ruling in Dodgers-Lakers Bundling Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------
William Dotinga, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
a fight over Time Warner Cable's price increases in Los Angeles --
allegedly to offset its $11 billion broadcast deals with the
Lakers and Dodgers -- is a federal issue that can't be hashed out
in state court, a California appeals court held February 23.

The ruling comes nearly two years after Sherry Fischer and three
other named plaintiffs filed an unfair business practices
complaint against the cable giant, the Dodgers and the Lakers in
L.A. Superior Court.  They claimed Time Warner's $3 billion TV
deal with the Lakers and an $8 billion deal with the Dodgers would
end up costing subscribers upwards of $100 extra per year on their
cable bills.

Time Warner bundled the games into its "enhanced" basic cable
service, the plaintiffs said -- charging subscribers for the
programming whether they watched the games or not.  They claimed
surveys show that more than 60 percent of the population in the
L.A. area does not follow either team and would opt out of the
channels if they could.

Both Time Warner and the teams filed objections to the lawsuit,
with the Dodgers and Lakers pointing out they had not committed
any unfair acts and could not be held liable.  Time Warner argued
that federal law allows cable companies to bundle channels,
providing a "safe harbor" against the class's unfair competition
claims.

A trial court subsequently tossed the action, citing the express
preemption of state law by federal statutes that govern the cable
industry.

On appeal, the subscribers argued that Time Warner's addition of
three channels to its enhanced basic cable lineup -- along with
the rate increases -- resulted in a "negative-option billing
practice" that is prohibited by the Federal Communications
Commission, the agency that oversees the cable industry.
Accordingly, the Cable Act does not expressly prohibit enforcement
of state consumer-protection laws in this case, the class claimed.

But a panel for the Second Appellate District ruled on Feb. 23
that a 1995 decision by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals -- in a
Wisconsin consumer-law case also involving Time Warner and
negative-option billing -- upheld the FCC's choice to preempt
state challenges where rate structures are concerned.

"With Time Warner Cable v. Doyle as a guide, we conclude that the
Cable Act is a proper exercise of the FCC's regulatory authority
and preempts appellants' unfair competition law claims," Judge
Laurence Rubin wrote for the panel.  "First, as in Doyle,
appellants seek restitution of the rate hike fees, thereby
retroactively affecting rates Time Warner has already charged its
customers.

"Second, the trial court took judicial notice of the channel
lineups as they stood before and after the new sports channels
were added.  Only three of nearly 100 in the non-broadcast basic
cable tier were affected," Rubin continued.  "An FCC order
interpreting the act states that tier changes of that nature are
minor, not 'fundamental,' even if they are accompanied by a rate
adjustment, and are therefore within the preemptive scope of the
act.

By contrast, deleting all existing channels from a particular tier
and replacing them with an entirely new set of channels would
constitute a fundamental change to a tier of channels.  In that
hypothetical setting, negative option billing would be implicated
and state laws that addressed such changes would not be
preempted," Rubin wrote.

Forcing cable companies to notify customers every time they make
minor changes to programming packages -- even when the changes are
accompanied by small rate increases -- would be "seriously
burdensome to cable operators," a fact that led the FCC to add the
"fundamental change" rule that preempts this particular state-
court action, the panel said.

"In short, the FCC, pursuant to its statutory authority, has made
it clear that state consumer protection laws are preempted in
regard to negative option billing practices that result in rate
hikes due to the addition of a small number of channels because
those rate hikes do not represent a 'fundamental change' in
service," Rubin wrote.  "The essence of appellants' complaint is
to the contrary -- nonfundamental changes are not preempted.  Even
though they seek leave to amend to allege that the three channel
additions fundamentally altered the basic cable tier, such an
allegation would not eliminate that defect, as the cited
authorities indicate that such additions are not fundamental
changes.  We therefore hold that the action is necessarily
preempted as to all respondents."

The panel added in a footnote that they were "keenly aware" that
the issue affects millions of Southern California residents who
feel that "although they now receive 10 times 57 channels or
more," there's still nothing to they want to watch on TV.

"We simply hold that federal preemption principles bar application
of state consumer protection laws in this case.  Thus, consumers
must present their complaints to Congress or the FCC," the panel
concluded.

The Plaintiffs and Appellants are represented by:

          Maxwell M. Blecher, Esq.
          Courtney A. Palko, Esq.
          BLECHER COLLINS PEPPERMAN & JOYE PC
          515 S Figueroa St., Suite 1750
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 622-4222
          Facsimile: (213) 622-1656
          E-mail: mblecher@blechercollins.com
                  cpalko@blechercollins.com

Defendant and Respondent Time Warner Cable, Inc., is represented
by:

          Daniel G. Swanson, Esq.
          Jay P. Srinivasan, Esq.
          Brandon J. Stoker, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: (213) 229-7430
          Facsimile: (213) 229-6430
          E-mail: dswanson@gibsondunn.com
                  jsrinivasan@gibsondunn.com
                  bstoker@gibsondunn.com

Defendant and Respondent The Los Angeles Lakers, Inc. is
represented by:

          Bryan A. Merryman, Esq.
          Rachel J. Feldman, Esq.
          Lauren M. Mutch, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE LLP
          633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2007
          Telephone: (213) 620-7700
          Facsimile: (213) 452-2329
          E-mail: bmerryman@whitecase.com
                  rfeldman@whitecase.com
                  lmutch@whitecase.com

Defendants and Respondents Los Angeles Dodgers Holding Company and
America Media Productions are represented by:

          Dan K. Webb, Esq.
          David B. Enzminger, Esq.
          Derek J. Sarafa, Esq.
          William C. O'Neil, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          35 W. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601-9703
          Telephone: (312) 558-5600
          Facsimile: (312) 558-5700
          E-mail: dwebb@winston.com
                  denzminger@winston.com
                  dsarafa@winston.com
                  woneil@winston.com

The appellate case is Sherry Fischer, et al., Plaintiffs and
Appellants v. Time Warner Cable Inc., et al., Defendants and
Respondents, Case No. B254863, in the Court of Appeal of the State
of California, Second Appellate District, Division Eight.  The
trial court case is Sherry Fischer, et al. v. Time Warner Cable
Inc., et al., Case No. BC512259, in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles.


TOTAL WEALTH: Judge Appoints Receiver; Class Action Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tom Harvey, writing for The Salt Lake Tribune, reports that a
federal judge has appointed a receiver to take over a company
owned by a Utah man after regulators said he was trying to pay a
fine for fraudulent activities with monies from clients of his
hedge funds.

Jacob Keith Cooper, of the southern Utah town of Washington and
owner of Total Wealth Management Inc., also is alleged to have
charge inflated fees to client accounts without telling them in
order to pay legal and other expenses.

Mr. Cooper could not be reached for comment on Feb. 20, and the
case in federal court in San Diego, where Total Wealth is located,
does not list any attorneys who represent him or the company.  A
phone once listed for the family home in Washington was
disconnected.

Total Wealth's and its pooled-investment funds that carry the name
Altus had about $108 million under management in 773 client
accounts at the end of last year, the agency said in its
complaint.

The Securities and Exchange Commission sued Total Wealth
Management and Cooper earlier in February, alleging he was
committing fraud on clients by trying to use $150,000 of their
funds to pay a fine levied against him in a SEC administrative
action last year.

That action in April of last year named Cooper, company President
Nathan McNamee of Hurricane and a California resident, David
Shoemaker of San Diego, and accused them of violating federal laws
though their use of unregistered investment funds, by not engaging
independent auditors and failing to conduct due diligence before
investing clients' monies.

It also alleged the three did not disclose conflicts of interest
created by fee-sharing agreements with funds in which most of
their clients' money was placed.

Under a proposed settlement, Mr. Cooper agreed to put $150,000 in
escrow while the commission considered whether to approve the
agreement.  But he then admitted to the SEC that the $150,000 had
come from a loan from one of the Wealth Management funds,
according to the complaint.  That breached his financial duty to
his clients and showed there were inadequate financial controls to
protect clients, the agency said.

In asking a federal judge to appoint a receiver to take over the
company, the agency also alleged that Total Wealth was charging
inflated "administrative fees" of $3,500 to $7,500 per account
without telling investors beforehand.

In an email to those investors after the fees were taken from
accounts, Total Wealth said that, among other things, the fees
were funding the cost of defending it from a class action lawsuit
pending in California state court, according to the SEC complaint.

"Cooper has an inherent conflict of interest since he is using
investors' money to defend himself in a lawsuit brought against
him by his investors," the SEC complaint says.

A related company, Metropolitan Coffee and Concession Co. LLC,
which operated four Peet's Coffee & Tea outlets in Bay Area Rapid
Transit stations in the San Francisco area, filed for bankruptcy
reorganization in October.  It listed assets of $423,000 and
liabilities of $10.7 million.

Mr. Cooper solicited clients for Total Wealth on a weekly radio
show called "Minding Your Own Business," where he discussed
investments, including in his own companies.  He told listeners
that Total Wealth's investments were safe even in an economic
downturn and that returns had been up to 18 percent, according to
the SEC.


TOYS "R" US: Post-Appeal Settlement Approved in Consumer Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Anita B. Brody of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania ruled on plaintiffs' request in the case CAROL M.
McDONOUGH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TOYS "R" US, INC., d/b/a Babies
"R" Us, et al., Defendants. ARIEL ELLIOTT, et al., No. 2:09-cv-
06151-AB Plaintiffs, v. TOYS "R" US, INC., d/b/a Babies "R" Us, et
al., Defendants, NO. 2:06-CV-0242-AB (E.D. Pa.)

On January 19, 2006, a group of consumers brought a putative
consumer class action for violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Anti-Trust Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1, 2, against Babies
"R" Us, Inc. (BRU), a national retail chain in the baby products
market, and against a number of manufacturers of baby products.
The consumers alleged that BRU conspired with defendant
manufacturers to restrict competition by requiring all retailers
to sell their goods at or above a minimum resale price. Plaintiff
Consumers alleged that as a result they paid inflated prices for
baby products manufactured by Defendant Manufacturers.

On July 15, 2009, Judge Brody granted class certification under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and created subclasses
based on the different products the consumers purchased and the
timeframe of those purchases. Shortly before trial was set
to begin, the parties announced that they had reached a
settlement. The Initial Settlement created a $35.5 million common
fund. The parties estimated that after deduction of administrative
expenses and attorneys' fees, the net settlement fund available to
the class would total $21.5 million. Judge Brody approved the
initial settlement.

At the close of the Initial Settlement claims process in August
2011, class members' claims, trebled, totaled approximately $3
million.

Three class members objected to the Initial Settlement.  Kevin
Young, Allison Lederer, and Clark Hampe appealed the final
approval of the Initial Settlement to the Third Circuit. Young et
al. raised three issues relating to cy pres on appeal: (1) that
the settlement should distribute all of the funds to class
members, rather than to cy pres recipients, to ensure full
compensation for their losses; (2) that the court should have
discounted the value of the cy pres distribution in determining
class counsel's fee award; and (3) that the class notice was
deficient because it did not identify the cy pres recipients.
Young et al.'s main concern was the significant and unanticipated
size of the cy pres award.

On February 19, 2013, the Third Circuit vacated approval of the
Initial Settlement. The Third Circuit's primary reasoning was that
at the time of final approval of the Initial Settlement, the
amount of compensation that would be distributed directly to the
class was unknown. The Third Circuit concluded that there was no
error in the notice provided to the class about the cy pres
recipient selection process, the cause was remanded to Judge
Brody.

Following the Third Circuit's ruling, the parties restructured the
settlement to address the Third Circuit's concerns and maximize
the direct benefit to Settlement Class Members. On May 14, 2014,
Judge Brody issued an order preliminarily approving the Post
Appeal Settlement Agreement.

Class counsel have filed petitions for final approval of the Post-
Appeal Settlement Agreement, for attorneys' fees, expenses, and
special incentive awards for class representatives and for final
approval of the plan of allocation.

Judge Brody granted plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class
action settlement and certification of settlement subclasses.  The
Court also granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion
for award of attorneys' fees, expenses, and incentive awards for
named plaintiffs. A copy of Judge Brody's memorandum dated January
21, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/vRlPYcfrom Leagle.com.


TRANS-CONTINENTAL CREDIT: Sued in New Jersey for Violating FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Morello, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated v. Trans-Continental Credit & Collection Corp. and John
Does 1-25, Case No. 3:15-cv-01458-PGS-LHG (D.N.J., February 26,
2015) is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
          375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Telephone: (973) 227-5900
          E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com


TREMCO INC: Ohio Appellate Court Flips Judgment in "Wholf" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Eileen T. Gallagher of the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth
District, Cuyahoga County, reversed the trial court's judgment in
the case of WILLIAM WHOLF, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. TREMCO
INCORPORATED, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELEES, NO. 100771 (Ohio App.)

Tremco manufactures and sells roofing installation and
weatherproofing services for buildings such as schools, hospitals,
and manufacturing facilities. As part of its warranty program,
Tremco provides on-site roofing inspections and preventative
maintenance services, which are supported through an Online
Information System (OLI).

William Wholf and his wife Melissa Wholf worked for Tremco
Incorporated, the former being Tremco's primary online information
system's trainer under the title OLI Sales/Customer Support
Manager and the latter being a part time data entry encoder.
Plaintiff reports to Edward Nowak, the Inspection and Maintenance
Service Manager.

Sometime after Nowak joined Tremco, some female employees
complained that Nowak made sexually suggestive comments to them
and stared inappropriately at their breasts. One of the alleged
victims was plaintiff's wife. Wholf reported Nowak's conduct to
Tremco's vice president, who reported the allegations to James
Tierney, Tremco's former General Counsel and Vice President of
Human Resources. Frustrated by what he believed was an inadequate
investigation, Wholf reported the harassment to the NETWORK, an
independent and autonomous service devoted to collecting and
reporting employee complaints regarding practices and behaviors
that may be unethical or in violation of Company policies.

Wholf alleged that after he complained about Nowak's harassing
behavior, he felt a backlash from Nowak. Wholf informed Todd
Sworney, Tremco's Drafting Supervisor that he believed Nowak was
retaliating against him for reporting his harassing behavior even
though Nowak gave him a positive performance evaluation in late
May 2010. Wholf submitted a two-week notice to Sworney in which he
stated that the harassment and retaliation against him resulting
from his complaints about Nowak forced him to leave the company.

Following his resignation, Wholf filed a complaint against Tremco
in which he asserted two claims. In Count 1, a retaliation claim
brought pursuant to R.C. 4112.02(I), Wholf alleged that (1) he
engaged in a protected activity when he reported sexual harassment
to company managers, (2) the Company et al. were aware of the
protected activity, (3) the Company et al. took adverse actions
against him, and (4) the protected activity was the cause of
Tremco's adverse actions against him. Count 2 alleged intentional
infliction of emotional distress.

The trial court granted defendants motion for summary judgment and
found that Wholf failed to establish that the alleged retaliation
was the "but-for" cause of defendants' adverse employment action.
It also found there was no evidence to support his intentional
infliction of emotional distress claim because defendants' alleged
actions were not extreme and outrageous. Wholf does not appeal the
judgment on his intentional infliction of emotional distress
claim. He appeals the judgment in defendants' favor on his
retaliation claim and raises two assignments of error.

In the first assignment of error, Wholf argues the trial court
erroneously applied the "but-for" causation standard articulated
in Univ. of Texas S.W. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. ___, 133
S.Ct. 2517, 186 L.Ed.2d 503 (2013), to his retaliation claim. He
contends the court should have applied the less stringent
"motiving factor" [sic] causation standard that he claims courts
applied prior to Nassar. In the second assignment of error, Wholf
argues the trial court erred in summarily dismissing his
retaliation claim because he produced sufficient evidence to
establish a genuine issue of material fact that appellees
retaliated against him because of his participation in protected
activities in violation of R.C. 4112.02(I).

Judge Gallagher finds merit to the appeal, the judgment of the
trial court is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial
court for further proceedings.

A copy of Judge Gallagher's opinion dated January 22, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/GGFd9tfrom Leagle.com.

Matthew D. Greenwell -- matt@cvlongolaw.com -- Charles V. Longo
-- cvlongo@cvlongolaw.com -- at Charles V. Longo Co., L.P.A.,
Attorneys for Appellant

Sue M. Douglas -- Amy Ryder Wentz -- awentz@littler.com -- Robert
M. Wolff -- rwolff@littler.com -- at Littler Mendelson, P.C.,
Attorneys for Appellees

The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District for Cuyahoga County
panel consists of Judges Eileen T. Gallagher, Frank D. Celebrezze,
Jr., and Melody J. Stewart.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Wants Judge to Decertify Fraud Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Rodriguez and Michael Lipkin, writing for Law360, report
that Trump University LLC has asked a California federal judge to
decertify a class action accusing the school of fraudulently
advertising its real estate seminars, arguing that the plaintiffs
have failed to offer up a workable damages method and have not
been diligent with class noticing, according to a motion filed on
Feb. 19.

Blasting the plaintiffs' full refund proposal as already having
been rejected in similar cases where some value was gleamed from
the contested product and alleging that plaintiffs' counsel has
wrongfully delayed sending out notice of the class to the point
that summary judgment may be decided before class members have to
opt in, Trump University asked the court to decertify the class of
former Trump University students from California, Florida and New
York.

"Having now completed discovery, it is abundantly clear that there
are no facts to support any claim against Mr. Trump.   Regardless,
and despite having nearly five years to do so, the Plaintiffs have
been unable to quantify any measure of damages.  As a result, we
believe that the classes should be decertified and the cases
dismissed," Jill A. Martin, assistant general counsel for The
Trump Organization, told Law360.

The plaintiffs have asked for full refunds, but Trump University
contends this method would be improper because certain class
representatives have admitted to obtaining at least some value
from Trump University.

"Like In re Pom Wonderful, because TU programs had at least some
value, Plaintiffs have failed to provide a workable damages model
and therefore the California Classes must be decertified," Trump
University argued in a memorandum to the motion.

Trump University noted that California's definition of restitution
is the "difference between what the plaintiff paid and the value
of what the plaintiff received," and pointed out similar damages
definitions under Florida and New York law.

Further, Trump University contends that counsel for the class has
wrongfully not yet sent out class notices, which given the
standard 60-day response time could put class members in a
position to not have to make an opt-out decision until after the
school's motion for summary judgment is decided, Trump University
argued.

"A class member could elect to opt-out only after a motion is
granted, thus avoiding being bound by any adverse decision on the
motions.  This would be a clear violation of the one-way
intervention rule and the mandate of Rule 23 requiring that class
membership be determined prior to any rulings on dispositive
motions," Trump University argued.

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel granted class certification
last February for all persons in California, New York and Florida
who hadn't received a full refund after paying for Trump
University's live events.

Lead plaintiff Tarla Makaeff, who lodged the suit in April 2010,
claims she paid more than $35,000 for Trump's seminars and
classes, but that the courses and events were not as advertised.

A number of legal battles have ensued since the complaint was
first filed.  After Ms. Makaeff sued Donald Trump in 2010 for
deceptive business practices, Trump counterclaimed for defamation,
but the court struck the claim after an appeal to the Ninth
Circuit.  And in December, U.S. Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo
denied Tarla Makaeff and other plaintiffs' bid to depose Trump
University President Michael Sexton and Trump himself a second
time, more than two years after initial depositions.

The plaintiffs claimed Trump didn't turn over key documents until
after the depositions and that they wanted to depose Sexton this
time in his personal capacity, not as a representative of Trump
University.  But Judge Gallo held that the timing of depositions
was a strategic decision and it was the plaintiffs' choice to hold
them so early.

In a separate action, Judge Curiel also granted class
certification in a related racketeering suit last October, after
finding that lead plaintiff and California businessman Art Cohen
had provided sufficient evidence that the marketing of the
allegedly fraudulent live events -- including mailers with
prominent pictures and quotes from Trump, as well as a coat of
arms and educational language -- caused thousands of student-
victims to pay to attend.

Trump is represented by Nancy L. Stagg -- nstagg@foley.com -- and
Benjamin J. Morris -- bmorris@foley.com -- of Foley & Lardner LLP,
and in-house counsel Jill A. Martin of Trump National Golf Club
Los Angeles.

The plaintiffs are represented by Jason A. Forge --
jforge@rgrdlaw.com -- and Rachel L. Jensen of Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, and Amber L. Eck -- ambere@zhlaw.com -- Helen
I. Zeldes, Alreen Haeggquist and Aaron M. Olsen --
aarono@zhlaw.com -- of Zeldes Haeggquist & Eck LLP.

The case is Tarla Makaeff, et al., v. Trump University LLC, et al,
case number 3:10-cv-00940, filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California.


TULE RIVER: E.D. Cal. Judge Revives "Medina" Suit
-------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill of the Eastern District of
California reversed and remanded the case LUIS MEDINA, Appellant,
v. WILLIAM P. VANDER POEL, Appellee, NO. 1:14-CV-01302 LJO, (E.D.
Cal.)

Luis Medina filed a lawsuit in federal court against William
Vander Poel and Tule River Ranch, a company in which Vander Poel
was a principal. The federal case was dismissed and Medina filed a
similar case in state court in November of 2010, wherein he also
asserted a California Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) claim,
which authorizes the collection of civil penalties for alleged
violations of the California labor code.

Vander Poel filed for bankruptcy protection, and seeking
resolution as to the PAGA suit, filed two adversary proceedings
against Medina in bankruptcy court.  Vander Poel sought a
determination of dischargeability of any fines that might be
levied in the PAGA case. The other proceeding, initially filed
March 10, 2014, seeks sanctions against Medina for prosecuting the
state law case in violation of the bankruptcy court's automatic
stay order.

Vander Poel moved for summary judgment on the basis that a) Medina
failed to properly file an adversary proceeding in Vander Poel's
bankruptcy case, b) all claims against Vander Poel had been
discharged, and c) that Medina's claims could not be considered
"nondischargeable" under 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a)(7).

The bankruptcy court granted the motion in its entirety, holding
that all claims asserted by Medina were discharged pursuant to
11 U.S.C. Section 727.

Medina made a timely appeal, raising these issues: (1) Whether the
bankruptcy court erred in concluding that civil penalties under
the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA", Cal. Labor
Code. Section 2699, et seq., do not fall within the exception to
discharge set forth in 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a)(7)and; (2) Whether
the Bankruptcy Court erred in granting summary judgment in favor
of Vander Poel, on grounds that said claims were discharged under
11 U.S.C. Section 727.

Judge O'Neill reversed the bankruptcy court's order holding that
the bankruptcy court erred in concluding that the civil penalties
under the California Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), Cal.
Labor Code. Sec. 2699, et seq., do not fall within the exception
to discharge set forth in 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a)(7).  Judge
O'Neill held that the bankruptcy court also erred in granting
summary judgment in favor of Vander Poel, on grounds that the
claims were discharged under 11 U.S.C. Section 727. Case is
remanded for further proceedings.

A copy of Judge O'Neill's order dated January 20, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/SVeVGffrom Leagle.com

Luis Medina, Appellant, represented by Joseph Donald Sutton --
jsutton@themmlawfirm.com -- Marco A. Palau --
mpalau@themmlawfirm.com -- Stanley S. Mallison --
stanm@themmlawfirm.com -- Eric Sebastian Trabucco --
etrabucco@themmlawfirm.com -- at Mallison & Martinez

William P. Vander Poel, Appellee, represented by Riley C. Walter
-- RileyWalter@W2LG.com -- at Walter & Wilhelm Law Group; Steven
M. Crass -- scrass@bakermanock.com -- Andrea Marie Upton -- at
Baker, Manock & Jensen, P.C.


TYLER STAFFING: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Smalls, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals v. Tyler Staffing Services, Inc. d/b/a Chase
Professionals, a Georgia corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-00557-WSD-
WEJ (N.D. Ga., February 25, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Auer Jordan, Esq.
          THE JORDAN FIRM, LLC
          1447 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 880
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 873-4720
          Facsimile: (404) 872-3745
          E-mail: jordan@ssjwlaw.com

               - and -

          Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          999 W. 18th Street, Suite 3000
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 357-3877
          E-mail: swoodrow@edelson.com


UBER TECH: Lawsuits May Alter Sharing Economy
---------------------------------------------
Kate Rogers, writing for NBC News, reports that hot start-ups Uber
and Lyft have contributed substantially to the growth of the
sharing economy that connects freelancers with available work
projects. Now some drivers of those companies argue they've been
misclassified as independent contractors and want full employee
status.

Uber and Lyft face two separate lawsuits in San Francisco federal
court.  The suits, filed in 2013, are seeking class-action status
and now making their way through the courts.

A ruling on full employee status for Uber and Lyft drivers could
have wide-ranging implications for the collaborative consumption
movement.  The new economic model has been able to maximize start-
ups' growth through a largely freelance workforce with few
traditional, full-time benefits and lower costs for new
businesses.

Beyond full employee status, the plaintiffs are seeking
reimbursement for expenses including gasoline and car maintenance
costs, which they would normally receive if they had employee
standing in California.  Drivers for both companies currently are
classified as freelancers, and drivers cover such costs
themselves.

Plaintiff attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan, partner at Boston-based
Lichten & Liss-Riordan, said both companies are profiting
"massively" from what she describes as a worker misclassification.

"Companies like to convince their workers that it's good for them
to be independent contractors because they have all of this
flexibility," said Ms. Liss-Riordan, who is representing both Uber
and Lyft drivers.  "That's a lie because employees can also have
flexibility, work part-time hours and pick their schedules.  You
can get all of those things and still get employee benefits."

But didn't the Uber and Lyft drivers know they were signing up for
freelance jobs -- without benefits -- from the get go?

A matter of fairness

Ms. Liss-Riordan argues the complaints basically come down to
fairness for drivers.  "There are basic labor protections in place
to ensure companies do not take advantage of their workers," she
said.  "Why should Uber, valued at $40 billion, not have to pay
for things that we as a society have deemed important?"

Pinpointing the lawsuits' potential total cost, for Uber and Lyft,
is difficult.  The plaintiffs have not disclosed what they're
seeking in damages. Neither start-up has revealed how many drivers
it has on its payrolls.

Lyft told CNBC by email it employs "thousands" of drivers in
California, and declined to comment further on the lawsuits.

Uber also declined to comment on the suits.

Labor experts say it's challenging to put a dollar amount on how
much full employee status would cost Uber and Lyft.

The Society for Human Resource Management says the average premium
for employee-only health-care coverage in 2014 was $882 per
employee per month.  Using that metric, health-care costs alone
could run into the hundreds of thousands per month for the
companies if they offered full-time benefits.  Other potential
costs could include fuel and related transportation costs for car-
related start-ups.

Dan, an Uber driver in Los Angeles -- who agreed to appear on
camera on the condition his full name not be used -- said he's
spending an average of $80 a week on gasoline, $30 a month on car
washes and $300 a year on oil changes. His total, potential
reimbursement costs could be near $5,000 a year, he estimated.

"I think the sharing economy can and will survive; they just have
to play by the same rules as everyone else."

Aside from covering those costs himself, the driver claims Uber
will not tell drivers where they're heading beforehand, and some
drivers needing work feel pressured to accept faraway trips
without full disclosure.

Uber did not respond to emails requesting comment, including
details on average driver costs, and whether drivers must accept
jobs before full details and mileage are disclosed.

On its website, Uber explained its strategy this way: "By
seamlessly connecting riders to drivers through our apps, we make
cities more accessible, opening up more possibilities for riders
and more business for drivers."

Some like it flexible

Of course not all drivers want full employee status.

Brooklyn, New York-based Lyft driver Robert Henderson recently
made the job switch to Lyft from Uber.  Mr. Henderson worked in
nonprofit foster care for 25 years and says the freedom and
flexibility of being an independent contractor lured him to the
sharing economy.

"[Becoming an employee] would feel like this is an obligation, and
I don't want that obligation feeling.  I like the fact that
whenever I am ready to work, I could work," Mr. Henderson said.
"The flexibility is amazing; it's something you just cannot buy."

Mr. Henderson has health insurance through his wife, so pushing
for benefits isn't a priority. However, reimbursement for costs
including gasoline and car maintenance would be nice, he said.

"But at the same time, you can make enough to cover your gas and
expenses and still come home with a very decent paycheck,"
Henderson said.

It is unclear when the judges will give their next rulings on the
cases, which are still in early stages, attorney Liss-Riordan
said. But given the high valuations for Uber and Lyft -- in the
billions -- paying for benefits shouldn't be an issue, she said.

"I think the sharing economy can and will survive; they just have
to play by the same rules as everyone else," she said.


UNITED STATES: Ruling in "Burwell" Medicare Suit Upheld in Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jose A. Cabranes of the United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit, affirmed in part and vacated in part the judgment
of the district court in the appealed case entitled LEE BARROWS,
ET AL., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SYLVIA MATHEWS BURWELL,
Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee, NO.
13-4179-CV (2nd Cir.)

Medicare is the federal government's health-insurance program for
the elderly. It contains four distinct programs, which includes
Medicare Part A and Medicare Part B. The first, Medicare Part A,
is titled Hospital Insurance Benefits for Aged and Disabled. It
provides basic protection against the costs of hospital, related
post-hospital, home health services, and hospice care for, among
others, eligible people over 65 years of age. Most relevant to
this case, Part A creates an entitlement to coverage for inpatient
hospital services and post-hospital extended care services.

The second program, Medicare Part B, is titled Supplementary
Medical Insurance Benefits for Aged and Disabled. It is a
voluntary program offering supplemental insurance coverage for
those persons already enrolled in the Medicare Part A program.
Part B covers visits to doctors and certain other outpatient
treatment. Because patients who are placed into observation status
are treated as outpatients by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services (CMS), their care is covered by Medicare Part B. The
amount that a Medicare beneficiary pays out of pocket varies
significantly based on whether the services provided were covered
under Part A or Part B.

On November 3, 2011, plaintiffs filed a putative class action
complaint, which asserts that, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services used of observation status deprived them of the Part A
coverage to which they were entitled. Each named plaintiff alleges
that they were charged hundreds of dollars in co-payments under
Medicare Part B, as well as thousands of dollars more for their
post-hospitalization skilled nursing facility (SNF) care, despite
the fact that they received hospital services substantially
similar to those provided to "inpatients" for three or more
consecutive days.

The complaint pleads nine causes of action against the Secretary,
including violations of the Medicare Act, the Administrative
Procedure Act, the Freedom of Information Act, and the Due Process
Clause. The principal relief sought is a permanent injunction that
would: (1) prohibit the Secretary from allowing Medicare
beneficiaries to be placed on observation status and thus to
deprive them of Medicare Part A coverage to which they are
entitled; (2) direct the Secretary to provide written
notification, or to ensure that written notification is provided,
to any Medicare beneficiary who is placed on observation status of
the nature of the action, of the consequences for Medicare
coverage, and of the right to administrative and judicial review
of that action; and (3) direct the Secretary to establish a
procedure for administrative review of a decision to place a
Medicare beneficiary on observation status, including the right to
expedited review.

The Secretary moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, and
on September 23, 2013, the District Court granted the motion. On
October 10, 2013, the District Court entered final judgment for
the Secretary.

Plaintiffs timely appealed the District Court's dismissal of
claims six and seven of the complaint. Claim six asserts that the
Secretary's failure to provide written notification to Medicare
beneficiaries, or to require that they receive written
notification, of their placement on observation status, of the
consequences of that placement for their Medicare coverage, and of
their right to challenge that placement violates the Medicare
statute, 42 U.S.C. Sections 1395ff and 1395w-22(g), and the Due
Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Claim seven asserts that
the Secretary's policy of not providing Medicare beneficiaries
with the right to administrative review, including expedited
review, of their placement on observation status violates the
Medicare statute, 42 U.S.C. Sections 1395ff and 1395w-22(g), and
the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The two claims
appealed by plaintiffs allege that the Secretary's failure to
provide an expedited system of notice and administrative review
regarding the placement of Medicare beneficiaries into observation
status violated: (1) the Medicare Act and (2) the Due Process
Clause.

Judge Cabranes affirmed the district court's October 10, 2013
judgment in part, in so far as it dismissed the plaintiffs'
Medicare Act claims, and vacated in part, in so far as it
dismissed the plaintiffs' due process clause claims, and remanded
the cause to the District Court for further proceedings.

A copy of Judge Cabranes' opinion dated January 22, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/PtITT2from Leagle.com.

ALICE BERS (Gill Deford, Center for Medicare Advocacy, Inc.,
Willimantic, CT; Anna Rich, National Senior Citizens Law Center,
Oakland, CA, on the brief), Center for Medicare Advocacy, Inc.,
Willimantic, CT, for Barrows, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants

JEFFREY A. CLAIR (Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General,
Adam C. Jed, Michael S. Raab, United States Department of Justice,
Civil Division, Appellate Staff, Washington, DC; Deirdre M. Daly,
United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, on the
brief), United States Department of Justice, Civil Division,
Appellate Staff, Washington, DC, for Burwell, Defendant-Appellee

Mark G. Arnold, Husch Blackwell LLP, Clayton, MO, for Amicus
Curiae American Health Care Association

Edith M. Kalls, Whatley Kallas, LLP, New York, NY, for Amici
Curiae American Medical Association, et al

Catherine E. Stetson, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Washington, DC, for
Amicus Curiae American Hospital Association

The Court of Appeals of California Second Circuit panel consists
of Circuit Judges Jose A. Cabranes, Ralph K. Winter and John M.
Walker.


UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: "Franco" Case May Proceed; Stay Dissolved
---------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Terry B. O'Rourke's of the Court of Appeals of California,
Fourth District, Division One, vacated a stay imposed on the case
UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE, L.P., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR
COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, Respondent, FLORIDALMA FRANCO, Real
Party in Interest, NO. D066919 (Cal. App.)

Floridalma Franco was an employee of Universal Protection Service,
L.P.  She signed an arbitration agreement providing that she and
Universal agreed, subject to some exceptions, to arbitrate any and
all disputes or claims between them, including disputes relating
to their employment relationship and its termination, and disputes
over wage and hour violations.

In March 2014, Franco on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated filed a claim for arbitration with the AAA setting out 11
causes of action based on Universal's alleged violations of the
Labor Code and wage orders for not paying its security guards
wages for regular and overtime hours, not providing required meal
and rest breaks, not reimbursing for employment related expenses,
and not providing itemized wage statements. In part, Franco sought
to recover civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act
of 2004 (PAGA) (Lab. Code, Sec. 2698 et seq.).

Universal responded to Franco's demand by filing a declaratory
relief action in the San Diego Superior Court. It sought judicial
declarations that (1) the court, not an arbitrator, decide whether
class, collective or other representative arbitration is available
under the arbitration agreement and (2) the arbitration agreement
required Franco to arbitrate her claims on an individual basis
only.

The Superior Court granted Franco's petition to compel
arbitration, and held that the arbitrator shall decide the issue
whether the class action claims are arbitrable.

Universal filed a petition for writ of mandate or prohibition
seeking an immediate stay and requesting that the court issue an
alternative writ directing the superior court to vacate its order,
or show cause why it should not be ordered to do so, and, on
return of that writ, issue a peremptory writ of mandate directing
the court to enter a new order denying Franco's motion to compel
arbitration.

The court issued an order to show cause, stayed the trial court's
order and the parties' arbitration, and deemed, absent objection,
Franco's informal response a return to the petition.

Justice O'Rourke denied Universal's petition and the stay issued
on November 10, 2014, is vacated.

A copy of Justice O'Rourke's opinion dated February 27, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/DNHsnifrom Leagle.com.

Richard J. Simmons -- rsimmons@sheppardmullin.com -- Jason Wade
Kearnaghan -- jkearnaghan@sheppardmullin.com -- Cassidy M. English
-- cenglish@sheppardmullin.com -- Michael T. Campbell --
mcampbell@sheppardmullin.com -- at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter &
Hampton, for Petitioner

Peter R. Kindem -- peter@dion-kindemlaw.com -- at The Dion-Kindem
Law Firm; Lonnie C. Blanchard -- lonnieblanchard@gmail.com --
Jeffrey D. Holmes -- at The Blanchard Law Group

The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One
panel consists of Acting Presiding Justice Gilbert Nares and
Justices James A. McIntyre and Terry B. O'Rourke.


VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Notice is hereby given a class action lawsuit has been filed on
February 20, 2015, in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York by an investor individually and on behalf of
all other investors who purchased or otherwise acquired common
stock of Virtus Investment Partners Inc. between May 28, 2013 and
December 22, 2014.  The Class Action Complaint alleges that Virtus
and certain of its officers and/or directors violated sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Virtus is a mutual fund company based in Hartford, Connecticut,
which is best known for its "AlphaSector Rotation" and "Premium
AlphaSector" Funds.  The Complaint alleges that since at least
May 28, 2013, Virtus knew that its sales and marketing of the
AlphaSector's past track record was based on false and misleading
statements about its success against the S&P 500 index.  Virtus's
sales of its AlphaSector funds drove its increases in revenues and
income, and caused substantial artificial appreciation in its
stock price.

On September 5, 2014, the Wall Street Journal first reported that
the SEC was investigating F-Squared, a co-adviser responsible for
Virtus's AlphaSector Funds, over alleged falsifications of its
past track record.  Following this disclosure, Virtus's stock fell
by $37 per share, and lost more than 16 percent of its value
within a few days.

Subsequently, on December 22, 2014, the SEC announced its
settlement of an administrative proceeding against F-Squared for a
penalty of $35 million, revealing further details about the fraud.
The Complaint alleges that Virtus concealed its knowledge and role
in F-Squared's fraud from its investors, and knew that its stock
price was artificially inflated.

Plaintiff is represented by Zamansky LLC, a New York-based law
firm with extensive experience in prosecuting securities fraud and
financial services arbitration and litigation.  To learn more
about Zamansky LLC, please visit http://www.zamansky.com

If you purchased Virtus's stock during the Class Period, you may,
no later than 60 days from February 20, 2015, move the court to
serve as lead plaintiff of the putative class, if you so choose.
In order to serve as lead plaintiff, however, you must meet
certain legal requirements.  If you wish to discuss this action,
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, please contact:

ZAMANSKY LLC
Attention: JACOB H. ZAMANSKY
jake@zamansky.com
50 Broadway, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10004
Tel: (212) 742-1414
Fax: (212) 742-1177


VISA INC: Accused by Arizona of Restraining Trade & Fixing Prices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Visa and MasterCard restrain trade and fix prices through their
dominance in credit and debit cards, the Arizona attorney general
claims in a federal antitrust complaint, reports Jamie Ross,
writing for Courthouse News Service.

Attorney General Mark Brnovich on February 19 sued the credit-card
giants -- which issue the majority of credit and debit cards in
the United States through banks and other financial institutions.

In doing so, "each bank agrees to abide by the rules of Visa and
MasterCard, including rules that restrain competition for merchant
acceptance of the banks' credit and debit cards," the lawsuit
states.

Merchants suffer from it, Arizona says.  It claims the companies
"have exploited their market power in the markets for merchant
acceptance of credit and debit cards by creating interchange fee
schedules designed to increase the interchange fees issuing banks
are able to obtain from merchants."

Merchants must pay an interchange fee to the issuing banks when
they accept a Visa or MasterCard credit or debit cards.  The fees
make up the largest portion of merchant costs when accepting the
cards, Arizona says.

The competitive restraints prevent merchants from "fostering
competition among the issuing banks, and from offering their
customers the benefits of using credit or debit cards that are
less costly to the merchants," Brnovich says.

Competitive restraints include the interchange fees, along with
other rules that merchants must abide by, including honoring all
cards presented regardless of acceptance fee and not charging a
surcharge on transactions with Visa and MasterCard cards.

"While Visa and MasterCard nominally refer to these as 'default'
interchange fee schedules, suggesting it is possible for issuing
banks and merchants to gain different interchange rates by
entering agreements among themselves, the competitive restraints
prevent such agreements," the lawsuit states.  "The setting of
'default' interchange fees effectively fixes the price of
acceptance at a supracompetitive level."

Brnovich claims that Arizona, like merchants, must pay excessive
interchange fees, costing it "significantly higher costs to accept
Visa-branded and MasterCard-branded credit and debit cards than it
would if Visa and MasterCard had not fixed interchange fees at a
supracompetitive level and if member banks competed for merchant
acceptance."

Merchants cannot reject Visa or MasterCard cards because of their
market dominance, the state says: "(T)hey would face serious
economic and competitive consequences if they ceased to do so,"
Brnovich says.  "A merchant's efforts to reduce the interchange
fees it pays by accepting only cards with lower interchange fees
would violate the competitive restraints."

A federal court found in 2003 that Visa's credit card market share
fluctuated from 43 to 47 percent, and MasterCard's fluctuated
between 26 and 28 percent -- giving them two-thirds to three-
fourths of the entire market.  Since the finding, the two
companies' shares have not changed significantly, Arizona says.

In May 2013, Arizona opted out of a settlement in a 2005 class
action alleging Visa and MasterCard fixed fees to generate more
than $40 billion per year.  The settlement came to $7.25 billion.

Brnovich seeks declaratory judgment, an injunction and damages for
violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.


WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Dubanoski" Suit Alleging TCPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Dubanoski, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. dba Walmart, Case No. 4:15-cv-
00042-HLM (N.D. Ga., February 27, 2015) alleges violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shireen Hormozdi, Esq.
          HORMOZDI LAW FIRM, LLC
          10474 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 405
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (323) 988-2400
          Facsimile: (866) 929-2434
          E-mail: shormozdi@consumerlawcenter.com


WATERFORD HARBOR: Tex. App. Rules in Lot Owner's Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Justice John Donovan of the Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth
District, in Houston, ruled on a motion in the appealed case
WATERFORD HARBOR MASTER ASSOCIATION, Appellant, v. MICHAEL LANDOLT
AND ANN WISMER, Appellees, NO. 14-13-00817-CV (Tex. App.)

Waterford Harbor is a subdivision in Galveston County comprised of
different types of residences, a marina, and parks. In 1991, the
Landolts purchased a home in the Waterford Oaks section of
Waterford Harbor. The Oaks is an exclusive, private section within
Waterford Harbor, access to this section is through a second gate.
Within the Oaks is a park area, which is accessible to residents
of Waterford Harbor and the Oaks.

The Landolts learned of a change to the Oaks square footage
figures in 2002. The minutes of Waterford's board of directors
reveal that in December 2002, the square footage of the Oaks was
changed from the 394,254, to 594,254, as reflected on the Plat of
the subdivision and in the sub-association Declaration. Beginning
in 2003, Waterford calculated assessments using the 594,294 square
feet figure. The Landolts claim their assessment increased 7% to
8%. Since that time, the Landolts have paid their assessments
under protest.

In May 2012, Waterford's Master Association called for a vote on
three amendments. The first was to amend the Master Declaration to
approve the 2002-2003 change to the total square footage of the
Oaks. The second was to allow sub-associations to submit petitions
to elect their own boards of directors. The third was to increase
approval by membership required to amend the Master Declaration
from 51% to 67% for purposes of the Pro Rata Share or termination
of the covenants. In June 2012, the Landolts received a letter
asking homeowners to verify the square footage of the owners' lot,
explaining the figures used were taken from the records of the
Galveston County Appraisal District (GCAD). The letter listed the
square footage of the Landolts' property as 35,911.

The Landolts sued Waterford under the Texas Declaratory Judgment
Act, seeking a declaration that the Oaks Park be considered Common
Facilities. This declaration, the Landolts urged, would result in
a reduction in the amount of assessment because community
facilities are exempt from inclusion in the calculation on which
assessments are based. The Landolts also asked the court to
declare that a particular section of property, Reserve A, is a
common interest property for every resident of Waterford Harbor,
arguing every resident should be allowed to vote a pro rata share
of that property. They also asked the court to require Waterford
to use the square footage listed on the Plat, and not that listed
in the GCAD records, for voting purposes. Finally, the Landolts
sought recovery of overpayments on assessments based on the
increased square footage due to the 2002-2003 change to the square
footage contained in the Plat.

The trial court ordered that the 2002-2003 action of Waterford's
board of directors changing the typographical error, correcting
the square footage from 394,254 to 594,254, was invalid. The trial
court further found the May 2012 vote was invalid because the
numbers used were based on the "invalid" 2002-2003 voting numbers.
The trial court declared that the Oaks park area is not a Common
Facility and the trial court rejected that Reserve A should be
allocated to the homeowners for purposes of voting. Finally, the
trial court awarded the Landolts $16,218.24, along with attorneys'
fees, pre and post-judgment interest.  Waterford appealed.

The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment insofar as
it provides that the 2002-2003 change and the May 2012 vote was
invalid and reversed and rendered the award of monetary damages
and attorneys' fees in favor of the Landolts. The appellate court
affirmed the trial court's judgment declaring the Oaks park area
is not a Common Facility, and rejecting the argument that Reserve
A was to be allocated for voting. Waterford will recover
attorneys' fees in the amount of $33,263.50, plus an additional
$15,000.00 for a successful appeal to the court of appeals, and
$15,000.00 for a successful appeal to the Supreme Court of Texas.

A copy of Justice Donovan's substitute memorandum opinion dated
January 22, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/jHg035from
Leagle.com.

The Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District panel consists
of Chief Justice Kem Thompson Frost and Justices John Donovan and
Brown.


WCOU RADIO: Sued for Non-Compliance With ADA Standards
------------------------------------------------------
Fredkiey Hurley, individually v. WCOU Radio, Inc. d/b/a Tile Bar,
a New York for profit corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-01495-VSB
(S.D.N.Y., February 27, 2015) alleges that the Defendant's
property is not compliant with the accessibility requirement of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

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

The property at issue is located at 115 1st Avenue, in New York
City.  The Property is being operated as a food service
establishment -- a "place of public accommodation" -- by WCOU, who
is a tenant on the Property.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WELLS FARGO: Removes "Eggers" Suit to Southern District of Iowa
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Eggers v. Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., et al., Case No. LACL131656, was removed from the Iowa
District Court in and for Polk County to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa (Central).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-00064-JEG-CFB to the proceeding.

Plaintiff Richard Eggers alleges violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas Andrew Newkirk, Esq.
          Leonard E. Bates, Esq.
          NEWKIRK ZWAGERMAN, P.L.C.
          515 East Locust, Suite 300
          Des Moines, IA 50309
          Telephone: (515) 883-2000
          Facsimile: (515) 883-2004
          E-mail: tnewkirk@newkirklaw.com
                  lbates@newkirklaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael A. Giudicessi, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS, LLP
          801 Grand Avenue, 33rd Floor
          Des Moines, IA 50309-8011
          Telephone: (515) 248-9000
          Facsimile: (515) 248-9010
          E-mail: michael.giudicessi@faegrebd.com


WHIRLY WEST: Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages and Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chasity Beasley v. Whirly West, Inc., d/b/a Whirlyball, and Samuel
Elias, Case No. 1:15-cv-01738 (N.D. Ill., February 26, 2015) is
brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, back pay, interest, other equitable and ancillary relief
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Whirly West, Inc., doing business as Whirlyball, is an Illinois
corporation, which maintains offices and does business in the
state of Illinois, including this judicial district.  Samuel Elias
is a shareholder, corporate officer and current director of
Whirlyball.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jorge A. Gamboa, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
          E-mail: jgamboa@stephanzouras.com


                             *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Ma. Cristina
Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2015. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *