CAR_Public/150316.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, March 16, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 53


                             Headlines

500.COM LIMITED: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
AEROSPACE PRECISION: Faces "Mocza" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
AK AUTO: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Cabrera" Suit Claims
ALL-IN-ONE SOLUTIONS: Sued in S.D. Tex. Over Failure to Pay OT
AMAZON.COM INC: Seeks Dismissal of Consumer Class Action

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss TCPA Class Suit
ANCHOR TOWING: Faces "Gross" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ASAHI SHIMBUN: Faces Class Action Over Comfort Women Stories
ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Clawson" Suit Says
BACTES IMAGING: April 30 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Tosses Breach-of-Contract Class Action
BANK OF NEW YORK: Sued in Mass. Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Sued in Tex. Over Gender Discrimination Policies
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action
CHRYSLER GROUP: Seeks Dismissal of Sunroof Defect Class Action

COOPER VISION: Manipulates Contact Lens Prices, Suit Claims
CORPORATE RESOURCE: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
CVS PHARMACY: Falsely Marketed Soft Gel Supplements, Suit Claims
DRIVETIME AUTOMOTIVE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
EDISON INT'L: 401(k) Plan Participants File Class Suit Over Fees

ENGLISH ENTERPRISES: "Colula" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
FPC COFFEES: Faces "Larrea" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Hours
GIARDINO FRESCO: Faces "Jimenez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
GRAINERY RESTAURANT: Urged to Respond to Class Action
GREEN AIR: Faces "Szabo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

HORIZON SOLAR: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
HUSTLER CLUB: Exotic Dancers File Wage Class Action
HYUNDAI: U.S. Law Firm Mulls Class Action Over Sonata 2011 Models
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
INTERNATIONAL HOUSE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

IRISH RUGBY: Concussion-Related Case Inevitable
JACARANDA CLUB: Faces "Nutter" Suit Over Failure to Pay Ovetrtime
JAMG RESTAURANT: "Cerezo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
JCS SECURITY: Faces "Castillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
JIMMY JOHN'S: Faces "Watsons" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

LA TULIPE: Faces "Becerra" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
LENOVO US: Faces "Hall" Over Harmful Preinstalled Spywares
LIH PROPERTY: "Davis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
LINKEDIN CORP: Settles Class Suit Over Password Leak for $1.25MM
MARION COUNTY, IN: Ex-Offenders Claim Detention Problems Rampant

MAXLINEAR INC: Faces "Mouw" Suit Over Unlawful Company Merger
MERCK & CO: Faces Class Action Over MMR Trials
NESTLE PURINA: Sued in D. Mass. Over Alleged Toxins in Dog Food
NEW YORK: Police Dept. Sued Over Alleged Racial Discrimination
NEW YORK: Occupy Wall Street Class Action Ruling Reversed

NORDSTROM INC: Averts Class Action Over Bag-Check Policy
NVIDIA CORP: Offers Refunds Following GTX 970 Memory Issue
OGNIO GRADING: "Lucier" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
PETERBOROUGH REGIONAL: Privacy Class Action Can Proceed
PARK AVENUE: Faces "Bahena" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

PUERTO RICO: Electric Energy Authority Faces Class Action
RBS CITIZENS: Illegally Collects Annual Fees, "Block" Suit Claims
REGENETEK RESEARCH: MS Patients Mulls Class Action
RITE AID: "Gioules" Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
ROSS TOWNSHIP, IN: June 12 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

SHORTER UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Over Security Breach
SIMON PROPERTY: Sued Over Wheelchair-Inaccessible Parking Spaces
SLI LANDSCAPE: "Gutierrez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
STARTING LINE: Faces "Alvarez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
STATE FARM: Sued Over Failure to Provide Consumer Reports

SYNGENTA CORP: Arkansas Farmers Join GMO Class Action
TCF FINANCIAL: "Schultz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
TCP INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Sohal" Suit Over False Fin'l Reports
TCP INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Williams" Suit Over False Fin'l Reports
TRUEBLUE INC: Illegally Obtains Consumer Reports, Suit Claims

TYCOONS: Faces "Doe" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
TYCOONS: Faces "Doe" 2nd Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
VIVINT INC: Settles TCPA Class Action for $6 Million
VOLARIS AVIATION: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in New York
VPC GREEKTOWN: Faces "Huitron" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

WAL-MART STORES: Falsely Marketed Cranberry Juice, Suit Claims
WALGREEN CO: Faces "Mobley" Suit in Ill. Over Product Misbranding
WB HOLDINGS: Has Sent Unsolicited Advertisements, Suit Says
WINNETKA, IL: Faces Class Action Over Stormwater Utility Fee

* Canadian Consumers Can Get Refunds From DRAM Settlement
* Canadian Patients Mull Class Suit Over Excessive Medical Fees


                            *********


500.COM LIMITED: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Fragala, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. 500.com Limited, Man San Law, Zhengming Pan, Deutsche
Bank Securities Inc., Piper Jaffray & Co., and Oppenheimer & Co.
Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01463 (C.D. Cal., 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.

500.com Limited is a Cayman Islands corporation and headquartered
in Shenzhen, People's Republic of China. It is an online sports
lottery service provider.

Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Piper Jaffray & Co. and Oppenheimer
& Co. Inc. own and operate an investment bank.

The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of 500.com
Limited.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM PA
      355 South Grand Avenue Suite 2450
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 785-2610
      Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
      E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


AEROSPACE PRECISION: Faces "Mocza" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos J. Mocza and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b) v. Aerospace Precision Metals, Inc., Tina D. Muldoon,
Timothy J. Muldoon, Case No. 0:15-cv-60421 (S.D. Fla., March 2,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Defendants own and operate a metal service center in Broward
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


AK AUTO: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Cabrera" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rafael Cabrera, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. A. K. Auto Service, Inc., and Ayub M. Khan,
Case No. 1:15-cv-01916 (N.D. Ill., March 3, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Defendants own and operate an automotive repair shop in Cook
County, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALL-IN-ONE SOLUTIONS: Sued in S.D. Tex. Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Humphries, individually & on behalf of all similarly
situated v. All-In-One Solutions Enterprise Inc., Case No. 4:15-
cv-00548 (S.D. Tex., February 27, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked over
40 hours in a workweek.

All-In-One Solutions Enterprise Inc. is in the business of selling
smart phones, basic phone, phone and data plans as a franchise of
Cricket.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq.
      MORGAN AND MORGAN
      20 N Orange Ave., Ste. 1600
      Orlando, FL 32801
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      E-mail: bmazaheri@forthepeople.com


AMAZON.COM INC: Seeks Dismissal of Consumer Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lipkin, writing for Law360, reports that Amazon.com Inc.
urged a California federal judge on Feb. 23 to toss a proposed
class action alleging it misleads consumers by overstating list
prices to makes its discounts appear larger, arguing the
plaintiffs agreed to an arbitration pact when they used the site.

Andrea Fagerstrom and Allen Wiseley alleged they bought a blender
and an audio converter from Amazon, respectively, with discounts
between $30 and $40.  But the list price Amazon used to calculate
the savings was the highest price the product ever sold for and
not what they would have had to pay at other stores, according to
the suit.

But Amazon countered that by making those purchases, along with
six previous purchases, the plaintiffs accepted the store's
condition of use and agreed to individually arbitrate dispute with
Amazon.  They also allegedly agreed to not bring class actions
over those claims.  The final checkout page included a disclaimer
with a link to Amazon's policy, saying that completing the order
meant customers agreed to Amazon's terms, according to the
retailer's motion to compel arbitration.

"If Plaintiffs did not want to accept the [conditions of use] or
the arbitration agreement, they could have canceled their
purchases before accepting arbitration," Amazon said.  "This court
-- and the [Federal Arbitration Act] -- cannot allow plaintiffs to
ignore their agreements now because they, or their counsel, want
to pursue class claims."

Ms. Fagerstrom also signed off on the agreement when she created
an Amazon account, according to the motion.

Ms. Fagersteom and Mr. Wisely filed their suit in December in San
Diego Superior Court in December before Amazon removed the case to
federal court in January.  They claimed Amazon was liable for
false advertising and negligent misrepresentation, among other
claims, because California law only allowed companies to advertise
old prices if they were the "prevailing market price" in the last
three months.

Amazon's purported discounts were actually similar to competitors'
prices in physical stores, causing the plaintiffs to spend money
on shipping that they could have saved if they didn't think Amazon
had a better deal, according to the complaint.

"Defendant cherry picks the highest price it can find for the item
and uses it to create a significant price discrepancy and the
impression of considerable savings for its customers," the
plaintiffs said.

Amazon pointed to the prominent placement of its conditions of use
disclaimer, noting that it wasn't hidden in a "maze of fine
print."  No one forced the plaintiffs to buy the items either, it
said.

The arbitration agreements have also been upheld in at least three
federal cases, according to Amazon, most recently in a decision
earlier in February that dismissed a proposed class action
accusing Amazon of not doing enough to stop the sale of diet
supplements with dangerous ingredients. U.S. District Judge Sandra
L. Townes ruled the hyperlinked "conditions of use" on the
checkout page, complete with highlighted blue font, were enough to
incorporate those terms into the plaintiffs' purchase agreement.

The plaintiffs are represented by Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Mark L.
Knutson, William R. Restis and Tenton R. Kashima of Finkelstein &
Krinsk LLP.

Amazon is represented by James D. Nguyen -- jimmynguyen@dwt.com --
James C. Grant and Rebecca Francis -- rebeccafrancis@dwt.com -- of
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.

The case is Andrea Fagerstrom et al v. Amazon.com Inc., case
number 3:15-cv-00096, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss TCPA Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Lunsford, writing for insideARM.com, reports that credit
card giant American Express saw a judge in Illinois deny its
motion to dismiss a TCPA class action lawsuit that argues the
financial services company is directly liable for damages under
the statute even though it did not make the calls in question.

American Express had contracted debt collection work to a third
party collection agency.  Plaintiff Jennifer Ossola filed a TCPA
suit in 2013 arguing that AmEx was directly liable for debt
collection calls made to her cell phone placed by the collection
agency.  The suit was expanded to a class action, Ossola, et. al.
v. American Express.

AmEx had previously conceded that it may be held vicariously
liable under the TCPA for calls made on its behalf.  But it filed
a motion for partial summary judgment arguing that it could not be
held directly liable for actions it did not take.

District Judge John Z. Lee, in the Northern District of Illinois,
disagreed in his opinion, writing "American Express, as the
primary creditor, may be held directly liable under the TCPA, even
if the calls were placed by a third-party collector acting on its
behalf."

Judge Lee relied on previous rulings, including Soppet, which
found that "[c]alls placed by a third party collector on behalf of
that creditor are treated as if the creditor itself placed the
call."  He also referenced a 2008 TCPA Order from the FCC that
stated the same.

"With respect to the debt collection phone calls, whether American
Express itself actually placed the calls at issue is irrelevant,"
the judge wrote.

The ruling was not on the merits of the case, merely a rejection
of AmEx's motion for partial summary judgment.  The case will
proceed and AmEx will have more opportunity to defend the direct
liability under the TCPA.

The issue of vicarious liability under the TCPA has been a hot
topic for original creditors for the past couple of years, as
plaintiffs' attorneys began targeting larger companies with larger
pocketbooks.


ANCHOR TOWING: Faces "Gross" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Gross, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Anchor Towing & Marine Transport of Broward, Inc.,
d/b/a H.T.S. Tpwing & Recovery, Case No. 8:15-cv-00442 (M.D. Fla.,
March 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Anchor Towing & Marine Transport of Broward, Inc. is a privately
held company in Broward County, Florida that provides towing
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      14th Floor, 20 N. Orange Ave
      Orlando, FL 32802-4979
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 425-3341
      E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com


ASAHI SHIMBUN: Faces Class Action Over Comfort Women Stories
------------------------------------------------------------
The Korea Observer reports that this past August, the Asahi
Shimbun retracted a number of articles it published about Japan's
sexual enslavement of women during World War II.  The articles
were based on information provided by Seiji Yoshida.  While his
statements were long proven false, it wasn't until 2014 the paper
retracted them and apologized.

To those in Japan's right wing, revisionist circles, the
retractions vindicated their claims that there was no organized
recruitment or coercion.  A group of 2,100 plaintiffs, including
Japanese nationals living abroad in the United States, filed a
class action suit in the Tokyo District Court.


ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Clawson" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lou Ann Clawson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Asset Acceptance LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-00208
(W.D. Okla., March 2, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's
abusive, deceptive and unfair debt collection practices.

Asset Acceptance LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Corporation
that owns and operates a debt collection agency with its principal
place of business in the State of Michigan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      M Kathi Rawls, Esq.
      Minal Gahlot, Esq.
      RAWLS LAW OFFICE PLC
      2404 S Broadway
      Moore, OK 73160
      Telephone: (405) 912-3225
      Facsimile: (405) 703-2769
      E-mail: mkr@rawlslawoffice.com
              minal@rawlslawoffice.com


BACTES IMAGING: April 30 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
COMM OF MASS LEO S FAMA V BACTES IMAGING

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, SS. SUPERIOR COURT
DEPARTMENT

Leo S. Fama, II C.A. No. 2013-01435-BLS1 Attorney At Law, et al.
consolidated with Plaintiff 2013-00681-BLS1, 2013-04165-BLSI, and
2014-00352-BLS1 v. Bactes Imaging Solutions, Inc., Defendant.

NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND HEARING ON PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT

To: All Individuals And Entities Who Requested Records from A
Massachusetts Medical Facility For Use With A Claim Or Lawsuit And
Paid An Invoice From Bactes Imaging Solutions, Inc. For
Fulfillment Services Between February 26, 2007 And June 1, 2014

The above-referenced action is the lead case in several
consolidated class-action litigations (the Consolidated Actions)
filed against Bactes Imaging Solutions, Inc. (Bactes) on behalf of
individuals and entities who submitted requests for medical
records to Massachusetts medical facilities for use in
connection with a claim or litigation and paid a Bactes invoice
for fulfillment services between February 26, 2007 and June 1,
2014 without receiving reimbursement from another (Class Members
and collectively the Class).

The Consolidated Actions assert that Bactes violated Mass. Gen.
Laws chapter 111, section 70 by (1) charging per-page copying fees
(on average, $0.63 per page) for providing copies of non-medical
documents, such as request letters and authorization forms, when
fulfilling records requests; (2) assessing postage charges in
excess of the actual cost of mailing or sending medical records to
requestors (on average, $0.98), and (3) assessing electronic
delivery charges in excess of the actual cost of electronically
transmitting medical records to requestors (on average, $1.66).
The parties have agreed to a settlement of the Consolidated
Actions (the Settlement) whereby Bactes will pay $250,000 to
resolve the claims of the plaintiffs and the Class Members and
will institute measures to prevent the allegedly unauthorized
charges from being assessed in the future.  Because it is
impractical to issue settlement checks to each Class Member for
the nominal amounts at issue, the parties have agreed that Bactes
will distribute the full $250,000 in settlement funds among the
following non-profit entities:

  (1) Health Law Advocates, which provides assistance to low-
income residents for health care access,

  (2) World Privacy Forum, which educates consumers about privacy
rights,

  (3) The National Consumer Law Center, which
focuses on consumer rights,

  (4) Greater Boston Legal Services, which provides legal
assistance to low-income residents, and

  (5) the Massachusetts Legal Assistance Corp., which also
provides legal assistance to low-income residents.

Lastly, Bactes has agreed to pay plaintiffs attorneys fees and
expenses approved by the court in an amount not to exceed
$625,000.  All such amounts will be paid by Bactes and not by the
Class.

The Massachusetts Superior Court preliminarily approved this
settlement.  A final hearing (the Fairness Hearing) will
be held on April 30, at 2:00 p.m., before the Court in Courtroom
1309, Suffolk County Superior Court, Three Pemberton Square,
Boston, MA 02108, during which the parties will ask the Court to:
(1) determine whether, for settlement purposes only, the Courts
preliminary certification of the non-opt-out Class, pursuant to
Massachusetts Rule of Civil Procedure 23, should be made final;
(2) determine whether the Court should grant final approval of the
proposed Settlement on the terms and conditions provided for in
the Parties written settlement agreement as fair, reasonable and
adequate, and in the best interest of the Class; (3) determine
whether judgment should be entered dismissing the Consolidated
Actions with prejudice; (4) consider the application of Plaintiffs
Counsel for attorneys fees and reimbursement of expenses; and (5)
hear and determine any other matters relating to the proposed
Settlement.

Any claims you might have against Bactes for non-compliance with
Mass. Gen. Laws chapter 111, section 70 in connection with the
fulfillment of records requests at any time from February 26, 2007
to June 1, 2014 will be forever released and dismissed as a result
of this Settlement and the Courts approval of it.  If you have any
objection to this Settlement, you must deliver it in writing to
plaintiffs counsel, John R. Yasi, Yasi & Yasi, P.C., Two
Salem Green, Salem, MA 01970, who will provide copies to Bactess
counsel and to the Court.  Your written objection must include the
following case name and civil action number: Leo S. Fama II
Attorney at Law v. Bactes Imaging Solutions, Inc., 2013-10435-
BLS1, and must state the details, including date of your medical
records request that was processed by Bactes, the basis of your
objection, whether you intend to appear at the hearing, the
identity of your counsel if any, and a list of any witnesses or
exhibits you wish to present at the Fairness Hearing.  Class
Members are invited to attend the Fairness Hearing; however, in
order to be heard, you must timely submit a written objection as
outlined immediately above.

For full details about the Consolidated Actions, the claims that
have been asserted by plaintiffs, and the terms and conditions of
the Settlement, you may refer to the papers on file with the
Court.  You or your attorney may examine the Courts files during
regular business hours of each business day at the office of the
Clerk of Court, Civil Clerks Office, 12th Floor, Suffolk County
Superior Court, Three Pemberton Square, Boston, MA 02103


BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Tosses Breach-of-Contract Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck, Evan Weinberger and Stewart Bishop, writing for
Law360, report that a New York federal judge on Feb. 24 tossed a
breach-of-contract class action accusing Bank of America NA of
processing debits on its customers' bank accounts from payday
lenders it allegedly knew were making unlawful online loans,
finding the lead plaintiff failed to state a claim.

Granting Bank of America's motion to dismiss, U.S. District Judge
Arthur D. Spatt said the defendant wasn't required to unilaterally
block or recredit payments that were authorized in connection with
transactions that Jeanette Costoso -- who has deposit accounts
with the bank -- alleged were unlawful.

Costoso claimed the bank knew of the illegal payday loan activity
it was processing on its customers' deposit accounts, after state
officials urged more than 100 banks to block online lenders from
such activities.  She further alleged that individuals with ties
to Bank of America sit on the boards of directors of at least
three of the biggest payday lenders in the U.S.

But Judge Spatt ruled that, while Costoso alleged the payday loan
transactions at issue were illegal, she didn't sufficiently show
that such illegality invalidated her authorization of the
transactions.  Since Bank of America wasn't required to block or
recredit transactions, it can't be liable as a matter of contract
for overdraft and returned item fees in connection with the
transactions, according to the judge.

"It is true that New York's high court has explained that 'from
time immemorial, [governments have sought to] protect desperately
poor people from the consequences of their own desperation,'" the
Feb. 24 memorandum of decision and order said.  "However, it does
not follow that, on these allegations, the plaintiff has a cause
of action against [receiving depository financial institutions]
such as the defendant, either under New York statutory or common
law, based on the alleged failure of the defendant to combat the
practices of payday lenders."

The Feb. 24 decision comes as consumer advocates and state
regulators are pushing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to
come up with strong regulations to protect payday loan borrowers,
who currently have few places to turn for help.  Prosecutors and
regulators in New York and other states have taken a hard line on
payday lending, particularly online loans that violate state laws.

In August 2013, the New York State Department of Financial
Services, which supervises banking and financial institutions in
New York, sent letters to Bank of America other banks that
identified 35 payday lenders that might try to use the banks as
conduits for illegal conduct, according to court filings in the
instant dispute.

Judge Spatt on Feb. 24 ruled that, because Bank of America didn't
violate any express terms of its account agreement when it honored
debits that Costoso authorized the payday lenders to initiate, she
couldn't pursue her claim for breach of the covenant of good faith
and fair dealing.

The judge also tossed her unconscionability claim, saying the sole
case she relied on didn't apply to New York state law.  He further
found that her conversion claim merely restated the breach of
contract claim based on Bank of America's assessment of overdraft
fees.  Additionally, Judge Spatt said Costoso couldn't pursue an
unjust enrichment claim, in light of an account agreement that
defines the rights of the parties in the instant dispute.

Lastly, the judge nixed Costoso's general business law claim,
saying while she plausibly alleged consumer-oriented conduct based
on an agreement Bank of America uses with all of its deposit
account customers, the conduct at issue is basically that the
defendant didn't satisfy its contractual duties -- not that it hid
or misrepresented any contractual terms.

A spokesman for Bank of America told Law360 on Feb. 24 that it was
happy the suit has been resolved in the bank's favor.

Costoso is represented by Darren T. Kaplan of Darren Kaplan Law
Firm PC, Hassan Zavareei and Jeffrey D. Kaliel of Tycko & Zavareei
LLP, Jason H. Alperstein of Kopelowitz Ostrow PA, Gosselin Sathya
of Hausfeld LLP and Stephen N. Six of Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Bank of America is represented by Maria B. Earley, James A.
Huizinga and Benjamin R. Nagin of Sidley Austin LLP.

The case is Jeanette Costoso v. Bank of America NA, case number
2:14-cv-04100, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York.


BANK OF NEW YORK: Sued in Mass. Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ashby Henderson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation;
BNY Mellon National Association; The Bank of New York Mellon
Trust Company, National Association, Case No. 1:15-cv-10599 (D.
Mass., February 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
violation of their fiduciary duties, specifically by, improperly
placing the vast majority of the beneficiaries' trust assets into
mutual funds, common and collective trust, hedge funds and other
investment vehicles that they managed, issued, or sponsored, or to
which they were otherwise financially related.

The Defendants own financial investment banks that operate
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Roddy, Esq.
      BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
      99 High Street, Suite 304
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (617) 439-6730
      Facsimile: (617) 951-3954
      E-mail: jroddy@baileyglasser.com

         - and -

      Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
      BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
      910 17th Street, NW, Suite 800
      Washington, DC 20004
      Telephone: (202) 543-0226
      E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com

         - and -

      Jack W. Lee, Esq.
      Derek G. Howard, Esq.
      Aron K. Liang, Esq.
      MINAMI TAMAKI, LLP
      360 Post Street, 8th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94108
      Telephone: (415) 788-9000
      Facsimile: (415) 398-3887
      E-mail: jlee@minamitamaki.com
              dhoward@minamitamaki.com
              aliang@minamitamaki.com


BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Sued in Tex. Over Gender Discrimination Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike O. Salazar, An Individual, on behalf of himself and on all
others similarly situated v. Bloomin' Brands, Inc., OSI Restaurant
Partners, LLC, Outback Steakhouse of Florida, LLC, and OS
Restaurant Services, LLC, f/k/a OS Restaurant Services, Inc., Case
No. 2:15-cv-00105 (S.D. Tex., March 2, 2015), arises out of the
Defendants' gender discrimination practices, specifically by
failing to provide a gender-neutral and fair workplace.

The Defendants own and operate Outback Steakhouse, an Australian-
themed casual dining restaurant chain in Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mynor Eduardo Rodriguez, Esq.
      Michael Savan Prejean, Esq.
      LAW OFFICEOF MYNOR E. RODRIGUEZ, P.C.
      4265 San Felipe, Ste 1100
      Houston, TX 77027
      Telephone: (713) 968-9828
      E-mail: mynorlaw@gmail.com
              michael@rodrigueztrialfirm.com


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of
Bridgepoint Education, Inc., on Feb. 24 disclosed that it has
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California on behalf of a class
comprising purchasers of Bridgepoint securities between August 7,
2012 and May 30, 2014, inclusive.

Please contact Casey Sadler at (888) 773-9224 or (310) 201-9150,
or at shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this matter.  If you
inquire by email, please include your mailing address, telephone
number and number of shares purchased.

Bridgepoint is a for-profit provider of postsecondary education
services.  The Company's academic institutions include Ashford
University and University of the Rockies, as well as online
institutions.  The Company's institutions deliver programs
primarily online, as well as at their traditional campuses.  The
Complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the
Company had applied an improper revenue recognition methodology to
assess collectability of funds owed by students; (2) as a result,
the Company's revenues and financial results were overstated; (3)
the Company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance
with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); (4) the
Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (5),
as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On May 12, 2014, Bridgepoint revealed that it was unable to timely
file its Quarterly Report for the 2014 fiscal first quarter
because the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") had
informed the Company that a reassessment of its revenue
recognition policy was necessary.  According to the Company, the
SEC was requiring Bridgepoint to reassess whether collectability
was reasonably assured on a student-by-student basis when
recognizing revenue after a student's initial enrollment upon
certain changes in circumstances, such as when a student loses
financial aid eligibility.  Following this news, shares of
Bridgepoint declined nearly 9%, to close on May 12, 2014, at
$14.51 per share, on unusually heavy volume.

Furthermore, on May 30, 2014, Bridgepoint announced that its
financial statements filed with the SEC for the years ended
December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2012, as well as the financial
statements issued for the quarters ended March 31, 2012, June 30,
2012 and September 30, 2012, should no longer be relied upon.
According to the Company, these financial statements contained
errors related to revenue recognition that resulted in material
misstatements of revenue, bad debt expense and accounts
receivable.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court, no later than 60 days from the date of this Notice, to
serve as lead plaintiff, if you meet certain legal requirements.
To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this
time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and
remain an absent member of the Class.  If you wish to learn more
about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Casey Sadler, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow &
Goldberg LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles,
California 90067, at (310) 201-9150, by e-mail to
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
http://www.glancylaw.com

If you inquire by email, please include your mailing address,
telephone number and number of shares purchased.


CHRYSLER GROUP: Seeks Dismissal of Sunroof Defect Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Reed, writing for glassBYTES.com, reports that Chrysler's
attorney has asked the U.S. District Court of New Jersey to
dismiss a nationwide class action lawsuit alleging that a defect
in their vehicles' sunroofs cause them to leak.

Vehicles covered in the lawsuit include the Jeep Patriot, Jeep
Liberty, Jeep Compass, Jeep Commander, Jeep Cherokee, Jeep Grand
Cherokee, Chrysler Town and Country and Chrysler 300.

"Plaintiffs seek to represent a class which encompasses not only
the vehicles they own, but eight different models of vehicles
manufactured during eleven model-years," Chrysler's attorney
writes in court documents.

"There are no allegations that the sunroofs in plaintiffs'
vehicles are the same (e.g., single pane vs. panoramic). . . .
There are no allegations that these sunroofs are all made by the
same component supplier.  Nor are there any allegations that the
sunroofs are made of the same materials and parts.  Likewise,
there are no allegations supporting the notion that the sunroofs
in the vehicles at issue all have the same allegedly defective
'drain tubes,'" Chrysler's attorney writes in court documents.

The plaintiff's lawsuit "suffers from a host of pleading and legal
insufficiencies.  It should be dismissed," according to Chrysler's
attorney.

If the judge decides against dismissing the case, Chrysler's
attorney has filed a motion to strike the plaintiffs' request for
damages.

The plaintiffs include David Cox of Ohio, Melissa Doherty of
Massachusetts, Teresa Hughes of Texas, Anthony Lombardo of New
York, Andrew Manesis of New Jersey and Michael Newcomb of
Massachusetts.  They seek to represent themselves and all others
similarly situated.

Their attorneys claim the alleged defect manifested during the
warranty period for all plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs are seeking contractual, restitutionary and statutory
damages, in addition to injunctive and equitable relief and
attorneys' fees.

The judge had not made any decisions at press time.


COOPER VISION: Manipulates Contact Lens Prices, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Machikawa, Bernadette Goodfellow, and Georgina Lepe, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Cooper Vision, Inc., Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Bausch +
Lomb, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., and Abb Optical Group,
Case No. 3:15-cv-01001 (N.D. Cal., March 3, 2015), alleges that
the Defendants entered into a conspiracy to impose minimum resale
prices on certain contact lens lines by subjecting them to so
called Unilateral Pricing Policies (UPPs) and eliminate price
competition on those products by big box stores, buying clubs, and
internet-based retailers that prevent them from discounting those
products.

The Defendants are United States companies that are engaged in the
business of making eye care products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
      Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
      Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 633-1908
      Facsimile: (415) 217-6813
      E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com
              bsweeney@hausfeldllp.com
              clebsock@hausfeldllp.com

         - and -

      Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
      James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
      Nathaniel C. Giddings, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      1700 K St. NW, Suite 650
      Washington, DC 20006
      Telephone: 202-540-7200
      Facsimile: 202-540-7201
      E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com
              jpizzirusso@hausfeldllp.com
              ngiddings@hausfeldllp.com

         - and -

      Dennis Stewart, Esq.
      HULETT HARPER STEWART LLP
      225 Broadway, Suite 1350
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 338-1133
      Facsimile: (619) 338-1139
      E-mail: dennis@hulettharper.com

         - and -

      Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
      TYCO & ZAVAREEI LLP
      200 L St. NW, Suite 808
      Washington DC 20036
      Telephone: (202) 973-0900
      Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
      E-mail: jkaliel@tzlegal.com

         - and -

      Jeffrey M. Ostrow, Esq.
      Scott A. Edelsberg, Esq.
      KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A.
      200 S.W. 1st Avenue, 12th Floor
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 525-4100
      Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
      E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
              edelsberg@kolawyers.com

         - and -

       Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
       Paula M. Roach, Esq.
       BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
       701 B Street, Suite 1700
       San Diego, CA 92101
       Telephone: (619) 338-1100
       Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
       E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
               proach@bholaw.com


CORPORATE RESOURCE: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------
Weiyong Li, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. John P. Messina, Sr., Michael J. Golde, Joseph
Cassera, Robert Cassera, James Altucher, James Foley, Karen Amato,
Thomas J. Clarke, Jr., Larry Melby, Sylvan Holzer, and Corporate
Resource Services, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01070 (E.D.N.Y., March
2, 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.

Corporate Resource Services, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation
headquartered in New York, New York, which provides diversified
technology, staffing, recruiting, and consulting services in the
United States.

The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of Corporate
Resource Services, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      Phillip Kim, Esq.
      Kevin Chan, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 686-1060
      Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
      E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
              pkim@rosenlegal.com
              kchan@rosenlegal.com


CVS PHARMACY: Falsely Marketed Soft Gel Supplements, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Alvandi, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., and Lang Pharma Nutrition, Inc.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-01503 (C.D. Cal., March 2, 2015), arises out of
the Defendant's claim that CVS Enhanced Absorption Formula CoQ-10
dietary supplements provides Enhanced Absorption, that it
generally supports heart health and benefits statin users.
However, an independent laboratory tests demonstrate that the
softgels used for the product fail to timely rupture within 15
minutes, to exhibit reasonably effective bioavailability through
absorption.

CVS Pharmacy, Inc. is a Rhode Island corporation that owns and
operates pharmacy chain in the United States.

Lang Pharma Nutrition, Inc. is a Rhode Island corporation with its
principal place of business at 20 Silva Lane, Middletown, Rhode
Island 02842.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
      Trevor M. Flynn, Esq.
      Tran Nguyen, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC
      Hillcrest Professional Building
      3636 4th Ave., Ste. 202
      San Diego, CA 92103
      Telephone: (619) 692-3840
      Facsimile: (619) 362-9555
      E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
              trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
              tran@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com

         - and -

      Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
      Skye Resendes, Esq.
      Alexis M. Wood, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON, APLC
      651 Arroyo Drive
      San Diego, CA 92103
      Telephone: (619) 696-9006
      Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
      E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
              skye@consumersadvocates.com
             alexis@consumersadvocates.com


DRIVETIME AUTOMOTIVE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cecilia Liuberes, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. DriveTime Automotive Group Inc. and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-00388 (D. Ariz., March 3, 2015), seeks
to stop the Defendant's practice of placing an automated calls to
the Plaintiff and class member's cellular phones.

DriveTime Automotive Group Inc. is a used car dealer headquartered
in Phoenix, Arizona.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Trinette G. Kent, Esq.
      KENT LAW OFFICES
      10645 N Tatum Blvd., Ste. 200-192
      Phoenix, AZ 85028
      Telephone: (480) 247-9644
      Facsimile: (480) 717-4781
      E-mail: tkent@kentlawpc.com


EDISON INT'L: 401(k) Plan Participants File Class Suit Over Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNNMoney reports that in the initial class-action lawsuit, Tibble
v. Edison, participants in the 401(k) plan sponsored by
California-based utility Edison International argued that they
were being charged excessive fees.

Under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act,
companies that sponsor 401(k) plans have a "fiduciary
responsibility" to act in the best interest of their employees.
The lawsuit claimed that Edison breached this duty in the case of
six of its fund options, where almost identical offerings charging
lower fees were available.

Studies have shown that even a small difference in 401(k)
investment fees can result in the difference of tens of thousands
of dollars of savings.

Lower courts have already sided with the plan's participants,
ruling that the company didn't act in their best interest when it
chose pricier "retail-class" shares of mutual funds when cheaper
"institutional-class" shares were also available.

"Warren Buffett doesn't pay retail and neither should an employee
of a large company 401(k) plan," said Jerry Schlichter, the
attorney representing Glenn Tibble and other participants in the
Edison 401(k) plan.

But Edison has argued that under the federal law's statute of
limitations, plan participants can only sue based on funds that
have been in the plan six years or less.  As a result, it said
that it couldn't be held liable for three of the six funds in
question, since they had been in the plan since 1999 and the
lawsuit wasn't filed until 2007.

Both a district court and an appeals court agreed with Edison.
The plan participants have since appealed those rulings.

Now, the Supreme Court will consider whether 401(k) plan sponsors
have an ongoing duty to monitor the plan's fund offerings, beyond
the six-year statute of limitations.  The case, which is part of a
wave of 401(k)-related lawsuits filed against financial firms and
other companies that allege mismanagement and inappropriately high
fees, is the first to reach the U.S. Supreme Court. A ruling is
expected in the next few months.

Groups like the AARP, the Pension Rights Center and the U.S.
Solicitor General have urged the court to rule in favor of the
Edison 401(k) participants.

They say a plan sponsor's responsibility to monitor the
suitability of investment options is essential to a saver's
retirement security, and should not simply stop after the funds
have been in the plan for more than six years.

While the case centers on a technical issue, a decision in favor
of the 401(k) participants would reinforce the fact that employers
must use their buying power to get the best possible 401(k) deal
for their employees, said Fred Reish, an attorney and partner at
Drinker Biddle and expert in federal retirement law.

"The case itself is . . . about the statute of limitations, but
it's going to have a lot of substantive consequences," he said.


ENGLISH ENTERPRISES: "Colula" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Angel Colula and Jorge Arguello, on behalf of themselves,
FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class v. English Enterprises,
Inc., Olives NY LLC, and Todd  English, Case No. 1:15-cv-01511
(S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate over 20 restaurants in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FPC COFFEES: Faces "Larrea" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Hours
-------------------------------------------------------------
German Larrea, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. FPC Coffees Realty Co., Inc. d/b/a Caffe Reggio,
Fabrizio Prim Cavallacci and Elena A. Batyuk, Case No. 1:15-cv-
01515 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of40 hours
per week.

The Defendants own and operate an Italian Restaurant located at
119 MacDougal Street, New York, New York 10012.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GIARDINO FRESCO: Faces "Jimenez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Jimenez, Jessica Garfias, Jannie Hernandez, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated persons, known and
unknown v. Giardino Fresco, Inc. d/b/a Jelly Jam Restaurants and
Jorge Jimenez, Case No. 1:15-cv-01914 (N.D. Ill., March 3, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate Jelly Jam restaurant located at
6300 West Cermak Avenue, Berwyn, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GRAINERY RESTAURANT: Urged to Respond to Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PHILADELPHIA, PANO. 1408-03277
COMPLAINT IN ARBITRATION

Leonardo Arbelo, Britain Burgos, Ian Burke, William Campbell,
Katie Cloonan, Kaitlyn Ernandes, LauraGable, Elizabeth Garvey Dean
Griffin, Samantha Grinnan, Alexis Haase, Tyrone High,
Adam Kanter, Charles Leamy, Robert Leyrer, Ross Maloof, Sophia
Martin, Craig Moucha, Andrew Nugent, James Packer, Adriana Perez,
Oscar Perez, Shaun Ruppert, Rigoberto Salas DelGado, Kevin
Scullin, William Sederman, Daniel Simpson, Angela Smith, Brody
Smythe, Brandon Szeker, Matthew Towson, Jessica Tramarin, Ryan
Tulaney, Sydney Wilson, David Winward, Plaintiffs,

vs. The Grainery Restaurant Group, LLC, Matthew Swartz, Colleen
Swartz, Pete Antipas and MatthewScheller, Defendants

TO: The Defendants, The Grainery Restaurant Group,LLC,
1111-1113 Walnut Street, Units 1 & 2,Philadelphia, PA 19107 and
Matthew Swartz and Colleen Swartz, 5454 Landis Mill Road,
Bethlehem, PA18015.

TAKE NOTICE THAT Plaintiffs above have filed a COMPLAINT IN
ARBITRATION -- Class Action Suit -- against you, The Defendants.
Plaintiffs aver that they are owed, individually, various sums of
Money with regard to wages earned.

NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT.  If you wish to defend against
the claims set forth in the above, you must take action within
twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served by
entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing
in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the
claims set forth against you.  You are warned that if you fail to
do so the case may proceed without you and a Judgment may be
entered against you by the Court without further notice for any
money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claims or relief
requested by the Plaintiff.

You may lose money or property or other rights important to you.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE.  IF YOU DO NOT
HAVE A LAWYER GO TO OR TELEPHONETHE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW.  THIS
OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER.
THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATIONA BOUT
AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TOELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A
REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE.

Lawyer Referral Service
One Reading Center
11th Fl.,Phila., PA 19107, 215-238-6333

Henry Yampolsky, Esq.
Atty. for Plaintiff
Galfand Berger LLP1835
Market St. Ste. 2710
Philadelphia, PA 19103215-665-16002-26-1

Date of Notice: 02/26/2015


GREEN AIR: Faces "Szabo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Szabo, on behalf of himself, and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown v. Green Air Care Group,
Inc., a/k/a New York Air Duct Cleaning, Edward Babyev, and
Valery Kichatay, Case No. 1:15-cv-01874 (N.D. Ill., March 3,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Green Air Care Group, Inc. provides HVAC heating and air
conditioning cleaning services in the Chicago.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HORIZON SOLAR: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Weisberg, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Horizon Solar Power, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-00361
(C.D. Cal., February 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Horizon Solar Power, Inc. is a California corporation that engaged
in the sale and installation of solar panels for consumer use.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      G. Thomas Martin III, Esq.
      Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq.
      MARTIN & BONTRAGER, APC
      6565 W. Sunset Blvd, Ste. 410
      Los Angeles, CA 90028
      Telephone: (323) 940-1700
      Facsimile: (323) 238-8095
      E-mail: Tom@mblawapc.com
              Nick@mblawapc.com


HUSTLER CLUB: Exotic Dancers File Wage Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Rich Calder, writing for New York Post, reports that the exotic
dancers at Larry Flynt's Hustler Club have become the latest
jiggle-joint workers to file a class-action lawsuit seeking
rightful wages and tips.  The new class-action suit alleges that
the Hells Kitchen skin-and-sin mecca illegally classifies its
strippers as "independent contractors" and not in-house employees
to avoid paying them minimum wage.

The club, named after the infamous porn king, also illegally takes
a cut of the workers' lap-dance earnings by pushing customers to
use pre-paid vouchers called "Beaver Bucks" instead of cash,
according to the Manhattan Federal Court suit.

The dancers' lawyer, Justin Swartz, told The Post that the club
"has refused to clean up its act" -- even though other jiggle
joints in the city have been forced to cough up multimillion-
dollar payouts for similar violations.

For example, Rick's Cabaret's was ordered to shell out $10.8
million in November to current and former dancers who were
wrongfully misclassified as "independent contractors."  And a
month earlier, strippers at New York Dolls, FlashDancers and
Private Eyes landed a combined $4.3 million settlement.

The suit claims dancers are required to pay out-of-pocket "house
fees" for the right to perform.  They also must buy and maintain
"club-approved uniforms" and pay "fines" to the club owners if
they don't make a shift.

Strippers are being screwed out of lap-dance money, too, because
customers are encouraged to use their credit cards to pay for
dances, the suit says.  The customers -- usually the club's
biggest spenders -- obtain vouchers called "Beaver Bucks" when
they use their credit cards, and the club "retains a portion of
the tip when the dancer later exchanges" the funny money "for
cash," the suit says.

"Consequently, customers who believe they are tipping entertainers
a certain amount are actually tipping them less," the suit says.

Although the suit doesn't specify money damages, Mr. Swartz said
more than 1,000 current and former Hustler Club dancers could be
eligible to join the class-action claim, potentially putting the
club on the hook to "make it rain" millions of dollars in damages.

Mr. Flynt is not listed in court records as an owner of the
Hustler Club despite his named being slapped on its front
entrance.  Messages left with the club were not returned.

The joint -- which reportedly is in talks to be razed and replaced
by office condos -- is already involved in another high-profile
legal fight.  Its owners are contesting $2.1 million in taxes that
the state claims it owes by trying to tap into a loophole that
allows Broadway plays and other live-entertainment performances to
skirt sales taxes.


HYUNDAI: U.S. Law Firm Mulls Class Action Over Sonata 2011 Models
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Toronto Star reports that Hyundai generally hit all the marks with
its Alabama-built Sonata: boffo styling inside and out, a long
list of standard features, supreme comfort and everyday luxury
made it easy to live with, say owners.  The value proposition is
strong.

Reliability has been good for the most part -- until drivers rack
up high mileage.  Owners report engine bearing failure, oil
consumption, piston ringland failure and connecting rod knock,
leading to catastrophic engine failure usually after 110,000
kilometres (just beyond the warranty period).  A U.S. law firm is
investigating a class action lawsuit involving 2011 models.

In addition, some Sonatas may exhibit a tendency to pull to the
left or right, despite numerous fixes including wheel alignments,
front subframe adjustments, added camber bolts, new struts and
better tires.

Other reported maladies include jerky automatic transmissions and
seized shifters, short-lived starters, chipping paint, electrical
snafus and faulty taillights.


INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
City of Sterling Heights Police & Fire Retirement System, on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. International Business
Machines Corporation, Virginia M. Rometty, Martin J. Schroeter and
James J. Kavanaugh, Case No. 1:15-cv-01513 (S.D.N.Y., March 2,
2015), alleges that the Defendants disseminated materially false
and misleading financial statements that failed to record an
impairment in the value of the Company's Microelectronics business
in conformity with applicable accounting standards.

International Business Machines Corporation is a multinational
technology and consulting corporation that manufactures and
markets computer hardware and software products and provides its
customers with various information technology ("IT") related
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INTERNATIONAL HOUSE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie McGeshick, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. International House of Pancakes, LLC,
IHOP Franchising, LLC, and Sam Soleimani, d/b/a IHOP, Case No.
3:15-cv-00132 (W.D. Wis., March 2, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate IHOP restaurant located at 2008 N
Mountain Rd., Wausau, WI 54401.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason T. Brown, Esq.
      JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
      155 2nd St., Suite 4
      Jersey City, NJ 07302
      Telephone: (877) 561-0000
      E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com


IRISH RUGBY: Concussion-Related Case Inevitable
-----------------------------------------------
Gavin Cummiskey, writing for The Irish Times, reports that a
concussion-related negligence action against the Irish Rugby
Football Union is inevitable, a senior partner in a respected
Dublin law firm has stated.

Larry Fenelon of Leman solicitors, who are active in sports
arbitration, told The Irish Times that an individual who sustains
a brain injury arising from playing rugby in Ireland has a case.
"Yes they do have a potential suit against clubs, against schools,
against the IRFU," said Mr. Fenelon.  "If it was known within the
rugby community that, for instance, a player with a history of
concussion was played or where guidelines or best practice wasn't
adhered to, well, then they are going to face a potential suit.
It's inevitable, in fact, that it's going to happen.

"The knowledge around concussion within the general public started
gaining traction probably around five years ago but it might well
be the case that on discovery that the IRFU or indeed the IRB [re-
branded World Rugby] were fully aware of the dangers of concussion
and best practice guidelines weren't issued in sufficient time or
that the authorities within the sport weren't doing anything about
it.

Question of knowledge

"It's really a question of knowledge.  When does the knowledge
crystallize within the governing sport and the global governing
body about the dangers of concussion and did they not do something
about it during that period."

Legal action, Mr. Fenelon believes, will occur when current or
recently retired professional players are out of the game for a
sustained period of time.

"Well, in the professional game those under contract are not going
to do it really as they would be biting the hand that feeds them,"
he said.  "Perhaps when players hit their early 40s and their
memory isn't the best or there is something badly wrong, the
neurosurgeon then looks at his medical record and sees rugby and a
history of concussion.

"Then it's a matter of looking back to, say, 2003 and what was the
best practice around concussion then and what were the authorities
doing about it? If they were doing nothing, yet they knew about
it, well, then you have to say a plucky lawyer will take that case
up.  Definitely.

"The data retention of the governing bodies becomes very important
. . . This information is never going to be given up voluntarily.
I suspect they will put up a big fight against an application for
discovery of documents.  That's where I think the real
confrontation is going to begin legally."

Testimony

The outcome of such a case may come down to the testimony of
neurosurgeons, said Mr. Fenelon.  "The neurosurgery community
essentially are going to be the cornerstone of any claim in this
regard. You may have to go abroad as the community is so small and
may be reluctant to turn on the sport of its choice."

The National Football League of America is in negotiation to agree
a $1 billion (EUR880 million) deal to settle a class action suit
by more than 4,500 former players who claimed the NFL hid the
dangers of concussion-related trauma.

"Personal injury lawyers, in particular, are going to look at the
class action suits in America and what is required to bring it
over the line," Mr. Fenelon continued.  "To be fair, global sports
are only getting to grips with this.

"The medical community has been voicing their concern around this
for some time now.  There are certainly players that I know who
have had brain injuries arising from playing too soon after
concussion."

Former St Michael's College student Lucas Neville received EUR2.75
million in damages from his former school and St Vincent's
hospital after sustaining head injuries.

Mr. Fenelon believes another schoolboy case is also inevitable.
"At schools rugby now you have a doctor and physio so their
professional ability is going to get sued or their insurer is
going to get sued.  The referee and his assistants are going to
get sued.  The board of management of the school is going to get
sued. The coach is covered by the board of management. Probably
the Leinster Branch are going to get sued and the IRFU are going
to get sued.

"They are all in the firing line."

The IRFU and World Rugby both confirmed that no legal action with
regards to brain injury has ever been taken against them.


JACARANDA CLUB: Faces "Nutter" Suit Over Failure to Pay Ovetrtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kamilya Nutter, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Jacaranda Club, LLC, d/b/a/ Sapphire New York,
Jacaranda Holdings, LLC, Sapphire NY, LLC, Club at 60th St.,
Inc., David Michael Talla, Jeffrey Wasserman, and Glen Peter
Bernardi, Case No. 1:15-cv-01555 (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Defendants own and operate an adult entertainment club in New
York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Frank Rocco Schirripa, Esq.
      John Anthony Blyth, Esq.
      Michael A. Rose, Esq.
      HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP
      185 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 779-0057
      Facsimile: (212) 779-0028
      E-mail: fs@hachroselaw.com
              jb@hachroselaw.com
              ss@hachroselaw.com

         - and -

      Steven Jay Harfenist, Esq.
      FREIDMAN, HARFENIST, LANGER & KRAUT
      3000 Marcus Avenue
      Lake Success, NY 11042
      Telephone: (516) 775-5800
      Facsimile: (516) 775-4082
      E-mail: sharfenist@hkplaw.com


JAMG RESTAURANT: "Cerezo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Nicolas Cerezo and John Doe, on behalf of themselves, FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs and the Class v. JAMG Restaurant Corp.,
Eleftheria Rest Corp., Dimitrios Mitsios and Athanasios Mitsios,
Case No. 1:15-cv-01512 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages and
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant with a principal place
of business located at 905 White Plains Road, Bronx, New York
10463.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JCS SECURITY: Faces "Castillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Miriam Castillo and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b) v. JCS Security Force Corporation, Juan C. Walters,
Case No. 1:15-cv-20860 (S.D. Fla., March 2, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a guard and protection services
company in Miami, 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


JIMMY JOHN'S: Faces "Watsons" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Watson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Jimmy John's, LLC, Jimmy John's Franchise, LLC, and
Jimmy John's Enterprises, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00768 (S.D. Ohio,
March 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a franchised sandwich restaurant
chain with its principal place of business at 2212 Fox Drive,
Champaign, Illinois 61820.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Drew T. Legando, Esq.
      Jack Landskroner, Esq.
      LANDSKRONER-GRIECO-MERRIMAN, LLC
      1360 W. 9th, Suite 200
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 522-9000
      Facsimile: (216) 522-9007
      E-mail: drew@lgmlegal.com
              jack@lgmlegal.com


LA TULIPE: Faces "Becerra" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Guillermo Becerra, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. La Tulipe Desserts, Inc. (d/b/a La Tulipe Desserts),
Frances Steenman and Maarten Steenman, Case No. 1:15-cv-01516
(S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per
week.

The Defendants own and operate a bakery located at 455 Lexington
Avenue, Mount Kisco, New York 10549.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LENOVO US: Faces "Hall" Over Harmful Preinstalled Spywares
----------------------------------------------------------
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. 3:15-cv-
00964 (N.D. Cal., March 2, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants'
practice of selling new computers with preinstalled harmful and
offensive spyware and malware.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      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

                           *     *     *

Gregg Keizer, writing for Computerworld, reports that Lenovo and
adware maker Superfish came under more legal fire on Feb. 23 as
two new lawsuits were filed in California federal courts taking
the firms to task for putting consumers at risk of hacker spying
and information theft.

The two complaints -- the second and third since the China-based
computer OEM (original equipment manufacturer) admitted it had
pre-loaded adware on its consumer PCs in the second half of 2014
-- named both Lenovo and Superfish, and each lawsuit requested
class-action status so that others could join the case.

The first lawsuit covered much of the same ground as the two
lodged on Feb. 23.

David Hunter of North Carolina, the plaintiff in one of the
lawsuits, alleged that Lenovo and Superfish violated the U.S.
Electronic Communications Privacy Act and other laws, and asked
that the court force the firms to surrender any revenue generated
by the sale of consumers' browsing data and monies earned from the
advertising produced by the adware.

Hunter said he bought a Lenovo Y50 laptop -- one of dozens of
models Lenovo said it had pre-installed Superfish on from
September through December 2014 -- via the OEM's website in
October.

In the second complaint, filed by Sterling International
Consulting Group (SICG) of Statesville, NC, Lenovo and Superfish
were charged with breaking the U.S. Wiretapping Act, state and
federal anti-fraud regulations and other laws.

Of the two new complaints, Hunter's was the more interesting as it
relied not only on press reports about Superfish's vulnerability
and Lenovo's actions both before and after the explosion of
information, but also dug a bit deeper and offered insights into
the adware's operation.

The complaint drew a line between Superfish and Komodia, the
Israeli company whose technology the former used in its Visual
Discovery adware to circumvent browser-to-server encryption, and
whose self-signed certificate's password was easily cracked.

Hunter's lawyers brought up Komodia Redirector, Komodia's flagship
product that the firm boasts "intercepts traffic on the local
machine based on rules that you [the developer] define."

"Defendants' local proxy is their version of a product sold by
non-party Komodia, which is marketed as a 'redirector product'
('Komodia Redirector')," stated Hunter's complaint.  "The Komodia
Redirector lets defendants 'redirect traffic' away from the user's
intended recipient and 'to the proxy service.  When a connection
is made' by the user, the Komodia Redirector determines whether a
specific communication 'should be intercepted' and then intercepts
and reroutes the communications to the local proxy."

Security researcher Marc Rogers of CloudFlare, one of several
experts who has investigated Lenovo's use of Superfish and the
latter's behavior, called out the Komodia-made proxy for not
properly implementing SSL (secure socket layer) -- the Web's
encryption standard -- leaving PCs with the software open to
tampering or eavesdropping, even if the certificate hadn't been
junk.

"In one move, this software trashes the last decade of browser
security and privacy work, and the last five years of SSL cipher
management," Rogers argued in a Feb. 19 post to his personal blog.

Lenovo on Feb. 24 declined to respond to the new lawsuits, with
its head of corporate communications, Brion Tingler, saying, "We
do not comment on pending legal matters," in an email.

Superfish also declined comment on the lawsuits' specifics, like
Lenovo citing the pending litigation . But in a statement, company
CEO Adi Pinhas said, "Superfish takes these matters seriously and
is reviewing the allegations in the complaints."


LIH PROPERTY: "Davis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Quirieo Davis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. LIH Property Management Services LLC, and Franco
Corniel, in his individual capacity, Case No. 1:15-cv-01522
(S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants manage an apartment building located at 1605
University Avenue, Bronx, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander Todd Coleman, Esq.
      Michael John Borrelli, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES
      1010 Northern Blvd., St. 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com
              mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com

         - and -

      Rebecca Solomon Predovan, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
      1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (518) 321-7075
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: rifbecca@gmail.com


LINKEDIN CORP: Settles Class Suit Over Password Leak for $1.25MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that
professional networking website LinkedIn has agreed to compensate
800,000 premium subscribers whose passwords were leaked in 2012.

Under a settlement tentatively approved by Judge Edward Davila for
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California's
San Jose Division in January, those users are eligible to make a
claim on the settlement fund, worth $1.25 million.

"Following the dismissal of every other claim associated with this
lawsuit, LinkedIn has agreed to this settlement to avoid the
distraction and expense of ongoing litigation," the company said
in an emailed statement.

In June 2012, LinkedIn announced that hackers had stolen and
published nearly 6.5 million member passwords on a Russian hacker
website.  The stolen passwords had been "hashed," but not
"salted." Salting is a way to randomize hashes.

Soon after, plaintiff Katie Szpyrka brought a putative class
action in the Northern District of California.
She alleged claims for damages and injunctive relief against
LinkedIn for failing to "properly safeguard" her personal
information in accordance with industry standards and its own user
agreements.

Ms. Szpyrka later consolidated her action with three others.

According to court documents, the class members never indicated
they were damaged by the breach in some way, only deceived by
LinkedIn.  The company denies that it committed, threatened or
attempted to commit any wrongdoing alleged in the action.
However, it agreed that further defense of the action would be
"protracted, risky, burdensome and expensive."

Those users who paid a fee to LinkedIn for a premium subscription
from March 15, 2006 and June 7, 2012 are eligible to make a claim
for payment.  The deadline to make a claim is May 2.

Payments could range from $1 to $50 after the plaintiffs' lawyers'
fees are paid and depending on the number of claims filed.

A final approval hearing is scheduled for June 18.

Kim Stone, president of the Civil Justice Association of
California, which advocates for legal reforms to restrict tort
recovery, said, generally speaking, the state's class action laws
are tilted in favor of the plaintiff.

"But we often see settlements where the lawyers get millions and
the class members get pennies, or coupons -- or, in this case, a
few dollars," she said in an email.

According to a search of LinkedIn, only one of the attorneys
listed as counsel for the plaintiff class, Ari Scharg of Edelson
PC, had a public profile.

Meanwhile, three of LinkedIn's attorneys, Michael Rhodes --
rhodesmg@cooley.com -- Benjamin H. Kleine and Matthew D. Brown --
brownmd@cooley.com -- all of Cooley LLP, could be found on the
website.


MARION COUNTY, IN: Ex-Offenders Claim Detention Problems Rampant
----------------------------------------------------------------
Russ McQuaid, writing for FOX59, reports that more former inmates
from the Marion County Jail are coming forward to claim they, too,
were forced to serve several days of additional sentences due to
jail computer and staffing problems.

The ex-offenders called FOX59 News after learning of a federal
lawsuit filed on behalf of four former inmates who claimed they
were held for up 72 additional hours behind bars after judges
ordered them freed.

"It's a messed up system," said Brian Kaufman.  "It's just really
scary."

Mr. Kaufman pleaded guilty last summer to a drunk driving charge.
He was given time served plus 24 hours.  When Mr. Kaufman turned
himself in on a Friday morning, he expected to be home for lunch
on Saturday.

Mr. Kaufman was not released until the following Monday afternoon,
some 54 hours after his sentence was completed.

"I just remember them saying, 'Our computers are down.' That's not
my problem.  I can't help it that your system is down.  The judge
and the prosecutor signed that I was supposed to be in here 24
hours.  I agreed to do 24 hours.  I got work to do.  I was hoping
to go to church on Sunday.  I wasn't able to do any of that."

Mr. Kaufman was held at Jail II, a privately run facility
affiliated with the Marion County Jail on East Washington Street.

"They're moving me from area to area.  My family is calling
wanting to know what's going on.  They're working on it.  They
don't know.  I think at one point in time they told them I was
already out, that I'd been released.  I'm talking to them on the
phone, 'I'm obviously not out. I'm calling you collect from jail.
I should've been out of here.'"

Mr. Kaufman was also sentenced to spend 365 days on probation.  He
said once the probation and sheriff's offices realized their
mistake and his overdetention, the father-to-be was offered a
break on his sentence.

"I know they tried to take two days off my probation for it.  I
would take two years of probation over anytime in jail I'm not
supposed to serve.  I don't care about two days of my probation."

It was a probation violation, failure to call a drug reporting
line, that landed Kisha Buckner in the main jail just before
Thanksgiving of last year.

Ms. Buckner had been found guilty of forgery in 2013 and was given
two years probation and no jail time.

Instead, the grandmother spent the holiday in jail awaiting a
Dec. 8 hearing, but her probation officer and public defender
didn't appear in court, and Buckner was sent back to jail for
another nine days.

"On the 17th the judge released me out so I would be getting out,"
said Ms. Buckner, "so I thought I would be getting out that day."

That Wednesday afternoon stretched into Wednesday night, all
Thursday and finally Friday morning before the sheriff found the
keys to Buckner's jailhouse door.

"They kept telling me I wasn't going to get out because they
didn't have enough workers," said Ms. Buckner.  "'The computers
are down.' I said, 'Can you tell me what step I am on now?' And
they said, 'I'll go see.  Well the computers are down.' I said,
'The computers are down?' Yeah, I heard that two or three times.
I heard that on Wednesday and Thursday.  'The computers are
down.'"

The sheriff's department has struggled to master the Odyssey
computer system, a new case tracking system endorsed by the
Indiana Supreme Court for Marion County's court, jail, prosecutor,
police, public defender and probation systems, and its own
Offender Management System.

FOX59 News has reported the system's multiple failures dating back
to last summer when several inmates were mistakenly released from
the Marion County Jail.

Offenders and their families often called FOX59 News during the
last half of 2014, complaining inmates were being held up to 72
hours beyond their court-ordered release.

Sheriff's officials told FOX59 News the problem would be solved
weeks before Sheriff John Layton successfully ran for re-election
last November.

Sheriff Layton's office has refused comment on the pending lawsuit
which could lead to renewed inquiry or oversight by a federal
judge.

Richard Waples, an attorney representing four inmates in the class
action lawsuit, told FOX59 News there is no state law that permits
the jail to hold inmates for three days past their ordered release
as several offenders claim they were told by corrections officers.

"I thought, thank goodness somebody is actually doing something
about this because this is a serious situation," said Mr. Kaufman
after he learned of the federal lawsuit.  "What happens if
somebody in my particular scenario would've gotten killed?
Would've gotten hurt? They were supposed to be out 48, 62 hours
ago.  That person gets hurt by another inmate.  What if this
person happens to commit suicide? What if somebody does something
when they were supposed to be out? I mean, the jail's really going
to be in trouble at that point.

"When a judge or prosecutor or whomever signs off on something,
that's what it should be.  Their word's no good."


MAXLINEAR INC: Faces "Mouw" Suit Over Unlawful Company Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Mouw, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated and derivatively on behalf of Entropic Communications,
Inc. v. Maxlinear, Inc., Excalibur Acquisition Corporation,
Excalibur Subsidiary, LLC, Umeshpadval, Theodore Tewksbury,
William G. Bock, Kenneth A. Merchant, Keith E. Bechard and Robert
L. Bailey, and Entropic Communications, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-
00464 (S.D. Cal., March 2, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the
sale of Entropic to MaxLinear, in an unfair process and to an
unfair price.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MERCK & CO: Faces Class Action Over MMR Trials
----------------------------------------------
Erin Barker, writing for Herald and News, reports that a
whistleblower from the Centers for Disease Control has recently
disclosed evidence that Merck knew of certain factors that
increase a child's risk of autism following MMR.  The study group
was allegedly pruned to exclude children in the greatest risk
group, to create a desired outcome.

Approximately 1,000 documents have been handed over to Congress,
and in January the Supreme Court ruled there is sufficient
evidence to go to trial.

Merck is also being sued in a class action suit for fraud by
several doctors, competitors -- and the biggest purchaser of MMR,
the federal government -- for manipulating data during their MMR
trials to make the vaccine appear more effective.


NESTLE PURINA: Sued in D. Mass. Over Alleged Toxins in Dog Food
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Malcolm, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Nestle Purina Petcare Company, Case No. 1:15-cv-10598
(D. Mass., February 27, 2015), alleges that the Defendant's
Beneful brand dog food contains substances that are toxic to
animals and that have reportedly resulted in the serious illness
and death of thousands of dogs.

Nestle Purina Petcare Company is a Missouri corporation with a
principal place of business at Checkerboard Square, St. Louis,
Missouri. It is one of the leading manufacturers of pet foods in
the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Pastor, Esq.
      PASTOR LAW OFFICE, LLP
      63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (617) 742-9700
      Facsimile: (617) 742-9701
      E-mail: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com

         - and -

      Kenneth G. Gilman, Esq.
      GILMAN LAW LLP
      8951 Bonita Beach Road, S.E. Suite 525
      Bonita Springs, FL 34135-4208
      Telephone (781) 307-2526
      E-mail: kgilman@gilmanlawllp.com

         - and -

      Preston W. Leonard, Esq.
      LEONARD LAW OFFICE, P.C.
      63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: 617-329-1295
      E-mail: pleonard@theleonardlawoffice.com


NEW YORK: Police Dept. Sued Over Alleged Racial Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Gonzalez, Ritchie Baez, Adhyl Polanco, and Pedro Serrano, on
behalf of a class of all others similarly situated v. The City Of
New York, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01498 (S.D.N.Y., March 2,
2015), is brought on behalf of the African-American and Latino
minority police officers who were denied of upgrades, promotions,
overtime and accrued time earned, and for discrimination in their
employment on the basis of race, as a result of the imposition of
illegal quotas and illegal penalties.

The City of New York is a municipal corporation duly organized and
existing under the laws of the State of New York, exercising
governmental authority.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chukwuemeka Nwokoro, Esq.
      SMITH, MAZURE, DIRECTOR, WILKINS, YOUNG & YAGERMAN, PC
      111 John Street
      New York City, NY 10038
      Telephone: (212) 964-7400
      Facsimile: (212) 374-1935

          - and -

      Serhiy Hoshovsky, Esq.
      GVOZD & HOSHOVSKY LAW FIRM
      33 West 19th Street
      New York, NY 10011
      Telephone: (646) 619-1123
      Facsimile: (212) 620-8183
      E-mail: shoshovsky@ghslegal.com


NEW YORK: Occupy Wall Street Class Action Ruling Reversed
---------------------------------------------------------
Tom Brown and Joseph Ax, writing for Reuters, report that a
federal appeals court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by hundreds of
Occupy Wall Street protesters who were arrested on New York's
Brooklyn Bridge in 2011 at the height of the movement against
income inequality and wealth distribution in the United States.

In a ruling released late on Feb. 23, the 2nd U.S. Circuit of
Appeals in New York reversed its own August 2014 decision allowing
the class action over alleged police misconduct to proceed.

The 2-1 decision by a three-judge panel was a rare example of the
court choosing to vacate its own earlier ruling.

The 2011 lawsuit was filed against New York City police officers
involved in arresting some 700 Occupy Wall Street protesters three
days earlier during a march over the Brooklyn Bridge.

Many of the protesters claimed they were unlawfully arrested and
tricked into believing the march, which blocked traffic, had been
authorized since police initially blocking the thoroughfare had
retreated and allowed the protesters to move forward.

In its decision, the court said there was no evidence the
protesters had been authorized to block traffic and create a
public disturbance.

"There was no explicit consultation between the leaders of the
demonstration and the police about what conduct would be
permitted," the court wrote.  "Nor was there any express statement
from any police official authorizing the protesters to cross the
Bridge on the vehicular roadway, opining that doing so would be
lawful, or waiving the enforcement of any traffic regulation."

The court did not explain why it had originally let the class
action proceed.

Nick Paolucci, a spokesman for the New York City Law Department
which defends the city against lawsuits, called the court's
decision "proper."

"As we have consistently maintained, the alleged facts and
multiple videotapes of the events do not show that the plaintiffs
were ever granted permission to march onto and block all vehicular
traffic on the roadway of the Brooklyn Bridge," Mr. Paolucci said
in a statement.

Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, a lawyer for the class action plaintiffs,
called the court's decision "extremely abrupt" and said it showed
that "the judiciary is unwilling to hold the police accountable"
for misconduct.

The bridge protesters were "peaceful and compliant with all
directives from the police," she said.


NORDSTROM INC: Averts Class Action Over Bag-Check Policy
--------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck and Beth Winegarner, writing for Law360, report that a
California federal judge on Feb. 24 refused to grant class
certification in a suit accusing Nordstrom Inc. of not paying its
workers for time spent undergoing bag checks, finding employees
had the option to not bring bags and thus skip the checks.

In an order denying plaintiff's motion for class certification,
U.S. District Judge Otis D. Wright II said Nordstrom's evidence
overwhelmingly showed that the bag checks were conducted randomly.
Moreover, Nordstrom can't be liable to employees who were never
subject to the policy, the judge ruled.

Lead plaintiff Shamea Ogiamien, a former non-exempt Nordstrom
employee, had previously contended that the checks were
"absolutely mandatory," court papers said.  But Judge Wright noted
that she admitted at her deposition that she could have avoided
the inspections if she chose not to bring her bag.

"This is not a case of lapses in enforcement," the Feb. 24 order
said.  "The actual language of Nordstrom's policy does not
indicate that bag checks were a required ritual each time an
employee leaves the store.  At best, the language in the policy is
ambiguous."

The Feb. 24 decision comes as Apple Inc. is battling a similar
California federal class action by retail workers claiming that
company didn't pay them for time spent undergoing bag and gadget
checks.

The instant suit was originally filed in California state court in
May 2013 but removed to federal court the following August.  A
third amended complaint was filed a year ago.

Ms. Ogiamien sought to certify a class of every Nordstrom employee
during the four years before the filing of the class action.
Nordstrom argued that the class couldn't be certified because
there would have to be individual inquiries as to which employees
brought bags, which of those employees were subject to bag checks,
whether they left the store for breaks and if they left for breaks
with or without bags.

Judge Wright on Feb. 24 sided with Nordstrom, saying the evidence
showed that not every employee carried a bag and not every
employee with a bag was checked.

"Nordstrom even provided [a report from an expert] who analyzed
more than 1,700 employees departing 12 different stores and found
that more than a quarter of employees he observed left the store
without any bags," it said.  "Nordstrom's bag-check policy cannot
create any liability for Nordstrom with respect to that employee
-- there are simply no lost wages."

While Judge Wright found a common question of whether Nordstrom's
policy resulted in loss wages, he said the class didn't meet the
predominance requirement needed for certification because it's
possible a large percentage of the proposed members were never
harmed by the policy.

The judge noted that another California federal judge in August
2013 refused to certify a class of 84,000 workers for Macy's
Corporate Services Inc.  whose suit similarly claimed the
department store chain didn't pay them for loss-control
inspections of their belongings.  Even though Macy's had a bag
check policy that facially covered all employees, the inspection
protocols only applied to workers who chose to travel with
packages or baggage, that judge decided, according to court
documents.

Ms. Ogiamien is represented by Scott B. Cooper and Samantha Smith
of the Cooper Law Firm PC, Kashif Haque, Samuel Wong and Jessica
L. Campbell of Aegis Law Firm PC and Roger Carter of the Carter
Law Firm.

Nordstrom is represented by Julie A. Dunne -- jdunne@littler.com
-- Joshua Levine and Dominic J. Messiha -- dmessiha@littler.com --
of Littler Mendelson PC.

The case is Shamea Ogiamien et al. v. Nordstrom Inc., case number
2:13-cv-05639, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California.


NVIDIA CORP: Offers Refunds Following GTX 970 Memory Issue
----------------------------------------------------------
Brad Chacos, writing for PCWorld, reports that Nvidia and their
hardware partners have remained mum about the furor buzzing around
the GeForce GTX 970, but it looks like at least some disgruntled
customers are receiving refunds for their graphics cards, courtesy
of point-of-sale e-tailers like Amazon and Newegg.

Perhaps not coincidentally, Nvidia was also slapped with a class
action lawsuit alleging false advertising of the GTX 970's
capabilities.

A quick catch-up: Nvidia's GTX 970 launched to universal acclaim
for its stunning blend of power efficiency, pure performance, and
a (comparatively cheap) $330 starting price point.  In fact, the
GTX 970 was so competitive that AMD was immediately forced to
shave hundreds of dollars off its flagship Radeon graphics cards.

But gamers soon started noticing something amiss.  Whenever the
4GB GTX 970 inched past 3.5GB of memory use, games began
stuttering in certain scenarios.  Nvidia was eventually forced to
admit that the card actually uses a -- let's say unconventional --
memory design that splits the memory into two pools: A full-speed
3.5GB segment and a far slower 512MB segment.  More concerning,
Nvidia also revealed that the GTX 970 technical specifications
sent to reviewers were incorrect and exaggerated due to an
internal communications error.  These facts came to light four
month's after the card's launch.

Principle in processing

The specification revelations didn't change the fact that the GTX
970 was still a beast of a card for the price, and subsequent
testing by PC Perspective, Guru3D, and Hardware Canucks showed
that negative effects are difficult to produce in the real world,
at least in single card setups.  To use more than 3.5GB in most
games requires playing at very high resolutions (typically 4K or
multi-monitor situations) at dismally low frame rates, with anti-
aliasing settings cranked.

But multi-card SLI setups could theoretically be more affected, as
further PC Perspective testing suggested.  And many GTX 970 buyers
were upset at Nvidia in principle.  Refunds were demanded.  A
Change.org petition circulated as Nvidia remained silent on that
front, and is currently signed by nearly 9000 people.

While Nvidia and its partners have yet to change their official
stance, numerous user reports began to appear on Reddit claiming
that Amazon and Newegg have begun offering refunds on GTX 970
purchases when asked.  Some users claim to have been able to keep
their cards while receiving 20 percent of the purchase price back,
sometimes in store credit.  Several user comments in a PC
Perspective post covering the issue also appear to corroborate the
information.  Not all buyers report being successfully negotiating
a refund, however, so your mileage may vary.

In Europe, both Overclockers UK and Caseking will let upset buyers
return their GTX 970s.

AMD's pushing hard to convince GTX 970 buyers to join Team Red
with that refund money, slashing prices and conducting an
#IWant4GB campaign on social media.


OGNIO GRADING: "Lucier" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Don Lucier, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
Ognio Grading, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00040 (N.D. Ga.,
March 3, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, an
additional equal amount as liquidated damages, and obtain
declaratory relief under the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Ognio Grading, Inc. is a construction company with its principal
place of business located in Fayette County, Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      Suite 400, 600 N. Pine Island Road
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 318-0268
      Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
      E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com


PETERBOROUGH REGIONAL: Privacy Class Action Can Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Naudie, Esq., Michael Watts, Esq., Adam Kardash, Esq.,
Jeffrey Murray, Esq., of Osler reports that in a significant
decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in Hopkins v. Kay that
a private plaintiff may bring a class proceeding for damages in
tort against Peterborough Regional Health Centre (PRHC or the
Hospital) for the unauthorized access to personal health
information, even in circumstances where the Information and
Privacy Commissioner of Ontario has closed his investigation.  The
Court rejected the argument that Personal Health Information
Protection Act (PHIPA) was a comprehensive code that precluded
tort claims, and in so doing, the Court has signalled that health
information custodians may face significant civil exposure in
damages for future incidents involving unauthorized access to
personal health information by a rogue employee or third party.
The decision also suggests that private plaintiffs might be able
to pursue class proceedings for privacy breaches in other
provinces that have comprehensive privacy statutes, as well in
regulated sectors and industries where the legislature has created
a separate regulatory and enforcement regime.

The Breach at the Peterborough Regional Health Centre

In 2011, the Peterborough Regional Health Centre discovered that a
number of employees, including a supervising nurse, appeared to
have accessed the personal health information of up to 280
patients without their advance knowledge or consent.  Based on
media reports, the breach included unauthorized access to the
records of a victim of domestic violence who was in hiding and
unauthorized access to hundreds of therapeutic abortion files by a
records clerk that was an anti-abortion activist.

The PRHC took prompt remedial action, including disciplinary
action against the employees in question.  As required by PHIPA,
the PRHC also provided notice to the patients whose records
appeared to have been improperly accessed.  Based on public
reports, the Commissioner commenced an investigation in May 2011
focused on the Hospital's conduct.  However, the Commissioner did
not take further action against the Hospital, on the basis that
the Hospital "responded reasonably" to the incident by notifying
the affected patients, firing the employees involved and
conducting a Hospital-wide privacy campaign.  As a result, the
Commissioner determined that "no further action was warranted"
against the Hospital and appears to have formally closed its file.

The Class Action Against the PRHC

A group of affected patients was not satisfied with the outcome of
the Commissioner's investigation and determined to seek their own
relief from the Court.  In spite of the provisions of PHIPA that
suggested that the legislature had adopted a comprehensive
regulatory regime for addressing privacy issues in the health care
system, the affected patients launched a class action against the
Hospital that sought over $5 million in damages for breach of
PHIPA, breach of contract, breach of confidentiality, negligence
and the tort of intrusion upon seclusion.

In response to this claim, the Hospital brought a motion that
sought to strike the proposed class action on a preliminary basis,
on the grounds that the legislature precluded the possibility of a
private action for breach of privacy, or the possibility of a
class proceeding, by adopting the regulatory regime in PHIPA. In
so doing, the Hospital relied on a similar decision by the B.C.
Court of Appeal from 2009 that suggested that there was no common
law claim for breach of privacy in light of the legislature's
adoption of a regulatory regime under the Privacy Act (B.C.).

By the time that the motion was argued before Justice Edwards of
the Ontario Superior Court in 2013, the affected patients had
limited their claims for damages for the tort of the intrusion
upon seclusion.  At first instance, the Court dismissed the
Hospital's motion in January 2014.  Given the state of the law,
the Court found that it was not plain and obvious that the
plaintiffs could not succeed in their proposed class proceeding.
The Court further indicated that given the Court of Appeal's
decision in Jones, the Hospital would likely require direction
from the Court of Appeal to succeed in its argument.  In light of
that direction, the Hospital appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The appeal was argued in December 2014.  In an interesting
development, the Commissioner intervened on the appeal and argued
that PHIPA does not prevent private plaintiffs (and class
plaintiffs) from pursuing actions for damages in tort, even in
cases where the Commissioner did not take regulatory action.

The Court of Appeal's Decision

The Court of Appeal unanimously found that PHIPA was not an
exhaustive code, and did not preclude a private plaintiff (or a
class plaintiff) from pursuing an action in tort against a health
care institution for a privacy breach.3 In its decision, the Court
placed considerable deference to the views of the Commissioner
regarding the scope of the statute.  The Court also noted that the
Commissioner might not pursue an investigation for a number of
reasons that should not impair the ability of a plaintiff to seek
personal compensation.

As the Court noted, "[the Commissioner's] primary objective in
achieving an appropriate resolution will not be to provide an
individual remedy to the complainant, but rather to address
systemic issues."

The Court also distinguished the law of Ontario from the law in
B.C. -- in short, the Court reasoned that in B.C., the legislature
appeared to have created a distinct statutory cause of action for
breach of privacy, whereas in Ontario, the legislature had not
gone that far.  In light of that void in Ontario, the Court
determined that the plaintiffs in the proposed class action were
entitled to pursue their claims based on the "distinct common law
tort" that had been recognized in Jones.


PARK AVENUE: Faces "Bahena" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vicente Bahena, Jonas Bahena, Jose Cruz Ayala, and Rafael
Rodriguez v. Park Avenue South Management LLC, et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-01507 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours per week.

Park Avenue South Management LLC owns and operates numerous other
residential buildings in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Grace Cathryn Cretcher, Esq.
      BERANBAUM MENKEN BEN-ASHER & BIERMAN LLP
      80 Pine Street-32nd Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 509-1616
      Facsimile: (212) 509-8088
      E-mail: gcretcher@nyemployeelaw.com


PUERTO RICO: Electric Energy Authority Faces Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Puerto Rico's heavily indebted
power company was slapped on Feb. 24 with a federal class-action
lawsuit alleging the agency joined several international oil
companies in overcharging customers in the U.S. territory by more
than $1 billion.

The lawsuit filed by Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
names 20 defendants, including Brazil's Petrobras, the Shell
Trading Company and Puma Energy Caribe LLC.  It alleges that
Puerto Rico's Electric Energy Authority overpaid suppliers in
exchange for hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of kickbacks,
and overpaid for millions of barrels of oil that did not meet U.S.
environmental standards.  The agency is considered one of the
largest public power companies in the U.S.

"The scheme has certainly contributed to the overall recession
that Puerto Rico has been in," Beth Fegan -- beth@hbsslaw.com --
an attorney with Hagens Berman, said in a telephone interview.

The Electric Energy Authority is accused of paying regular prices
for subpar fuel oil and passing the cost to clients since January
2002, as well as allegedly falsifying thousands of lab reports
that tested its quality.

Jorge Concepcion, director of the power company's legal affairs,
said he had not received a copy of the lawsuit and declined to
comment.

Ms. Fegan said attorneys are seeking a still undefined amount of
money for the plaintiffs.  A jury trial has been requested.
The lawsuit comes as the island's government tries to reform the
power company following complaints of corruption and electricity
bills that average about twice those of the U.S. mainland. The
company also holds some $9 billion in debt, and U.S. investors
have grown increasingly concerned that it might soon go bankrupt.
Legislators have already begun reviewing similar allegations as
part of the reform, while government prosecutors have accused some
power company officials of fraud in a case related to renewable
energy contracts.  The case is currently being heard in court, but
no one has been arrested.

Puerto Rico depends on petroleum to generate nearly 70 percent of
its electricity, with the power company paying more than $3
billion a year for fuel oil.


RBS CITIZENS: Illegally Collects Annual Fees, "Block" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Block, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. RBS Citizens, National Association, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
01524 (D.N.J., February 27, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's
unlawful practice of collecting $100 annual fees, in violation of
the plain language of the printed, uniformly-worded form contract
documents which promised no such fees would be charged.

RBS Citizens, National Association, Inc. is a national bank
headquartered at One Citizens Plaza, Providence, Rhode Island,
02903.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen P. Denittis, Esq.
      Joseph A. Osefchen, Esq.
      Shane T. Prince, Esq.
      DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, PC
      5 Greentree Centre
      525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
      Marlton, NJ 08053
      Telephone: (856) 797-9951
      Facsimile: (856) 797-9978
      E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com
              josefchen@denittislaw.com
              sprince@denittislaw.com


REGENETEK RESEARCH: MS Patients Mulls Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Karen Pauls, writing for CBC News, reports that the RCMP and
Health Canada are looking into complaints from patients against
Winnipeg stem cell researcher Doug Broeska and his company,
Regenetek Research, CBC News has learned.

"To date, Health Canada has an open compliance verification file
regarding the activities conducted by Regenetek," a Health Canada
spokesperson confirmed in an email.

"The necessary followup steps have been initiated by Health Canada
and are ongoing, although Health Canada cannot comment on the
details of ongoing compliance and enforcement activities until
such time as all the facts are available to us.  Further to our
commitment to openness and transparency, should a risk to
Canadians be identified, Health Canada will notify Canadians
accordingly."

The RCMP in Manitoba, too, confirms it's investigating "several
complaints of fraud involving Regenetek."

In an email statement, Mr. Broeska's public relations agency says
Mr. Broeska "gladly welcomes addressing this matter openly with
any public authority because he is absolutely confident that
further investigation will not only exonerate Regenetek research
and himself, but also prove that he has been deliberately
victimized by false and malicious allegations made by former
employee, Ms. Sherry Trudeau."

Ms. Broeska is suing Ms. Trudeau, who worked for Regenetek
Research between August 2014 and Dec. 30, 2014.

Stem cell researcher defends against "inaccurate media reporting"
Regenetek issues statement explaining role in MS study
In a statement of claim, Ms. Broeska says Ms. Trudeau breached her
conditions of employment by copying and keeping confidential
patient information, and making unauthorized contact with
participants of a clinical study "for the express purpose of
causing damage to the plaintiffs, by making false, malicious and
defamatory allegations."

The statement claims she distributed confidential information to
reporters at the Winnipeg Free Press and the CBC, former Regenetek
employees, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba, the
Canada Revenue Agency and the RCMP.

None of these allegations have been proven in court, and Trudeau
says she has no comment on advice from her lawyer. She has until
Feb. 26 to file a statement of defense.

One of Regenetek's former patients has launched a GoFundMe
fundraising campaign to help pay for Trudeau's legal fees.

"As a former patient, hearing that Sherry had left her job and
that she'd been sued, I thought she could use some financial
support," Phoenix resident Kathleen Jaynes said in a Skype
interview.

"I wanted Sherry to know there were lots of people that believed
in her and supported her."

Ms. Jaynes is one of about 70 multiple sclerosis patients
recruited by Regenetek to get combination stem cell therapy in
Pune, India.  It involves widening the veins of the neck, then
injecting the person's own stem cells inside.

She has provided documentation showing she paid $20,000 U.S. plus
travel expenses to get the treatment in May 2014. Others have paid
up to $45,000 U.S.

Ms. Jaynes says she felt stronger for about a week, but within
three months, she had regressed to her original condition.  Many
patients say they felt better after the procedure, but others saw
little or no improvement.

When Ms. Jaynes questioned the therapy and followup, she says
Broeska and Dr. Susan Hauch suggested talking to her doctor about
going off one of her blood-thinning medications, and also
recommended a different supplement.

In a previous statement, Mr. Broeska has denied providing any
medical advice to patients.

"I hope Doug Broeska will be out of business in any form and he
will not be able to sell anything to anyone -- in particular, a
medical procedure to a sick person," Ms. Jaynes said.

"It's clearly medical tourism.  I don't think there's anything
more to say about it."

Questions raised about qualifications

Concerns surfaced in December after an independent ethics board
ruled Mr. Broeska's involvement didn't meet international
standards.

The Indian research group replaced him as principal investigator
for the study and later said it could no longer accept patients
recruited by Regenetek.

However, Ms. Broeska says the new principal investigator, Dr. Bill
Brashier, is the former head of the ethics board that had him
replaced.

"I believe Dr. Brashier wrote the letter removing me as Principal
Investigator, then he immediately resigned as head of the IECP,
joined Genesis the same day and was appointed Principal
Investigator of the Regenetek study, in my place," he writes in a
five-page statement to CBC News.

"It is not possible for this timing to be anything but a
deliberate conspiracy to seize control of the study both
operationally and financially."

In the last few weeks, he and his public relations firm have
provided numerous invoices, financial documents and emails
detailing what Ms. Broeska claims is an effort by his Indian
partners to "push me out and subsequently vilify me as part of a
larger scheme to steal my stem cell research protocol and run with
it."

"Details of the conspiracy to discredit me are now emerging along
with several inconsistencies and questions about the practices of
Genesis Ltd and its newest directors and partners," Mr. Broeska
writes in his statement.

But Surjo Banerjee, the head of Genesis Ltd., rejects that.

"They are coming up with BS to counter the attacks on them," he
responded via email.

"If they are so interested in providing information, please ask
them to give you a list of all the patients that were treated, all
the invoices that they received from Regentek Therapies India and
all the invoices they received from Genesis Ltd.  Total them up
and tally the transactions."

Patients are also raising questions about Mr. Broeska's
qualifications, his research and his follow-up.

In a LinkedIn profile, Mr. Broeska claimed to have a PhD from the
University of Manitoba.  The university says that is not true.

Mr. Broeska has produced a PhD certificate from Brightland
University as proof of his qualifications.  That university is
unaccredited in the United States and United Kingdom, and the
University of Manitoba confirms it would not recognize a degree
obtained from there.

The University of Winnipeg's ethics board has also rejected a
proposal to do follow-up rehabilitation with patients recruited
through Regenetek.

Some patients are now questioning the amount they paid for their
treatment.

Mr. Banerjee says the costs for the procedure are $16,050 U.S.

Several patients tell CBC News they have filed complaints with the
RCMP and other governing authorities, and are now trying to
organize a class-action lawsuit against Broeska and Regenetek.

Still others asking for their deposit money back, although there
is some dispute about which entity should repay them -- Regenetek
in Winnipeg or Genesis in India.

Australian Kate Millar says she hasn't received a $20,000 U.S.
refund for her daughter's treatment, even though she asked for one
several weeks ago.

"It's like we're forgotten," she said.


RITE AID: "Gioules" Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Gioules, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Rite Aid of New York, Inc. and Rite Aid Corporation,
Case No. 2:15-cv-01099 (E.D.N.Y., March 3, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages under the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Defendants own and operate a drug store chain with a principal
place of business located at 30 Hunter Lane, Camp Hill,
Pennsylvania, 17011.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander Todd Coleman, Esq.
      Michael John Borrelli, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES
      1010 Northern Blvd., St. 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com
              mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com

         - and -

      Rebecca Solomon Predovan, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
      1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (518) 321-7075
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: rifbecca@gmail.com


ROSS TOWNSHIP, IN: June 12 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------
STATE OF INDIANA COUNTY OF LAKE SS: IN THE LAKE CIRCUIT COURT AT
CROWN POINT, INDIANA In Re: HIDDEN LAKE BRIDGE COLLAPSE AT
MERRILLVILLE, INDIANA CAUSE NO.: 45C01-0907-CT-00127

NOTICE TO ALL CLASS MEMBERS OF A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF A CLASS
ACTION LAWSUIT TO: ALL PERSONS HAVING CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE
HIDDEN LAKE BRIDGE COLLAPSE AT MERRILLVILLE, INDIANA ON JULY 4,
2009

Pursuant to the Order dated February 5, 2015 and entered under
Indiana Trial Rule 23 by the Lake Circuit Court in the above-
captioned action, you are hereby notified that there is a
proposed settlement of the class action lawsuit identified above.
The class action lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the
negligence of Defendants, Ross Township, Indiana and John Rooda in
his capacity as Ross Township Trustee, proximately caused the
bridge at Hidden Lake Park to collapse and the resulting injuries
and damages to the class.  Defendants have denied that they were
negligent and have denied the nature and extent of the injuries
and damages claimed.

You are a member of the class if you suffered physical injury in
the bridge collapse and your injuries are permanent, or if you
suffered physical injury in the bridge collapse and your injuries
are temporary, or if you suffered emotional distress due to direct
involvement in the bridge collapse and are entitled to recover
under the rule in Groves v. Taylor, 729 N.E.2d 568 (Ind. 2000).
As a class member you will be bound by any Court approved
settlement or other disposition of the class action lawsuit.

The parties have now reached a tentative settlement agreement.
However, because this case is a class action, we are required to
inform the class members of the proposed settlement terms and give
you an opportunity to comment on the proposed settlement before
the Court approves the settlement.  In settlement of this class
action, the parties have agreed to the following terms:

  1. Defendants will pay a total of $900,000.00 to the class and
class counsel ("settlement amount").

  2. Class counsel will be paid reasonable attorney's fees of
331/3% of the settlement amount plus costs incurred or advanced in
the litigation.

  3. The remaining settlement proceeds, with the exception of the
sum of $3,000.00, will be allocated based upon individual injury
and damage among those class members who submitted signed
interrogatory answers and responses to requests for production
prior to the date of mediation, May 1, 2014.

The sum of $3,000.00 will be allocated, based upon individual
injury and damage, to those class members, if any, who provide
answers to interrogatories and responses to requests for
production after May 1, 2014 and before April 30, 2015.  The
allocation of proceeds to class members will be made by the
Honorable Richard F. McDevitt (ret.), a neutral party, applying
his experience and expertise and based upon his independent review
and analysis of the information provided in the interrogatory
answers and documents produced in response to discovery requests.
In the event that there are no class members who submit signed
interrogatory answers and responses to requests for production
after May 1, 2014 and before April 30, 2015, or based upon a
determination of the neutral that the class member(s) who have
submitted such materials are reasonably compensated by payments
less than $3,000.00, the remaining funds, if any, shall be
allocated to those class members who submitted signed
interrogatory answers and responses to requests for production
prior to May 1, 2014. 4.  Once the settlement is approved by the
Court, the class action lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice,
with the Court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the
settlement and to adjudicate any liens/subrogation claims.

If you want to object to the settlement, you must file your
objection in writing with the Court by April 30, 2015 and include
your full name, address, telephone number, a statement you
are a class member, a written statement of your objection, and any
documents to support your objection.  You must also serve a copy
of your objection and any supporting documents on Class Counsel.

A hearing will be held in the Lake Circuit Court, 2293 N. Main
Street, Crown Point, IN 46307 on June 12, 2015 at 1:00 o'clock
p.m., to determine whether the proposed settlement should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate, and to
consider the application of Class Counsel for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of litigation expenses.  You may appear at the
hearing and speak about the fairness of the settlement only if you
have filed a written objection by the deadline or if the Court
permits you to speak.

In order to share in the settlement you must complete and mail
signed interrogatory answers and responses to requests for
production to class counsel by no later than April 30, 2015.  If
you do not submit the signed interrogatory answers and responses
to requests for production by the deadline, you will not share in
the settlement, and you will be bound by the settlement and
subsequent dismissal with prejudice of this class action.
Interrogatories and requests for production may be requested from
class counsel.  If you have already submitted signed interrogatory
answers and responses to requests for production to class counsel,
you are not required to resubmit these documents in order to share
in the settlement but you must provide proof of compliance with
the request(s) of class counsel to provide such answers and
responses.

Class counsel: Kenneth J. Allen, Esq.
               Robert D. Brown, Esq.
               Sarah M. Cafiero, Esq.
               Kenneth J. Allen Law Group, LLC
               1109 Glendale Boulevard
               Valparaiso, IN 46383
               Tel: (219) 465-6292
               Fax: (219) 477-5181


SHORTER UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Over Security Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alan Riquelmy, writing for Rome News-Tribune, reports that a
former Shorter University student who's filed suit against her
alma mater is seeking class-action status over a security breach
she claims led to the theft of hundreds of personal records.

Erin Bishop, a Shorter cheerleader from 2008 to 2009, says in her
lawsuit that she's one of several victims of a theft involving the
records of potentially 900 former and current students.  More than
30 people whose records were stolen have had fraudulent tax
returns filed on their behalf -- a scheme that in Bishop's case
has affected her mortgage, daughter's college fund and ability to
pay down her Shorter student loans.

Ms. Bishop, who filed suit on Feb. 20 in U.S. District Court,
claims that Shorter was negligent in keeping sensitive records in
an unlocked filing cabinet in an unlocked room.  Additionally, the
university made no, or inadequate, efforts to notify those
affected by the theft.

"Instead, on September 25, 2014, Shorter sent a letter to former
student-athletes warning them to keep a close eye on their credit
and financial records, but indicating that it was 'uncertain if
any personal information was actually obtained during the
unauthorized access,'" the suit states.

The letter sent by Shorter advised students that the physical
records taken likely included names, dates of birth, Social
Security numbers and medical information.

Ms. Bishop wants her suit to have class-action status, which would
allow everyone potentially affected by the breach to pursue a
remedy through court.  It also seeks punitive and compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees and court costs.

No trial date has been set.

Dawn Tolbert, spokeswoman for Shorter, declined comment when
contacted on Feb. 23.

Ms. Bishop claims she only learned about the theft after trying to
file her tax return.  That's when she found someone already had
used personal information to file those returns and receive a
refund, according to the suit and Rome police reports.

Now living in North Carolina, Ms. Bishop then contacted local
police and learned about last year's breach.

"As a result of this breach, Plaintiff has not been able to
receive her tax refund and has had to spend money on credit
monitoring and protection services and will continue to pay a
monthly fee for credit monitoring and protection services," the
suit states.


SIMON PROPERTY: Sued Over Wheelchair-Inaccessible Parking Spaces
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Snyder, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Simon Property Group, Inc. and Simon Property Group,
L.P., Case No. 2:15-cv-00286 (W.D. Pa., February 27, 2015), arises
out of the excessive slopes in the parking spaces, access aisles,
and along accessible routes, that made it inaccessible to, and not
independently usable by individuals who use wheelchairs.

The Defendants own and operate Grove City Premium Outlets, located
at 1911 Leesburg Grove City Road, Grove City, PA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP
      115 Federal Street, Suite 210
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Telephone: (412) 322-9243
      E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com



SLI LANDSCAPE: "Gutierrez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Gutierrez and all others similarly situated v. SLI Landscape,
Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-00547 (S.D. Tex., February 27, 2015), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

SLI Landscape, Inc. owns and operates a landscaping company
located at 17720 South Dr., Cypress, Texas 77433.

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


STARTING LINE: Faces "Alvarez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arturo Alvarez, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown v. Starting Line, Inc.,
Jimmy's Charhouse, Inc., and James Panagakis, Case No. 1:15-cv-
01851 (N.D. Ill., March 2, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for  failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate Johnny's Kitchen and Tap restaurant
located at 1740 Milwaukee Avenue in Glenview, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maureen Ann Salas, Esq.
      Sarah Jean Arendt, Esq.
      Zachary Cole Flowerree, Esq.
      Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
      WERMAN SALAS P.C.
      77 W. Washington, Suite 1402
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 419-1008
      E-mail: msalas@flsalaw.com
              sarendt@flsalaw.com
              zflowerree@flsalaw.com
              dwerman@flsalaw.com


STATE FARM: Sued Over Failure to Provide Consumer Reports
---------------------------------------------------------
William J. Novak, on behalf of himself and a class of all others
similarly v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Case No. 1:15-
cv-00394 (N.D. Ohio, March 2, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to provide consumer report information in
connection with renewals of homeowners insurance policy.

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company is an Illinois corporation
that is considered as the largest insurer of homes in the U.S.
since 1964.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James B. Rosenthal, Esq.
      Joshua R. Cohen, Esq.
      Jason R. Bristol, Esq.
      COHEN ROSENTHAL & KRAMER LLP
      The Hoyt Block Building - Suite 400
      700 West St. Clair Avenue
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 781-7956
      Facsimile: (216) 781-8061
      E-mail: jbr@crklaw.com
              jcohen@crklaw.com
              jbristol@crklaw.com


SYNGENTA CORP: Arkansas Farmers Join GMO Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Jan Cottingham, writing for Arkansas Business, reports that at
least a dozen Arkansas farmers have joined hundreds of farmers in
19 other states in almost 800 lawsuits against Swiss seed maker
Syngenta over genetically modified corn seed, a case that has been
widely reported in the media.

But one of the lawsuits, filed on behalf of two Newport farms,
contains a previously unreported twist: an allegation that
Syngenta, a global agribusiness, has engaged in a criminal
conspiracy to contaminate the U.S. corn crop to force China, other
nations that buy U.S. corn and U.S. farmers to accept genetically
modified corn.

The suit, filed by the Emerson Poynter law firm, which has offices
in Little Rock and Houston, alleges that Syngenta violated the
Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, which
is usually used to fight organized crime.

Emerson Poynter filed the class-action suit in January on behalf
of Kenny Falwell and Eagle Lake Farms, farming operations in
Newport.  It, like at least eight other lawsuits against Syngenta
over its genetically modified corn seed, was filed in U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

These lawsuits joined hundreds of other lawsuits filed by U.S.
farmers since the fall against Syngenta, the Swiss developer and
marketer of seeds and agricultural chemicals.

The suits claim that Syngenta caused losses of between $1 billion
and $2.9 billion to U.S. corn farmers after it sold genetically
modified or bioengineered corn seed that had not been approved for
use by China, a huge and growing importer of U.S. corn and corn
byproducts.

The seed in question is Agrisure Viptera, also known as MIR 162,
which has been genetically modified to resist corn pests like
earworms and cutworms.  The U.S. Department of Agriculture
approved the Viptera seed in 2010.

China began refusing shipments of American corn in November 2013
after it detected the GMO (genetically modified organism) trait,
and the price of corn and corn byproducts dropped.  Even farmers
who did not grow the GMO corn experienced losses, the suits say.

Lawsuits have been filed in 20 states, representing 86 percent of
the corn planted in the U.S. last year, according to plaintiffs'
lawyers.

China went on to approve Viptera in December, but plaintiffs'
lawyers say the development has little, if any, effect on their
case.  Scott Powell -- scott@hwnn.com -- of Hare Wynn Newell &
Newton of Birmingham, Alabama, is one of those lawyers.

China, with its rapidly expanding middle class, has "a voracious
appetite for corn," Powell said, and when it stopped buying U.S.
corn, it found other vendors, like Brazil.  And once a country
finds a substitute vendor for a product, it rarely switches back.

Cargill, ADM Sue

Farmers weren't the only ones alleged to have suffered.
Agribusiness giants Cargill Inc. and Archer Daniels Midland Co.
sued Syngenta late last year over the sale of the GMO corn before
it had received import approval from China.

Cargill, a top U.S. grain exporter, filed suit in September
alleging that it lost $90 million when China rejected corn
shipments.  "Unlike other seed companies, Syngenta has not
practiced responsible stewardship by broadly commercializing a new
product before receiving approval from a key export market like
China," Mark Stonacek, president of Cargill Grain & Oilseed Supply
Chain North America, said in a company statement.  "Syngenta also
put the ability of U.S. agriculture to serve global markets at
risk, costing both Cargill and the entire U.S. agricultural
industry significant damages."

Seed companies, farmers, grain handlers, exporters and others
"have a shared responsibility to maintain and preserve market
access when introducing new technology," Cargill said.

In November, ADM, one of the world's largest corn processors, also
sued Syngenta, which reported sales of $15.1 billion in 2014.
"Syngenta chose to sell a corn seed product with traits that were
not approved in all major export markets, without undertaking
reasonable stewardship practices to prevent the resulting crop
from commingling with or otherwise tainting the rest of the U.S.
corn supply," an ADM spokeswoman said.

In response to the Cargill lawsuit, Syngenta said that it believed
the lawsuit to be without merit and "strongly upholds the right of
growers to have access to approved new technologies that can
increase both their productivity and their profitability."
Syngenta maintained that it had been "fully transparent in
commercializing the trait over the last four years."

The farmers' and grain handlers' lawsuits were consolidated in
January in U.S. District Court in Kansas as a multidistrict
litigation assigned to federal Judge John W. Lungstrum.

A team of four lawyers has been named to lead the litigation:
Powell; Don Downing of Gray Ritter & Graham of St. Louis; William
Chaney -- wchaney@grayreed.com -- of Gray Reed & McGraw of Dallas;
and Patrick Stueve -- stueve@stuevesiegel.com -- of Stueve Siegel
Hanson of Kansas City.

'A Hobson's Choice'

The lawsuit by Kenny Falwell and Eagle Lake Farms of Newport
accuses Syngenta of violations of the RICO statute.  Although
approved by Congress in 1970 to fight organized crime, it's been
cited in other cases against corporations.

On Feb. 19, for example, more than 90 landowners and other royalty
owners in Pennsylvania accused Chesapeake Energy Corp. and
Williams Partners LP of violating RICO by conspiring to restrain
trade and engaging in a scheme "to help Chesapeake solve financial
problems associated with the massive amount of debt that it
incurred in acquiring oil and gas leases at the expense of royalty
interest owners."

The Falwell suit says that trends against GMO products,
particularly in regard to the growing Chinese market, threatened
Syngenta's financial and competitive health.

If farmers continued to balk at growing GMO corn, the suit says,
"it would weaken Syngenta competitively, reversing its economic
growth and momentum and potentially disabling it from recovering
the approximately $200 million it had invested in Viptera's
development over a span of five to seven years."

Therefore, the suit alleges, Syngenta "embarked on a plan to
purposely undermine U.S. non-GMO corn growers and those resistant
to growing Syngenta's unapproved genetic corn traits.

"To that end, Defendants engaged in a scheme designed to
inevitably taint and contaminate the U.S. Corn supply, effectively
causing its economic vitality to be held hostage to MIR-162 trait
GMO corn, knowing that the continuous marketing and sale of
Syngenta's MIR-162 trait corn seed would ultimately prejudice and
disrupt the U.S. Corn export market and the U.S. Corn commodities
market."

Syngenta knew that it was "impossible" for farmers to keep Viptera
corn separate from non-GMO corn, the suit says, and that the U.S.
corn supply would inevitably become contaminated.

This situation, the suit alleges, would then present China and
other nations importing from the U.S. with "a Hobson's choice:
reject U.S. corn tainted with MIR-162 genetic trait and take a
chance on securing other viable trade partners, failing which that
nation would risk lacking sufficient corn to feed its people and
livestock, or, rather than accept such risk, feel compelled to
accept delivery of U.S. Corn."

There was another goal, according to the lawsuit: to force U.S.
farmers to realize that resistance to GMO corn, including
Syngenta's, was "futile and perhaps even economically
disadvantageous in the long term."

This "scheme," the suit alleges, was carried out by Syngenta and
several of its subsidiaries, along with Syngenta CEO Michael Mack
and David Morgan, at that time president of Syngenta Seeds Inc.,
and "a network of independent 'Syngenta Seed Advisors'" and
Syngenta dealers and distributors.

A "Syngenta GMO Corn Seed Enterprise" was formed that contaminated
the U.S. corn supply with Viptera corn, the suit alleges.  It
alleges that the defendants engaged in mail fraud in the marketing
of the GMO corn and wire fraud in the dissemination of "false and
misleading information and material omissions in public conference
calls, press releases, articles and statements published over the
news wires and interviews."

Asked to respond to the allegations of RICO violations, Syngenta
spokesman Paul Minehart said:

"Syngenta believes that the lawsuits are without merit and
strongly upholds the right of growers to have access to approved
new technologies that can increase both their productivity and
their profitability.  The Agrisure Viptera trait (MIR162) was
approved for cultivation in the U.S. in 2010.  Syngenta
commercialized the trait in full compliance with regulatory and
legal requirements.  Syngenta also obtained import approval from
major corn importing countries.  Syngenta has been fully
transparent in commercializing the trait over the last four
years."

Mr. Powell, who represents other farmers in their pursuit of
Syngenta, said he knew of the RICO allegations in the Falwell suit
but declined to comment on whether they were likely to be included
in the master consolidated complaint, which is being drafted.
That complaint is due March 13.


TCF FINANCIAL: "Schultz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amber Schultz and Erik Ortega, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. TCF Financial Corp. and TCF National
Bank, Case No. 1:15-cv-01865 (N.D. Ill., March 3, 2015), seeks to
recover overtime compensation and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate approximately 380 bank branches in
eight states that provide retail and commercial banking services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul William Mollica, Esq.
      Justin Mitchell Swartz, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN
      203 N. LaSalle St., Suite 2100
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 924-4888
      E-mail: pwmollica@outtengolden.com
              jms@outtengolden.com


TCP INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Sohal" Suit Over False Fin'l Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Santokh Sohal, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. Ellis Yan, Brian Catlett, Solomon Yan, Jurgen Borgt,
Matthias Belz, and TCP International Holdings Ltd., Case No. 1:15-
cv-00393 (N.D. Ohio, March 2, 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.

TCP International Holdings Ltd. is a Switzerland corporation that
designs, develops, manufactures, and markets lighting products and
accessories to the commercial, industrial, and retail markets
worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel R. Karon, Esq.
      KARON LLC
      700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 200
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 622-1851
      Facsimile: (216) 241-8175
      E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com

         - and -

      Laurence M. Rosen
      Phillip Kim
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 686-1060
      Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
      E-mail: lrosen@rosenleeal.com
              pkim@rosenlegal.com


TCP INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Williams" Suit Over False Fin'l Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Ellis Yan, Brian Catlett, Solomon Yan, Jurgen Borgt,
Matthias Belz, and TCP International Holdings Ltd., Case No. 1:15-
cv-00398 (N.D. Ohio, March 2, 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.

TCP International Holdings Ltd. is a Switzerland corporation that
designs, develops, manufactures, and markets lighting products and
accessories to the commercial, industrial, and retail markets
worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack Landskroner, Esq.
      LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN
      Ste. 200, 1360 West Ninth Street
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 522-9000
      Facsimile: (216) 522-9007
      E-mail: jack@lgmlegal.com

         - and -

      Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
      David C. Walton, Esq.
      Jack Reise, Esq.
      Robert J. Robbins, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD
      Ste. 1900, 655 West Broadway
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
      E-mail: e_file_sd@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
      JOHNSON BOTTINI
      Ste. 1400, 655 West Broadway
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 230-0063
      Facsimile: (619) 233-5355


TRUEBLUE INC: Illegally Obtains Consumer Reports, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Smalls, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Trueblue, Inc., Labor Ready Midatlantic, Inc., and
First Advantage Background Services Corp., Case No. 3:15-cv-05126
(W.D. Wash., March 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to provide a standalone up-front notice before that may
procure consumer reports about their applicants and employees.

Trueblue, Inc. is a Washington corporation with its corporate
headquarters located at 1015 A Street, Tacoma, WA 98401, which is
a provider of temporary staffing services.

Labor Ready Midatlantic, Inc. is a Washington corporation with its
corporate headquarters located at 1015 A Street, Tacoma, WA 98401,
which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of TrueBlue Inc.

First Advantage Background Services Corp. is a Florida corporation
with its corporate headquarters located at 1 Concourse Pkwy NE
#200, Atlanta, GA 30328, which provides employment background
screening services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clifford A. Cantor, Esq.
      CLIFFORD A. CANTOR, P.C.
      627 208th Ave Se
      Sammamish, WA 98074-7033
      Telephone: (425) 868-7813
      Facsimile: (425) 868-7870
      E-mail: cliff.cantor@outlook.com


TYCOONS: Faces "Doe" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Tycoons et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-10771 (E.D. Mich.,
March 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay a minimum wage as required by the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate an adult nightclub in Detroit,
Michigan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Megan Bonanni, Esq.
      PITT MCGEHEE PALMER & RIVERS P.C.
      117 West Fourth Street, Suite 200
      Royal Oak, MI 48067
      Telephone: (248) 398-9800
      Facsimile: (248) 398-9804
      E-mail: mbonanni@pittlawpc.com

         - and -

      Jennifer Lossia McManus, Esq.
      DIB AND FAGAN PC
      25892 Woodward Ave
      Royal Oak, MI 48067
      Telephone: (248) 542-6300
      E-mail: jmcmanus@dibandfagan.com


TYCOONS: Faces "Doe" 2nd Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Tycoons et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-10772 (E.D. Mich.,
March 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay a minimum wage as required by the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate an adult nightclub in Detroit,
Michigan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Megan Bonanni, Esq.
      PITT MCGEHEE PALMER & RIVERS P.C.
      117 West Fourth Street, Suite 200
      Royal Oak, MI 48067
      Telephone: (248) 398-9800
      Facsimile: (248) 398-9804
      E-mail: mbonanni@pittlawpc.com

         - and -

      Jennifer Lossia McManus, Esq.
      DIB AND FAGAN PC
      25892 Woodward Ave
      Royal Oak, MI 48067
      Telephone: (248) 542-6300
      E-mail: jmcmanus@dibandfagan.com


VIVINT INC: Settles TCPA Class Action for $6 Million
----------------------------------------------------
Caroline Simson, writing for Law360, reports that a Florida
federal judge on Feb. 23 finally approved a $6 million settlement
and certified a nationwide class of consumers who received
autodialed or pre-recorded calls from Vivint Inc. or affiliate
marketers, ending a suit that accused the home automation and
security company of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

U.S. District Judge William J. Zloch certified a nationwide class
of consumers who, beginning in September 2008, had received a
telemarketing call from Vivint or its marketing affiliates that
used a pre-recorded message or was made with the help of an
autodialer.  Consumers who had placed themselves on the Do Not
Call Registry or who were on Vivint's internal "do not call" list
are also included in the class.

The judge, who dismissed the suit with prejudice, noted that
certifying the class was the most practical way to resolve the
suit.

"The court further finds that (A) the members of the class have a
limited interest in individually prosecuting the claims at issue;
(B) it is desirable to concentrate the claims in this forum; and
(C) it is unlikely that there will be difficulties encountered in
administering this settlement," he said.

Judge Zloch approved attorneys' fees and costs totaling $1.8
million, along with a $20,000 incentive payment for class
representative Matthew Benzion.

Vivint is not admitting wrongdoing in the settlement, which bars
class members from bringing additional claims related to the
allegations contained in the suit against the company, and it
denies all the claims asserted against it in the suit.

A magistrate judge had ordered additional briefing on a class
certification motion in 2013 after both parties agreed that they
needed additional time to gather facts.

Under the claims process outlined in the settlement, class members
will be entitled to make one claim regardless of the number of
calls he or she received.  Though the amount each class member
will receive depends on the number of claims, under no
circumstances will that amount exceed $500, according to the deal.

The settlement additionally requires Vivint to not make
telemarketing calls using pre-recorded messages for at least two
years.

If the claims and settlement costs total less than $6 million, the
remainder will go toward cy pres recipient EPIC.org, the
Electronic Privacy Information Center.

Mr. Benzion had originally asked the court to approve the
settlement in an unopposed motion in May.

Mr. Benzion's 2012 complaint accused the company of calling
consumer's cellphones without their permission.  The suit accused
Vivint of repeatedly calling Mr. Benzion's cellphone -- sometimes
multiple times per day -- to play a pre-recorded message
advertising a "free" wireless security system in exchange for
putting the company's sign in his yard.

In an amended complaint filed in 2013, the plaintiff said that the
calls were unsolicited cold calls made for the purpose of
generating leads for sales of the company's products or services.
Several consumers had complained to the Federal Communications
Commission about the practice, according to the suit.

The suit included various claims for violations of the TCPA.

A mediator had advised the court that the case was settled in
March 2014.

The plaintiffs are represented by Scott D. Owens of Scott D. Owens
PA, Edward A. Broderick and Anthony I. Paronich of Broderick Law
PC, Matthew P. McCue of Law Office of Matthew P. McCue, Alexander
H. Burke of Burke Law Offices LLC, and Daniel J. Marovitch of
Marovitch Law Firm LLC.

Vivint is represented by Bruce E. Reinhart --
breinhart@mcdonaldhopkins.com -- of McDonald Hopkins LLC and
Thomas J. Cunningham -- tcunningham@lockelord.com -- and Martin W.
Jaszczuk -- mjaszczuk@lockelord.com -- of Locke Lord LLP.

The case is Benzion et al v. Vivint, Inc., case number 0:12-cv-
61826 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.


VOLARIS AVIATION: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Feb. 24 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of Volaris Aviation Holding
Company Ordinary Participation Certificates in the form of
American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") in and/or traceable to the
Company's initial public offering ("IPO") on or about
September 18, 2013.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from February 24, 2015.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H.
Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/volaris

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Volaris and certain of its officers and
directors and the underwriters of its IPO with violations of the
Securities Act of 1933.  Volaris provides air transportation
services for passengers, cargo, and mail in Mexico and
internationally.

The complaint alleges that on June 6, 2013, Volaris filed a
Registration Statement on Form F-1 with the SEC, which would later
be utilized for the IPO following several amendments in response
to comments by the SEC.  On September 17, 2013, the SEC declared
the Company's Registration Statement effective and the Company
sold 226,469,000 ADSs for $12.00 each.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement negligently
contained financial statements that were presented in violation of
applicable accounting standards and the Company's publicly
disclosed accounting policies.  In addition, the Registration
Statement failed to disclose certain material events known to
defendants that caused the financial information reported in the
Registration Statement not to be indicative of Volaris's future
operating results.  These material events included: (i) the
financial effects ensuing from a change in the Company's airline
reservation system; and (ii) an expansion of competition in the
Tijuana and Guadalajara, Mexico markets, which was having a
material adverse effect on the Company's revenues and profit
margins at the time of the IPO.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Volaris ADSs in and/or traceable to the Company's IPO on or about
September 18, 2013.  The plaintiff is represented by Robbins
Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions
and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.

with 200 lawyers in ten offices, Robbins Geller --
http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international
institutional investors in contingency-based securities and
corporate litigation.  The firm has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history, including the
largest securities class action judgment.


VPC GREEKTOWN: Faces "Huitron" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Huitron, Miguel Angel Zuleta, Ruben Ruan, and Adolfo Garcia,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. VPC
Greektown Pizza, LLC, VPC Belmont Pizza, LLC, and VPC Prudential
Pizza, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-01823 (N.D. Ill., March 2, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate Giordano's pizza franchises located
in the City of Chicago.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Piers, Esq.
      Christopher Wilmes, Esq.
      HUGHES SOCOL PIERS RESNICK & DYM LTD.
      70 West Madison Street, Suite 4000
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 580-0100
      Facsimile: (312) 580-1994
      E-mail: mpiers@hsplegal.com
              cwilmes@hsplegal.com


WAL-MART STORES: Falsely Marketed Cranberry Juice, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Hulse, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a Foreign Corporation, Case No.
3:15-cv-00233 (M.D. Fla., February 27, 2015), arises out of the
Defendant's false and misleading labeling of its Great Value 100%
Cranberry Pomegranate Juice as primarily consists of cranberry and
pomegranate juice, when in fact the juice is actually a flavored
juice blend from concentrate, primarily consisting of water and
cheap white grape juice concentrate, apple juice concentrate, and
plum juice concentrate.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is a multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of discount department stores and warehouse
stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
      Michael J. Pascucci, Esq.
      EGGNATZ, LOPATIN & PASCUCCI, LLP
      5400 S. University Drive, Ste. 413
      Davie, FL 33328
      Telephone: (954) 889-3359
      Facsimile: (954) 889-5913
      E-mail: jeggnatz@eggnatzlaw.com
              mpascucci@EggnatzLaw.com


WALGREEN CO: Faces "Mobley" Suit in Ill. Over Product Misbranding
-----------------------------------------------------------------
William P. Mobley, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Walgreen Co., an Illinois corporation, Case
No. 1:15-cv-01798 (N.D. Ill., February 27, 2015), arises out of
the Defendant's mislabeling and improper marketing of its Finest
Nutrition St. John's Wort, Ginseng, Garlic, and Echinacea herbal
supplements that they contain the primary herb listed on the
label. However, supplements do not contain any of the ingredients
listed on the product label.

Walgreens Co. is a Chicago corporation that owns and operates a
drug retailing chain throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ben Barnow, Esq.
      Erich P. Schork, Esq.
      BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      One North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 621-2000
      Facsimile: (312) 641-5504
      E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
              e.schork@barnowlaw.com

         - and -

      Aron D. Robinson, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ARON D. ROBINSON
      180 W. Washington St., Suite 700
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 857-9050
      E-mail: adroblaw@aol.com

         - and -

      Cyrus Dashtaki, Esq.
      DASHTAKI LAW FIRM, LLC
      5205 Hampton Avenue
      St. Louis, MO 63109
      Telephone: (314) 932-7671
      Facsimile: (314) 932-7672
      E-mail: cyrus@dashtaki.com

         - and -

      John S. Steward, Esq.
      STEWARD LAW FIRM, LLC
      1717 Park Avenue
      St. Louis, MO 63104
      Telephone: (314) 571-7134
      Facsimile: (314) 594-5950
      E-mail: Glaw123@aol.com


WB HOLDINGS: Has Sent Unsolicited Advertisements, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Wasvary, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons v. WB Holdings, LLC, et al., Case No.
2:15-cv-10750 (E.D. Mich., March 2, 2015), seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of sending unsolicited advertisements to
consumers via text message.

WB Holdings, LLC owns and operates an investment holding companies
with its principal place of business in Troy,
Michigan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
      BOCK & HATCH, LLC
      134 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1000
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 658-5500
      Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
      E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com


WINNETKA, IL: Faces Class Action Over Stormwater Utility Fee
------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Spectre, writing for Daily North Shore, reports that
Winnetka resident Mark Green has filed a lawsuit against the
Village of Winnetka, alleging that residents should not be
compelled to pay a stormwater utility fee to support a proposed
$42 million dollar stormwater management plan that includes a
Willow Road stormwater tunnel and improvements to Winnetka's
existing stormwater infrastructure.  The lawsuit was filed in Cook
County Chancery Court on February 13.

While Mr. Green is the only named plaintiff in the case, the
lawsuit was filed on behalf of all Winnetka residents paying the
stormwater utility fee and seeks class action status.

In a conversation with Daily North Shore, Green explained that he
was surprised to find a stormwater fee in a bill from the Village.
According to Green, he immediately contacted the Village to cancel
the service but was told it was "non-cancelable."  Mr. Green
questioned: "How can I have a non-cancelable service? That sounds
like a tax to me."

Mr. Green said that he asked the Village to measure the water that
flows from his property, but was told the Village was not equipped
with meters to measure the water flow.  Mr. Green questioned how
the Village could charge a fee on a service that cannot be
measured.

"I am not against paying taxes.  I am not against the idea of
fixing the volume of water that the storm water system can
handle," Mr. Green said.  While Mr. Green does not have problems
with flooding on his own property, he is sympathetic to residents
who face this problem and supports paying for an environmentally
sound solution through taxes.

Mr. Green is simply against the utility fee.  "The Village now has
the power to create any type of service they want and to force me
to unilaterally pay for it."  Mr. Green noted that unlike other
service fees, the Village can place a lean on his house if he
doesn't pay the stormwater fee.

The Village's Stormwater Management Plan website states that "the
stormwater utility fee is not a tax.  It is a fee generated to
maintain the stormwater utility system and necessary capital
improvements."  The site further states that "[a] property's value
does not affect runoff, so property taxes are not the most
equitable way to pay for stormwater services."

In a press release Village Attorney Peter Friedman stated in
response to Green's lawsuit: "while the Village Council and our
office continue to thoroughly review the complaint, the Village is
confident that its stormwater utility and fee fully comply with
all applicable law and that the Village Council properly exercised
its authority under the Illinois Municipal Code and the Illinois
Constitution."

The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment that the stormwater
utility fee is an unconstitutional and invalid tax.


* Canadian Consumers Can Get Refunds From DRAM Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
If you bought an electronic device between 1999 and 2002, then you
almost certainly paid too much for it.  Now Canadians can get
their money back simply by filling in a form on themoneyismine.ca
No receipt or proof of purchase is required to claim the minimum
$20 compensation.

Consumers, businesses and other entities are finally getting a
fair deal following a multimillion-dollar settlement of many class
action lawsuits against several manufacturers who were allegedly
fixing the price of dynamic random access memory (DRAM, pronounced
"dee-ram") used in nearly all electronics, including computers,
printers, personal digital assistants (PDAs), MP3 players and
video game consoles.

The Canadian lawsuits alleged that the defendants were fixing the
price of DRAM between April 1, 1999 and June 30, 2002, thereby
inflating the cost of DRAM and most electronic devices.

The class action lawsuits were settled out of court: nearly $80
million in settlement funds were obtained for the benefit of all
Canadians who bought electronics during this period.

To make sure Canadians know about the money they are owed and how
easy it is to collect, the four law firms leading these class
actions are launching themoneyismine.ca campaign.  Its objective
is to ensure as many Canadians as possible claim what they are
owed.

"It's a great outcome for Canadian consumers," said J.J. Camp Q.C.
-- jjcamp@cfmlawyers.ca -- partner at Camp Fiorante Matthews
Mogerman.  "We've made it easy for them to get their money back.
I also think it's an opportunity for all Canadians to show that
they want healthy competition between consumer product companies."

This is the first competition class action awareness campaign of
this magnitude in Canada.

Who is eligible for compensation?

Canadians and Canadian entities who purchased DRAM or electronic
devices with DRAM between April 1, 1999 and June 30, 2002 are
eligible.  Canadians 18 and older can fill in the form to request
money.  Households must file as a unit.

Which products qualify?

Most electronic devices use DRAM, including:

Computers and servers
Printers
Personal digital assistants
Graphics cards
Video recorders and digital decoders
Video game consoles
MP3 players
Computer based point-of-sale systems
Compensation will also be paid respecting purchases of DRAM chips
or modules for personal use, for manufacturing purposes or for
resale.

How do I request money?

All households, businesses and other entities who bought DRAM or
electronics with DRAM during the time period in question are
entitled to $20 without receipts.  Just sign up at
themoneyismine.ca

If you bought several electronic devices, you might be entitled to
recover more money.  Some documents might be required depending on
the size of your claim.  Just sign up at themoneyismine.ca and
identify the products you purchased. Any documents that show your
purchases or that we can use to calculate your purchases are
enough. Some examples are copies of accounting records, credit
card statements, or computer purchase budgets.  A calculator is
available on the website to help you work out the value of your
claim.

How much can I get back?

The minimum amount you can get back is $20.  If you bought several
electronic devices containing DRAM, you could get more back.
For example: a small business with 25 employees could have a claim
worth several hundred dollars.
For more information

Visit themoneyismine.ca

                About themoneyismine.ca campaign

Themoneyismine.ca campaign is the first national awareness
campaign of this magnitude tied to a class action settlement in
the area of competition law.  It stems from class action lawsuits
brought against several manufacturers who, between 1999 and 2002,
were allegedly fixing the price of dynamic random access memory
(DRAM), a component used in most electronic devices.  Out-of-court
settlements were negotiated to recover nearly $80 million for the
benefit of Canadian consumers and businesses.  These class actions
were led by four law firms: Belleau Lapointe, Camp Fiorante
Matthews Mogerman, Harrison Pensa and Sutts Strosberg.


* Canadian Patients Mull Class Suit Over Excessive Medical Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charlie Fidelman, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that
obviously, extra medical fees hit a nerve.  Angry patients called
and emailed their own tales of over-billing after the Montreal
Gazette ran a story about the fees charged by some doctors and
clinics.  No one would agree to have their name published for fear
of losing their pediatrician, family doctor or specialist.  But
many also requested information on how to officially complain to
health authorities or join a class-action suit that seeks to
recover excess fees.

While user fees for insured medical services are illegal, there's
a grey zone where medical practitioners regularly bill for certain
services.  Critics and patients say the practice threatens the
universality of care, and the confusion over what constitute
excessive fees can lead to abusive billing.

Medically necessary services such as colonoscopies are supposed to
be free whether provided in a hospital or doctor's office.
However, side agreements between the provincial health insurance
board and doctors on "accessory fees" or charges for materials,
medications, storage and administration services easily get around
the concept of free.

Doctors say they need accessory fees to boost their income to
cover legitimate costs in an underfunded health system.  Others
see it as doctors bilking patients.

It's an ongoing, growing concern, especially since medical
students are seeing the practice as normal, said Isabelle Leblanc,
president of Medecins quebecois pour un regime public (MQRP).

The organization is calling on the provincial insurance board
(RAMQ) to crack down and apply the law without asking patients to
rat out their doctors.  "It's clear it's illegal, yet it's still
happening," Ms. Leblanc said.

For example, a colonoscopy in a clinic (in the public regime)
costs $500 because the patient is billed for medication used
during the procedure, Ms. Leblanc said, which is about $10 at the
pharmacy.  The wait time for a hospital colonoscopy can be a year
or longer. So patients turn to clinics

Not all physicians who ask for extra fees are evil, or want a
two-tiered health system, Ms. Leblanc said.  "One problem that
causes them to charge supplemental fees is that they are paid a
certain amount to provide services in a clinic or office.
Specialists are saying they cannot run a mini-hospital without
extra pay."

Another example is the government's schedule of free vaccines for
children and adults.  Community health clinics do not bill for
vaccines.  But pediatric centers and adult clinics can charge for
storage and materials -- swabs, syringes, alcohol and
refrigeration.  One Montreal clinic charges $55 for every round of
vaccine given babies starting at two months of age, then at four,
six, and 12 months, while another clinic bills $150 for the same
set of shots.

"I'm a doctor and I am confused, so imagine the patient," said
Leblanc, whose organization has documented the rise of over-
billing over the past five years.  Doctors caught double-dipping
-- charging the patient and medicare, the public health insurance
board -- have to refund taxpayers, Leblanc said, but they're not
subjected to punitive measures.

RAMQ reimburses patients nearly $230,000 a year for excess or
abusive fees; it also recovered $4.61 million in 2012 and $3.64
million from doctors' clinics in connection with "errors in
billing" attributed to a misunderstanding of "ententes" or fee
agreements.

Responsibility, however, for reining in doctors over-billing lies
with the provincial physician's governing board, a spokesperson
for Health Minister Gaetan Barrette said.  In January the board
tightened it's code of ethics to ban excessive fees.

The College is against "holding the patient hostage" and in 2010
denounced the practice of abusive fees, like charging $300 for eye
drops that basically cost $10, said Charles Bernard, president of
the College des medecins.  The new revised code bans
"disproportionate" fees for administering medication and devices,
Mr. Bernard said, and the committee currently finalizing guideline
of what is reasonable fees and what is outright profit.

Clinics are on the hook for providing services that are not
covered or that are partially covered, and they need to recover
their costs, Bernard explained.

For a colonoscopy in a hospital, the specialists gets paid and
gets a room, nurse, support staff and medications, Bernard said.
Outside of a hospital none of that is covered by RAMQ.

Who pays, Mr. Bernard demanded, if the system is not paying for
it?

"Many doctors are now calling us to say we are too severe with the
code," Mr. Bernard said.  "They say, 'You are preventing us from
compensating for what's not covered in the regime.' "

It's fine to throw the ball into the College's court, but the
responsibility of defining what is insured and what isn't, Bernard
said, "is a crying problem that's not up to us to fix."


                             *********

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  * * *