CAR_Public/150319.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, March 19, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 56


                             Headlines

ADECCO USA: May 7 Opt-Out Deadline in Class Action Settlement
ADOBE SYSTEMS: July 8 Hearing in Antitrust Suit Settlement Set
AJE MANAGEMENT: Faces "Diaz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ALCON LABORATORIES: Faces "Gray" Suit Over Lenses Resale Price
ALCON LABORATORIES: Faces "Miller" Suit Over Lenses Resale Price

AMERICAN REALTY: Sued by Twin Securities for Issuing False Report
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Hummel" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Mason" in D. Me. Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Pratt" Suit in Nevada Over Alleged Data Breach
ANTHEM INC: Faces Class Action in Connecticut Over Data Breach

ATLANTIC COAST: "Rivera" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
BANK OF AMERICA: Appellate Court Affirms Settlement Agreement
BIRCHBOX INC: Faces "Davis" Suit Over Automatic Renewal Policies
BP PLC: Plaintiffs Get Partial OK to Amend Securities Suit
CABELA'S INC: No Remaining Liability for Visa Case Settlement

COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR: Judge Awards $3.3MM in Heated Jackets Suit
COMCAST CORP: Court Stays Grear Class Action Pending Arbitration
COMMERCEWEST BANK: Settles Consumer Fraud Case for $4.9 Million
CORPORATE RESOURCE: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Reached Settlement in Canadian Actions

CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Facing 2 Class Actions on Spansion Merger
DEAN FOODS: No Schedule Yet in Tennessee Retailer Class Action
DEAN FOODS: Parties in Indirect Purchaser Action to Defer Case
DIGITAL TURBINE: Says Suit Against Coral Tell "Without Merit"
DOW CHEMICAL: To File Supreme Court Appeal in Urethane Case

DOW CHEMICAL: Quebec Case Stayed Pending Ontario Suit Outcome
DR LENNART: Plaintiffs in Blackfeather Directed to Cure Defects
DUN & BRADSTREET: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Cates" Suit Says
ECOTALITY INC: June 26 Final Hearing on Securities Settlement
EFT HOLDINGS: Second Amended Complaint Filed in "Li" Action

EFT HOLDINGS: 2nd Amended Complaint Filed in Li v. Qin
EPL OIL: Del. Chancery Court Dismissed Class Action Lawsuit
ESPERANZA FOOD: "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Still Facing Class Action Over Air Emissions
FORD MOTOR: Plaintiffs in Truck Sales Action File Appeal

GEO GROUP: Workers Seek to Recover Overtime and Minimum Wages
GNC HOLDINGS: Parties Reached Settlement of Hydroxycut Claims
GNC HOLDINGS: Final Hearing Held in DMAA/Aegeline Claims Deal
GNC HOLDINGS: California Wage and Break Suit Dismissed
GNC HOLDINGS: Court Granted Motion to Decertify FLSA Class

GNC HOLDINGS: Court Granted Motion to Certify in "Naranjo" Case
GNC HOLDINGS: No Approval Yet on Vargas and Hickok Case Accord
GNC HOLDINGS: Trial Postponed in "Olive" Case
GOLD STAR: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
GOOGLE INC: Faces Suit in Calif. for Not Paying Overtime Wages

HALLIBURTON ENERGY: Class Cert. Bid in "McCormick" Case Denied
HARRY & DAVID: Faces "Lemmon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
HESS CORPORATION: Suit Over Zip Code Requirement Policy
HMSHOST CORP: FLSA Plaintiffs Can't Appeal Decertification Order
HULU LLC: Court May Dismiss Class Suit Over Online Video Privacy

HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: No Ruling Yet on Motion to Dismiss
HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: No Ruling Yet on Bid to Appeal
IMS HEALTH: To Defend Against Suit in Korea
INTEL CORP: May 29 Hearing on New Class Certification Motion
INTEL CORP: March 2015 Hearing on Preliminary Approval Motion

INTEL CORP: Filed Opposition to Plaintiff Appeal in McAfee Case
JANSSEN PHARMA: Marketing Executive Grilled at Risperdal Trial
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Jury Issues $5.7MM Verdict in Pelvic Mesh Suit
KISSIMMEE UTILITY: 11th Cir. Upholds "Ferentinos" Case Dismissal
KROGER CO: Judge Approves Settlements in Listeria Outbreak Suits

LENNOX INT'L: Defendant in Class Action on Evaporator Coils
LIEN ENFORCEMENT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims
LIFE TIME: July 30 Final Hearing Set in TCPA Suit Settlement
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Caiola" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Tyrrell" Suit Over Toxic Flooring

MAC LIQUORS: Faces "David" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MASIMO CORP: Physicians Healthsource Case Remains Stayed
MASIMO CORP: Further Amended Complaint Filed in Surfactant Trial
MATSON INC: Settlement Reached in Horizon Lines Merger Action
MCNEIL CONSUMER: Pleads Guilty Over Metal Particles in Tylenol

MULTIPLE INJURY TRUST: Okla. Court Vacates Order in "Cellino" Case
NASDAQ OMX: Appeal in Facebook Litigation Still Pending
NASDAQ OMX: Filed Motion to Dismiss in Barclays Litigation
NASDAQ OMX: No Ruling Yet on Bids to Dismiss "Lainer" Suits
NATIONAL PREARRANGED: Jury Awards $491MM Damages in Funerals Case

NEXTEL: Class Certification in Discrimination Suit Reversed
NEW YORK, NY: To Remain a Defendant in Firefighter Suit
OMNIVISION TECH: June 5 Final Hearing on Securities Suit Deal
OVATION LENDING: Order Denying Dismissal Bid Certified for Appeal
PORTLAND GENERAL: Customers' Class Actions Remain Pending

POULSEN PIZZA: Faces "Hoffman" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
RANGER CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Piceno" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
REGIONS FINANCIAL: Awaiting Approval of Class Action Settlement
REGIONS FINANCIAL: Seeks Appellate Review on Class Certification
SANTANDER CONSUMER: To Pay $9.4MM for Illegally Repossessing Cars

SERVICE CORP: Subsidiary Faces "Samborsky" Class Action
SERVICE CORP: "Moulton" Action to Proceed v. Stewart Enterprises
SEWERAGE & WATER: Summary Judgment Bid in Crutchfield Case Denied
SOLARWORLD INDUSTRIES: Mag. Judge Findings Adopted in "Makaneole"
TARGA RESOURCES: Class Action Parties Working on Settlement Docs

TARGA RESOURCES: Parties to Atlas Lawsuits Agreed to Settle
TCP INTERNATIONAL: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
TRINIDAD DRILLING: Faces "Walker" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
UBER TECH: Jury Must Decide Misclassification Suits, Judges Say
UBER TECH: NFBC Has Standing to Pursue Discrimination Suit

UNION PACIFIC: Court Refuses to Dismiss Railroad Conspiracy Case
USG CORP: Settled Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation
VENTAS INC: Parties to HCT Action Entered Into MOU
VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Opposed Motion to Dismiss
WALGREEN CO: Falsely Marketed Food Products, "Tsang" Suit Claims

WASTE MANAGEMENT: To Seek Initial Approval of Florida Case Deal
WELLS FARGO: Counsel in Sales Practice Case to file Memorandum
WEST BUSINESS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
WEST PUBLISHING: McGuireWoods Back to Court Over Legal Fees
WHEELS AMERICA: Faces "Morales" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

YUM! BRANDS: Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit Appeal to 6th Cir.
YUM! BRANDS: Hearing Held on Taco Bell's Motion to Dismiss
YUM! BRANDS: Discovery to Continue in "Rodriguez" v. Taco Bell
YUM! BRANDS: Parties in "Mark Smith v. Pizza Hut" Agreed to Deal
ZILLOW INC: Plaintiffs' Brief Due in Securities Case Appeal

ZILLOW INC: Class Action Parties Conduct Confirmatory Discovery

* Women Workers' Compensation Claims Reduced Due Gender Reasons


                            *********


ADECCO USA: May 7 Opt-Out Deadline in Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Troy L. Nunley signed on March 10, 2015, a
stipulation and order regarding hearing on plaintiffs' motions for
final approval class action settlement and for attorney fees and
cost in the case captioned KEN MILLER, JEREMIE TODD, and
CHRISTOPHER FRANKLIN, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ADECCO USA, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation; CEVA LOGISTICS U.S., INC., a Delaware corporation;
and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 2:13-CV-01321-TLN-
CKD, (E.D. Cal.).

The stipulation provides that:

* March 16, 2015 is the deadline for Defendants to provide the
claims administrator with class members' contact information.

* March 23, 2015 is the deadline for the claims administrator to
mail class notice and claim form.

* May 7, 2015 is the deadline for class members to file
objections, opt-out or submit claim forms.

* May 21, 2015 is the date for filing of Plaintiff's Motion for
Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Motion for Attorney
Fees and Cost.

* June 18, 2015 is the hearing date on the Plaintiff's Motion for
Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Motion for Attorney
Fees and Cost.

The Notice of Class Action Settlement is approved as to form and
content.

A copy of the court-approved stipulation is available at
http://is.gd/UKMIN8from Leagle.com.

R. DUANE WESTRUP, PHILLIP R. POLINER --
ppoliner@westtrupassociates.com -- CAT N. BULAON --
cbulaon@westtrupassociates.com -- WESTRUP & ASSOCIATES, Long
Beach, California Attorneys for Plaintiffs KEN MILLER, JEREMIE
TODD AND CHRISTOPHER FRANKL.

Fraser A. McAlpine -- Fraser.McAlpine@jacksonlewis.com -- JACKSON
LEWIS P.C., Attorneys for Defendant CEVA LOGISTICS U.S., INC.

Charles F. Barker -- cbarker@sheppardmullin.com -- SHEPPARD MULLIN
RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP, Attorneys for Defendant ADECCO USA, INC.


ADOBE SYSTEMS: July 8 Hearing in Antitrust Suit Settlement Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lucy H. Koh granted plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of a class action settlement with defendants
Adobe Systems Incorporated, Apple Inc., Google Inc., and Intel
Corporation in IN RE: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION,
CASE NO. 11-CV-02509-LHK, (N.D. Cal.).

According to Judge Koh, the consideration -- a total of $415
million -- is substantial, particularly in light of the risk that
the jury could find no liability or award no damages. When
combined with the $20 million received from Plaintiffs' previous
settlements with Defendants Pixar, Lucasfilm, and Intuit, the
result for the Class in this litigation will total $435 million.

The Settlement's Plan of Allocation provides a neutral and fair
way to compensate Class members based on their salary and alleged
injury.

The proposed Settlement includes a class definition identical to
the Class defined as all natural persons who work in the
technical, creative, and/or research and development fields that
were employed on a salaried basis in the United States by one or
more of the following: (a) Apple from March 2005 through December
2009; (b) Adobe from May 2005 through December 2009; (c) Google
from March 2005 through December 2009; (d) Intel from March 2005
through December 2009; (e) Intuit from June 2007 through December
2009; (f) Lucasfilm from January 2005 through December 2009; or
(g) Pixar from January 2005 through December 2009 (the "Class
Period"). Excluded from the Class are: retail employees, corporate
officers, members of the boards of directors, and senior
executives of all Defendants.

Class Members have until May 21, 2015, to opt out of the Class.

The Court found that notice to the Class is appropriate and that
the Plan of Allocation is sufficiently fair, reasonable, and
adequate such that it is preliminarily approved, subject to
further consideration at the final hearing.

The appointed Gilardi & Co., LLC, as administrator.

Class Counsel and counsel for Plaintiff Michael Devine must file
their respective motions for payment of attorneys' fees, costs,
and for Plaintiff Service Awards, no later than May 7, 2015.

A final hearing on the Settlement Agreement will be held before
the Court at 1:30 p.m. on Thursday, July 9, 2015, in Courtroom 8,
4th Floor, of the Northern District of California, 280 South 1st
Street, San Jose, CA 95113.

Objections, along with any statements of intent to appear, must be
postmarked no later than May 21, 2015, and mailed to the addresses
provided by the Notice Administrator in the Notice.

Upon entry of the Final Approval Order and Judgment, all Class
Members who have not personally and timely requested to be
excluded from the Class will be enjoined from proceeding against
Adobe, Apple, Google, and Intel and all other Released Parties
with respect to all of the Released Claims, consistent with the
Settlement Agreement.

A copy of the Court's March 3, 2015 order is available at
http://is.gd/UYL4Atfrom Leagle.com.


AJE MANAGEMENT: Faces "Diaz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sonia Diaz v. Aje Management Corp., El Viejo Jobo Restaurant,
Inc., Ariel Espinal and Juan Arias, Case No. 1:15-cv-01602
(S.D.N.Y., March 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 231 Sherman
Avenue, New York, NY 10034.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALCON LABORATORIES: Faces "Gray" Suit Over Lenses Resale Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy L. Gray and Danyelle D. Westphal, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc.,
Bausch + Lomb, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., Cooper Vision,
Inc., and Abb Optical Group, Case No. 2:15-cv-02642 (D. Kan.,
March 5, 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:

      Thomas V. Bender, Esq.
      Dirk Hubbard, Esq.
      Brooke Blake Edenfield, Esq.
      WALTERS BENDER STROHBEHN &VAUGHAN, P.C.
      2500 City Center Square, 1100 Main
      Kansas City, MO 64105
      Telephone: (816) 421-6620
      Facsimile: (816) 421-4747
      E-mail: tbender@wbsvlaw.com

         - and -

      Mark P. Bryant, Esq.
      BRYANT LAW CENTER, P.S.C.
      P.O. Box 1876, 601 Washington Street
      Paducah, KY 42003
      Telephone: (270) 442-1422
      Facsimile: (270) 443-8788
      E-mail: mark.bryant@bryantpsc.com


ALCON LABORATORIES: Faces "Miller" Suit Over Lenses Resale Price
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Miller, Caitlin O'neill and Tyler Brandafino, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Alcon
Laboratories, Inc., Bausch + Lomb, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care,
Inc., Cooper Vision, Inc., and ABB Optical Group, Case No. 3:15-
cv-01028 (N.D. Cal., March 4, 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:

      Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
      John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
      Jennifer J. Scott, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      707 Broadway, Suite 1000
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 233-4565
      Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
      E-mail: cburke@scott-scott.com
              jjasnoch@scott-scott.com
              jscott@scott-scott.com


AMERICAN REALTY: Sued by Twin Securities for Issuing False Report
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Twin Securities is the lead
plaintiff in the latest federal class action accusing directors of
American Realty Capital Properties of causing securities to
plummet by issuing misleading statements.


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Hummel" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
F. Matthew Hummel and Marissa Nasca, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:15-cv-01027 (N.D. Cal., March 4, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to provide adequate security and protection
for its computer systems containing patient's personally
identifiable information and personal health information.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
      Willem F. Jonckheer, Esq.
      Noah M. Schubert, Esq.
      SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
      Three Embarcadero Ctr Ste 1650
      San Francisco, CA 94111-4018
      Telephone: (415) 788-4220
      Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
      E-mail: rschubert@schubertlawfirm.com
              wjonckheer@schubertlawfirm.com
              nschubert@schubertlawfirm.com

         - and -

      Andy Katz, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ANDY KATZ
      2150 Allston Way Ste 400
      Berkeley, CA 94704
      Telephone: (510) 985-9050
      Facsimile: (510) 900-6070
      E-mail: andykatzlaw@gmail.com


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Mason" in D. Me. Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Mason, and all others similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00086 (D. Me., March 5, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to provide adequate security and
protection for its computer systems containing patient's
personally identifiable information and personal health
information.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin K. Grant, Esq.
      MCTEAGUE, HIGBEE, CASE, COHEN, WHITNEY & TOKER, P.A
      4 Union Park, P.O. Box 5000
      Topsham, ME 04086
      Telephone: (800) 210-8740
      Facsimile: (207) 725-1090
      E-mail: bgrant@mcteaguehigbee.com


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Pratt" Suit in Nevada Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bobby Pratt, Renee Nelson Pratt, and Jeri Hadel, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-00401 (D. Nev., March 5, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to provide adequate security and protection
for its computer systems containing patient's personally
identifiable information and personal health information.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan A. Hamilton, Esq.
      Marc C. Naron, Esq.
      HAMILTON LAW
      5125 S. Durango Dr., Ste. C
      Las Vegas, NV 89113
      Telephone: (702) 818-1818
      Facsimile: (702) 974-1139
      E-mail: ryan@hamlegal.com
              mnaron@hamlegal.com


ANTHEM INC: Faces Class Action in Connecticut Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Stapleton, writing for Law.com, reports that in her complaint
filed Feb. 20, former Anthem customer Wilma J. Peterman alleges
negligence, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violation
of Connecticut's Unfair Trade Practices Act.  Although similar
would-be class action suits related to the data breach have been
filed in Alabama, California, Georgia and Indiana, Peterman's
claim is the first to be filed in Connecticut.

She asks U.S. District Judge Victor Bolden in New Haven to certify
class action status.  According to the lawsuit, an unknown number
of affected Anthem customers have collective claims exceeding
$5 million.

An Anthem spokeswoman has said in published reports that the
company does not comment on pending litigation.

The Milford law firm Hurwitz, Sagarin, Slossberg & Knuff is
representing Peterman.  One of the lawyers named in the complaint,
David Slossberg, said he had not yet made a decision on whether he
wanted to provide comment for this article.

Anthem disclosed a data breach on Feb. 4, saying 80 million
customer records -- including names, dates of birth, and Social
Security numbers (SSN) -- were accessed by cyberthieves who hacked
into their computer system.

The information available to the hackers, including "personally
identifiable information, or PII," and "personal health
information, or PHI," would allow hackers to set up fraudulent
financial accounts or tax returns in a customer's name in order to
claim a fraudulent refund, the lawsuit suit says.

"Anthem should have at least encrypted customers' and employees'
sensitive information, rendering such information less useful or
even non-identifiable to cyberthieves," the lawsuit says.  "Yet
Anthem did not even take that step.  It stored its customers and
employees most sensitive information, including SSNs, and income
information in plain text, readily identifiable and usable by
anyone."

The company has offered two years of credit monitoring services to
any impacted customers.  Ms. Peterman -- who purchased credit
insurance after the breach was announced -- claims those services
would provide inadequate protection.

Laying Low

The hack creates a much greater concern for Anthem customers than
other recent breaches, in which debit and credit card information
was stolen.  In those cases, consumers can simply cancel their
cards.  In this case, the personal information would allow hackers
to obtain new cards using the personal information stolen,
extending the at-risk period for consumers, the complaint says.
Criminals will be able to borrow money or obtain credit which will
not be detected "until it's too late," the lawsuit states.

"Hackers tend to lay low when data breaches are exposed," the suit
continues.  "They often wait until consumers are less likely to be
on the lookout for fraudulent activities."

Despite the increasing instances of large cyberattacks affecting
millions of people, lawsuits filed over the breaches have
struggled right out of the starting gate -- often dismissed
because the plaintiffs couldn't show that they were actually
injured by the hack.  That hasn't stopped the lawsuits from
pouring in, particularly as the breaches have gotten bigger . The
data breach against Anthem Inc., for example, has already fueled
more than 40 class actions.

The Peterman lawsuit claims Anthem violated CUTPA by not
disclosing to customers "that it did not have reasonable best
practices, safeguards and data security in place."

Like several other cases, Peterman's lawsuit asserts that Anthem
failed to comply with the U.S. Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act, or HIPAA, because it had inadequate policies
and procedures in place to prevent unauthorized disclosures of
medical information.

In defending previously filed lawsuits, Anthem has insisted that
medical records weren't taken and they offered free credit-
monitoring and identity-theft repair for two years to repair any
damage.

Anthem has not yet responded in court. Court papers indicated it
has hired Craig Hoover, head of the global class action group at
Hogan Lovells in Washington, to defend some of the lawsuits that
have been filed.


ATLANTIC COAST: "Rivera" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Angel Rivera, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. Atlantic Coast Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Ace Lube
Centers, LLC, a/k/a Jiffy Lube Service Center #2603, and
Alex Damas, Case No. 9:15-cv-80288 (S.D. Fla., March 4, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Atlantic Coast Enterprises, LLC provides oil change and related
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric Scott Dwoskin, sq.
      Steven Leo Schwarzberg, Esq.
      SCHWARZBERG , ASSOCIATES
      Phillips Point-East Tower
      777 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1120E
      West Palm Beach, FL 33401
      Telephone: (561) 253-2211
      E-mail: edwoskin@schwarzberglaw.com
              steve@schwarzberglaw.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Appellate Court Affirms Settlement Agreement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Bedell, writing for Law.com, reports that The Appellate
Division, First Department, delivered a resounding victory on
March 5 to institutional investors who backed an $8.5 billion
settlement of claims against Bank of America stemming from the
2008 mortgage crisis.

The appeals court modified a lower court ruling which had approved
the settlement in large part but had disallowed a release of some
claims against Bank of America.

The panel allowed the bank to be released from those claims and
then affirmed the modified settlement agreement in The Bank of New
York Mellon v. Retirement Board, 651786/11.

Justice David Saxe, writing for the unanimous panel, faulted then-
Supreme Court Justice Barbara Kapnick's January 2014 holding that
Bank of New York Mellon as trustee charged with representing
investor interests in the pooled mortgage trusts, had abused its
discretion in waiving certain claims based on its lead counsel's
advice.

A group of dissident investors, initially led by insurance giant
AIG, had challenged the settlement, arguing the claims were worth
between $30 billion and $50 billion.

The objectors alleged Mellon had placed its own interests above
those of the investors by focusing on its own liability exposure.

In a rarely utilized proceeding under CPLR Article 77, the parties
sought resolution of the conflict in Manhattan's Commercial
Division.

Justice Kapnick, now a First Department justice, held a nine-week
bench trial in 2013 and then approved most of the settlement.  But
she ruled that Mellon had improperly relied on the advice of lead
counsel, Jason Kravitt -- jkravitt@mayerbrown.com -- a partner at
Mayer Brown, who had argued that the investors should not attempt
to force Bank of America to buy back mortgages that it had
modified in an effort to mitigate further losses.

Bank of America inherited the liabilities when it bought
Countrywide in July 2008, as it was spiraling into insolvency.
The investors claimed that Countrywide had misled them by failing
to disclose the risks of mortgage default.

The Mayer Brown securitization group, led by Mr. Kravitt,
pioneered the legal structures used by the residential mortgage
backed securities industry, and had represented banks that issued
investment certificates backed by the loan pools, thus creating a
conflict of interest, the dissidents asserted.

Justice Saxe said Mr. Kapnick had correctly rejected those
arguments because "the nature of the asserted conflict was
disclosed and waived, and had no impact on the propriety of the
advice on which the trustee relied."

But Mr. Kapnick also should have credited Justice Kravitt's
judgment with respect to the decision not to pursue the repurchase
demand on Bank of America, the opinion said.

Mellon had "reasonably embraced a negotiating strategy that did
not specifically seek recovery for the claimed failure to
repurchase modified loans," he added.

Justice Kravitt had argued that the documentation under which the
mortgage loans had been sold to the trusts did not unequivocally
support a buyback obligation.

And because government policy in the wake of the financial
meltdown favored stemming mortgage defaults, Kravitt argued Bank
of America would have a viable defense.

Mr. Kapnick had faulted Justice Kravitt for not hiring an
independent legal expert to assess the viability of demanding Bank
of America repurchase the modified loans.

But Saxe, who was joined by Justices David Friedman, Rolando
Acosta, Sallie Manzanet-Daniels, and Judith Gische, said that
decision was within the trustee's discretion.

By rejecting Mellon's decision to waive the claims, Mr. Kapnick
had "disregarded the standard of deference due to a trustee's
exercise of discretionary judgment," and was "improperly imposing
a stricter and far less deferential standard, one that allows a
court to micromanage and second guess the reasoned, and
reasonable, decisions of a trustee," Saxe held.

The objecting investors had failed to make a showing that, "based
on the particular circumstances, the reliance on such counsel's
assessment was unreasonable and in bad faith."

The settlement resolves claims by investors who put $424 billion
into the trust interests sold by Countrywide and backed by 1.6
million residential mortgages it had originated in the years
before the 2008 financial crisis.

The institutional investors favoring the June 2011 settlement
represented holders of 24 percent of the total amount invested in
the 530 trusts.

AIG settled its claims separately with Bank of America while the
appeal was sub judice, garnering an additional $650 million, or
7.5 percent, over what it will get in the global settlement.


BIRCHBOX INC: Faces "Davis" Suit Over Automatic Renewal Policies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Birchbox, Inc., a New York Corporation, Case No. 3:15-
cv-00498 (S.D. Cal., March 4, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's
unlawful practice of making automatic renewal or continuous
service offers to consumers in and throughout California and at
the time of making the automatic renewal or continuous service
offers, failed to present the automatic renewal offer terms, or
continuous service offer terms, in a clear and conspicuous manner
and in visual proximity to the request for consent to the offer
before the subscription or purchasing agreement was fulfilled.

Birchbox, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business located at 28 E. 28th Street, New York, New York,
10016, which sells samples of make-up and personal care products
on a monthly subscription basis to consumers throughout
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd A. Seaver, Esq.
      Victor S. Elias, Esq.
      BERMAN DEVALERIO
      One California Street, Suite 900
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 433-3200
      Facsimile: (415) 433-6382
      E-mail: tseaver@bermandevalerio.com
              velias@bermandevalerio.com

         - and -

      Julian Hammond, Esq.
      HAMMOND LAW, PC
      1829 Reisterstown Rd., Suite 410
      Baltimore, MD 21208
      Telephone: (310) 601-6766
      Facsimile: (310) 295-2385
      E-mail: jhammond@hammondlawpc.com


BP PLC: Plaintiffs Get Partial OK to Amend Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the derivative/putative class action in IN RE: BP
p.l.c. SECURITIES LITIGATION. IN RE: BP p.l.c. ERISA LITIGATION,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:10-CV-4214, MDL NO. 10-MD-2185, (S.D. Tex.)
seek leave to amend their complaint, brought pursuant to the
Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). They
allege that certain corporate entities and individuals associated
with the BP Group violated their fiduciary duties to the
participants of four employee benefits plans offered before and
after the disastrous Deepwater Horizon explosion on April 20,
2010.

According to District Judge Keith P. Ellison amended memorandum
and order dated March 4, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/8Xkafqfrom Leagle.com, "the Court denies Plaintiffs'
Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint insofar as it requests
leave to amend Count II, denominated as the "disclosure claims"
against all Defendants. In light of Fifth Circuit case law,
amendment of Count II would be futile. As to Counts I and III --
denominated as the "prudence claims" and "monitoring claims,"
respectively -- Plaintiffs' Motion is granted in part."

Plaintiffs have 28 days to file an amended complaint in accordance
with the memorandum and order. Defendants may then move to dismiss
the amended complaint within the time allotted by Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12, but may not raise any arguments addressed and
resolved in the course of this order, Judge Ellison added.


CABELA'S INC: No Remaining Liability for Visa Case Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cabela's Incorporated said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 27, 2014, that at December 27, 2014,
there was no remaining liability for the Visa Litigation
Settlement.

In June 2005, a number of entities, each purporting to represent a
class of retail merchants, sued Visa and several member banks, and
other credit card associations, alleging, among other things, that
Visa and its member banks have violated United States antitrust
laws by conspiring to fix the level of interchange fees. On July
13, 2012, the parties to this litigation announced that they had
entered into a memorandum of understanding, which subject to
certain conditions, including court approval, obligated the
parties to enter into a settlement agreement to resolve the claims
brought by the class members.

On December 13, 2013, the settlement received final court
approval. The settlement agreement required, among other things,
(i) the distribution to class merchants of an amount equal to 10
basis points of default interchange across all credit rate
categories for a period of eight consecutive months, which
otherwise would have been paid to issuers like Cabella's wholly-
owned bank subsidiary, World's Foremost Bank, (ii) Visa to change
its rules to allow merchants to charge a surcharge on credit card
transactions subject to a cap, and (iii) Visa to meet with
merchant buying groups that seek to negotiate interchange rates
collectively. To date, WFB has not been named as a defendant in
any credit card industry lawsuits. Based on the information in the
proposed settlement, management determined that the 10 basis point
reduction of default interchange across all credit rate categories
for the period of eight consecutive months from July 29, 2013,
through March 28, 2014, would result in a reduction of interchange
income of approximately $12,500 in the Financial Services segment.
Therefore, a liability of $12,500 was recorded as of December 29,
2012, to accrue for this settlement.

At December 28, 2013, the remaining liability related to the
settlement was $4,687, reflecting the reduction of 10 basis points
of interchange fees, adjustments relating to plaintiff opt-outs of
the settlement, and reevaluation of the merchant charge volume
based on Visa interchange reduction assessments. The remaining
liability was settled in the first half of 2014; therefore, at
December 27, 2014, there was no remaining liability for this
settlement.


COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR: Judge Awards $3.3MM in Heated Jackets Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge awarded Columbia
Sportswear $3.3 million in its lawsuit against a company that
allegedly supplied faulty components for Columbia's electrically
heated jackets.

Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued the default judgment against
Fibretronic Limited.

The Hong Kong-based company filed no court documents and did
nothing to challenge Columbia over the lawsuit filed in September
2013.  Columbia had sought $9.4 million in damages.

The lawsuit said Fibretronics' heating components -- placed in the
wrist cuffs -- included wires that were improperly aligned and
created an electrical short.

"The short created a hot spot that melted fabric in the jacket,"
according to the complaint filed by Columbia.

There were no reports of injuries from overheated cuffs, but
Columbia and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission issued
product recalls related to the jackets.

In January 2013, the company announced it did not plan to offer
new electrically heated products for the 2013-14 winter season.  A
company spokesperson told The Oregonian newspaper that Columbia
has suspended its electronics program.

The spokesperson declined to comment about the prospects of
collecting the court award.

Columbia introduced its Omni-Heat Electric technology in apparel
in 2011.  The battery-powered, push-button heat in apparel was
introduced after similar technology was offered in Columbia boots
and gloves.

A court document Columbia filed in the case said the company ended
up with about 6,400 electrically heated jackets in its inventory,
nearly all of them stored at its Port of Portland warehouse.  The
company secured an order allowing it to destroy all but 70 jackets
-- 10 each of seven defective models -- for future use if needed
in court proceedings.


COMCAST CORP: Court Stays Grear Class Action Pending Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jeffrey S. White ordered the parties in TOYER GREAR
and JOCELYN HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. COMCAST CORPORATION, a
Pennsylvania Corporation, Defendant, NO. C 14-05333 JSW, (N.D.
Cal.) to arbitrate, and stayed the action pending completion of
the arbitration.

Plaintiffs are Comcast customers who "access the Internet in their
household via the wireless router leased from Comcast as part of
its Xfinity Wi-Fi Service." Harris signed the contract with
Comcast. Although Grear did not sign the contract, she pays the
household utility bills, including the Comcast bill. According to
Plaintiffs, Comcast has begun to lease wireless routers to its
customers, including Plaintiffs, that are equipped to provide its
customers with a Wi-Fi signal for their homes. These new routers
also include an additional signal that can be accessed by the
public. Each of Plaintiffs' claims for relief are premised on the
theory that Comcast did not obtain their authorization to use
their wireless router to broadcast these additional "hotspots" to
the public.

Comcast filed the motion to compel arbitration.

In his March 3, 2015 order granting arbitration, a copy of which
is available at http://is.gd/iwssxWfrom Leagle.com, Judge White
wrote that "it is undisputed that the contract with Comcast
includes a residential services agreement (the "RSA"), which
contains an arbitration provision (the "Arbitration Provision").
Although Comcast permits its customers to opt-out of the
Arbitration Provision, it is undisputed that Plaintiffs have not
opted out."

The Court vacated the hearing scheduled for March 13, 2015, and
ordered the parties to file joint status reports every 120 days in
which they advise the Court of the status of the arbitration
proceedings and when they expect that the stay may be lifted or
the case may be dismissed. The parties' first joint status report
is due 120 days from the date of the Order.

Toyer Grear, Plaintiff, represented by Gillian Leigh Wade --
gwade@milsteinadelman.com -- Milstein Adelman, LLP, Brian Tse-Hua
Ku -- brian@kumussman.com -- Ku and Mussman, P.A., Joseph Henry
Bates, III -- hbates@cbplaw.com -- Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC,
Louis I Mussman -- louis@kumussman.com -- Ku and Mussman, P.A.,
Michael Ryan Casey -- ryan@kumussman.com -- Ku and Mussman, P.A. &
Sara Dawn Avila -- savila@milsteinadelman -- Milstein Adelman,
LLP.

Joycelyn Harris, Plaintiff, represented by Gillian Leigh Wade,
Milstein Adelman, LLP, Brian Tse-Hua Ku, Ku and Mussman, P.A.,
Joseph Henry Bates, III, Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC, Louis I
Mussman, Ku and Mussman, P.A., Michael Ryan Casey, Ku and Mussman,
P.A. & Sara Dawn Avila, Milstein Adelman, LLP.

Comcast Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael James
Stortz -- Michael.Stortz@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP,
Michael W. McTigue, Jr. -- Michael.McTigue@dbr.com -- Drinker
Biddle & Reath LLP, Seamus Cotter Duffy -- Seamus.Duffy@dbr.com --
Drinker Biddle Reath LLP & Tracy Schloss Combs --
Tracy.Combs@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle and Reath LLP.


COMMERCEWEST BANK: Settles Consumer Fraud Case for $4.9 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marcy Gordon, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
CommerceWest Bank has agreed to a $4.9 million federal settlement
of a consumer fraud case involving unauthorized withdrawals from
customer accounts.

With the agreement, the bank will avoid criminal prosecution in
the case.

The Justice Department on March 10 announced the deal with
CommerceWest, a small bank with operations in Southern California.
The settlement resolves a criminal charge and a civil lawsuit
against the bank.

Under terms of the agreement, CommerceWest, based in Irvine,
California, admitted that it failed to report to the government
suspicious activity in its accounts by payment processor V
Internet Corp.  The bank won't be prosecuted on condition it gives
up its claim to about $2.9 million seized by law enforcement
authorities from the CommerceWest accounts of V Internet.

In addition, CommerceWest will pay a $1 million civil penalty and
will forfeit $1 million to the U.S. Postal Inspection Service's
consumer fraud fund.

The Justice Department said CommerceWest enabled fraud by allowing
V Internet, on behalf of fraudulent merchants, to make millions of
dollars of unauthorized withdrawals from customer accounts.

The merchants included a telemarketing company and a company that
charged customers for a payday loan referral fee they didn't
authorize, according to the government.  The Justice Department
alleged that CommerceWest ignored clear warning signs that V
Internet and the merchants were defrauding bank customers as the
scheme ran from December 2011 through July 2013.

"We will hold financial institutions accountable when they choose
unlawfully to look the other way while fraudsters use the bank's
accounts to steal millions of dollars from American consumers,"
Benjamin Mizer, an acting assistant attorney general in the
department's civil division, said in a statement.

CommerceWest's chairman and CEO, Ivo Tjan, said in a statement the
bank is pleased that the investigation is over.

The bank said it doesn't believe that any employee "knowingly
assisted with or willfully ignored signs of fraud" allegedly
committed by V Internet.  CommerceWest said it has improved its
compliance program for reporting suspicious activity to the
authorities, and that three compliance officers are no longer
employed at the bank.


CORPORATE RESOURCE: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------
Janez Demsar, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Corporate Resource Services, Inc.,
John P. Messina, Sr., Michael J. Golde, Joseph Cassera, Robert
Cassera, James Altucher, James Foley, Karen Amato, Thomas J.
Clarke, Jr., Larry Melby, and Sylvan Holzer, Case No. 1:15-cv-
01632 (S.D.N.Y., March 5, 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 Plaintiff is represented by:

      Francis Paul McConville, Esq.
      Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      E-mail: fmcconville@pomlaw.com
              jalieberman@pomlaw.com

         - and -

      Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Reached Settlement in Canadian Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cypress Semiconductor Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2014, that the
Company has reached a settlement in the pending class action
claims in three Canadian provinces relating to the original SRAM
class action case that was resolved in the United States in 2010.

"As with the case in the United States, we are confident that we
have not engaged in any antitrust activity, however given that we
are the last remaining defendant and the cost of continued
litigation would far exceed the cost of a nominal settlement, we
have agreed to settle the case," the Company said.


CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Facing 2 Class Actions on Spansion Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cypress Semiconductor Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2014, that after the
Company's announcement of the merger with Spansion in December
2014, two separate putative class action complaints were filed in
Santa Clara County Superior Court, alleging claims of breach of
fiduciary duty against the Spansion board of directors and naming
Cypress as a defendant for aiding and abetting the alleged breach
of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs seek to injunctive relief and
unspecified damages.

"We believe these actions are meritless and intend to defend
ourselves vigorously. The possible range of monetary loss that
might occur in the future in this matter, if any, is unknown at
this time," the Company said.



DEAN FOODS: No Schedule Yet in Tennessee Retailer Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Foods Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the trial court has not
yet issued a schedule for further proceedings in the Tennessee
Retailer class action.

A putative class action antitrust complaint (the "retailer
action") was filed on August 9, 2007 in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Plaintiffs allege
generally that the Company, either acting alone or in conjunction
with others in the milk industry who are also defendants in the
retailer action, lessened competition in the Southeastern United
States for the sale of processed fluid Grade A milk to retail
outlets and other customers, and that the defendants' conduct also
artificially inflated wholesale prices for direct milk purchasers.
Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the retailer action was
granted in part and denied in part in August 2010. Defendants
filed a motion for reconsideration, and renewed their request for
summary judgment in September 2010.

In March 2012, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of
defendants as to all remaining counts and entered judgment in
favor of all defendants, including the Company. Plaintiffs
appealed the court's decision in April 2012.

In January 2014, the appeals court reversed the judgment for the
defendants, including the Company, on one of the original five
counts in the Tennessee retailer action. In February 2014, the
Company requested that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals consider
its decision en banc; the Sixth Circuit declined to do so. The
Sixth Circuit returned the case to the trial court for further
proceedings.

The Company filed a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for review
of the case on August 1, 2014. The Supreme Court denied the
petition on November 17, 2014. The trial court has not yet issued
a schedule for further proceedings.


DEAN FOODS: Parties in Indirect Purchaser Action to Defer Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Foods Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the parties in the
indirect purchaser class action have jointly proposed that further
proceedings in this case be deferred until after the Court rules
on additional summary judgment and class certification issues in
the Tennessee retailer action.

On June 29, 2009, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
Eastern District of Tennessee, Greeneville Division, on behalf of
indirect purchasers of processed fluid Grade A milk (the "indirect
purchaser action"). The allegations in this complaint are similar
to those in the retailer action, but primarily involve state law
claims. Because the allegations in the indirect purchaser action
substantially overlap with the allegations in the retailer action,
the Court granted the parties' joint motion to stay all
proceedings in the indirect purchaser action pending the outcome
of the summary judgment motions in the retailer action.

On August 16, 2012, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed their lawsuit.

On January 17, 2013, these same plaintiffs filed a new lawsuit in
the Eastern District of Tennessee, Greeneville Division, on behalf
of a putative class of indirect purchasers of processed fluid
Grade A milk (the "2013 indirect purchaser action"). The
allegations are similar to those in the voluntarily dismissed
indirect purchaser action, but involve only claims arising under
Tennessee law.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss on April 30, 2013.  On June
14, 2013, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs responded to the
Company's motion to dismiss and filed an amended complaint. On
July 1, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

On September 11, 2014, the Court granted in part and denied in
part the motion to dismiss. The Court granted the motion to
dismiss the non-Tennessee plaintiffs' claims. The Company filed
its answer to the surviving claims on October 15, 2014. The
parties have jointly proposed that further proceedings in this
case be deferred until after the Court rules on additional summary
judgment and class certification issues in the Tennessee retailer
action.


DIGITAL TURBINE: Says Suit Against Coral Tell "Without Merit"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Digital Turbine, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the lawsuit filed
against Coral Tell Ltd., is without merits and a finding of
liability on Digital Turbine's part remote.

On May 30, 2013, a class action suit in the amount of NIS 19.2
million or $5.3 million was filed in the Tel-Aviv Jaffa District
Court against Coral Tell Ltd., an Israeli company which owns and
operates a website offering advertisements and Coral Tell Ltd is
currently being sued in a class action lawsuit regarding phone
call overages and has served a third party notice against Logia
and two additional companies for Digital Turbine's alleged
involvement in facilitating the overages. The suit relates to a
service offered by the Coral Tell website, enabling advertisers to
display a virtual cellular number in the advertisement instead of
their real cellular number. The plaintiff claims that calls were
charged for the connection time between two segments of the call,
instead of the second segment alone; that the caller was charged
even if the advertiser did not answer the call (as the charge
began upon initiation of the first segment); and that the caller
was charged for text messages sent to the advertiser, although the
service did not support delivery of text messages.

"We have no contractual relationship with this company. We believe
the lawsuit is without merits and a finding of liability on our
part remote. After conferring with advisors and counsel,
management believes that the ultimate liability, if any, in the
aggregate will not be material to the financial position or
results or operations of the Company for any future period; and no
liability has been accrued," the Company said.

On November 25, 2013, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered the
parties to submit their position as to whether the defendant
(applicant) has a right to appeal the Israeli District's Court
decision or must request the Israeli Supreme Court to grant a
right to appeal.

On December 25, 2013, after reviewing the parties' positions, the
Israeli Supreme Court ordered the respondents (Cellcom, Logia,
Ethrix) to submit their response to defendant's petition to grant
the right to appeal, by January 26th, 2014. Appellant responded
thereafter and the appeal is now under review and pending
judgment. Usually, in petitions such as this the Israeli Supreme
Court makes a judgment based on the parties' written responses.


DOW CHEMICAL: To File Supreme Court Appeal in Urethane Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company will
file a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court
in March 2015, seeking judicial review by the U.S. Supreme Court
and requesting that the Supreme Court ultimately correct
fundamental errors in the Circuit Court opinion related to the
urethane class action.

On February 16, 2006, the Company, among others, received a
subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") as part of a
previously announced antitrust investigation of manufacturers of
polyurethane chemicals, including methylene diphenyl diisocyanate,
toluene diisocyanate, polyether polyols and system house products.
The Company cooperated with the DOJ and, following an extensive
investigation, on December 10, 2007, the Company received notice
from the DOJ that it had closed its investigation of potential
antitrust violations involving these products without indictments
or pleas.

In 2005, the Company, among others, was named as a defendant in
multiple civil class action lawsuits alleging a conspiracy to fix
the price of various urethane chemical products, namely the
products that were the subject of the DOJ antitrust investigation.
These lawsuits were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Kansas (the "District Court") or have been tolled.

On July 29, 2008, the District Court certified a class of
purchasers of the products for the six-year period from 1999
through 2004. Shortly thereafter, a series of "opt-out" cases were
filed by a number of large volume purchasers; these cases are
substantively identical to the class action lawsuit, but expanded
the time period to include 1994 through 1998. In January 2013, the
class action lawsuit went to trial in the District Court with the
Company as the sole remaining defendant, the other defendants
having previously settled.

On February 20, 2013, the jury returned a damages verdict of
approximately $400 million against the Company, which ultimately
was trebled by the District Court under applicable antitrust laws
-- less offsets from other settling defendants -- resulting in a
judgment entered in July 2013 in the amount of $1.06 billion. The
Company appealed this judgment to the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of
Appeals ("Tenth Circuit" or "Court of Appeals"), which heard oral
arguments on the matter on May 14, 2014.

On September 29, 2014, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion
affirming the District Court judgment. On October 14, 2014, the
Company filed a petition for Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc
(collectively the "Rehearing Petition") with the Court of Appeals,
which the Circuit Court denied on November 7, 2014.

The Company will file a petition for writ of certiorari ("Writ
Petition") with the U.S. Supreme Court in March 2015, seeking
judicial review by the U.S. Supreme Court and requesting that the
Supreme Court ultimately correct fundamental errors in the Circuit
Court opinion. While it is unknowable whether or not the U.S.
Supreme Court will accept the Writ Petition for review, there are
several compelling reasons why the U.S. Supreme Court should grant
the petition for writ of certiorari, and if the petition for writ
of certiorari is accepted, the Company believes it is likely that
the District Court judgment would be vacated. Specifically, it is
the Company's position that the Tenth Circuit decision violates
the law as expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court as set out in Wal-
Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) and Comcast
Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013). The Tenth Circuit also
did not follow accepted law from other federal circuits on
dispositive case issues, including legal precedent from the U.S.
First, Second, Third, Fifth, Ninth and D.C. Circuit Courts.
Finally, the erroneous law applied by the Tenth Circuit is not
supported by any other circuit court.

The Company has consistently denied plaintiffs' allegations of
price fixing and, the Company will continue to vigorously defend
this litigation. As part of the Company's review of the jury
verdict, the resulting judgment and the Court of Appeals'
opinions, the Company assessed the legal and factual circumstances
of the case, the trial record, the appellate record, and the
applicable law including clear precedent from the U.S. Supreme
Court. Based on this review and the reasons stated, the Company
believes the judgment and decisions from the Court of Appeals are
not appropriate. As a result, the Company has concluded it is not
probable that a loss will occur and, therefore, a liability has
not been recorded with respect to these matters. While the Company
believes it is not probable a loss will occur, the existence of
the jury verdict, the Court of Appeals' opinion, and subsequent
denial of Dow's Rehearing Petition indicate that it is reasonably
possible that a loss could occur. The estimate of the possible
range of loss to Dow is zero to the $1.06 billion judgment
(excluding post-judgment interest and possible award of class
attorney fees).

On September 30, 2014, the "opt-out" cases that had been
consolidated with the class action lawsuit for purposes of pre-
trial proceedings were remanded from the District Court to the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.


DOW CHEMICAL: Quebec Case Stayed Pending Ontario Suit Outcome
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that there are two
separate but inter-related matters in Ontario and Quebec, Canada.
In March 2014, the Superior Court of Justice in London, Ontario,
ruled in favor of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
Dow filed its Notice of Motion for Leave to Appeal in March 2014,
which was subsequently denied. The Quebec case has been stayed
pending the outcome of the Ontario case. The Company has concluded
it is not probable that a loss will occur and, therefore, a
liability has not been recorded with respect to the opt-out
litigation or the Canadian matters.


DR LENNART: Plaintiffs in Blackfeather Directed to Cure Defects
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in MICAH BLACKFEATHER, and MATHEW J. HOUNSHELL,
Plaintiffs, v. DR. LENNART ABEL, and CMHIP STAFF, Defendants,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-CV-00454-GPG, (D. Col.) are inmates at the
Colorado Mental Health Institute at Pueblo, Colorado. Plaintiffs
have submitted to the court a document titled "Motion to Initiate
Class Action Lawsuit, Temporary Restraining Order, Unbias Judge".

As part of the court's review pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.1(b),
the court determined that the document is deficient. Accordingly,
Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher ordered the Plaintiffs to
cure the deficiencies within 30 days from the date of this order.
Any papers that Plaintiffs file in response to the order must
include the civil action number on the order.

The Court further ordered that Plaintiffs must obtain the court-
approved Prisoner's Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915 and Prisoner Complaint forms
(with the assistance of a case manager or the facility's legal
assistant), along with the applicable instructions, at
www.cod.uscourts.gov.

Any Plaintiff who fails to cure the designated deficiencies within
30 days from the date of the order will be dismissed as a party to
the action without further notice. The dismissal will be without
prejudice.

A copy of the court's March 4, 2015 Order is available at
http://is.gd/b0yrhzfrom Leagle.com.

Micah Blackfeather, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Mathew Hounshell, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Cates" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tranis Cates and Andrew Allison, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-01617 (D.N.J., March 4, 2015), seeks
to stop its practice of making unsolicited calls to the telephones
of consumers nationwide.

Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. is a leading source of commercial data,
analytics, and insight on businesses, and owns and operates a
commercial database containing information on more than 235
million companies from around the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
      Ari Scharg, Esq.
      Alicia Hwang, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Telephone: (312) 589-6370
      Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
      E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
              ascharg@edelson.com
              ahwang@edelson.com

         - and -

      Stefan L. Coleman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, LLC
      1072 Madison Avenue, Suite 1
      Lakewood, NJ 08701
      Telephone: (877) 333-9427
      E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com


ECOTALITY INC: June 26 Final Hearing on Securities Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Samuel Conti entered a preliminary approval of the
settlement in In re ECOTALITY, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, MASTER
FILE NO. 13-03791-SC, (N.D. Cal.).

The Court certified the Class defined as: all Persons who
purchased ECOtality common stock beginning on April 16, 2013 and
through and including August 12, 2013, and were damaged thereby.
Excluded from this definition are (a) all Defendants and their
immediate families, (b) ECOtality's former and current officers
and directors and their immediate families, and (c) any entity in
which these excluded persons have a controlling interest. Also
excluded from the Class are those Persons who validly and timely
request exclusion from the Class pursuant to the terms of the
Stipulation and its related Exhibits.

Any Person falling within the definition of the Class may, upon
request, be excluded from the Class. Any such Person must submit
to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion postmarked no
later than May 19, 2015.

A hearing will be held before the Court on June 26, 2015, at 10:00
a.m., at the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Courtroom 1, San
Francisco, CA 94102, to determine whether the settlement of the
Litigation on the terms and conditions provided for in the
Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class and
should be approved by the Court; whether a Final Order should be
entered; whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be
approved; and to determine the amount of the Fee and Expense Award
and the amount of expenses that should be paid to Lead Plaintiff
for his representation of the Class.

The firm of Gilardi & Co. LLC has been appointed to supervise and
administer the notice procedure as well as the processing of
claims.

A copy of the Court's March 6, 2015 Order is available at
http://is.gd/VdbyWVfrom Leagle.com.


EFT HOLDINGS: Second Amended Complaint Filed in "Li" Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
EFT Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that a second amended
complaint was filed in the case Li, et al. v. EFT Holdings, Inc.,
et al.

On November 27, 2013, a class action entitled Li, et al. v. EFT
Holdings, Inc., et al. was filed on behalf of a putative class of
all purchasers of one or more of the Company's products against
the Company and Jack Qin in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California. A first amended complaint was
filed on July 11, 2014. On October 10, 2014, the Court dismissed
all class claims with prejudice. On November 19, 2014, the Court
denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Relief from the October 10, 2014
Order.

On January 7, 2015, the Court entered an order dismissing
Plaintiffs' claims for breach of warranty with prejudice and all
claims against Jack Qin without prejudice, and clarified that
Plaintiff cannot seek disgorgement or state claims based on any
stock-related fraud.

On January 30, 2015, a second amended complaint was filed alleging
individual claims for unfair competition, false advertising and
fraud. The second amended complaint seeks, among other things,
restitution, compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive
relief. The case is currently pending.

The Company believes that the claims asserted are without merit
and intends to defend against them vigorously.


EFT HOLDINGS: 2nd Amended Complaint Filed in Li v. Qin
------------------------------------------------------
EFT Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that a second amended
complaint was filed in the case Li, et al. v. Qin, et al.

On November 27, 2013, a class action entitled Li, et al. v. Qin,
et al. was filed on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers
of the Company's products against the Company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California. A first
amended complaint was filed on July 11, 2014.

On October 10, 2014, the Court dismissed all class claims with
prejudice. On November 19, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiffs'
Motion for Relief from the October 10, 2014 Order.

On January 6, 2015, the Court entered an order dismissing
Plaintiffs' corporate waste and gift claims, and Plaintiffs'
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act claims
based on alleged corporate looting and operation of a pump-and-
dump scheme. The Court further dismissed Plaintiffs' deception and
common law fraud claims with respect to all defendants except the
Company and Jack Qin.

On January 30, 2015, a second amended complaint was filed alleging
individual claims for operation of an endless chain scheme,
deception and common law fraud, and RICO violations. The complaint
seeks, among other things, compensatory, treble and punitive
damages. The case is currently pending.

The Company believes that the claims asserted are without merit
and intends to defend against them vigorously.


EPL OIL: Del. Chancery Court Dismissed Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
EPL Oil & Gas, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware entered an order dismissing a
class action lawsuit in its entirety without prejudice.

The Company said, "In March and April, 2014, three alleged
stockholders (the "Plaintiffs") filed three separate class action
lawsuits in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on
behalf of our stockholders against our Company, our directors,
Energy XXI, EGC, and Clyde Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware
corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of EGC ("Merger Sub" and
collectively, the "defendants"). The Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware consolidated these lawsuits on May 5, 2014. The
consolidated lawsuit is styled In re EPL Oil & Gas Inc.
Shareholders Litigation, C.A. No. 9460-VCN, in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "lawsuit")."

"Plaintiffs alleged a variety of causes of action challenging the
Agreement and Plan of Merger between Energy XXI, OpCo, Merger Sub,
and EPL (the "merger agreement"), which provided for the
acquisition of EPL by Energy XXI. Plaintiffs alleged that (a) our
directors allegedly breached fiduciary duties in connection with
the Merger and (b) we along with Energy XXI, OpCo, and Merger Sub
allegedly aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties. Plaintiffs sought to have the merger agreement rescinded
and also sought damages and attorneys' fees.

On January 16, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a voluntary notice of
dismissal. On January 20, 2015, the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware entered an order dismissing the lawsuit in its
entirety without prejudice.


ESPERANZA FOOD: "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernardo Genao Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and other similarly
situated waiters, cooks, prep cooks and dishwashers employed by
Defendants v. Esperanza Food Corp. and Pedro Pichardo a/k/a Marcos
Pichardo, Case No. 1:15-cv-01137 (E.D.N.Y., March 5, 2015), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 54-5 5
Myrtle Avenue, Ridgewood, New York, 11385.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
      225 Broadway, Suite 307
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 323-6980
      Facsimile: (212) 233-9238
      E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Still Facing Class Action Over Air Emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Firstenergy Corp. and Firstenergy Solutions Corp. said in their
Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on February 17, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that in July 2008, three complaints representing multiple
plaintiffs were filed against FG in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania seeking damages based on air
emissions from the coal-fired Bruce Mansfield Plant. Two of these
complaints also seek to enjoin the Bruce Mansfield Plant from
operating except in a "safe, responsible, prudent and proper
manner." One complaint was filed on behalf of 21 individuals and
the other is a class action complaint seeking certification as a
class with the eight named plaintiffs as the class
representatives. FG believes the claims are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations made
in these complaints, but, at this time, is unable to predict the
outcome of this matter or estimate the possible loss or range of
loss.


FORD MOTOR: Plaintiffs in Truck Sales Action File Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the Medium/Heavy Truck Sales Procedure Class Action
have sought further review in the Ohio Supreme Court, Ford Motor
Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014.

This action pending in the Ohio state court system alleges that
Ford breached its Sales and Service Agreement with Ford truck
dealers by failing to publish to all Ford dealers all price
concessions that were approved for any dealer. The trial court
certified a nationwide class consisting of all Ford dealers who
purchased from Ford any 600-series or higher truck from 1987 to
1997, and granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on
liability. During 2011, a jury awarded $4.5 million in damages to
the named plaintiff dealer and the trial court applied the jury's
findings with regard to the named plaintiff to all dealers in the
class, entering a judgment of approximately $2 billion in damages.
We appealed, and on May 3, 2012, the Ohio Court of Appeals
reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to
plaintiffs, vacated the damages award, and remanded the matter for
a new trial. The retrial in September 2013 resulted in a verdict
in Ford's favor.

On February 7, 2014, the trial court granted plaintiffs' motion
for a new trial, but on December 11, 2014, the Ohio Court of
Appeals reversed the order granting a new trial and reinstated the
verdict in Ford's favor. Plaintiffs have sought further review in
the Ohio Supreme Court.


GEO GROUP: Workers Seek to Recover Overtime and Minimum Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the Geo Group, one of the
nation's largest private prison companies, stiffs employees for
overtime and minimum wages, a class action claims in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles.


GNC HOLDINGS: Parties Reached Settlement of Hydroxycut Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the parties in the
consolidated class actions reached a settlement, which was
approved by the Court on October 15, 2014 and which did not
require the Company to make any payments.

In 2009, the FDA issued a warning on several Hydroxycut-branded
products manufactured by Iovate Health Sciences U.S.A., Inc.
("Iovate") based on 23 reports of liver injuries from consumers
who claimed to have used the products between 2002 and 2009. As a
result, Iovate voluntarily recalled 14 Hydroxycut-branded
products.

Following the recall, the Company was named, among other
defendants, in multiple lawsuits related to Hydroxycut-branded
products in several states. The United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation consolidated pretrial proceedings of many
of the pending actions in the Southern District of California (In
re: Hydroxycut Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No.
2087), and Iovate previously accepted the Company's tender request
for defense and indemnification under its purchasing agreement
with the Company in these matters.

In all, GNC was named in a total of 93 lawsuits related to
Hydroxycut, including 87 individual, largely personal injury
claims and six putative class action cases. All of the personal
injury cases were resolved through a global settlement agreement
and the allocation of settlement funds by a special master.
Settlement payments were made exclusively by Iovate, and
dismissals of the personal injury actions were entered on November
18, 2014. The parties in the consolidated class actions reached a
settlement, which was approved by the Court on October 15, 2014
and which did not require the Company to make any payments.


GNC HOLDINGS: Final Hearing Held in DMAA/Aegeline Claims Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a final hearing with
regard to the proposed settlement related to the DMAA/Aegeline
Claims was scheduled for February 26, 2015.

Prior to December 2013, the Company sold products manufactured by
third parties that contained derivatives from geranium known as
1.3-dimethylpentylamine/ dimethylamylamine/ 13-dimethylamylamine,
or "DMAA," which were recalled from the Company's stores in
November 2013, and/or Aegeline, a compound extracted from bael
trees. As of December 31, 2014, the Company was named in the
following 27 lawsuits involving products containing DMAA,
including 25 personal injury cases and two putative class action
cases:

Personal Injury Claims:

* Shirley Davila Trustee Ad Litem for the Estate of Jessica Davila
v. General Nutrition Centers, Inc. and USPLabs, Court of the
Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, PA (Case No.12-0602113),
filed June 18, 2012

* Leanne Sparling and Michael Sparling on behalf of Michael
Sparling, deceased v. USPLabs, GNC Corporation, et al. Superior
Court of California, County of San Diego (Case No. 2013-00034663-
CU-PL-CTL), filed February 13, 2013

* Justin Carolyne, et al. v. USP Labs, GNC Corporation, et al.
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No.
BC508212), filed May 22, 2013

*Everine Van Huoten vs. USP Labs, LLC and GNC Holdings, United
States District Court for the District of Hawaii (Case No. 13 CV
00635 LEK KSC), filed November 19, 2013

* Jeremy Reed, Timothy Anderson, Dan Anderson, Nadia Black, et al.
v. USPLabs, LLC, et al., GNC, Superior Court for California,
County of San Diego (Case No. 37-2013-00074052-CU-PL-CTL), filed
November 1, 2013

* Kenneth Waikiki v. USP Labs, Doyle, Geissler, USP Labs OxyElite,
LLC, et al. and GNC Corporation, et al., United States District
Court for the District of Hawaii (Case No. 3-00639 DMK), filed
November 21, 2013

* Nicholas Akau v. USP Labs, GNC Corporation, et al., United
States District Court for the District of Hawaii (Case No. CV 14-
00029), filed January 23, 2014

* Malissa Igafo v. USP Labs, GNC Corporation, et al., United
States District Court for the District of Hawaii (Case No. CV 14-
00030), filed January 23, 2013

* Calvin Ishihara v. USP Labs, GNC Corporation, et al., United
States District Court for the District of Hawaii (Case No. CV 14-
00031), filed January 23, 2014

* Gaye Anne Mattson v. USP Labs, GNC Corporation, et al., United
States District for the District of Hawaii (Case No. CV 14-00032),
filed January 23, 2014

* Jamie Franco v. USP Labs, GNC Corporation, et al., United States
District Court for the Central District of California (Case No.
CV-14-00592), filed January 24, 2014

* Roel Vista v. USP Labs, GNC Corporation, et al. United States
District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No.
CV-14-0037), filed January 24, 2014

* Michelle Cayton v. GNC Holdings, Inc., et al., USP Labs, LLC,
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No.
BC555230) filed August 19, 2014

* Dominic Little v. GNC Corporation, USP Labs, LLC, Superior Court
of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No. BC534065), filed
January 23, 2014

* Thomas Park v. GNC Holdings, Inc., USP Labs, LLC, Superior Court
of California, County of San Diego (Case No. 37-2014-110924),
filed September 8, 2014

* Nicholas Olson, Adrian Chavez, Rebecca Fullerton, Robert Gunter,
Davina Maes and Edwin Palm v. GNC Corporation, USP Labs, LLC,
Superior Court of California, County of Orange (Case No. 2014-
00740258) filed August 18, 2014

* Susan Straub and the Estate of Shane Staub v. General Nutrition
Centers, Inc., USP Labs, LLC, Common Pleas Court of Philadelphia
County, Pennsylvania (Case No. 140502403), filed May 20, 2014

* Karina Lujon v. General Nutrition Centers, Inc., USP Labs LLC,
District Court of Dallas County, 298th Judicial District (Case No.
DC-13-05677-M), filed March 25, 2014

* Janice Favella, Christiano Mariano, Chanelle Valdez v. GNC
Corporation and USP Labs LLC, United States District Court for the
District of Hawaii (Case No. 14-cv-00363) filed October 24, 2014

* Nichole Davidson v. GNC Corporation and USP Labs LLC, United
States District Court for the District of Hawaii (Case No. 14-cv-
00364) filed October 24, 2014

* Christine Mosca, Gina Pia, Kimberlynn Tom, Faituitasi Tuioti,
Irineo Rabang, Tihane Laupola v. GNC Corporation and USP Labs LLC,
United States District Court for the District of Hawaii (Case No.
14-cv-00366) filed October 24, 2014

* Keahi Paveo v. GNC Corporation, USP Labs, LLC, United States
District Court for the District of Hawaii (Case No. 14-cv-00367)
filed October 24, 2014

* Phetsamone Senevoravong v. GNC Holdings, Inc., USP Labs, United
States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Case No.
14-cv-02419) filed October 31, 2014

* John McCutchen v. GNC Corporation, USP Labs, Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles (Case No. BC559542), filed
October 6, 2014

Putative Class Action Claims:

* Michael Campos, Jennifer Southwick, and others v. USPLabs, LLC
and GNC Corp., United States District Court for the Southern
District of California (Case No. 13CV2891 DMS BLM), filed December
5, 2013

* Richard Carlson, Brianne Nicole Payne v. USPLabs, LLC and GNC
Corp., United States District Court for the Northern District of
Florida (Case No. 4:13-cv-00627-RH-CAS), filed November 13, 2013

The Company previously was named in a third putative class action
case in the United States District Court for the Disctrict of New
Jersey, which was dismissed with prejudice in December 2014. The
two remaining class action claims were consolidated and, in
October 2014, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Florida preliminarily a settlement agreement among the
parties. A final hearing with regard to the proposed settlement,
which does not require any payment by the Company, was scheduled
for February 26, 2015.

The proceedings associated with the majority of the individual
personal injury cases in which the Company has been named, and
which generally seek indeterminate money damages, are in the early
stages, and any liabilities that may arise from these matters are
not probable or reasonably estimable at this time.

"We are contractually entitled to indemnification by our third-
party vendor with regard to these matters, although our ability to
obtain full recovery in respect of any such claims against us is
dependent upon the creditworthiness of our vendor and/or its
insurance coverage and the absence of any significant defenses
available to its insurer," the Company said.


GNC HOLDINGS: California Wage and Break Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court entered a
final order dismissing the so-called California Wage and Break
Claim action with prejudice.

In November 2008, 98 plaintiffs filed individual claims against
the Company in the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Orange, alleging that they were not provided all of
the rest and meal periods to which they were entitled under
California law, and that the Company failed to pay them split
shift and overtime compensation to which they were entitled under
California law. The plaintiffs also allege derivative claims for
inaccurate wage statements, failure to pay wages due at
termination, and penalty claims under the California Labor Code.
The cases were removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, and in June 2013, a trial was conducted
that resulted in a verdict in favor of the Company with respect to
the claims of seven of the plaintiffs. Subsequently, a number of
other plaintiffs were dismissed from the action pursuant to
stipulation and/or Court order. The remaining plaintiffs entered
into a settlement agreement with the Company in December 2014, and
on December 8, 2014, the Court entered a final order dismissing
the action with prejudice.


GNC HOLDINGS: Court Granted Motion to Decertify FLSA Class
----------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court granted in
part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion to certify a
California class and granted the Company's motion for
decertification of the FLSA class in the case filed by Charles
Brewer.

In July 2011, Charles Brewer, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, sued General Nutrition Corporation in federal
court, alleging state and federal wage and hour claims (U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California, Case No.
11CV3587). In October 2011, Mr. Brewer filed an amended complaint
alleging, among other matters, meal, rest break and overtime
violations on behalf of sales associates and store managers. In
January 2013, the Court conditionally certified a Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") class with respect to one of Plaintiff's
claims.

On November 12, 2014, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the plaintiff's motion to certify a California class and granted
the Company's motion for decertification of the FLSA class. As any
liabilities that may arise from these matters are not probable or
reasonably estimable at this time, no liability has been accrued
in the accompanying financial statements.


GNC HOLDINGS: Court Granted Motion to Certify in "Naranjo" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court granted the
plaintiff's motion to certify a class of approximately 900 current
and former managers in the case filed by Elizabeth Naranjo.

In February 2012, former Senior Store Manager, Elizabeth Naranjo,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated sued
General Nutrition Corporation in the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Alameda (Case No. RG 12619626),
alleging, among other matters, meal, rest break, and overtime
violations. On October 22, 2014, the Court granted the plaintiff's
motion to certify a class of approximately 900 current and former
managers.

"As any liabilities that may arise from these matters are not
probable or reasonably estimable at this time, no liability has
been accrued in the accompanying financial statements," the
Company said.


GNC HOLDINGS: No Approval Yet on Vargas and Hickok Case Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the settlement in the
case filed by Dominic Vargas and Anne Hickok remains subject to
Court approval.

On June 29, 2010, Dominic Vargas and Anne Hickok, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, sued General
Nutrition Corporation and the Company in federal court (U.S.
District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:05-
mc-02025). The two-count complaint alleged, generally, that
plaintiffs were required to perform work on an uncompensated basis
and that the Company failed to pay overtime for such work. The
parties to the case reached a tentative settlement on December 3,
2014. The settlement remains subject to Court approval.


GNC HOLDINGS: Trial Postponed in "Olive" Case
---------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that trial postponed in the
case Jason Olive v. General Nutrition Corp.

In April 2012, Jason Olive filed a complaint in the Superior Court
of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No. BC482686), for
misappropriation of likeness in which he alleges that the Company
continued to use his image in stores after the expiration of the
license to do so in violation of common law and California
statutes. Mr. Olive is seeking compensatory, punitive and
statutory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. The trial in this
matter previously scheduled for December 2014 was postponed and no
new trial date has been set. As of December 31, 2014, an
immaterial liability has been accrued in the accompanying
financial statements.


GOLD STAR: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Andres Rodriguez and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Gold Star, Inc., First Class Parking Services,
Corp., First Class Parking Systems LLC, Sebastian Lopez, Jorge
Zuluaga, Case No. 1:15-cv-20902 (S.D. Fla., March 4, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per work week.

The Defendants are engaged in the business that specializes in
valet parking services in Miami, serving private events, hotels,
and restaurants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
      225 Broadway, Suite 307
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 323-6980
      Facsimile: (212) 233-9238
      E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com


GOOGLE INC: Faces Suit in Calif. for Not Paying Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Google stiffs workers for
overtime and minimum wages and violates other labor laws, a class
claims.

The case is captioned Rosa Gutierrez v. Google Inc. and is filed
in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Santa Clara.


HALLIBURTON ENERGY: Class Cert. Bid in "McCormick" Case Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
From 1955-1957, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. purchased six
semi-rural parcels on Osage Road, Duncan, Oklahoma (the "Site").
For the next 50-60 years, Halliburton performed a variety of tasks
on the Site, including work for the United States Department of
Defense cleaning out missile motor casings. This work involved
removing solid rocket propellant, consisting primarily of ammonium
perchlorate, from the missile casings using a high pressure water
jet. As the missile motor casings were cleaned, water from the
hydrojet and the dislodged propellant was run through screens to
separate the solid materials from the cleaning water. The solid
propellant was collected and periodically burned in pits on the
Site, and the cleaning water was ultimately discharged into
evaporation ponds. Over time, perchlorate from these operations
reached the groundwater under the Site and migrated off-site.
On October 31, 2011, plaintiffs filed the instant action,
asserting causes of action for private nuisance, public nuisance,
negligence, trespass, strict liability, and unjust enrichment. On
March 4, 2013, Plaintiffs moved the Court to certify a class,
consisting of two sub-classes, with respect to Halliburton's
liability to the class for damages to their properties, as well as
as for appointment of class counsel.  Halliburton also filed on
filed motions to exclude plaintiffs' experts.

In an order entered March 3, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/ub8oXWfrom Leagle.com, Chief District Judge Vicki
Miles-LaGrange found that even though there may be common
questions of law or fact regarding certain elements of plaintiffs'
causes of action, the vast number of important individualized
issues relating to Halliburton's ultimate liability as to all of
plaintiffs' causes of action overwhelm any common questions.

"The Court finds a trial on whether Halliburton released
perchlorate into the groundwater, as well as the current and
future scope and extent of that groundwater contamination, is
unlikely to substantially aid resolution of the ultimate
determination of Halliburton's liability," Judge Miles-LaGrange
said.  "Proof of these class wide facts would neither establish
Halliburton's liability to any class member nor fix the level of
damages awarded to any plaintiff; the common facts would not
establish a single plaintiff's entitlement to recover on any
theory of liability, or even show that a single plaintiff is
aggrieved. Simply put, the individual issues would dwarf whatever
common issues there may be, such that a vast array of mini-trials
would be required for each class member if certification were
granted."

Additionally, the Court found that a class action in relation to
Halliburton's liability is not superior to other available methods
for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. Even if
the Court were to certify common issues, the subsequent separate
proceedings necessary for each plaintiff would undo whatever
efficiencies such a class proceeding would have been intended to
promote, the Court said.

Accordingly, the Court concluded that class certification should
not be granted.  The Court also denied as moot Halliburton's
Motion to exclude plaintiffs' experts Kevin J. Boyle and
Halliburton's and Richard Laton.

The case is MITCHELL McCORMICK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HALLIBURTON
ENERGY SERVICES, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. CIV-11-1272-M, (W.D.
Okla).


HARRY & DAVID: Faces "Lemmon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Lemmon, Thaddeus Kilgore, Jr., William Landis, III, Gregory
Gross, Richard Owens, Jeffrey Rath, and Kyle DeBrosse v. Harry &
David Operations, Inc. and Harry & David, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-
00779 (S.D. Ohio, March 5, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are Delaware Corporations, which are engaged in the
business of selling gourmet fruit and food gifts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory R. Mansell, Esq.
      MANSELL LAW LLC
      1457 S High St
      Columbus, OH 43207
      Telephone: (614) 610-4134
      Facsimile: (513) 826-9311
      E-mail: Greg.Mansell@Ohio-EmploymentLawyer.com


HESS CORPORATION: Suit Over Zip Code Requirement Policy
-------------------------------------------------------
Carolyn Diviacchi, individually and as a representative of
other persons similarly situated v. HESS Corporation, et al., Case
No. 1:15-cv-10655 (D. Mass., March 4, 2015), seeks to stop the
Defendants' standard business routine of requiring consumers to
disclose their zip code for any credit card transaction.

HESS Corporation is a Delaware with a principal place of business
at 1185 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10036, which
owns and operates gas stations and mini-mart facilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Valeriano Diviacchi, Esq.
      DIVIACCHI LAW OFFICE
      111 Beach Street
      Boston, MA 02111-2532
      Telephone: (617) 542-3175
      Facsimile: (617) 542-3110
      E-mail: val@diviacchi.com


HMSHOST CORP: FLSA Plaintiffs Can't Appeal Decertification Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
Easton Stevens brought an action under the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq., against HMSHost
Corporation, Host International, Inc., and Host Services of New
York, alleging that he and other assistant managers employed by
defendants were misclassified as exempt from the FLSA's overtime
requirements. Although the plaintiff sought to conduct this case
as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), and
received conditional certification to do so on June 15, 2012, the
Court revoked that certification after discovery had concluded by
order dated August 27, 2014, on the grounds that the members of
the opt-in class were not sufficiently similarly situated to one
another to warrant proceeding on a collective basis.

Plaintiff now moves the Court for an order that would certify
the Decertification Order for interlocutory appeal pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b). Defendants oppose the motion on the
grounds that it is untimely and meritless.

"[P]laintiff's motion to certify the Decertification Order for
interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. [Section] 1292(b) is
denied. Plaintiff's motion for a stay pending the resolution of
his now-dismissed appeal pursuant to the collateral order doctrine
is denied as moot," wrote Senior District Judge I. Leo Glasser in
his memorandum & order entered March 4, 2015, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/djHYbWfrom Leagle.com.

The case is EASTON STEVENS, Plaintiff, v. HMSHOST CORPORATION, et
al., Defendants, NO. 10-CV-3571 (ILG) (VVP), (E.D. N.Y.).

Easton Stevens, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley Ian Berger --
bradberger29@gmail.com -- Berger Attorney P.C., Fran L. Rudich --
frudich@klafterolsen.com -- Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP, Jeffrey A.
Klafter -- jak@klafterolsen.com -- Klafte Olsen & Lesser LLP,
Michael Hayden Reed, Klafter Olsen and Lesser LLP & Seth R. Lesser
-- slesser@klafterolsen.com -- Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP.

Bassem Girgis, Plaintiff, represented by Seth R. Lesser, Klafter
Olsen & Lesser LLP.

Amanda Siebenaler, Plaintiff, represented by Seth R. Lesser,
Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP.

Robert L. Vranck, Plaintiff, represented by Seth R. Lesser,
Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP.

Luis D. Colondres Valentin, Plaintiff, represented by Seth R.
Lesser, Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP.

Michael Miosek, Plaintiff, represented by Seth R. Lesser, Klafter
Olsen & Lesser LLP.

Albert Taylor, Plaintiff, represented by Seth R. Lesser, Klafter
Olsen & Lesser LLP.

Eranetta Gray, Plaintiff, represented by Seth R. Lesser, Klafter
Olsen & Lesser LLP.

Constantino Katseyeanis, Plaintiff, represented by Seth R. Lesser,
Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP.

Jimmy Michael Tuttle, Plaintiff, represented by Seth R. Lesser,
Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP.

Yahya Karimi, Plaintiff, represented by Seth R. Lesser, Klafter
Olsen & Lesser LLP.

Darrell E. McSweeney, Plaintiff, represented by Seth R. Lesser,
Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP.

HMSHost Corporation, Defendant, represented by Patrick M.
Muldowney -- pmuldowney@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP,
Gregory Valentin Mersol -- gmersol@bakerlaw.com -- Baker Hostetler
LLP, Jeffrey Vlasek -- jvlasek@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler
LLP & Margaret Rosenthal -- mrosenthal@bakerlaw.com -- Baker &
Hostetler LLP.

Host International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Patrick M.
Muldowney, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Gregory Valentin Mersol, Baker
Hostetler LLP, Jeffrey Vlasek, Baker & Hostetler LLP & Margaret
Rosenthal, Baker & Hostetler LLP.

Host Services of New York, Defendant, represented by Patrick M.
Muldowney, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Gregory Valentin Mersol, Baker
Hostetler LLP, Jeffrey Vlasek, Baker & Hostetler LLP & Margaret
Rosenthal, Baker & Hostetler LLP.


HULU LLC: Court May Dismiss Class Suit Over Online Video Privacy
----------------------------------------------------------------
In grappling with online video privacy litigation invoking a
decades-old privacy law, U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler said
at a hearing on February 26 that she will likely side with online
streaming service Hulu that it did not disclose its users'
identities and viewing preferences to Facebook, reports Maria
Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service.

"It just doesn't feel like the Bork transmission of personal
information," Beeler said, referring to the outing of Judge Robert
Bork's video rental history after he was nominated to the U.S.
Supreme Court.  The incident led to the passage of the Video
Protection Privacy Act in 1988, a law stipulating that personally
identifiable information [PII] must remain private.

Whether information identifying Facebook users was knowingly
transmitted by Hulu to Facebook is the sole remaining claim
against the service, which Hulu lawyer Victor Jih called "the
chasm as big as the Grand Canyon that they can't cross."

"There is no showing that we knew what Facebook would do with
these transmissions and that they would use them to get PII," Jih
said.  "There's nothing there because that did not enter the
consciousness of anyone, and that's what the VPPA requires."

But plaintiff counsel Scott Kamber said one could reasonably infer
that Hulu knew that it was conveying users' video viewing habits
to Facebook.

"We believe strongly that if this case does not show knowledge in
the situation, that one cannot make a reasonable inference of
knowledge from documents presented to the court there can never be
a VPPA violation in the realm of the Internet," Kamber said.
"That may sound bombastic, but I think there is clearly a Judge
Bork disclosure here."

Beeler addressed both sides at the start of the hearing on Hulu's
motion for summary judgment February 26.  "In the end the knowing
standard that Hulu outlines I think is the correct one," she said.

Turning to Kamber, she added: "I'm sorry if this feels like a
wake," eliciting a laugh from Kamber.

"As Monty Python said, I'm not dead yet," he said.

Beeler's remark didn't stop the attorney from pressing the
argument that Hulu knew full well Facebook was tracking user
activity, and that there was a "fundamental understanding" as to
how the exchange worked.

"They knew everything about what they were doing," Kamber said.

Hulu installed a Facebook "Like" button on its viewing pages.  The
plaintiffs, who have not been certified as a class, claim the
button transmitted a Facebook user's "c_user" cookie containing
his or her Facebook ID along with video watch information.

Jih contended that Hulu had no idea what the cookies meant.  "We
don't know what it signifies at all," he said.

Kamber countered this argument.

"Hulu knows there's this functionality on the like button that IDs
users to Facebook.  They know Facebook can ID the user, and ID the
videos the user is watching," he said, pointing to a feature on
the Hulu watch page that shows the users' Facebook friends who
also "liked" a certain video.

"If Facebook can't know what video you're watching, they can't
tell you which of your friends liked the video you're watching,"
he added.

One thing Kamber did seem to have convinced Beeler about was the
need for some paranoia.

"I now use three browsers," the judge said, laughing.  "I've
learned a lot from this case."


HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: No Ruling Yet on Motion to Dismiss
---------------------------------------------------------
No ruling has been issued by the Geauga County, Ohio Court of
Common Pleas on Huntington Bancshares Incorporated's motion to
dismiss a class action filed on behalf of all 88 counties in Ohio,
Huntington said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014.

The Huntington National Bank is a defendant in an action filed on
January 17, 2012 against MERSCORP, Inc. and numerous other
financial institutions that participate in the mortgage electronic
registration system (MERS). The putative class action was filed on
behalf of all 88 counties in Ohio. The plaintiffs allege that the
recording of mortgages and assignments thereof is mandatory under
Ohio law and seek a declaratory judgment that the defendants are
required to record every mortgage and assignment on real property
located in Ohio and pay the attendant statutory recording fees.
The complaint also seeks damages, attorney's fees and costs.
Huntington filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which has been
fully briefed, but no ruling has been issued by the Geauga County,
Ohio Court of Common Pleas.

Similar litigation has been initiated against MERSCORP, Inc. and
other financial institutions in other jurisdictions throughout the
country, however, the Bank has not been named a defendant in those
other cases.


HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: No Ruling Yet on Bid to Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------
No ruling has yet been issued by the District Court on The
Huntington National Bank's motion to certify the District Court's
decision for interlocutory review by the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals, Huntington Bancshares Incorporated said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

The Huntington National Bank is a defendant in a putative class
action filed on October 15, 2013. The plaintiffs filed the action
in West Virginia state court on behalf of themselves and other
West Virginia mortgage loan borrowers who allege they were charged
late fees in violation of West Virginia law and the loan
documents. Plaintiffs seek statutory civil penalties, compensatory
damages and attorney's fees. The Bank removed the case to federal
court, answered the complaint, and, on January 17, 2014, filed a
motion for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that West Virginia
law is preempted by federal law and therefore does not apply to
the Bank. Following further briefing by the parties, the Court
denied the Bank's motion for judgment on the pleadings on
September 26, 2014.

On October 7, 2014, the Bank filed a motion to certify the
District Court's decision for interlocutory review by the Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals. The plaintiffs have opposed the Bank's
motion. No ruling has yet been issued by the Court.


IMS HEALTH: To Defend Against Suit in Korea
-------------------------------------------
IMS Health Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a group of
approximately 1,200 medical doctors and 900 private individuals
filed on February 13, 2014, a civil lawsuit with the Seoul Central
District Court against IMS Health Korea Ltd. ("IMS Korea") and two
other defendants, the Korean Pharmaceutical Association ("KPA")
and the Korean Pharmaceutical Information Center ("KPIC"). The
civil lawsuit alleges KPA and KPIC collected their personal
information in violation of applicable privacy laws without the
necessary consent through a software system installed on pharmacy
computer systems in Korea, and that personal information was
transferred to IMS Korea and sold to pharmaceutical companies. The
plaintiffs are claiming damages in the aggregate amount of
approximately $6 million plus interest.

"We believe the lawsuit is without merit, reject plaintiffs'
claims and intend to vigorously defend IMS Health's position," the
Company said.


INTEL CORP: May 29 Hearing on New Class Certification Motion
------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the court set the
hearing on plaintiffs' new motion for class certification for May
29, 2015.

At least 82 separate class-action lawsuits have been filed in the
U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of California,
Southern District of California, District of Idaho, District of
Nebraska, District of New Mexico, District of Maine, and District
of Delaware, as well as in various California, Kansas, and
Tennessee state courts.

"These actions generally repeat the allegations made in a now-
settled lawsuit filed against us by AMD in June 2005 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware (AMD litigation). Like
the AMD litigation, these class-action lawsuits allege that we
engaged in various actions in violation of the Sherman Act and
other laws by, among other things: providing discounts and rebates
to our manufacturer and distributor customers conditioned on
exclusive or near-exclusive dealing that allegedly unfairly
interfered with AMD's ability to sell its microprocessors;
interfering with certain AMD product launches; and interfering
with AMD's participation in certain industry standards-setting
groups. The class actions allege various consumer injuries,
including that consumers in various states have been injured by
paying higher prices for computers containing our microprocessors.
We dispute these class-action claims and intend to defend the
lawsuits vigorously," the Company said.

All of the federal and state class actions other than the
California class actions were transferred by the Multidistrict
Litigation Panel to the U.S. District Court in Delaware for all
pre-trial proceedings and discovery (MDL proceedings). The
Delaware district court appointed a Special Master to address
issues in the MDL proceedings, as assigned by the court.

In January 2010, the plaintiffs in the Delaware action filed a
motion for sanctions for our alleged failure to preserve evidence.
This motion largely copies a motion previously filed by AMD in the
AMD litigation, which has settled. The plaintiffs in the MDL
proceedings also moved for certification of a class of members who
purchased certain personal computers containing products sold by
the Company.

In July 2010, the Special Master issued a Report and
Recommendation (Report) denying the motion to certify a class. The
MDL plaintiffs filed objections to the Special Master's Report,
and a hearing on those objections was held before the district
court in July 2013.

In July 2014, the district court affirmed the Special Master's
ruling and issued an order denying the MDL plaintiffs' motion for
class certification. In August 2014, plaintiffs filed a petition
for interlocutory appeal of the district court's decision with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which the Third
Circuit denied on October 29, 2014.

On December 29, 2014, Intel filed a motion for summary judgment on
the claims of the remaining individual plaintiffs. The court is
likely to rule on this motion in late 2015.

All California class actions have been consolidated in the
Superior Court of California in Santa Clara County.

"The plaintiffs in the California actions moved for class
certification, which we are in the process of opposing. At our
request, the court in the California actions agreed to delay
ruling on this motion until after the Delaware district court
ruled on the similar motion in the MDL proceedings," the Company
said.

The plaintiffs asked the court for leave to retain a new expert
and to amend their previous motion for class certification. The
court granted plaintiffs' request on February 6, 2015 and set the
hearing on plaintiffs' new motion for class certification for May
29, 2015.

"Given the procedural posture and the nature of these cases, we
are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or
range of losses, if any, arising from these matters," the Company
said.


INTEL CORP: March 2015 Hearing on Preliminary Approval Motion
-------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the court has scheduled
a hearing on plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval for March
2015 in the High Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation.

Between May and July 2011, former employees of Intel, Adobe
Systems Incorporated, Apple Inc., Google Inc., Intuit Inc.,
Lucasfilm Ltd., and Pixar filed antitrust class-action lawsuits in
the California Superior Courts alleging that these companies had
entered into a conspiracy to suppress the compensation of their
employees. The lawsuits were removed to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California and in September
2011 the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint,
captioned In re High Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation. The
plaintiffs' allegations reference the 2009 and 2010 investigation
by the Department of Justice (DOJ) into employment practices in
the technology industry, as well as the DOJ's complaints and
subsequent stipulated final judgments with the seven companies
named as defendants in the lawsuits. The plaintiffs allege that
the defendants entered into certain unlawful agreements not to
cold call employees of particular other defendants and that there
was an overarching conspiracy among the defendants. Plaintiffs
assert one such agreement specific to Intel, namely that Intel and
Google entered into an agreement starting in 2005, not to cold
call each other's employees. Plaintiffs assert claims under
Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and Section 4 of the
Clayton Antitrust Act and seek a declaration that the defendants'
alleged actions violated the antitrust laws, damages trebled as
provided for by law under the Sherman Act or Clayton Act,
restitution and disgorgement, and attorneys' fees and costs.

In October 2013, the district court certified a class consisting
of approximately 65,000 current or former employees of the seven
defendants and set the matter for trial in late May 2014. The so-
called "technical class" consists of a group of current and former
technical, creative, and R&D employees at each of the defendants.

In January 2014, Intel filed a motion for summary judgment, which
the court denied in March 2014.  In April 2014, Intel, Adobe,
Apple, and Google reached an agreement with plaintiffs to settle
this lawsuit, but in August 2014, the district court denied
preliminary approval of the settlement. In September 2014,
defendants filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to reverse the district
court's decision. The Ninth Circuit ordered briefing and scheduled
a March 2015 hearing date on the writ petition. Defendants have
withdrawn the petition for writ of mandamus in light of the
settlement agreement.

In January 2015, Intel, Adobe, Apple, and Google reached a second
agreement with plaintiffs to settle this lawsuit, which is subject
to court approval. The court has scheduled a hearing on
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval for March 2015.

"We continue to dispute the plaintiffs' claims, but have agreed to
settle this lawsuit to avoid the uncertainties, expenses, and
diversion of resources from continued litigation. Our operating
expenses for 2014 reflect accruals for this proceeding and we
believe reasonably possible losses in excess of the accrued amount
are not material to our financial statements," the Company said.


INTEL CORP: Filed Opposition to Plaintiff Appeal in McAfee Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Intel, McAfee Inc., and
McAfee's board of directors filed an opposition to plaintiff's
appeal in the McAfee Shareholder Litigation.

The Company said, "On August 19, 2010, we announced that we had
agreed to acquire all of the common stock of McAfee, Inc. (McAfee)
for $48.00 per share. Four McAfee shareholders filed putative
class-action lawsuits in Santa Clara County, California Superior
Court challenging the proposed transaction. The cases were ordered
consolidated in September 2010. Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint that named former McAfee board members, McAfee, and
Intel as defendants, and alleged that the McAfee board members
breached their fiduciary duties and that McAfee and Intel aided
and abetted those breaches of duty. The complaint requested
rescission of the merger agreement, such other equitable relief as
the court may deem proper, and an award of damages in an
unspecified amount."

In June 2012, the plaintiffs' damages expert asserted that the
value of a McAfee share for the purposes of assessing damages
should be $62.08.

In January 2012, the court certified the action as a class action,
appointed the Central Pension Laborers' Fund to act as the class
representative, and scheduled trial to begin in January 2013. In
March 2012, defendants filed a petition with the California Court
of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse the class certification
order; the petition was denied in June 2012. In March 2012, at
defendants' request, the court held that plaintiffs were not
entitled to a jury trial, and ordered a bench trial. In April
2012, plaintiffs filed a petition with the California Court of
Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse that order, which the
court of appeal denied in July 2012. In August 2012, defendants
filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted that
motion in November 2012, and entered final judgment in the case in
February 2013.

In April 2013, plaintiffs appealed the final judgment. Intel,
McAfee, and McAfee's board of directors filed an opposition to
plaintiff's appeal in December 2014.

"Because the resolution of the appeal may materially impact the
scope and nature of the proceeding, we are unable to make a
reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range of losses, if
any, arising from this matter. We dispute the class-action claims
and intend to continue to defend the lawsuit vigorously," the
Company said.


JANSSEN PHARMA: Marketing Executive Grilled at Risperdal Trial
--------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a senior marketing director at Janssen Pharmaceuticals was
questioned on the company's promotion of the antipsychotic
Risperdal as well as Janssen's knowledge of the drug's off-label
use by children.

In Cirba v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals on March 4, the second case in
the Philadelphia Risperdal mass tort to go to trial, plaintiff
William Cirba's attorney, Thomas R. Kline of Kline & Specter,
called Carmen DeLoria of Janssen's global marketing division to
the stand to discuss Risperdal and its place in the child and
adolescent drug market.

On Feb. 25, a jury awarded $2.5 million to the plaintiff in the
first of roughly 1,250 Risperdal mass-tort cases in the city's
courts, Pledger v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals.  In Cirba, the
plaintiff similarly alleges that his use of Risperdal caused
gynecomastia, the growth of enlarged breasts.

Cirba took Risperdal to treat oppositional defiant disorder at a
time when the drug was not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration for use in children, but was widely prescribed to
them, according to Mr. Kline.

One of the first assertions Mr. Kline made to Ms. DeLoria was
Janssen knew that a significant amount of its business from
Risperdal came from prescriptions to children and adolescents
prior to its FDA approval for that use in 2006.

Ms. DeLoria declined to categorize the business garnered from
Risperdal as significant.

"We were aware that a portion of our business was coming from
children and adolescents," he said.

Mr. Kline asked if Janssen's sales representatives presented the
drug to child psychiatrists.

According to Mr. DeLoria, they did.  However, he stipulated that
most doctors designated as child psychiatrists also treat adults
and that there are very few practitioners focused solely on child
psychiatry.  According to Ms. DeLoria, the sales pitches were not
directed toward child usage of Risperdal.

Mr. Kline countered by arguing that until 2009, Janssen
salespeople were given bonuses for sales related to pediatric use
of the drug.

Ms. DeLoria replied the bonuses were for sales in general and
employees were not specifically given incentive to sell Risperdal
to child psychiatrists.

Turning to the marketing aspect of Risperdal, Mr. Kline put up on
the projector portions of Janssen's business plan for the drug.

A graph extracted from the business plan showed that in 2002,
Risperdal made up 52.5 percent of the pediatric antipsychotic
market.

Another section of the business plan titled "Lessons Learned" went
into details about the medical community and public's view of
Risperdal and its relation to prolactin, the hormone that
encourages breast growth.

"You knew that there were problems with the perception of
Risperdal and increased prolactin levels," Mr. Kline said.
Ms. DeLoria responded the company knew doctors had misconceptions
about the drug based on what Janssen's competitors had said.

"You knew that competitors were saying bad things about
Risperdal?" Mr. Kline asked.

"Yes," Ms. DeLoria said.

The "Core Strategies" section of the business plan recommended the
drugmaker "establish Risperdal as having a favorable risk-benefit
relative to other compounds."  This included a reanalysis of
clinical test data.

According to Mr. Kline, this section appeared after a Janssen
study found that Risperdal increased prolactin levels in users.

Ms. DeLoria said the reanalysis was to be conducted for the
purpose of correcting doctors' misconceptions about Risperdal
fueled by competitor propaganda.

Mr. Kline pointed to another section of the business plan that
called for Janssen to "neutralize safety and tolerability
concerns."

"What do you mean by neutralize?" Mr. Kline asked. Ms. DeLoria
said that it meant allaying misconceptions.

However, Mr. Kline contended it was Janssen's intention to go back
and produce data that cast Risperdal in a more favorable light.
He added that Janssen was ultimately concerned about how its sales
would be impacted.

Mr. Kline highlighted another section of the Risperdal business
plan, which read, "Without a proactive approach to education and
public relations, we run the risk of negative press and market
sale erosion."

Further into the questioning, Ms. DeLoria defended the drug,
claiming the reason it was so widely prescribed in the first place
was because doctors recognized its effectiveness in treating their
patients' symptoms.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Jury Issues $5.7MM Verdict in Pelvic Mesh Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that Johnson & Johnson lost a $5.7 million verdict on March 5 in
the first test case over one of its newest pelvic mesh slings,
which is among dozens of similar devices named in thousands of
lawsuits across the country.

The verdict, by a jury in Bakersfield, Calif., is the latest to
hit Johnson & Johnson, whose Ethicon Inc. subsidiary has lost
verdicts over its other mesh devices.  The trial, which began on
Jan. 26, was the first over Ethicon's TVT-Abbrevo device, which is
used to treat urinary incontinence caused from sudden movements.
The plaintiff, Coleen Perry, had alleged that she had pain and
continued urinary problems after having the device implanted in
2011.

The jury, in Kern County, Calif., Superior Court, found that the
device was defectively designed and that Ethicon failed to warn
doctors of its problems, according to a recording of the verdict
on Courtroom View Network. Jurors also awarded $700,000 in
compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages.

Johnson & Johnson immediately said it planned to appeal.

"We have strong grounds for appeal as we believe the evidence
showed that TVT Abbrevo midurethral sling was properly designed
and Ethicon acted appropriately and responsibly in the research,
development and marketing of the product," Ethicon spokesman
Matthew Johnson said.  "TVT Abbrevo has been deemed safe and
effective by regulators and practitioners alike."

Peter de la Cerda at Edwards & de la Cerda of Dallas, one of the
lead plaintiffs attorneys in the case, said, "We could not be
happier for Mrs. Perry."  He added, "The jury's verdict shows
thoughtfulness for the serious and life-altering injuries she
sustained from the TVT Abbrevo.  The jury's verdict also sends a
clear message to Ethicon Inc. and Johnson & Johnson -- the
concerned citizens of California will not stand for these
manufacturers' improper conduct in designing and marketing the TVT
Abbrevo."

Ethicon is one of seven manufacturers being sued over pelvic mesh
devices.  The verdict comes as Ethicon began trial on March 2 in a
bellwether case from among more than 23,000 lawsuits in U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.
Ethicon lost the first trial in that docket on Sept. 5 when a jury
in Charleston, West Virginia, awarded $3.27 million.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin dismissed the first bellwether
case before trial ended for lack of evidence.  On March 2, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed that
decision.


KISSIMMEE UTILITY: 11th Cir. Upholds "Ferentinos" Case Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a controversy which has a long and winding history touching on
state and federal courts, Anthony Ferentinos, proceeding pro se,
appeals from the district court's dismissal with prejudice of his
amended complaint, alleging constitutional violations per 42
U.S.C. Sections 1983, 1985 and various state laws under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1367. The dismissal was explained as tied to his disregard
of the court's orders and federal rules. Ferentinos argues that
the district court abused its discretion in finding that he had
"ignored" the district court's orders that his wife's estate and
class-action claims needed to be counseled and to be filed
separately. In addition, he argues that the district court abused
its discretion in finding that lesser sanctions would not suffice,
given that he had a limited amount of time to amend his complaint.

The United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, in an
opinion dated March 5, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/goD9ocfrom Leagle.com, concluded that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing with prejudice
Ferentinos's 295-page amended complaint: a dismissal based on the
judge's finding that Ferentinos "repeatedly ignored" orders that
his wife's estate and class-action claims needed to be counseled
and filed separately. Moreover, the district court did not abuse
its discretion in finding that lesser sanctions would not suffice:
Ferentinos had been given more than sufficient opportunity to
state a plausible cause of action in federal and state court and
to cure the complaint's deficiencies. The district court also did
not abuse its discretion in dismissing the amended complaint,
based on the judge's determination that the amended complaint was
a "shotgun pleading" -- similar to the other pleadings Ferentinos
earlier filed in federal and state court -- and obviously did not
comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 and 10.

The district court's dismissal with prejudice of Ferentinos'
amended complaint is therefore, affirmed.

The case is ANTHONY E. FERENTINOS, Plaintiff-Appellant, ESTATE OF
SANDRA FERENTINOS, Plaintiff, v. KISSIMMEE UTILITY AUTHORITY,
JAMES WELSH, in Official and Individual Capacity, CHRIS GENT, in
Official and Individual Capacity, RICHARD WOODS, in Official and
Individual Capacity, FRED H. CUMBIE, JR., in Official and
Individual Capacity, et al., MICHAEL ANDREWS, individual and
official capacity, ANDREWS AGENCY, INC., in official capacity,
FLORIDA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FLORIDA SENATE, HON.DON GAETZ,
President of the Florida Senate, HON.WILL WEATHERFORD, Speaker of
the Fla House of Representatives, Defendants-Appellees, NO. 14-
13429, NON-ARGUMENT CALENDAR.


KROGER CO: Judge Approves Settlements in Listeria Outbreak Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven K. Paulson, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
a Denver judge has wrapped up most of the wrongful-death lawsuits
stemming from a 2011 listeria outbreak traced to a cantaloupe farm
that killed more than 30 people and sickened more than 140 others.

The Denver District Court judge approved settlements for the
families of 30 of the 33 people who died.  The relatives sued
companies that handled or sold the melons.  Twenty lawsuits from
those who fell ill also were settled.

Plaintiffs' attorney Bill Marler said details of proposed
settlements are confidential.  Medical expenses from those cases
total more than $12 million, Mr. Marler said on March 11.

"This was a very complex case, involving people in 20 courts in 12
states.  It has been more than three years now," Mr. Marler said.

Jeni Exley, daughter of Herb Stevens, whose death was linked to
the outbreak, said she was satisfied with the settlement.  Her
father suffered for two years after he came down with listeria.
She said he had a fever, was shaking and couldn't walk without a
walker.  He died in 2013 from complications linked to the disease.

"It shouldn't have happened in the first place," Ms. Exley said.

Ms. Exley's lawsuit was filed against Kroger Co.'s King Soopers
brand, Frontera Produce Ltd. and Bio Food Safety Inc. Other
lawsuits included Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Freshpack Produce Inc.,
and other retail outlets and grocery stores.

Attorneys for the other relatives could not be located for
comment.

Two Colorado cantaloupe farmers pleaded guilty to misdemeanor
charges stemming from the deadly outbreak and were sentenced to
five years of probation and six months of home detention.  A
federal magistrate also ordered brothers Eric and Ryan Jensen to
each pay $150,000 in restitution and perform 100 hours of
community service.  They pleaded guilty in 2013 to introducing
adulterated food into interstate commerce.

According to federal regulators, conditions at Jensen Farms caused
the outbreak.  Investigators said the melons likely were
contaminated in the farm's packing house because of dirty water on
the floor and old, hard-to-clean equipment.


LENNOX INT'L: Defendant in Class Action on Evaporator Coils
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lennox International Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company is a
defendant in an attempted class action lawsuit which alleges that
evaporator coils in the Company's residential air conditioning
products are susceptible to a type of corrosion that can result in
coil leaks, and asserts claims for relief.

"We dispute the allegations in the lawsuit.  The outcome related
to this action is uncertain but we do not expect this lawsuit to
have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or
results of operations," the Company said.


LIEN ENFORCEMENT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Baktiar Hamasaed, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Lien Enforcement, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00496 (S.D.
Cal., March 4, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of
making unsolicited calls on the cellular telephone using an
automatic telephone dialing system

Lien Enforcement, Inc. is a California corporation, which s
specialized collection agency that focuses exclusively on
collecting deficient balances of lien sold vehicles for the towing
industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


LIFE TIME: July 30 Final Hearing Set in TCPA Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Joan N. Ericksen granted preliminary approval of a
class action settlement in In re: Life Time Fitness, Inc.
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) Litigation, NO. 14-MD-
2564 (JNE/SER), (D. Minn.).

The Court conditionally certified this action as a class action on
behalf of the Settlement Class defined as: All persons within the
United States who received a text message from Life Time Fitness,
Inc. to a cellular telephone through the use of an online texting
service from January 1, 2014, through April 15, 2014.

The Court appointed Plaintiffs Noah Peterson, Paul Sarenpa,
Catherine Gould, and Brandon Silva as Class Representatives of the
Settlement Class.

The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on July 30, 2015 at
9:30 a.m., to determine, among other things, whether the
Settlement Class meets all applicable requirements of Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23 and, thus, whether the Action should be
certified as a class action for purposes of effectuating the
Settlement.

Settlement Class Members who wish to either object to the
Settlement or opt out by submitting a Request for Exclusion must
do so by the Objection Deadline and the Opt-Out Deadline of June
5, 2015. Settlement Class Members may not both object and request
exclusion. If a Settlement Class Member submits both a Request for
Exclusion and an Objection, the Request for Exclusion will
control.

No later than July 16, 2015, Plaintiffs must file papers in
support of final approval of the Settlement and respond to any
written objections. Defendant may, but is not required to, file
papers in support of final approval of the Settlement, so long as
it does so no later than July 16, 2015.

These are the deadlines by which certain events must occur:

  April 6, 2015   Settlement Notice Date

  May 4, 2015     Deadline for Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys'
                  Fees and Service Awards

  June 5, 2015    Opt-Out and Objection Deadline

  July 6, 2015    Claims Deadline

  July 16, 2015   Deadline for Parties to file: (1) List of
                  Persons who submitted timely and proper Requests
                  for Exclusion; (2) Proof of CAFA Notice and
                  Class Notice; and (3) Motion and Memorandum in
                  Support of Final Approval, including responses
                  to any Objections

July 30, 2015     9:30 a.m. Final Approval Hearing

A copy of the Court's March 9, 2015 order is available at
http://is.gd/EizSwKfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiff's Lead Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn J Wanta
-- sjwanta@baillonthome.com -- Baillon Thome Jozwiak & Wanta LLP.

Plaintiffs' Executive Committee, Plaintiff, represented by David T
Butsch -- dbutsch@butschroberts.com -- Butsch Roberts &
Associates, LLC, J Gordon Rudd, Jr -- gordon.rudd@zimmreed.com --
Zimmerman Reed, PLLP & Katrina Carroll -- kcarroll@litedepalma.com
-- Lite DePalma Greenberg LLC.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Caiola" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Caiola, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-
00037 (E.D.N.C., March 4, 2015), alleges that the Defendants
manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that fails to
comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde standards. The
Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive levels of
formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human carcinogen by
the United States National Toxicology Program and the
International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business at 3000 John Deere Road, Toano,
Virginia 23168, which retailer of hardwood flooring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
      Scott C. Harris, Esq.
      Margaret J. Pishko, Esq.
      WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP
      900 W. Morgan Street
      Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
      Telephone: (919) 600-5000
      Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
      E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com
              scott@wbmllp.com
              maggie@wbmllp.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Tyrrell" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
------------------------------------------------------------
John Tyrrell and Tracie-Linn Tyrrell husband and wife, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Lumber
Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01615 (C.D. Cal., March 5,
2015), alleges that the Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold
Chinese Flooring that fails to comply with relevant and applicable
formaldehyde standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses
excessive levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known
human carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program
and the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business at 3000 John Deere Road, Toano,
Virginia 23168, which retailer of hardwood flooring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steve W. Berman, Esq.
      Ari Y. Brown, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 623-7292
      Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
      E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
              ari@hbsslaw.com

         - and -

      Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 203
      Pasadena, CA 91101
      Telephone: (213) 330-7150
      Facsimile: (213) 330-7152
      E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com


MAC LIQUORS: Faces "David" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Nelson David, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Mac Liquors, Corp., and Jose Rafael Angeles, Case No.
1:15-cv-01601 (S.D.N.Y., March 4, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per work week.

The Defendants own and operate liquor stores located at 23 Lenox
Avenue, New York, New York, 10026.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MASIMO CORP: Physicians Healthsource Case Remains Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------
Masimo Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended January 3, 2015, that the District Court granted
the parties' joint request that the stay remain in place pending a
decision on the appeal in the case filed by Physicians
Healthsource, Inc.

The Company said, "On January 2, 2014, a putative class action
complaint was filed against us in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California by Physicians Healthsource, Inc.
The complaint alleges that we sent unsolicited facsimile
advertisements in violation of the Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005
and related regulations. The complaint seeks $500 for each alleged
violation, treble damages if the court finds the alleged
violations to be knowing, plus interest, costs and injunctive
relief. On April 14, 2014, we filed a motion to stay the case
pending a decision on a related petition filed by us with the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC). On May 22, 2014, the
District Court granted the motion and stayed the case pending a
ruling by the FCC on the petition. On October 30, 2014, the FCC
granted some of the relief and denied some of the relief requested
in the petition. Both parties appealed the FCC's decision on the
petition. On November 25, 2014, the District Court granted the
parties' joint request that the stay remain in place pending a
decision on the appeal. We believe we have good and substantial
defenses to the claims, but there is no guarantee that we will
prevail."


MASIMO CORP: Further Amended Complaint Filed in Surfactant Trial
----------------------------------------------------------------
Masimo Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended January 3, 2015, that a further amended
complaint was filed in the case filed by and on behalf of two
participants in the Surfactant, Positive Pressure, and Oxygenation
Randomized Trial at the University of Alabama.

The Company said, "On January 31, 2014, an amended putative class
action complaint was filed against us in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama by and on behalf of two
participants in the Surfactant, Positive Pressure, and Oxygenation
Randomized Trial at the University of Alabama. On April 21, 2014,
a further amended complaint was filed adding a third participant.
The complaint alleges product liability and negligence claims in
connection with pulse oximeters that we modified and provided at
the request of study investigators for use in the trial. A
previous version of the complaint also alleged a wrongful death
claim, which the court dismissed on January 22, 2014. The amended
complaint seeks unspecified damages, costs, interest, attorney
fees and injunctive and other relief. We believe we have good and
substantial defenses to the remaining claims, but there is no
guarantee that we will prevail."


MATSON INC: Settlement Reached in Horizon Lines Merger Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matson, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Current Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, that the
defendants and the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action reached
an agreement in principle providing for the settlement and
dismissal, with prejudice, of the Consolidated Action.

On February 13, 2015, Matson Navigation Company, Inc. ("Matson
Navigation"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Matson, Inc.
("Matson"), entered into an Amendment No. 1 (the "Amendment") to
the previously disclosed Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of
November 11, 2014 (the "Merger Agreement"), by and among Matson
Navigation, Hogan Acquisition Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
Matson Navigation ("Merger Sub"), and Horizon Lines, Inc.
("Horizon").

Three putative class actions were filed in connection with the
Merger Agreement in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Court"):
(a) Joshua Loken v. Horizon Lines, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10399-
VCL (filed on or around November 25, 2014) (the "Loken Action");
(b) J. Cola, Inc. v. Horizon Lines, Inc., C.A. No. 10412-VCL
(filed on or around December 1, 2014) (the "Cola Action"); (c)
Finn Kristiansen v. Jeffrey A. Brodsky, et al., C.A. No. 10418-VCL
(filed on or around December 2, 2014) (the "Kristiansen Action").
On or around January 29, 2015, a fourth putative class action was
filed in the Court:  Frederick Schwartz v. Jeffrey A. Brodsky, et
al., C.A. No. 10594-VCL (the "Schwartz Action"). On February 5,
2015, the Court consolidated the Loken, Cola, Kristiansen, and
Schwartz Actions (the "Consolidated Action").

On February 13, 2015, the defendants and the plaintiffs in the
Consolidated Action reached an agreement in principle, which is
subject to the court's approval, providing for the settlement and
dismissal, with prejudice, of the Consolidated Action.  Pursuant
to such proposed settlement, Horizon agreed to make certain
supplemental disclosures to Horizon's stockholders through a
supplement to Horizon's proxy statement and Matson and Horizon
agreed to amend the Merger Agreement to reduce the termination fee
that may be payable by Horizon to Matson under certain
circumstances pursuant to Section 7.3(a) of the Merger Agreement
from $17,149,600 to $9,500,000. The settlement will not affect the
merger consideration to be paid to stockholders of Horizon in
connection with the Merger Agreement.


MCNEIL CONSUMER: Pleads Guilty Over Metal Particles in Tylenol
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Rubinkam and Maryclaire Dale, writing for The Associated
Press, report that a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson pleaded
guilty on March 10 to a federal criminal charge that it sold over-
the-counter infant's and children's liquid medicine containing
metal particles.

McNeil Consumer Healthcare, of Fort Washington, Pennsylvania,
acknowledged failing to take corrective action after discovering
the adulterated bottles of Infants' and Children's Tylenol and
Children's Motrin.  The company agreed to pay $25 million to
resolve the case.

Metal particles, including nickel, iron and chromium, were
introduced during the manufacturing process at McNeil's plant in
Fort Washington.  Prosecutors said McNeil knew about the problem
for nearly a year but failed to take immediate steps to fix it.

The company and prosecutors said in court on March 10 that no one
was injured.

"McNeil's failure to comply with current good manufacturing
practices is seriously troubling," Acting Assistant Attorney
General Mizer said in a statement after the judge accepted
McNeil's plea.

"The Department of Justice will continue to be aggressive in
pursuing and punishing companies such as McNeil that disregard a
process designed to assure quality medicines, especially OTC drugs
for infants and children," he said.

McNeil is a unit of Johnson & Johnson.  The New Brunswick, New
Jersey, health care giant has struggled with scores of product
recalls since 2009.

In this case, McNeil first learned of the particle problem in
May 2009, when a consumer complained about black specks inside a
bottle of Infants' Tylenol, according to court documents.  McNeil
subsequently found metal particles during production but continued
making the liquid medicines for several more months.

"There were investigative steps taken, but not all of the steps
required under all of our internal operating procedures," company
attorney Michael Schwartz told The Associated Press on March 10.

McNeill eventually traced the problem to the machinery at its
plant in Fort Washington and issued a recall.  The Food and Drug
Administration said the potential for serious medical problems was
remote but advised consumers to stop using the medicine.  The
suburban Philadelphia plant -- which was linked to several recalls
of Tylenol and other nonprescription drugs for children and adults
-- was shuttered in April 2010 and rebuilt from the ground up, but
it has yet to reopen.

The company is operating under an agreement with the FDA requiring
increased inspections and oversight at its factories.  McNeil said
on March 10 it has significantly improved its procedures.

"McNeil has been implementing enhanced quality and oversight
standards across its entire business to ensure we are best able to
meet our commitment to consumers, patients and doctors who rely on
our products," company spokeswoman Carol Goodrich said.


MULTIPLE INJURY TRUST: Okla. Court Vacates Order in "Cellino" Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Oklahoma issued a ruling on March 10, 2015,
in the case captioned MULTIPLE INJURY TRUST FUND OF THE STATE OF
OKLAHOMA, FKA THE SPECIAL INDEMNITY FUND OF OKLAHOMA, Petitioner,
v. ANTHONY CELLINO, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF A CLASS
OF CLAIMANTS AND THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT, Respondents,
CASE NO. 111760. 2015 OK 12.

The claimant, Anthony Cellino, was injured on the job on April 4,
1995, with re-injury on December 17, 1995. His claims were
consolidated for purposes of his claim against the Multiple Injury
Trust Fund (the Fund). On March 13, 1997, he was awarded benefits
against the Fund in the amount of $4,100.  On May 30, 2000, he
received a check from the Fund for $5,202.26.

Then in August of 2003, Cellino filed a request for additional
unpaid principal and interest based on an award from an order
entered in 1997. The final payment of that order was made by the
Fund in May of 2000. Cellino additionally sought class action
status and relief for similarly situated claimants who are seeking
interest on previously awarded benefits against the Fund, and
whose final orders were entered after May 9, 1996.

On July 29, 2009, Cellino filed a motion to compel discovery
responses, which were answered by the Fund on August 10. The Fund
filed its motion for summary judgment on August 14. One of the
assertions was that the case should be dismissed for failure to
prosecute pursuant to 85 O.S.Supp.1995, Section 43(B).2 The trial
court granted the Fund's motion, but the three-judge panel
remanded for further proceedings.

After remand, the trial court issued its December 7, 2012, order
certifying a class consisting of persons awarded benefits against
the Fund after May 9, 1996, but which were not timely paid. A
three-judge panel affirmed in part and modified in part the trial
court order that certified the class action. The modifications
were minor word changes that did not affect the substance of the
court's order. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma retained the case.

The Fund argues that Cellino's August 22, 2003, request for class
certification is a "claim for compensation" and is subject to 85
O.S.Supp.1995, Section 43(B), if a final hearing is not requested
within five years of the last payment of compensation. Cellino
argues that Section 43(B) does not apply in cases such as this
where a final determination of benefits has already been made and
the request is for post-judgment interest on the final award.
Regardless of how Cellino's August 22, 2003, request for class
certification is characterized, that filing invoked the
jurisdiction of the Workers' Compensation Court and sought an
award from the Fund for "unpaid principal and post award interest
due to him" and other similarly situated claimants.

To adjudicate the claimant's request, the Workers' Compensation
Court must make a final determination as to whether a class should
be certified, and if so, the amount owed to each class member. The
five-year time limitation found in Section 43(B) applies to this
case.

According to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, "We need to address only
one issue in this Workers' Compensation matter and that is whether
the claimant's request for class certification is a "claim for
compensation" and subject to the five-year statute of limitations
found in 85 O.S.Supp.1995, Section 43(B).1 We hold that the
request is a claim for compensation and that the claimant failed
to diligently prosecute this claim, which is now barred by the
five-year limitation found in [Section] 43(B). . . The order of
the Workers' Compensation Court is vacated and remanded with
instructions to dismiss."

A copy of the Supreme Court ruling is available at
http://is.gd/svvYZrfrom Leagle.com.

Philip W. Redwine, Douglas B. Cubberley, LAW OFFICES OF REDWINE &
CUBBERLY, Norman, Oklahoma, for petitioner.

Thomas A. Layon, THE LAYON LAW FIRM, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma for
respondents.

John B. Nicks, CRUTCHMER & BARNES, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for
respondents.


NASDAQ OMX: Appeal in Facebook Litigation Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company is named
as a defendant in a consolidated matter captioned In re Facebook,
Inc., IPO Securities and Derivative Litigation, MDL No. 2389
(S.D.N.Y.).

"Our appeal of the district court's order granting in part and
denying in part our motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint is currently pending in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, at No. 14-1457," the Company said.


NASDAQ OMX: Filed Motion to Dismiss in Barclays Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the case In re
Barclays Liquidity Cross and High Frequency Trading Litigation,
14-md-02589 (S.D.N.Y).

The Company is named as one of many defendants in City of
Providence v. BATS Global Markets, Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 2811
(S.D.N.Y.), which was filed on April 18, 2014 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The district
court appointed lead counsel, who filed an amended complaint on
September 2, 2014. The amended complaint names as defendants seven
national exchanges, as well as Barclays PLC, which operated a
private alternative trading system.

"On behalf of a putative class of securities traders, the
plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in a scheme to
manipulate the markets through high-frequency trading; the amended
complaint asserts claims against us under Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, as well as under Section 6(b) of the
Exchange Act. We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint
on November 3, 2014," the Company said.  "In response, the
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on November 24, 2014,
which names the same defendants and alleges essentially the same
violations. We then filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint on January 23, 2015."

On January 9, 2015, the court consolidated this case in a multi-
district litigation proceeding under the heading In re Barclays
Liquidity Cross and High Frequency Trading Litigation, 14-md-02589
(S.D.N.Y). The consolidated cases bring claims against Barclays
PLC and Barclays Capital alleging that certain marketing materials
about Barclays LX contained false or misleading statements.
Although the Providence matter has been consolidated with the
Barclays matter, separate motions to dismiss will be filed for
each case.

"Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings, we are unable to
estimate what, if any, liability may result from this litigation.
However, we believe the claims to be without merit and intend to
litigate them vigorously," the Company said.


NASDAQ OMX: No Ruling Yet on Bids to Dismiss "Lainer" Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a decision remains
pending on the Company's motion to dismiss the Lainer complaints.

The Company is named as one of many exchange defendants in Lanier
v. BATS Exchange Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 3745 (S.D.N.Y.), Lanier v.
BATS Exchange Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 3865 (S.D.N.Y.), and Lanier v.
Bats Exchange Inc., 14 Civ. 3866 (S.D.N.Y.), which were filed
between May 23, 2014 and May 30, 2014 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
plaintiff is the same in each of these cases, and the three
complaints contain substantially similar allegations. On behalf of
a putative class of subscribers for market data provided by
national exchanges, the plaintiff alleges that the exchanges
provided data more quickly to certain market participants than to
others, supposedly in breach of the exchanges' plans for
dissemination of market data and subscriber agreements executed
under those plans. The complaint asserts contractual theories
under state law based on these alleged breaches.

|On September 29, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the
complaints. The court heard oral argument on the motion on January
16, 2015.  A decision remains pending," the Company said.  "Given
the preliminary nature of the proceedings, we are unable to
estimate what, if any, liability may result from this litigation.
However, we believe the claims to be without merit and intend to
litigate them vigorously."


NATIONAL PREARRANGED: Jury Awards $491MM Damages in Funerals Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a St. Louis federal jury has
awarded $491 million in damages in a 6-year-old lawsuit linked to
the collapse years ago of a company that sold prepaid funerals but
that federal investigators described as nothing more than an
elaborate Ponzi scheme.

The March 9 verdict ended a trial over the 2009 lawsuit by state
life and health guarantee associations and a special receiver set
up to wind down National Prearranged Services Inc., which was
based in the St. Louis suburb of Clayton, the St. Louis Post-
Dispatch  reported.

The damages include $391 million against PNC Bank and $100 million
against the now-defunct Forever Enterprises holding company.  Some
banks and other companies connected to NPS have settled out of
court or are arranging settlements for unspecified amounts.

PNC, which pledged to appeal the verdict, wasn't involved with NPS
but succeeded Allegiant Bank, a former trustee of NPS assets.

NPS operated from 1992 to 2008, selling funeral plans in advance
with the promise that the buyers' money would be kept safe until
the time of the funeral.  Customers typically paid a single sum of
up to $10,000 to cover the cost of funeral services and related
expenses.

Prosecutors said that money should have been held in trust and
increased at least three-fold in value but was instead used to
enrich the company's officers and others.

Dan Reilly, a Denver lawyer representing the guarantee
associations, called the outcome "the final step in the process of
protecting consumers in Missouri and other states."

Frederick Solomon, PNC Financial Services Group's senior vice
president, said in a statement that PNC "respectfully disagrees
with the jury regarding the liability of its predecessor bank,
Allegiant, and we intend to appeal this verdict."

Forever Enterprises was not represented in court, the newspaper
reported.

Mr. Solomon also said that all of the consumers who bought prepaid
funeral services will receive those services.

Beginning in the early 1990s, the lawsuit's plaintiffs argued,
liabilities exceeded trust assets, and NPS could pay for funerals
only by using cash from new contracts.

More than 97,000 victims who included customers, funeral homes,
insurers and financial institutions lost money, federal officials
have said.

In November 2013, six NPC officials were sentenced to prison terms
ranging from 18 months to 10 years for fraud.


NEXTEL: Class Certification in Discrimination Suit Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that a
judge's decision to certify a class against Nextel for inducing
the former law firm of Leeds, Morelli & Brown into settling an
employment discrimination case that harmed plaintiffs has been
reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The circuit said a lower court erred in finding that common issues
predominated over individual ones in Johnson v. Nextel
Communications, 14-454, finding instead that individual issues
would "overwhelm" the rest of the case alleging that Nextel
colluded with the former Leeds, Morelli & Brown, now Leeds Brown
Law.

Leeds Brown is no longer part of the case, but Nextel is, and the
company was handed a win on March 4 by Judges Richard Wesley,
Peter Hall and Gerard Lynch, with Judge Lynch saying, "This case
arises from a novel approach to aggregate litigation that
continues to provoke debate among experts of legal ethics."

In litigation that began nearly 15 years ago, Leeds Morelli
represented 587 plaintiffs and reached a dispute resolution and
settlement agreement with Nextel that called for interviews with
individual plaintiffs, non-binding mediation and, if mediation
didn't work, binding arbitration.

The settlement had Nextel paying $2 million up front to Leeds
Morelli for persuading their clients to drop their lawsuits and
submit to the process, another $1.5 million to the firm once half
the claims were resolved and an additional $2 million once all
claims were dismissed.

The agreement set a 45-week schedule, and if Leeds Morelli
couldn't resolve all the claims, Nextel would deduct $50,000 per
month.  The company also agreed to retain Leeds Morelli as a
consultant for two years after complete resolution for a fee of $2
million.  Both the company and the law firm obtained legal ethics
opinions vouching for the propriety of the fee arrangement and the
resolution process.

Most of the cases were settled by 2006, when a group of Nextel
employees sued both the company and the law firm on behalf of the
entire class of Nextel employees represented by Leeds Morelli for
breach of fiduciary duty, legal malpractice and breach of
contract.

Southern District Judge George Daniels dismissed the case in 2009,
but the Second Circuit vacated the dismissal in 2011, saying the
settlement agreement "created an enormous conflict of interest
between" the law firm and its clients, and the complaint had
adequately stated claims the plaintiffs could pursue (NYLJ, Sept.
28, 2011).

Judge Daniels granted class certification against Nextel in 2013,
finding 10 issues common to the class.  But Judge Daniels denied a
motion for certification of a sub-class against Leeds Morelli,
prompting the parties then to move for a stipulated voluntary
dismissal of claims against the firm, leaving Nextel alone to head
back to the circuit for oral argument on Dec. 9, 2014.

Judge Lynch said on March 4 that critical to the appeal were
choice of law issues that were a part of the 2001 decision
reinstating the case.  The circuit in 2011 had said that, while
any conflict of interest on the part of Leeds Morelli was non-
consentable under New York law, a plaintiff could consent to that
same conflict under the law of Colorado, where 164 of the 587
plaintiffs reside.

Lynch said the lower court was mistaken in its analysis that led
to its finding that New York law should apply. Instead, he said,
the commission of the tort took place in states where the
individual plaintiffs reside and "where he or she were promised
representation" by the law firm, and all but six plaintiffs live
outside of New York.

In finding that the most significant relationship between the
parties was outside New York, Lynch brushed aside the plaintiffs'
argument that New York should prevail because it has an interest
in regulating the conduct of attorneys licensed to practice in New
York.

"We are not persuaded that New York has a superior interest in
regulating relationships entered into in 26 other states, under 26
states' substantive laws, simply because one of the parties was a
New York law firm," he said.

Judge Lynch said that once the court has determined that the law
of each of plaintiff's 27 states will apply, "the case for finding
the predominance of common issues and the superiority of trying
this case as a class action diminishes to the vanishing point."

Jennifer Connolly -- jenniferc@hbsslaw.com -- and Steve Berman,
partners at Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro in Washington, D.C. and
Kenneth Thyne of Roper & Thyne in Totowa, New Jersey, represent
the plaintiffs.

Mark Harris -- mharris@proskauer.com -- and Lawrence Sandack --
lsandak@proskauer.com -- partners, and John Roberts, associate, at
Proskauer Rose represent Nextel.

Related Decisions:
Johnson v. Nextel, 14-454


NEW YORK, NY: To Remain a Defendant in Firefighter Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Joel Stashenko, writing for Law.com, reports that New York City
will remain a defendant in a suit filed on behalf of firefighters
who were killed or injured in a 2004 Bronx fire, under a ruling by
the Appellate Division, First Department.

The panel agreed with the plaintiffs' argument that the state's
Public Employee Safety and Health Act could subject the city to
valid claims that the firefighters were placed at risk of death or
serious physical harm by the city over the course of their
employment.

The court also said in Stolowski v. 234 East 178th Street LLC,
12893, that the city is not entitled to governmental function
immunity since there is evidence that the city, directly or
indirectly, contributed to the deaths and injuries by its decision
in 2000 to remove personal firefighters' ropes.

New ropes had not been provided to the firefighters by 2004, when
two firefighters were killed and four seriously injured when they
were forced to jump from a burning building in the Bronx, the
court noted.

"The failure to provide new ropes . . . raises issues of fact
concerning whether the absence of ropes 'actually resulted from
discretionary decision-making -- i.e., the exercise of reasoned
judgment which could typically produce different acceptable
results,'" the unsigned First Department ruling said, quoting
Valdez v. City of New York, 18 NY3d 69 (2011).

Justices Angela Mazarelli, Rolando Acosta, Rosalyn Richter and
Darcel Clark joined in the decision.

Assistant Corporation Counsel Drake Colley argued for the city.
Brian Shoot, a member at Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo,
and Andrew Turro -- aturro@msek.com -- member at Meyer, Suozzi,
English & Klein in Garden City, represented the plaintiffs.

The ruling largely upheld the determination in March 2013 by Bronx
Supreme Court Justice Larry Schachner, who also declined to grant
the city summary judgment.


OMNIVISION TECH: June 5 Final Hearing on Securities Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Ronald M. Whyte granted preliminary approval of a
class action settlement in In re OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION, CASE NO. 5:11-CV-05235-RMW, (N.D. Cal.).

The Court certified the class defined as: all persons and entities
that, during the period from August 27, 2010 to and through
November 6, 2011, inclusive (the "Class Period"), purchased or
otherwise acquired shares of OmniVision's publicly traded common
stock in the open market, and were damaged thereby.

A hearing will be held on June 5, 2015, at 9:00 a.m. before the
Honorable Ronald M. Whyte in Courtroom 6 of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose
Division, 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, CA 95113, to determine,
among other things, whether the proposed Settlement of the Action
on the terms and conditions provided in the Settlement Agreement
is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved by the
Court, and whether a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with
Prejudice should be entered, dismissing the Action in its entirety
and with prejudice.

The Court approved the retention of Heffler Claims Group as the
Claims Administrator to supervise and administer the notice
procedure and the processing of claims under the supervision of
Lead Counsel.

A copy of the Court's March 3, 2015 order is available at
http://is.gd/NIgdqKfrom Leagle.com.

BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE, STEPHEN R. BASSER -- sward@barrack.com --
SAMUEL M. WARD -- sbasser@barrack.com -- San Diego, CA,
BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC, J. GERARD STRANCH, IV --
gerards@BSJFirm.com -- JAMES G. STRANCH, III -- jims@BSJFirm.com
-- Nashville, TN, Co-Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs Oakland
County Employees' Retirement System, Laborers' District Council
and Contractors' Pension Fund of Ohio, and Woburn Retirement
System and the Proposed Class.


OVATION LENDING: Order Denying Dismissal Bid Certified for Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In DAVID LEONARD OROSCO, Plaintiff, v. OVATION LENDING, LLC,
Defendant, NO. SA-14-CV-00897-RP, (W.D. Tex.), before the Court
are Ovation Lending, LLC's motion to certify order for
interlocutory appeal and stay action pending appeal filed on
February 19, 2015, and Plaintiff's response filed on February 24.

This case is one of six putative class action lawsuits filed in
the Western District of Texas by Plaintiff's counsel against
companies in the business of making property tax loans to
homeowners. Plaintiffs allege these companies, regulated and
licensed by the State of Texas as property tax lenders, violated
the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA") and the Home Ownership and
Equity Protection Act ("HOEPA") when making these loans.
Defendants contend the lawsuits should be dismissed because Texas
property tax loans are not consumer credit transactions subject to
the provisions of TILA and HOEPA.

According to District Judge Robert L. Pitman, as it stands now,
there is a conflict between the courts as to whether plaintiffs in
these lawsuits state a claim upon which relief can be granted
under TILA and HOEPA. Because this threshold question is
potentially dispositive, an appeal of the issue would materially
advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. "In light of
these factors, this Court is of the opinion that the Order denying
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss should be certified for
interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit. In the interests of
judicial economy and efficiency, this Court is also of the opinion
that the action should be stayed pending resolution of the issue
by the Fifth Circuit."

"It is therefore ordered that the Court's Order dated February 9,
2015 denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is hereby certified for
an immediate interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals," ruled Judge Pitman. "[P]roceedings in this case are
hereby stayed pending further Orders of this Court."

A copy of the Court's March 3, 2015 Order is available at
http://is.gd/rfotFsfrom Leagle.com.

David Leonard Orosco, Plaintiff, represented by Jon Dale Lowe --
jlowe@mdtlaw.com -- Martin & Drought, PC & Bernie Martinez.

Ovation Lending, LLC, Defendant, represented by J. Christopher
Creel, Law Firm of Daniel J. Young, PLLC, Jonathan D. Pauerstein
-- jpauerstein@rpsalaw.com -- Rosenthal Pauerstein Sandoloski
Agather LLP & Stephen K. Lecholop, II -- slecholop@rpsalaw.com --
Rosenthal Paurestein Sandoloski Agather LLP.


PORTLAND GENERAL: Customers' Class Actions Remain Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits by electric service customers against
Portland General Electric Company remain pending, PGE said in its
Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on February 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

In two separate legal proceedings, lawsuits were filed in Marion
County Circuit Court against PGE in 2003 on behalf of two classes
of electric service customers. The class action lawsuits seek
damages totaling $260 million, plus interest, as a result of the
Company's inclusion, in prices charged to customers, of a return
on its investment in Trojan nuclear power plant.

In 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court issued a ruling ordering the
abatement of the class action proceedings until the Public Utility
Commission of Oregon or OPUC responded to the 2002 Order denying
all of the Utility Reform Project (URP)'s challenges.  The Oregon
Supreme Court concluded that the OPUC has primary jurisdiction to
determine what, if any, remedy can be offered to PGE customers,
through price reductions or refunds, for any amount of return on
the Trojan investment that the Company collected in prices.

The Oregon Supreme Court further stated that if the OPUC
determined that it can provide a remedy to PGE's customers, then
the class action proceedings may become moot in whole or in part.
The Oregon Supreme Court added that, if the OPUC determined that
it cannot provide a remedy, the court system may have a role to
play. The Oregon Supreme Court also ruled that the plaintiffs
retain the right to return to the Marion County Circuit Court for
disposition of whatever issues remain unresolved from the remanded
OPUC proceedings. The Marion County Circuit Court subsequently
abated the class actions in response to the ruling of the Oregon
Supreme Court.

The OPUC issued an order in 2008 (2008 Order) that required PGE to
provide refunds, including interest from September 30, 2000, to
customers who received service from the Company during the period
from October 1, 2000 to September 30, 2001. The Company recorded a
charge of $33.1 million in 2008 related to the refund and accrued
additional interest expense on the liability until refunds to
customers were completed in the first quarter of 2010. The URP and
the plaintiffs in the class actions separately appealed the 2008
Order to the Oregon Court of Appeals.

On February 6, 2013, the Oregon Court of Appeals issued an opinion
that upheld the 2008 Order. On May 31, 2013, the Court of Appeals
denied the appellants' request for reconsideration of the
decision. On October 18, 2013, the Oregon Supreme Court granted
plaintiffs' petition seeking review of the February 6, 2013 Oregon
Court of Appeals decision.

On October 2, 2014, the Oregon Supreme Court, in a unanimous
decision, affirmed the February 6, 2013 Oregon Court of Appeals
decision that upheld the OPUC's 2008 Order. On January 15, 2015,
the Oregon Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' petition seeking
reconsideration of the October 2, 2014 decision.

The October 2, 2014 Oregon Supreme Court decision expressly noted
that the plaintiffs in the class action must address any request
to lift the abatement with the Marion County Circuit Court. PGE is
evaluating how to proceed with respect to the class actions.

PGE believes that the October 2, 2014 Oregon Supreme Court
decision has reduced the risk of a loss to the Company in excess
of the amounts previously recorded. However, because the class
actions remain pending, management believes that it is still
reasonably possible that such a loss to the Company could result.
As these matters involve unsettled legal theories and have a broad
range of potential outcomes, sufficient information is currently
not available to determine the amount of any such loss, or to
estimate a range of potential loss.


POULSEN PIZZA: Faces "Hoffman" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Hoffman, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. Poulsen Pizza LLC, Dream Team Pizza LLC, and Dream Team
Pizza KC LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-02640 (D. Kan., March 5, 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 Domino's franchise restaurants in
states including Kansas and Missouri.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard M. Paul III, Esq.
      Jack D. McInnes V, Esq.
      PAUL MCINNES, LLP
      601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
      Kansas City, MO 64106
      Telephone: (816) 984-8100
      Facsimile: (816) 984-8101
      E-mail: paul@paulmcinnes.com
              mcinnes@paulmcinnes.com


RANGER CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Piceno" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Piceno, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Ranger Construction, Inc., and Satwant K.
Kaler, Case No. 1:15-cv-01993 (N.D. Ill., March 5, 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 construction company 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


REGIONS FINANCIAL: Awaiting Approval of Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Regions Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a class action
was brought on behalf of retail purchasers of the bonds in
September 2012, seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages. In September 2014, the District Court for the Western
District of Missouri granted class certification. The parties
agreed to settlement terms in January 2015 and are awaiting
approval of the settlement by the Court.


REGIONS FINANCIAL: Seeks Appellate Review on Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Regions Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Regions is
seeking appellate review concerning the class certification which
was denied in January 2015.

In October 2010, a class-action lawsuit was filed by Regions'
stockholders in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Alabama (the "District Court") against Regions and certain
former officers of Regions ("the 2010 Claim"). The 2010 Claim
alleges violations of the federal securities laws, including
allegations that statements that were materially false and
misleading were included in filings made with the Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC"). The plaintiffs have requested
equitable relief and unspecified monetary damages.

In June 2011, the District Court denied Regions' motion to dismiss
the 2010 Claim. In June 2012, District Court granted class
certification.

In September 2014, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated
certification in part and remanded the 2010 Claim to District
Court for further consideration of the class certification issue.
Following recertification in the District Court, Regions filed a
petition for permissive appeal in the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals concerning the class certification which was denied in
January 2015. Regions is seeking appellate review.


SANTANDER CONSUMER: To Pay $9.4MM for Illegally Repossessing Cars
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Lee at Courthouse News Service reports that a U.S.
subsidiary of Spanish banking giant Banco Santander will pay $9.4
million to settle claims it illegally repossessed more than 1,100
cars leased by military servicemembers on active duty.

Dallas-based Santander Consumer USA violated the Servicemembers
Civil Relief Act when it repossessed the cars from 2008 to 2013,
according to the United States federal lawsuit filed February 25.

The law protects servicemembers from civil proceedings while they
are serving.

"One of those protections is the requirement that a court review
and approve a lender's repossession of any motor vehicle owned by
a servicemember if the servicemember took out the loan and made a
deposit or an installment payment before entering military
service," the complaint states.

"The court may delay the repossession or condition the
repossession on the refunding of all or part of the prior
installments or deposits made by the servicemember.  The court may
also appoint an attorney to represent the servicemember, require
the lender to post a bond with the court and issue any other
orders it deems necessary to protect the rights of the
servicemember."

Prosecutors say Santander failed to obtain the court orders before
repossessing 760 vehicles from January 2008 to February 2013, and
tried to collect fees from another 352 repossessions from March
2010 to February 2013.

In one case, a car belonging to 19-year-old Army Specialist Joshua
Davis, of Florida, was repossessed while he was in basic training.

"Defendant sold Specialist Davis' car at an auction, after seizing
it during the middle of the night from outside his home, and then
sent Specialist Davis a bill to pay a deficiency balance of over
$9,000 (including nearly $800 in repossession fees), reported his
deficiency balance to the major credit bureaus, and sold the
deficiency balance to a third-party debt buyer," the complaint
states.

In another case, Army National Guard Sgt. Charles Beard, of
California, had his federal class action lawsuit against Santander
thwarted when an arbitration clause in the loan documents was
exercised.

"Requiring Sergeant Beard to resolve his dispute in a private,
individual arbitration rather than a public class action lawsuit
hindered the ability of Sergeant Beard to pursue relief for anyone
but himself," the complaint states.

Santander agreed to pay servicemembers $10,000 apiece and "any
lost equity" for each of the 760 repossessed vehicles.  It will
pay servicemembers $5,000 for each of the 352 repossessions in
which it sough fees.

Santander spokeswoman Laurie Kight said the Department of Justice
noted in the consent order the company "cooperated fully" with the
federal investigation and has "taken steps to improve its
servicing practices and compliance with the SCRA."

"Since 2012, SCUSA has used systemic controls to prevent improper
repossessions of vehicles, including those who were contracted
with SCRA-eligible customers," Kight said February 26.  "The
majority of accounts found objectionable by the DOJ involved
repossessions prior to 2012 and approximately one-third were
accounts from other financial institutions that were converted to
SCUSA accounts at a later date.  The topic is separate and
unrelated to the DOJ subpoena received in 2014 related to
origination and securitization practices."

The company has "set aside financial reserves" for the settlement
that will not require adjustments to publicly reported numbers,
she added.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          T. J. Johnson, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney
          UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          Northern District of Texas
          1100 Commerce Street, Third Floor
          Dallas, TX 75242-1699
          Telephone: (214) 659-8715
          E-mail: tj.johnson@usdoj.gov

               - and -

          Vanita Gupta, Esq.
          ACTING ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
          CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION

          Steven H. Rosenbaum, Esq.
          CHIEF HOUSING AND CIVIL ENFORCEMENT SECTION

          Elizabeth A. Singer, Esq.
          DIRECTOR, U.S. ATTORNEYS' FAIR HOUSING PROGRAM

          Daniel P. Mosteller, Esq.
          TRIAL ATTORNEY
          HOUSING AND CIVIL ENFORCEMENT SECTION
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION
          950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW - NWB
          Washington, D.C. 20530
          Telephone: (202) 305-0053
          Facsimile: (202) 514-1116
          E-mail: daniel.mosteller@usdoj.gov

The case is United States of America v. Santander Consumer USA
Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00633-B, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.


SERVICE CORP: Subsidiary Faces "Samborsky" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Charles
Samborsky, et al, individually and on behalf of those persons
similarly situated, v. SCI California Funeral Services, Inc., et
al ; Case No. BC544180; in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, Central District-Central
Civil West Courthouse, was filed in April 2014 against an SCI
subsidiary and purports to have been brought on behalf of
employees who worked as family serv2ice counselors in California
since April 2010. The plaintiffs allege causes of action for
various violations of state laws regulating wage and hour pay. The
plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, compensatory and punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, interest, and injunctive relief.

"We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, in this
lawsuit," the Company said.


SERVICE CORP: "Moulton" Action to Proceed v. Stewart Enterprises
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Karen Moulton, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Stewart Enterprises, Inc., Service
Corporation International and others, will continue against
Service's subsidiary Stewart Enterprises and its former individual
directors, Service said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

Karen Moulton, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Stewart Enterprises, Inc., Service Corporation
International and others ; Case No. 2013-5636; in the Civil
District Court Parish of New Orleans, was filed as a class action
in June 2013 against SCI and our subsidiary in connection with
SCI's proposed acquisition of Stewart Enterprises, Inc. The
plaintiffs allege that SCI aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary
duties by Stewart Enterprises and its board of directors in
negotiating the combination of Stewart Enterprises with a
subsidiary of SCI. The plaintiffs seek damages concerning the
combination.

"We filed exceptions to the plaintiffs' complaint that were
granted in June 2014. Thus, subject to appeals, SCI will no longer
be party to the suit. The case will continue against our
subsidiary Stewart Enterprises and its former individual
directors. We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, for
the payment of damages," the Company said.


SEWERAGE & WATER: Summary Judgment Bid in Crutchfield Case Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in RONDA CRUTCHFIELD, ET AL., v. SEWERAGE & WATER
BOARD OF NEW ORLEANS, ET AL., Section "C", CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-CV-
4801, (E.D. La.) bring this proposed class action lawsuit alleging
that defendants' construction of the Dwyer Road Intake Canal
inflicted damage to plaintiffs' and proposed class members'
property in the surrounding area.  The Dwyer Road Intake Canal is
a federally funded project administered by the United States Army
Corps of Engineers ("USACE").  This case was originally filed in
Orleans Civil District Court.  It was removed pursuant 28 U.S.C.
Section 1442(a)(1) because Hill Bros. claims it is a government
contractor immune from suit. Since April 1, 2014, the parties have
engaged in discovery limited to class certification issues.  On
January 16, 2015, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion to certify
class action.  Plaintiffs now move for partial summary judgment,
arguing that Hill Bros.' claim of government contractor immunity
should be dismissed.

In an order and reasons entered March 4, 2015, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/K2QK2Sfrom Leagle.com, District Judge
Helen G. Berrigan found that no discovery has been conducted on
the issue of government contractor immunity -- the subject of the
instant motion.

"The lack of discovery on this issue is highlighted by the
significant gaps in plaintiffs' evidentiary support for this
motion," Judge Berrigan held.  "As Sewerage and Water Board of New
Orleans (SWB) points out, plaintiffs have not provided the Court
with the contract that explicitly sets forth specifications
approved by the Corps. They have also provided incomplete copies
of the Corps' Scope of Work. The portion that plaintiffs attached
merely requires the contractor to record and document vibrations
exceeding 0.25 inches per second and notify the Government
Resident Inspector of vibrations above that level. It does not
state that vibrations exceeding 0.25 inches per second constitute
a violation of the specifications. Plaintiffs also provide an
excerpt from a Hill Bros. contract that states similar
requirements, but the excerpt does not establish if these are
specifications imposed by the Corps.  Thus, contested issues of
fact remain as to what the Corps' precise specifications regarding
dewatering and vibration levels were and whether vibrations
exceeding 0.25 inches per second actually constituted a violation
of these specifications. Plaintiffs' reliance on incomplete
documentation and hearsay supports that adjudication of this issue
should be postponed until the parties have conducted further
discovery."

Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion is denied without prejudice, Judge
Berrigan concluded.


SOLARWORLD INDUSTRIES: Mag. Judge Findings Adopted in "Makaneole"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In MICHAEL MAKANEOLE, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SOLARWORLD INDUSTRIES AMERICA, INC.;
SOLARWORLD INDUSTRIES AMERICA, LP; SOLARWORLD INDUSTRIES SERVICES,
LLC; SOLARWORLD POWER PROJECTS, INC., RANDSTAD PROFESSIONALS US,
LP, and KELLY SERVICES, INC., Defendants, NO. 3:14-CV-01528-PK,
(D. Ore.), Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued Findings and
Recommendation on December 8, 2014, in which he recommends the
Court deny the Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Kelly Services,
Inc.; grant Kelly Service's Alternative Motion for More Definite
Statement pursuant to Rule 12(e); grant in part and deny in part
the Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Randstad Professionals U.S.,
LP; dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff's Third Claim as to all
Defendants; dismiss without prejudice Plaintiff's First and Second
Claims as to all Defendants; and grant Plaintiff 30 days to file
an Amended Complaint consistent with the Findings and
Recommendation.

The Plaintiff filed timely Objections to the Findings and
Recommendation.

District Judge Anna J. Brown, in an order entered March 9, 2015,
a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/4jd8CVfrom
Leagle.com,  adopted as modified Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings
and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court:

* denies Kelly Services' Motion to Dismiss;

* grants Kelly Services' Alternative Motion for More Definite
  Statement pursuant to Rule 12(e);

* grants Randstad Professionals' Motion to Dismiss as to
  Plaintiff's First, Second, and Third Claims;

* denies Randstad Professionals' Motion to Dismiss as to
  Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees;

* dismisses without prejudice Plaintiff's First, Second, and Third
  Claims; and

* grants Plaintiff leave to file an Amended Complaint no later
  than April 6, 2015, to cure the deficiencies set out in the
  Findings and Recommendation.

Michael Makaneole, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by David Arthur Schuck --
DSchuck@Wagelawyer.com -- Schuck Law, LLC & Karen A. Moore --
kmoore@wagelawyer.com -- Bailey Pinney & Associates LLC.

Solarworld Industries America, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Todd A. Hanchett -- todd.hanchett@stoel.com -- Stoel Rives LLP,
Victor Joseph Kisch -- victor.kisch@stoel.com -- Stoel Rives LLP &
John Baird Dudrey -- john.dudrey@stoel.com -- Stoel Rives LLP.

SolarWorld Industries America, LP, Defendant, represented by Todd
A. Hanchett, Stoel Rives LLP, Victor Joseph Kisch, Stoel Rives LLP
& John Baird Dudrey, Stoel Rives LLP.

SolarWorld Industries Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Todd A. Hanchett, Stoel Rives LLP, Victor Joseph Kisch, Stoel
Rives LLP & John Baird Dudrey, Stoel Rives LLP.

SolarWorld Power Projects, Inc., Defendant, represented by Todd A.
Hanchett, Stoel Rives LLP, Victor Joseph Kisch, Stoel Rives LLP &
John Baird Dudrey, Stoel Rives LLP.

Randstad Professionals US, LP, Defendant, represented by Clarence
M. Belnavis -- cbelnavis@laborlawyers.com -- Fisher & Phillips,
LLP, John S. Snelling -- John.Snelling@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP & Toni J. Read --
Toni.Read@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith,
LLP.

Kelly Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gerald L. Maatman
-- gmaatman@seyfarth.com -- Jr., Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Joshua M.
Henderson -- jhenderson@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Michael
W. Kopp -- mkopp@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Andrew S.
Moses -- amoses@gordon-polscer.com -- Gordon & Polscer, LLC.


TARGA RESOURCES: Class Action Parties Working on Settlement Docs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Targa Resources Partners LP said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that parties in the
shareholder class action are currently working on settlement
documentation.

On January 28, 2015, a public shareholder of TRC (the "TRC
Plaintiff") filed a putative class action and derivative lawsuit
against TRC (as a nominal defendant), its directors at the time of
the ATLS Merger (the "TRC Director Defendants"), and ATLS
(together with TRC and the TRC Director Defendants, the "TRC
Lawsuit Defendants").  This lawsuit is styled Inspired Investors
v. Joe Bob Perkins, et al., in the District Court of Harris
County, Texas (the "TRC Lawsuit").

The TRC Plaintiff alleges a variety of causes of action
challenging the disclosures related to the ATLS Merger. Generally,
the TRC Plaintiff alleges that the TRC Director Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties.  The TRC Plaintiff further
alleges that the registration statement filed on January 22, 2015
fails to disclose allegedly material details concerning (i) Wells
Fargo Securities, LLC's and the TRC Director Defendants' supposed
conflicts of interest with respect to the ATLS Merger, (ii) TRC's
financial projections, (iii) the background of the ATLS Merger,
and (iv) Wells Fargo Securities, LLC's analysis of the ATLS
Merger.

Based on these allegations, the TRC Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the
TRC Lawsuit Defendants from proceeding with or consummating the
ATLS Merger unless and until TRC discloses the allegedly material
omitted details. To the extent that the ATLS Merger is consummated
before injunctive relief is granted, the TRC Plaintiff seeks to
have the ATLS Merger rescinded. The TRC Plaintiff also seeks
recissory damages and attorneys' fees.

Only two of the TRC Lawsuit Defendants have been served at this
time, these defendants' date to answer, move to dismiss, or
otherwise respond to the TRC Lawsuit was March 2, 2015. The
remaining TRC Lawsuit Defendants' date to answer, move to dismiss
or otherwise respond to the TRC Lawsuit has not yet been set.
Targa cannot predict the outcome of this or any other lawsuit that
might be filed subsequent to the date of the filing of this Annual
Report, nor can Targa or Atlas predict the amount of time and
expense that will be required to resolve the TRC Lawsuit. To
resolve this matter, Targa published supplemental disclosures on
February 11, 2015 and the parties are currently working on
settlement documentation.


TARGA RESOURCES: Parties to Atlas Lawsuits Agreed to Settle
-----------------------------------------------------------
Targa Resources Partners LP said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that parties to the
Consolidated Atlas Lawsuits agreed to settle the Consolidated
Atlas Lawsuits on February 9, 2015.

Between October and December 2014, five public unitholders of
Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., (the "APL Plaintiffs") filed
putative class action lawsuits against APL, Atlas Energy, L.P.,
Atlas Pipeline Partners GP, LLC, the general partner of APL ("APL
GP"), its managers, TRC, the Partnership, the general partner and
Trident MLP Merger Sub LLC (the "APL Lawsuit Defendants"). These
lawsuits are styled (a) Michael Evnin v. Atlas Pipeline Partners,
L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania; (b) William B. Federman Family Wealth Preservation
Trust v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., in the District
Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma (the "Tulsa Lawsuit"); (c)
Greenthal Living Trust U/A 01/26/88 v. Atlas Pipeline Partners,
L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania; (d) Mike Welborn v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P.,
et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania; and (e) Irving Feldbaum v. Atlas Pipeline Partners,
L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania, though the Tulsa Lawsuit has since been voluntarily
dismissed. The Evnin, Greenthal, Welborn and Feldbaum lawsuits
have been consolidated as In re Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P.
Unitholder Litigation, Case No. GD-14-019245, in the Court of
Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (the "Consolidated
APL Lawsuit").

In October and November 2014, two public unitholders of ATLS (the
"ATLS Plaintiffs" and, together with the APL Plaintiffs, the
"Atlas Lawsuit Plaintiffs") filed putative class action lawsuits
against ATLS, ATLS Energy GP, LLC, the general partner of ATLS
("ATLS GP"), its managers, TRC and Trident GP Merger Sub LLC (the
"ATLS Lawsuit Defendants" and, together with the APL Lawsuit
Defendants, the "Atlas Lawsuit Defendants"). These lawsuits are
styled (a) Rick Kane v. Atlas Energy, L.P., et al., in the Court
of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania and (b) Jeffrey
Ayers v. Atlas Energy, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas
for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (the "ATLS Lawsuits"). The ATLS
Lawsuits have been consolidated as In re Atlas Energy, L.P.
Unitholder Litigation, Case No. GD-14-019658, in the Court of
Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (the "Consolidated
ATLS Lawsuit") and, together with the Consolidated APL Lawsuit,
(the "Consolidated Atlas Lawsuits") though the Kane lawsuit has
since been voluntarily dismissed.

The Atlas Lawsuit Plaintiffs allege a variety of causes of action
challenging the Atlas Mergers. Generally, the APL Plaintiffs
allege that (a) APL GP's managers have breached the covenant of
good faith and/or their fiduciary duties and (b) TRC, the
Partnership, the general partner, Trident MLP Merger Sub LLC, APL,
ATLS and APL GP have aided and abetted in these alleged breaches
of the covenant of good faith and/or fiduciary duties. The APL
Plaintiffs further allege that (a) the premium offered to APL's
unitholders is inadequate, (b) APL agreed to contractual terms
that will allegedly dissuade other potential acquirers from
seeking to acquire APL, and (c) APL GP's managers favored their
self-interests over the interests of APL's unitholders. The APL
Plaintiffs in the Consolidated APL Lawsuit also allege that the
registration statement filed on November 19, 2014 fails, among
other things, to disclose allegedly material details concerning
(i) Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated's analysis of the
Transactions; (ii) Targa and Atlas' financial projections; and
(iii) the background of the Transactions. Generally, the ATLS
Plaintiffs allege that (a) ATLS GP's directors have breached the
covenant of good faith and/or their fiduciary duties and (b)
Targa, Trident GP Merger Sub LLC, and ATLS have aided and abetted
in these alleged breaches of the covenant of good faith and/or
fiduciary duties. The ATLS Plaintiffs further allege that (a) the
premium offered to the ATLS unitholders is inadequate, (b) ATLS
agreed to contractual terms that will allegedly dissuade other
potential acquirers from seeking to acquire ATLS, (c) ATLS GP's
directors favored their self-interests over the interests of the
ATLS unitholders and (d) the registration statement fails to
disclose allegedly material details concerning, among other
things, (i) Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, Stifel, Nicolaus &
Company, Incorporated, and Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.'s
analyses of the Transactions; (ii) Targa and Atlas' financial
projections; and (iii) the background of the Transactions.

Based on these allegations, the Atlas Lawsuit Plaintiffs sought to
enjoin the Atlas Lawsuit Defendants from proceeding with or
consummating the Atlas Mergers unless and until APL and ATLS
adopted and implemented processes to obtain the best possible
terms for their respective unitholders. To the extent that the
Atlas Mergers were consummated before injunctive relief was
granted, the Atlas Lawsuit Plaintiffs sought to have the Atlas
Mergers rescinded. The Atlas Lawsuit Plaintiffs also sought
damages and seek attorneys' fees.

The parties to the Consolidated Atlas Lawsuits agreed to settle
the Consolidated Atlas Lawsuits on February 9, 2015.  In general,
the settlements provide that in consideration for the dismissal of
the Consolidated Atlas Lawsuits, ATLS and APL will provide
supplemental disclosures regarding the Atlas Mergers in a filing
with the SEC on Form 8-K, which ATLS and APL did on February 11,
2015. The Atlas Lawsuit Defendants agreed to make such
supplemental disclosures solely to avoid the uncertainty, risk,
burden, and expense inherent in litigation and deny that any
supplemental disclosure was or is required under any applicable
rule, statute, regulation or law. The parties to the Consolidated
Atlas Lawsuits are drafting settlement agreements and expect to
seek court approval of the settlements.


TCP INTERNATIONAL: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel V. Leach, Jr., individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. TCP International Holdings Ltd.,
Ellis Yan, Brian Catlett, Solomon Yan, Jurgen Borgt, and Matthias
Belz, Case No. 1:15-cv-01631 (S.D.N.Y., March 5, 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,
which designs, develops, manufactures, and markets lighting
products and accessories to the commercial, industrial, and retail
markets worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Francis Paul McConville, Esq.
      Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      E-mail: fmcconville@pomlaw.com
              jalieberman@pomlaw.com

         - and -

      Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


TRINIDAD DRILLING: Faces "Walker" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Walker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Trinidad Drilling, LP, Case No. 5:15-cv-00169 (W.D.
Tex., March 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40
hours per work week.

Trinidad Drilling, LP is a Texas corporation that operates in an
oil and gas drilling rigs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UBER TECH: Jury Must Decide Misclassification Suits, Judges Say
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that two San Francisco federal judges
say juries will have to decide whether drivers for Uber and Lyft
were independent contractors, or employees of the ride-hailing
companies with all of the protections and benefits the state
affords regular workers.

The rulings have potentially expensive ramifications for Uber and
Lyft.

Two former Lyft drivers and four current Uber drivers have filed
two separate lawsuits alleging that they were misclassified as
independent contractors and thus deprived of California's minimum
wage, reimbursement for work-related expenses, and other
protections.  The plaintiffs seek class-action status on behalf of
current and former drivers in California.

Lyft and Uber dispute the claims and had asked the courts to issue
summary judgments against the plaintiffs.

But in respective rulings filed on March 11, U.S. District Judges
Edward M. Chen and Vince Chhabria said only a jury could decide
the issues because evidence could sway a reasonable jury in either
direction.  They agreed that California laws are "outmoded," and
even suggested that laws may at some point be written specifically
to address the so-called "sharing economy."  But until then, the
burden would be on Uber and Lyft to prove drivers weren't
employees.

Lyft and Uber declined to comment on the rulings.

The ride-hailing companies each operate apps that link would-be
riders up with nearby drivers.  Payment is made via the apps and
Uber and Lyft cut checks to drivers for the rides, after taking a
commission of about 20 percent.

Privately held Uber has raised nearly $6 billon since it started
six years ago and is valued at about $40 billion.  Its ride-
hailing network is available in more than 250 cities in 50
countries.

The company has faced legal and regulatory challenges, concerns
about rider safety and the screening of its drivers, and criticism
of how it has raised prices during storms and other high-demand
periods.

Smaller rival Lyft, known for previously putting pink mustaches on
drivers' cars, is in 65 markets and recently raised $530 million
in new funding.  Reports value the 3-year-old company at over $2
billion.

One plaintiff, Patrick Cotter, drove for Lyft for four months
while also working for Facebook.  He was fired after using a
substitute vehicle to give rides, rather than the car Lyft
approved.  Another, Alejandra Maciel, drove for Lyft for six weeks
in 2013 and was fired after getting passenger ratings in the
bottom 5 percent of drivers.  They contend Lyft owes them money
because it should have paid them as employees, not independent
contractors.

Judge Chhabria wrote in his ruling that a central question is
whether Lyft's right to control drivers' working environment --
its setting of rules for behavior while driving -- and fire them
at will makes them employees instead of contractors.  However, the
flexibility afforded by the Lyft business model to drivers -- they
set their own hours and can reject or ignore ride requests --
means reasonable people could differ on whether a worker is an
employee or an independent contractor.

"The jury in this case will be handed a square peg and asked to
choose between two round holes," Judge Chhabria wrote, noting what
he called "California's outmoded test for classifying workers."

The Uber case involves plaintiffs Douglas O'Connor and
Thomas Colopy, who drive mainly for Uber's "UberBlack" service --
which transports passengers in black sedans or other limousine-
like vehicles -- and Matthew Manahan and Elie Gurfinkel, who drive
principally for Uber's "uberX" service in their own cars.
Judge Chen noted that each of them signed contracts with Uber that
explicitly state that the relationship between the transportation
providers and Uber "is solely that of independent contracting
parties."

But Judge Chen called Uber's argument that it is merely a
technology company and not in the transportation business "strains
credulity."

"Uber is no more a 'technology company' than Yellow Cab is a
'technology company' because it uses CB radios to dispatch taxi
cabs," Judge Chen wrote.

However, he agreed that California's traditional employment test
evolved in an economy very different from today's and that prior
cases don't address all of the challenges presented by Uber's
business mode.

The two cases turn on a complex area of state law that will likely
be the focus of more disputes, said law professor Eric Goldman,
who is director of Santa Clara University's High Tech Law
Institute.

"There are lots of other sharing economy services that create new
ways of people working together," he said. "This is going to come
up for other online marketplaces."

In the cases involving Uber and Lyft, Goldman said both judges
seem skeptical of the companies' arguments that their drivers are
independent contractors.  "We'll have to see what the juries say,"
he added, "but certainly if I'm Uber and Lyft, I'm thinking
carefully about my Plan B."


UBER TECH: NFBC Has Standing to Pursue Discrimination Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
David Ruiz, writing for The Recorder, reports that a magistrate
judge on March 3 said he probably won't throw out a suit that
claims Uber drivers discriminate against blind passengers
accompanied by seeing-eye dogs.  Brought by the National
Federation of the Blind of California (NFBC), the suit asks for
injunctive relief and an award of damages to some of the named
plaintiffs.

At an afternoon hearing, Littler Mendelson attorneys representing
Uber Technologies Inc. argued that the federation can't bring
claims on behalf of both Uber users and nonusers of the platform.
That matters, said Littler Mendelson shareholder Andrew Spurchise
-- aspurchise@littler.com -- because Uber users agreed to
arbitrate any claims against the company when they assented to
Uber's terms of service.

However, U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins of the Northern
District of California said at the start of the hearing that he
believes the NFBC has at least "associational standing," allowing
the organization to sue on behalf of others.

Mr. Spurchise held hard to the notion that court-ordered relief is
only available to the non-Uber users listed in the complaint.
Holding otherwise would "break the sanctity" of the terms of
service agreement that all Uber users sign, he told Cousins.

But plaintiffs attorney Timothy Elder of TRE Legal Practice saw no
problem.

"We're seeking injunctive relief for [the plaintiffs] and for
society, regardless of standing," Mr. Elder said.  "All would
benefit."

A few nods of agreement and affirmative sighs came from the
audience, which included seven service dogs.  One dog audibly
groaned throughout the trial, while another snored quietly.  Two
audience members traveled all the way from Houston.  A few were in
wheelchairs.

Michael Nunez and Laurence Paradis of Disability Rights Advocates
are also representing the plaintiffs.

The NFBC sued Uber in September for allegedly discriminating
against blind consumers.  The complaint named several individuals
who claimed they were stood up by Uber drivers after trying to get
a ride with their service dogs.  The suit alleges that one Uber
driver went so far as to put a passenger's dog in the vehicle's
trunk.

Uber's attorneys at Littler Mendelson filed a motion to dismiss in
December 2014.  In addition to attacking the organization's
standing, Littler Mendelson took issue with named plaintiff
Michael Hingson, a blind man who said he avoided using the ride-
hailing service because of negative feedback he'd heard from his
friends.

"Hingson has never personally been denied service, received a poor
rating, or otherwise been discriminated against in his use of the
uberX service," the motion to dismiss states.  "In fact, he cannot
even use the uberX service because he has not created a Uber user
account or agreed to the user terms and conditions."

Judge Cousins agreed with Uber's attorneys that Mr. Hingson does
not have standing under the specific rules of the Disabled Persons
Act.  However, Judge Cousins challenged the notion that Mr.
Hingson has no standing at all.

TRE Legal Practice's Elder closed the hearing by reminding Cousins
that the firm is seeking to improve the life of blind citizens in
all areas, including transportation.  He said that separating the
plaintiffs into Uber users and nonusers is unnecessary and that
the arbitration agreement is far from airtight.

"I could get on my phone and book a ride for you down to San Jose,
but you never agreed to an arbitration, did you?" Mr. Elder
posited.  Judge Cousins nodded in understanding and had a
follow-up question: "But could you guarantee there wouldn't be any
traffic?"


UNION PACIFIC: Court Refuses to Dismiss Railroad Conspiracy Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
A group of mining companies can advance an antitrust suit against
two railroad companies over allegedly exorbitant freight rates,
reports Amanda Loviza-Vickery at Courthouse News Service, citing a
federal court ruling.

Six subsidiaries of the Oxbow Group are behind the complaint,
which accuses Union Pacific Railroad Co. and BNSF Railway Co. of
fixing competitive prices through a fuel surcharge and dividing
the markets between themselves.

Though U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman dismissed the original
complaint, he found February 24 that the substantial revisions to
the allegations cured the earlier errors.

Along with the conspiracy not-to-compete and the fuel surcharge
conspiracy claims, Oxbow also alleges that the two railroad
companies' conspiring gave Union Pacific a monopoly in at least
one region.

The price-fixing allegations are virtually identical to a class
action the same court, filed by direct and indirect purchasers of
rail-freight transportation services, and the defendants wanted
Friedman to dismiss any claims in Oxbow's suit that exceeded the
other action.

Though Friedman dismissed Oxbow Midwest Calcining LLC and Terror
Creek LLC from a breach of contract charge on the suit, he
otherwise kept the suit intact February 24.

The defendants argued that because the Oxbow plaintiffs failed to
specify to whom they paid fuel surcharges, their case cannot move
forward.

Friedman concluded, however, that this issue is not yet ripe
because the defendants are jointly and severally liable for any
injury suffered by the plaintiffs.

The defendants further attacked the strength of the plaintiffs'
conspiracy claims, and whether the market in which the conspiracy
is alleged is a market in which the plaintiffs participate.

Under the legal standard of taking the plaintiff's claims as fact,
Friedman ruled that Oxbow has made a sufficient case that the
defendants conspired in a way that impacted the market and the
plaintiffs specifically.

"Oxbow has sufficiently alleged the existence of a conspiracy,
overt acts done in furtherance of that conspiracy, and an
appreciable effect on interstate commerce," Friedman wrote.

The case is Oxbow Carbon & Minerals LLC, et al. v. Union Pacific
Railroad Company, et al., Case No. 11-1049 (PLF), in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.


USG CORP: Settled Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
USG Corporation said in its Amendment No. 1 on Form 8-K/A Current
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 13, 2015, that the Company and its subsidiaries, United
States Gypsum Company and L&W Supply Corporation (collectively,
the "USG Subsidiaries"), on February 11, 2015, entered into
settlement agreements (the "Settlement Agreements") to settle all
claims made against the Company and the USG Subsidiaries in the
direct and indirect purchaser class actions consolidated in the
lawsuit, In re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation, MDL No.
2437, pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreements, which were entered into
with counsel representing the direct purchaser and indirect
purchaser classes in the lawsuit, the Company has agreed to pay a
total of $48 million in cash to settle the claims made in the
lawsuit. Of the $48 million settlement payment, $39.25 million
will be allocated to the direct purchaser class settlement fund
and $8.75 million will be allocated to the indirect purchaser
class settlement fund. The Settlement Agreements remain subject to
court approval. The Settlement Agreements, in which the Company
and the USG Subsidiaries deny all wrongdoing, also include
releases by participating class members of the Company and its
subsidiaries, affiliates, and other related parties, for all
conduct concerning any of the matters alleged, or that could have
been alleged, in the lawsuit for the time period prior to and
including November 30, 2014. Additionally, the Settlement
Agreements grant the Company the right to terminate the Settlement
Agreements in the event an agreed upon percentage of potential
class members do not participate.

A copy of the INDIRECT PURCHASER SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT is available
at http://is.gd/1h7nPF

A copy of the DIRECT PURCHASER SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT is available
at http://is.gd/F1DmdJ


VENTAS INC: Parties to HCT Action Entered Into MOU
--------------------------------------------------
Ventas, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the parties to the
consolidated state court class action agreed to a memorandum of
understanding regarding settlement of all claims asserted on
behalf of each alleged class of HCT stockholders.

The Company said, "In January 2015, we acquired publicly traded
American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. ("HCT") in a stock
and cash transaction (the "HCT Acquisition"), which added 152
properties (some of which are located on the same campus) to our
portfolio. We funded the transaction through the issuance of
approximately 28.4 million shares of our common stock, 1.1 million
limited partnership units that are redeemable for shares of our
common stock, cash and the assumption of debt."

"In the weeks following the announcement on June 2, 2014 of our
agreement to acquire HCT, a total of 13 putative class actions
were filed by purported HCT stockholders challenging the
transaction. Certain of the actions also purport to bring
derivative claims on behalf of HCT. Among other things, the
lawsuits allege that the directors of HCT breached their fiduciary
duties by approving the transaction and that we and our
subsidiaries, Stripe Sub, LLC and Stripe OP, LP, aided and abetted
this purported breach of fiduciary duty. The complaints seek
injunctive relief and damages."

"Ten of these actions were filed in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City, Maryland and consolidated under the caption In re:
American Realty Capital, Healthcare Trust, Inc. Shareholder &
Derivative Litigation, Case No. 24-C-14-003534, two actions were
filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New
York, and one action was filed in the United States District Court
of Maryland."

On January 2, 2015, the parties to the consolidated state court
action agreed to a memorandum of understanding regarding
settlement of all claims asserted on behalf of each alleged class
of HCT stockholders. In connection with the settlement
contemplated by that memorandum of understanding, each action and
all claims asserted therein will be dismissed, subject to approval
by each applicable court. The proposed settlement terms require
HCT to make certain additional disclosures related to the merger,
which were set forth in HCT's Current Report on Form 8-K dated
January 2, 2015. The memorandum of understanding further
contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of
settlement, which will be subject to customary conditions,
including confirmatory discovery and court approval following
notice to HCT's stockholders. If the parties enter into a
stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which
the court will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy
of the settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement, that the
applicable court will approve any proposed settlement, or that any
eventual settlement will be under the same terms as those
contemplated by the memorandum of understanding.

On January 5, 2015, the parties to the federal action also agreed
to a memorandum of understanding regarding settlement of all
claims asserted on behalf of each alleged class of HCT
stockholders. In connection with the settlement contemplated by
that memorandum of understanding, each action and all claims
asserted therein will be dismissed, subject to approval by each
applicable court. The proposed settlement terms require HCT to
make certain additional disclosures related to the merger,which
were set forth in HCT's Current Report on Form 8-K dated January
5, 2015. The memorandum of understanding further contemplates that
the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement, which
will be subject to customary conditions, including confirmatory
discovery and court approval following notice to HCT's
stockholders. If the parties enter into a stipulation of
settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the court will
consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the
settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement, that the
applicable court will approve any proposed settlement, or that any
eventual settlement will be under the same terms as those
contemplated by the memorandum of understanding.

"We believe that each of these actions is without merit," the
Company said.


VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Opposed Motion to Dismiss
------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a purported shareholder class action against
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated filed their opposition to the
Company's motion to dismiss, Vertex said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

On May 28, 2014, a purported shareholder class action Local No. 8
IBEW Retirement Plan & Trust v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals
Incorporated, et al. was filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts, naming the Company and certain
of the Company's current and former officers and directors as
defendants. The lawsuit alleged that the Company made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in the
Company's disclosures during the period from May 7, 2012 through
May 29, 2012, all in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The purported class consists of all persons (excluding
defendants) who purchased the Company's common stock between May
7, 2012 and May 29, 2012. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary
damages, costs and attorneys' fees as well as disgorgement of the
proceeds from certain individual defendants' sales of the
Company's stock.

On October 8, 2014, the Court approved Local No. 8 IBEW Retirement
Fund as lead plaintiff, and Scott and Scott LLP as lead counsel
for the plaintiff and the putative class. The Company filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint on December 8, 2014 and the
plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss on
January 22, 2015.

The Company believes the claims to be without merit and intends to
vigorously defend the litigation. As of December 31, 2014, the
Company has not recorded any reserves for this purported class
action.


WALGREEN CO: Falsely Marketed Food Products, "Tsang" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jenny Tsang, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated v. Walgreen Co. and Walgreens.com, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-01153 (E.D.N.Y., March 5, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's
false and misleading marketing of Good & Delish(R) food products
as containing Natural or All Natural ingredients and No
Preservatives, when in fact they contain non-natural, chemically
processed ingredients and preservatives such as Folic Acid, Citric
Acid, Malic Acid, Mono- and Di-glycerides, Soy Lecithin, Xanthan
Gum, and undisclosed Natural Flavors.

Walgreen Co. is an Illinois corporation headquartered at 108
Wilmot Rd, Deerfield, IL 60015, which is one of the largest drug
retailing chain in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1188
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


WASTE MANAGEMENT: To Seek Initial Approval of Florida Case Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Waste Management, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company anticipates
seeking preliminary court approval of the Florida case settlement
during the first quarter of 2015, with the Alabama case settlement
to follow.

The Company said, "In October 2011 and January 2012, we were named
as a defendant in a purported class action in the Circuit Court of
Sarasota County, Florida and the Circuit Court of Lawrence County,
Alabama, respectively. These cases primarily pertain to our fuel
and environmental charges included on our invoices, generally
alleging that such charges were not properly disclosed, were
unfair and were contrary to the customer service contracts. We
have reached a settlement in principal of both the pending Florida
and Alabama cases, and we are currently working on documentation
for the settlements. We anticipate seeking preliminary court
approval of the Florida case settlement during the first quarter
of 2015, with the Alabama case settlement to follow. The
anticipated settlements will not have a material adverse effect on
the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations
or cash flows."


WELLS FARGO: Counsel in Sales Practice Case to file Memorandum
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Leo T. Sorokin issued an order on March 3, 2015, a
copy of which is available at http://is.gd/9wCiNDfrom Leagle.com,
directing class counsel in JONATHAN FOLEY, Plaintiff, v. WELLS
FARGO BANK, N.A., s/b/m WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, F.S.B., f/k/a WORLD
SAVINGS BANK, F.S.B., Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-12107-LTS,
(D. Mass.) to file a memorandum.

Pending before the Court in this case are plaintiff's claims
against defendant Wells Fargo, which include alleged breach of the
In re Wachovia Corporation "Pick-a-Payment" Mortgage Marketing and
Sales Practices Litigation class action settlement agreement and
Massachusetts state law claims. Wells Fargo filed a motion to
transfer, arguing that the Northern District of California
retained exclusive jurisdiction over cases related to the
settlement.

The settlement agreement provided that "[t]he Parties agree that
the Court shall retain exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over
the Lawsuit, the Parties, Settlement Class Members, and the
Settlement Administrator in order to interpret and enforce the
terms, conditions, and obligations under this Agreement."  In
approving the settlement, Judge Fogel stated that "[t]his Court
will retain continuing jurisdiction to interpret and enforce the
settlement agreement."  The Order also acknowledged that "[c]lass
counsel . . . stated on the record that they would be happy to
speak with any class member about his or her loan modification
efforts. Moreover, the Court expressly has retained jurisdiction
over this matter. The Court concludes that these are the best
safeguards that realistically could be expected in this type of
settlement." Furthermore, "[c]lass members who do not qualify for
HAMP or MAP2R modifications will receive a written explanation of
the reasons for denial. Class counsel will be copied on all such
denials and will follow up with Defendants to ensure that the loan
modification program is functioning as intended."

In light of these provisions and all of the considerations that
bear on transferring a case involving foreclosure of real
property, the Court requests that plaintiffs' class counsel in the
In re Wachovia Corporation "Pick-a-Payment" Mortgage Marketing and
Sales Practices Litigation file within 14 days a memorandum
addressing whether:

1) In their view, the Northern District of California possesses
exclusive jurisdiction to interpret and enforce the settlement
agreement, including plaintiff Jonathan Foley's claim of breach of
the settlement agreement;

2) In the ordinary course, class counsel represents individual
plaintiffs in claims for breach of the settlement agreement,
including or excluding related state law claims; and

3) In this case, if transferred, class counsel would provide
representation to plaintiff Jonathan Foley.

Judge Sorokin directed the Clerk to mail a copy of this order to
Jeffrey K. Berns, BERNS WEISS LLP, 20700 Ventura Blvd., Suite 140,
Woodland Hills, CA 91364 and Lee A. Weiss, BERNS WEISS LLP, 585
Stewart Avenue, Suite L-20, Garden City, NY 11530.

Counsel for defendant Wells Fargo was ordered to serve the Order
on all class counsel in the In re Wachovia Corporation "Pick-a-
Payment" Mortgage Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation.

Jonathan Foley, Plaintiff, represented by Valeriano Diviacchi --
val@diviacchi.com -- Diviacchi Law Office.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by David M. Bizar
-- dbizar@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw & Jeremy R. Bombard --
jbombard@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw, LLP.


WEST BUSINESS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffanie Padan, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. West Business Solutions, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00394
(D. Nev., March 4, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime,
liquidated damages, penalties, fees and costs, and pre- and post-
judgment interest pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

West Business Solutions, LLC is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska, which provides communications
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Don Springmeyer, Esq.
      Bradley S. Schrager, Esq.
      WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO, SCHULMAN & RABKIN, LLP
      3556 E. Russell Road, 2nd Floor
      Las Vegas, NV 89120-2234
      Telephone: (702) 341-5200
      Facsimile: (702) 341-5300
      E-mail: dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com
              bschrager@wrslawyers.com


WEST PUBLISHING: McGuireWoods Back to Court Over Legal Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that eight years after reaching a $49 million settlement in a
closely watched antitrust case over the Barbri bar-review course,
McGuireWoods was in court again on March 4 in a spat over legal
fees in the case.

McGuireWoods, which represented plaintiffs who sued the publishers
of the bar-review course, went before the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit to persuade the three-judge panel that law
firm Kendrick & Nutley is not entitled to $1.8 million in fees for
its work on the Barbri case.

Kendrick & Nutley, which represented five objectors to the
settlement, was awarded $236,000 for its work in persuading the
court to reduce McGuireWoods' fees from $12 million to $500,000.

Kendrick & Nutley now claims it is entitled to 20 percent of the
$8.9 million -- $1.8 million -- that it says it saved in fees for
the class. As objector counsel, Kendrick & Nutley had no role in
the original settlement, which involved McGuireWoods and two other
firms representing named plaintiffs in the case.

Sidney Kanazawa -- skanazawa@mcguirewoods.com -- a partner in the
Los Angeles office of McGuireWoods, told a panel that lawyers for
objectors can't get fees based on a percentage of a settlement
they had no involvement in.  Further, he said, they don't face the
same risks in the case as does class counsel.

"When a guest comes to the table late and redistributes the food
already on the table, they can't take credit for the bounty," he
said at oral arguments.

But C. Benjamin Nutley of Kendrick & Nutley, which is based in
Pasadena, Calif., not far from the Ninth Circuit's courthouse,
said his firm deserved the higher amount for its "outstanding" job
in the case.

"The short answer is, they didn't do as good of a job," he said of
class counsel.

The March 4 was the third time the case had come before the Ninth
Circuit.

The settlement, reached in 2007, resolved a class action on behalf
of those who paid for the Barbri course during the nine years
after Aug. 1, 1997.  The case involved claims that West Publishing
Corp. and Kaplan Inc. had conspired to monopolize the market for
the Barbri bar-review course in violation of the Sherman Act, the
federal antitrust law.  The class included about 300,000 students
who paid $1,000 on average in overcharges for the bar-review
course between 1997 and 2006.

In 2009, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case, noting a "disturbing
appearance of impropriety" in the way the incentive awards were
tied to the settlement amount.  The incentive awards, which ranged
from $10,000 to $75,000, were granted to the five named plaintiffs
that McGuireWoods represented.

In 2012, the Ninth Circuit upheld a subsequent ruling reducing
McGuireWoods' fees, citing the firm's "egregious" ethical
violation in failing to disclose to class members incentive awards
for named plaintiffs tied to the amount of the settlement.  The
panel also upheld denial of fees to attorneys for 19 objectors,
except for Kendrick & Nutley, which had raised the incentives
conflict.

Kendrick & Nutley already received $8,000 in fees for its work in
eliminating the incentive awards.  Its latest request pertains to
its effort to reduce McGuireWoods' fees.

The fee argument was more complicated, Mr. Nutley said in court.
He called on the panel to send a message that lawyers for
objectors should be rewarded when they do their job right.

"They need to pay them when they're successful," he said of
judges.

But Circuit Judge Richard Tallman seemed skeptical that lawyers
for objectors should be entitled to the same benchmark percentage
of fees that typically gets applied to class counsel.

"You have to acknowledge there is a difference in the risk that
class counsel face from the beginning," he said.  "I think it is a
distinction with a difference."


WHEELS AMERICA: Faces "Morales" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Morales, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Wheels America Dallas I, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-00731
(N.D. Tex., March 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40
hours per work week.

Wheels America Dallas I, LLC is a Texas corporation, which
provides wheel repair and rebuilding services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chris Richard Miltenberger, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER PLLC
      1340 N. White Chapel Blvd, Ste 100
      Southlake, TX 76092
      Telephone: (817) 416-5060
      Facsimile: (817) 416-5062
      E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com


YUM! BRANDS: Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit Appeal to 6th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yum! Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 27, 2014, that lead plaintiff in a
class action filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court
of Appeal for the Sixth Circuit.

In early 2013, four putative class action complaints were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against the Company and certain executive officers alleging claims
under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made false and
misleading statements concerning the Company's current and future
business and financial condition.  The four complaints were
subsequently consolidated and transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Kentucky.

On August 5, 2013, lead plaintiff, Frankfurt Trust Investment
GmbH, filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("Amended
Complaint") on behalf of a putative class of all persons who
purchased the Company's stock between February 6, 2012 and
February 4, 2013 (the "Class Period").  The Amended Complaint no
longer includes allegations relating to misstatements regarding
the Company's business or financial condition and instead alleges
that, during the Class Period, defendants purportedly omitted
information about the Company's supply chain in China, thereby
inflating the prices at which the Company's securities traded.

On October 4, 2013, the Company and individual defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint.

On December 24, 2014, the District Court granted that motion to
dismiss in its entirety and dismissed the Amended Complaint with
prejudice.  On January 16, 2015, lead plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal to the United States Court of Appeal for the Sixth Circuit.

The Company denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in the Amended Complaint.  A reasonable
estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss
cannot be made at this time.


YUM! BRANDS: Hearing Held on Taco Bell's Motion to Dismiss
----------------------------------------------------------
Yum! Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 27, 2014, that Taco Bell's motion to
dismiss or strike the underpaid meal premium class was set for
hearing on February 25, 2015.

Taco Bell was named as a defendant in a number of putative class
action suits filed in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 alleging
violations of California labor laws including unpaid overtime,
failure to timely pay wages on termination, failure to pay accrued
vacation wages, failure to pay minimum wage, denial of meal and
rest breaks, improper wage statements, unpaid business expenses,
wrongful termination, discrimination, conversion and unfair or
unlawful business practices in violation of California Business &
Professions Code Sec. 17200. Some plaintiffs also seek penalties
for alleged violations of California's Labor Code under
California's Private Attorneys General Act as well as statutory
"waiting time" penalties and allege violations of California's
Unfair Business Practices Act. Plaintiffs seek to represent a
California state-wide class of hourly employees.

These matters were consolidated, and the consolidated case is
styled In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions. The In Re Taco Bell
Wage and Hour Actions plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in
June 2009, and in March 2010 the court approved the parties'
stipulation to dismiss the Company from the action. Plaintiffs
filed their motion for class certification on the vacation and
final pay claims in December 2010, and on September 26, 2011 the
court issued its order denying the certification of the vacation
and final pay claims. Plaintiffs then sought to certify four
separate meal and rest break classes.

On January 2, 2013, the court rejected three of the proposed
classes but granted certification with respect to the late meal
break class. The parties thereafter agreed on a list of putative
class members, and the class notice and opportunity to opt out of
the litigation were mailed on January 21, 2014.

Per order of the court, plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint to clarify the class claims. Plaintiffs also filed a
motion for partial summary judgment. Taco Bell filed motions to
strike and to dismiss, as well as a motion to alter or amend the
second amended complaint. On August 29, 2014, the court denied
plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment. On that same
date, the court granted Taco Bell's motion to dismiss all but one
of the California Private Attorney General Act claims.

On October 29, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the
operative complaint and a motion to amend the class certification
order. On December 16, 2014, the court partially granted both
motions, rejecting plaintiffs' proposed on-duty meal period class
but certifying a limited rest break class and certifying an
underpaid meal premium class, and allowing the plaintiffs to amend
the complaint to reflect those certifications. On December 30,
2014, plaintiffs filed the third amended complaint.

On January 12, 2015, Taco Bell filed a motion to dismiss or strike
the underpaid meal premium class. That motion was set for hearing
on February 25, 2015.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.

"We have provided for a reasonable estimate of the possible loss
relating to this lawsuit. However, in view of the inherent
uncertainties of litigation, there can be no assurance that this
lawsuit will not result in losses in excess of those currently
provided for in our Consolidated Financial Statements. A
reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of
loss in excess of that currently provided for in our Consolidated
Financial Statements cannot be made at this time," the Company
said.


YUM! BRANDS: Discovery to Continue in "Rodriguez" v. Taco Bell
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yum! Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 27, 2014, that discovery will continue
as to plaintiff's remaining claims in the class action Bernardina
Rodriguez v. Taco Bell Corp.

On May 16, 2013, a putative class action styled Bernardina
Rodriguez v. Taco Bell Corp. was filed in California Superior
Court. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of current and
former California hourly restaurant employees alleging various
violations of California labor laws including failure to provide
meal and rest periods, failure to pay hourly wages, failure to
provide accurate written wage statements, failure to timely pay
all final wages, and unfair or unlawful business practices in
violation of California Business & Professions Code Sec. 17200.
This case appears to be duplicative of the In Re Taco Bell Wage
and Hour Actions case. Taco Bell removed the case to federal court
and, on June 25, 2013, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint
to include a claim seeking penalties for alleged violations of
California's Labor Code under California's Private Attorneys
General Act. Taco Bell's motion to dismiss or stay the action in
light of the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions case was denied
on October 30, 2013.

In April 2014 the parties stipulated to address the sufficiency of
plaintiff's legal theory as to her discount meal break claim
before conducting full discovery. A hearing on the parties' cross-
summary judgment motions was held on October 22, 2014, and on
October 23, 2014, the court granted Taco Bell's motion for summary
judgment on the discount meal break claim and denied plaintiff's
motion. Discovery will continue as to plaintiff's remaining
claims.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit. A reasonable estimate of the
amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at
this time.


YUM! BRANDS: Parties in "Mark Smith v. Pizza Hut" Agreed to Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yum! Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 27, 2014, that the parties in the class
action Mark Smith v. Pizza Hut, Inc. have negotiated a final
settlement.

In July 2009, a putative class action styled Mark Smith v. Pizza
Hut, Inc. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado. The complaint alleged that Pizza Hut did not properly
reimburse its delivery drivers for various automobile costs,
uniforms costs, and other job-related expenses and seeks to
represent a class of delivery drivers nationwide under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Colorado state law.

In January 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional
certification of a nationwide class of current and former Pizza
Hut, Inc. delivery drivers. However, in March 2010, the court
granted Pizza Hut's pending motion to dismiss for failure to state
a claim, with leave to amend. Plaintiffs subsequently filed an
amended complaint, which dropped the uniform claims but, in
addition to the federal FLSA claims, asserted state-law class
action claims under the laws of 16 different states. Pizza Hut
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and plaintiffs
sought leave to amend their complaint a second time.

In August 2010, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to amend.
Pizza Hut filed another motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint. In July 2011, the court granted Pizza Hut's motion with
respect to plaintiffs' state law claims but allowed the FLSA
claims to go forward. Plaintiffs filed their Motion for
Conditional Certification in August 2011, and the court granted
plaintiffs' motion in April 2012. The opt-in period closed on
August 23, 2012, and 6,049 individuals opted in.

On February 28, 2014, Pizza Hut filed a motion to decertify the
collective action, along with a motion for partial summary
judgment seeking an order from the court that the FLSA does not
require Pizza Hut to reimburse certain fixed costs that delivery
drivers would have incurred regardless of their employment with
Pizza Hut.

On September 24, 2014, the parties entered into a Term Sheet
setting forth the terms upon which the parties had agreed to
settle this matter. Pursuant to the parties' original agreement,
one issue, the mileage of an average round trip, remained
outstanding and was to be submitted for arbitration. The parties
have instead negotiated a final settlement, inclusive of that
issue and without any contingencies.

"The proposed settlement amount has been accrued in our
Consolidated Financial Statements, and the associated cash
payments will not be material," the Company said.


ZILLOW INC: Plaintiffs' Brief Due in Securities Case Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Zillow Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that Plaintiffs' opening appellate brief
was due to be filed by February 27, 2015.

The Company said, "In November 2012, a securities class action
lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington at Seattle against us and certain of our
executive officers seeking unspecified damages. A consolidated
amended complaint was filed in June 2013. The complaint purports
to state claims for violations of federal securities laws on
behalf of a class of those who purchased our common stock between
February 15, 2012 and November 6, 2012. The complaint generally
alleges, among other things, that during the period between
February 15, 2012 and November 6, 2012, we issued materially false
and misleading statements regarding our business practices and
financial results."

"In August 2013, we moved to dismiss the lawsuit. On October 20,
2014, the Court issued an order granting our motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint with prejudice. Also on October 20,
2014, the Court entered a judgment dismissing the complaint with
prejudice."

On November 19, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the
October 20, 2014 judgment of dismissal with prejudice. Plaintiffs'
opening appellate brief was to be filed by February 27, 2015.


ZILLOW INC: Class Action Parties Conduct Confirmatory Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zillow Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that the parties in a class action
lawsuit are currently conducting confirmatory discovery.

In August 2014, four purported class action lawsuits were filed by
plaintiffs against Trulia and its directors, Zillow, and Zebra
Holdco, Inc. in connection with Zillow's proposed acquisition of
Trulia. One of those purported class actions, captioned Collier et
al. v. Trulia, Inc., et al., was brought in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of San Francisco, however
on October 7, 2014, plaintiff in the Collier action filed a new
complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery alleging substantially
the same claims and seeking substantially the same relief as the
original complaint filed in California.

On October 8, 2014, plaintiff in the Collier action filed a
request for dismissal of the California case without prejudice.
The other three of the purported class action lawsuits, captioned
Shue et al. v. Trulia, Inc., et al., Sciabacucci et al. v. Trulia,
Inc., et al., and Steinberg et al. v. Trulia, Inc. et al., were
brought in the Delaware Court of Chancery. All four lawsuits
allege that Trulia's directors breached their fiduciary duties to
Trulia stockholders, and that the other defendants aided and
abetted such breaches, by seeking to sell Trulia through an
allegedly unfair process and for an unfair price and on unfair
terms. All lawsuits seek, among other things, equitable relief
that would enjoin the consummation of Zillow's proposed
acquisition of Trulia and attorneys' fees and costs. The Delaware
actions also seek rescission of the Merger Agreement (to the
extent it has already been implemented) or rescissory damages and
orders directing the defendants to account for alleged damages
suffered by the plaintiffs and the purported class as a result of
the defendants' alleged wrongdoing.

On September 24, 2014, plaintiff in the Sciabacucci action filed
(1) a motion for expedited proceedings, (2) a motion for a
preliminary injunction, (3) a request for production of documents
from defendants, and (4) notice of depositions. On October 13,
2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued an order consolidating
all of the Delaware actions into one matter captioned In re
Trulia, Inc. Stockholder Litigation and appointed Rigrodsky & Long
as lead counsel. On October 13 and 14, 2014, the motions were
refiled under the consolidated case number.

On November 14, 2014, plaintiffs again refiled their motion for a
preliminary injunction challenging the proposed acquisition. On
November 19, 2014, the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding, documenting the agreement-in-principle for the
settlement of the consolidated litigation, pursuant to which
Trulia agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures in a Form
8-K. The Memorandum of Understanding was filed with the Chancery
Court that same day. The parties are currently conducting
confirmatory discovery.


* Women Workers' Compensation Claims Reduced Due Gender Reasons
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to Marlisse Silver Sweeney, writing for Corporate
Counsel -- citing a report by Melody Gutierrez in SF Gate -- women
have been seeing their workers' compensation claims reduced for
reasons related to their gender, such as being post-menopausal or
pregnant.

California Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez was set to introduce a
bill in San Francisco that would ensure women are not
discriminated against for conditions such as pregnancies, breast
cancer, menopause, osteoporosis or sexual harassment when it comes
to workers' compensation claims.

Ms. Gutierrez reports that the bill's supporters claim gender bias
in workers' compensation is a big issue, and one that is
"especially evident in the way breast cancer is treated among
firefighters and police officers."  For instance, female police
officers who have to undergo double mastectomies for breast cancer
linked to hazardous materials on the job are considered 0 to 5
percent disabled, Ms. Gutierrez reports, whereas a male officer
with prostate cancer is considered 16 percent disabled and would
be paid for the injury.

The current workers' comp system in California was last reformed
in 2004 by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration.


                             *********

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  * * *