CAR_Public/150313.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, March 13, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 52


                             Headlines

ACB RECEIVABLES: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
ACTION TEMPORARY: Faces "Flexter" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
ALIBABA GROUP: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action in N.Y.
ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of FDCPA
AMERIPRISE FIN'L: Court Denies Bid to Strike Class Allegations

AMIA INVESTMENTS: Homebuyers Mull Contract Breach Class Action
AMSCAN HOLDINGS: California Appeals Court Revives "Aguirre" Suit
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Moran" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Moran" 2nd Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Paracha" Suit in Ind. Over Alleged Data Breach

ANTHEM INC: Faces "Pierpont" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
ANTHEM INC: Notice of Factors for Any Proposed Settlement
APPLE INC: Acknowledges MacBook Pros' Graphics Hardware Issues
AVIS BUDGET: Accused of Retaliation and Discrimination in N.Y.
BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Tosses Payday Loan Class Action

BLUE CROSS: E.D Mich. Judge Narrows Claims in Kent Companies Suit
CHELSEA INVESTMENT: Court Dismisses "Whitby" Case With Prejudice
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Gas Royalty Payments
CHICAGO: Ruling in "Stefanski" Action Reversed
CIGNA CORP: Pa. Affirms Trial Court's Order in Rift With Insurers

CITY FISH: Recalls Smoked Salmon Products Due to Listeria
CONRAD INDUSTRIES: Faces "Virgen" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CR BARD: In Indemnification Dispute With Sofradim
CTPARTNERS EXECUTIVE: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
DESTINATION WILD: Faces "Irvine" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

DISTRIBUTION MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
ELITE FORCE: Faces "Humphries" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ENGAGETEL INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Spiegel" Suit Says
ENVIRO KLEEN: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Hernandez" Suit Says
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Judge Denies Motion to Certify FLSA Suit

FIAT CHRYSLER: Recalls Multiple Models With Takata Airbags
FIAT CHRYSLER: Recalls Multiple Models With Takata Airbags
FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Sued in New York Over Violations of FDCPA
FORD MOTOR: "Edwards" Case May Proceed as Class, 9th Cir. Says
FOREST PHARMACEUTICALS: First Circuit Tosses Lexapro Class Action

FOREST RIVER: Recalls 2015 Travel Trailers Due to Incorrect Label
GNC HOLDINGS: Faces "Mourino" Suit Over Product Misbranding
GRANITEPOL & HOME: Faces "Vergara" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
GREEN TREE SERVICING: Bid to Dismiss "Longest" Class Suit Denied
H&R BLOCK: 9th Cir. Affirms "Madar" Claim Disallowance

HARPERSVILLE, AL: Blames JSC for Debtors' Prison Claims
HOSPIRA INC: Recalls 0.9% Sodium Chloride Injections Due to Hair
HOSPIRA INC: Recalls Magnesium Sulfate in 5% Dextrose Injections
HULU LLC: Judge May Knock Out Remaining Claims in Privacy Suit
IDAHO: Inmates Medical Records May Have Been Destroyed

INDECO FINISHES: Faces "Torres" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
INSTAMED COMMUNICATIONS: Sued in E.D. Pa. Over Consumer Reports
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Jury Awards $2.5MM in Risperdal Suit
JEFFERIES LLC: Court Dismisses Rieckborn Securities Class Action
JUICI PATTIES: Recalls Jamaican Chicken Patties Due to E. Coli

KITSON STORES: Sued Over Inflated Bottled Water Prices
LENOVO GROUP: Faces "Hall" Suit Over Pre-Loaded Superfish Spyware
LINDEN MAYFIELD: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
LSI TITLE: 11th Cir. Vacates Dismissal of "Clements" State Claims
LOCKHEED MARTIN: Settles 401(k) Class Action for $62 Million

MATERNAL SCIENCE: Recalls Healthy Mama(R) Boost It Up!(TM) Drinks
MILLERCOORS: Judge Bans Expert Testimony in Bottle Injury Suit
MOVE INC: Sued in Arizona for Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
MRS BPO: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y.
NATE'S CORP: Faces "Mongiove" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Concussion Settlement Faces Criticisms
NATIONAL SPOT: Faces Class Action Over Client Code Changes
NETFLIX INC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Antitrust Suit
NORMARK INC: Recalls Lithium Lazer(TM) Ice Augers
NORTH CAROLINA: App. Court Rules in Favor of Beltway Landowners

PANDORA MEDIA: Motion to Strike Copyright Class Action Rejected
PEBBLEWORKS POOL: "Vansickle " Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
REXALL SUNDOWN: NY Court Dismisses "Lary" TCPA Class Suit
RIDE RIGHT: Faces "Hatton" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
ROYAL APPLIANCE: Recalls Dirt Devil(R) Turbo Tool Attachments

RUST-OLEUM CORP: "Fernandez" Suit Included in Restore Product MDL
SECURITAS SECURITY: Arbitration of "Edwards" Case Denied
SESA FLEET: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SPRAM LLC: Recalls Aluminum Front Wheel Hubs Due to Fall Hazard
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Sued Over Real Estate Tax Overcharges

SUPREME SERVICE: "Kervin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
TAKATA CORP: "Holland" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL
TAKATA CORP: "Marino" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL
TAKATA CORP: Safety Regulators Impose Fine in Airbag Probe
TELLABS INC: Ill. Court Rejects "Wiggins" Securities Class Suit

TRANSUNION: Loses Consumer Class Action Arbitration Bid
UNITED STATES: Court Wants Detention of Asylum-Seekers Halted
UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
WELLMARK INC: Iowa Supreme Court Affirms Judgment in "Mueller"
WHEELS ASSURED: Doesn't Pay Drivers Properly, Suit Claims

WILD GEESE: "Howard" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
YELLOWPAGES.COM LLC: App. Ct. Upholds Decertification of Gray Suit

* Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Cases Down in 2014


                       Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Continues to Defend Stearns Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Continues to Defend Falk Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Corp. Has 41,000 AO Respiratory Claimants
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp.'s Zurn Unit Has 7,000 PI Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Has $248.4MM Insurance Coverage
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Has $36MM Insurance Receivable
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific Had 1,065 Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hennessey Fails in Bid to Junk "Vellucci" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: SB Decking Wins Summary Judgment in PI Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Court Refuses to Review Ruling in PI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FMC Trust, 3 Cos. Dismissed from "Lee" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Court Flips Summary Ruling in "Latter" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: RI Court Applies Tenn. Law in "Jones" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Dismisses "Jeffrey" Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Fails in Bid to Dismiss "Hall" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Issues Order Aiding Discovery in PI Suit


                            *********


ACB RECEIVABLES: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Chehebar, an infant by parent and natural guardian Sara
Chehebar, individually and on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, and Sara Chehebar v. ACB Receivables
Management Inc., and John Doe 1-25, Case No. 3:15-cv-01556-FLW-DEA
(D.N.J., March 2, 2015) is brought over alleged violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS LAW LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 660-8169
          E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com


ACTION TEMPORARY: Faces "Flexter" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Flexter, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Action Temporary Services, Inc., d/b/a Action Total
Staffing, Case No. 2:15-cv-00754 (S.D. Ohio, February 27, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Action Temporary Services, Inc. owns and operates a staffing
agency with its principal place of business in Zanesville, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
      Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
      SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
      815 Superior Ave., E. Ste. 1325
      Cleveland, OH 44114
      Telephone: (440) 498-9100
      Facsimile: (216) 621-1094
      E-mail: rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
              jfscld@yahoo.com


ALIBABA GROUP: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against Alibaba
Group Holding Ltd. and certain of its officers.  The class action,
filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New
York, and docketed under 15-cv-00811, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Alibaba
securities between October 21, 2014 and January 28, 2015,
inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover damages against
Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Alibaba securities during
the Class Period, you have until March 31, 2015 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Alibaba is a China-based online and mobile commerce company in
retail and wholesale trade, as well as cloud computing and other
services.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
soundness of the Company's business operations, the strength of
its financial prospects, and ongoing regulatory scrutiny.
Specifically, Alibaba failed to disclose that Company executives
had met with China's State Administration of Industry and Commerce
in July 2014, just two months before Alibaba's $25+ billion
initial public offering in the United States, and that regulators
had then brought to Alibaba's attention a variety of highly
dubious -- even illegal -- business practices that the SAIC
advised Alibaba it was then actively clamping down on and which
threatened the core of Alibaba's business.

On January 28, 2015, before the opening of trading, various
members of the financial media reported that the SAIC, China's
main corporate regulator, had released a white paper accusing
Alibaba of engaging in the very illegal conduct disclosed to
Alibaba executives in July 2014.

On this news, the price of Alibaba ADSs dropped 4%, or $4.49 per
ADS, closing at $102.94 per ADS on January 28th, on unusually high
volume of approximately 42 million shares trading.

On January 29, 2015, before the market opened, Alibaba issued a
press release announcing its financial results for the fourth
quarter 2014 ended December 31, 2014.  The Company reported
revenues of just $4.22 billion for the 4Q 2014, significantly
under-achieving the $4.45 billion target defendants had led the
investment community to expect based on Alibaba's bullish
statements throughout the Class Period concerning its ongoing
purported strong revenue growth.  The Company also disclosed that
its profits had fallen to $964 million, or 37 cents per share, a
28% decline from the financial results for the fourth quarter
2013, a decline Alibaba largely attributed to expenses from giving
shares to employees.  The Company also attributed challenges
generating revenues from transactions on its mobile platforms,
where advertising is less profitable than on personal computers,
and which comprised a larger percentage of sales in the quarter
than in the previous quarter.

As a result of these disclosures, the price of Alibaba ADSs
plummeted another $8.64 per ADS to close at $89.81 per ADS on
January 29, 2015, a one-day decline of approximately 9%, again on
extremely unusually high volume of more than 76.3 million shares
trading.

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


ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moshe Gutman, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Allianceone Receivables Management, Inc.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-01064 (E.D.N.Y., March 2, 2015) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


AMERIPRISE FIN'L: Court Denies Bid to Strike Class Allegations
--------------------------------------------------------------
EDMUND SAYWARD, SR. and MARC ABBOTT et al, Plaintiffs, v.
PEPPERIDGE FARM, INC., Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-12770-GAO,
(D. Mass.) is putative class action arising from allegations that
defendant Pepperidge Farm, Inc. classified its distributors as
independent contractors rather than employees in violation of
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 149, Section 148B. The putative
class consists of "[a]ll person who performed services as
distributors of Pepperidge Farm pursuant to Consignment Agreements
in Massachusetts at any time from October 2, 2010 to the present."
The distributors argue that as a result of being characterized as
independent contractors they improperly have been denied employee
benefits and overtime compensation. Pepperidge Farm has moved to
strike the class allegations.

In an opinion and order dated February 27, 2015, District Judge
George A. O'Toole, Jr., denied the defendant's Motion to Strike
saying "the Complaint contains allegations that the various
distributors engaged in uniform work activities. Accepting these
allegations for present purposes, the Court cannot determine, at
this time, that it is completely implausible for the distributors
to satisfy Rule 23(b) [Fed. R. Civ. P.]."

A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/7A8Tpafrom
Leagle.com.

Marc Abbott, Plaintiff, represented by Ian J. McLoughlin --
imcloughlin@shulaw.com -- Shapiro, Haber & Urmy, LLP, Adam J.
Shafran -- ashafran@rflawyers.com -- Rudolph Friedmann LLP &
Thomas V. Urmy, Jr. -- turmy@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy
LLP.

Edmund Sayward, Plaintiff, represented by Ian J. McLoughlin,
Shapiro, Haber & Urmy, LLP, Adam J. Shafran, Rudolph Friedmann LLP
& Thomas V. Urmy, Jr., Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP.

Pepperidge Farm, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael J. Puma
-- mpuma@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Paul C
Evans -- pevans@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius LLP,
Lisa Stephanian Burton -- lburton@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis
& Bockius LLP & Peter J. Mee -- pmee@morganlewis.com -- Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius LLP.


AMIA INVESTMENTS: Homebuyers Mull Contract Breach Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Chung, writing for News.com.au, reports that an investment
firm is accused of delaying the construction of a housing
development to demand more money.

The NSW Department of Fair Trading says it is willing to
investigate the case on behalf of the group of Western Sydney
first home buyers, who are furious after being informed that they
may have to pay up to an additional $800,000 to $1 million for
townhouses they purchased off the plan last year.

One buyer, who did not wish to be named, signed the contract and
paid the deposit for the $550,000 property in May.  She said the
buyers were initially led to believe the eight townhouses would be
ready by December.

In October, the development in Western Sydney's Punchbowl was
purchased from its original developer, Lynton Developments, by a
company called AMIA Investments Pty Ltd.

The new developer informed the buyers that their contracts were
being rescinded under a 'sunset clause', which allows for either
the buyer or the vendor to pull out if the completion date is not
met within a given time period.

The buyer said up until the sunset date on February 10, the group
were led to believe they would be moving in some time last month.
On February 13, they received notice that AMIA Investments was
rescinding.

Buyers were informed at a meeting with the real estate agent that
they would have to pay up to an additional $100,000 each to go
ahead with the purchase.  The woman says she can't afford to pay
the extra money.  "Punchbowl isn't exactly a great area," she
said.

"I believe this was something that was planned in advance, that it
was purposely delayed.  We signed our contracts and paid our
deposit in good faith, and now we're left with nothing because
someone wants more money."

A spokeswoman for LJ Hooker, which sold the properties, declined
to comment.  The agent involved is set to lose up to $100,000 in
commissions as a result of the contracts being rescinded.

The buyers are now considering their legal options, including a
potential class action.

A spokeswoman for Fair Trading NSW said the agency would be
willing to investigate whether there had been a breach of consumer
protection laws.

"It is Fair Trading's experience that most matters of this type
turn on the conditions of the contract that the consumer has
signed," she said.

"Consequently, their role is likely to be confined to whether
there is any evidence of false or misleading representations
having been made in the marketing of the property."

She reminded consumers to ensure they fully read the terms and
conditions of the contract when buying off the plan.

"Consumers should seek their own independent legal advice and
check the conditions of the contract closely," she said.

Sunset clauses or put and call notices are common in off-the-plan
contracts as a way of protecting both the buyer and the vendor,
but are sometimes used by developers in this manner.

"When markets are rising, developers can trigger the sunset clause
to make the contracts null and void and resell the properties at
higher prices," said property analyst Terry Ryder, founder of
Hotspotting.com.au.  "It doesn't surprise me that it resurfaces
from time to time."

Glenn Byres, NSW executive director of the Property Council of
Australia, said when buying off the plan people should be able to
have faith in what they are buying and the security of a contract.
"Given its importance to the housing market and buyers, we need to
ensure everyone can have comfort in the system," he said.

"That's why we'd always encourage any buyer to take their time,
get good advice on any fine print and that could also include
being clear about the track record of who they are buying from."

Alex Sapounas, a conveyancing specialist with CM Lawyers, said
these situations could arise when contracts were weighted towards
the developer.

"Is it legal? Probably yes.  Is it ethical?  No.  It's a
cautionary tale that really you need to find out the history of
that developer before you sign any contract," he said.

CM Lawyers principal Christine Manolakos added that proving a
development has been intentionally delayed to trigger a sunset
clause would be extremely difficult.

"The buyers would have to have evidence of that, get a statement
from someone who worked on the site originally.  It would be very
hard to prove," she said.  "It's obviously unethical behavior, but
unfortunately there's not much they can do."

Paul Sant -- paul.sant@turnerfreeman.com.au -- partner at Turner
Freeman Lawyers specializing in property law, said it was
important to include a clause in the contract requiring the vendor
to do everything possible to get the plan registered.

"This all started many years ago, I remember the case, it was an
LJ Hooker site at Seven Hills.  They sold a residential
development off the plan, but the area was rezoned and they
realized they could make more money by turning it into a shopping
centre, so they just waited for the sunset clause to kick in," he
said.

"From that time on, certainly in my practice I always put a clause
in my contracts requiring the developer to exercise everything in
their power to get the thing done."


AMSCAN HOLDINGS: California Appeals Court Revives "Aguirre" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California reversed the order striking and
dismissing the class allegations and denying class certification
of the lawsuit AGUIRRE v. AMSCAN HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. C073059.
The matter is remanded to the trial court for consideration of
whether class certification is proper given the appellate court's
determination that there exists an ascertainable class. Plaintiff
shall recover her costs on appeal.

Plaintiff Dionne Aguirre sued defendants Amscan Holdings, Inc.,
and PA Acquisition, doing business as Party America (collectively
Party America) on behalf of herself and similarly situated
individuals, alleging Party America violated Civil Code1 section
1747.08 of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 by routinely
requesting and recording personal identification information,
namely ZIP Codes, from customers using credit cards in its retail
stores in California.

The trial court found that plaintiff's proposed class of "[a]ll
persons in California from whom Defendant requested and recorded a
ZIP code in conjunction with a credit card purchase transaction
from June 2, 2007 through October 13, 2010" is not an
ascertainable class due to "plaintiff's inability to clearly
identify, locate and notify class members through a reasonable
expenditure of time and money [citation] bars her from litigating
this case as a class action."

Plaintiff appealed.

In its Feb. 11, 2015 Order, available at http://is.gd/0j1wFafrom
Leagle.com, the appellate court concluded that the trial court
applied an erroneous legal standard in determining the proposed
class is not ascertainable and erred in its conclusion.


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Moran" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maureen Moran, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-at-00283 (E.D.
Cal., February 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to provide adequate security and protection for its
computer systems containing patient's personally identifiable
information and personal health information.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
      Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
      Marisa C. Livesay, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      750 B Street, Suite 2770
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: 619/239-4599
      Facsimile: 619/234-4599
      E-mail: manifold@whafh.com
              rickert@whafh.com
              livesay@whafh.com

         - and -

      Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-4600
      Facsimile: (212) 545-4653
      E-mail: burt@whafh.com


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Moran" 2nd Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Maureen Moran, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00460 (E.D.
Cal., February 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to provide adequate security and protection for its
computer systems containing patient's personally identifiable
information and personal health information.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
      Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
      Marisa C. Livesay, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      750 B Street, Suite 2770
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: 619/239-4599
      Facsimile: 619/234-4599
      E-mail: manifold@whafh.com
              rickert@whafh.com
              livesay@whafh.com

         - and -

      Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-4600
      Facsimile: (212) 545-4653
      E-mail: burt@whafh.com


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Paracha" Suit in Ind. Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ibrar Paracha and Mark Krack, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-
cv-00349 (S.D. Ind., February 27, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to provide adequate security and protection
for its computer systems containing patient's personally
identifiable information and personal health information.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan Charles Little, Esq.
      Syed Ali Saeed, Esq.
      SAEED & LITTLE, LLP
      1433 N. Meridian Street, Suite 202
      Indianapolis, IN 46202
      Telephone: (812) 320-3367
      Facsimile: (888) 422-3151
      E-mail: jon@sllawfirm.com
              ali@sllawfirm.com


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Pierpont" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Pierpont, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00292
(D. Conn., February 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to provide adequate security and protection for its
computer systems containing patient's personally identifiable
information and personal health information.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
      David R. Scott, Esq.
      Erin Green Comite, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
      156 South Main Street
      P.O. Box 192
      Colchester, CT 06415
      Telephone: (860) 537-5537
      Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
      E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
              david.scott@scott-scott.com
              ecomite@scott-scott.com

         - and -

      Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
      Edwin J. Kilpela Jr., Esq.
      Jamisen A. Etzel, 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: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
              ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com
              jetzel@carlsonlynch.com

         - and -

      Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      1792 Bell Tower Lane, Suite 203
      Weston, Florida 33326
      Telephone: (954) 315-3454
      Facsimile: (954) 315-3455
      E-mail: jagoldstein@pomlaw.com


ANTHEM INC: Notice of Factors for Any Proposed Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William Alsup issued a notice regarding factors to
be evaluated for any proposed class settlement in the case
captioned CLIFF SOJOURNER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ANTHEM, INC., Defendant,
NO. C 15-00637 WHA, (N.D. Cal.).

The March 3, 2015 notice, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/c9lSDpfrom Leagle.com, provides that the factors to
be evaluated are:

1. ADEQUACY OF REPRESENTATION
2. DUE DILIGENCE
3. COST-BENEFIT FOR ABSENT CLASS MEMBERS
4. THE RELEASE
5. EXPANSION OF THE CLASS
6. REVERSION
7. CLAIM PROCEDURE
8. ATTORNEY'S FEES
9. DWINDLING OR MINIMAL ASSETS
10. TIMING OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
11. A RIGHT TO OPT OUT IS NOT A CURE-ALL
12. INCENTIVE PAYMENT
13. NOTICE TO CLASS MEMBERS

Cliff Sojourner, Plaintiff, represented by Deborah Suzanne Dixon
-- ddixon@gomeztrialattorneys.com -- Gomez Trial Attorneys & John
Paul Fiske -- Fiske@TheGomezFirm.com -- Gomez Iagmin Trial
Attorneys.


APPLE INC: Acknowledges MacBook Pros' Graphics Hardware Issues
--------------------------------------------------------------
Business Insider, citing MacRumors, reports that after
successfully battling a class action lawsuit last year, Apple is
finally acknowledging a long-running issue with MacBook Pros'
graphics hardware and has begun offering free repairs.

The lawsuit was brought against Apple in late 2014 by customers
who claimed the MacBook Pros they purchased in 2011 had severely
defective graphics cards, and Apple should be forced to pay for
the repair.

It clearly wasn't an isolated problem: A Change.org petition
calling on Apple to issue replacements for affected models has
been signed almost 40,000 times.

In January, Apple successfully had the lawsuit dismissed, with the
judge ruling that the "plaintiffs have failed to allege that
Apple's logic boards were unfit for their ordinary purposes or
lacked a minimal level of quality."

But it seems that Apple has now had a change of heart.  The
company announced on Feb. 20 that it will repair affected products
free of charge.  There's no indication of how many MacBooks Pros
have been affected by the issue over the last four years -- Apple
just says a "small percentage . . . may exhibit distorted video,
no video, or unexpected system restarts."

The program was set to begin on Feb. 21 in the US and Canada, and
on Feb 27 elsewhere in the world.  It was set to run until Feb 27,
2016.  Customers who have experienced the issue can take their
devices into Apple Stores (and authorized retailers), or call up
and order a postage-paid box to send it in.

The affected models are:

MacBook Pro (15-inch Early 2011)
MacBook Pro (15-inch, Late 2011)
MacBook Pro (Retina, 15-inch, Mid 2012)
MacBook Pro (17-inch Early 2011)
MacBook Pro (17-inch Late 2011)
MacBook Pro (Retina, 15 inch, Early 2013)


AVIS BUDGET: Accused of Retaliation and Discrimination in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Iris Lawson v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., and Trish Homernuk
individually, Case No. 1:15-cv-01510-GBD (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2015)
alleges that the Plaintiff was discriminated against, was
retaliated against, and had her personal medical information
disseminated and used to humiliate her by the Defendants solely
due to her disability, perceived disability, and in retaliation
for exercising her rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act
and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Avis Budget Group, Inc. is a foreign business corporation duly
organized in the state of Delaware, with headquarters located in
Parsippany, New Jersey.  The Company owns and operates a number of
offices, including an office under their name located in White
Plains, New York.  Trish Homernuk is an employee of Avis, holding
the position of "Airport Manager."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jesse C. Rose, Esq.
          PHILLIPS & ASSOCIATES, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, PLLC
          45 Broadway, Suite 620
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 248-7431
          E-mail: jrose@theroselawgroup.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Tosses Payday Loan Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Ben Bedell, writing for Law.com, reports that while acknowledging
that governments have "sought to protect desperately poor people
from the consequences of their own desperation" by prohibiting
usurious loans, a federal judge dismissed the claims of a class of
"payday loan" borrowers -- who were charged interest as high as
1,200 percent -- against a bank that processed the transactions.

Eastern District Judge Arthur Spatt ruled in Costoso v. Bank of
America, 14-cv-4100, that Jeanette Costoso was bound by her
account agreement with Bank of America, which "expressly insulates
the defendant from liability for permitting withdrawals from the
plaintiff's account."

Ms. Costoso had argued that the agreement -- and common law
principles of unjust enrichment, conversion, and unconscionability
-- required Bank of America to reject the automated debits she had
authorized her lenders to make to repay the short-term loans.

She said her agreement incorporated the rules of the National
Automated Clearing House Association (NACHA) barring debits an
account holder has authorized if such debits are "otherwise
invalid" under applicable law.

The complaint did not allege Bank of America had any actual notice
that the six payday lenders in her case were engaged in illegal
lending.  But Ms. Costoso said the bank should have known the
loans totalling $2,150 that she obtained over the Internet were
prohibited by New York's usury law, New York Banking Law Sec. 14-
a, which bars loans carrying annual interest above 16 percent.

Ms. Costoso had authorized the lenders to automatically debit her
checking account through the Automated Clearing House (ACH)
system, which is governed by the NACHA rules, to repay the loans.
They carried annual interest rates between 500 percent and 1,200
percent and had to be repaid within weeks.

Ms. Costoso said the debits caused her account balance to drop
below zero, forcing her to pay overdraft fees.

Court records show Ms. Costoso had filed for personal bankruptcy
in 2005, listing $24,000 in debts and $4,800 in assets, and a job
that paid $1,200 a month.

Judge Spatt's ruling said the NACHA provisions in the account
agreement were not binding on the bank and, in any event, did not
apply to consumer loans since a "plain reading" of the agreement
provided that a separate federal regulation applied.

Judge Spatt said, however, that even if the rules applied, they
protected the bank, not Ms. Costoso.

Since Bank of America received the debit request from an
originating bank where the payday lenders have accounts, and the
originating bank vouches for the validity of the debit, Bank of
America "could rely on that representation and debit the
plaintiff's account as directed."

Ms. Costoso argued that notices from various New York state and
federal bank regulatory agencies alerting the banking industry to
illegal payday lender practices should have raised red flags.

A key red flag, the complaint said, is a far higher than normal
number of overdrafts, or "returned items," caused by a payday
lenders' debits to borrowers' accounts.

Bank of America, the nation's largest consumer bank, acknowledged
it maintained a computerized screening system designed to detect
illegal transactions, as required by the NACHA rules.

But the system "does not provide financial institutions in [Bank
of America]'s position with sufficient information to determine if
a transaction in which an ACH payment is being made is illegal,"
the bank said in its motion to dismiss under FRCP Rule 12(b)(7).

"Imposing on banks an obligation to police the purposes for which
a customer makes ACH payments, with its attendant potential
liability, also would cause an efficient ACH payment system to
grind to a halt," the bank said (See also plaintiff's opposition
to motion to dismiss).

An October 2014 study of the online payday loan industry by the
Pew Charitable Trust found that abusive practices were widespread.
A typical borrower paid $520 in interest for a $375, two-week
loan.

The study concluded that "consumers' banks and the Automated
Clearing House system play a crucial role in enabling online
payday lending."

The study noted that the NACHA had enacted rules last August that
flag companies that generate overdraft returned items at a rate
over 15 percent, or 10 times that of typical companies.

The Costoso action was filed in July 2014.

Pew commended JPMorgan Chase for policy changes that make it
easier for customers to stop unwanted or unauthorized withdrawals
and close accounts, for limiting customers' overdraft fees to one
per lender in a 30-day period.

Judge Spatt's ruling quoted the state Court of Appeals case
Schneider v. Phelps, 41 N.Y.2d 238 (1977) dicta that "law-making
authorities in almost all civilizations have recognized that the
crush of financial burdens causes people to agree to almost any
conditions of the lender and to consent to even the most
improvident loans," but he held that Ms. Costoso had failed, "on
these facts," to state a claim against intermediary banks, such as
Bank of America.

Ms. Costoso and the plaintiffs were represented by Darren Kaplan
of Darren Kaplan Law Firm; Hassan Zavareei, a partner at Tycko &
Zavareei; Jason Alperstein -- alperstein@kolawyers.com -- a
partner at Kopelowitz Ostrow; Sathya Gosselin, a partner of
Hausfeld LLP; and Stephen Six -- six@stuevesiegel.com -- a partner
at Stueve Siegel Hanson.

Bank of America was represented by Maria Earley --
mearley@sidley.com -- a partner at Sidley Austin.


BLUE CROSS: E.D Mich. Judge Narrows Claims in Kent Companies Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge George Caram Steeh of the Eastern District of
Michigan dismissed portions of the claims raised by plaintiffs in
the case, KENT COMPANIES, INC., and KENT COMPANIES, INC. EMPLOYEE
HEALTH PLAN, Plaintiffs, v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF
MICHIGAN, Defendant, CASE NO. 14-CV-13070 (E.D. Mich.)

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) has been the third-
party administrator of plaintiffs' self-insured employee benefit
Plan since June 19, 2001, when the parties executed their
Administrative Services Contract (ASC).  In its new system begun
in 1993, plaintiffs allege that BCBSM submitted inflated hospital
bills to its customers, and then pocketed the difference between
the amounts actually paid to the hospital and the inflated amounts
wrongfully charged to the customer, coining its new system
retention reallocation. According to the plaintiffs, the allegedly
hidden fees consisted of four components, the Other Than Group
("OTG") subsidy, the Contingency/Risk surcharge, the Retiree
surcharge, and the Network Access fee. In addition to the hospital
claim mark-ups, plaintiffs also allege that BCBSM had another
fraudulent scheme by which it intentionally overstated
physician/professional claims as part of a program known as the
Physicians Group Incentive Program (PGIP). Under the PGIP,
plaintiffs allege that BCBSM inflated the amount charged by a
professional, resulting in an increased charge to plaintiffs
without reporting the additional fee.

Plaintiffs filed a nine-count complaint on August 7, 2014. Count I
alleges that BCBSM breached its fiduciary duty in violation of
ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Section 1104, and count II alleges that BCBSM
engaged in self dealing in violation of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Section
1106.  Counts III through IX allege various state claims.
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the claims as time-barred and
for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6).  Also before the court is plaintiffs' motion for partial
summary judgment as to liability only.

Judge Steeh denied BCBSM's motion to dismiss without prejudice as
to plaintiffs' ERISA claims and granted as to plaintiffs' state
law claims. Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment is
denied without prejudice.

A copy of Judge Steeh's opinion and order dated February 26, 2015,
is available at http://is.gd/bI8IF6from Leagle.com.

Kent Companies, Inc. and Kent Companies, Inc. Employee Health
Plan, Plaintiffs, represented by Benjamin A. Anderson --
baanderson@varnumlaw.com -- Kyle Patrick Konwinski --
kpkonwinski@varnumlaw.com -- Perrin Rynders --
prynders@varnumlaw.com -- Aaron M. Phelps --
amphelps@varnumlaw.com -- at Varnum LLP

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan, Defendant, represented by
Kathleen A. Lang -- klang@dickinsonwright.com -- Kimberly J.
Ruppel -- kruppel@dickinsonwright.com -- at Dickinson Wright PLLC


CHELSEA INVESTMENT: Court Dismisses "Whitby" Case With Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action captioned LANDON WHITBY, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. CHELSEA INVESTMENT CORPORATION, etc., et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 14CV1633-LAB (BLM), (S.D. Cal.) was brought
under the Fair Housing Act by tenants of an apartment complex in
San Diego, the Windwood Village Apartments. They allege Defendants
discriminated against them based on familial status, i.e., being
families with children.

The Defendant identified as MMA PHR CIC, L.P. moved to dismiss for
improper service. It contended that Plaintiffs served Elizabeth
Zepeda in an effort to effect service on it, but that this was
ineffective. This Defendant argued that there is no such entity as
MMA PHR CIC, L.P., that Zepeda instead worked for Chelsea
Investment Corporation as a Risk Coordinator/Risk Manager and was
neither an officer nor agent of MMA PHR CIC, L.P. It also alleged
that personal service was not followed by mailing, as required by
law.

Defendants James Schmid, Lynn Harrington Schmid, and the Schmid
Family Trust also moved to dismiss, because the complaint failed
to allege what control they had over the apartment complex or its
management.

District Judge Larry Alan Burns, in order dated February 27, 2015,
a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/To1GHVfrom
Leagle.com, granted the two motions to dismiss, and dismissed the
complaint without prejudice. The motion for leave to amend was
granted in part. The proposed amended complaint attached as an
exhibit to the motion for leave to amend is unacceptable in its
present form, Judge Burns held.

"Plaintiffs may, within 14 calendar days of the date this order is
entered in the docket, file an amended complaint addressing the
deficiencies addressed in the motions to dismiss and conceded in
the motion for leave to amend. They should also take care that the
amended complaint addresses concerns raised in Defendants'
oppositions to the motion for leave to amend. They may add Daud
and Shokria Nawaey as Plaintiffs, but no one else. They may
correct or clarify the names or identities of Defendants sued in
the original complaint, but must not name any Defendants except
those they allege to be liable for Fair Housing Act violations at
the Windwood Village Apartments. After filing the amended
complaint, they should re-serve the Defendant they erroneously
sued as MMA PHR CIC, L.P., within 14 calendar days. Except as
expressly modified in this order or by Magistrate Judge Major, the
case management dates set by Judge Major remain in place," ruled
Judge Burns.

Landon Whitby, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew S. Wilson --
matthew@wilsonlawcorp.com -- Wilson Law Corporation.

Ruth Carolina Whitby, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew S. Wilson,
Wilson Law Corporation.

Ioulia Kouprina, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew S. Wilson,
Wilson Law Corporation.

William Jhandi, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew S. Wilson,
Wilson Law Corporation.

Teresa Jhandi, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew S. Wilson, Wilson
Law Corporation.

Brett Jenson, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew S. Wilson, Wilson
Law Corporation.

Miranda Jenson, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew S. Wilson,
Wilson Law Corporation.

Jeannette McGhee, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew S. Wilson,
Wilson Law Corporation.

Adrian Whittenburg, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew S. Wilson,
Wilson Law Corporation.

Consuelo Guerrero, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew S. Wilson,
Wilson Law Corporation.

Victoria Nayak, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew S. Wilson,
Wilson Law Corporation.

Tammy Cole, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew S. Wilson, Wilson
Law Corporation.

Oleksandra Martynshyn, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew S.
Wilson, Wilson Law Corporation.

Others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew S.
Wilson, Wilson Law Corporation.

Chelsea Investment Corporation, Defendant, represented by Robert
Michael Juskie, Wingert Grebing Brubaker and Goodwin.

CIC PHR, LP, Defendant, represented by Colin Howard Walshok,
Wingert Grebing Brubaker and Goodwin LLP & Robert Michael Juskie,
Wingert Grebing Brubaker and Goodwin.

PHR Inclusionary, LLC, Defendant, represented by Colin Howard
Walshok, Wingert Grebing Brubaker and Goodwin LLP & Robert Michael
Juskie, Wingert Grebing Brubaker and Goodwin.

Pacific Southwest Community Development Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Robert Michael Juskie, Wingert Grebing Brubaker and
Goodwin.

MMA PHR CIC, L.P., Defendant, represented by Robert Michael
Juskie, Wingert Grebing Brubaker and Goodwin.

CIC Management Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert Michael
Juskie, Wingert Grebing Brubaker and Goodwin.

Conam Management Corporation, Defendant, represented by Robert
Michael Juskie, Wingert Grebing Brubaker and Goodwin.

The Schmid Family Trust, Defendant, represented by Janice Patrice
Brown -- brown@brownlawgroup.com -- Brown Law Group & Vanessa Rae
Negrete -- negrete@brownlawgroup.com -- Brown Law Group.

James J. Schmid, Defendant, represented by Janice Patrice Brown,
Brown Law Group & Vanessa Rae Negrete, Brown Law Group.

Lynn Harrington Schmid, Defendant, represented by Janice Patrice
Brown, Brown Law Group & Vanessa Rae Negrete, Brown Law Group.

Rosie Terriquez, Defendant, represented by Colin Howard Walshok,
Wingert Grebing Brubaker and Goodwin LLP.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Gas Royalty Payments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Gibbons, writing for The Times Tribune, reports that a
suit filed in federal court accuses Chesapeake Energy Corp. of
using unlawful monopoly power over natural gas pipeline systems to
reduce gas royalty payments to landowners.

The claims, filed on behalf of more than 90 plaintiffs owning a
total of 6,000 acres in Bradford, Wyoming, Susquehanna and
Sullivan counties, allege Chesapeake guaranteed its spinoff gas
firm, Access Midstream, would have exclusive rights to gas
gathering on its wells in the region.

"They've got a monopoly on the gathering system, that's what's
driving all this," said attorney Thomas McNamara of Indik &
McNamara PC in Philadelphia, one of three firms that filed the
suit.  "They can basically charge whatever they want."

Facing huge debts in 2011, Chesapeake sold $4.76 billion in
unwanted assets to Access Midstream, a company spun out of
Chesapeake, according to a ProPublica investigation published last
March mentioned repeatedly in the lawsuit.  Access had exclusive
rights to ship gas from Chesapeake, which would then pay Access
large sums for the gathering service.  Chesapeake recouped its
costs with deductions from the gas royalty checks owed to the
plaintiffs and others, the suit states.

According to ProPublica, some landowners with Chesapeake leases
have seen 94 percent of their royalty payments going to "post-
production costs."

Chesapeake spokesman Gordon Pennoyer declined to comment on the
litigation.

Attorneys claim Chesapeake's business practices violated a suite
of federal antitrust laws, including the Clayton Act, Sherman Act
and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.  They are
seeking to stop the deductions, collect damages and recover past
royalties and attorney's fees under the antitrust statutes and
because of contractual breaches and tortious conduct.

The suit focuses mostly on Chesapeake as a gas production company
but also names Anadarko E&P Onshore LLC, Statoil USA Onshore
Properties Inc. and Mitsui E&P USA LLC as defendants because of
their relationships to plaintiffs' leases.

Chesapeake faces a series of legal battles across the U.S. over
its business practices, including royalty deductions.  In
November, the company revealed in a Securities and Exchange
Commission filing that it received subpoenas from the federal
Department of Justice and several states. It also faces trial over
fraud and racketeering charges in Michigan.

Last February, then-Gov. Tom Corbett sent a letter to Chesapeake
CEO Doug Lawler saying the company's royalty deductions have
"caused a significant erosion of trust and goodwill."  He added he
would ask state Attorney General Kathleen G. Kane to examine the
issue.

The state attorney general's office has filed no charges against
Chesapeake, though Capitolwire reported her office issued
subpoenas "throughout the energy industry."  In the state
legislature, a bill that would have addressed royalty deductions
died in the state House in last October.

Another pending class-action suit in Pennsylvania's Middle
District is awaiting approval on an $11 million settlement.  If
that settlement goes through, certain landowners holding
Chesapeake leases would have to opt out to participate in other
litigation over the royalty issue.


CHICAGO: Ruling in "Stefanski" Action Reversed
----------------------------------------------
Justice Mary K. Rochford of the Appellate Court of Illinois, First
District, Sixth Division, reversed a circuit court order in the
case NELLI STEFANSKI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff and Counterdefendant-Appellee, v.
THE CITY OF CHICAGO, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant and
Counterplaintiff-Appellant, NO. 1-13-2844 (Ill. App.)

Nelli Stefanski was employed by the City of Chicago, and was
covered by the City's Medical care plan.  Stefanski was injured in
an automobile collision caused by a third-party tortfeasor and
received medical services in connection with this collision, which
were paid for in full or in part by the Plan.  She retained an
attorney, who obtained an $18,000 settlement from the third-party
tortfeasor as compensation for plaintiff's personal injuries. The
City's attorneys, without participating in the recovery of the
settlement, nevertheless asserted a claim against plaintiff's
recovery pursuant to subrogation and reimbursement language
contained in the Plan's documentation. Under protest, plaintiff's
attorney arranged for $2,900 to be paid to the City by the third-
party tortfeasor.

Stefanski filed a lawsuit against the City and sought declaratory
relief and damages for unjust enrichment on behalf of herself and
a putative class of current and former beneficiaries of the City's
medical insurance plan who had: (1) received medical services paid
by the City's self-funded insurance plan for personal injuries
caused by third-party tortfeasors; (2) employed the services of an
attorney to collect damages from such tortfeasors; and (3)
received recoveries from such tortfeasors that were reduced due to
the City's improper refusal to reduce its subrogation claim to
account for its share of the attorney fees incurred by plaintiff,
in violation of the so-called "common fund doctrine."

On November 6, 2009, the City filed a combined motion to dismiss
plaintiff's complaint pursuant to sections 2-615, 2-619, and 2-
619.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The circuit court entered a written order granting plaintiff's
motion for class certification and also granted summary judgment
in favor of plaintiff and the class on counts I and II of the
complaint, and denied the City's motion for summary judgment.
The City filed a petition for leave to appeal.

Justice Rochford reversed and vacated the judgment of the circuit
court granting plaintiff's motion for class certification.
A copy of Justice Rochford's opinion dated February 27, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/0RbKdLfrom Leagle.com.

The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Sixth Division
panel consists of Justices Mary K. Rochford, Bertina E. Lampkin
and Shelvin Louise Marie Hall.


CIGNA CORP: Pa. Affirms Trial Court's Order in Rift With Insurers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William H. Platt of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania
affirmed the order of the trial court in the appealed case
entitled CIGNA CORPORATION, Appellant, v. EXECUTIVE RISK
INDEMNITY, INC. AND NUTMEG INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellees, NO.
3538EDA 2013 (Pa.)

On December 21, 1998 Cigna Corporation amended its retirement
plan, retroactive to January 1, 1998, converting its traditional
defined benefit pension plan to a cash balance plan. Cigna assured
plan participants in the notification materials that the
conversion would not affect benefits accrued as of December 31,
1997. In 2001 Cigna was involved in a class action suit entitled
Amara v. Cigna, brought by its plan participants, alleging in
essence that the plan amendments had the net effect of reducing
benefits or benefit accruals for some plan participants in
violation of ERISA.

Cigna was insured under a multi-line insurance policy, including
professional liability and fiduciary liability. The primary
insurer was Certain Underwriters of Lloyd's of London.  Executive
Risk Indemnity, Inc. and Nutmeg Insurance Company were excess
carriers whose obligations were determined on a follow-form basis
to the Lloyd's of London policy

In 2012, Cigna filed a complaint against Executive Risk and Nutmeg
Insurance a declaratory judgment to declare coverage under the
fiduciary liability provisions of the policy for claims made
against it in the underlying class action, Amara v. Cigna.
Executive Risk and Nutmeg Insurance denied coverage under policy
exclusion for deliberately fraudulent or criminal acts or
omissions.  Executive Risk and Nutmeg Insurance filed a motion for
summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion for summary
judgment, and dismissed Cigna's complaint with prejudice in an
order and opinion dated October 18, 2013, and docketed on October
21, 2013. Cigna filed a motion for reconsideration, which the
trial court denied. Cigna appealed, challenging the trial court's
application of fraudulent acts exclusion.

Judge Platt affirmed the trial court's order in his opinion dated
February 27, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/z8vrUpfrom Leagle.com

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania panel consists of Judges
William H. Platt, Christine L. Donohue and David N. Wecht.


CITY FISH: Recalls Smoked Salmon Products Due to Listeria
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 3, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: City Fish, Fanny Bay Oysters Seafood Shop,
Sandyview Farms, Whitecourt IGA, Sobeys Country Hills, IGA
Lakeview, Leduc Co-op Grocery Ltd., Hay River Northmart Food
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Possibly National,
Saskatchewan
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9687

The food recall warning issued on February 21, 2015 has been
updated to include additional product information. This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

Industry is recalling Salish Seafoods brand Candy Smoked Salmon
from the marketplace due to possible Listeria monocytogenes
contamination. Consumers, food service establishments, retailers,
and distributors should not consume, serve, use, or sell the
recalled product, sold refrigerated, described below.

The following product has been sold in Alberta, British Columbia
and Saskatchewan and may have been sold in other provinces and
territories.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Brand name      Common name     Size       Code(s)       UPC
  ----------      -----------     ----       on product    ---
                                             ----------
Salish Seafoods   Candy Smoked    Variable   Lot # 6919,   None
                  Salmon                     Lot # 6920,
                                             Lot # 6932
                                             and
                                             Lot # 6949

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


CONRAD INDUSTRIES: Faces "Virgen" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Julio Virgen, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated v. Conrad Industries, Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-00465 (W.D.
La., February 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40
hours per week.

Conrad Industries, Inc. is in the business of boat construction
with its principal place of business in Morgan City, Louisiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
      COSTALES LAW OFFICE
      3801 Canal St Ste 207
      New Orleans, LA 70119
      Telephone: (504) 914-1048
      Facsimile: (504) 272-2956
      E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com


CR BARD: In Indemnification Dispute With Sofradim
-------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that,
facing multidistrict litigation over its Uretex Sling pelvic mesh
product, medical device maker C.R. Bard is claiming in federal
court in Newark that the product's French supplier breached a
contractual obligation to indemnify it.

Meanwhile, the supplier, Sofradim Production of Trevoux, France,
has filed cross-claims alleging it is actually owed a duty of
indemnity by Bard.

Bard has asked the court to find that Sofradim is obligated to
defend it against any past, present or future claims related to
injuries from the product under a 2002 contract giving Bard the
right to sell the product in the United States and Canada.  Bard
sued Sofradim in state court in Union County, New Jersey, on Jan.
22, and the French company removed the case to federal court on
Feb. 26.

Bard, based in New Providence, New Jersey, contends that the
litigation by users of the product arises from the use or sale of
the product, which makes Sofradim liable under the contract.

Sofradim, for its part, contends that the core allegations concern
Bard's negligence in its development, design, labeling, storing,
handling, promoting, advertising or distributing of the product,
which are Bard's responsibilities under the contract.

The Uretex Sling, which is used for surgical treatment of
incontinence in women, has been linked to complications such as
chronic pain, inflammation and adverse reactions.  Suits related
to the Uretex Sling and other surgical devices for incontinence
treatment in women have been consolidated by the Judicial Panel
for Multidistrict Litigation in the Southern District of West
Virginia.

Sofradim has brought cross-claims in the MDL seeking a declaration
that the 2002 contract absolves it of the duty to defend Bard from
its willful default or negligence, and that Bard has a duty to
defend and indemnify Sofradim from the suits.

As of Feb. 9, products liability suits involving claims by
approximately 14,090 plaintiffs concerning Bard's surgical
incontinence products for women have been filed against the
company in various federal and state courts, the company said in
its most recent 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.  The company did not break down how many of those
cases involve products made by Sofradim.  In addition, five
putative class actions in the United States and four others in
Canada that relate to the company's surgical incontinence products
are pending, the company said.  None of those actions has been
certified.  On top of that, approximately 1,800 claims have been
threatened against the company but have not been filed, the
company filing said.

A judgment of $3.6 million was entered against the company by a
California court in July 2012 in the first state court case
involving Bard incontinence products, the company said in its
10-K.  An appellate court affirmed the decision in November 2014,
and the company has petitioned for review by the California
Supreme Court.

The first trial in the MDL resulted in a $2 million judgment
against Bard.  That decision is on appeal.

The suits against Bard and Sofradim over the Uretex product
generally seek medical monitoring, compensatory and punitive
damages, a judicial finding of defect and causation, and attorney
fees.

Vito Pinto -- vpinto@lindabury.com -- of Lindabury, McCormick,
Estabrook & Cooper in Westfield, New Jersey, representing Bard,
did not return a call about the case, nor did Sofradim's lawyers,
William O'Kane Jr. -- wo'kane@archerlaw.com -- of Archer & Greiner
in Haddonfield, New Jersey, and Marshall King --
mking@gibsondunn.com -- of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in New York.


CTPARTNERS EXECUTIVE: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Zinno, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CTPartners Executive Search Inc., Brian M. Sullivan
and William J. Keneally, Case No. 1:15-cv-01476 (S.D.N.Y.,
February 27, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.

CTPartners Executive Search Inc. provides retained executive
search services and maintains headquarters at 1166 Avenue of the
Americas, 3rd Floor, New York, New York 10036.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101-8498
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
      E-mail: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
      JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
      110 West A Street, Suite 750
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 230-0063
      Facsimile: (619) 255-1856
      E-mail: frankj@johnsonandweaver.com

         - and -

      W. Scott Holleman, Esq.
      JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
      99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 802-1486
      Facsimile: (212) 602-1592
      E-mail: scotth@johnsonandweaver.com


DESTINATION WILD: Faces "Irvine" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
John P. Irvine, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Destination Wild Dunes Management, Inc., Destination
Hotels & Resorts, Inc., and Lowe Hospitality Group, Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-00980 (D.S.C., March 1, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation in violation
of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a lodging management company
headquartered in Colorado with over 30 independent, luxury and
upscale hotels, resorts and golf clubs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Scott Falls, Esq.
      FALLS LEGAL
      245 Seven Farms Drive, Suite 250
      Charleston, SC 29492
      Telephone: (843) 737-6040
      Facsimile: (843) 737-6140
      E-mail: scott@falls-legal.com


DISTRIBUTION MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elena Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Distribution Management Services, Inc. d/b/a
DMS Packaging Services and David Walters, Case No. 1:15-cv-01769
(N.D. Ill., February 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a week.

Distribution Management Services, Inc. provides the operational
infrastructure for its subsidiary companies, specializing in
automated order handling, fulfillment and shipping of small
package goods.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ELITE FORCE: Faces "Humphries" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Humphries, Jeffrey Liu and Kevin O'hara, on behalf of
themselves and all similarly situated individuals v. Elite Force
Staffing, Inc. and Steven W. Worrell, Case No. 3:15-cv-00112 (E.D.
Va., February 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Elite Force Staffing, Inc. is a Virginia corporation that owns and
operates a staffing agency with its headquarters at: 991 Chester
Rd. Chester, VA 23831.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Virginia Rae Diamond, Esq.
      ASHCRAFT & GEREL LLP
      4900 Seminary Rd, Suite 650
      Alexandria, VA 22311
      Telephone: (703) 931-5500
      Facsimile: (703) 820-0630
      E-mail: vdiamond@ashcraftlaw.com


ENGAGETEL INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Spiegel" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marshall Spiegel, individually and on behalf of a class of those
similarly situated v. Engagetel, Inc., Dennis Carlson, Arash
Akhavan, ARG Group, Wyoming Corporate Services, Gerald Pitts, John
Does 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-01809 (N.D. Ill., February 28, 2015),
seeks to obtain redress for all persons who have received
unsolicited robocalls on their cellular telephones, and landlines
for individuals on the federal do not call list.

Engagetel, Inc. is a Wyoming corporation that provides caller ID
spoofing services.

Wyoming Corporate Services is engaged in the business of providing
telemarketers with so-called shelf corporations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher V. Langone, Esq.
      207 Texas Lane
      Ithaca, NY 14850
      Telephone: (607) 592-2661
      E-mail: langonelaw@gmail.com


ENVIRO KLEEN: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Hernandez" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adriana Hernandez, Felix Diaz-Santiago, Juan Vasquez, Otilio
Hernandez, Evaristo Reyes-Arrioja, and Norma Guzman, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Enviro Kleen,
Inc., Michael Malone, Scott Alter, John And Jane Does 1-10, and
John Doe Corporations and Other Entities 1-10, Case No. 2:15-cv-
01468 (D.N.J., February 27, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in
excess of 40 hours per week.

Enviro Kleen, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation that provides
commercial cleaning and janitorial services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Zatuchni, Esq.
      ZATUCHNI & ASSOCIATES, LLC
      287 South Main Street
      Lambertville, NJ 08530
      Telephone: (609) 243-0300
      E-mail: davidz@zatuchniassociates.com


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Judge Denies Motion to Certify FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal judge
in Newark has denied a motion to certify a Fair Labor Standards
Act collective action for unpaid overtime by employees of Express
Scripts Holding Co.

The suit sought to recover six years of unpaid overtime on behalf
of 170 former employees of Medco Health Solutions Inc., who began
working for Express Scripts when the two companies merged in April
2012.  But the plaintiff failed to make the "modest factual
showing" that those workers were victims of a common policy or
plan that violated the law, U.S. District Judge Stanley Chesler of
the District of New Jersey said in denying the motion.

The workers were categorized as exempt from overtime by Medco, and
plaintiff Roberta Henry claims in her suit that she routinely
worked more than 40 hours per week but received no overtime pay.
Meanwhile, Express Scripts provided overtime pay to workers with
similar job descriptions, according to suit.

Nearly two years after the merger, on Jan. 12, 2014, Express
Scripts adopted a uniform set of job classifications that made
Ms. Henry and others eligible for overtime.  The suit sought
relief under the FLSA for Ms. Henry and others whose status was
changed to nonexempt but were not paid for overtime work before
the reclassification.

In an FLSA collective action, the plaintiff must "produce some
evidence, beyond pure speculation, of a factual nexus between the
manner in which the employer's alleged policy affected her and the
manner in which it affected other employees," Judge Chesler said.

In her factual showing, Ms. Henry cited Express Scripts' decision
to reclassify 170 employees as nonexempt, and said it did not
review the job duties that those workers performed in the prior
three years, and did not pay back overtime wages to any of the 170
reclassified employees.

But Judge Chesler said Ms. Henry failed to offer facts to suggest
that the employees' previous classifications as exempt were
incorrect at the time, that the previous classifications as exempt
originated in a common policy that would render those employees as
similarly situated or that the previous classifications as exempt
resulted in FLSA violations.  The facts presented by Ms. Henry are
not sufficient to infer any FLSA violations, and reclassification
alone does not show the act was violated, Judge Chesler said.

Judge Chesler cited Zavala v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., a 2012 ruling
by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that described
the first step of the certification process as determining whether
similarly situated plaintiffs do in fact exist.  By failing to
provide evidence of a common policy or plan that violated the law,
Ms. Henry could not show that similarly situated plaintiffs exist,
Judge Chesler said.

Ms. Henry worked at the Express Scripts facility in Franklin
Lakes, New Jersey, with the title of senior security
administration analyst, according to the suit.  She did not
supervise other employees or exercise independent judgment or
discretion with respect to matters of significance.

The amount in controversy exceeded $5 million, not counting costs
or interest, the plaintiff said in court documents.  Ms. Henry's
suit claimed Express Scripts showed a reckless disregard for
compliance with the FLSA by its failure to analyze the job duties
of the plaintiff and other employees to determine whether they
were performing exempt duties.  The suit sought damages for a six-
year period and requested unpaid overtime wages, attorney fees,
prejudgment and postjudgment interest.

The merger of Express Scripts, of St. Louis, and Medco Health,
which was based in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey, was valued at $29
billion.  Both companies are in the business of prescription
benefit management.

The lawyer who brought the FLSA claim, James Boyan III --
jboyan@pashmanstein.com -- of Pashman Stein in Hackensack, New
Jersey, declined to comment on the case.

Stephen Payerle -- spayerle@mdmc-law.com -- and John Peirano Jr.--
jpeirano@mdmc-law.com -- of McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter
in Morristown, New Jersey, representing Express Scripts, did not
return calls seeking comment.


FIAT CHRYSLER: Recalls Multiple Models With Takata Airbags
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 3, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car, Light Truck & Van, SUV
Notification type: Service Campaign
Mfr System: Airbag
Units affected: 1000
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015093TC
ID number: 2015093
Manufacturer recall number: P40

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) Canada is conducting a voluntary
Safety Improvement Program involving Takata driver and/or
passenger airbag inflators installed in certain vehicles that were
originally sold or ever registered in certain high humidity areas
of the United States. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) will replace
the driver and/or passenger inflator on affected vehicles,
depending on the vehicle involved. Owners who believe their
vehicles may have been originally purchased or registered in
Florida, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands should
contact a Fiat Chrysler Automobile (FCA) dealer. This action is
not being conducted under the requirements of the Motor Vehicle
Safety Act.

  Make         Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----         -----      ----------------------
  DODGE        CHARGER    2005, 2006, 2007
  CHRYSLER     ASPEN      2007
  DODGE        MAGNUM     2005, 2006, 2007
  DODGE        RAM        2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007
  DODGE        DAKOTA     2005, 2006, 2007
  DODGE        DURANGO    2004, 2005, 2006, 2007
  CHRYSLER     300        2005, 2006, 2007


FIAT CHRYSLER: Recalls Multiple Models With Takata Airbags
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 3, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car, Light Truck & Van, SUV
Notification type: Service Campaign
Mfr System: Airbag
Units affected: 1000
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015094TC
ID number: 2015094
Manufacturer recall number: P78

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) Canada is conducting a voluntary
Safety Improvement Program involving Takata passenger airbag
inflators installed in certain vehicles that were originally sold
or ever registered in certain high humidity areas of the United
States. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) will replace the passenger
inflator on affected vehicles. Owners who believe their vehicles
may have been originally purchased or registered in Florida,
Hawaii, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Texas, Mississippi,
Alabama, Louisiana, Georgia, Guam, American Samoa and Saipan
should contact a Fiat Chrysler Automobile (FCA) dealer. This
action is not being conducted under the requirements of the Motor
Vehicle Safety Act.

  Make       Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----      ----------------------
  DODGE      CHARGER    2005
  DODGE      MAGNUM     2005
  DODGE      RAM        2003, 2004, 2005
  DODGE      DAKOTA     2005
  DODGE      DURANGO    2004, 2005
  CHRYSLER   300        2005


FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Sued in New York Over Violations of FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Schwartz, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Firstsource Advantage, LLC, Case No. 1:15-
cv-01060 (E.D.N.Y., March 2, 2015) alleges violations of 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


FORD MOTOR: "Edwards" Case May Proceed as Class, 9th Cir. Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gene Edwards appealed the district court's denial of her motion
for class certification in her action against Ford Motor Company.
Ms. Edwards alleges that Ford violated California's Consumers
Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and Unfair Competition Law when it sold
and serviced 2005-07 Freestyle vehicles without informing
customers of a known defect in the electronic throttle control
(ETC) system that caused the Freestyles to "surge," or accelerate
unexpectedly.

The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit reviewed the
denial of class certification for abuse of discretion.

On February 27, 2015, the Ninth Circuit held in a memorandum, a
copy of which is available at http://is.gd/8HzrLofrom Leagle.com,
that "the district court erred in holding that materiality under
the CLRA would require individualized proof. Under the CLRA, each
potential class member must both have "an actual injury and show
that the injury was caused by the challenged practice." But the
need for an individual determination of damages does not, by
itself, defeat class certification. A manufacturer has a duty to
disclose a known defect that poses an unreasonable safety hazard.
Because materiality is governed by an objective "reasonable
person" standard under California law, an inquiry that is the same
for every class member, a finding that the defendant has failed to
disclose information that would have been material to a reasonable
person who purchased the defendant's product gives rise to a
rebuttable inference of reliance as to the class."

The Ninth Circuit, therefore, reversed and remanded the case for
further proceedings.

The case is GENE EDWARDS, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee, NO. 13-55331.


FOREST PHARMACEUTICALS: First Circuit Tosses Lexapro Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sindhu Sundar and Beth Winegarner, writing for Law360, report that
the First Circuit on Feb. 20 tossed a proposed class action
claiming that the labels on Forest Pharmaceuticals Inc.'s
antidepressant Lexapro overstated its efficacy, finding that
federal rules preempt state claims that don't fit the specific
scenario the Supreme Court addressed in its landmark Wyeth v.
Levine decision.

A three-judge panel affirmed a lower court ruling against
plaintiffs Randy and Bonnie Marcus, who claimed that Forest misled
patients by not indicating on Lexapro's label how it fares
compared to a placebo -- according to the plaintiffs, Lexapro is
no more effective than one.  The appeals panel ruled that their
claims are preempted by the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act,
differentiating their claims from the case in the high court's
2009 Levine decision.

In that decision, the high court found federal rules don't
necessarily shield brand-name makers from liability for an
FDA-approved label on its drug.  But the First Circuit ruled that
Levine held only that the FDA's so called CBE, or "Changes Being
Effected," rule allows brand-name makers to independently update
their product labels based on newly-acquired information.

But the plaintiffs in the Forest case had not claimed the
drugmaker failed to factor in any new information it acquired
after the label was approved, but rather that the FDA had
prematurely approved Lexapro's label, the panel said in its
opinion.

"We can find no precedent -- and plaintiffs point to none -- that
would have allowed Forest to use the CBE procedure to alter the
FDA label in the manner that plaintiffs allege is necessary so as
to render it not 'misleading,'" the panel said.  "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.'"

The plaintiffs filed their suit against Forest in 2013 in
California federal court, accusing the drugmaker of hiding
material information about the drug's efficiency and violating
California state consumer protection laws, including the state's
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, according to court documents.

Forest has previously faced litigation over Lexapro.  In March, it
agreed to pay between $7.7 million and $10.4 million to settle
multidistrict litigation accusing it of misleading Missouri
parents into buying Celexa and Lexapro for children, although the
drugs were only approved for adults.

The settlement class included all parents and other third parties
in Missouri who purchased Celexa for a patient under the age of 18
between Jan. 1, 1998, and Dec. 31, 2013, or purchased Lexapro for
a minor between Aug. 1, 2002, and Dec. 31, 2013.

Circuit Judges Sandra L. Lynch, Bruce Selya and William Kayatta
sat on the panel for the First Circuit.

The plaintiffs are represented by R. Brent Wisner --
rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com -- of Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman
PC and Pendley Baudin & Coffin LLP.

Forest Pharmaceuticals is represented by Edwin G. Schallert --
egschall@debevoise.com -- of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP and Sugarman
Rogers Barshak & Cohen PC.

The case is In re: Celexa and Lexapro Marketing and Sales
Practices Litigation, case number 14-1290, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit.


FOREST RIVER: Recalls 2015 Travel Trailers Due to Incorrect Label
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 3, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Travel Trailer
Notification type: Compliance
Mfr System: Label
Units affected: 10
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015092TC
ID number: 2015092

On certain fifth wheel trailers, the Federal Certification label
may not contain the correct Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR).
The label incorrectly indicates a GVWR of 9525.5 kg (21,000 lb)
instead of 8164.7 kg (18,000 lb). This could lead to vehicle
overloading, which would result in poor vehicle handling
characteristics, increasing the risk of a crash causing injury
and/or property damage. Correction: Updated labels will be mailed
to owners of affected vehicles, along with instructions for proper
installation.

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


GNC HOLDINGS: Faces "Mourino" Suit Over Product Misbranding
-----------------------------------------------------------
Edwin Mourino, individually and on behalf of and all others
similarly situated v. GNC Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-
01427 (C.D. Cal., February 27, 2015), arises out of the
Defendant's mislabeling and improper marketing of its St. John's
Wort, Ginseng, Echinacea, and Saw Palmetto herbal supplements.
Specifically by representing that the Supplements have St. John's
Wort, Ginseng, Echinacea, and Saw Palmetto ingredients that they
do not have.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq.
      William A. Baird, Esq.
      MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
      29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208
      Agoura Hills, CA 91301
      Telephone: (818) 991-8080
      Facsimile: (818) 991-8081
      E-mail: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com
              tbaird@marlinsaltzman.com


GRANITEPOL & HOME: Faces "Vergara" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dilfonso Vergara, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. GranitePol & Home Design Center, Inc., and
Sylvia Skorska-Placek, Case No. 1:15-cv-01807 (N.D. Ill., February
28, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours per week.

GranitePol & Home Design Center, Inc. offers installation of
natural stone kitchen and bathroom countertops, fireplaces, table
tops, kitchen sinks, bathroom sinks and shower walls services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GREEN TREE SERVICING: Bid to Dismiss "Longest" Class Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Christina A. Synder denied Green Tree Servicing
LLC, et al.'s motion to dismiss the first amended class action
complaint filed by Carlene Longest, et al.  Instead, the judge
ordered GT Servicing to answer.

Commenced in October 2014, the class action is asserted on behalf
of a proposed Florida class and a proposed California class.  The
action alleges breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment, among other
things.

Under the action, plaintiffs allege that defendant GT Servicing, a
residential mortgage loan servicer, and defendant GT Insurance, GT
Servicing's affiliated insurance entity, "charg[e] residential
borrowers for the cost of procuring force-placed insurance from
Assurant Inc. and its subsidiaries . . . but a portion of such
cost is returned, transferred, kicked-back or otherwise paid to
[defendants]. [Defendants] do no meaningful work for the sums
received, and therefore the payments amount to an unearned
kickback designed to encourage the referral of business at
extraordinary high prices."

The action is CARLENE LONGEST v. GREEN TREE SERVICING LLC
CASE NO. 2:14-CV-08150-CAS(RZX), (C.D. Cal.).

A copy of the court's Feb. 9, 2015 Order is available at
http://is.gd/0Qul6zfrom Leagle.com.

Caleb Marker -- c.marker@rlollp.com , Hart Robinovitch, Attorneys
Present for Plaintiffs.

Erik Kemp, Attorneys Present for Defendants.


H&R BLOCK: 9th Cir. Affirms "Madar" Claim Disallowance
------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit affirmed a
district court ruling in ARABELLA LEMUS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
PAUL SINGH MADAR, Objector-Appellant, v. H&R BLOCK ENTERPRISES,
INC., a Missouri corporation, Defendant-Appellee, NO. 13-16628.

Paul Singh Madar appealed pro se from the district court's order
disallowing his claim against a class action settlement fund.

The Ninth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its
discretion by disallowing Madar's claim to a portion of the
settlement where Madar's claim was not timely received, and Madar
"made no showing that [his] claim was treated in a fashion
inconsistent with those of other claimants similarly situated."

A copy of the Court's February 27, 2015 memorandum is available at
http://is.gd/28fvdZfrom Leagle.com.


HARPERSVILLE, AL: Blames JSC for Debtors' Prison Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Kent Faulk, writing for al.com, reports that Harpersville and
Childersburg are blaming a private probation company for getting
them sued by indigent municipal court defendants who claim the two
cities operated debtors' prisons.

The two north Alabama cities say in a lawsuit that Judicial
Correction Services Inc. raised fees without permission, used
threats to collect money, and some of its employees wore badges
and claimed to be "probation officers" when they were not.

The lawsuit also states that JCS and its insurance company should
pay for defending them against the lawsuits by the city court
defendants. The lawsuits against Harpersville in state court and
against Childersburg in federal court are still pending.

A Cincinnati Insurance company spokeswoman declined comment.

"We respect the rights of all parties to have their issues heard
and resolved in a court of law.  For that reason, we don't comment
on ongoing litigation," Betsy Ertel, with the insurance company's
corporate Communications, stated in an email.

Both Harpersville and Childersburg face lawsuits from city court
defendants who say they were jailed after they could not keep up
with payments on court fines and costs.  One judge more than two
years ago called Harpersville's situation a "debtor's prison" and
took over that court.

Harpersville claims in the lawsuit that four JCS employees were
negligent because they allegedly represented to others that they
were probation officers and some carried badges with a seal.  That
gave the appearance that they were probation officers who spoke
for the cities.

"The individual defendants never told anyone with these
municipalities that they were going to refer to themselves as
'probation officers' and did not get permission from anyone from
these municipalities to carry badges," the lawsuit states.  "Had
these municipalities known that the individual defendants were
making representations that they were 'probation officers' and
carrying badges, these municipalities would have ordered the
individual defendants to immediately stop."

The two cities claim that as a result of the JCS employees'
negligence Harpersville lost its ability to operate a municipal
court and both Childersburg and Harpersville face liability to the
court defendants who have sued.

Alabama Municipal Insurance Corporation is also a plaintiff in the
lawsuit.  AMIC has been defending Harpersville and Childersburg
from the allegations in lawsuits against the two cities.

JCS also went beyond its authority and terms of its contracts with
the two cities when it used threats of revoking probation,
increasing fines and costs, and jail time for purposes of
collection, the cities lawsuit states.  The company increased the
monthly fee defendants had to pay from $35 to $45 a month, the
lawsuit states.

To the extent that Harpersville and Childersburg may be held
liable for the claims in the lawsuits, filed against the cities by
city court defendants, JCS is the one that's responsible, the
lawsuit states.  JCS is the "proximate cause" of the damages
claimed by the city court defendants, the lawsuit states.

Therefore both cities should be entitled to be defended and
protected from liability by JCS and its insurance company,
Cincinnati Insurance Company, which is also named as a defendant.
The lawsuit also seeks costs of the lawsuits they've had to
defend, the lawsuit claims.

Lisa Borden -- lborden@bakerdonelson.com -- whose firm -- Baker,
Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C. -- represents
plaintiffs in the Harpersville case, said there is an element of
finger pointing with the new lawsuit.

"I think the important point is that in earlier litigation JCS's
defense was 'we're just doing what the city told us.'  Now the
cities say JSC was doing things that the cities didn't know about
and didn't approve of," she said.

Ms. Borden says JCS and the towns have called the process
probation but it's not.  "These people don't have powers of
arrest," she said.

Alabama laws also states that probation officers shall have powers
of arrest, which private probation companies do not, Borden said.

The plaintiffs in lawsuits against Harpersville and Childersburg
were charged with offenses that normally only carry fines and no
jail time, Ms. Borden said.  Also, according to state law,
probation can't last more than two years but many of the city
courts extended the probation to allow the indigent person to keep
on making payments "interminably," she said.

People ended up being required to pay much more than their
original fine because of the additional fees being added on by
JCS, Ms. Borden said.  Then people were being put in jail because
they couldn't keep up with the payments, she said.

Nobody was determining whether the people were indigent during the
process and needed to be appointed an attorney to defend them,
Borden said.

JCS, and cities it has contracted with to provide services, have
been sued in Alabama and other states regarding similar "debtors'
prison" claims.

In January the American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal
lawsuit against JCS in Georgia claiming the private company's debt
collection practices led to poor people being jailed because they
couldn't pay.  In that suit, the ACLU claims a black teenager in
DeKalb County, Ga., was locked up five days because he could not
afford to pay $838 in fines and fees to the county and JCS --
despite the fact that he tried his best to make payments.

Last year the city of Montgomery in August agreed to change its
procedures and to no longer jail people who can't afford to pay
fines and costs associated with minor traffic violations.  The
agreement was part of a settlement of a class action lawsuit
brought by the group Equal Justice Under Law.

In July 2012 Shelby County Circuit Judge Hub Harrington took
control of all cases in Harpersville after he said the town was
running a "debtors prison" and "judicially sanctioned extortion
racket" with JCS.  His ruling came as part of a lawsuit filed in
2010 by people who had been jailed for non-payment of fines.

Then in August 2012 two Shelby County residents and one Talladega
County resident filed a federal lawsuit against Childersburg and
JCS claiming that they had illegal fees imposed on them and were
jailed multiple times when they couldn't pay the money.

The issue in Alabama and elsewhere has been highlighted in
national and international publications.

JCS has challenged the allegations -- disputing that fees reached
into the thousands and thousands of dollars.  It is the municipal
judge who sets fines, court costs and length of probation, the
company has said.


HOSPIRA INC: Recalls 0.9% Sodium Chloride Injections Due to Hair
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hospira, Inc. (NYSE: HSP), announced that it will initiate a
voluntary nationwide recall of one lot of 0.9% Sodium Chloride
Injection, USP, 250 mL VisIV(TM) flex container (NDC 0409-7983-25,
Lot 45-110-C6, Expiry 1MAR2016) to the user level due to one
confirmed customer report of particulate in a single unit. The
foreign particle was confirmed by Hospira as human hair free-
floating within the solution. To date, Hospira has not received
reports of any adverse events associated with this issue for this
lot.

In the unlikely event that the particulate breaks and pieces are
able to pass through the intravenous catheter, injected
particulate material may result in localized inflammation,
phlebitis, allergic reaction, granuloma formation or microembolic
effects (IV only) and/or low-level allergic response. Capillaries
which may be as small as the size of a red blood cell,
approximately seven microns in diameter, may become occluded.
Patients with preexisting condition of trauma or other medical
condition that adversely affects the microvascular blood supply
are at an increased risk. However, the likelihood of these risks
is low as there is no evidence indicating that IV injection of
inert particles results in harm to patients when only a small
amount over a limited period of time is administered.

Delay of therapy may occur due to observation of particulate at
the point of care. However, this delay is likely to be of
negligible clinical significance as this medication is
administered by a health care provider and remediation is readily
available.

This lot was distributed nationwide from December 2014 through
January 2015. Hospira has initiated an investigation to determine
the root cause and corrective and preventive actions.

Anyone with an existing inventory of the recalled lot should stop
use and distribution and quarantine the product immediately.
Customers should notify all users in their facility. Customers who
have further distributed the recalled product should notify any
accounts or additional locations which may have received the
recalled product and instruct them if they have redistributed the
product to notify their accounts, locations or facilities to the
consumer level. Hospira will be notifying its direct customers via
a recall letter and is arranging for impacted product to be
returned to Stericycle in the United States. For additional
assistance, call Stericycle at 1-888-714-5079 between the hours of
8 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday. Hospira will provide
allocation credits and make replacement product available for
contracted customers.

For clinical inquiries, please contact Hospira using the
information provided below.

  Hospira Contact      Contact Information      Areas of Support
  ---------------      -------------------      ----------------
Hospira Global         1-800-441-4100           To report adverse
Complaint Management   (8am-5pm CT, M-F)        events or product
                       (ProductComplaintsPP     complaints
                        @hospira.com)

Hospira Medical         1-800-615-0187          Medical inquiries
Communications          or medcom@hospira.com
                        (Available 24 hours a
                        day/7 days per week)

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.
Complete and submit the report Online:
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm
Regular Mail or Fax: Download form
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address
on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178
This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.

Hospira, Inc. is the world's leading provider of injectable drugs
and infusion technologies, and a global leader in biosimilars.
Through its broad, integrated portfolio, Hospira is uniquely
positioned to Advance Wellness(TM) by improving patient and
caregiver safety while reducing healthcare costs. The company is
headquartered in Lake Forest, Ill. Learn more at www.hospira.com.


HOSPIRA INC: Recalls Magnesium Sulfate in 5% Dextrose Injections
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hospira, Inc., (NYSE: HSP) has announced a voluntary recall of one
lot of Magnesium Sulfate in 5% Dextrose, Inj., USP, 10 mg/mL (NDC:
0409-6727-23, Lot 42-120-JT, Expiry 1DEC2015) to the user level
due to confirmed customer reports of an incorrect barcode on the
primary bag labeling. The barcode on the overwrap is correct;
however, there is potential for the primary container barcode to
be mislabeled with the barcode for Heparin Sodium 2000 USP
units/1000 mL in 0.9% Sodium Chloride Inj. The product is labeled
with the correct printed name on the primary container and
overwrap.

If the incorrect barcode on Magnesium Sulfate in 5% Dextrose,
Inj., USP, 10 mg/ mL is not detected prior to dispensing or
administration to a patient, and the product is administered based
on the printed name, patient harm is unlikely since the barcode on
the overwrap and readable text on the primary container and
overwrap are correct. However, if detected, there is the potential
for delay in treatment of magnesium sulfate in 5% dextrose, that
can result in life-threatening seizures, stroke, cerebral
hemorrhage and maternal death, and attendant risks to the fetus,
including fetal demise. Administration of the magnesium sulfate
drug product to a patient who is prescribed heparin and in whom
the magnesium sulfate is contraindicated can result in serious
adverse events related to the drug's pharmacologic action and may
require medical intervention. Although serious in nature, the
likelihood of this risk to occur is low due to the high
detectability of this nonconformance. To date, Hospira has not
received reports of any adverse events associated with this issue
for this lot.

Magnesium sulfate in 5% dextrose injection, USP, is a prescription
product administered intravenously for the prevention and control
of seizures in preeclampsia and eclampsia, respectively. The
product is packaged in 50/100 mL container bags and sold 24 bags
per carton (NDC: 0409-6727-23, Lot 42-120-JT, Expiry 1DEC2015).
The lot was distributed nationwide in the U.S. to wholesalers,
distributers and hospitals from October 2014 to January 2015.
Hospira has initiated an investigation to determine the root cause
and corrective and preventive actions.

Anyone with an existing inventory of the recalled lot should stop
use and distribution and quarantine the product immediately.
Customers should notify all users in their facility. Customers who
have further distributed the recalled product should notify any
accounts or additional locations which may have received the
recalled product and instruct them if they have redistributed the
product to notify their accounts, locations or facilities to the
consumer level. Hospira will be notifying its direct customers via
a recall letter and is arranging for impacted product to be
returned to Stericycle in the United States. For additional
assistance, call Stericycle at 1-866-382-9260 between the hours of
8 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday. Patients should
contact their physician or healthcare provider if they have
experienced any problems that may be related to using this drug
product.

For clinical inquiries, please contact Hospira using the
information provided below.

  Hospira Contact      Contact Information      Areas of Support
  ---------------      -------------------      ----------------
Hospira Global         1-800-441-4100           To report adverse
Complaint Management   (8am-5pm CT, M-F)        events or product
                       (ProductComplaintsPP     complaints
                        @hospira.com)

Hospira Medical        1-800-615-0187           Medical inquiries
Communications         or medcom@hospira.com
                       (Available 24 hours a
                       day/7 days per week)

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.
Complete and submit the report Online:
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm
Regular Mail or Fax: Download form
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address
on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178
This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.

Hospira, Inc. is the world's leading provider of injectable drugs
and infusion technologies, and a global leader in biosimilars.
Through its broad, integrated portfolio, Hospira is uniquely
positioned to Advance Wellness(TM) by improving patient and
caregiver safety while reducing healthcare costs. The company is
headquartered in Lake Forest, Ill. Learn more at www.hospira.com.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm437036.htm


HULU LLC: Judge May Knock Out Remaining Claims in Privacy Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for Law.com, reports that U.S. Magistrate Judge
Laurel Beeler said she didn't want the Feb. 26 hearing in a
privacy suit against Hulu LLC to feel like "a wake."  But the
Northern District of California judge put the case on life
support, at the very least, indicating that she's leaning toward
knocking out the remaining claims in a 2011 suit under the Video
Privacy Protection Act.

Plaintiffs lawyers argue that Hulu broke the 1988 law, which bars
the disclosure of users' viewing choices, by placing Facebook's
"Like" button on its video viewing pages.  The placement resulted
in users' viewing history and identities being transmitted to
Facebook via browser cookies.

Judge Beeler previously trimmed the lawsuit, knocking out claims
last April related to Hulu's sharing of anonymized data with a
metrics firm.  In June she denied plaintiffs' first bid for class
certification.

The judge's "wake" metaphor prompted a Monthy Python-inspired
response of "I'm not dead yet" from the plaintiffs' lawyer,
Scott Kamber of KamberLaw.

But arguments from Hulu's lawyers at O'Melveny & Myers and
Covington & Burling seemed to persuade Beeler.

O'Melveny & Myers partner Victor Jih -- vjih@omm.com -- argued on
Feb. 26 that no evidence in the record suggests that Hulu knew
that demographic information was being collected by Facebook
regardless of whether users pressed the "Like" button.

The Hulu case shows some of the difficulties plaintiffs have found
applying the VPPA to modern streaming technology.  The law, which
was passed after a newspaper printed the rental history of Supreme
Court nominee Robert Bork, made it illegal for a "video tape
service provider" to knowingly hand over a user's personally
identifiable information. It carries statutory damages of $2,500
per violation.

Just what it means to "knowingly" disclose user information was a
point of contention between the parties that Beeler addressed
early in the Feb. 26 hearing.  Hulu argued that it must have
"actual knowledge" of a disclosure to violate the VPPA.  The
plaintiffs claimed in their reply brief that they "need only
demonstrate that Hulu voluntarily provided user-specific
information and videos watched."

Judge Beeler seemed ready to side with Hulu, over objections from
plaintiffs lawyer Kamber that the company's argument amounted to a
lawyer-driven abstraction of what was actually going on between
Hulu and Facebook.

Hulu had to have knowledge that Facebook was getting its user IDs
and viewing information broadcast back to it, he said, because the
social network's entire business of placing targeted ads on Hulu's
site relies on precisely that sort of data.  "For us to lose in
this instance," he said, would mean that Beeler wasn't "making
every reasonable inference in the plaintiffs favor."

Had the plaintiffs brought their own affirmative motion for motion
for summary judgment, he said, the burden of proof would have
fallen on them. Here, the burden is on Hulu, he said.

As a final point, Mr. Kamber said Hulu had to have at some point
become aware of its disclosures, possibly as a result of the
lawsuit.  He pointed in particular to the company's eventual move
in the wake of the litigation to stop including the names of video
titles in the URLs of viewing pages. Plaintiffs have argued that
the adjustment, more than a year after the suit was filed, was
made with an eye to compliance with the VPPA.

Judge Beeler wasn't without sympathy to Mr. Kamber's argument.
The information she's learned about web-tracking during the course
of litigation, she said, has convinced her to use three separate
browsers for different functions to shield her own privacy on the
Internet.


IDAHO: Inmates Medical Records May Have Been Destroyed
------------------------------------------------------
According to The Associated Press' Rebecca Boone, reports from a
state investigator and three staffers at an Idaho prison suggest
that inmates' medical records may have been intentionally changed
or destroyed in violation of a federal court order.

The reports surfaced in connection with a whistleblower lawsuit
brought by a former mental health care provider at the Idaho State
Correctional Institution.

The state prison is already under close federal court scrutiny
because of a long-running class-action lawsuit over substandard
health care and other problems, including missing inmate medical
records.  As a result of that lawsuit, the federal court has
placed the prison under its oversight until the problems are
fixed.  Idaho Department of Correction Director Kevin Kempf told
lawmakers earlier this year that he hoped the federal oversight
would end in 18 months.

On Feb. 19, the attorney in the whistleblower case,
Andrew Schoppe, sent a letter to U.S. District Judge B. Lynn
Winmill alleging the potential destruction of evidence.

Idaho Department of Correction spokesman Jeff Ray said the
department couldn't comment on the matter because of the pending
litigation.  If the reports are accurate, the state corrections
agency could be at risk of sanctions from a federal judge,
including years of additional oversight by the court.

The allegations of evidence tampering arose in a 4th District
Court lawsuit brought by Diana Canfield, a former mental health
clinician at the Idaho State Correctional Institute.

In her lawsuit, Ms. Canfield contends she felt forced to resign
after she was targeted and harassed by her supervisor for pointing
out that the state wasn't following its own handbook for inmate
mental health care.

The lawsuit said Ms. Canfield was about to be fired because her
supervisor, deputy warden Shell Wamble-Fisher, accused her of
tampering with medical records to make it seem she had seen
inmates she never examined.  Ms. Canfield denied that accusation.

A month after Canfield resigned, the Idaho Department of
Corrections medical director, Dr. Richard Craig, filed a complaint
against her with the Idaho Bureau of Occupational Licenses, which
launched a formal investigation.

Though most of the prison's medical care is provided by a private
company, Ms. Canfield, Ms. Wamble-Fisher, Dr. Craig and the other
clinicians mentioned in the lawsuit are Department of Correction
employees.

Investigator Cindy Stephenson found that the problem was likely
with Ms. Wamble-Fisher, not Ms. Canfield.

"From everything I have been told, it would appear there is an
issue of some type with the supervisor, Ms. Wamble-Fisher,"
Stephenson wrote in her investigative report.  "She had access to
all computer records and all hard copy files.  Ms. Canfield's
notes, documents and information had been altered, removed, or
tampered with on multiple occasions based on information I have
received from several individuals."

Ms. Canfield and other department staffers also filed sworn
statements claiming Ms. Wamble-Fisher hid troublesome inmates and
made sure that others were readily available when the federal
judge sent a special investigator to the prison.  They also said
Ms. Wamble-Fisher lied to the investigator when she said inmates
were never kept for more than a day in holding cells, which have
no beds or sinks.


INDECO FINISHES: Faces "Torres" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rolando Torres and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b) v. Indeco Finishes of Florida, LLC, and Oswaldo A. Ramos,
Case No. 1:15-cv-20814 (S.D. Fla., February 27, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work
performed in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate an interior design services company
in Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INSTAMED COMMUNICATIONS: Sued in E.D. Pa. Over Consumer Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leroy Fountain, individually, and on the behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Instamed Communications, LLC, Case No. 2:15-
cv-01048 (E.D. Pa., February 27, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for obtaining and using information in consumer reports
to conduct background checks on prospective and existing employees
without first making proper disclosures.

Instamed Communications, LLC is a Pennsylvania corporation that
provides services in healthcare clearignghouse and payment
transactions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Obinna I. Abara, Esq.
      ABARA LAW FIRM PLLC
      1950 Butler Pike #255
      Conshohocken, PA 19428
      Telephone: (215) 360-3260
      E-mail: oabara@abaralaw.com

         - and -

      Chukwudi Egbuonu, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF CHUKWUDI EGBUONU
      10333 Harwin Dr., Suite 375D
      Houston, TX 77036
      Telephone: (713) 635-9488
      Facsimile: (832) 426-5792
      E-mail: chuck@celawoffice.com


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

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

The jury found defendant Janssen Pharmaceuticals negligent in
having failed to warn of the potential for Risperdal to cause
gynecomastia, a condition in which males grow enlarged breasts.
The plaintiff in the case, Austin Pledger, took Risperdal to
assist with behavioral symptoms related to autism and claimed to
have developed gynecomastia from taking the drug.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"I brought in a commissioner of the FDA," Mr. Kline said, before
turning to Ms. Sullivan. "Where's your commissioner of the FDA?"

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

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

Date of Verdict:
Feb. 24.

Court and Case No.:
C.P. Philadelphia No. 120401997.

Judge:
Ramy I. Djerassi.

Type of Action:
Products liability.

Injuries:
Gynecomastia.

Plaintiffs Counsel:
Thomas R. Kline, Kline & Specter, Philadelphia; Christopher Gomez,
Sheller P.C., Philadelphia.

Defense Counsel:
Diane Sullivan, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, Princeton, New Jersey;
Kenneth Murphy, Drinker Biddle & Reath, Philadelphia.


JEFFERIES LLC: Court Dismisses Rieckborn Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANIKA R. RIECKBORN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JEFFERIES LLC (F/K/A
JEFFERIES AND COMPANY, INC.), et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-
03889-WHO, (N.D. Cal.) is a securities class action brought on
behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired Velti plc securities between January 27, 2011 and August
20, 2013. On the last day of the putative class period, Velti
announced its Q2 2013 financial results and disclosed that it had
decided to write off approximately $111 million in outstanding
accounts receivable. Plaintiffs allege that Velti's reserves and
revenues were materially misrepresented throughout the putative
class period and bring claims against Velti's accounting firm --
Baker, Tilly, Virchow & Krause, LLP -- and the underwriters of
Velti's initial and secondary public offerings -- Jefferies LLC,
RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Needham & Company, LLC, and Canaccord
Genuity Inc. -- under the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Defendants filed their respective
motions to dismiss on October 15, 2014.

District Judge William H. Orrick ruled on February 27, 2015, that
"Plaintiffs must plead facts indicating that uncollectible
receivables existed when the alleged misrepresentations were made,
and that Velti failed to account for them. They have not done so.
For this reason, the Defendants' motions to dismiss are granted
with leave to amend except that to the extent plaintiffs' Section
11 claims are based on the allegation that Velti's "Day sales
outstanding" (DSO) figure was misrepresented in the registration
statements, those claims are time-barred and are dismissed with
prejudice. All sealing motions filed in conjunction with
defendants' motions to dismiss are denied. Plaintiffs shall file
an amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this order."

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


JUICI PATTIES: Recalls Jamaican Chicken Patties Due to E. Coli
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 6, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Juici Patties (Canada)
Distribution: Alberta
Extent of the product distribution: Retail

Juici Patties (Canada) is recalling Juici Patties brand Jamaican
Style unbaked Chicken Patty from the marketplace due to possible
E. coli O157:H7 contamination. Consumers should not consume the
recalled product described below.

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

Food contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 may not look or smell
spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include nausea,
vomiting, mild to severe abdominal cramps and watery to bloody
diarrhea. In severe cases of illness, some people may have
seizures or strokes, need blood transfusions and kidney dialysis
or live with permanent kidney damage. In severe cases of illness,
people may die.

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

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

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

  Brand name    Common name        Size     Code(s)      UPC
  ----------    -----------        ----     on product   ---
                                            ----------
Juici Patties   Unbaked Jamaican   1.6 kg   3184        6 24819
                Style Patty,       (12 pack)            30012 2
                Chicken

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


KITSON STORES: Sued Over Inflated Bottled Water Prices
------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press report that a court fight over retail
operations at one of the nation's busiest airports led to a
charges on March 6 that passengers are being gouged on bottled
water prices.

Legal papers filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court by
boutique retailer Kitson Stores said Hudson Group, which operates
many shops at Los Angeles International Airport, is exploiting
travelers with "hugely" inflated water prices.

The two sides have been exchanging accusations over business
operations and licensing arrangements at the airport, which
attracts 70 million travelers annually.

Kitson says New Jersey-based Hudson refused to sell bottled water
at the airport's two Kitson shops it operates at $2.55 for a
liter.  Instead, Hudson charges consumers about $5 a bottle at the
stores, the court filing said.

Kitson argues that Hudson is trying to force its stores out of the
airport because of the friction over water prices.

"Water is one of the most basic necessities for travelers and
Hudson is taking advantage of the post- 9-11 airport restrictions"
by inflating water prices, Kitson attorney Steven Bledsoe said in
a telephone interview.  "We believe that Hudson has breached its
contracts with Kitson and has no right to close the Kitson
stores."

Hudson attorney Brian Timmons called the Kitson claim a publicity
stunt intended to divert attention from its failure to meet
contractual obligations.

In a statement, he said Hudson is moving forward with plans to
terminate the relationship.  Last month, Hudson filed a complaint
in Superior Court against the boutique company for breach of
contract.

"Kitson is known for selling pricey items in its high end
boutiques," Mr. Timmons said.  "Anyone who thinks that Kitson is
really motivated here by an altruistic concern over how much
consumers are paying for water at LAX has either never shopped at
a Kitson store or is really naive."


LENOVO GROUP: Faces "Hall" Suit Over Pre-Loaded Superfish Spyware
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Hall, Matthew Kelso, Michael Morici, Jayne Costanzo,
Ryan Baumgartner, Laura Burns, Thomas Carney, Beatriz Davis,
Dennis Hasty, Wendy Duran and Gabe Duran, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lenovo (United States),
Inc., Lenovo Group Limited and Superfish, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-
00964-NC (N.D. Cal., March 2, 2015) is brought on behalf of all
purchasers of affected laptop computers that were manufactured and
marketed by Lenovo from August 2014 to the present.

The Plaintiffs allege that beginning in August or September 2014,
Lenovo secretly pre-loaded spyware called "Superfish Visual
Discovery" on the Affected Computers to monitor, intercept,
analyze and redirect users' web activity and personal information
(including sending and receiving e-mails).  They add that
Defendant Superfish, Inc., designed the spyware for the purpose of
inspecting users' search queries and making advertising
suggestions based on the content observed.

Lenovo (United States), Inc. is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in North Carolina.  Lenovo Group Limited is a Hong
Kong corporation headquartered in Beijing, People's Republic of
China.  Lenovo Group is the parent of Lenovo US.  Superfish is a
Delaware corporation headquartered in Palo Alto, California.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Laurence D. King, Esq.
          Linda Fong, Esq.
          Mario Choi, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772-4700
          Facsimile: (415) 772-4707
          E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com
                  lfong@kaplanfox.com
                  mchoi@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
          David A. Straite, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          850 Third Ave., 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 687-1980
          Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
          E-mail: ffox@kaplanfox.com
                  dstraite@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Marc A. Wites, Esq.
          WITES & KAPETAN, P.A.
          4400 North Federal Highway
          Lighthouse Point, FL 33064
          Telephone: (954) 570-8989
          Facsimile: (954) 354-0206
          E-mail: mwites@wklawyers.com


LINDEN MAYFIELD: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Narciso Perez, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown v. Linden Mayfield, LLC d/b/a
Chef Vince's Zeal, and Vincent Pecora, Case No. 1:15-cv-01778
(N.D. Ill., February 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate Chef Vince's Zeal restaurant in
Schaumburg, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LSI TITLE: 11th Cir. Vacates Dismissal of "Clements" State Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge William Pryor of the United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit, affirmed the dismissal in part and remanded the
case of PATRICIA L. CLEMENTS, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LSI TITLE
AGENCY, INC., a division of Lender Processing Services, Inc., LAW
OFFICES OF WILLIAM E. FAIR III, LLC, WILLIAM EVE FAIR III, ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees, NO. 14-11636 (11th Cir.)

Patricia L. Clements refinanced a mortgage with Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., which hired LSI Title Agency, Inc. to provide mortgage
refinancing services for the transaction. LSI contracted the Law
Offices of William E. Fair III, LLC to provide a closing attorney,
and the Law Offices arranged for Sean Rogers to serve as a closing
attorney.

After the refinancing, Clements filed a putative class action in a
state court against LSI, the Law Offices, Fair, and other unnamed
defendants. The defendants removed the complaint to the district
court, and Clements filed an amended complaint. Clements alleged
that LSI routinely had non-attorneys prepare all of the documents
for the closing and that the Law Offices and Fair arranged for a
licensed attorney, Rogers, to witness the signing of the
documents, in violation of Georgia law. Clements alleged two
violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C.
Sections 2601-2617, which makes it illegal for any person to
accept any portion of a settlement charge unless that person
rendered a service for the charge.

LSI, the Law Offices, and Fair moved to dismiss the amended
complaint on two grounds.  They argued that, because Clements
received a credit for the exact amount of the mortgage closing
costs, which included the $300 settlement fee and the $125
recording charges, she failed to allege an injury and lacked
standing.  They argued, in the alternative, that Clements failed
to state claims upon which relief could be granted, citing Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

The district court ruled that Clements lacked standing and
dismissed the amended complaint. Clements appealed.

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Clement's federal
claims, vacated the dismissal of her state claims and remanded the
case for the district court to decide whether to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over her state claims.

A copy of Judge Pryor's order dated March 2, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/OQujD8from Leagle.com.

The Eleventh Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges William
Pryor and Adalberto Jordan and District Judge Madeline Hughes
Haikala.


LOCKHEED MARTIN: Settles 401(k) Class Action for $62 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Lockheed Martin has agreed to
pay $62 million to settle a class-action lawsuit that accused the
defense contractor of mismanaging employee retirement accounts and
using funds with excessive fees.

The settlement still needs to be approved by a judge. Lockheed
Martin agreed to settle in December, but terms of the settlement
were disclosed for the first time on Feb. 20.

In settling the case, Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed Martin did
not admit to any wrongdoing.  The lawsuit, which was first filed
in 2006, said Lockheed Martin's retirement accounts charged high
fees and too much of employees' savings were held in low-yielding
funds.

More than 100,000 participants in Lockheed Martin's retirement
accounts were represented in the lawsuit, according to Schlichter,
Bogard & Denton, the St. Louis-based law firm that represented the
plaintiffs.

Some current and former members of Lockheed Martin's 401(k)
retirement plans will be eligible to receive compensation. The
payment amounts will be decided by the court.


MATERNAL SCIENCE: Recalls Healthy Mama(R) Boost It Up!(TM) Drinks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maternal Science, Inc. of Montvale, NJ, is voluntarily recalling
healthy mama(R) Boost It Up!(TM) Drink because it contains
undeclared milk (whey protein isolate). People who have an allergy
to milk run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume this product. healthy mama(R) Boost It
Up!(TM) Drink is manufactured for and distributed by Maternal
Science, Inc. and sold nationwide through limited retailers and
via internet sales. healthy mama(R) Boost It Up!(TM) Drink is
packaged in a plastic bottle with a white label containing 12 fl
oz per bottle (see labels below). The affected lots entered the
marketplace on April, 2014. The lots affected are listed below.

  Product name   Package    Lot#       Date Best   UPC Code
  ------------   Size       ----       By          --------
                 -------               ---------
healthy mama(R)  12 fl oz.  14275-11   10/2015     810758020058
Boost It Up!                bottle
Mighty Mango with
Ginger

healthy mama(R)  12 fl oz.  14090-11   03/2015     810758020058
Boost It Up!                bottle
Mighty Mango

To date no illnesses have been reported. The recall was initiated
after it was discovered during an internal review that healthy
mama(R) Boost It Up!(TM) Drink containing whey protein isolate
(milk) was distributed in packaging that did not reveal the
presence of milk. Consumers who are allergic to milk and purchased
healthy mama(R) Boost It Up!(TM) Drink are urged not to consume
the product.

Consumers who purchased the affected lots of healthy mama(R) Boost
It Up!(TM) Drink may return it to: ATTN: BOOST IT UP RETURN, 225
Long Ave, Hillside, NJ 07205 for a full refund or exchange.
Customers may contact the company at (855) 773-4426, Monday-
Thursday, 9AM - 5PM, ET or email Inquiries@healthymama.com for
further instructions and claim processing.


MILLERCOORS: Judge Bans Expert Testimony in Bottle Injury Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Denney, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal judge
precluded a witness who had worked for a glass manufacturer, but
lacked expertise in glass bottle design, from testifying at trial
in a products liability suit filed by a bartender whose finger was
injured by an exploding beer bottle.

Eastern District Judge Denis Hurley granted MillerCoors' motion
for summary judgment in Toomey v. MillerCoors, 12-CV-3295, saying
that George Pecoraro, the expert witness, had only theorized that
William Toomey's accident occurred because Coors Light bottles are
too thin to withstand fracture.

"In fact, when asked where his methodology came from, Mr. Pecoraro
responded, 'my head,'" the judge wrote in his Feb. 17 order.

Barring the witness' testimony, Judge Hurley said, Toomey had
failed to point to any other evidence upon which a jury could
favor his claim that MillerCoors was at fault for the accident.

According to court papers, Toomey was injured on May 23, 2009
while working as a bartender in Port Washington.  While he was
placing pairs of 12-ounce Coors Light bottles into a stainless
steel ice bin, the bottle between Toomey's left thumb and
forefinger exploded, causing "severe" injuries to his index finger
that caused him to miss work for about 26 weeks.

To demonstrate that MillerCoors was at fault, the judge wrote,
Toomey "relied heavily" on the testimony of Mr. Pecoraro, who owns
a litigation consulting business and who had worked for 40 years
for PPG Industries, which manufactures panel glass.

During his time with PPG, Mr. Pecoraro studied refractories, the
ceramic materials that are used to manufacture the furnaces where
glass is cooked.  He admitted that he never worked in the
production of glass containers, including bottles, nor had he
designed a glass bottle or worked for or provided consultation
services to a company that manufactures glass bottles.

But in his expert witness report, Mr. Pecoraro offered the theory
that Coors Light bottles are susceptible to fracture because of
their relative lack of thickness.  He said that, during the
formation of glass bottles, tiny cracks form in the bottles, and
if the glass isn't thick enough, those cracks could lengthen
during the bottling process and during shipping and, eventually,
the bottle could fracture in the hand of a consumer.

To support his theory, Mr. Pecoraro measured the thickness of
three Coors Light bottles and six bottles of various brands of
beer, which included two varieties of Sam Adams, Bud Light, Hop
Rod Rye, Rockin Red Ale and Rollin' Dirty Red Ale.  He broke the
bottles and measured the thickness of the glass shards that stuck
to the label.

He reported that Coors Light bottles were, on average, thinner
than the other brands, but he omitted the measurement for the Bud
Light bottle, saying that it was too similar in composition and
design to the Coors Light bottle.

MillerCoors argued that, by omitting that measurement,
Mr. Pecoraro selected data that supported his conclusions.  The
company also questioned the reliability of Mr. Pecoraro's method
of measuring the thickness of the glass.

The judge wrote that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit had articulated that part of a district court's
gatekeeping function under Federal Evidence Rule 702, which sets
rules for expert witness testimony, is to inquire whether
witnesses qualify as experts and whether their opinions are based
upon reliable data and methodology.

The judge wrote that it was clear that Mr. Pecoraro's testimony
was not based on reliable data and that his methodology was not
tested or subjected to peer review, "let alone accepted by the
scientific community."

According to court documents, Mr. Pecoraro charges a $500
retainer, $175 per hour for document review and $225 for
deposition testimony.

Mr. Pecoraro did not respond to a request for comment.
Christopher Dean and Joseph Dell of the Garden City firm Dell &
Dean, who represented the plaintiffs, also did not respond to
messages seeking comment.

Patrick Nolan -- patrick.nolan@quarles.com -- a partner with
Milwaukee-based firm Quarles & Brady who represented MillerCoors,
said in a statement to the Law Journal that the judge's decision
"underscores the need for plaintiffs to prove their case using
competent expert opinion testimony that is based upon a reliable
scientific methodology."


MOVE INC: Sued in Arizona for Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Mix, On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. Move Incorporated, Case No. 2:15-cv-00370-GMS (D. Ariz., March
2, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Christian Anderson, Esq.
          ANDERSON BANTA CLARKSON PLLC
          48 N MacDonald
          Mesa, AZ 85201
          Telephone: (480) 272-5983
          E-mail: adam@acandersonlaw.com


MRS BPO: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Edelstein, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. MRS BPO, L.L.C., Case No. 1:15-cv-01062
(E.D.N.Y., March 2, 2015) accuses the Defendant of violating the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


NATE'S CORP: Faces "Mongiove" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Mongiove, Gonzalez Yarinel, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Nate's Corp., Sand Lane Pharmacy
Corp., Vitacare Pharmacy Corp., Boris Natenzon, Angela Natenzon,
Bernard Glezerman, and Simon Lorbert, Case No. 1:15-cv-01024
(E.D.N.Y., February 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate pharmacies with various locations
in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Taubenfeld, Esq.
      SERRINS FISHER LLP
      233 Broadway, Suite 2340
      New York, NY 10279
      Telephone: (212) 571-0700
      Facsimile: (212) 233-3801
      E-mail: michael@serrinsfisher.com


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Concussion Settlement Faces Criticisms
---------------------------------------------------------
Mark Craig, writing for Star Tribune, reports that settlement of
the concussion lawsuit is near, but even those who are accepting
it aren't sure how much they'll benefit.

The league hails the settlement as a landmark moment in its
history, an unprecedented 65-year deal with the potential to award
$1 billion to thousands who are struggling among the league's
roughly 22,000 current retirees, including hundreds of former
Vikings.

On the other side is a strong chorus of critics who believe the
settlement allows the NFL to exclude too many ailing players and
lacks impact because there is no minimum payout requirement, other
than $112 million to the attorneys who orchestrated the deal.

The suit comes amid an intense national focus on head injuries in
sports.

"Is it a $1 billion settlement? Heck no," said former Viking Bob
Stein, an attorney who has represented former players.  "It is
whatever players filter through all of the hurdles of the
settlement's system, which the NFL still controls.  I don't think
it puts the concussion issue to bed at all."

NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy counters that the league has "a high
degree of confidence that this settlement -- which has been
accepted by more than 99 percent of retirees -- will provide
important and generous benefits to retirees and their families."

Criticism, even by many who are accepting the settlement, is
widespread, however.

Four principal concerns exist for critics of the concussion
settlement: CTE symptoms in living players that won't be covered;
insufficient information and/or ability to understand that
information for players who had to decide last fall whether to opt
out; no compensation for future diagnoses of CTE; and an
eligibility system controlled by the NFL that might be
restrictive.

"They could promise us everything, but if guys can't get approved,
then the settlement is meaningless," said former Vikings guard
Brent Boyd, a retired players advocate who has testified before
Congress about health problems he and his doctors trace to
multiple concussions.

"The NFL's history is they'll fight us tooth and nail.  They'll
delay, deny and hope we die before they have to pay us.  I just
don't trust these bastards."

Judge Anita Brody asked for revisions to initial settlement struck
last July.  Awards are expected to cover time spent in NFL Europe
as well as brain-damaged deaths through her final approval.  No
date was set for her final approval.  More than 50 former Vikings,
including Hall of Famers Carl Eller and Mick Tingelhoff, were part
of more than 200 lawsuits condensed into the consolidated suit.

At least one appeal is expected to be filed, by a group of seven
former players including former Gophers All-America center Ben
Hamilton.  The group filed a detailed formal objection during the
settlement process, suggesting an appeal and a possible extension
of the litigation process by at least another year.

Only a few hundred of the roughly 20,000 NFL retirees opted out of
the class-action suit.  They maintain legal rights to pursue
future individual suits.  As part of the settlement, the rights of
active players will be handled in the collective bargaining
process for the next 65 years.

Players who have opted out, like Vikings Hall of Fame safety
Paul Krause, are vocal in their opposition.

"The NFL is going to win everything, they don't care anything
about the old football players, and you can print that," said
Mr. Krause.  "They're waiting for all of us to die.  They got
everybody on their side. They have the newspapers on their side,
they have judges on their side. Everything is going toward the
owners.  I've got nothing good to say about the owners."

The NFL said it expects about 6,000 of the current retired players
to develop Alzheimer's disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou
Gehrig's disease) or dementia.  Under the settlement, payouts
would average about $190,000, with diagnoses for younger players
reaching up to $5 million.

"The sinister part of this is now they're putting out these
pictures of [former running back] Kevin Turner, who has Lou
Gehrig's disease, and they're saying, 'If you're against the
settlement, you're against giving Kevin Turner his $5 million
reward," Judge Boyd said.  "The fact is 99 percent of the guys who
have legitimate concussion symptoms aren't being covered by this.
The NFL is saving big money by paying a few guys a lot of money.
And they'll take their pictures with those guys because their
symptoms are camera-friendly and visible.  CTE symptoms are
invisible. And all the invisible symptoms are not covered under
terms of this settlement."

In the seven-player objection that was filed, the primary protest
is the future handling of CTE, which has been discovered in the
brains of dozens of deceased players, including those who
experienced behavior or mood problems in the latter stages of
their lives and committed suicide.  The settlement would pay up to
$4 million only to the families of players who died with CTE
between 2006 and the day the settlement is final.

"The greatest of the settlement's many flaws is its failure to
compensate players who are living with CTE or who die with it
after [the deadline]," the objection reads.  "CTE is likely to be
far and away the most common neurocognitive disease suffered by
the class.  Yet all class members release their claims related to
CTE. . . . Class counsel bargained away the rights of more than
20,000 former NFL players -- many of whom are suffering the
serious effects of CTE, fairly called 'football's industrial
disease.'  This alone is reason to reject the settlement."

PR nightmare looming?

To avoid "incentivizing" suicide, the settlement would not give
awards for future deaths involving CTE, which currently can be
reliably diagnosed only after death.  Critics want to know why the
settlement doesn't make an allowance for the possibility of a
reliably acceptable method of testing for CTE in a living brain.
In the seven-player objection, Dr. Robert A. Stern of the Boston
University School of Medicine stated a "reliably detectable" test
to diagnose CTE in the living likely will be available in the next
five to 10 years.

"As soon as there is a test approved for CTE in living people, it
won't be used to include players in the settlement; it will be
used to exclude them," Mr. Stein said.  "If you want to protect
the families or the individuals who have brain injuries, why is
this in the settlement?"

Mr. Stein said the legal liability for the league will disappear
for the most part, but he believes the public relations nightmare
could worsen when medical advancements enable living players to be
tested for CTE.  Those results, he says, will become an
embarrassing story line for the league and a settlement that may
become outdated by technology.

"I guarantee you I'm going to take the test," Mr. Stein said.
"Otherwise, especially as you get older, every time you can't
remember where the car keys or your glasses are, you worry that
you're approaching the edge of the cliff.

"It's practically debilitating it's so scary.  You see teammates
and friends who have just circled the drain, and that's tough."

The league counters with the argument that the settlement would
give awards to several neurological conditions -- including
moderate and early dementia, Alzheimer's disease, ALS and
Parkinson's disease -- without the presence of CTE.


NATIONAL SPOT: Faces Class Action Over Client Code Changes
----------------------------------------------------------
Rajesh Bhayani, writing for Business Standard, reports that as
cases related to the crisis-ridden National Spot Exchange (NSEL)
progress, a fresh set of information suggest NSEL brokers might
have been taking the system for a ride.  According to the NSEL
data, brokers modified client codes as many as 300,000 times,
which is very unusual.  Client codes are changed after the deal on
the exchange is done in one name and then transferred in another
name and allowed only for bona fide mistakes.

"Brokers of the exchange had in the beginning of the day
transacted deals in their own names or in names of one or two
clients and later internally transferred to various other names by
modifying client codes," said a source, adding NSEL trading was
not like other exchanges where through the day hundreds of
thousands of deals take place.  At NSEL, most of the trading
happens in the early hours.

On modification of clients' code, a leading NSEL broker said:
"They (brokers) have done so because the time available on the
exchange used to be so short that a broker hadto strike a deal in
a single name and later on transfer positions.  Investors used to
get exchange contract notes."  In equities and commodities,
changes in client codes are allowed only in a genuine case.  In
commodities, change in client code was done to transfer profit and
loss to launder money, which was stopped.

In another development, which is giving a curious turn to the NSEL
fiasco, investors who have lost money are not coming out to claim
when the high court-appointed committee asked the spot exchange to
collect claims and other information regarding the so-called
investors.  Based on that, NSEL asked brokers to submit claims
including source of funds of investors' money (borrowed or own).
According to NSEL Investors' Forum, there are 13,000 such
investors but only around 20 of them have given claims.  Investors
will not come forward if their money is unaccounted for.
According to sources, with the National Spot Exchange case
progressing, it is looking like a bogus demat-investors scam that
struck the capital markets in 2005.

An official involved in the process said actual investors might
not be even 13,000 or many of them might just only lent their bank
accounts including Know Your Customer documents.

Various NSEL investors' associations have filed a class action
suit in the high court here, seeking compensation. Modern India
Limited, which has invested in NSEL, has also filed a similar suit
against the spot exchange.  The number of these associations
claiming to represent these investors has also grown.  Those that
have objected to the NSEL seeking their source of funds include
the NSEL Investors Forum, the NSEL Investors' Action Group and a
lesser-known body, NSEL Aggrieved And Recovery Association,
besides Modern India.  According to the office bearer of one of
the associations, they need not disclose the source of funds to
the exchange.

On Feb. 16, the HC-appointed committee, headed by Judge V C Daga,
will hear plaints of these investors on whether they are supposed
to provide the source of their funds or not.  The deadline for
their claims to the Daga committee was Feb. 18.


NETFLIX INC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that an appellate
panel has agreed Netflix Inc. shouldn't be on the hook for
allegedly colluding with Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to divvy up the
market for online DVD rentals.

Netflix and Wal-Mart reached an agreement in 2005 that transferred
customers of Wal-Mart's flagging DVD-rental subscription service
to Netflix.  Netflix, in turn, agreed to promote Walmart's DVD
sales business.

Plaintiffs lawyers filed several suits on behalf of Netflix
subscribers alleging the deal ran afoul of antitrust laws.  Those
suits were consolidated in 2009 in multidistrict litigation before
U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton of the Northern District of
California.

In 2011, Judge Hamilton said Netflix customers couldn't show they
would have paid lower prices had the deal not been done and
granted summary judgment to Netflix's lawyers at Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati.  Judge Hamilton later approved a $27.25 million
settlement Wal-Mart reached with the class in March 2012.

On Feb. 27, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit affirmed Hamilton's decision knocking out the
antitrust claims against Netflix.  The panel, however, reversed
the part that awarded Netflix more than $700,000 in costs, and
remanded the case for further proceedings on the cost issue.  The
panel included Chief Judge Sidney Thomas, Judge Stephen Reinhardt,
and U.S. District Senior Judge Lloyd George of Nevada, sitting by
designation.

The same panel affirmed Judge Hamilton's decision approving the
Wal-Mart settlement as well as costs and attorney fees of more
that $8.5 million.  Writing for the panel, Thomas rejected the
argument made by objectors who claimed a portion of the settlement
issued as Wal-Mart gift cards should subjected to the heightened
scrutiny reserved for coupon settlements under the Class Action
Fairness Act.

Wilson Sonsini partners Jonathan Jacobson -- jjacobson@wsgr.com --
and Dylan Liddiard -- dliddiard@wsgr.com -- represented Netflix,
while Baker & Hostetler's Robert Abrams -- rabrams@bakerlaw.com --
argued for plaintiffs.

Todd Seaver -- tseaver@bermandevalerio.com -- from Berman
DeValerio in San Francisco defended the Wal-Mart settlement.
Theodore Frank of the Center for Class Action Fairness in
Washington, D.C., and Joshua Furman of Joshua R. Furman Law Corp.
in Los Angeles argued on behalf of the objectors.


NORMARK INC: Recalls Lithium Lazer(TM) Ice Augers
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 5, 2015
Posting date: March 5, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-52421

This recall involves the Lithium Lazer(TM) ice auger, which is
used when ice fishing to cut circular holes in ice to access the
water below. The Lithium Lazer(TM) ice auger is a 24-pound unit
powered by an electric motor and a rechargeable 50 volt lithium
ion battery.

The on/off trigger switch on the Lithium Lazer(TM) ice auger's
handle can fail, allowing continued rotation of the rotating drill
even in the "off" position, creating a risk of injury to the user
and bystanders.

Neither Health Canada nor Normark Inc. has received any reports of
consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these
products.

In total, 58 of the affected ice augers were sold in Canada and
about 3,000 were distributed in the United States.

The affected products were sold from November 2014 to February
2015 in Canada and from September 2014 to January 2015 in the
United States at various independent retailers and online.

Manufactured in the United States.

Distributor: Normark Inc.
             Oshawa, Ontario
             CANADA

Customers should immediately stop using the Lithium LazerTM ice
augers.

Customers can return their Lithium LazerTM ice augers to the
retailers from which they purchased them or to Normark Inc. for a
full refund.

For more information, consumers may contact Normark Inc. by
telephone at 1-905-571-3001 from Monday to Friday between 9:00
a.m. and 4:00 p.m. EST.

Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's
website.

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

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/aGyQL0


NORTH CAROLINA: App. Court Rules in Favor of Beltway Landowners
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to Winston-Salem Journal's Wesley Young, the N.C. Court
of Appeals took a big step toward that by ruling unanimously that
the state should compensate 11 landowners in the path of Winston-
Salem's Northern Beltway.

The appeals court wisely realized that, by placing their property
in the beltway corridor through the Map Act, the N.C. Department
of Transportation had essentially exercised its power of eminent
domain.  Though beltway work in their neighborhoods could be years
down the road, the landowners couldn't find buyers who would want
land under such conditions.  They were stuck in limbo.

The case has been sent back to Forsyth County Superior Court to
determine how much to pay each landowner.  Attorney Matthew
Bryant, who represents about 70 landowners who have filed suit
against the state, thinks the state will appeal the ruling, but we
hope it won't.  In fact, the state should compensate other
landowners in the beltway's path, and do it soon.


PANDORA MEDIA: Motion to Strike Copyright Class Action Rejected
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for Law.com, reports that lawyers for The
Turtles on Feb. 24 moved another step closer to securing royalties
for broadcasts of pre-1972 recordings, beating back a bid by
Pandora Media Inc.'s to use California's anti-SLAPP statute to
evade a proposed copyright class action.

U.S. District Judge Phillip Gutierrez in Los Angeles rejected a
motion to strike filed by Pandora's lawyers at Latham & Watkins,
who hoped to put a quick end to copyright claims leveled by two
Turtles founders through their company Flo & Eddie Inc.  The
Turtles, the band behind the 1967 hit "Happy Together," did most
of their recording prior to 1972, the year protections for sound
recordings kicked in under federal copyright law.

California's anti-SLAPP law generally bars lawsuits that restrict
a party's First Amendment rights.  In this case, Judge Gutierrez
agreed with Pandora's lawyers that streaming Turtles' songs
amounted to a protected activity under the law.  But the judge --
who already determined in a parallel case involving Sirius XM
Radio Inc. that California law provides musicians with performance
rights to pre-1972 recordings -- also concluded that Flo & Eddie
had a chance of winning on its copyright infringement claims.

"Flo & Eddie has demonstrated that its claims are meritorious
enough to withstand the anti-SLAPP motion," Gutierrez ruled.

Pandora spokesman Dave Grimaldi said in a statement on Feb. 17
that the company is open to supporting the "full federalization"
of pre-1972 sound recordings, but only if the reforms were
"technology-neutral" and ensured uniform rights for libraries,
music services and consumers.

Mr. Grimaldi said the company plans to immediately appeal the
Feb. 23 decision to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.  Pandora's legal team includes Latham's James
Schwartz and Andrew Gass.

Harvey Geller of Gradstein & Marzano, one of Flo & Eddie's
lawyers, told us via email that he's pleased "Pandora's cynical
attempt to equate free speech with free content was rejected."

The decision on Pandora's motion to strike comes just a few days
after a ruling from Gutierrez that disposed of dueling motions in
another key copyright battle over songs recorded before 1972.

In than case, the judge refused last week to reconsider an earlier
ruling that satellite broadcaster Sirius XM should face liability
for airing pre-1972 songs without paying royalties.  The same day,
however, Gutierrez cleared away a bid for sanctions against Sirius
XM's lawyers at O'Melveny & Myers, rejecting arguments by Flo &
Eddie's counsel that they had attempted to mislead the court.


PEBBLEWORKS POOL: "Vansickle " Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Vansickle, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Pebbleworks Pool Surfacing, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-00131 (M.D. Fla., February 27, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages, an additional equal amount as
liquidated damages, declaratory relief, and reasonable attorney's
fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Pebbleworks Pool Surfacing, Inc. is a Florida corporation provides
commercial pebble pool services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bill B. Berke, Esq.
      BERKE LAW FIRM, PA
      4223 Del Prado Blvd. S.
      Cape Coral, FL 33904
      Telephone: (239) 549-6689
      Facsimile: (239) 549-3331
      E-mail: Berkelaw@yahoo.com


REXALL SUNDOWN: NY Court Dismisses "Lary" TCPA Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit JOHN H. LARY, JR., M.D., individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons,
Plaintiff, v. REXALL SUNDOWN, INC., REXALL SUNDOWN 3001, NBTY,
INC., UNITED STATES NUTRITION, INC., CORPORATE MAILINGS, INC.
d/b/a CCG MARKETING SOLUTIONS and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants.
CORPORATE MAILINGS, INC. d/b/a CCG MARKETING SOLUTIONS, Third-
Party Plaintiff, v. HEALTHCARE DATA EXPERTS, LLC, Third-Party
Defendant, Case No. 13-CV-5769 (SJF), (E.D.N.Y.) -- is putative
class action was commenced pursuant to the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), as amended by the Junk Fax
Protection Act of 2005, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 (JFPA).

CCG is a marketing company which entered into a Master Service and
Support Agreement with defendant United States Nutrition, Inc., a
corporate affiliate of defendant Rexall. CCG supposedly created an
advertisement and sent it, unsolicited on or about March 5, 2013,
to plaintiff and more than 40 other recipients via telephone
facsimile machine, by or on behalf of defendants, offering a free
sample of the dietary supplement Osteo Bi-Flex.  Plaintiff was
allegedly damaged by the: (a) loss of toner and paper used by
printing the fax; (b) loss of time spent receiving and reviewing
the fax; (c) loss of plaintiff's privacy; and (d) use of
plaintiff's facsimile machine without permission.

The Plaintiff moved for class certification and for a stay of
decision on the certification motion pending discovery. Defendant
CCG Marketing Solutions moved to dismiss plaintiffs First Amended
Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).

CCG's motion is granted and plaintiff's motion is denied in its
entirety.  In a Feb. 10, 2015 Opinion and Order available at
http://is.gd/Itk03Hfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Sandra J.
Feuerstein granted judgment in favor of plaintiff John H. Lary,
Jr., individually, and against defendant CCG Marketing in the
amount of $6,000.  CCG is enjoined from sending any faxes to
plaintiff's fax number without proper opt-out notices pursuant to
47 U.S.C. Sec. 227.

The judge declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
third-party plaintiff CCG's third-party complaint against third-
party defendant Healthcare Data Experts, LLC and, accordingly,
CCG's third-party complaint against Healthcare Data Experts, LLC
is dismissed without prejudice.

Furthermore, Plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied
and CCG's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction is granted.

John H. Lary, Jr., individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, represented by
Aytan Yehoshua Bellin, Bellin & Associates LLC, Brian J Wanca --
BWanca@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca, Max Margulis,
Margulis Law Group & Ryan Kelly -- RKelly@andersonwanca.com --
Anderson Wanca.

Rexall Sundown, Inc., Defendant, represented by John Hooper, Reed
Smith LLP, Eric F. Gladbach, Reed Smith LLP & Henry Pietrkowski,
Reed Smith LLP.

Rexall Sundown 3001, LLC, Defendant, represented by John Hooper,
Reed Smith LLP, Eric F. Gladbach, Reed Smith LLP & Henry
Pietrkowski, Reed Smith LLP.

NBTY, Inc., Defendant, represented by John Hooper, Reed Smith LLP,
Eric F. Gladbach, Reed Smith LLP & Henry Pietrkowski, Reed Smith
LLP.

Corporate Mailings, Inc. d/b/a CCG Marketing Solutions, Defendant,
represented by Matthew J. Fedor -- Matthew.Fedor@bdr.com --
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Walter J. Fleischer --
Walter.Fleischer@bdr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP & William
A. Wright -- William.Wright@bdr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP.

Rexall Inc., Defendant, represented by John Hooper, Reed Smith
LLP.

United States Nutrition, Inc., Defendant, represented by John
Hooper, Reed Smith LLP.

Rexall Sundown, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by John Hooper,
Reed Smith LLP, Eric F. Gladbach, Reed Smith LLP & Henry
Pietrkowski, Reed Smith LLP.

Rexall Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by John Hooper, Reed
Smith LLP.

NBTY, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by John Hooper, Reed Smith
LLP, Eric F. Gladbach, Reed Smith LLP & Henry Pietrkowski, Reed
Smith LLP.

United States Nutrition, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by John
Hooper, Reed Smith LLP.

Rexall Sundown 3001, LLC, Cross Claimant, represented by John
Hooper, Reed Smith LLP, Eric F. Gladbach, Reed Smith LLP & Henry
Pietrkowski, Reed Smith LLP.

Corporate Mailings, Inc. d/b/a CCG Marketing Solutions, Cross
Defendant, represented by Matthew J. Fedor, Drinker Biddle & Reath
LLP, Walter J. Fleischer, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP & William A.
Wright, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP.

Corporate Mailings, Inc. d/b/a CCG Marketing Solutions, Cross
Claimant, represented by Matthew J. Fedor, Drinker Biddle & Reath
LLP, Walter J. Fleischer, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP & William A.
Wright, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP.

NBTY, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by John Hooper, Reed
Smith LLP, Eric F. Gladbach, Reed Smith LLP & Henry Pietrkowski,
Reed Smith LLP.

Rexall Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by John Hooper, Reed
Smith LLP.

Rexall Sundown 3001, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by John
Hooper, Reed Smith LLP, Eric F. Gladbach, Reed Smith LLP & Henry
Pietrkowski, Reed Smith LLP.

Rexall Sundown, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by John Hooper,
Reed Smith LLP, Eric F. Gladbach, Reed Smith LLP & Henry
Pietrkowski, Reed Smith LLP.

United States Nutrition, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
John Hooper, Reed Smith LLP.

Corporate Mailings, Inc. d/b/a CCG Marketing Solutions, ThirdParty
Plaintiff, represented by Matthew J. Fedor, Drinker Biddle & Reath
LLP, Walter J. Fleischer, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP & William A.
Wright, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP.


RIDE RIGHT: Faces "Hatton" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carol Hatton, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Ride Right, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00352 (S.D. Ind.,
February 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay minimum wages as required by the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Ride Right, LLC provides handicapped transportation services
within the State of Indianapolis.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ronald E. Weldy, Esq.
      WELDY LAW
      8383 Craig Street, Suite 330
      Indianapolis, IN 46250
      Telephone: (317) 842-6600
      Facsimile: (317) 842-6933
      E-mail: weldy@weldylaw.com


ROYAL APPLIANCE: Recalls Dirt Devil(R) Turbo Tool Attachments
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 4, 2015
Posting date: March 4, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Laceration Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-43909

The recalled Dirt Devil(R) Turbo Tool attachment was sold as a
vacuum accessory with the corded Dirt Devil(R) Scorpion(R) 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 15 centimetres (5-3/4 inches) long
by 11.5 centimetres (4-1/2 inches) wide.

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.

Royal Appliance has received six reports of the Turbo Tool
accessory breaking in the United States and none in Canada. No
injuries have been reported.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries related to the use of this product.

Approximately 2,488 of the recalled units were sold in Canada and
about 22,000 of the units were sold in the United States.

The recalled products were sold from July 2012 through November
2014 by various retailers.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Royal Appliance Manufacturing Co.
              Glenwillow, Ohio
              UNITED STATES

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

For more information, consumers can contact Royal toll-free at 1-
888-393-2063 between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. EST, Monday through
Friday, or visit the Dirt Devil website and click on the "Recall
Information" link at the bottom of the page for more information.

Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's
website.

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

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/13nO2Y


RUST-OLEUM CORP: "Fernandez" Suit Included in Restore Product MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Fernandez v. Rust-Oleum
Corporation, et al., Case No. 7:14-cv-08857, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
(Chicago).  The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:15-cv-01366 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Rust-Oleum Restore Marketing, Sales Practices and
Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2602.

The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising out
of allegations that the deck and concrete resurfacing paint
products manufactured and sold by Rust-Oleum Corporation under the
Restore brand name are defective because they allegedly bubble,
flake, chip, peel, or otherwise degrade prematurely, contrary to
the representations in defendant's marketing, labeling, and
product warranty.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Daniel Bloom, Esq.
          BLOOM AND BLOOM, P.C
          530 Blooming Grove Turnpike
          P.O. Box 4323
          New Windsor, NY 12550
          Telephone: (845) 561-6920
          Facsimile: (845) 561-0978
          E-mail: kbloom@hvc.rr.com

               - and -

          Robert Nathan Isseks, Esq.
          ISSEKS AND SMITH
          6 North Street
          Middletown, NY 10940
          Telephone: (845) 344-4322
          Facsimile: (845) 341-1760
          E-mail: isseks@isseksandsmith.com

Defendant Rust-oleum Corporation is represented by:

          Dana S. Douglas, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          71 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 782-0600
          E-mail: dsdouglas@mayerbrown.com

Defendants Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. and The Home Depot, Inc. are
represented by:

          John Phillip MacNaughton, Esq.
          MORRIS MANNING & MARTIN LLP
          3343 Peachtree Road, N.E.
          1600 Atlanta Financial Center
          Atlanta, GA 30326-1044
          Telephone: (404) 504-7689
          Facsimile: (404) 365-9532
          E-mail: jpm@mmmlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert P. Alpert, Esq.
          MORRIS, MANNING & MARTIN, LLP
          1600 Atlanta Financial Center
          3343 Peachtree Road, N.E.
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Telephone: (404) 233-7000
          E-mail: ralpert@mmmlaw.com


SECURITAS SECURITY: Arbitration of "Edwards" Case Denied
--------------------------------------------------------
Justice Terry B. O'Rourke's of the Court of Appeals of California,
Fourth District, Division One, ruled on a petition in the case
SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR
COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, Respondent, DENISE EDWARDS, Real Party
in Interest NO. D066873 (Cal. App.)

Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. provides specialized
security services throughout the United States. Plaintiff Denise
Edwards was an employee of Securitas, who upon employment, signed
an acknowledgment of receipt of Securitas's dispute resolution
agreement, which was eventually placed in her personnel file.

In 2013, Edwards sued Securitas in the San Diego Superior Court,
and eventually filed a first amended class action complaint
alleging Securitas failed to provide all legally required meal and
rest breaks to employees and failed to itemize missed meal breaks
on wage statements. She sought restitution and injunctive relief
under the unfair competition law (UCL; Bus. & Prof. Code, Section
17200 et seq.), damages (Lab. Code, Section 226), and a
representative claim for civil penalties under the PAGA.

Securitas moved to compel arbitration and stay proceedings first
in February 2014, and then via an amended motion filed in August
2014, addressing the California Supreme Court's opinion in
Iskanian, supra, 59 Cal.4th 348. It asked the trial court to (1)
compel Edwards to arbitrate her individual claims; (2) dismiss
and/or sever and stay her class claims, and (3) dismiss and/or
stay her PAGA claim. Alternatively, it asked the court to sever
and stay Edwards's PAGA claim under Code of Civil Procedure
section 1281.2.

The court granted Securitas's motion to compel arbitration.
However, it ruled Edwards's PAGA claim could not be waived, and
that because the class action waiver provision sought to eliminate
or abridge Edwards's right to litigate her PAGA claim, the
provision was invalid. It further ruled that because the PAGA
waiver was unenforceable as a matter of California law, the
severability clause of the dispute resolution agreement applied.
It ordered the parties to proceed with arbitration as to Edwards's
entire complaint, including her PAGA claims, observing that
Edwards had elected to resolve her PAGA claims in arbitration
along with her class claims.

Securitas filed a petition for peremptory writ of mandate,
prohibition or review seeking an immediate stay and (1) compelling
the trial court to set aside the portion of its order sending
Edwards's class action and PAGA claims to arbitration; (2)
compelling the court to issue a new order enforcing the dispute
resolution agreement's class action and/or PAGA waivers or
alternatively sever those claims and stay them pending arbitration
of Edwards's individual claims.

Justice O'Rourke issued a writ of mandate directing the superior
court to vacate its order that the parties proceed to arbitrate
Edward's entire complaint and enter a new order denying Securitas'
amended motion to compel arbitration. In all other respects, the
petition is denied.

A copy of Justice O'Rourke's opinion dated February 27, 2015, is
available at  http://is.gd/M1Gel9from Leagle.com.

Sherry B. Shavitt -- sshavit@tharpe-howell.com -- Jennifer S.
McGeorge -- jmcgeorge@tharpe-howell.com -- at Tharpe & Howell;
Henry Lederman -- hlederman@littler.com --- at Littler Mendelson,
for Petitioner

For Real Party in Interest:

Norman B. Blumenthal
Kyle R. Nordrehaug
BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
2029 Century Park E 14th Fl
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: 310-981-3918
Facsimile: 858-551-1232

     - and -

Mark A. Osman -- mark@osmanlawfirm.com -- at Law Offices of Mark
A. Osman

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.


SESA FLEET: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Garcia, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. S.E.S.A. Fleet Services, L.L.C., Case No. 5:15-cv-
00156 (W.D. Tex., February 27, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in
excess of 40 hours per week.

S.E.S.A. Fleet Services, L.L.C. is a Texas corporation that
provides service and repair for vehicles and equipment of oilfield
and oilfield services companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SPRAM LLC: Recalls Aluminum Front Wheel Hubs Due to Fall Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 6, 2015
Posting date: March 6, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Sports/Fitness
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fall Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-52457

This recall involves first generation SRAM Zipp 88 aluminum front
wheel hubs. The wheel hub shell is silver in colour. The outside
flange ring is grey in the standard option, and blue, gold, grey,
pink or red in the ZedTech options. The diameter of the two clinch
nuts is approximately 2.90 centimetres (1.14 inches).

The first generation 88 front wheel hub is the only generation
affected by this recall. It can be identified by the Z logo on the
flange ring and a smaller clinch nut. The later generations do not
have the Z logo on the flange ring, and they are not included in
this recall. The diameter of the clinch nuts in the later
generations is approximately 3.68 centimetres (1.46 inches).

The recalled front wheel hubs were sold separately in the
following five bike brands:

  Brand         Models
  -----         ------
  Specialized   2010 TARMAC SWorks Super Light
                2010 SWorks Transition
                2011 SWorks Tarmac SL3 Limited
  Giant         2009 TCR Advance SL 0
                2009 Trinity Advance SL 0
                2010 TCR Advance SL 0
                2010 Trinity Advance SL 0
  Felt          2009 AR Team Issue
                2009 DA
                2009 B2 Pro
                2010 DA
                2010 DA Di2
                2010 B2 Pro
  Orbea         2010 Orca RED
                2010 Orca Di2
                2011 Orca GRD
                2011 Ordu GDi2
                2011 Ordu GLT
Cannondale     2010 Super Six Hi Mod Di2
                2010 Slice Hi Mod Ultimate

The hub flange ring on the front wheel can fail. This can result
in the loss of the wheel spokes and the front wheel collapsing,
posing a fall hazard.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries related to the use of these front wheel hubs.

In the United States, SRAM has received 2 reports of the front
wheel collapsing which resulted in stitches, bruises and
lacerations, and a concussion in one of the reports.

Approximately 794 units of the recalled front wheel hubs were sold
in Canada.

The recalled front wheel hubs were sold from October 2008 to
December 2010 at specialty bicycle retailers.

Manufactured in the United States.

Manufacturer: Prodigy Group
              Mooresville, Indiana
              UNITED STATES

Distributor: SRAM LLC
             Chicago, Illinois
             UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately stop using bicycles equipped with the
recalled Zipp 88 front hub and return the wheel to SRAM or their
local bicycle dealer for a free replacement hub.

For more information, consumers can contact SRAM toll-free at 1-
800-346-2928 between 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. EST, Monday through
Thursday, and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. EST on Friday. Consumers can
also visit SRAM's and Zipp's websites for more information.

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

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/X2wx1Y


SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Sued Over Real Estate Tax Overcharges
---------------------------------------------------------
Spencer Rumsey, writing for Long Island Press, reports that a
lawsuit seeking $116.9 million has been filed against Suffolk
County on behalf of an estimated 340,000 residents of the county's
Southwest Sewer District No. 3, claiming that the county has
"illegally overtaxed owners of real estate" in violation of four
public referenda that called for surpluses to be returned.

According to the law firms of Paul Sabatino II and Reilly, Like
and Tenety, Suffolk officials have not complied with the
requirements that voters had approved by public referendum in
1983, 1989, 1995 and 2006.  Filed in New York State Supreme Court
earlier this month, the lawsuit asks the court to grant class
action status "to protect all taxpayers in the district, not just
those who can afford the cost of litigation."  The 57-square-mile
district covers Babylon, Islip and a sliver of Huntington.

"By holding on to this money, Suffolk County has knowingly
thwarted the will of the people, as expressed by the voters on
four separate occasions," said Mr. Sabatino, who was County
Executive Steve Levy's chief deputy from 2004 to 2007 and former
counsel to the Suffolk County Legislature for almost 20 years
before that.  "The purpose of the lawsuit is to enforce the will
of the people and return the $116.9 million to the taxpayers."

The attorneys say the targeted total amount consists of the 2013
surplus fund balance of $35,177,582, the 2014 surplus fund balance
of $42,265,864 and the 2015 fund balance of $39,5236,337.  Instead
of returning these fund balances to the taxpayers as required, the
attorneys allege, the county put the monies in a fund known as
Fund 405, which they describe as "an illegal fund . . . used by
the county as a subterfuge."

According to the attorneys' calculations, the average taxpayer in
the sewer district is entitled to a refund of about $1,542.  They
say the over-taxation stemmed from the failure of county officials
to pass on "the substantial savings" that arose from the
amortization of South West Sewer District's debt that had been
issued in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s.  As the debt was paid off
"in increasingly large amounts," the county held on to the savings
instead of returning it to the taxpayers as the county statute and
state law required, the attorneys say.

"My understanding is that these numbers have just really accrued
in the last three or four years," said Mr. Sabatino, who left
county government seven years ago.  "I think they've been caught
with their budgetary pants down on this one."

"Failure to stop this violation of the constitutional rights of
the taxpayers and allowing it to continue in the future will
imperil the public interest, cause public injury, and promote
public mischief," attorney Irving Like said in a statement.  "The
strong policy of the law requires a full accounting of all public
funds and is designed to prevent municipal governments from
acquiring tax proceeds faster than they are needed and for costs
and expenses not incurred."

The county attorney's office has reportedly asked the court for an
extension in order to reply to the lawsuit, which is filed under
index number 15-01596.  Neither the county attorney's office nor
the county executive's representatives responded to requests for
comment from the Press.

This issue doesn't involve Suffolk County's Drinking Water
Protection Program, which county voters have approved by referenda
because it is funded by a 1/4 cent sales tax.  Recently, the
county had borrowed $30 million of that program's money without
voters' approval, sparking a three-year lawsuit which ended last
summer when county lawmakers and environmentalists struck a deal
to end the legal battle and restore the money to the program.

But what's at stake is the same principle, according to
Richard Amper, executive director of the Long Island Pine Barrens
Society.

"When the will of the voters is ignored, government has betrayed
the public trust," Mr. Amper told the Press.  "What's really both
bad and stupid is that if government keeps playing 'April Fools'
with the voters, they're going to stop authorizing spending for
important government programs, such as the Drinking Water
Protection Program.  The public won't continue to reward bad
faith."


SUPREME SERVICE: "Kervin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Kervin, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Supreme Service & Specialty Company, Inc.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-00102 (S.D. Tex., February 27, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

Supreme Service & Specialty Company, Inc. owns and operates a
rental company with 10 facilities across the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TAKATA CORP: "Holland" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Holland, et al. v. Takata Corporation, et
al., Case No. 6:14-cv-03487, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami).  The
Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20846-FAM
to the proceeding.

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory W. Aleshire, Esq.
          William R. Robb, Esq.
          Kevin J. Rapp, Esq.
          ALESHIRE ROBB, P.C.
          2847 Ingram Mill Road, A-102
          Springfield, MO 65804
          Telephone: (417) 869-3737
          Facsimile: (417) 869-5678


TAKATA CORP: "Marino" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Marino v. Takata Corporation, et
al., Case No. 2:14-cv-01756, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami).
The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20847-
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: Safety Regulators Impose Fine in Airbag Probe
----------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Hirsch, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that federal
safety regulators levied fines of $14,000 a day on Japanese air
bag manufacturer Takata Corp. for not cooperating with the
Department of Transportation's investigation into defective air
bag inflators that have killed at least six people and injured
more than 60 others in the U.S. and overseas.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has ordered
Takata to provide pertinent information about the flaws in its air
bag system.  Some inflators, which use an explosive charge to
quickly inflate the air bag to provide a cushion for vehicle
occupants in a crash, are blowing apart, sending shrapnel into the
cabin.

Most recently, Honda said an air bag inflator in a 2002 Accord
exploded on Jan. 18 in Houston, killing a 35-year-old man.

Regulators said Takata flooded the agency with 2.4 million pages
of documents but failed to provide any type of index or guide,
which is required by law and vital for a speedy investigation.

"Safety is a shared responsibility and Takata's failure to fully
cooperate with our investigation is unacceptable and will not be
tolerated," Anthony Foxx, U.S. Transportation secretary, said in
announcing the fines.  "For each day that Takata fails to fully
cooperate with our demands, we will hit them with another fine."

In a letter to the air bag manufacturer, NHTSA chief counsel O.
Kevin Vincent said, "Takata is neither being forthcoming with the
information it is legally obligated to supply, nor is it being
cooperative in aiding NHTSA's ongoing investigation of a
potentially serious safety defect."  He said the agency plans to
take depositions of Takata employees based in the U.S. and Japan.

Takata issued a statement saying it was "surprised and
disappointed" by the federal action.

"We have also been meeting regularly with NHTSA engineers on
efforts to identify the root cause of the inflator issue," Takata
said.  "That work has, so far, supported our initial view that age
and sustained exposure to heat and humidity is a common factor in
the small number of inflators that have malfunctioned."

Safety advocates welcomed the NHTSA move.

"It certainly is sending a strong signal that NHTSA is getting
tough," said Clarence Ditlow, executive director of the Center for
Auto Safety.  "This is a welcome change for agency that once
referred to the companies that it regulates as its partners."

It also coincides with NHTSA efforts to reach current and former
Takata employees who might have evidence that the automotive parts
supplier covered up what it knew about the faulty inflators.

"NTHSA is doing all they can to help the Department of Justice
build a criminal case," he said.

But he said the fine was too small to make much of an impact.

"It will take more than two months to even reach $1 million,"
Mr. Ditlow said.

NHTSA has levied the maximum allowed by law, fining Takata $7,000
each for two violations.  The first was the company's failure to
"fully respond" to an Oct. 30 order to provide information. The
second $7,000 daily fine is for failure to comply with a similar
order issued Nov. 18.

The agency is lobbying Congress to increase the amount of the
fines it can impose.

Takata has rejected demands that it recall its air bags, which are
in millions of cars dating back more than a decade.  Automakers
are recalling the cars, but some repair efforts have been stymied
by a lack of replacement parts.

Honda is the most affected and has urged owners of its cars to
bring them to dealers to have the inflator replaced.

Approximately 6 million Honda vehicles in the U.S. have Takata air
bags, and about 2.8 million have officially been recalled.

Though Honda is Takata's biggest customer, air bag flaws haven't
been limited to that maker.  Roughly 11 million vehicles in the
U.S. have been affected, including models from Toyota, Mazda,
Nissan, Mitsubishi, Subaru, Chrysler, Ford and BMW.

The problem has sparked several safety investigations and
litigation.

A lawsuit against Takata and Honda filed last year in federal
court in Los Angeles by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, seeks class-
action status and claims Takata cut corners to build cheaper air
bags and that Honda purchased the parts to slice its manufacturing
expenses.

The Berman complaint claims that Takata knew of the deadly defect
at least 13 years ago, first seeing the problem in an Isuzu
vehicle but failing to take action.

NHTSA stepped up its enforcement action last year after being
criticized in congressional hearings for not moving quickly enough
to force the recall of older General Motors Co. vehicles with
faulty ignition switches that have been linked to crashes that
have caused at least 52 deaths.

In January the agency fined Honda $70 million for two violations
related to a failure to report deaths and injuries in a timely
matter. The fines were tied to 1,729 cases, some of which
regulators believe involved faulty Takata air bags.

Transportation officials are pushing for the passage of the
Grow America Act.  The legislation would raise the maximum amount
of NHTSA fines to $300 million from the current $35 million.  It
would also increase NHTSA's investigations budget threefold, to
$31.3 million, and give it the power to halt sales of defective
vehicles.

The legislation, Mr. Foxx said, "would provide the tools and
resources needed to change the culture of safety for bad actors
like Takata."

Foxx and NHTSA chief Mark Rosekind announced the penalties during
a informational tour to push for increased safety regulation and
funding.  They also urged Congress to pass legislation prohibiting
rental car agencies and used car dealers from renting or selling
vehicles subject to a recall without first making necessary
repairs.

The rental car companies and traffic safety advocates support the
legislation, but it has run into opposition from some car dealers
and dealer groups.


TELLABS INC: Ill. Court Rejects "Wiggins" Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
An Illinois district court dismissed, with prejudice, a putative
securities class action brought against Tellabs, Inc., Timothy
Wiggins, and Thomas Minichiello, alleging that Defendants made
false or misleading statements or omissions with regard to
Tellabs' earnings and performance from June 9, 2010 through April
26, 2011.  Lead Plaintiffs Brian Jensen and Alfredo Accosta
brought the case on behalf of themselves and all others who
purchased Tellabs securities during the Class Period.  Plaintiffs
allege that Defendants perpetrated a fraud on the market and that
Tellabs' stock price was artificially inflated throughout the
Class Period as a result of Defendants' misstatements.

In a Feb. 9, 2015 Opinion and Order available at
http://is.gd/cJdaiffrom Leagle.com, District Judge Sara L. Ellis
found that the Plaintiffs failed to adequately allege that any of
Defendants' material statements were false or misleading, or that
Tellabs omitted information such that statements were rendered
misleading, and Plaintiffs failed to allege that Defendants acted
with scienter.

Accordingly, the judge granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint.

Tellabs designs and develops telecommunications network products,
which it sells primarily to telecommunications service providers.
Tellabs' business can be divided into three segments: broadband,
transport, and services. Tellabs stock is traded publicly on the
National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations
Market ("NASDAQ"). During the Class Period, Defendant Timothy
Wiggins served as Tellabs' Chief Financial Officer and Defendant
Thomas Minichiello was Tellabs' Chief Accounting Officer.

The action is MAHMOOD ALIZADEH, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TELLABS, INC., TIMOTHY J.
WIGGINS, and THOMAS P. MINICHIELLO Defendants, Case No. 13-C-537
(N.D. Ill.).

Mahmood Alizadeh, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory Linkh --
glinkh@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Mark Bryan
Goldstein -- mbgoldstein@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Robert
Vincent Prongay -- glinkh@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Binkow &
Goldberg Llp.
Tellabs, Inc., Defendant, represented by David F. Graham --
dgraham@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, James Wallace Ducayet --
jducayet@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, Kathleen Louise Carlson
-- kathleen.carlson@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP & Melanie
Elizabeth Walker -- ewalker@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP.

Timothy J. Wiggins, Defendant, represented by David F. Graham,
Sidley Austin LLP, James Wallace Ducayet, Sidley Austin LLP,
Kathleen Louise Carlson, Sidley Austin LLP & Melanie Elizabeth
Walker, Sidley Austin LLP.

Thomas P. Minichiello, Defendant, represented by David F. Graham,
Sidley Austin LLP, James Wallace Ducayet, Sidley Austin LLP,
Kathleen Louise Carlson, Sidley Austin LLP & Melanie Elizabeth
Walker, Sidley Austin LLP.

Alfredo Acosta, Movant, represented by Gregory Linkh, Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Robert Vincent Prongay, Glancy Binkow &
Goldberg Llp & Leigh Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP.


TRANSUNION: Loses Consumer Class Action Arbitration Bid
-------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Craig, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that
a small but significant court case is shedding light on the issue
of consumer rights in the burgeoning world of online sales and,
secondly, bringing TransUnion's "credit score" marketing and sales
strategy into question.

Did TransUnion's Website Mislead Consumers?

Gary Sgouros, a diligent consumer who wanted to see what was on
his credit report, claims in a class-action lawsuit that he, and
others, were cheated by TransUnion in terms of the product they
were sold, and then suckered into agreeing to the company's
standard arbitration clause that preempts their right to sue if
they found the TransUnion product to be unsatisfactory.

Credit reports are free

By law every American has the right to obtain a free "credit
report" from TransUnion, Experian or Equifax.  TransUnion offered
Mr. Sgouros and others a more complete reading of their credit
when they purchased a $39.99 "credit score" from them.

"They are selling a product that does not have any real value,"
says F. Paul Bland, an attorney and Executive Director of Public
Justice, a consumer and justice advocacy organization in
Washington, D.C.  "The credit score they are selling you is not
used by anyone.  It's your Fair Isaac or FICO score that
determines whether you pay more for your mortgage or a car loan.
The TransUnion score is something they made up.  It is not a
meaningful gage."

In Mr. Sgouros's case, according to the court documents, he
learned that the $39.99 credit score purchased from TransUnion was
100 points lower than the credit score TransUnion provided to a
car dealership where he was buying a vehicle.  TransUnion, again,
according to the documents, uses one scoring model for lenders and
a different model to generate the $39.99 scores.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act was amended several years ago making
it possible for everyone to get a free credit report.  What
TransUnion has done, according to Bland, is find a way to monetize
the request.  "If you want to get your credit report from
TransUnion or Equifax or Experian, you can get that for free if
you go to the right place," adds Mr. Bland.

Almost every online retailer, merchant and service provider
requires that dissatisfied consumers submit to arbitration. (If
they don't click "I agree," the transaction doesn't proceed.) The
arbitration process Bland says is often secretive, run by
corporate defense lawyers and heavily weighted against the
consumer.

Having said that, even the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld and
expressed confidence in the arbitration process.  However,
increasingly, when there is evidence that the consumer was
"muddled" by the arbitration clause, courts rule in favor of the
consumer.

"As an advocate I think the arbitration clauses are bad for the
consumer.  However, as a lawyer I know that you can't make that
argument," says Mr. Bland.  "The Supreme Court has made it clear
that arbitration is preferred by federal law.  Any state laws
would be preempted.  So the ongoing litigation around arbitration
clauses is limited to situations where companies make mistakes in
the arbitration clauses or essentially make a drafting error."

Judge says website was confusing

After pouring over the TransUnion website, U.S. District Court
Judge James Zagel ruled that, indeed, the website design led
consumers to believe that they were agreeing to have their credit
records checked when, in fact, consumers were agreeing to have
complaints dealt with through arbitration.  They were, in essence,
clicking away their rights without being aware of what that click
meant.

"I think Judge Zagel is right," notes Mr. Bland.  "However, this
is far from death for arbitration clauses.  This just says if you
are going to force people into arbitration you can't confuse them,
or muddle them; you can't hide the ball."

Now that Judge Zagel has tossed out TransUnion's bid to have the
case settled by arbitration, it seems more likely that
Mr. Sgouros's class action will have its day in court.

"In this case TransUnion did a terrible job of setting up the
clause," says Mr. Bland.  "So I don't think they are going to be
able to walk away from the consumer protection laws."

Now here's something really important

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was asked to review the
"arbitration clauses" related to financial lending institutions.
The bureau has been reviewing these clauses for years now and it
is widely expected that it will have something to say soon.  It is
possible that when it comes to lending institutions, the
"arbitration clause" that pre-empts a consumer's right to seek
redress in courts may go away.

It will still apply in most other situations, but when it comes to
lenders, there may be a change.


UNITED STATES: Court Wants Detention of Asylum-Seekers Halted
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Sakuma, writing for msnbc.com, reports that a federal court
on Feb. 20 ordered the Obama administration to immediately halt
its policy of detaining immigrant asylum seekers as a means to
deter other Central American mothers and children from fleeing to
the United States.

The ruling was borne out of a class-action lawsuit filed by the
ACLU in December that challenged the administration's policy of
locking up immigrant families in civil detention centers while
they sought asylum through the immigration courts.  Attorneys for
the civil liberties organization charged that the strategy of
detaining asylum-seekers in order to send a message to others who
consider fleeing from Central America violated the Fifth
Amendment.

"Immigration detention is not meant to be punitive," Judy
Rabinovitz, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights
Project told msnbc.  "We hope is that the administration will take
the decision as an opportunity to revisit its policy."

Federal agencies last summer, both over-extended and under-
prepared, struggled to keep up with the flood of migrant children
being caught by U.S. border patrol agents. In the last fiscal
year, 68,541 unaccompanied minors were apprehended, up 77% from
the year before.  By law, unaccompanied minors hailing from
countries that do not share a border with the U.S. are offered
immediate protections once they enter the U.S.  But years of
children fleeing extreme gang violence and poverty in Guatemala,
Honduras and El Salvador caused a bottleneck at the southwestern
border last June, spurring a crisis that was just as much
political as it was humanitarian.

The Obama administration responded by setting up a triage of
processing and intake centers while implementing new policies
designed to expedite the deportation process for the unaccompanied
kids. Women and children were held in facilities indefinitely
under a "no-bond or high-bond" policy as the administration
continued to aggressively expand its detention capacity.

In unveiling a new immigrant family detention center in South
Texas that would soon have the capacity to hold up to 2,400 people
at a time, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson last December
introduced a new strategy to send a message to immigrant families
hoping to brave the journey north.

"The message should be clear: as a result of our new emphasis on
the security of the southern border, it will now be more likely
that you will be apprehended; it will now be more likely that you
will be detained and sent back; and it will now be more likely
that your hard-earned money to smuggle a family member to the
United States will be seized and will never reach its intended
source," Secretary Johnson said in announcing the opening of the
South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas.

The U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., found that the
asylum-seeking families were being detained as a direct result of
DHS's deterrence policy, and that detention was damaging in a
number of ways that was "particularly harmful to minor children."
And while the U.S. government argued that preventing a mass influx
of immigration was critical to national security, the court found
that "incantation of the magic word 'national security' without
further substantiation is simply not enough to justify significant
deprivations of liberty."

The Department of Justice declined to comment.


UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Barton, Leon Abdullah, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. The University of Phoenix, Inc., Case
No. 1:15-cv-00939 (N.D. Cal., February 28, 2015), seeks to stop
the Defendant's practice of making calls using an automated
telephone dialing system.

The University of Phoenix, Inc. is a for-profit institution of
higher learning, headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WELLMARK INC: Iowa Supreme Court Affirms Judgment in "Mueller"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Edward M. Mansfield of the Supreme Court of Iowa affirmed
the district court's judgment in the case STEVEN A. MUELLER,
BRADLEY J. BROWN, MARK A. KRUSE, KEVIN D. MILLER, and LARRY E.
PHIPPS, on Behalf of Themselves and Those Like Situated,
Appellants, v. WELLMARK, INC. d/b/a WELLMARK BLUE CROSS AND BLUE
SHIELD OF IOWA, an Iowa Corporation, and WELLMARK HEALTH PLAN OF
IOWA, INC., an Iowa Corporation, Appellees, NO. 13-1872 (Iowa)

Wellmark, Inc. is an Iowa-based health insurer that belongs to the
national Blue Cross and Blue Shield (BCBS) network. Wellmark has
contracted with health care providers in Iowa to provide services
at certain reimbursement rates. By agreement, Wellmark makes those
rates available both to self-insured Iowa plans that it
administers and to out-of-state BCBS affiliates when those
entities provide coverage for services provided in Iowa.

Plaintiffs filed a suit against Wellmark alleging that the latter
engaged in discriminatory practices in violation of Iowa Code
section 509.3(6), 514.7, 514.23(2), 514B.1(5)(c), 514F.2 (2007)).
Another count pled that Wellmark had entered into a contract,
combination, or conspiracy in violation of section 553.4 of the
Iowa Competition Law, the counterpart to section 1 of the Federal
Sherman Antitrust Act. A third count alleged that Wellmark had
abused monopoly power in violation of section 553.5 of the Iowa
Competition Law, the counterpart to section 2 of the Sherman Act.

Wellmark filed a motion to dismiss in which the district court
granted and dismissed the claims based on the insurance statutes.
The district court later granted summary judgment to Wellmark on
the antitrust claims. Plaintiffs appealed in which, the present
court affirmed the dismissal of the claims under Iowa insurance
law, but found that the state action exemption did not insulate
Wellmark's reimbursement rates from antitrust review and affirmed
the dismissal of some of the chiropractors' antitrust claims
including the Iowa Code section 553.5 monopolization claim, on
alternate grounds that had been raised by Wellmark. On remand, the
plaintiffs stipulated that their only remaining antitrust claims
-- alleging conspiracies between Wellmark and out-of-state BCBS
affiliates and between Wellmark and self-funding employers that
hired Wellmark to administer their plans.

Wellmark moved for summary judgment again, this time on the ground
that neither of these alleged conspiracies was subject to per se
treatment. As Wellmark put it, "Sharing a provider network does
not amount to naked price fixing and is not subject to the per se
rule." Wellmark urged that plaintiffs' claims were potentially
viable, if at all, only under the rule of reason.

The plaintiffs maintained that Wellmark had engaged in per se
price-fixing when it entered into agreements with self-insuring
Iowa employers to make its network and claims administration
available to them. Similarly, the plaintiffs urged that Wellmark
had engaged in per se price-fixing when it participated in the
national BlueCard(R) program under which BCBS entities agreed to
make their in-state networks available to each other when their
respective customers needed out-of-state services.

After hearing the parties' arguments, the district court rejected
plaintiffs' per se theories and entered summary judgment for
Wellmark. Appeal followed.

Justice Mansfield affirmed the district court's judgment in an
opinion dated February 27, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/UkLkBafrom Leagle.com.

Glenn L. Norris of Hawkins & Norris, P.C., Des Moines; Harley C.
Erbe of Erbe Law Firm, Des Moines;Steven P. Wandro, Michael R.
Keller, and Shayla L. McCormally of Wandro & Associates, P.C., Des
Moines, for appellants

Hayward L. Draper and Ryan G. Koopmans of Nyemaster Goode, P.C.,
Des Moines, for appellees


WHEELS ASSURED: Doesn't Pay Drivers Properly, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Marla Armstrong, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Wheels Assured Delivery Systems, Inc., Wheels Assured
Logistics, LLC, Gary Giles and Cynthia Giles, Case No. 1:15-cv-
00354 (S.D. Ind., February 27, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay delivery drivers minimum wages as
required by the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a freight shipping and trucking
company that conducts business in the Southern District.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ronald E. Weldy, Esq.
      WELDY LAW
      8383 Craig Street, Suite 330
      Indianapolis, IN 46250
      Telephone: (317) 842-6600
      Facsimile: (317) 842-6933
      E-mail: weldy@weldylaw.com


WILD GEESE: "Howard" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brittany Howard, on behalf of herself individually, and all others
similarly situated v. The Wild Geese Tavern, LLC, The Wild Geese
Tavern Private Club, and Lazaro Mendoza, Case No. 3:15-cv-00043
(S.D. Tex., February 27, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum
wage, unpaid overtime wages, and liquidated damages under the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate restaurants and bars in Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joe Micah Williams, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF JOE M. WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES
      810 Highway 6 South, Ste 111
      Houston, TX 77079
      Telephone: (832) 230-4125
      Facsimile: (832) 230-5310
      E-mail: jwilliams10050@gmail.com


YELLOWPAGES.COM LLC: App. Ct. Upholds Decertification of Gray Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Austin Gray filed a class action against Yellowpages.com, LLC;
Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages, Inc.; AT&T, Inc.; and AT&T
Services, Inc.  that defined a class of employees in 21 different
job titles and sought damages for, inter alia, unpaid overtime.
After initially certifying the class, the trial court granted
Yellow Pages's motion to decertify and denied plaintiff's motion
to amend the class definition to eliminate certain job titles from
the class definition.

On appeal from the orders granting decertification and denying
leave to amend the class definition, plaintiff contended that the
trial court applied the wrong legal standard in ruling on the
motion to decertify and abused its discretion in denying her leave
to amend the class definition.

In a Feb. 11, 2015 Order available at http://is.gd/1ntpSifrom
Leagle.com, the Court of Appeals of California held that because
the trial court applied the correct legal standard, it did not
abuse its discretion by decertifying the class and that plaintiff
has failed to demonstrate that she was prejudiced by the order
denying leave to amend the class definition.  The appellate court
thus affirms the two orders from which plaintiff appeals.

Yellow Pages provides interactive advertising services. It
connects advertisers to consumers through websites and cell phone
applications. Yellow Pages's generates revenue by selling ads to
advertisers, which ads Yellow Pages produces and publishes
electronically.

Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, Andre E. Jardini -- aej@kpclegal.com ,
K.L. Myles -- klm@kpclegal.com ; Law Office of Thomas W. Falvey,
Thomas W. Falvey and Jon D. Henderson for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, Julia A. Totten --
jatotten@orrick.com , Sara E. Dionne, Leah L. Spero; Paul, Plevin,
Sullivan & Connaughton, Michael C. Sullivan --
msullivan@paulplevin.com -- and Aaron A. Buckley --
abuckley@paulplevin.com -- for Defendants and Respondents.


* Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Cases Down in 2014
------------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Greene, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
judging by the numbers, it might look as if the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission has gone soft.

During fiscal year 2014, agency litigators won the lowest monetary
penalties since at least 1997; went 0-for-2 in jury trials; and
filed half as many new suits as a decade before, according to
statistics the agency released in February.

But if there's one thing both EEOC general counsel P. David Lopez
and the defense bar agree upon it's this: The numbers don't tell
the whole story.  "There are multiple ways of measuring success,"
Mr. Lopez said.  "The policy is not for the general counsel's
office simply to try to obtain maximum monetary relief."

At the same time, he called 2014 "an arbitrary time frame" and "an
outlier."  He said the agency is on track to post stronger results
in 2015, having won four of five jury trials to date.

Management-side lawyers take little comfort in the results in
2014, when the EEOC recovered just $22.5 million for victims of
discrimination in litigated cases.  By contrast, during the eight
years of the George W. Bush administration, the agency's average
payout for such cases was $91 million per year -- four times as
much.

The EEOC in 2014 obtained $296 million in cases that settled prior
to filing suit, a 20 percent drop from 2013.

"These numbers do not mean the EEOC has downshifted in any way,"
cautioned Seyfarth Shaw partner Christopher DeGroff, co-chairman
of the firm's complex discrimination litigation practice.  "The
EEOC is every bit as aggressive and seeks to be as innovative as
it ever has been."

According to Mr. Lopez, one reason for the lower payouts is the
kind of suits the agency is filing.  "The enforcement priorities
laid out by the commission, such as failure-to-hire cases and
protecting vulnerable workers, often don't involve extensive out-
of-pocket damages," he said.

Monetary recovery "is important," he continued.  "It allows people
who are victims of discrimination to be able to have the
opportunity to put their lives back together."  But it's not all
that matters.

"For the agency, it's also important to obtain strong nonmonetary
relief, to make sure the conduct does not reoccur, and to bring
cases that have impact -- that clarify areas of the law where
there's not a lot of case law," he said.

Indeed, there's no shortage of private plaintiffs lawyers willing
to handle big-ticket individual discrimination suits.  In
November, for example, the Bohm Law Group won a record $185
million verdict from a federal jury in San Diego against AutoZone
Stores for pregnancy and sex discrimination and retaliation.

Meanwhile, the EEOC is increasingly focusing on complex "systemic"
cases involving allegations of widespread discrimination, pursuing
bold -- although not necessarily successful -- legal theories.

Agency lawyers filed 167 suits during fiscal year 2014, 133 of
them on the merits.  That's up slightly from 2013 but low by
historical standards.  Between 1997 and 2011, the EEOC filed an
average of 370 suits a year.

But today's suits pack a bigger punch.  "We've filed some pretty
large cases that are national in scope and are more work," Lopez
said.  "More resources are being devoted to litigating some of
these large, systemic cases.  We're not filing as many onesies and
twosies."

Agency statistics bear this out.  The EEOC found "reasonable
cause" that discrimination occurred in 118 of 260 systemic
investigations in the 2014 fiscal year, or 45 percent.  Add in the
nonsystemic claims and reasonable cause plummets to 3 percent.

"I have not seen the EEOC back down in any systemic cases -- to
the contrary," said Paul Evans -- pevans@morganlewis.com -- a
labor and employment partner in Morgan, Lewis & Bockius'
Philadelphia office.  "They're pushing the envelope."

At the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30, the EEOC had 228 active
cases, 57 of which involved systemic discrimination -- about 25
percent.  That's actually more than the agency's target under its
strategic enforcement plan, which calls for about 20 percent of
its active docket to be systemic cases, according to an analysis
by Seyfarth Shaw.

Some of the pending cases offer the potential for major damages,
such as a $300 million suit against Bass Pro Outdoor World for
failing to hire black and Hispanic workers.  The case survived a
motion for summary judgment in July and is now before the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on an interlocutory appeal.

In other instances, the EEOC has come up empty-handed.  Most
recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on
Feb. 20 handed the agency a stinging rebuke in its case against
event planner Freeman Cos.  The EEOC alleged that Freeman's use of
criminal background and credit checks to screen prospective new
hires had a disparate impact on black and male job applicants.

The court found that testimony by the EEOC's expert witness was
rightfully excluded as unreliable.  "The commission's work of
serving 'the public interest' is jeopardized by the kind of
missteps that occurred here," Judge G. Steven Agee wrote in a
concurring opinion.  "The EEOC must be constantly vigilant that it
does not abuse the power conferred upon it by Congress."

FAILURE TO CONCILIATE

Another high-profile loss came in October, when U.S. District
Judge John Darrah of the Northern District of Illinois dismissed
the agency's suit against CVS Pharmacy Inc.  The EEOC sued the
drug store chain in February 2014, alleging that its "overly
broad" severance agreement "interfered with employees' right to
file discrimination charges and/or communicate and cooperate with
the EEOC."

Represented by Jones Day, CVS protested that its severance
agreement was "run of the mill" and that the EEOC "cites no case
supporting its unprecedented claim."

Judge Darrah dismissed the case because the EEOC failed to
conciliate before suing.  The matter is now before the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Conciliation has been a central issue for the EEOC.  The U.S.
Supreme Court in January heard arguments in EEOC v. Mach Mining,
which questions to what extent courts can review the EEOC's
conciliations efforts.

Leslie Silverman, a former EEOC commissioner who is now a partner
at Fortney & Scott, said the best way to judge the EEOC is not on
the number of cases it brings or how much money it recovers, but
on the quality of its work.  "Enforcement must be grounded on a
sound legal foundation," she said.  "We all want a successful
anti-discrimination agency, but I don't know if that's what we're
looking at right now."

As for Mr. Lopez, he sounds frustrated about the drawn-out
procedural challenges.  "Since 2006, the agency has been on track
to focus on systemic work. But the reality is that these cases
take a very long time.  I've never known delay to work to the
advantage to victims of discrimination," he said.  "Like any
plaintiffs lawyer, we want to get to the merits of the allegations
of discrimination."


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Continues to Defend Stearns Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation continues to defend itself against multiple
lawsuits relating to alleged personal injuries due to alleged
presence of asbestos in certain brakes and clutches previously
manufactured by the company's Stearns division, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014.

Multiple lawsuits (with approximately 700 claimants) are pending
in state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions relating to
alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos
in certain brakes and clutches previously manufactured by the
Company's Stearns division and/or its predecessor owners. Invensys
and FMC, prior owners of the Stearns business, have paid 100% of
the costs to date related to the Stearns lawsuits. Similarly, the
Company's Prager subsidiary is a defendant in two pending multi-
defendant lawsuits relating to alleged personal injuries due to
the alleged presence of asbestos in a product allegedly
manufactured by Prager. Additionally, there are numerous
individuals who have filed asbestos related claims against Prager;
however, these claims are currently on the Texas Multi-district
Litigation inactive docket. The ultimate outcome of these asbestos
matters cannot presently be determined. To date, the Company's
insurance providers have paid 100% of the costs related to the
Prager asbestos matters. The Company believes that the combination
of its insurance coverage and the Invensys indemnity obligations
will cover any future costs of these matters.

Rexnord Corporation (Rexnord) is a multi-platform industrial
company. The Company comprises of two platforms, Process & Motion
Control and Water Management. Rexnord's Process & Motion Control
product portfolio includes gears, couplings, industrial bearings,
aerospace bearings and seals, FlatTop chain, engineered chain and
conveying equipment, and are marketed and sold globally under
brands, including Rexnord, Rex, Falk and Link-Belt. Its Water
Management platform operates in the commercial construction market
for water management products and the municipal water and
wastewater treatment markets. Its Water Management product
portfolio includes drainage products, flush valves and faucet
products, backflow prevention pressure release valves, PEX piping
and engineered valves and gates for the water and wastewater
treatment markets. In April 2014, the Company acquired Green
Turtle Technologies Ltd., Green Turtle Americas Ltd. and Filamat
Composites Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Continues to Defend Falk Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation continues to defend itself against lawsuits
relating to alleged personal injuries due to alleged presence of
asbestos in certain brakes and clutches previously manufactured by
The Falk Corporation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2014.

In connection with the acquisition of The Falk Corporation,
Hamilton Sundstrand has provided the Company with indemnification
against certain products-related asbestos exposure liabilities.
The Company believes that, pursuant to those indemnity
obligations, Hamilton Sundstrand is obligated to defend and
indemnify the Company with respect to the asbestos claims, and
that, with respect to these claims, those indemnity obligations
are not subject to any time or dollar limitations.

Falk, through its successor entity, is a defendant in multiple
lawsuits pending in state or federal court in numerous
jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the
alleged presence of asbestos in certain clutches and drives
previously manufactured by Falk. There are approximately 100
claimants in these suits.  The ultimate outcome of these lawsuits
cannot presently be determined.  Hamilton Sundstrand is defending
the Company in these lawsuits pursuant to its indemnity
obligations and has paid 100% of the costs to date.

Rexnord Corporation (Rexnord) is a multi-platform industrial
company. The Company comprises of two platforms, Process & Motion
Control and Water Management. Rexnord's Process & Motion Control
product portfolio includes gears, couplings, industrial bearings,
aerospace bearings and seals, FlatTop chain, engineered chain and
conveying equipment, and are marketed and sold globally under
brands, including Rexnord, Rex, Falk and Link-Belt. Its Water
Management platform operates in the commercial construction market
for water management products and the municipal water and
wastewater treatment markets. Its Water Management product
portfolio includes drainage products, flush valves and faucet
products, backflow prevention pressure release valves, PEX piping
and engineered valves and gates for the water and wastewater
treatment markets. In April 2014, the Company acquired Green
Turtle Technologies Ltd., Green Turtle Americas Ltd. and Filamat
Composites Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Continues to Defend PI Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Automation, Inc., continues to defend itself against
various lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure
to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended December 31, 2014.

The Company states: "Various lawsuits, claims and proceedings have
been or may be instituted or asserted against us relating to the
conduct of our business, including those pertaining to product
liability, environmental, safety and health, intellectual
property, employment and contract matters. Although the outcome of
litigation cannot be predicted with certainty and some lawsuits,
claims or proceedings may be disposed of unfavorably to us, we
believe the disposition of matters that are pending or have been
asserted will not have a material effect on our business,
financial condition or results of operations.

"We (including our subsidiaries) have been named as a defendant in
lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos that was used in certain components of our products many
years ago. Currently there are a few thousand claimants in
lawsuits that name us as defendants, together with hundreds of
other companies. In some cases, the claims involve products from
divested businesses, and we are indemnified for most of the costs.
However, we have agreed to defend and indemnify asbestos claims
associated with products manufactured or sold by our former Dodge
mechanical and Reliance Electric motors and motor repair services
businesses prior to their divestiture by us, which occurred on
January 31, 2007. We are also responsible for half of the costs
and liabilities associated with asbestos cases against the former
Rockwell International Corporation's (RIC's) divested measurement
and flow control business. But in all cases, for those claimants
who do show that they worked with our products or products of
divested businesses for which we are responsible, we nevertheless
believe we have meritorious defenses, in substantial part due to
the integrity of the products, the encapsulated nature of any
asbestos-containing components, and the lack of any impairing
medical condition on the part of many claimants. We defend those
cases vigorously. Historically, we have been dismissed from the
vast majority of these claims with no payment to claimants.

"We have maintained insurance coverage that we believe covers
indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured
retentions, for claims arising from our former Allen-Bradley
subsidiary. Our insurance carrier entered into a cost share
agreement with us to pay the substantial majority of future
defense and indemnity costs for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims. We
believe that this arrangement will continue to provide coverage
for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims throughout the remaining life of
the asbestos liability.

"The uncertainties of asbestos claim litigation make it difficult
to predict accurately the ultimate outcome of asbestos claims.
That uncertainty is increased by the possibility of adverse
rulings or new legislation affecting asbestos claim litigation or
the settlement process. Subject to these uncertainties and based
on our experience defending asbestos claims, we do not believe
these lawsuits will have a material effect on our financial
condition or results of operations.

"We have, from time to time, divested certain of our businesses.
In connection with these divestitures, certain lawsuits, claims
and proceedings may be instituted or asserted against us related
to the period that we owned the businesses, either because we
agreed to retain certain liabilities related to these periods or
because such liabilities fall upon us by operation of law. In some
instances, the divested business has assumed the liabilities;
however, it is possible that we might be responsible to satisfy
those liabilities if the divested business is unable to do so.

"In connection with the spin-offs of our former automotive
component systems business, semiconductor systems business and
Rockwell Collins avionics and communications business, the spun-
off companies have agreed to indemnify us for substantially all
contingent liabilities related to the respective businesses,
including environmental and intellectual property matters.

"In connection with the sale of our Dodge mechanical and Reliance
Electric motors and motor repair services businesses, we agreed to
indemnify Baldor Electric Company for costs and damages related to
certain legal, legacy environmental and asbestos matters of these
businesses arising before January 31, 2007, for which the maximum
exposure would be capped at the amount received for the sale."

Rockwell Automation, Inc. (Rockwell Automation) is a provider of
industrial automation power, control and information solutions
that help manufacturers achieve a competitive advantage for their
businesses. The Company operates in two segments: Architecture &
Software and controls Products & Solutions. In the United States,
Canada and certain other countries, the Company sells primarily
through the independent distributors in conjunction with its
direct sales force. In the remaining countries, the Company sells
through a combination of its direct sales force.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Corp. Has 41,000 AO Respiratory Claimants
----------------------------------------------------------------
There were 41,000 claimants in pending cases asserting claims
against Cabot Corporation's American Optical Corporation
subsidiary in connection with the unit's respiratory products,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
December 31, 2014.

The Company states: "We have exposure in connection with a safety
respiratory products business that a subsidiary acquired from
American Optical Corporation ("AO") in an April 1990 asset
purchase transaction. The subsidiary manufactured respirators
under the AO brand and disposed of that business in July 1995. In
connection with its acquisition of the business, the subsidiary
agreed, in certain circumstances, to assume a portion of AO's
liabilities, including costs of legal fees together with amounts
paid in settlements and judgments, allocable to AO respiratory
products used prior to the 1990 purchase by the Cabot subsidiary.
In exchange for the subsidiary's assumption of certain of AO's
respirator liabilities, AO agreed to provide to the subsidiary the
benefits of: (i) AO's insurance coverage for the period prior to
the 1990 acquisition and (ii) a former owner's indemnity of AO
holding it harmless from any liability allocable to AO respiratory
products used prior to May 1982. The respirator liabilities
generally involve claims for personal injury, including
asbestosis, silicosis and coal worker's pneumoconiosis, allegedly
resulting from the use of respirators that are alleged to have
been negligently designed and/or labeled.

"As of both December 31, 2014 and September 30, 2014, there were
approximately 41,000 claimants, respectively, in pending cases
asserting claims against AO in connection with respiratory
products. We have a reserve to cover our expected share of
liability for existing and future respirator liability claims. At
December 31, 2014 and September 30, 2014, the reserve was $12
million and $13 million, respectively. Cash payments related to
this liability were $1 million and $2 million in the first three
months of fiscal 2015 and 2014, respectively."

Cabot Corporation (Cabot) is a global specialty chemicals and
performance materials company. The Company's principal products
are rubber and specialty grade carbon blacks, fumed metal oxides,
inkjet colorants, aerogels and cesium formate drilling fluids.
Cabot and its affiliates have manufacturing facilities and
operations in the United States and approximately 20 other
countries. The Company operates in four business segments:
Reinforcement Materials; Performance Materials; Advanced
Technologies; and Purification Solutions. It is organized into
three geographic regions: The Americas; Europe, Middle East and
Africa, and Asia Pacific.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp.'s Zurn Unit Has 7,000 PI Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
There were approximately 7,000 asbestos-related lawsuits against
Rexnord Corporation's subsidiary, Zurn, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014.

Certain Water Management subsidiaries are also subject to asbestos
litigation.  As of December 31, 2014, Zurn PEX, Inc. and Zurn
Industries, LLC ("Zurn Industries"), and numerous other unrelated
companies were defendants in approximately 7,000 asbestos related
lawsuits representing approximately 24,000 claims.  The
Plaintiffs' claims allege personal injuries caused by exposure to
asbestos used primarily in industrial boilers formerly
manufactured by a segment of Zurn. Zurn did not manufacture
asbestos or asbestos components. Instead, Zurn purchased them from
suppliers. These claims are being handled pursuant to a defense
strategy funded by insurers.

Rexnord Corporation (Rexnord) is a multi-platform industrial
company. The Company comprises of two platforms, Process & Motion
Control and Water Management. Rexnord's Process & Motion Control
product portfolio includes gears, couplings, industrial bearings,
aerospace bearings and seals, FlatTop chain, engineered chain and
conveying equipment, and are marketed and sold globally under
brands, including Rexnord, Rex, Falk and Link-Belt. Its Water
Management platform operates in the commercial construction market
for water management products and the municipal water and
wastewater treatment markets. Its Water Management product
portfolio includes drainage products, flush valves and faucet
products, backflow prevention pressure release valves, PEX piping
and engineered valves and gates for the water and wastewater
treatment markets. In April 2014, the Company acquired Green
Turtle Technologies Ltd., Green Turtle Americas Ltd. and Filamat
Composites Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Has $248.4MM Insurance Coverage
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation estimates that its available insurance to
cover its potential asbestos liability is $248.4 million,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
December 31, 2014.

As of December 31, 2014, the Company estimates the potential
liability for the asbestos-related claims, as well as the claims
expected to be filed in the next ten years to be approximately
$36.0 million, of which Zurn expects its insurance carriers to pay
approximately $29.0 million in the next ten years on such claims,
with the balance of the estimated liability being paid in
subsequent years. The $36.0 million was developed based on an
actuarial study and represents the projected indemnity payout for
claims filed in the next ten years. However, there are inherent
uncertainties involved in estimating the number of future asbestos
claims, future settlement costs, and the effectiveness of defense
strategies and settlement initiatives. As a result, actual
liability could differ from the estimate described. Further, while
this current asbestos liability is based on an estimate of claims
through the next ten years, such liability may continue beyond
that time frame, and such liability could be substantial.

Management estimates that its available insurance to cover this
potential asbestos liability as of December 31, 2014, is
approximately $248.4 million, and believes that all current claims
are covered by insurance. However, principally as a result of the
past insolvency of certain of the Company's insurance carriers,
certain coverage gaps will exist if and after the Company's other
carriers have paid the first $172.4 million of aggregate
liabilities.

Rexnord Corporation (Rexnord) is a multi-platform industrial
company. The Company comprises of two platforms, Process & Motion
Control and Water Management. Rexnord's Process & Motion Control
product portfolio includes gears, couplings, industrial bearings,
aerospace bearings and seals, FlatTop chain, engineered chain and
conveying equipment, and are marketed and sold globally under
brands, including Rexnord, Rex, Falk and Link-Belt. Its Water
Management platform operates in the commercial construction market
for water management products and the municipal water and
wastewater treatment markets. Its Water Management product
portfolio includes drainage products, flush valves and faucet
products, backflow prevention pressure release valves, PEX piping
and engineered valves and gates for the water and wastewater
treatment markets. In April 2014, the Company acquired Green
Turtle Technologies Ltd., Green Turtle Americas Ltd. and Filamat
Composites Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Has $36MM Insurance Receivable
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation recorded an insurance receivable of $36.0
million, which corresponds to the amount of its potential asbestos
liability, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended December 31, 2014.

As of December 31, 2014, the Company had a recorded receivable
from its insurance carriers of $36.0 million, which corresponds to
the amount of this potential asbestos liability that is covered by
available insurance and is currently determined to be probable of
recovery. However, there is no assurance that $248.4 million of
insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that this
asbestos liability will not ultimately exceed $248.4 million.
Factors that could cause a decrease in the amount of available
coverage include: changes in law governing the policies, potential
disputes with the carriers regarding the scope of coverage, and
insolvencies of one or more of the Company's carriers.

The Company's subsidiaries, Zurn PEX, Inc. and Zurn Industries,
LLC ("Zurn Industries"), were named as defendants in a number of
individual and class action lawsuits in various United States
courts. The plaintiffs in these suits claimed damages due to the
alleged failure or anticipated failure of Zurn brass fittings on
the PEX plumbing systems in homes and other structures.

In July 2012, the Company reached an agreement in principle to
settle the liability underlying this litigation. The settlement is
designed to resolve, on a national basis, the Company's overall
exposure for both known and unknown claims related to the alleged
failure or anticipated failure of Zurn brass fittings on PEX
plumbing systems, subject to the right of eligible class members
to opt-out of the settlement and pursue their claims
independently. The settlement received final court approval in
February 2013, and utilizes a seven year claims fund, which is
capped at $20 million, and is funded in installments over the
seven year period based on claim activity and minimum funding
criteria. The settlement also covers class action plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees and expenses totaling $8.5 million, which were
paid in the first quarter of fiscal 2014.

Historically, the Company's insurance carrier had funded the
Company's defense in the above referenced proceedings. The
Company, however, reached a settlement agreement with its insurer,
whereby the insurer paid the Company a lump sum in exchange for a
release of future exposure related to this liability.

The Company has recorded an accrual related to this brass fittings
liability, which takes into account, in pertinent part, the
insurance carrier contribution, as well as exposure from the
claims fund, opt-outs and the waiver of future insurance coverage.

Rexnord Corporation (Rexnord) is a multi-platform industrial
company. The Company comprises of two platforms, Process & Motion
Control and Water Management. Rexnord's Process & Motion Control
product portfolio includes gears, couplings, industrial bearings,
aerospace bearings and seals, FlatTop chain, engineered chain and
conveying equipment, and are marketed and sold globally under
brands, including Rexnord, Rex, Falk and Link-Belt. Its Water
Management platform operates in the commercial construction market
for water management products and the municipal water and
wastewater treatment markets. Its Water Management product
portfolio includes drainage products, flush valves and faucet
products, backflow prevention pressure release valves, PEX piping
and engineered valves and gates for the water and wastewater
treatment markets. In April 2014, the Company acquired Green
Turtle Technologies Ltd., Green Turtle Americas Ltd. and Filamat
Composites Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific Had 1,065 Fibro Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corporation had 1,065 asbestos-related claims,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014.

The Company states: "We are a defendant in a number of lawsuits in
which current and former employees and other parties allege
exposure to asbestos. We assess our potential liability using a
statistical analysis of resolution costs for asbestos-related
claims. This liability is updated annually and excludes future
defense and processing costs. The liability for resolving both
asserted and unasserted claims was based on the following
assumptions:

   * The ratio of future claims by alleged disease would be
     consistent with historical averages adjusted for inflation.

   * The number of claims filed against us will decline each
     year.

   * The average settlement values for asserted and unasserted
     claims will be equivalent to historical averages.

   * The percentage of claims dismissed in the future will be
     equivalent to historical averages.

"Our liability for asbestos-related claims is not discounted to
present value due to the uncertainty surrounding the timing of
future payments. Approximately 21% of the recorded liability
related to asserted claims and approximately 79% related to
unasserted claims at December 31, 2014. Because of the uncertainty
surrounding the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related claims, it is
reasonably possible that future costs to settle these claims may
range from approximately $126 million to $135 million. We record
an accrual at the low end of the range as no amount of loss within
the range is more probable than any other.

"As of December 31, 2014, the Company's asbestos-related liability
was $126 million; and 1,065 asbestos-related claims.

"In conjunction with the liability update performed in 2014, we
also reassessed our estimated insurance recoveries. We have
recognized an asset for estimated insurance recoveries at December
31, 2014, and 2013. The amounts recorded for asbestos-related
liabilities and related insurance recoveries were based on
currently known facts. However, future events, such as the number
of new claims filed each year, average settlement costs, and
insurance coverage issues, could cause the actual costs and
insurance recoveries to be higher or lower than the projected
amounts. Estimates also may vary in the future if strategies,
activities, and outcomes of asbestos litigation materially change;
federal and state laws governing asbestos litigation increase or
decrease the probability or amount of compensation of claimants;
and there are material changes with respect to payments made to
claimants by other defendants."

Union Pacific Corporation (UPC) owns transportation companies. Its
principal operating company, Union Pacific Railroad Company, links
23 states in the western 66% of the country. Union Pacific
Railroad Company's business mix includes agricultural products,
automotive, chemicals, energy, industrial products and intermodal.
Union Pacific Railroad Company connects with Canada's rail systems
and is the railroad serving six gateways to Mexico. Union Pacific
Railroad Company (UPRR) is a Class I railroad operating in the
United States. In June 2012, the Company's wholly owned
subsidiary, PS Technology (PST), acquired the Yard Control Systems
division of Ansaldo STS USA.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hennessey Fails in Bid to Junk "Vellucci" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Hennessey Industries, Inc., sued as the successor-in-
interest to Ammco Tools, Inc., moves pursuant to CPLR 3212 for
summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims
asserted against it by Plaintiff Linda Vellucci who alleged that
her husband, John Vellucci, sustained lifelong exposure to
asbestos and asbestos-containing products in both occupational and
non-occupational settings, and that such exposure caused him to
develop mesothelioma, an asbestos-related cancer.

In a decision and order dated Feb. 20, 2015, Judge Sherry Klein
Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, denied the
defendant's motion, finding that Ammco had a duty to warn of the
hazards associated with asbestos exposure, and Ammco has not
submitted any evidence to show that it adequately warned of those
hazards.  Thus, there remains a triable issue of fact regarding
Ammco's liability for plaintiff's injuries, Judge Heitler ruled.

The case is LINDA VELLUCCI, as Executrix of the Heirs and Estates
of JOHN VELLUCCI, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. BORG WARNER CORPORATION,
by its successor-in interest to Borg-Warner Morse Tec, Inc., et
al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190201/12, MOTION SEQ. 004 (N.Y.
Sup.).  A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is available
at http://is.gd/7doz7tfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: SB Decking Wins Summary Judgment in PI Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant SB Decking, Inc., filed a renewed motion for summary
judgment seeking dismissal of the complaint filed by Plaintiffs
Alan and Donna McMann alleging that Mr. McMann was exposed to
asbestos while working for numerous defendants including SB
Decking.

In an order dated March 3, 2015, Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Tacoma, granted the motion after finding that McMann's
evidence shows, at most, that SB Decking's product was on the
premises of Mr. McMann's workplace.  McMann asserts that he was
exposed to dust while the Firedrake's main deck nonskid was
replaced in a dry dock, but, Judge Settle noted, McMann fails to
provide evidence showing that this particular nonskid contained
asbestos.  The nonskid that SB Decking supplied that actually
contained asbestos is only shown to have occupied a part of the
ship which Mr. McMann never entered, and that nonskid was not
replaced during any time material to Mr. McMann's employment and
Mr. McMann does not claim he was exposed to a dust cloud of that
toxic nonskid, Judge Settle further noted.  McMann, according to
Judge Settle, has not shown any exposure to asbestos from SB
Decking's products, nor did McMann show that any of SB Decking's
products were a substantial factor in causing his illness.  The
Court, therefore, found that McMann fails to make a sufficient
showing of the causation element of his claim.

The case is DONNA McMANN, individually and as Personal
Representative of the heirs and estate of Alan McMann, Plaintiff,
v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, CASE NO.
C14-5429 BHS (W.D. Wash.).  A full-text copy of Judge Settle's
Decision is available at http://is.gd/7RSFK1from Leagle.com.

Donna McMann, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett B Naman, THE
NEMEROFF LAW FIRM, Benjamin Robert Couture, WEINSTEIN COUTURE
PLLC, Brian Weinstein, WEINSTEIN COUTURE PLLC & Christopher B
Norris, THE NEMEROFF LAW FIRM.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, represented by Barry
Neal Mesher, SEDGWICK LLP, Brian D Zeringer, SEDGWICK LLP & Rachel
Tallon Reynolds, SEDGWICK LLP.

AstenJohnson Inc, Defendant, represented by Daniel Ruttenberg,
FOLEY & MANSFIELD & J. Scott Wood, FOLEY & MANSFIELD PLLP.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher S Marks,
SEDGWICK LLP & R Dirk Bernhardt, SEDGWICK LLP.

Crane Co, Defendant, represented by G William Shaw, K&L GATES LLP
& Geoffrey M Davis, K&L GATES LLP.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by
David D Mordekhov, GARDNER TRABOLSI & ASSOC. PLLC & Ronald C
Gardner, GARDNER TRABOLSI & ASSOC. PLLC.

International Paper Company, Defendant, represented by John
Michael Mattingly, RIZZO MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC.

Pacific Construction Systems Inc, Defendant, represented by Jason
H Daywitt, RIZZO MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC.

Pfizer Inc, Defendant, represented by Marissa Alkhazov, BETTS
PATTERSON & MINES.

Thomas Dee Engineering Co, Defendant, represented by D K Yoshida,
OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE PLLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Court Refuses to Review Ruling in PI Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert J. Bryan of the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Tacoma, denied Lockheed
Shipbuilding Company's motion for reconsideration of a Feb. 11,
2015, order denying Lockheed's motion for a summary judgment on
the basis that genuine issues of material fact exist in the
asbestos-related personal injury case styled CONNIE M. McCROSSIN,
Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of JOHN
L. MCCROSSIN, Plaintiff, v. IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., individually and
as successor-in-interest to DE LAVAL TURBINE, INC.; LOCKHEED
SHIPBUILDING COMPANY; LONE STAR INDUSTRIES, INC., individually and
as successor-in-interest to PIONEER SAND & GRAVEL COMPANY; UNION
CARBIDE CORPORATION; and FRASER'S BOILER SERVICE, INC.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 3:14-CV-05382-RJB (W.D. Wash.).

Judge Bryan ruled that viewing all evidence presented to the Court
in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the Court should
conclude that the plaintiff has raised genuine issues of material
fact as to whether Mr. McCrossin was exposed to asbestos Lockheed
had originally installed on the Trenton.

A full-text copy of Judge Bryan's March 2, 2015, order is
available at http://is.gd/0QIHuPfrom Leagle.com.

Connie M. McCrossin, Plaintiff, represented by Brian F Ladenburg,
BERGMAN DRAPER & LADENBURG PLLC, Chandler H Udo, BERGMAN DRAPER &
LADENBURG PLLC, Anna D Knudson, BERGMAN DRAPER & LADENBURG PLLC,
Glenn S Draper, BERGMAN DRAPER & LADENBURG PLLC & Matthew Phineas
Bergman, BERGMAN DRAPER & LADENBURG PLLC.

IMO Industries Inc, Defendant, represented by James Edward Horne,
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL & Michael Edward Ricketts, GORDON THOMAS
HONEYWELL.

Lockheed Shipbuilding Company, Defendant, represented by Guy
Glazier, GLAZIER YEE, Geoff J M Bridgman, OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE
PLLC, Jeffrey D Dunbar, OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE PLLC & Robert Gregory
Andre, OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE PLLC.

Lone Star Industries Inc, Defendant, represented by Howard (Terry)
I. Hall, FOLEY & MANSFIELD & Zackary A Paal, WILLIAMS KASTNER &
GIBBS.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Diane J.
Kero, GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL.

Fraser's Boiler Service Inc, Defendant, represented by Melissa K
Roeder, FORSBERG & UMLAUF & William Chris Gibson, FORSBERG &
UMLAUF.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: FMC Trust, 3 Cos. Dismissed from "Lee" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit styled James
Herman Lee and Maria J. Lee, Plaintiffs, v. Advance Auto Parts,
Inc.; et al., Defendants, FILE NO. 4:14-CV-00230-BO (E.D.N.C.),
Judge Terrence W. Boyle of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of North Carolina, Eastern Division, granted
joint motions dismissing four defendants in the case.

Specifically, Judge Boyle ordered the following:

   * the Joint Motion to Dismiss E.l. DuPont de Nemours and
Company as defendant in the case is granted, and all of the
Plaintiffs' claims against DuPont are dismissed without prejudice,
with each party to bear its own costs.  A full-text copy of Judge
Boyle's March 2, 2015, Order with respect to DuPont is available
at http://is.gd/wGdAfUfrom Leagle.com.

   * the Joint Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' claims against
Defendant Advance Stores Company, Inc., erroneously named as
Advance Auto Parts, Inc., is granted and the Plaintiffs' claims
against Advance are dismissed without prejudice, with each party
to bear its own costs.  A full-text copy of Judge Boyle's March 2,
2015, Order with respect to Advance is available at
http://is.gd/IoOj2Ofrom Leagle.com.

   * the Joint Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' claims against
Defendant Genuine Parts Company (incorrectly identified by
Plaintiffs as "Genuine Parts Company a/k/a NAPA"), pursuant to
Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is granted,
and the Plaintiffs' claims against Genuine Parts Company are
dismissed without prejudice, with each party to bear its own
costs.  A full-text copy of Judge Boyle's March 2, 2015, Order
with respect to Genuine Parts is available at http://is.gd/H1tyVH
from Leagle.com.

   * the Joint Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' claims, without
prejudice, against Defendant Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal
Injury Trust (sued as successor to Felt - Products Manufacturing
Co.) pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure is allowed and the Plaintiffs' claims against the Trust
are dismissed without prejudice, each party to bear its own costs.
A full-text copy of Judge Boyle's March 3, 2015, Order with
respect to the Trust is available at http://is.gd/Q8byDhfrom
Leagle.com.

James Herman Lee, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin W. Paul, Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C. & Janet Ward Black, Ward Black
Law.

Maria J. Lee, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin W. Paul, Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C. & Janet Ward Black, Ward Black
Law.

Dana Companies LLC, Defendant, represented by Moffatt G. McDonald,
Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Scott E. Frick, Haynsworth Sinkler
Boyd, P.A., William David Conner, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A. &
Charles M. Sprinkle, III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A..

DAP Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amy C. Drayton, Esq.
-- adrayton@deanandgibson.com -- Dean & Gibson, PLLC.

Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, Defendant,
represented by Keith E. Coltrain, Esq. --
Keith.Coltrain@WallTempleton.com -- Wall Templeton & Haldrup, P.A.
& Robin A. Seelbach, Esq. -- Robin.Seelbach@WallTempleton.com --
Wall Templeton & Haldrup, P.A..

Georgia-Pacific LLC, Defendant, represented by Kenneth Kyre, Jr.,
Esq. -- kkyre@pckb-law.com -- Pinto Coates Kyre & Bowers, PLLC.

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, represented by H. Lee
Davis, Jr., Esq. -- ldavis@davisandhamrick.com -- Davis & Hamrick,
LLP.

Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles M.
Sprinkle, III, Moffatt G. McDonald, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A.,
Scott E. Frick, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A. & William David
Conner, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A..

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Keith E. Coltrain, Wall Templeton & Haldrup, P.A..

Pfizer, Inc., Defendant, represented by Tracy E. Tomlin, Nelson
Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, Travis Andrew Bustamante, Nelson
Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP & William Michael Starr, Nelson
Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., Defendant, represented by John
T. Holden, Esq. -- jholden@dmclaw.com -- Dickie, McCamey &
Chilcote, PC.

The Sherwin-Williams Co., Defendant, represented by John T.
Holden, Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, PC.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Moffatt G.
McDonald, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Scott E. Frick,
Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., William David Conner, Haynsworth
Sinkler Boyd, P.A. & Charles M. Sprinkle, III, Haynsworth Sinkler
Boyd, P.A..

White Lightning Products, Defendant, represented by John T.
Holden, Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, PC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Court Flips Summary Ruling in "Latter" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff, Henry W. Latter, Sr., was diagnosed with mesothelioma
on June 24, 2008, as a result of his exposure to asbestos.  He
died from that disease on June 20, 2009.  Prior to his death, he
was employed on various commercial dredges and other commercial
ships, during which he allegedly worked with numerous asbestos-
containing products and was exposed to asbestos fibers, dust, and
particles.  On January 10, 2014, the Law Division granted summary
judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claims against defendants
Weeks Marine, Inc., and American Atlantic Company.  The trial
court found that the plaintiff failed to establish that he was
exposed to asbestos while working aboard defendant's vessels.  The
Plaintiff appeals, arguing that he presented sufficient evidence
of his exposure to asbestos while employed by defendant.

In a March 3, 2015, opinion, the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Appellate Division, agreed with the Plaintiff and reversed the
lower court's ruling.  The Superior Court, in support of its
decision, deemed the plaintiff's testimony and evidence sufficient
for a factfinder to reasonably infer that the plaintiff was
exposed to asbestos while employed by the defendant.

"While a closer call with respect to plaintiff's other work
experience on defendant's dredges, plaintiff has also produced
evidence that the winches on the Delaware Valley contained molded
asbestos composition friction blocks, and that the New York
contained three winches for propulsion which required asbestos.
We further note Dr. Moline's opinion regarding plaintiff's
exposure to asbestos on dredging vessels, and Castleman's expert
opinion that defendant knew or should have known of the hazards of
asbestos and the necessary steps to protect workers from asbestos
exposure," the Superior Court ruled.

"Although the summary judgment motion was decided on a very narrow
ground, we conclude that the record as a whole establishes a
triable issue as to whether plaintiff was exposed to asbestos or
asbestos-containing products on defendant's dredges," the Superior
Court further ruled.

The case is HENRY W. LATTER, JR., individually and as Executor and
Executor ad Prosequendum of the Estate of HENRY W. LATTER, SR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 3M COMPANY; ADVANCE STORES COMPANY,
INCORPORATED, a/k/a Western Auto Supply Company; AUTOBACS STRAUSS,
INCORPORATED, d/b/a Strauss Discount Auto, individually and as
successor to R&S Strauss; BONDEX INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED;
BORG-WARNER MORSE TEC, f/k/a Borg Warner; BOSCH BRAKING SYSTEMS
CORPORATION; CBS CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, f/k/a
Viacom, Inc., successor by merger to CBS Corporation, a
Pennsylvania Corporation, f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation;
CERTAINTEED CORPORPOATION; CHRYSLER, LLC; CLARK EQUIPMENT COMPANY,
a/k/a Clark-Hurth; CNH AMERICA, LLC; CUMMINS, INCORPORATED; DANA
COMPANIES, LLC, individually and as successor-in-interest to Clark
Equipment Company and Clark-Hurth; EATON CORPORATION, d/b/a
Airflex; EMERSON ELECTRIC CORPORATION, successor to Lipe Rollway
Corporation; FORD MOTOR COMPANY; GKN ROCKFORD, INCORPORATED,
individually and as successor to Rockford Clutch; GALION, GENERAL
MOTORS CORPORATION; GEORGIA PACIFIC, LLC; GOODRICH CORPORATION,
f/k/a B.F. Goodrich Company; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL,
INCORPORATED, individually and as successor-in-interest to The
Bendix Corporation; INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY, individually and as
successor-in-interest to Clark Equipment Company and Clark-Hurth;
KAISER GYPSUM; KOMATSU AMERICA CORPORATION, individually and as
successor-in-interest to Galion Iron Works; NATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE
PARTS ASSOCIATION (NAPA), a/k/a Genuine Parts Company; THE PEP
BOYS -- MANNY MOE & JACK OF DELAWARE, INCORPORATED; PNEUMO-ABEX,
LLC, as successor-in-interest to Abex Corporation, f/k/a American
Brake Shoe Company; THE GLIDDEN COMPANY, d/b/a ICI Paints; THE
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; DRAVO
CORPORATION; LIPE AUTOMATION CORPORATION, f/k/a Lipe Rollway
Corporation; ADVANCE STORE COMPANY, INC. and ADVANCE AUTO PARTS,
INC. and ADVANCE AUTO PART, INC., individually and as successor to
Western Auto Supply Co. and Western Auto; SETCO AUTOMOTIVE, N.A.,
INC., a/k/a Setco Lipe Clutch; ADVANCE STORES COMPANY, INC.,
individually and a/k/a Advanced Auto Parts, Inc.; E.I. DU PONT DE
NEMOURS AND COMPANY; WESTERN AUTO SUPPLY CORP., individually and
a/k/a Western Auto; NATIONAL OILWELL VARCO, L.P., as successor in
interest to Hydralift AM Clyde, Inc. and AM Clyde Engineered
Products, Inc., f/k/a Clyde Iron Works; SHEPARD NILES; SUPERIOR-
LIDGERWOOD-MUNDY; KONECRANES, INC., as successor to and d/b/a
Shepard-Niles; and PENNSYLVANIA S&N, INC., individually and as
successor-in-interest to Shepard Niles., Inc., Defendants, and
AMERICAN ATLANTIC COMPANY, as successor to American Dredging;
WEEKS MARINE, INCORPORATED, individually and as successor to
American Dredging Company, Defendants-Respondents, NO. A-2714-13T4
(N.J. Super.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/AEWjB5from Leagle.com.

Jeffrey P. Blumstein, Esq. -- jblumstein@szaferman.com -- argued
the cause for appellant (Szaferman, Lakind, Blumstein & Blader,
P.C., and Levy Konigsberg, LLP, attorneys; Mr. Blumstein and
Robert E. Lytle, on the briefs).

Tara L. Pehush, Esq. -- tara.pehush@klgates.com -- argued the
cause for respondents (K&L Gates, attorneys; Ms. Pehush, Angela
DiGiglio, Esq. -- angela.digiglio@klgates.com -- Michael E.
Waller, Esq. -- michael.waller@klgates.com -- on the brief).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RI Court Applies Tenn. Law in "Jones" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wayne F. Jones and Roberta Jones allege that Mr. Jones was exposed
to asbestos-containing products manufactured or sold by 84 Lumber
Company, et al., which caused Mr. Jones' mesothelioma.  With the
exception of one year in Maryland -- where Mr. Jones worked at
Bethlehem Steel -- he has lived in the State of Tennessee for his
entire life.  Accordingly, the majority of Mr. Jones' alleged
asbestos exposure occurred in Tennessee.  Furthermore, Mr. Jones
was diagnosed in, and is being treated in, Tennessee.

On December 17, 2014, the Superior Court of Rhode Island,
Providence, SC, granted the Defendants' motion to apply Tennessee
law to the instant case.  The Defendants now ask the Court to take
judicial notice of four areas where they contend that Tennessee
substantive law should apply.

The Superior Court, in a decision dated March 5, 2015, granted the
motions, noting that all of the relevant areas of law raised by
the Defendants can properly be classified as substantive because
they all relate to the issue of damages.  Additionally, the
Superior Court said Gasperini v. Ctr. for Humanities, Inc., 518
U.S. 415, 428 (1996), instructs the Court to treat the statutory
cap on noneconomic damages as a substantive rule of law.

The case is WAYNE F. JONES and ROBERTA JONES, Plaintiffs, v. 84
LUMBER COMPANY, et. al., Defendants, C.A. NO. PC-13-2485 (R.I.
Super.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/ozvi1Rfrom Leagle.com.

John E. Deaton, Esq., for Plaintiff.  Lawrence G. Cetrulo, Esq.,
Lawrence J. Sugarman, Esq., for Defendant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Dismisses "Jeffrey" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Billy and Diana Jeffrey sued several companies alleging
that Mr. Jeffrey was injured from exposure to several defendants'
asbestos-containing products.  The plaintiffs have not pleaded any
facts regarding the circumstances of their exposure or any basis
for concluding that Mr. Jeffrey was exposed to the defendants'
products, thus Judge William H. Orrick of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California granted the
defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint with leave to amend.

The case is BILLY JEFFREY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FOSTER WHEELER
LLC (FKA FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION), SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC.
(FKA SQUARE D COMPANY), EATON CORPORATION, ROCKWELL AUTOMATION,
INC., Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV-05585-WHO (N.D. Calif.).  A full-
text copy of Judge Orrick's order dated March 2, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/Ik4kHcfrom Leagle.com.

Billy Jeffrey, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Donadio, Brayton
Purcell LLP, Alan R. Brayton, Brayton Purcell LLP & Kimberly Joy
Wai Jun Chu, Brayton Purcell LLP.

Diana Jeffrey, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Donadio, Brayton
Purcell LLP, Alan R. Brayton, Brayton Purcell LLP & Kimberly Joy
Wai Jun Chu, Brayton Purcell LLP.

Foster Wheeler LLC (FKA Foster Wheeler Corporation), Defendant,
represented by Shelley Kaye Tinkoff, Esq. --
tinkoff@hugoparker.com -- Hugo Parker LLP & Edward R. Hugo, Esq. -
- ehugo@hugoparker.com -- Hugo Parker LLP.

Schneider Electric USA, Inc. (FKA Square D Company), Defendant,
represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, Esq. --
michele.barnes@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP & Zachariah David
Baker, Esq. -- zac.baker@klgates.com -- KL Gates.

Eaton Corporation, Defendant, represented by Shawn Michael Ridley,
Esq. -- sridley@hrmrlaw.com -- Howard Rome et al LLP & Trina Marie
Clayton, Esq. -- tclayton@hrmrlaw.com -- Howard Rome Martin &
Ridley LLP.

Rockwell Automation, Inc., Defendant, represented by Nicole
Elisabet Gage, Esq. -- nicole.gage@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis
LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Fails in Bid to Dismiss "Hall" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Staci M. Yandle of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois, in a March 5, 2015, memorandum and
order denied defendant Crane Co.'s motion to dismiss the lawsuit
filed by Van L. Hall alleging that he was exposed to, inhaled,
ingested or otherwise absorbed large amounts of asbestos fibers
throughout 1959-77 from products which were manufactured, sold,
distributed, installed or promoted by Crane.

In denying Crane's motion to dismiss, Judge Yandle noted that in
this case, the plaintiff has given specific locations, specific
states, and specific time periods allowing Crane ample notice in
order to build a defense.  As the Supreme Court noted in Twombly,
a plaintiff need only state enough facts to state a claim that is
plausible on its face and in this particular case, the Plaintiff
has succeeded in doing so, Judge Yandle said.

The case is VAN L. HALL, Plaintiff, v. AQUA-CHEM, INC., et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV-0028-SMY-DGW (S.D. Ill.).  A full-text
copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/Zi77Wyfrom
Leagle.com.

Van L Hall, Plaintiff, represented by Ben A. Vinson, Jr., Vinson
Law & Zane T. Cagle, Cagle Law Firm, LLC.

Atlas Copco Compressors, LLC., Defendant, represented by Amy Rae
Hansen, Johnson & Bell LTD. & Robert Spitkovsky, Jr., Johnson &
Bell.

Buffalo Pumps, Inc, Defendant, represented by Gregory C Flatt,
Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..
Carrier Corp, Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Kurowski
Shultz LLC & Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski Shultz LLC.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Daniel G. Donahue,
Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield,
PLLP & Robert S. Sanderson, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Crane Co, Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson,
HeplerBroom LLC.

Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dennis
J. Graber, Hinshaw & Culbertson, James M. Brodzik, Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP, Mark D. Bauman, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Nicole E.
Rice, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Trevor A. Sondag, Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP & Daniel W. McGrath, Hinshaw & Culbertson.

Foster Wheeler, LLC, Defendant, represented by Daniel M. Finer,
Segal, McCambridge et al., Steven A. Hart, Segal, McCambridge et
al., Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al. & Kyle Pozan,
Segal, McCambridge et al..

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Raymond R.
Fournie, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Anita M. Kidd, Armstrong Teasdale
LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, Armstrong Teasdale LLP & Melanie R. King,
Armstrong Teasdale LLP.

Imo Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gregory C Flatt,
Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Benjamin J.
Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC, Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael
J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

ITT Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey E. Rogers, Esq.
-- jrogers@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods LLP, IL & Undray
Wilks, Esq. -- uwilks@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods LLP, IL.

John Crane Inc, Defendant, represented by Sean P. Fergus,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C..

Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Defendant, represented by Charles
L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al., Georgiann Oliver, Joley,
Nussbaumer, et al. & Laura K Beasley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al..

Owens-Illinois, Inc, Defendant, represented by Brian O'Connor
Watson, Schiff Hardin LLP, Edward M. Casmere, Schiff Hardin LLP &
Matthew J. Fischer, Schiff, Hardin et al..

Pneumo Abex Corporation, Defendant, represented by Thomas L.
Orris, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC & Ross S. Titzer, Williams
Venker & Sanders LLC.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by Gregory C Flatt,
Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..
ITT Corporation, Cross Claimant, represented by Jeffrey E. Rogers,
McGuire Woods LLP, IL & Undray Wilks, McGuire Woods LLP, IL.

Atlas Copco Compressors, LLC., Cross Defendant, represented by Amy
Rae Hansen, Johnson & Bell LTD. & Robert Spitkovsky, Jr., Johnson
& Bell.

Buffalo Pumps, Inc, Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C
Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..
CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Dauphin,
Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Carrier Corp, Cross Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens,
Kurowski Shultz LLC & Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski Shultz LLC.
Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Dennis J. Graber, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP & Daniel W. McGrath, Hinshaw & Culbertson.

Foster Wheeler, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel M.
Finer, Segal, McCambridge et al., Steven A. Hart, Segal,
McCambridge et al., Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.
& Kyle Pozan, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Imo Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C
Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Cross Defendant, represented by
Charles L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al., Georgiann Oliver,
Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. & Laura K Beasley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et
al..

Pneumo Abex Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Ross S.
Titzer, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C
Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

Buffalo Pumps, Inc, Cross Claimant, represented by Gregory C
Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

Atlas Copco Compressors, LLC., Cross Defendant, represented by Amy
Rae Hansen, Johnson & Bell LTD. & Robert Spitkovsky, Jr., Johnson
& Bell.

CBS Corporation, successor by merger to CBS Corporation, f/k/a
Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Individually and as Successor-
in-Interest to BF Sturtevant Co, Cross Defendant, represented by
Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Carrier Corp, Cross Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens,
Kurowski Shultz LLC & Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski Shultz LLC.

Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Dennis J. Graber, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP & Daniel W. McGrath, Hinshaw & Culbertson.

Foster Wheeler, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel M.
Finer, Segal, McCambridge et al., Steven A. Hart, Segal,
McCambridge et al., Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.
& Kyle Pozan, Segal, McCambridge et al..

ITT Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Jeffrey E.
Rogers, McGuire Woods LLP, IL & Undray Wilks, McGuire Woods LLP,
IL.

Imo Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C
Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Cross Defendant, represented by
Charles L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al., Georgiann Oliver,
Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. & Laura K Beasley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et
al..

Pneumo Abex Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Ross S.
Titzer, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C
Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..
Ingersoll-Rand Company, Cross Claimant, represented by Michael J
Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

Atlas Copco Compressors, LLC., Cross Defendant, represented by Amy
Rae Hansen, Johnson & Bell LTD. & Robert Spitkovsky, Jr., Johnson
& Bell.

Buffalo Pumps, Inc, Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C
Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Dauphin,
Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Carrier Corp, Cross Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens,
Kurowski Shultz LLC & Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski Shultz LLC.

Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Dennis J. Graber, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP & Daniel W. McGrath, Hinshaw & Culbertson.

Foster Wheeler, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel M.
Finer, Segal, McCambridge et al., Steven A. Hart, Segal,
McCambridge et al., Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.
& Kyle Pozan, Segal, McCambridge et al..

ITT Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Jeffrey E.
Rogers, McGuire Woods LLP, IL & Undray Wilks, McGuire Woods LLP,
IL.

Imo Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C
Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Cross Defendant, represented by
Charles L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al., Georgiann Oliver,
Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. & Laura K Beasley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et
al..

Pneumo Abex Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Ross S.
Titzer, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C
Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

General Electric Company, Cross Claimant, represented by Raymond
R. Fournie, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Anita M. Kidd, Armstrong
Teasdale LLP & Melanie R. King, Armstrong Teasdale LLP.

Atlas Copco Compressors, LLC., Cross Defendant, represented by Amy
Rae Hansen, Johnson & Bell LTD. & Robert Spitkovsky, Jr., Johnson
& Bell.

Buffalo Pumps, Inc, Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C
Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Dauphin,
Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Robert S. Sanderson, Foley & Mansfield,
PLLP.

Carrier Corp, Cross Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens,
Kurowski Shultz LLC & Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski Shultz LLC.

Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Dennis J. Graber, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP & Daniel W. McGrath, Hinshaw & Culbertson.

Foster Wheeler, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel M.
Finer, Segal, McCambridge et al., Steven A. Hart, Segal,
McCambridge et al., Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.
& Kyle Pozan, Segal, McCambridge et al..

ITT Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Jeffrey E.
Rogers, McGuire Woods LLP, IL & Undray Wilks, McGuire Woods LLP,
IL.

Imo Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C
Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..
Ingersoll-Rand Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Michael J
Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Cross Defendant, represented by
Charles L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al., Georgiann Oliver,
Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. & Laura K Beasley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et
al..

Pneumo Abex Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Thomas L.
Orris, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C
Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

John Crane Inc, Cross Claimant, represented by Sean P. Fergus,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C..

Atlas Copco Compressors, LLC., Cross Defendant, represented by Amy
Rae Hansen, Johnson & Bell LTD. & Robert Spitkovsky, Jr., Johnson
& Bell.

Buffalo Pumps, Inc, Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C
Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Daniel G. Donahue,
Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Robert S. Sanderson, Foley & Mansfield,
PLLP.

Carrier Corp, Cross Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens,
Kurowski Shultz LLC & Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski Shultz LLC.

Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Dennis J. Graber, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP & Daniel W. McGrath, Hinshaw & Culbertson.

Foster Wheeler, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel M.
Finer, Segal, McCambridge et al., Steven A. Hart, Segal,
McCambridge et al., Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.
& Kyle Pozan, Segal, McCambridge et al..

General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Raymond
R. Fournie, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Anita M. Kidd, Armstrong
Teasdale LLP & Melanie R. King, Armstrong Teasdale LLP.

ITT Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Jeffrey E.
Rogers, McGuire Woods LLP, IL & Undray Wilks, McGuire Woods LLP,
IL.

Imo Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C
Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..
Ingersoll-Rand Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Michael J
Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Cross Defendant, represented by
Charles L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al., Georgiann Oliver,
Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. & Laura K Beasley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et
al..

Pneumo Abex Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Thomas L.
Orris, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C
Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

Crane Co, Cross Claimant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson,
HeplerBroom LLC.

Atlas Copco Compressors, LLC., Cross Defendant, represented by Amy
Rae Hansen, Johnson & Bell LTD. & Robert Spitkovsky, Jr., Johnson
& Bell.

Buffalo Pumps, Inc, Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C
Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..
CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Daniel G. Donahue,
Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Robert S. Sanderson, Foley & Mansfield,
PLLP.

Carrier Corp, Cross Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens,
Kurowski Shultz LLC & Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski Shultz LLC.

Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Dennis J. Graber, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP & Daniel W. McGrath, Hinshaw & Culbertson.

Foster Wheeler, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel M.
Finer, Segal, McCambridge et al., Steven A. Hart, Segal,
McCambridge et al., Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.
& Kyle Pozan, Segal, McCambridge et al..

General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Raymond
R. Fournie, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Anita M. Kidd, Armstrong
Teasdale LLP & Melanie R. King, Armstrong Teasdale LLP.

ITT Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Jeffrey E.
Rogers, McGuire Woods LLP, IL & Undray Wilks, McGuire Woods LLP,
IL.

Imo Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C
Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Michael J
Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

John Crane Inc, Cross Defendant, represented by Sean P. Fergus,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C..

Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Cross Defendant, represented by
Charles L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al., Georgiann Oliver,
Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. & Laura K Beasley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et
al..

Pneumo Abex Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Thomas L.
Orris, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C
Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

Pneumo Abex Corporation, Cross Claimant, represented by Ross S.
Titzer, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC.

Atlas Copco Compressors, LLC., Cross Defendant, represented by Amy
Rae Hansen, Johnson & Bell LTD. & Robert Spitkovsky, Jr., Johnson
& Bell.

Buffalo Pumps, Inc, Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C
Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Dauphin,
Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Robert S. Sanderson, Foley & Mansfield,
PLLP.

Carrier Corp, Cross Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens,
Kurowski Shultz LLC & Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski Shultz LLC.

Crane Co, Cross Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson,
HeplerBroom LLC.

Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Dennis J. Graber, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP & Daniel W. McGrath, Hinshaw & Culbertson.

Foster Wheeler, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel M.
Finer, Segal, McCambridge et al., Steven A. Hart, Segal,
McCambridge et al., Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.
& Kyle Pozan, Segal, McCambridge et al..

General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Raymond
R. Fournie, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Anita M. Kidd, Armstrong
Teasdale LLP & Melanie R. King, Armstrong Teasdale LLP.

ITT Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Jeffrey E.
Rogers, McGuire Woods LLP, IL & Undray Wilks, McGuire Woods LLP,
IL.

Imo Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C
Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Michael J
Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

John Crane Inc, Cross Defendant, represented by Sean P. Fergus,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C..

Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Cross Defendant, represented by
Charles L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al., Georgiann Oliver,
Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. & Laura K Beasley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et
al..

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C
Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

Atlas Copco Compressors, LLC., Cross Defendant, represented by Amy
Rae Hansen, Johnson & Bell LTD. & Robert Spitkovsky, Jr., Johnson
& Bell.

Buffalo Pumps, Inc, Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C
Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Daniel G. Donahue,
Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Robert S. Sanderson, Foley & Mansfield,
PLLP.

Carrier Corp, Cross Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens,
Kurowski Shultz LLC & Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski Shultz LLC.

Crane Co, Cross Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson,
HeplerBroom LLC.

Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Dennis J. Graber, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP & Daniel W. McGrath, Hinshaw & Culbertson.

Foster Wheeler, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel M.
Finer, Segal, McCambridge et al., Steven A. Hart, Segal,
McCambridge et al., Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.
& Kyle Pozan, Segal, McCambridge et al..

General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Raymond
R. Fournie, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Anita M. Kidd, Armstrong
Teasdale LLP & Melanie R. King, Armstrong Teasdale LLP.

ITT Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Jeffrey E.
Rogers, McGuire Woods LLP, IL & Undray Wilks, McGuire Woods LLP,
IL.

Imo Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C
Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Michael J
Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

John Crane Inc, Cross Defendant, represented by Sean P. Fergus,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C..

Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Cross Defendant, represented by
Charles L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al., Georgiann Oliver,
Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. & Laura K Beasley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et
al..

Pneumo Abex Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Thomas L.
Orris, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C
Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

Carrier Corp, Cross Claimant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens,
Kurowski Shultz LLC & Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski Shultz LLC.

Atlas Copco Compressors, LLC., Cross Defendant, represented by Amy
Rae Hansen, Johnson & Bell LTD. & Robert Spitkovsky, Jr., Johnson
& Bell.

Buffalo Pumps, Inc, Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C
Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Daniel G. Donahue,
Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Robert S. Sanderson, Foley & Mansfield,
PLLP.

Crane Co, Cross Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson,
HeplerBroom LLC.

Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Dennis J. Graber, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP & Daniel W. McGrath, Hinshaw & Culbertson.

Foster Wheeler, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel M.
Finer, Segal, McCambridge et al., Steven A. Hart, Segal,
McCambridge et al., Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.
& Kyle Pozan, Segal, McCambridge et al..

General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Raymond
R. Fournie, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Anita M. Kidd, Armstrong
Teasdale LLP & Melanie R. King, Armstrong Teasdale LLP.

ITT Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Jeffrey E.
Rogers, McGuire Woods LLP, IL & Undray Wilks, McGuire Woods LLP,
IL.

Imo Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C
Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..
Ingersoll-Rand Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Michael J
Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

John Crane Inc, Cross Defendant, represented by Sean P. Fergus,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C..

Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Cross Defendant, represented by
Charles L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al., Georgiann Oliver,
Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. & Laura K Beasley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et
al..

Pneumo Abex Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Thomas L.
Orris, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C
Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by
Dennis J. Graber, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP & Daniel W. McGrath, Hinshaw & Culbertson.

Atlas Copco Compressors, LLC., Cross Defendant, represented by Amy
Rae Hansen, Johnson & Bell LTD. & Robert Spitkovsky, Jr., Johnson
& Bell.

Buffalo Pumps, Inc, Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C
Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Daniel G. Donahue,
Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Robert S. Sanderson, Foley & Mansfield,
PLLP.

Carrier Corp, Cross Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens,
Kurowski Shultz LLC & Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski Shultz LLC.

Crane Co, Cross Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson,
HeplerBroom LLC.

Foster Wheeler, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel M.
Finer, Segal, McCambridge et al., Steven A. Hart, Segal,
McCambridge et al., Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.
& Kyle Pozan, Segal, McCambridge et al..

General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Raymond
R. Fournie, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Anita M. Kidd, Armstrong
Teasdale LLP & Melanie R. King, Armstrong Teasdale LLP.

ITT Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Jeffrey E.
Rogers, McGuire Woods LLP, IL & Undray Wilks, McGuire Woods LLP,
IL.

Imo Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C
Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..
Ingersoll-Rand Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Michael J
Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

John Crane Inc, Cross Defendant, represented by Sean P. Fergus,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C..

Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Cross Defendant, represented by
Charles L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al., Georgiann Oliver,
Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. & Laura K Beasley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et
al..

Owens-Illinois, Inc, Cross Defendant, represented by Matthew J.
Fischer, Schiff, Hardin et al..

Pneumo Abex Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Thomas L.
Orris, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C
Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Issues Order Aiding Discovery in PI Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Campbell, Sr., initially filed an action in the Circuit
Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, asserting that he has
contracted lung cancer as a result of his exposure to asbestos
over a 55 year period in different locations across the country.
ABB Inc., and the rest of the defendants are all allegedly
companies that have manufactured, distributed, and/or sold
asbestos or asbestos products to which Charles Campbell was
exposed.  The original complaint named 51 Defendants, though
several have since been dismissed.  Two Defendants, Raypack, Inc.,
and Rheem Manufacturing Company, moved to dismiss the cases
against them under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), or in
the alternative, for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e).

Judge Audrey G. Fleissig of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, in a
memorandum and order dated March 5, 2015, granted the Defendants'
motions for a more definite statement saying a more definite
statement from the Plaintiffs will focus the discovery process and
expedite the disposition of the case in an economical manner.

The case is CHARLES CAMPBELL, SR., et al., Plaintiffs, v. ABB
INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 4:14CV01489 AGF (E.D. Mo.).  A
full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/5zGkx5
from Leagle.com.

Charles Campbell, SR., Plaintiff, represented by Ryan P. Horace,
NAPOLI AND BERN & Sean Patrick Barth, NAPOLI AND BERN.

Lena Campbell, Plaintiff, represented by Ryan P. Horace, NAPOLI
AND BERN & Sean Patrick Barth, NAPOLI AND BERN.

ABB Inc., formerly known as Asea Brown Boveri, Inc. formerly known
as Brown Boveri Electric Co., Defendant, represented by James D.
Maschhoff, HERZOG CREBS LLP & Mary A. Hatch, HERZOG CREBS LLP.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, also known as Buffalo Pumps,
Inc., Defendant, represented by Gregory C. Flatt, HEYL AND ROYSTER
& Kent L. Plotner, HEYL AND ROYSTER.

Akzo Nobel Paints LLC, formerly known as The Glidden Company,
Defendant, represented by Robert Jacob Hurtt, Jr., Esq. --
rob.hurtt@huschblackwell.com -- HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP.

Belden Wire & Cable Company, Defendant, represented by Gregory C.
Flatt, HEYL AND ROYSTER & Kent L. Plotner, HEYL AND ROYSTER.

Borgwarner Morse Tec Inc., Successor by Merger to Borg-Warner
Corporation, Defendant, represented by James D. Maschhoff, HERZOG
CREBS LLP.

Carrier Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M.
Valentino, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ & Lindsay A. Dibler, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ.

CBS Corporation, formerly known as Viacom, Inc., Successor by
Merger to CBS Corp. formerly known as Westinghouse Electric Corp,
Defendant, represented by Daniel G. Donahue, FOLEY AND MANSFIELD,
P.L.L.P. & Michael R. Dauphin, FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P..

Certainteed Corporation, Defendant, represented by Gregory C.
Flatt, HEYL AND ROYSTER & Kent L. Plotner, HEYL AND ROYSTER.

Cooper Technologies Company, individually Successor In Interest
Crouse-Hinds Company PPB, Defendant, represented by Jessica L.
Prosperi, RASMUSSEN AND WILLIS.

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Benjamin John Wilson, HEPLER
BROOM & Carl J. Geraci, HEPLER BROOM.

Crown Cork & Seal Company Inc., Defendant, represented by Stephen
J. Maassen, HOAGLAND AND FITZGERALD.

DAP, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. Valentino,
KUROWSKI SCHULTZ & Lindsay A. Dibler, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ.

Eaton Corporation, individually and as Successor In Interest
Cutler Hammer, Inc., Defendant, represented by J. Todd Applegate,
PITZER SNODGRASS, P.C. & Brian J. Connolly, REEG LAWYERS, LLC.

Ericsson, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. Valentino,
KUROWSKI SCHULTZ & Lindsay A. Dibler, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ.

FMC Corporation, individually Successor In Interest Northern Pump
Company Successor In Interest Coffin Successor In Interest Chicago
Pump Company Successor In Interest Peerless, Defendant,
represented by Marcie J. Vantine, SWANSON AND MARTIN, LLP.
Gardner Denver, Inc., Defendant, represented by Megan Ashley
Schwarz, SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE.

General Cable Corporation, Defendant, represented by Albert J.
Bronsky, BROWN AND JAMES, P.C..

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Anita Maria
Kidd, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP.

Graybar Electric Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey
T. Bash, LEWIS AND BRISBOIS, LLP.

Hanson Permanente Cement, Defendant, represented by Virginia M.
Giokaris, RASMUSSEN AND WILLIS.

Honeywell International Inc., formerly known as Alliedsignal, Inc.
formerly known as The Bendix Corporation, Defendant, represented
by Anthony L. Springfield, POLSINELLI PC & Dennis J. Dobbels,
POLSINELLI PC.

IMO Industries Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew R. Fields,
JACOBSON AND PRESS, P.C. & Matthew David Bigham, JACOBSON AND
PRESS, P.C..

J.P. Bushnell Packing Supply Co., Defendant, represented by
Stephen J. Maassen, HOAGLAND AND FITZGERALD.

Johnson Controls, Inc., Defendant, represented by James D.
Maschhoff, HERZOG CREBS LLP & Mary A. Hatch, HERZOG CREBS LLP.
Lennox Industries, Inc. Manufacturing Company, Defendant,
represented by Gregory C. Flatt, HEYL AND ROYSTER & Kent L.
Plotner, HEYL AND ROYSTER.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Charles L. Joley, JOLEY AND OLIVER.

Pneumo Abex, LLC, Defendant, represented by Mary Dianne
Rychnovsky, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC, Matthew E. Pelikan,
WILLIAMS AND VENKER, LLC, Ross S. Titzer, WILLIAMS AND VENKER, LLC
& Thomas L. Orris, WILLIAMS AND VENKER, LLC.

Raypak, Inc., a Wholly Owned Subisdiary of Rheem Manufacturing
Co., Defendant, represented by Tracy J. Cowan, HAWKINS AND
PARNELL, LLP & Earl B. Thames, HAWKINS AND PARNELL, LLP.

Rheem Manufacturing Co., Defendant, represented by Tracy J. Cowan,
HAWKINS AND PARNELL, LLP & Earl B. Thames, HAWKINS AND PARNELL,
LLP.

Robertson Ceco Corporation, Defendant, represented by Gregory C.
Flatt, HEYL AND ROYSTER.

Rockwell Automation, Inc., formerly known as Allen Bradley Company
Inc. Successor In Interest Rostone Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Jennifer M. Valentino, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ.

Schneider Electric Company, formerly known as Square D Co.,
Defendant, represented by Anthony L. Springfield, POLSINELLI PC.

Sears Roebuck & Co., a subsidiary of Sears Holdings Corporation,
Defendant, represented by April A. Vesely, SWANSON AND MARTIN, LLP
& Paul W. Lore.

Siemens Energy & Automation, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Thomas W. Hayes, MCKENNA STORER.

Simpson Timber Company, Defendant, represented by Daniel G.
Donahue, FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P., Michael R. Dauphin, FOLEY
AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P. & Michael W. Newport, FOLEY AND MANSFIELD,
P.L.L.P..

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by
Jennifer M. Valentino, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ, Jerry S. Warchol,
KUROWSKI SHULTZ LLC, Lacy M. Fields, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ & Lindsay A.
Dibler, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ.

The Sherwin-Williams Company, Defendant, represented by John A.
Bruegger, HAWKINS AND PARNELL, LLP & Tracy J. Cowan, HAWKINS AND
PARNELL, LLP.

Welco Manufacturing Company, Defendant, represented by James D.
Maschhoff, HERZOG CREBS LLP & Mary A. Hatch, HERZOG CREBS LLP.

York International Corporation, Defendant, represented by James D.
Maschhoff, HERZOG CREBS LLP, Mary A. Hatch, HERZOG CREBS LLP &
Tracy Beckman Phipps, HERZOG CREBS LLP.

Young Group Ltd., formerly known as Young Sales Corp., Defendant,
represented by Jordan K. Pack, SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE.

Young Insulation Group of St. Louis, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Jordan K. Pack, SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE.

Cooper Industries, LLC, 600 Travis Street #5800 Houston, TX 77002-
3008, Defendant, represented by Jessica L. Prosperi, RASMUSSEN AND
WILLIS.


                             *********

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  * * *