CAR_Public/150324.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, March 24, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 59


                             Headlines

ABC STAY: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, "Lee" Suit Claims
ADVANCED MICRO: No Ruling Yet on Bid to Dismiss "Hatamian" Suit
ALCOA INC: No Further Formal Court Proceedings in "Lavoie" Case
ALCOA INC: 3rd Cir. Affirmed Dismissal of "Henry" Case
ALCOA INC: Parties in "Abednego" Await Assignment to Trial Judge

ALCOA INC: Motion to Dismiss "Abraham" Case Still Pending
ALCOA INC: "Curtis" Class Action Has Been Fully Resolved
ALLSTATE CORP: No Discovery Yet on Value of Class Members' Claims
ALLSTATE CORP: Litigating Wage and Hour Claims in California
ALLSTATE CORP: Trial Proceedings to Commence in 2nd Quarter 2015

AMGEN INC: Phil Rosen Named as Class Representative in Onyx Suit
AMGEN INC: July 2015 Trial Date Set in Securities Litigation
AMGEN INC: Petition for Rehearing En Bac Filed With 9th Cir.
ANIMAL AIR: "Perez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
ARAMARK SERVICES: Illegally Obtains Consumer Reports, Suit Claims

AREDA CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Mons" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
ASSOCIATED GROCERS: Faces "Curtbert" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
ASSURANT INC: Still Defends Lender-Placed Insurance Class Suits
AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Facing Actions Due to Edgewater Fire
BAREFOOT COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, Suit Says

BLAIZE CONSTRUCTION: "Rosas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Falsely Marketed Toothpaste, Suit Claims
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: 2015 Trial Seen in Cases Over Talc Products
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Retirement Income Plan Settles ERISA Case
CONFLUENCE ENERGY: "McQuery" Suit Wins Conditional Certification

COOPER VISION: Faces "Cardamone" Suit Over Resale Price of Lens
COOPER VISION: Faces "Goldblatt" Suit Over Resale Price of Lens
COOPER VISION: Faces "Gordon" Suit Over Resale Price of Lens
COOPER VISION: Faces "Martin" Suit Over Resale Price of Lens
COOPER VISION: Faces "Pentsak" Suit Over Resale Price of Lens

CONTINENTAL GROUP: "Martin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Special Master Appointed in Ellis Class Action
DAVID COPPERFIELD: To Pay $552,000 to Settle Employment Suit
DEEP IMPACT: Faces "Valdes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
DIALOG WIRELINE: Faces "Tilton" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT

DOVER ARTIFICIAL: Faces "Jones" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
EAST BUFFET: Faces "Xochitemol" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ELI LILLY: Takeda to Challenge Obligations in "Allen" Case
ELI LILLY: Named as Defendant in 3 Actos Class Actions in Canada
ELI LILLY: Defendant in 415 Byetta Product Liability Lawsuits

ELI LILLY: Defendant in 10 Prozac(R) Product Liability Cases
ELI LILLY: Brazil Subsidiary Defendant in Employee Litigation
EQUITY COMMONWEALTH: Moved to Dismiss Shareholder Actions
EQUITY COMMONWEALTH: Bid to Dismiss "Katz" Suit Denied
EQUITY COMMONWEALTH: Pension Fund Case Consolidated With "Katz"

EXPRESS ENERGY: Faces "Garza" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
EXPRESS MEDICAL: Faces "LaCurtis" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
FIESTA RESTAURANT: Faces Class Action by Daisy Inc.
FINISAR CORPORATION: March 19 Case Management Conference Shelved
FORDHAM FINANCIAL: Class Certification Denied in "Griffith" Case

FREDDIE MAC: Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal of OPERS Case
FREDDIE MAC: Dismissal of Preferred Stock Purchase Suit on Appeal
GARY PLASTIC: "Rivera" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
GE HEALTHCARE: 9th  Cir. Upholds Dismissal of "Pharmarx" Action
GENMARK RESTAURANT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

HORIZON SOLAR: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Hoofman" Suit Claims
HSBC BANK: Accused of Conspiring With Sinaloa-Linked Gangsters
IMAX CORPORATION: Settlement Distributed to U.S. Class
IMAX CORPORATION: Insurance to Reimburse Costs in Canadian Lawsuit
IMAX CORPORATION: IMAX Chicago Theatre Bid to Dismiss Suit Denied

JACKSONVILLE, FL: Court Junks Discrimination Suit vs. Fire Dep't
JPMORGAN CHASE: "Friedman" Case Transferred to New York Dist. Ct.
JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued for Not Paying Assistant Branch Managers' OT
JPMORGAN VENTURES: Manipulates Electricity Price, Suit Claims
KEY ENERGY: "Aguilar" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

L & G TRUCKING: "Jones" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
LATSHAW DRILLING: Faces "Meadows" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
LG ELECTRONICS: Falsely Marketed LCD TVs, "Eberhart" Suit Claims
LHC GROUP: Settlement in Omaha Police Suit Has Final Approval
LINN ENERGY: Class Cert. Briefing in Late 2015 or Early 2016

LINN ENERGY: Berry Made Lump Sum Payment in Class Action Deal
LINN ENERGY: Dismissal of Federal Actions Not Appealed
LINN OPERATING: "Dreitz" Class Action Survives Dismissal Bid
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Ezovski" Suit Over Toxic Floorings
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Bray" Suit Over Toxic Floorings

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Fitterer" Suit Over Toxic Floorings
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Green" Suit Over Toxic Floorings
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Moreland" Suit Over Toxic Floorings
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Toxic Floorings
MARRIOTT INT'L: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Employees Suit

MCNEIL-PPC INC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Product Packing
MCNEIL-PPC INC: Faces "Fermin" Suit Over Tylenol(R) Packaging
NANATORI JAPANESE: "Zheng" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
NEWDAY MANAGEMENT: "Medina" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
OIL STATES: Faces "Ferrara" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

PAPA JOHN'S: Court Tosses Bid to Remand "Tucker" Class Action
PDC ENERGY: Final Approval Hearing Held to Approve Settlement
PINKERTON GOVERNMENT: Class Cert. Ruling in "Avilez" Case Vacated
PREFERRED BUILDING: Faces "Pupo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
PRICELINE GROUP: Deadline to Appeal Case Dismissal Has Expired

PRICELINE GROUP: Updates on Travel Transaction Tax Litigation
PRICELINE GROUP: To Defend Against Statewide Class Actions
SEATTLE SERVICE: "Thornell" Suit Goes to Wash. Supreme Court
SILVER STAR: Faces "Walton" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SILVER STAR: Faces "Walton" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

SOL EXPRESS: Faces "Viant" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SPECTRUM TRACER: "Thomas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
SULLIVAN, NY: BOE Deprives Hasidic Jews Rights to Vote, Suit Says
SUNCOAST BUILDERS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
TARGET CORPORATION: Faces "Greenfield" Suit Over Misbranding

TD BANK: Faces "Robinson" Suit in S.D. Fla. Over Overdraft Fees
TEMPUR-SEALY: Court Enters Discovery/Confidentiality Orders
THORATEC CORP: To Seek Dismissal of "Cooper" Amended Complaint
THUNDERHORSE FLOWBACK: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Faces Hamilton County Class Action

TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Faces City of Stratford Class Action
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Still Facing Train Derailment Action
VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Faces Antitrust Class Action Complaints
WAL-MART STORES: 9th Cir. Upholds $27.2MM Netflix Antitrust Deal
WHITING PETROLEUM: Dismissal of Cases, Except Sohler, Sought

ZAITZEFF BURGERS: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime


                            *********


ABC STAY: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, "Lee" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Lee, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. ABC Stay Clean, LLC, Stay Clean Solutions, LLC,
Nabil Atallah, Amanda Atallah, and Diana Hasbani, Case No. 2:15-
cv-10870 (E.D. Mich., March 9, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages under the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a janitorial services company with
its principal place of business at 12417 Stark Road, Livonia, MI
48150.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin M. Carlson, Esq.
      Megan Bonanni, Esq.
      PITT, MCGEHEE, PALMER & RIVERS, PC
      117 W. Fourth Street, Suite 200
      Royal Oak, MI 48067-3804
      Telephone: (248) 398-9800
      Facsimile: (248) 398-9804
      E-mail: kcarlson@pittlawpc.com
              mbonanni@pittlawpc.com


ADVANCED MICRO: No Ruling Yet on Bid to Dismiss "Hatamian" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. is awaiting a court ruling on its
motion to dismiss the Hatamian class action, according to the
Company's Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 19, 2015, for the fiscal year ended
December 27, 2014.

"On January 15, 2014, a class action lawsuit captioned Hatamian v.
AMD, et al., C.A. No. 3:14-cv-00226 was filed against us in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. The complaint purports to assert claims against AMD
and certain individual officers, collectively AMD, for alleged
violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and Rule 10b-5 of the
Exchange Act. The plaintiffs seeks to represent a proposed class
of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired our common
stock during the period April 4, 2011 through October 18, 2012.
The complaint seeks damages allegedly caused by alleged materially
misleading statements and/or material omissions by us and the
individual officers regarding our 32nm technology and "Llano"
product, which statements and omissions, the plaintiffs claim,
allegedly operated to inflate artificially the price paid for our
common stock during the period. The complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On July 7, 2014,
AMD filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims. Based upon
information presently known to management, we believe that the
potential liability, if any, will not have a material adverse
effect on our financial condition, cash flows or results of
operations," the Company said.


ALCOA INC: No Further Formal Court Proceedings in "Lavoie" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
In August 2005, Dany Lavoie, a resident of Baie Comeau in the
Canadian Province of Quebec, filed a Motion for Authorization to
Institute a Class Action and for Designation of a Class
Representative against Alcoa Canada Ltd., Alcoa Limitee, Societe
Canadienne de Metaux Reynolds Limitee and Canadian British
Aluminum in the Superior Court of Quebec in the District of Baie
Comeau. Plaintiff seeks to institute the class action on behalf of
a putative class consisting of all past, present and future
owners, tenants and residents of Baie Comeau's St. Georges
neighborhood. He alleges that defendants, as the present and past
owners and operators of an aluminum smelter in Baie Comeau, have
negligently allowed the emission of certain contaminants from the
smelter, specifically Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons or "PAHs,"
that have been deposited on the lands and houses of the St.
Georges neighborhood and its environs causing damage to the
property of the putative class and causing health concerns for
those who inhabit that neighborhood. Plaintiff originally moved to
certify a class action, sought to compel additional remediation to
be conducted by the defendants beyond that already undertaken by
them voluntarily, sought an injunction against further emissions
in excess of a limit to be determined by the court in consultation
with an independent expert, and sought money damages on behalf of
all class members.

In May 2007, the court authorized a class action suit to include
only people who suffered property damage or personal injury
damages caused by the emission of PAHs from the smelter. In
September 2007, plaintiffs filed the claim against the original
defendants, which the court had authorized in May.

Alcoa has filed its Statement of Defense and plaintiffs filed an
Answer to that Statement. Alcoa also filed a Motion for
Particulars with respect to certain paragraphs of plaintiffs'
Answer and a Motion to Strike with respect to certain paragraphs
of plaintiffs' Answer.

In late 2010, the Court denied these motions. The Soderberg
smelting process that plaintiffs allege to be the source of
emissions of concern have ceased operations and are being
dismantled.

"No further formal court proceedings or discovery has occurred,
while technical advisors nominated by agreement of the parties
confer on potential health impacts of prior emissions," Alcoa Inc.
said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 19, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014.  "This protocol has been agreed to by the
parties who have also advised the court regarding the process. The
plaintiffs have not quantified the damages sought. Without such
amount and given the various damages alleged, at this stage of the
proceeding the Company is unable to reasonably predict an outcome
or to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss."


ALCOA INC: 3rd Cir. Affirmed Dismissal of "Henry" Case
------------------------------------------------------
Alcoa Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals
affirmed the dismissal by the district court of the case by
Josephat Henry and the case is now concluded.

In September 1998, Hurricane Georges struck the U.S. Virgin
Islands, including the St. Croix Alumina, L.L.C. (SCA) facility on
the island of St. Croix. The wind and rain associated with the
hurricane caused material at the location to be blown into
neighboring residential areas. SCA undertook or arranged various
cleanup and remediation efforts. The Division of Environmental
Protection (DEP) of the Department of Planning and Natural
Resources (DPNR) of the Virgin Islands Government issued a Notice
of Violation that Alcoa has contested. In February 1999, certain
residents of St. Croix commenced a civil suit in the Territorial
Court of the Virgin Islands seeking compensatory and punitive
damages and injunctive relief for alleged personal injuries and
property damages associated with "bauxite or red dust" from the
SCA facility. The suit, which has been removed to the District
Court of the Virgin Islands (the Court), names SCA, Alcoa and
Glencore Ltd. as defendants, and, in August 2000, was accorded
class action treatment. The class was defined to include persons
in various defined neighborhoods who "suffered damages and/or
injuries as a result of exposure during and after Hurricane
Georges to red dust and red mud blown during Hurricane Georges."
All of the defendants have denied liability, and discovery and
other pretrial proceedings have been underway since 1999.

Plaintiffs' expert reports claim that the material blown during
Hurricane Georges consisted of bauxite and red mud, and contained
crystalline silica, chromium, and other substances. The reports
further claim, among other things, that the population of the six
subject neighborhoods as of the 2000 census (a total of 3,730
people) has been exposed to toxic substances through the fault of
the defendants, and hence will be able to show entitlement to
lifetime medical monitoring as well as other compensatory and
punitive relief. These opinions have been contested by the
defendants' expert reports, that state, among other things, that
plaintiffs were not exposed to the substances alleged and that in
any event the level of alleged exposure does not justify lifetime
medical monitoring. Alcoa and SCA turned over this matter to their
insurance carriers who have been providing a defense.

Glencore Ltd. is jointly defending the case with Alcoa and SCA and
has a pending motion to dismiss. In June 2008, the Court granted
defendants' joint motion to decertify the original class of
plaintiffs, and certified a new class as to the claim of ongoing
nuisance, insofar as plaintiffs seek cleanup, abatement, or
removal of the red mud currently present at the facility. (The
named plaintiffs had previously dropped their claims for medical
monitoring as a consequence of the court's rejection of
plaintiffs' proffered expert opinion testimony). The Court
expressly denied certification of a class as to any claims for
remediation or cleanup of any area outside the facility (including
plaintiffs' property). The new class could seek only injunctive
relief rather than monetary damages. Named plaintiffs, however,
could continue to prosecute their claims for personal injury,
property damage, and punitive damages.

In August 2009, in response to defendants' motions, the Court
dismissed the named plaintiffs' claims for personal injury and
punitive damages, and denied the motion with respect to their
property damage claims. In September 2009, the Court granted
defendants' motion for summary judgment on the class plaintiffs'
claim for injunctive relief. In October 2009, plaintiffs appealed
the Court's summary judgment order dismissing the claim for
injunctive relief and in March 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit dismissed plaintiffs' appeal of that order.

In September 2011, the parties reached an oral agreement to settle
the remaining claims in the case which would resolve the personal
property damage claims of the 12 remaining individual plaintiffs.
On March 12, 2012, final judgment was entered in the District
Court for the District of the Virgin Islands. Alcoa's share of the
settlement is fully insured. On March 23, 2012, plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal of numerous non-settled matters, including but
not limited to discovery orders, Daubert rulings, summary judgment
rulings, as more clearly set out in the settlement agreement/
release between the parties. Plaintiffs' appellate brief was filed
in the Third Circuit Court on January 4, 2013, together with a
motion seeking leave to file a brief of excess length.

The court has suspended the remainder of the briefing schedule,
including the date for Alcoa's reply brief, until it rules on
plaintiffs' motion to file its brief of excess length. The Third
Circuit Court of Appeals issued a new scheduling order regarding
briefing in the matter. The matter has been fully briefed with
plaintiffs' brief filed on November 25, 2013 and the matter is now
before the court. On July 10, 2014, the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals affirmed the dismissal by the district court and the case
is now concluded. There will be no further reporting of this
matter.


ALCOA INC: Parties in "Abednego" Await Assignment to Trial Judge
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alcoa Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that the parties in the Abednego, et al.
v. Alcoa, et al. await assignment of the case to a trial judge.

On January 14, 2010, Alcoa was served with a complaint involving
approximately 2,900 individual persons claimed to be residents of
St. Croix who are alleged to have suffered personal injury or
property damage from Hurricane Georges or winds blowing material
from the property since the time of the hurricane. This complaint,
Abednego, et al. v. Alcoa, et al. was filed in the Superior Court
of the Virgin Islands, St. Croix Division. The complaint names as
defendants the same entities as were sued in the February 1999
action earlier described and have added as a defendant the current
owner of the alumina facility property. In February 2010, Alcoa
and SCA removed the case to the federal court for the District of
the Virgin Islands. Subsequently, plaintiffs filed motions to
remand the case to territorial court as well as a third amended
complaint, and defendants have moved to dismiss the case for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On
March 17, 2011, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to remand to
territorial court. Thereafter, Alcoa filed a motion for allowance
of appeal. The motion was denied on May 18, 2011. The parties
await assignment of the case to a trial judge.


ALCOA INC: Motion to Dismiss "Abraham" Case Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Alcoa Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that the Company's motion to dismiss the
case by Phillip Abraham is still pending.

On March 1, 2012, Alcoa was served with a complaint involving
approximately 200 individual persons claimed to be residents of
St. Croix who are alleged to have suffered personal injury or
property damage from Hurricane Georges or winds blowing material
from the property since the time of the hurricane in September
1998. This complaint, Abraham, et al. v. Alcoa, et al. alleges
claims essentially identical to those set forth in the Abednego v.
Alcoa complaint. The matter was originally filed in the Superior
Court of the Virgin Islands, St. Croix Division, on March 30,
2011. By motion filed March 12, 2012, Alcoa sought dismissal of
this complaint on several grounds, including failure to timely
serve the complaint and being barred by the statute of
limitations. That motion is still pending.


ALCOA INC: "Curtis" Class Action Has Been Fully Resolved
--------------------------------------------------------
Alcoa Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that the case Curtis v. Alcoa Inc., has
been fully resolved.

In November 2006, in Curtis v. Alcoa Inc., Civil Action No.
3:06cv448 (E.D. Tenn.), a class action was filed by plaintiffs
representing approximately 13,000 retired former employees of
Alcoa or Reynolds Metals Company and spouses and dependents of
such retirees alleging violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) and the Labor-Management Relations Act by
requiring plaintiffs, beginning January 1, 2007, to pay health
insurance premiums and increased co-payments and co-insurance for
certain medical procedures and prescription drugs. Plaintiffs
alleged these changes to their retiree health care plans violated
their rights to vested health care benefits. Plaintiffs
additionally alleged that Alcoa had breached its fiduciary duty to
plaintiffs under ERISA by misrepresenting to them that their
health benefits would never change. Plaintiffs sought injunctive
and declaratory relief, back payment of benefits, and attorneys'
fees. Alcoa had consented to treatment of plaintiffs' claims as a
class action. During the fourth quarter of 2007, following
briefing and argument, the court ordered consolidation of the
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction with trial,
certified a plaintiff class, and bifurcated and stayed the
plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty claims. Trial in the matter
was held over eight days commencing September 22, 2009 and ending
on October 1, 2009 in federal court in Knoxville, TN before the
Honorable Thomas Phillips, U.S. District Court Judge.

On March 9, 2011, the court issued a judgment order dismissing
plaintiffs' lawsuit in its entirety with prejudice for the reasons
stated in its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. On March
23, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for clarification and/or
amendment of the judgment order, which sought, among other things,
a declaration that plaintiffs' retiree benefits are vested subject
to an annual cap and an injunction preventing Alcoa, prior to
2017, from modifying the plan design to which plaintiffs are
subject or changing the premiums and deductibles that plaintiffs
must pay. Also on March 23, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for
award of attorneys' fees and expenses.

On June 11, 2012, the court issued its memorandum and order
denying plaintiffs' motion for clarification and/or amendment to
the original judgment order. On July 6, 2012, plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal of the court's March 9, 2011 judgment. On July
12, 2012, the trial court stayed Alcoa's motion for assessment of
costs pending resolution of plaintiffs' appeal. The appeal was
docketed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit as case number 12-5801. On August 29, 2012, the trial
court dismissed plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees without
prejudice to refiling the motion following the resolution of the
appeal at the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On May 9, 2013, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an
opinion affirming the trial court's denial of plaintiffs' claims
for lifetime, uncapped retiree healthcare benefits. Plaintiffs
filed a petition for rehearing on May 22, 2013 to which Alcoa
filed a response on June 7, 2013. On September 12, 2013, the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs' petition for
rehearing. On December 17, 2013 the United States Supreme Court
docketed the plaintiffs' petition for writ of certiorari to the
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals as Charles Curtis, et al.,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Petitioners v. Alcoa Inc., et al., Docket No.13-728. Alcoa's
opposition to this petition was filed on January 16, 2014 and
Petitioners filed their reply on January 29, 2014.

On February 24, 2014, the Supreme Court denied plaintiffs'
petition. The Supreme Court's refusal to hear the matter ended the
substantive litigation and affirmed Alcoa's collectively bargained
cap on the Company's contributions to union retiree medical costs.
The trial court then considered Alcoa's request for an award of
costs, which had been stayed pending resolution of the appeal, and
the plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees, which had been
dismissed without prejudice to refiling following resolution of
the appeal. By order dated June 26, 2014, the trial court denied
plaintiff's petition for award of attorneys' fees and expenses.
Thereafter, the plaintiffs and Alcoa agreed to dismiss their
respective petitions for fees and costs. This case has been fully
resolved.


ALLSTATE CORP: No Discovery Yet on Value of Class Members' Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that to date no discovery
has occurred related to the potential value of the class members'
claims in the class action lawsuit challenging aspects of its
claim handling practices in Montana.

Allstate is vigorously defending a class action lawsuit in Montana
state court challenging aspects of its claim handling practices in
Montana. The plaintiff alleges that the Company adjusts claims
made by individuals who do not have attorneys in a manner that
unfairly resulted in lower payments compared to claimants who were
represented by attorneys.

In January 2012, the court certified a class of Montana claimants
who were not represented by attorneys with respect to the
resolution of auto accident claims. The court certified the class
to cover an indefinite period that commences in the mid-1990's.
The certified claims include claims for declaratory judgment,
injunctive relief and punitive damages in an unspecified amount.
Injunctive relief may include a claim process by which
unrepresented claimants could request that their claims be
readjusted. No compensatory damages are sought on behalf of the
class. The Company appealed the order certifying the class.

In August 2013, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed in part, and
reversed in part, the lower court's order granting plaintiff's
motion for class certification and remanded the case for trial.
The Company petitioned for rehearing of the Montana Supreme
Court's decision, which the Court denied.

In January 2014, the Company timely filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the
Montana Supreme Court's decision.

On May 5, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for a
writ of certiorari. The case will continue in Montana state court.
To date no discovery has occurred related to the potential value
of the class members' claims. The Company has asserted various
defenses with respect to the plaintiff's claims, which have not
been finally resolved. In the Company's judgment a loss is not
probable.


ALLSTATE CORP: Litigating Wage and Hour Claims in California
------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company is
vigorously litigating two class action cases in California in
which the plaintiffs allege off-the-clock wage and hour claims.

One case, involving two classes, is pending in Los Angeles
Superior Court and was filed in December 2007. In this case, one
class includes auto physical damage adjusters employed in the
state of California from January 1, 2005 to the date of final
judgment, to the extent the Company failed to pay for off-the-
clock work to those adjusters who performed certain duties prior
to their first assignments.

The other class includes all non-exempt employees in California
from December 19, 2006 until January 2010 who received pay
statements from Allstate which allegedly did not comply with
California law. The other case was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California in September 2010.

In April 2012, the trial court certified the class, and Allstate
appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On September 3,
2014, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court's decision to
certify the class, and Allstate filed a motion for rehearing en
banc. Allstate's motion for rehearing en banc was denied and on
January 27, 2015, Allstate filed a petition for a Writ of
Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.

In addition to off-the-clock claims, the plaintiffs in this case
allege other California Labor Code violations resulting from
purported unpaid overtime. The class in this case includes all
adjusters in the state of California from September 29, 2006 to
final judgment. Plaintiffs in both cases seek recovery of unpaid
compensation, liquidated damages, penalties, and attorneys' fees
and costs. In addition to the California class actions, a case was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York alleging that no-fault claim adjusters have been improperly
classified as exempt employees under New York Labor Law and the
Fair Labor Standards Act. The case was filed in April 2011, and
the plaintiffs are seeking unpaid wages, liquidated damages,
injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees. On September 16, 2014, the court certified a
class of no-fault adjusters under New York Labor Law and refused
to decertify a Fair Labor Standards Act class of no-fault
adjusters. In the Company's judgment a loss is not probable.


ALLSTATE CORP: Trial Proceedings to Commence in 2nd Quarter 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company is
vigorously defending certain matters in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania relating to the Company's
agency program reorganization announced in 1999. The current focus
in these matters relates to a release of claims signed by the vast
majority of agents who were participants in the reorganization
program. These matters include the following:

       Romero I:    In 2001, approximately 32 former employee
agents, on behalf of a putative class of approximately 6,300
former employee agents, filed a putative class action alleging
claims for age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act ("ADEA"), interference with benefits under ERISA,
breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs also
assert a claim for a declaratory judgment that the release of
claims constitutes unlawful retaliation and should be set aside.
Plaintiffs seek broad but unspecified "make whole relief,"
including back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, liquidated
damages, lost investment capital, attorneys' fees and costs, and
equitable relief, including reinstatement to employee agent status
with all attendant benefits.

       Romero II:    A putative nationwide class action was also
filed in 2001 by former employee agents alleging various
violations of ERISA ("Romero II"). This action has been
consolidated with Romero I. The Romero II plaintiffs, most of whom
are also plaintiffs in Romero I, are challenging certain
amendments to the Agents Pension Plan and seek to have service as
exclusive agent independent contractors count toward eligibility
for benefits under the Agents Pension Plan. Plaintiffs seek broad
but unspecified "make whole" or other equitable relief, including
loss of benefits as a result of their conversion to exclusive
agent independent contractor status or retirement from the Company
between November 1, 1999 and December 31, 2000. They also seek
repeal of the challenged amendments to the Agents Pension Plan
with all attendant benefits revised and recalculated for thousands
of former employee agents, and attorneys' fees and costs. The
court granted the Company's initial motion to dismiss the
complaint. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that
dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.

       Romero I and II consolidated proceedings:    In 2004, the
court ruled that the release was voidable and certified classes of
agents, including a mandatory class of agents who had signed the
release, for purposes of effecting the court's declaratory
judgment that the release was voidable. In 2007, the court vacated
its ruling and granted the Company's motion for summary judgment
on all claims. Plaintiffs appealed and in July 2009, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the trial court's
entry of summary judgment in the Company's favor, remanded the
case to the trial court for additional discovery, and instructed
the trial court to first address the validity of the release after
additional discovery. Following the completion of discovery
limited to the validity of the release, the parties filed cross
motions for summary judgment with respect to the validity of the
release. On February 28, 2014, the trial court denied plaintiffs'
and the Company's motions for summary judgment, concluding that
the question of whether the releases were knowingly and
voluntarily signed under a totality of circumstances test raised
disputed issues of fact to be resolved at trial. Among other
things, the court also held that the release, if valid, would bar
all claims in Romero I and II. On May 23, 2014, plaintiffs moved
to certify a class as to certain issues relating to the validity
of the release. The court denied plaintiffs' class certification
motion on October 6, 2014, stating, among other things, that
individual factors and circumstances must be considered to
determine whether each release signer entered into the release
knowingly and voluntarily. The court entered an order on December
11, 2014, (a) stating that the court's October 6, 2014 denial of
class certification as to release-related issues did not resolve
whether issues relating to the merits of plaintiffs' claims may be
subject to class certification at a later time, and (b) holding
that the court's October 6, 2014 order restarted the running of
the statute of limitation for any former employee agent who wished
to challenge the validity of the release. In an order entered
January 7, 2015, the court denied reconsideration of its December
11, 2014 order and clarified that all statutes of limitations to
challenge the release would resume running on March 2, 2015. Trial
proceedings are scheduled to commence in the second quarter of
2015 for individual plaintiffs to determine the question of
whether their releases were knowingly and voluntarily signed.


AMGEN INC: Phil Rosen Named as Class Representative in Onyx Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amgen Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that the court granted class
certification and appointed plaintiff Phil Rosen as class
representative in the consolidated Onyx Litigation.

Between August 28, 2013 and September 16, 2013, nine plaintiffs
filed purported class action lawsuits against Onyx
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., its directors, Amgen and Arena Acquisition
Company (Arena), and unnamed "John Doe" defendants in connection
with Amgen's acquisition of Onyx. Seven of those purported class
actions were brought in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Mateo, captioned Lawrence I.
Silverstein and Phil Rosen v. Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
(August 28, 2013) ("Silverstein"), Laura Robinson v. Onyx
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (originally filed in the Superior
Court for the County of San Francisco on August 28, 2013, and re-
filed in the Superior Court for the County of San Mateo on August
29, 2013) ("Robinson"), John Solak v. Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
et al. (August 30, 2013), Louisiana Municipal Police Employees'
Retirement System and Hubert Chow v. Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
et al. (September 3, 2013) ("Louisiana Municipal"), Laurine
Jonopulos v. Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (September 4,
2013) ("Jonopulos"), Clifford G. Martin v. Onyx Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al. (September 9, 2013) ("Martin") and Merrill L. Magowan
v. Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. (September 9, 2013)
("Magowan"). The eighth and ninth purported class actions were
brought in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
captioned Mark D. Smilow, IRA v. Onyx Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al.
(August 29, 2013) and William L. Fitzpatric v. Onyx
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (September 16, 2013) ("Fitzpatric").

On September 5, 2013, the plaintiff in the John Solak case filed a
request for dismissal of the case without prejudice. On September
10, 2013, the plaintiff in the Mark D. Smilow, IRA case filed a
notice and proposed order of voluntary dismissal of the case
without prejudice. On September 10, 2013, plaintiffs in the
Silverstein and Louisiana Municipal cases filed an amended
complaint alleging substantially the same claims and seeking
substantially the same relief as in their individual purported
class action lawsuits.

Each of the lawsuits alleges that the Onyx director defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to Onyx shareholders, and that the
other defendants aided and abetted such breaches, by seeking to
sell Onyx through an allegedly unfair process and for an unfair
price and on unfair terms. The Magowan and Fitzpatric complaints
and the amended complaint filed in the Silverstein and Louisiana
Municipal cases also alleged that the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duties with respect to the contents of
the tender offer solicitation material.

Each of the lawsuits sought, among other things, rescission of the
merger agreement and attorneys' fees and costs, and certain of the
lawsuits sought other relief. The Silverstein, Robinson, Louisiana
Municipal and Jonopulos cases were designated as "complex" and
assigned to the Honorable Marie S. Weiner, who subsequently
entered an order consolidating the Silverstein, Robinson,
Louisiana Municipal, Jonopulos, Martin and Magowan cases (the
Consolidated Cases).

On October 31, 2013, the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Cases
filed a consolidated class action complaint seeking certification
of a class and alleging breach of fiduciary duties of loyalty and
good faith against the Onyx directors and aiding and abetting
breach of fiduciary duties against Onyx. The complaint sought
certification of a class of all Onyx shareholders, damages
(including pre- and post-judgment interest), attorneys' fees and
expenses plus other relief. The plaintiffs in the Consolidated
Cases simultaneously filed a notice of dismissal without prejudice
of Amgen and Arena. Onyx and the Onyx directors filed demurrers to
the consolidated class action complaint on November 22, 2013.

Following a January 3, 2014 hearing, on January 9, 2014, the court
entered an order overruling the demurrer on the breach of
fiduciary duty of loyalty and good faith against the Onyx
directors and sustained the demurrer without leave to amend
against Onyx. On March 21, 2014, plaintiff Phil Rosen filed a
motion seeking to certify a class and to be designated class
representative, and on January 30, 2015, the court granted class
certification and appointed Mr. Rosen as class representative in
the Consolidated Cases.


AMGEN INC: July 2015 Trial Date Set in Securities Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Amgen Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that a revised July 28, 2015, trial date
has been set by the California Central District Court in the Amgen
Inc. Securities Litigation.

The six federal class action stockholder complaints filed against
Amgen Inc., Kevin W. Sharer, Richard D. Nanula, Dennis M. Fenton,
Roger M. Perlmutter, Brian M. McNamee, George J. Morrow, Edward V.
Fritzky, Gilbert S. Omenn and Franklin P. Johnson, Jr., (the
Federal Defendants) in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (the California Central District Court) on
April 17, 2007 (Kairalla v. Amgen Inc., et al.), May 1, 2007
(Mendall v. Amgen Inc., et al., & Jaffe v. Amgen Inc., et al.),
May 11, 2007 (Eldon v. Amgen Inc., et al.), May 21, 2007
(Rosenfield v. Amgen Inc., et al.) and June 18, 2007 (Public
Employees' Retirement Association of Colorado v. Amgen Inc., et
al.) were consolidated by the California Central District Court
into one action captioned In re Amgen Inc. Securities Litigation.
The consolidated complaint was filed with the California Central
District Court on October 2, 2007. The consolidated complaint
alleges that Amgen and these officers and directors made false
statements that resulted in: (i) deceiving the investing public
regarding Amgen's prospects and business; (ii) artificially
inflating the prices of Amgen's publicly traded securities and
(iii) causing plaintiff and other members of the class to purchase
Amgen publicly traded securities at inflated prices. The complaint
also makes off-label marketing allegations that, throughout the
class period, the Federal Defendants improperly marketed
Aranesp(R) and EPOGEN(R) for off-label uses while aware that there
were alleged safety signals with these products. The plaintiffs
seek class certification, compensatory damages, legal fees and
other relief deemed proper. The Federal Defendants filed a motion
to dismiss on November 8, 2007.

On February 4, 2008, the California Central District Court granted
in part, and denied in part, the Federal Defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. Specifically, the
California Central District Court granted the Federal Defendants'
motion to dismiss as to individual defendants Fritzky, Omenn,
Johnson, Fenton and McNamee, but denied the Federal Defendants'
motion to dismiss as to individual defendants Sharer, Nanula,
Perlmutter and Morrow.

A class certification hearing before the California Central
District Court, was held on July 17, 2009, and on August 12, 2009,
the California Central District Court granted plaintiffs' motion
for class certification. On August 28, 2009, Amgen filed a
petition for permission to appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit (the Ninth Circuit Court) under Rule 23(f),
regarding the Order on Class Certification and the Ninth Circuit
Court granted Amgen's permission to appeal on December 11, 2009.

On February 2, 2010, the California Central District Court granted
Amgen's motion to stay the underlying action pending the outcome
of the Ninth Circuit Court 23(f) appeal. On October 14, 2011, the
appeal under Rule 23(f) was argued before the Ninth Circuit Court
and on December 28, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court denied the
appeal. Amgen filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S.
Supreme Court on March 3, 2012, and on June 11, 2012, the Court
granted Amgen's petition. Oral argument occurred on November 5,
2012. On February 27, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the
decision of the Ninth Circuit Court and remanded the case back to
the California Central District Court for further proceedings. A
revised July 28, 2015, trial date has been set by the California
Central District Court.

On April 14, 2014, the California Central District Court entered
an order allowing plaintiffs leave to file a second consolidated
amended class action complaint in this securities class action
lawsuit. While the new complaint was filed under seal, like the
first consolidated class action complaint the new complaint
alleges that the Federal Defendants made false statements that
resulted in: (i) deceiving the investing public regarding Amgen's
prospects and business; (ii) artificially inflating the prices of
Amgen's publicly traded securities and (iii) causing plaintiff and
other members of the class to purchase Amgen publicly traded
securities at inflated prices. In addition, like the first
consolidated class action complaint, the new complaint makes off-
label marketing allegations that, throughout the class period, the
Federal Defendants improperly marketed Aranesp(R) and EPOGEN(R)
for off-label uses while aware that there were alleged safety
signals with these products. The named defendants have not changed
and the alleged class period remains the same. Plaintiffs continue
to seek compensatory damages, legal fees and other relief deemed
proper.

On May 5, 2014, plaintiffs filed an unsealed, redacted version of
their second consolidated amended complaint. On May 13, 2014, the
Federal Defendants filed a motion to dismiss that complaint. On
August 4, 2014, the court issued an order granting the Federal
Defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to certain of the
misrepresentations alleged in the complaint and otherwise denying
the motion to dismiss. Following the court's order, the complaint
continues to allege that the Federal Defendants made false
statements that resulted in: (i) deceiving the investing public
regarding Amgen's prospects and business; (ii) artificially
inflating the prices of Amgen's publicly traded securities; and
(iii) causing plaintiff and other members of the class to purchase
Amgen publicly traded securities at inflated prices. The complaint
also continues to make off-label marketing allegations that,
throughout the class period, the Federal Defendants improperly
marketed Aranesp(R) and EPOGEN(R) for off-label uses while aware
that there were alleged safety signals with these products. The
named defendants have not changed and the alleged class period
remains the same.


AMGEN INC: Petition for Rehearing En Bac Filed With 9th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------
Amgen Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that the Company has filed a petition for
rehearing en banc with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit in the ERISA litigation.

On August 20, 2007, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) class action lawsuit of Harris v. Amgen Inc., et al., was
filed in the California Central District Court and named Amgen
Inc., Kevin W. Sharer, Frank J. Biondi, Jr., Jerry Choate, Frank
C. Herringer, Gilbert S. Omenn, David Baltimore, Judith C. Pelham,
Frederick W. Gluck, Leonard D. Schaeffer, Jacqueline Allred, Raul
Cermeno, Jackie Crouse, Lori Johnston, Michael Kelly and Charles
Bell as defendants. Plaintiffs claim that Amgen and the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties and their duty of
loyalty by continuing to offer the Amgen stock fund as an
investment option in the Amgen Retirement and Savings Plan and the
Retirement and Savings Plan for Amgen Manufacturing Limited (the
Plans) despite the alleged off-label promotion of both Aranesp(R)
and EPOGEN(R) and despite a number of allegedly undisclosed study
results that allegedly demonstrated safety concerns in patients
using ESAs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants breached their
obligations under ERISA by not disclosing to plan participants the
alleged off-label marketing and study results.

On February 4, 2008, the California Central District Court
dismissed the complaint with prejudice as to plaintiff Harris, who
had filed claims against Amgen Inc. The claims alleged by the
second plaintiff, Ramos, were also dismissed but the court granted
the plaintiff leave to amend his complaint.

On February 1, 2008, the plaintiffs appealed the decision by the
California Central District Court to dismiss the claims of both
plaintiffs Harris and Ramos to the Ninth Circuit Court. On May 19,
2008, plaintiff Ramos in the Harris v. Amgen Inc., et al., action
filed another lawsuit captioned Ramos v. Amgen Inc., et al., in
the California Central District Court. The lawsuit is another
ERISA class action. The Ramos v. Amgen Inc., et al., matter names
the same defendants in the Harris v. Amgen Inc., et al., matter
plus four new defendants: Amgen Manufacturing Limited, Richard
Nanula, Dennis Fenton and the Fiduciary Committee of the Plans. On
July 14, 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court reversed the California
Central District Court's decision in the Harris matter and
remanded the case back to the California Central District Court.

In the meantime, a third ERISA class action was filed by Don Hanks
on June 2, 2009 in the California Central District Court alleging
the same ERISA violations as in the Harris and Ramos lawsuits.
On August 10, 2009, the Harris, Ramos and Hanks matters were
consolidated by the California Central District Court into one
action captioned Harris, et. al. v. Amgen Inc. On October 13,
2009, the California Central District Court granted plaintiffs
Harris' and Ramos' motion to be appointed interim co-lead counsel.
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 11, 2009 and
added two additional plaintiffs, Jorge Torres and Albert Cappa.
Amgen filed a motion to dismiss the amended/consolidated
complaint, and on March 2, 2010, the California Central District
Court dismissed the entire lawsuit without prejudice. Plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint on March 23, 2010. Amgen then filed
another motion to dismiss on April 20, 2010.

On June 16, 2010, the California Central District Court entered an
order dismissing the entire lawsuit with prejudice. On June 24,
2010, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth
Circuit Court. On June 4, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court reversed
the decision of the California Central District Court and remanded
the case back to the California Central District Court for further
proceedings. On June 18, 2013, Amgen petitioned the Ninth Circuit
Court for rehearing and/or rehearing en banc. The Ninth Circuit
Court issued an amended opinion and denied Amgen's petition for
rehearing and rehearing en banc on October 23, 2013. Amgen moved
for a stay of the mandate which the Ninth Circuit Court granted on
November 5, 2013. A petition for certiorari was filed with the
U.S. Supreme Court on January 21, 2014.

On June 30, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition for
certiorari filed by Amgen and the other named defendants, vacated
the judgment of the Ninth Circuit Court and remanded this case to
the Ninth Circuit Court for reconsideration in light of the U.S.
Supreme Court's decision in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer,
decided June 25, 2014. In Fifth Third, the U.S. Supreme Court held
that no presumption of prudence exists for employee stock
ownership plan fiduciaries regardless of plan language and the
court provided general guidance as to what factors courts should
consider when assessing whether plan fiduciaries breached their
duty of prudence owed to plan participants. On October 23, 2014,
the Ninth Circuit Court reaffirmed its earlier decision of June 4,
2013. On November 13, 2014, Amgen filed a petition for rehearing
en banc with the Ninth Circuit Court.


ANIMAL AIR: "Perez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Julio C. Perez, and other similarly-situated individuals v. Animal
Air Service, Inc. and Luis Enrique Valdivieso, Case No. 1:15-cv-
20946 (S.D. Fla., March 9, 2015), seeks to recover money damages
for unpaid minimum and overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Animal Air Service, Inc. is a full service company providing
equipment and handling services to customers shipping and
receiving animals through the Miami International Airport.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
      ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
      3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202
      Miami, FL 33133
      Telephone: (305) 446-1500
      Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
      E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


ARAMARK SERVICES: Illegally Obtains Consumer Reports, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria C. Plascencia, individually and on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated v. Aramark Services, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 5:15-cv-
01101 (N.D. Cal., March 9, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants
practice of obtaining without appropriate disclosure and a valid,
signed authorization form.

Aramark Services, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
headquarters in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, which is a foodservice
provider throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Timothy D. Cohelan, Esq.
      Isam C. Khoury, Esq.
      Michael D. Singer, Esq.
      Kimberly D. Neilson, Esq.
      COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
      605 C Street, Suite 200
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 595-3001
      Facsimile: (619) 595-3000
      E-mail: tcohelan@ckslaw.com
              ikhoury@ckslaw.com
              msinger@ckslaw.com
              kneilson@ckslaw.com

         - and -

      Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
      18250 Ventura Blvd.
      Tarzana, CA 91356
      Telephone: (818) 609-0807
      Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
      E-mail: sahagii@aol.com


AREDA CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Mons" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge L. Mons and other similarly-situated individuals v. Areda
Construction, Inc. and Andres Trujillo, Case No. 1:15-cv-20951
(S.D. Fla., March 9, 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 construction company that
specializes in commercial, industrial, residential, and public
sector projects.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
      ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
      3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202
      Miami, FL 33133
      Telephone: (305) 446-1500
      Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
      E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


ASSOCIATED GROCERS: Faces "Curtbert" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Curtbert and other similarly situated individuals v.
Associated Grocers of Florida, Inc. et al, Case No. 0:15-cv-60479
(S.D. Fla., March 9, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

Associated Grocers of Florida, Inc. is a Food Retail Distribution
Company that operates 19 banking centers in Florida, New York, and
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      Court House Tower
      44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com


ASSURANT INC: Still Defends Lender-Placed Insurance Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Assurant, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company is a
defendant in class actions in a number of jurisdictions regarding
its lender-placed insurance programs. These cases allege a variety
of claims under a number of legal theories. The plaintiffs seek
premium refunds and other relief. The Company continues to defend
itself vigorously in these class actions. The Company has accrued
an estimated loss for this litigation.

"We have participated and may participate in settlements on terms
that we consider reasonable given the strength of our defenses.
However, the possible loss or range of loss resulting from such
litigation and regulatory proceedings, if any, in excess of the
amounts accrued is inherently unpredictable and involves
significant uncertainty. No estimate can be made of any possible
loss or range of loss in excess of the above-mentioned accrual,"
the Company said.


AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Facing Actions Due to Edgewater Fire
-----------------------------------------------------------
Avalonbay Communities, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a number of
lawsuits have been filed on behalf of Edgewater residents.

In January 2015 a fire occurred at the Company's Avalon at
Edgewater apartment community in Edgewater, NJ. The Company is
aware that third parties including residents suffered significant
property damage and other losses, such as relocation costs,
associated with the fire, but the Company is not aware of any
persons who suffered major personal injury. To date, a number of
lawsuits have been filed on behalf of Edgewater residents,
including the following three purported class actions: DeMarco and
Bayer et al v. AvalonBay Communities Inc. et al and Gutierrez v.
AvalonBay Communities, Inc. et al, each filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey; and Loposky and
Kemp et al v. AvalonBay Communities, Inc. et al filed in the
Superior Court of New Jersey Bergen County - Law Division. While
the Company currently believes that, subject to applicable
deductibles, all of its liability to third parties resulting from
the fire will be substantially covered by its insurance policies,
the Company can give no assurances in this regard and continues to
evaluate this matter.


BAREFOOT COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
H.A. Morris and James Lenhart individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals v. Barefoot
Communications, Inc. and Christopher Packer, Case No. 4:15-cv-
01115 (D.S.C., March 9, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked in excess
of forty 40 per workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a communications services company
with headquarter in North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David E. Rothstein, Esq.
      Michael G. Corley, Esq.
      ROTHSTEIN LAW FIRM
      1312 Augusta Street
      Greenville, SC 29605
      Telephone: (864) 232-5870
      Facsimile: (864) 241-1386
      E-mail: derothstein@mindspring.com
              mgcorley@mindspring.com


BLAIZE CONSTRUCTION: "Rosas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Francisco Rosas, and other similarly situated individuals v.
Blaize Construction, LLC, et al., Case No. 0:15-cv-60477 (S.D.
Fla., March 9, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Blaize Construction, LLC is a Florida construction company with
its main place if business in Broward County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      Court House Tower
      44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: gp@rgpattorneys.com


COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Falsely Marketed Toothpaste, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Falosha Martin, et al., on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Colgate-Palmolive Company, and Tom's of
Maine, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01214 (E.D.N.Y., March 9, 2015),
arises out of the Defendants' deceptive practice of marketing
their Tom's of Maine(R) toothpaste products as "Natural" when they
contain non-natural, highly chemically processed ingredients such
as Glycerin and Sodium Lauryl Sulfate.

Colgate-Palmolive Company is a Delaware corporation, with its
principal place of business at 300 Park Avenue, New York, NY
10022, which develops markets and sells oral care and hygiene
products.

Tom's of Maine, Inc. is a Maine corporation, with its principal
place of business located at 302 Lafayette Center, Kennebunk, ME,
04043, which develops markets and sells natural-ingredients-only
oral care and hygiene products.

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


COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: 2015 Trial Seen in Cases Over Talc Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company is a
defendant in a number of civil actions alleging that certain talc
products it sold prior to 1996 were contaminated with asbestos.
Since 2008, the Company has challenged and intends to continue to
challenge these cases vigorously, and although there can be no
assurances, it believes, based on the advice of its legal counsel,
that they are without merit and the Company should ultimately
prevail. Currently, there are 13 single plaintiff cases pending
against the Company in state courts in California, Delaware,
Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey and New York and one case pending
in federal court in North Carolina. 19 similar cases previously
filed against the Company have been dismissed and final judgment
entered in favor of the Company. To date, there have been no
findings of liability against the Company in any of these cases.

Some of these cases are currently expected to go to trial in 2015,
although the Company may succeed in dismissing or otherwise
resolving some or all of them prior to trial.  While the Company
believes, based on the advice of its legal counsel, that it should
ultimately prevail, there can be no assurances of the outcome at
trial.


COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Retirement Income Plan Settles ERISA Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in July 2014, the
Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan (the
"Plan") settled a putative class action alleging improper
calculation of lump sum distributions and failure to satisfy
minimum accrual requirements under the Plan. Under the settlement
agreement, the Plan agreed to pay approximately $40 million after
application of certain offsets to resolve the litigation.


CONFLUENCE ENERGY: "McQuery" Suit Wins Conditional Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert E. Blackburn granted the Plaintiff's motion
for conditional certification in the case captioned BRYAN
MCQUEARY, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. CONFLUENCE ENERGY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. Civil
Action No. 14-CV-02274-REB-KLM, (D. Colo.)

Plaintiff sought to pursue a collective action on behalf of
himself and other similarly situated current and former Solids
Control Technicians employed by Confluence Energy, LLC.  Plaintiff
alleges violation of the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA), saying defendant did not pay overtime for hours worked
in a week in excess of 40 hours.

In his Order dated March 12, 2015 available at http://is.gd/4BTywG
from Leagle.com, Judge Blackburn granted the Unopposed Motion for
Court Approval of Notice to Potential Class Members and Consent
form, and conditionally certified the case as a collective action.
The Court also approved, among others, the amendment specified,
the Consent Form to Join Lawsuit.  The Notice of Collective Action
Lawsuit shall provide that any and all completed consent forms
must be received by counsel for Plaintiffs by a date specified in
the notice, which date shall be no more than 60 days after the
date on which the Notice of Collective Action Lawsuit first is
mailed to potential Plaintiffs; that within 20 days after mailing
the Notice of Collective Action Lawsuit to potential plaintiffs,
the plaintiff shall provide to the defendant information received
regarding mail addressed to potential plaintiffs which is
undeliverable; the potential plaintiffs shall be provided 60 days
from the date of the first mailing of the notice to return the
consent form and become an opt-in plaintiff; and the 30 days after
the initial mailing, the plaintiff may send a reminder notice by
mail under the same conditions as the first notice mailing.

Bruce Charles Anderson, Esq. -- charles.anderson@skuld.com -- at
Fisher & Phillips, LLP serves as counsel for Confluence Energy,
LLC.


COOPER VISION: Faces "Cardamone" Suit Over Resale Price of Lens
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew J. Cardamone, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Bausch + Lomb,
Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., Cooper Vision, Inc., and ABB
Optical Group, Case No. 5:15-cv-01093 (N.D. Cal., March 9, 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:

      Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
      Peter A. Barile III, Esq.
      GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A.
       485 Lexington Avenue
       New York, NY 10017
       Telephone: (646) 722-8500
       Facsimile: (646) 722-8501
       E-mail: lnussbaum@gelaw.com
               pbarile@gelaw.com

          - and -

       Eric B. Fastiff, Esq.
       Brendan P. Glackin, Esq.
       Dean M. Harvey, Esq.
       RoseMarie Maliekel, Esq.
       LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
       275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
       San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
       Telephone: (415) 956-1000
       Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
       E-mail: efastiff@lchb.com
               bglackin@lchb.com
               dharvey@lchb.com


COOPER VISION: Faces "Goldblatt" Suit Over Resale Price of Lens
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gloria Goldblatt, individually and on behalf of 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-01095 (N.D. Cal., March 9, 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:

       Eric B. Fastiff, Esq.
       Brendan P. Glackin, Esq.
       Dean M. Harvey, Esq.
       RoseMarie Maliekel, Esq.
       LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
       275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
       San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
       Telephone: (415) 956-1000
       Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
       E-mail: efastiff@lchb.com
               bglackin@lchb.com
               dharvey@lchb.com

          - and -

      Dan Drachler, Esq.
      ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP
      1904 Third Avenue, Suite 1030
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 223-2053
      Facsimile: (206) 343-9636
      E-mail: ddrachler@zsz.com

         - and -

      Robert S. Schachter, Esq.
      Ana Maria Cabassa, Esq.
      ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP
      41 Madison Avenue, 32nd Floor
      New York, NY 10010
      Telephone: (212) 223-3900
      Facsimile: (212) 371-5969
      E-mail: rschachter@zsz.com
              acabassa@zsz.com


COOPER VISION: Faces "Gordon" Suit Over Resale Price of Lens
------------------------------------------------------------
Susan G. Gordon, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Cooper Vision, Inc., Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Bausch
+ Lomb, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., and ABB Optical
Group, Case No. 3:15-cv-01092 (N.D. Cal., March 9, 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:

      Azra Z. Mehdi, Esq.
      THE MEHDI FIRM, P.C.
      One Market
      Spear Tower, Suite 3600
      San Francisco, CA 94105
      Telephone: (415) 293-8039
      Facsimile: (415) 293-8001
      E-mail: azram@themehdifirm.com

         - and -

      Robert S. Kitchenoff, Esq.
      WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC
      1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 545-7200
      Facsimile: (215) 545-7200
      E-mail: kitchenoff@wka-law.com


COOPER VISION: Faces "Martin" Suit Over Resale Price of Lens
------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Martin, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Bausch + Lomb,
Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., Cooper Vision, Inc., and ABB
Optical Group, Case No. 4:15-cv-01090 (N.D. Cal., March 9, 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:

       Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
       Peter A. Barile III, Esq.
       GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A.
       485 Lexington Avenue
       New York, NY 10017
       Telephone: (646) 722-8500
       Facsimile: (646) 722-8501
       E-mail: lnussbaum@gelaw.com
               pbarile@gelaw.com

          - and -

       Eric B. Fastiff, Esq.
       Brendan P. Glackin, Esq.
       Dean M. Harvey, Esq.
       RoseMarie Maliekel, Esq.
       LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
       275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
       San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
       Telephone: (415) 956-1000
       Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
       E-mail: efastiff@lchb.com
               bglackin@lchb.com
               dharvey@lchb.com


COOPER VISION: Faces "Pentsak" Suit Over Resale Price of Lens
-------------------------------------------------------------
Serge Pentsak and Monika Pasek, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated v. Cooper Vision, Inc., Alcon
Laboratories, Inc., Bausch + Lomb Inc., Johnson & Johnson Vision
Care, Inc., ABB Concise Optical Group, LLC, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
Meijer, Inc., Costco Wholesale Corporation, 1-800-Contacts.Com,
Lensdiscounters.Com, Case No. 3:15-cv-01097 (N.D. Cal., March 9,
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:

      Steve W. Berman, 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

         - and -

      Jeff D. Friedman, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      715 Hearst Ave., Suite 202
      Berkeley, CA 94710
      Telephone: (510) 725-3000
      Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
      E-mail: jefff@hbsslaw.com


CONTINENTAL GROUP: "Martin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge E. Martin, and other similarly-situated individuals v. The
Continental Group, Inc. First Service Residential Florida, Inc.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-20956 (S.D. Fla., March 9, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are property management companies doing business in
Dade-County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:
      Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
      ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
      3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202
      Miami, FL 33133
      Telephone: (305) 446-1500
      Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
      E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Special Master Appointed in Ellis Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen signed on March 6, 2015, a
stipulation and order regarding appointment of a special master
in the case captioned SHIRLEY "RAE" ELLIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Defendant, CASE NO. C04-3341 EMC,
(N.D. Cal.).

Counsel in this case have met and conferred, and have agreed to
the appointment of Fred W. Alvarez of Jones Day to serve as
Compliance Special Master and perform the duties set forth in the
Amended Class Action Settlement Agreement. Mr. Alvarez is highly
experienced employment lawyer, who has prior experience as a
monitor in discrimination class settlements.

A copy of the court-approved stipulation is available at
http://is.gd/D1HErbfrom Leagle.com.

THE IMPACT FUND Jocelyn D. Larkin -- jlarkin@impactfund.org --
Robert Schug -- rschug@impactfund.org -- Meredith Johnson --
mjohnson@impactfund.org -- Berkeley, CA, LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE,
RENAKER & JACKSON, P.C. Bill Lann Lee -- blee@lewisfeinberg.com --
Lindsay Nako -- lnako@lewisfeinberg.com -- Oakland, CA, ALTSHULER
BERZON LLP, James M. Finberg -- jfinberg@altshulerberzon.com --
San Francisco, CA Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Certified Classes.

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP Kenwood C. Youmans -- kyoumans@seyfarth.com --
David D. Kadue -- dkadue@seyfarth.com -- Los Angeles, California,
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP Gerald L. Maatman -- gmaatman@seyfarth.com --
(admitted pro hac vice) Annette Tyman -- atyman@seyfarth.com --
(admitted pro hac vice) Chicago, Illinois, SEYFARTH SHAW LLP,
David B. Ross -- dross@seyfarth.com -- (admitted pro hac vice) New
York, New York, Attorneys for Defendant Costco Wholesale Corp.

LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP, Kelly M. Dermody --
kdermody@lchb.com -- Daniel M. Hutchinson -- dhutchinson@lchb.com
-- San Francisco, CA, DAVIS, COWELL & BOWE, LLP Steve Stemerman --
stem@dcbsf.com -- Elizabeth A. Lawrence -- eal@dcbsf.com -- San
Francisco, CA, Additional Counsel for Plaintiffs.

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP Thomas J. Wybenga -- twybenga@seyfarth.com --
(admitted pro hac vice) c/o Costco Wholesale Corporation,
Issaquah, WA, Additional Counsel for Defendant.


DAVID COPPERFIELD: To Pay $552,000 to Settle Employment Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Mike Heuer reports that
magician David Copperfield agreed to pay $552,282.74 to settle an
employment class action arising from his magic act at the MGM
Grand Casino.

U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro on February 23 approved a
motion defining the settlement class and set a settlement hearing
for May 26.

Both sides have agreed to a preliminary settlement of $268,089.23
for class members, $140,600 for named plaintiffs and $143,593.51
in attorney's fees.  The class consists of all current and former
employees of defendant Backstage Employment and Referral and who
worked between Jan. 1, 2012 and Dec. 31, 2013.  The class
performed services directly for Copperfield's magic show at the
MGM Grand Hotel and Casino or as executive assistants to
Copperfield.

Navarro ordered Jakub Medrala of Donath & Medrala to represent the
class.

In its Feb. 15, 2014 complaint, the class sought compensation for
unpaid overtime.  Copperfield was the lead defendant.  Also sued
were Backstage Employment, Christopher Kenner, David Copperfield's
Disappearing Act, and Imagine Nation.

The class accused them of violating overtime law, retaliation,
civil conspiracy and abuse of process.

Copperfield claimed the Creative Professional Exemption excluded
class members from overtime provisions.

The settlement amount was determined by dividing the class into
assistants, magic lab workers, and stagehands.  The assistants
were determined to have worked 16.5 hours of overtime, magic lab
workers 15 hours and stagehands 11 hours during each applicable
week.  The settlement would pay each of 57 class members an
average $6,355.84 for overtime pay and liquidated damages.

Under the settlement terms, Copperfield and other defendants
continue to deny liability, while settling class members agree to
release all claims in the matter.


DEEP IMPACT: Faces "Valdes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lazaro Jesus Valdes, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Deep Impact Underground LLC., a Florida
limited liability corporation and Christopher Webber, Case No.
9:15-cv-80316 (S.D. Fla., March 9, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked
in excess of 40 in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a commercial business providing
trenching related services to customers from all locations
throughout South Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher Charles Copeland, Esq.
      CHRISTOPHER C COPELAND P.A.
      824 W Indiantown Rd
      Jupiter, FL 33458
      Telephone: (561) 691-9048
      Facsimile: (866) 259-0719
      E-mail: ChrisCopeland@MyFloridaCounsel.com


DIALOG WIRELINE: Faces "Tilton" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Tilton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Dialog Wireline Services, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-00622
(S.D. Tex., March 9, 2015), seeks to recover the unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Dialog Wireline Services, LLC is a wire-line services company with
offices in Midland, Cleburne, Kilgore, Conroe, and Victoria, Texas
and McAlester, Woodward, and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP
      1150 Bissonnet St
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com


DOVER ARTIFICIAL: Faces "Jones" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Dover Artificial Lift, LLC, and PCS Ferguson, Inc.,
Case No. 4:15-cv-00608 (S.D. Tex., March 9, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants operate as a nationwide company providing oilfield
services throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
      Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
      FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
      1150 Bissonnet
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
              adunlap@fibichlaw.com
              litkin@fibichlaw.com

         - and -

      Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, Texas 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
      E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


EAST BUFFET: Faces "Xochitemol" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eloy Xochitemol, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. East Buffet On Main Inc. d/b/a East Buffet And
Restaurant, Hey Cheng and Larry Doe, Case No. 1:15-cv-01218
(E.D.N.Y., March 9, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40
in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a Chinese restaurant located at
4207 Main Street, Flushing, New York 11355.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ELI LILLY: Takeda to Challenge Obligations in "Allen" Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd., notified Eli Lilly and Company
that it was reserving its right to challenge its obligations to
defend and indemnify the Company with respect to the Allen case,
Eli Lilly said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014.

"We are named along with Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd., and
Takeda affiliates (collectively, Takeda) as a defendant in
approximately 5,275 product liability cases in the U.S. related to
the diabetes medication Actos, which we co-promoted with Takeda in
the U.S. from 1999 until September 2006. In general, plaintiffs in
these actions allege that Actos caused or contributed to their
bladder cancer. Almost all of the active cases have been
consolidated in federal multi-district litigation in the Western
District of Louisiana or are pending in a coordinated state court
proceeding in California or a coordinated state court proceeding
in Illinois. We believe these lawsuits are without merit, and we
and Takeda are prepared to defend against them vigorously," the
Company said.

"In April 2014, a jury in the Western District of Louisiana found
in favor of the plaintiffs in the case of Terrence Allen, et al.
v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals, et al., no. 6:12-md-00064. In September
2014, judgment was entered awarding $1.3 million in compensatory
damages to plaintiffs (allocated 75 percent to Takeda and 25
percent to us) and punitive damages of $6.00 billion against
Takeda and $3.00 billion against us. In October 2014, the judge
issued an order substantially reducing the amount of punitive
damages awarded to approximately $28 million against Takeda and
approximately $9 million against us. We continue to believe the
evidence did not support plaintiffs' claims and strongly disagree
with the verdict. We and Takeda intend to vigorously challenge
this outcome through all available legal means. We and Takeda have
appealed this judgment and plaintiffs have filed a cross-appeal
objecting to the reduction in punitive damages.

"Our agreement with Takeda calls for Takeda to defend and
indemnify us against our losses and expenses with respect to the
U.S. product liability litigation and other related expenses in
accordance with the terms of the agreement. After the jury reached
its verdict in Allen, Takeda notified us that it was reserving its
right to challenge its obligations to defend and indemnify us with
respect to the Allen case. We believe we are entitled to full
indemnification of our losses and expenses in Allen and all other
U.S. cases; however, there can be no guarantee we will ultimately
be successful in obtaining full indemnification."


ELI LILLY: Named as Defendant in 3 Actos Class Actions in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company is named
along with Takeda as a defendant in three purported product
liability class actions in Canada related to Actos, including one
in Ontario (Casseres et al. v. Takeda Pharmaceutical North
America, Inc., et al.), one in Quebec (Whyte et al. v. Eli Lilly
et al.), and one in Alberta (Epp v. Takeda Canada et al.).

"We promoted Actos in Canada until 2009. We believe these claims
are without merit and are prepared to defend against them
vigorously," the Company said.


ELI LILLY: Defendant in 415 Byetta Product Liability Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company is named as
a defendant in approximately 415 Byetta product liability lawsuits
involving approximately 920 plaintiffs.

Approximately 95 of these lawsuits, covering about 540 plaintiffs,
are filed in California state court and coordinated in a Los
Angeles Superior Court. Approximately 310 lawsuits, covering about
350 plaintiffs, are filed in federal court, the majority of which
are coordinated in a multi-district litigation in the Southern
District of California. The remaining approximately 10 lawsuits,
representing about 30 plaintiffs, are in various state courts.

Approximately 350 of the lawsuits, involving approximately 540
plaintiffs, contain allegations that Byetta caused or contributed
to the plaintiffs' cancer (primarily pancreatic cancer or thyroid
cancer).

"We are aware of approximately 395 additional claimants who have
not yet filed suit. The majority of these additional claims allege
damages for pancreatitis. We believe these lawsuits and claims are
without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously,"
the Company said.


ELI LILLY: Defendant in 10 Prozac(R) Product Liability Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company is named as
a defendant in approximately 10 U.S. lawsuits primarily related to
allegations that the antidepressant Prozac caused or contributed
to birth defects in the children of women who ingested the drug
during pregnancy.

"We are aware of approximately 470 additional claims related to
birth defects, which have not yet been filed. We believe these
lawsuits and claims are without merit and are prepared to defend
against them vigorously," the Company said.


ELI LILLY: Brazil Subsidiary Defendant in Employee Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company's subsidiary
in Brazil, Eli Lilly do Brasil (Lilly Brasil), is named in a
lawsuit brought by the Labor Attorney for 15th Region in the Labor
Court of Paulinia, State of Sao Paulo, Brazil, alleging possible
harm to employees and former employees caused by exposure to heavy
metals at a former Lilly manufacturing facility in Cosmopolis,
Brazil, operated by the company between 1977 and 2003. The
plaintiffs allege that some employees at the facility were exposed
to benzene and heavy metals; however, Lilly Brasil maintains that
these alleged contaminants were never used in the facility.

In May 2014, the labor court judge ruled against Lilly Brasil. The
judge's ruling orders Lilly Brasil to undertake several actions of
unspecified financial impact, including paying lifetime medical
insurance for the employees and contractors who worked at the
Cosmopolis facility more than six months during the affected years
and their children born during and after this period.

"While we cannot currently estimate the range of reasonably
possible financial losses that could arise in the event we do not
ultimately prevail in the litigation, the judge has estimated the
total financial impact of the ruling to be approximately 1.0
billion Brazilian real (approximately $375 million as of December
31, 2014) plus interest. We strongly disagree with the decision
and filed an appeal in May 2014," the Company said.

"We are also named in approximately 30 lawsuits filed in the same
court by individual former employees making similar claims. We
believe these lawsuits are without merit and are prepared to
defend against them vigorously."


EQUITY COMMONWEALTH: Moved to Dismiss Shareholder Actions
---------------------------------------------------------
Equity Commonwealth said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company has moved to
dismiss shareholder actions that remain pending.

"On June 5, 2014, our Board of Trustees resolved to form a special
litigation committee, or an SLC, to investigate all of the claims
alleged in the judicial and arbitral actions purportedly brought
by or on behalf of EQC shareholders against EQC's former officers
and former Trustees and related persons and entities discussed
below, or the Shareholder Actions," the Company said.  "The
members of the SLC are Sam Zell, David Helfand and Peter Linneman.
The SLC was delegated full authority to investigate, review and
analyze the facts and circumstances that are the subject of the
Shareholder Actions, as well as any additional facts and
circumstances that may be at issue in any related inquiry,
investigation or proceeding. The SLC was also empowered to
consider and determine whether or not prosecution of the claims
asserted in the Shareholder Actions, or any other claims related
to the facts and circumstances of the Shareholder Actions, is in
the best interests of EQC and our shareholders, and to further
consider and determine what action should be taken on behalf of
EQC with respect to the Shareholder Actions and any related
inquiry, investigation or proceeding."

The SLC, with the assistance of counsel, reviewed approximately
300,000 pages of documents and conducted numerous in-person
interviews, including interviews of each living defendant in the
Shareholder Actions, officers of RMR, and the lead underwriter on
the equity offering that the Company completed in 2013, or the
Equity Offering. The SLC concluded that, given the cost of
pursuing the claims in the Shareholder Actions, the low likelihood
of success on the merits, and the likelihood that the Company will
be required to indemnify the former officers and former Trustees
for any damages, it is in the best interest of the Company and its
shareholders to dismiss the lawsuits. On November 6, 2014, the SLC
finalized its report, which details the SLC's investigation,
analysis and conclusions.

"Based on the SLC's determination, we have moved to dismiss those
Shareholder Actions that remain pending," the Company said.


EQUITY COMMONWEALTH: Bid to Dismiss "Katz" Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------
Equity Commonwealth said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the court denied the
Company's motion to dismiss without prejudice as moot the case
Katz v. CommonWealth REIT.

On March 7, 2013, Jason Matthew Katz, a purported shareholder of
EQC, filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland. The case is titled Katz v. CommonWealth REIT, Case No.
24-C-13-001299, or the Katz Action.

"The Katz Action purports to bring claims individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated against EQC and certain of
our former Trustees. The complaint alleges claims of breach of
fiduciary duty and seeks injunctive and declaratory relief,
rescission of the March 2013 equity offering, restitution and
damages, including counsel fees, expenses and, if applicable, pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest," the Company said.

On April 1, 2013, the Company filed a demand for arbitration with
the AAA for the Katz Action. Pursuant to the court's scheduling
order, as amended from time to time, on April 19, 2013, Mr. Katz
filed a petition to stay arbitration. On May 8, 2013, the
individual defendants filed a petition for an order to arbitrate
and for a stay of the proceedings pursuant to the Maryland Uniform
Arbitration Act. On May 16, 2014, the Company filed a petition
seeking the same relief.

On January 21, 2014, the court granted the parties' joint motion
to consolidate the Katz Action with the Central Laborers Action,
discussed below, and consolidated the actions under the caption
Katz v. CommonWealth REIT, Case No. 24-C-13-001299, or the
Consolidated Maryland Action.

On February 19, 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs' petition to
stay arbitration, granted the petitions for an order to arbitrate
and for a stay of the proceedings, and ordered the parties to
arbitrate the claims asserted in the Consolidated Maryland Action.
On June 12, 2014, Mr. Katz moved to stay entry of judgment and to
revise, alter, amend or vacate the court's February 19, 2014
decision. On June 30, 2014, the court granted the parties' joint
request to stay this action for 120 days, pending the outcome of
the SLC's investigation of the claims asserted in the Shareholder
Actions.

"After the SLC completed its investigation and finalized its
report, on November 14, 2014, we moved to dismiss the claims
asserted in the Consolidated Maryland Action. On November 17,
2014, the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Maryland Action submitted
a status report to the court asking the court to consider Mr.
Katz's motion to vacate the court's February 19, 2014 decision. On
November 19, 2014, the court denied Mr. Katz's motion to vacate.
Having already ordered the parties to arbitration, on December 1,
2014, the court denied our motion to dismiss without prejudice as
moot," the Company said.


EQUITY COMMONWEALTH: Pension Fund Case Consolidated With "Katz"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Equity Commonwealth said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Central Laborers'
Pension Fund v. Portnoy case was consolidated under the caption
Katz v. CommonWealth REIT, Case No. 24-C-13-001299.

On April 5, 2013, the Central Laborers' Pension Fund, or Central
Laborers, a purported shareholder of EQC, filed a complaint in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland. The case is titled
Central Laborers Pension Fund v. Portnoy, Case No. 24-C-13-001966,
or the Central Laborers Action.

"The Central Laborers Action purports to bring claims
individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on
behalf of EQC against EQC and certain of our former Trustees. The
complaint alleges, among other things, claims for breach of
fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and waste of corporate assets.
The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, restitution
and damages, including counsel fees and expenses," the Company
said. On April 17, 2013, Central Laborers filed an amended
complaint, adding plaintiff William McGinley, a purported
shareholder of EQC, and requesting a declaration that EQC's
shareholders may remove Trustees without cause.

"The Company filed a demand for arbitration with the AAA on April
25, 2013. The Company and our former trustees filed petitions for
an order to arbitrate and for a stay of proceedings pursuant to
the Maryland Uniform Arbitration Act on May 8, 2013 and May 16,
2013, respectively. On May 31, 2013, Central Laborers and Mr.
McGinley filed a second amended complaint, adding plaintiff Howard
Ginsberg, a purported shareholder of EQC. Pursuant to the court's
scheduling order, as amended from time to time, the parties
completed briefing on the pending petitions on June 17, 2013. On
January 21, 2014, the court granted the parties' joint stipulation
and motion to consolidate the Katz Action with the Central
Laborers Action and consolidated the actions under the caption
Katz v. CommonWealth REIT, Case No. 24-C-13-001299," the Company
said.


EXPRESS ENERGY: Faces "Garza" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Garza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Express Energy Services, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-00617
(S.D. Tex., March 9, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Express Energy Services, LLC is an oilfield service company with
its principal place of business located at 800 Brazos Ste, 400,
Austin, Texas, 78701.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP
      1150 Bissonnet St
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com


EXPRESS MEDICAL: Faces "LaCurtis" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael LaCurtis, on behalf of himself and others v. Express
Medical Transporters Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-00427 (E.D. Mo., March
9, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a week.

Express Medical Transporters Inc. is a Missouri corporation that
provides non-emergency medical and student transportation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FIESTA RESTAURANT: Faces Class Action by Daisy Inc.
---------------------------------------------------
Fiesta Restaurant Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2014, that Daisy, Inc.
("Daisy"), an automotive repair shop in Cape Coral, Florida, filed
on September 29, 2014, a putative class action suit against Fiesta
Restaurant Group, Inc. in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida. The suit claims that Fiesta allegedly
engaged in unlawful activity in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, Sec. 227 et seq. (the "TCPA"). Daisy
alleges that it received three unlawful faxes and does not
identify any other purported class members. Each violation under
the TCPA provides for $500 in statutory damages ($1,500 if a
willful violation is shown). Plaintiff Daisy seeks statutory
damages, damages for willful violations, attorneys' fees, costs
and injunctive relief, and to certify a class. Neither the
Complaint nor any other pleading quantifies Daisy's or the
putative class' damages or provides greater specificity as to the
size and nature of the purported class.

"While we are vigorously defending against any liability, there
can be no assurance that we will be successful in our defense or
that a negative outcome would not have a material adverse effect
on us. The amount of any loss related to this matter cannot be
reasonably estimated at this time. Fiesta does not have insurance
coverage for this claim," the Company said.


FINISAR CORPORATION: March 19 Case Management Conference Shelved
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge, Edward J. Davila removed from the calendar the
case management conference scheduled for March 19, 2015 in the
case captioned JAMES KENNEY, Derivatively on Behalf of FINISAR
CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. EITAN GERTEL, JERRY S. RAWLS, KURT
ADZEMA, ROGER C. FERGUSON, ROBERT N. STEPHENS, THOMAS E. PARDUN,
MICHAEL C. CHILD, AND DOMINIQUE TREMPONT, Defendants, and FINISAR
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Nominal Defendant, Case No.
C-12-02268-EJD, (N.D. Cal.)

The Kenney et al. case is a shareholder derivative lawsuit that
seeks recovery from the directors and/or officers of Finisar
Corporation.  The Derivative Action was designated as a related
case to a securities class action pending in the Court captioned
In re Finisar Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:11-cv-
01252-EJD, which alleges that Finisar and certain officers of the
Company, among others, violated the federal securities laws.

On October 25, 2013, the plaintiffs in the Securities Action filed
a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.  The appeal has been briefed and is awaiting the setting
of a hearing date from the Ninth Circuit.

The parties agree that the interests of preserving the Company's
and the Court's resources, efficient and effective case
management, and moving the case expeditiously towards trial would
best be served by deferring all proceedings in the Derivative
Action pending the resolution of the Ninth Circuit Appeal.
Accordingly, the parties agreed that the March 19, 2015 Case
Management Conference be removed from the Court's calendar.

A copy of the Joint Case Management Conference Statement and
Stipulation and Order, signed by the Court on March 12, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/GSqWk0from Leagle.com.

Brian J. Robbins, Esq. -- brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com -- Kevin A.
Seely, Esq. -- kseely@robbinsarroyo.com -- and Ashley R. Rifkin,
Esq. -- arifkin@robbinsarroyo.com -- at Robbins Arroyo LLP serve
as counsel for Plaintiff.


FORDHAM FINANCIAL: Class Certification Denied in "Griffith" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Paul A. Crotty denied the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification in the case captioned Christopher D. Griffith
and David Speciale, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Fordham Financial Management,
Inc. and William Baquet, Defendants, Case No. No. 12 CIV. 117
(PAC) (S.D. N.Y.)

Plaintiffs filed the action on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated employees of Fordham Financial Management, Inc.
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law as they were not paid minimum wage, etc.

In his Opinion and Order dated March 12, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/8SLOEsfrom Leagle.com, Judge Crotty denied the
motion for class certification as Plaintiffs have failed to
establish predominance and commonality.

Benjamin Suess, Esq. of Schrader & Schoenberg, LLP and David Alan
Schrader, Esq. of Schrader & Schoenberg, LLP serve as counsel for
Fordham Financial Management, Inc.


FREDDIE MAC: Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal of OPERS Case
------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 19, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit from the Court order dismissing the
putative securities class action lawsuit: Ohio Public Employees
Retirement System ("OPERS") vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, et al.

This putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against
Freddie Mac and certain former officers on January 18, 2008 in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio purportedly
on behalf of a class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from
August 1, 2006 through November 20, 2007. FHFA later intervened as
Conservator, and the plaintiff amended its complaint on several
occasions.

"The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by making false and misleading
statements concerning our business, risk management, and the
procedures we put into place to protect the company from problems
in the mortgage industry. The plaintiff sought unspecified damages
and interest, and reasonable costs and expenses, including
attorney and expert fees,"

Defendants filed motions to dismiss the second and third amended
complaints, which the Court initially denied. On April 13, 2013,
the judge who had presided over the case since 2008 recused
himself, and the case was reassigned to a new judge. On August 23,
2013, the new judge granted defendants' motion to vacate the
previous judge's orders denying defendants' motions to dismiss.
Defendants filed new motions to dismiss the complaint on October
8, 2013.

On October 31, 2014, the Court granted defendants' motions and
dismissed the case in its entirety against all defendants, with
prejudice. On November 25, 2014, plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.


FREDDIE MAC: Dismissal of Preferred Stock Purchase Suit on Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 19, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that plaintiffs in the In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior
Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations case
have filed a notice of appeal of the District Court's decision
dismissing the case.

The Company said, "Since July 2013, a number of lawsuits have been
filed against us concerning the August 2012 amendment to the
Purchase Agreement, which created the net worth sweep dividend
provisions of the senior preferred stock. The plaintiffs in the
lawsuits allege that they are holders of common stock and/or
junior preferred stock issued by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. (For
purposes of this discussion, junior preferred stock refers to the
various series of preferred stock of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
other than the senior preferred stock issued to Treasury.) It is
possible that similar lawsuits will be filed in the future.

Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase
Agreement Class Action Litigations. This case is the result of the
consolidation of three putative class action lawsuits: Cacciapelle
and Bareiss vs. Federal National Mortgage Association, Federal
Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and FHFA, filed on July 29, 2013;
American European Insurance Company vs. Federal National Mortgage
Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and FHFA,
filed on July 30, 2013; and Marneu Holdings, Co. vs. FHFA,
Treasury, Federal National Mortgage Association and Federal Home
Loan Mortgage Corporation, filed on September 18, 2013. (The
Marneu case was also filed as a shareholder derivative lawsuit.) A
consolidated amended complaint was filed on December 3, 2013. In
the consolidated amended complaint, plaintiffs allege, among other
items, that the August 2012 amendment to the Purchase Agreement
breached Freddie Mac's and Fannie Mae's respective contracts with
the holders of junior preferred stock and common stock and the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in such
contracts. Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages, equitable and
injunctive relief, and costs and expenses, including attorney and
expert fees.

The Cacciapelle and American European Insurance Company lawsuits
were filed purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of
junior preferred stock issued by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae who
held stock prior to, and as of, August 17, 2012. The Marneu
lawsuit was filed purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers
of junior preferred stock and purchasers of common stock issued by
Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae over a not-yet-defined period of time.
Arrowood Indemnity Company vs. Federal National Mortgage
Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, FHFA and
Treasury. This case was filed on September 20, 2013. The
allegations and demands made by plaintiffs in this case were
generally similar to those made by the plaintiffs in the In re
Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement
Class Action Litigations case. Plaintiffs in the Arrowood lawsuit
also requested that, if injunctive relief were not granted, the
Arrowood plaintiffs be awarded damages against the defendants in
an amount to be determined including, but not limited to, the
aggregate par value of their junior preferred stock, the total of
which they stated to be $42,297,500.

American European Insurance Company, Cacciapalle and Miller vs.
Treasury and FHFA. This case was filed as a shareholder derivative
lawsuit, purportedly on behalf of Freddie Mac as a "nominal"
defendant, on July 30, 2014. The complaint alleged that, through
the August 2012 amendment to the Purchase Agreement, Treasury and
FHFA breached their respective fiduciary duties to Freddie Mac,
causing Freddie Mac to suffer damages. The plaintiffs asked that
Freddie Mac be awarded compensatory damages and disgorgement, as
well as attorneys' fees, costs and other expenses.

FHFA, joined by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, moved to dismiss the
In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase
Agreement Class Action Litigations case and the other related
cases on January 17, 2014. Treasury filed a motion to dismiss the
same day. On September 30, 2014, the District Court granted the
motions and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims. On October 15, 2014,
plaintiffs in the In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred
Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations case filed a
notice of appeal of the District Court's decision. The scope of
this appeal includes the American European Insurance Company
shareholder derivative lawsuit. On October 9, 2014, Arrowood filed
a notice of appeal of the District Court's decision.


GARY PLASTIC: "Rivera" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Manuela Rivera, Clifton Alibocas and Stu Schoenfeld on behalf of
themselves and all those similarly situated v. Gary Plastic
Packaging Corp., and Gary Hellinge, Case No. 1:15-cv-01715
(S.D.N.Y., March 9, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a New York Based company that
specializes in manufacturing plastic packaging products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph D. Nohavicka, Esq.
      MAVROMIHALIS PARDALIS & NOHAVICKA, LLP
      3403 Broadway
      Astoria, NY 10006
      Telephone: (718) 777-0400
      Facsimile: (718) 777-0599
      E-mail: jnfirm@aol.com


GE HEALTHCARE: 9th  Cir. Upholds Dismissal of "Pharmarx" Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit affirmed the
district court's dismissal of the case captioned PHARMARX
PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., a California corporation, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. GE HEALTHCARE, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant-
Appellee, NO. 13-55354.

PharmaRx had appealed the district court's dismissal of its class
action complaint alleging violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. ections 1-2.

In its March 9, 2015 memorandum, the Ninth Circuit held that
"Appellant's claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act fails
because it has not pleaded "enough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face."  Because Appellant's
Section 2 claim is predicated on the same insufficient facts, this
claim necessarily fails as well. Assuming Appellant has not waived
the argument that it should be allowed leave to amend . . . we
also affirm the district court's decision to dismiss the complaint
without leave to amend."

A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/Ko78Wtfrom
Leagle.com.


GENMARK RESTAURANT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christian Duran, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Genmark Restaurant Inc. d/b/a Barking Dog
Luncheonette, Mark Weissman, Eugene Garcia, Evangelia Cassimos and
Spiros Kasimis, Case No. 1:15-cv-01722 (S.D.N.Y., March 9, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 1453 York
Avenue, New York, NY 10075.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HORIZON SOLAR: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Hoofman" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allan Hoffman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Horizon Solar Power, Inc., a California corporation,
Case No. 2:15-cv-00425 (D. Ariz., March 9, 2015), seeks to stop
the Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls to consumers'
telephones that appear on the National Do Not Call Registry.

Horizon Solar Power, Inc. is one of the leading sellers and
installers of solar power panels based in Southern California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew D. Friedman, Esq.
      Francis J. Balint Jr., Esq.
      BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
      2325 East Camelback Road, Suite 300
      Phoenix, AZ 85016
      Telephone: (602) 274-1100
      Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
      E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com
              fbalint@bffb.com

         - and -

      Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
      Ari J. Scharg, 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


HSBC BANK: Accused of Conspiring With Sinaloa-Linked Gangsters
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that victims of L.A. street gangs
sued HSBC Bank in a federal RICO class action, claiming the bank
is partly responsible because it accepts and launders money for
the gangsters, who are associated with the Sinaloa drug cartel.

Four named plaintiffs sued the bank on Feb. 25, claiming that the
bank "conspired to wrongfully take plaintiffs' property, including
money, hide its source through money laundering and use the money
to fund the Sinaloa drug cartel."

They claim that HSBC acknowledged its money laundering in a 2012
deferred-prosecution agreement with the federal government.
Prosecutors identified more than 3,000 HSBC accounts used to
launder money for the Sinaloa cartel, the plaintiffs say, citing a
July 17, 2012 hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs.

Plaintiff Stephanie Scoggins claims a Crip robbed her of $180 in
2003, and that HSBC received the money and laundered it for the
cartel.

Plaintiff Jordan Saddler claims a Crip robbed him of $240 and an
iPhone in 2005, and that HSBC laundered the money for the cartel.
In 2012, Saddler says, another Crip relieved him of $130 and HSBC
then laundered it.

Plaintiff Otis Hawkins claims that a Blood robbed him of $1,500 in
2009 and HSBC laundered it.  They seek class certification, treble
damages and punitive damages for RICO violations.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dermot Givens, Esq.
          468 N Camden Dr., Suite 305
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 854-8823
          Facsimile: (323) 878-0416
          E-mail: dermot@dgivenslaw.com


IMAX CORPORATION: Settlement Distributed to U.S. Class
------------------------------------------------------
IMAX Corporation and certain of its officers and directors were
named as defendants in eight purported class action lawsuits filed
between August 11, 2006 and September 18, 2006, alleging
violations of U.S. federal securities laws. These eight actions
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York (the "Court") and were subsequently consolidated by the
Court. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint on October 2, 2007, which added PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP, the Company's auditors, as a defendant. The amended
complaint, brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
Company's common stock on the NASDAQ between February 27, 2003 and
July 20, 2007 (the "U.S. Class"), alleged primarily that the
defendants engaged in securities fraud by disseminating materially
false and misleading statements during the class period regarding
the Company's revenue recognition of theater system installations,
and failing to disclose material information concerning the
Company's revenue recognition practices.

On March 26, 2012, the parties executed and filed with the Court
an amended formal stipulation of settlement and proposed form of
notice to the class. On June 20, 2012 the Court issued an order
granting final approval of the settlement. Under the terms of the
settlement, members of the U.S. Class who did not opt out of the
settlement released defendants from liability for all claims that
were alleged in this action or could have been alleged in this
action or any other proceeding (including the action in Canada as
described in (d) of this note (the "Canadian Action") relating to
the purchase of the Company's securities on the NASDAQ between
February 27, 2003 and July 20, 2007 or the subject matter and
facts relating to this action. As part of the settlement and in
exchange for the release, defendants agreed to pay $12.0 million
to a settlement fund which amount was funded by the carriers of
the Company's directors and officers insurance policy and by
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. The settlement was distributed to the
U.S. Class on May 5, 2014, IMAX said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.


IMAX CORPORATION: Insurance to Reimburse Costs in Canadian Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed on September 20, 2006 in the
Canadian Court against IMAX Corporation and certain of its
officers and directors, alleging violations of Canadian securities
laws. This lawsuit was brought on behalf of shareholders who
acquired the Company's securities between February 17, 2006 and
August 9, 2006. The lawsuit seeks $210.0 million in compensatory
and punitive damages, as well as costs. For reasons released
December 14, 2009, the Canadian Court granted leave to the
plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim to plead certain
claims pursuant to the Securities Act (Ontario) against the
Company and certain individuals ("the Defendants") and granted
certification of the action as a class proceeding. These are
procedural decisions, and do not contain any conclusions binding
on a judge at trial as to the factual or legal merits of the
claim. Leave to appeal those decisions was denied.

In March 2013, the Defendants obtained an Order enforcing the
settlement Order in the parallel class action in the United States
in this Canadian class action lawsuit, with the result that the
class in this case was reduced in size by approximately 85%. A
motion by the Plaintiffs for leave to appeal that Order was
dismissed.

The Company believes the allegations made against it in the
statement of claim are meritless and will vigorously defend the
matter, although no assurance can be given with respect to the
ultimate outcome of such proceedings. The Company's directors' and
officers' insurance policy provides for reimbursement of costs and
expenses incurred in connection with this lawsuit as well as
potential damages awarded, if any, subject to certain policy
limits, exclusions and deductibles, IMAX said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 19, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.


IMAX CORPORATION: IMAX Chicago Theatre Bid to Dismiss Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In November 2013, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois (the "Court") against IMAX Chicago Theatre LLC ("IMAX
Chicago Theatre"), a subsidiary of IMAX Corporation. The
plaintiff, Scott Redman, alleges that IMAX Chicago Theatre
provided certain credit card and debit card receipts to customers
that were purportedly not in compliance with the applicable
truncation requirements of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act. The plaintiff seeks statutory damages
individually and on behalf of a putative class.

On February 20, 2014, IMAX Chicago Theatre filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint, which the Court denied on January 23, 2015,
IMAX said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 19, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014.

IMAX Chicago Theatre believes that it has meritorious defenses and
intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. However, given the early
stage of the proceedings, IMAX Chicago Theatre is unable to
predict the outcome of this matter and is unable to assess the
potential impact, if any, of the lawsuit at this time.


JACKSONVILLE, FL: Court Junks Discrimination Suit vs. Fire Dep't
----------------------------------------------------------------
Black firefighters in Jacksonville, Florida waited too long to
enforce an order that required an equal number of black and white
firefighters are hired in the city, reports Deshayla Strachan at
Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling.

Olivette Coffey Jr., a black man with military firefighting
experience, sued Dwight Braddy and other members of the city's
Civil Service Board for rejecting his application.  He claims
their hiring practices violated his civil rights.

After years of complaints of racial discrimination by the City of
Jacksonville fire department, a federal court entered a consent
decree in 1982 requiring the city to hire "an equal number of
blacks and whites until the ratio of black fire fighters to white
fire fighters reflects the ratio of black citizens to white
citizens in the City of Jacksonville."

According to the order, the city complied until 1992 when, without
notice, it simply stopped following the court's decree.
Immediately, the hiring of black firefighter plummeted, according
to the plaintiff.

Coffey claimed that between 1992 and 1997, the City hired 136
firefighters, yet only one was black and that, after 1997, the
number of black firefighters hired continued to be far below the
number of white firefighters hired, in contravention of the
decree's one to one hiring dictate.

But it was not until 2007 when Coffey decided to hold the city
accountable.

In the class action suit, Coffey sought to represent a class of
the black residents of the city who desired to have their homes
and neighborhoods protected by a fire department whose members
reflected the Jacksonville's racial and ethnic diversity, as well
as applicants and potential applicants whose applications had been
or would be denied because of the fire department's discriminatory
hiring process.

Coffey sought declaratory and injunctive relief under the due
process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment,
and under the Florida Constitution and Florida law.

But while U.S. District Judge Timothy Corrigan conceded that the
city may have been wrong when it stopped following the order
without notice 15 years ago, he held that occurred too long ago to
hold anyone accountable.

"The City stopped complying in 1992, it gave no notice to the
Court, the lawyers for the plaintiff class, the public and perhaps
even the City Council and the Mayor.  If true, the City's action
was unacceptable and potentially contumacious.  The City should
have asked the Court to modify or dissolve the decree if it
thought it had achieved compliance," Judge Corrigan wrote.

"If this was 1992, 1993, or 1994 (or perhaps even somewhat later)
the Court could consider whether to hold the City in contempt or
whether to dissolve or modify the decree," the judge continued.
"But the City argues that, even if it was in violation, by waiting
fifteen years to raise the issue, the gaps in the record are such
that the City cannot defend itself, and plaintiffs are therefore
barred by laches from obtaining any relief.

"While the City did not make any announcement either before or at
the time it stopped following the decree, that soon became common
knowledge.  African-American firefighters, the Jacksonville
Brotherhood of Firefighters, their lawyer . . . and other
interested parties knew early on that the City had ceased
complying without seeking Court approval, but the plaintiffs
waited fifteen years to resurrect the matter."

"Absolutely nothing prevented plaintiffs from returning to Court
in the early 1990's seeking to hold the City in contempt; thus the
plaintiffs' delay was "not excusable."  And now it is too late,"
Corrigan wrote.

He therefore had no choice, he said, but to deny Coffey's motion
to hold the City of Jacksonville in contempt and granted The
City's motion to dissolve the decree and dismiss this case.

The case is Olivette Coffey, Jr., et al. v. Dwight Braddy, etc.,
et al., Case No. 3:71-cv-44-J-32PDB, in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division.


JPMORGAN CHASE: "Friedman" Case Transferred to New York Dist. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In RICHARD FRIEDMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.,
et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-1988 (SDW)(SCM), (D.
N.J.), before the Court is defendants JP Morgan Chase & Co; JP
Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.; J.P. Morgan Securities, LTD.; John Hogan
and Richard Cassa's motion to transfer venue to the Southern
District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) and
Section 1406(a).

Plaintiffs opposed and asserted that Defendants failed to meet
their burden of proving transferring the matter would be more
convenient to the parties or witnesses. Plaintiffs also moved to
stay the transfer motion.

According to Magistrate Judge Steven C. Mannion's March 2, 2015
opinion and order, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/yrlY5jfrom Leagle.com, the Defendants' motion to
transfer venue is granted and Plaintiffs' motion to stay is
terminated as moot.

The Court concluded that on balance, the Defendant has met its
burden in demonstrating that a transfer is appropriate under 28
U.S.C. Section 1404(a). The matter will be transferred to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York. The Order implementing this decision will be stayed for 20
days to accommodate any appeal to the District Court.

RICHARD FRIEDMAN, AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF SHIRLEY FRIEDMAN,
Plaintiff, represented by HELEN DAVIS CHAITMAN --
hchaitman@bplegal.com -- BECKER & POLIAKOFF, LLP & PETER W. SMITH
-- psmith@becker-poliakoff.com -- BECKER & POLIAKOFF, LLP.

CARLA HIRSCHHORN, et al, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, together with the PARTIES LISTED ON
EXHIBIT "A" HERETO, Plaintiff, represented by HELEN DAVIS
CHAITMAN, BECKER & POLIAKOFF, LLP & PETER W. SMITH, BECKER &
POLIAKOFF, LLP.

JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., Defendant, represented by ALAN S. NAAR --
anaar@greenbaumlaw.com -- GREENBAUM, ROWE, SMITH & DAVIS, LLP.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Defendant, represented by ALAN S. NAAR,
GREENBAUM, ROWE, SMITH & DAVIS, LLP.

J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, Defendant, represented by ALAN S.
NAAR, GREENBAUM, ROWE, SMITH & DAVIS, LLP.

J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES, LTD., Defendant, represented by ALAN S.
NAAR, GREENBAUM, ROWE, SMITH & DAVIS, LLP.

John Hogan, Defendant, represented by ALAN S. NAAR, GREENBAUM,
ROWE, SMITH & DAVIS, LLP.

Richard Cassa, Defendant, represented by ALAN S. NAAR, GREENBAUM,
ROWE, SMITH & DAVIS, LLP.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued for Not Paying Assistant Branch Managers' OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Chase failed to pay assistant
branch managers for overtime, or to provide them with meal and
rest breaks, a class claims.

The case is Mitra Erami v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, in the Solano
County Superior Court.


JPMORGAN VENTURES: Manipulates Electricity Price, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Woolsey, Carol Ball, and Rachel Reidinger, both
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation and JPMorgan Chase &
Co., Case No. 3:15-cv-00528 (S.D. Cal., March 9, 2015), alleges
that the Defendants manipulated the price of electricity in the
California electricity market, to the detriment of California
retail electrical consumers.

J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation is a Delaware Corporation
that is a wholly owned subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase & Co. It is
engaged in financial transactions relating to commodities,
including the generation and sale of electricity.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a Delaware Corporation with its principal
place of business in New York City, New York. It is a global
financial services firm.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Siprut, Esq.
      Todd McLawhorn, Esq.
      SIPRUT PC
      17 North State Street, Suite 1600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312)236-0000
      E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
              tmclawhorn@siprut.com

         - and -

      Mitchel J. Olson, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF MITCHEL J. OLSON
      1901 Camino Vida Roble, Suite 121
      Carlsbad CA 92008
      Telephone: (858)688-7975
      E-mail: molson@lawmed.net


KEY ENERGY: "Aguilar" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Juan Aguilar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Key Energy Services, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00114 (S.D.
Tex., March 9, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, attorney fees, and costs pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP
      1150 Bissonnet St
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com


L & G TRUCKING: "Jones" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony W. Jones, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated v. L & G Trucking, LLC, a Kentucky Limited Liability
Company, and Eugene T. Caldwell, Case No. 6:15-cv-00040 (E.D. Ky.,
March 9, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, an
additional equal amount as liquidated damages, obtain declaratory
relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a freight shipping and trucking
company with its principal place of business in Rockcastle County,
Kentucky.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Frisch, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN PA
      600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 318-0268
      Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
      E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com


LATSHAW DRILLING: Faces "Meadows" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Johnny L. Meadows, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Latshaw Drilling Company, LLC, Case No. 7:15-cv-00030
(W.D. Tex., March 9, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40
in a week.

Latshaw Drilling Company, LLC is a Texas Corporation, which
operates 40 drilling rigs in multiple locations in the United
States.

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


LG ELECTRONICS: Falsely Marketed LCD TVs, "Eberhart" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
William Eberhart, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. LG Electronics USA, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01761
(D.N.J., March 9, 2015), alleges that the Defendant has tried to
artificially boost the purported Hz capability on certain of its
LCD televisions through the use of creative and materially
misleading marketing nomenclature.

LG Electronics USA, Inc. New Jersey Corporation with its
headquarters and principal place of business located at 1000
Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632, which markets,
advertises, and sells home appliances, electronics and mobile
devices throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
      Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
      Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
      CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
      One Haverford Centre
      361 West Lancaster Avenue
      Haverford, PA 19041
      Telephone: (610) 642-8500
      Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
      E-mail: MDS@chimicles.com
              AWF@chimicles.com

         - and -

      William H. Anderson, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      507 C Street, NE
      Washington, DC 20002
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
      E-mail: wanderson@cuneolaw.com

         - and -

      Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 810
      Bethesda, MD 20814
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
      E-mail: charlesl@cuneolaw.com

         - and -

      Benjamin Elga, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      16 Court Street, Suite 1012
      Brooklyn, NY 11241
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
      E-mail: belga@cuneolaw.com


LHC GROUP: Settlement in Omaha Police Suit Has Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James T. Trimble Jr. granted the Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement and Plan of Allocation of
Settlement Proceeds in the case captioned CITY OF OMAHA POLICE &
FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM v. LHC GROUP, ET AL., Case No. Civil No.
6:12-1609, (W.D. La.)

This matter is a securities fraud class action on behalf of
investors who purchased or acquired LHC common stock between July
30, 2008 and October 26, 2011 (the "Class Period"), inclusive,
against LHC and its CEO, Myers.

Plaintiff sought final approval of the Class Action Settlement and
Plan of Allocation Settlement Proceeds.

In his judgment dated March 2, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/sMZSQOfrom Leagle.com, Judge Trimble Jr. ordered,
adjudged and decreed that the Motion for Final Approval of Class
Action Settlement and Plan of Allocation of Settlement Proceeds
filed on October 21, 2014 is granted.

John Jasnoch, Esq. -- jjasnoch@scott-scott.com -- at SCOTT+SCOTT,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP serve as counsel for Plaintiff.


LINN ENERGY: Class Cert. Briefing in Late 2015 or Early 2016
------------------------------------------------------------
Linn Energy, LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the parties in a
statewide class action case have agreed on a scheduling order,
which provides for briefing on the class certification issues in
late 2015 and first part of 2016.

The Company has been named as a defendant in a number of lawsuits,
including claims from royalty owners related to disputed royalty
payments and royalty valuations.  With respect to a certain
statewide class action case, the Company has filed a motion to
dismiss the case for failure to state a claim on which relief may
be granted, and that motion has not yet been ruled on by the
Court. While that motion has remained pending, the parties have
agreed on a scheduling order, which provides for briefing on the
class certification issues in late 2015 and first part of 2016.
The Company has denied that it has liability on the claims
asserted in the case and has denied that class certification is
proper. If the Court accepts the Company's arguments, there will
be no liability to the Company in the case.

For another statewide class action royalty payment dispute,
briefing on class certification issues is expected to be completed
during the summer of 2015. The Company has denied that it has any
liability on the claims and has denied that class certification is
proper. If the Court accepts the Company's arguments, there will
be no liability to the Company in the case. The Company is unable
to estimate a possible loss, or range of possible loss, if any, in
these cases.


LINN ENERGY: Berry Made Lump Sum Payment in Class Action Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Linn Energy, LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Berry Petroleum Company
made a one-time lump sum payment of $2.4 million for damages
related to production through April 30, 2014, in the statewide
royalty class action case.

Prior to the Company's acquisition of Berry Petroleum Company, now
Berry Petroleum Company, LLC ("Berry"), Berry became a defendant
in a certain statewide royalty class action case. The parties
entered into a settlement agreement to settle past claims for
approximately $2.4 million, which the Court approved on October
29, 2014. On December 17, 2014, Berry made a one-time lump sum
payment of $2.4 million for damages related to production through
April 30, 2014. On December 29, 2014, the Court issued an Order
dismissing the matter with prejudice. Per the parties' settlement
agreement, Berry has agreed to a new methodology for calculating
royalty payments beginning May 1, 2014.


LINN ENERGY: Dismissal of Federal Actions Not Appealed
------------------------------------------------------
In 2013, several class action complaints were filed and ultimately
consolidated in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York (the "Federal Actions") against LINN Energy,
LinnCo, certain of their officers and directors and the various
underwriters for LinnCo's initial public offering. These cases
collectively asserted claims based on allegations that LINN Energy
made false or misleading statements relating to its (i) hedging
strategy, (ii) the cash flow available for distribution to
unitholders, and (iii) LINN Energy's energy production in its
Exchange Act filings; and additional claims based on alleged
misstatements relating to these issues in the prospectus and
registration statement for LinnCo's initial public offering.
Several derivative actions were also filed in federal and state
court in Texas, and in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the
"Derivative Actions") asserting derivative claims on behalf of
LINN Energy against the individual officers and directors for
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets,
mismanagement, abuse of control, and unjust enrichment based on
factual allegations similar to those in the Federal Actions.

In July 2014, the Court dismissed the claims of the plaintiffs in
the Federal Actions with prejudice, concluding that the plaintiffs
failed to demonstrate any material misstatement or omission by
LINN Energy or LinnCo, or their officers and directors.

The plaintiffs in the Federal Actions did not appeal the Court's
dismissal, and the appeals deadline has now passed, Linn Energy,
LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 19, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014.

The plaintiffs in the Derivative Actions subsequently have
dismissed their claims without prejudice, the Company added.


LINN OPERATING: "Dreitz" Class Action Survives Dismissal Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Eric F. Melgren denied the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss in the case captioned JOE DREITZ JR., on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated royalty owners, Plaintiff, v.
LINN OPERATING, INC. and LINN ENERGY HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 13-1179-EFM-TJJ (D. Kan.)

Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
sued Defendants for breach of contract related to royalty payments
on oil and gas leases.  Defendants sought dismissal of the case
arguing it failed to properly allege a breach of contract since it
failed to contain factual allegations sufficient to support a
plausible claim for breach of contract because it does not address
the royalty standard.

In his Memorandum and Order dated March 12, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/EckOoNfrom Leagle.com, Judge Melgren denied
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint,
saying Plaintiff met the pleading obligation of setting forth a
facially plausible claim for breach of contract.

Daniel H. Diepenbrock, Esq., at the Law Office of Daniel H.
Diepenbrock, P.A.,

Guy S. Lipe, Esq. -- glipe@velaw.com -- at Vinson & Elkins LLP,
and Mikel L. Stout, Esq. -- mstout@foulston.com -- at Foulston
Siefkin LLP, serve as counsel for Linn Operating, Inc. and Linn
Energy Holdings, LLC


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Ezovski" Suit Over Toxic Floorings
-------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Ezovski, Devonne Bowling, and Robert Smith, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lumber
Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-01074 (N.D. Cal.,
March 9, 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 C. Girard, Esq.
      Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
      Adam E. Polk, Esq.
      Steve A. Lopez, Esq.
      GIRARD GIBBS LLP
      601 California Street, 14th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94108
      Telephone: (415) 981-4800
      Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
      E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com
              aep@girardgibbs.com
              ehg@girardgibbs.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Bray" Suit Over Toxic Floorings
----------------------------------------------------------
Scott and Maryanne Bray and Karen Warshaw, on their own behalf and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators
Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-10724 (D. Mass., March 9, 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:

      Kristen A. Johnson, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
      Cambridge, MA 02142
      Telephone: (617) 482-3700
      Facsimile: (617) 482-3003
      E-mail: kristenjp@hbsslaw.com

         - and -

      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
      E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
              ari@hbsslaw.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Fitterer" Suit Over Toxic Floorings
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kara Fitterer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-
00266 (S.D. Ill., March 9, 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:

      James G. Onder, Esq.
      William W. Blair, Esq.
      ONDER, SHELTON, ET AL.
      110 E. Lockwood
      St. Louis, MO 63119
      Telephone: (314) 963-9000
      Facsimile: 314-963-1700
      E-mail: onder@onderlaw.com
              blair@onderlaw.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Green" Suit Over Toxic Floorings
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Green and Twala Scott, both individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 4:15-cv-01111 (D.S.C., March 9, 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:

      Justin Lucey, Esq.
      Joshua F. Evans, Esq.
      JUSTIN O'TOOLE LUCEY LAW FIRM
      415 Mill Street
      Post Office Box 806
      Mount Pleasant, SC 29465-0806
      Telephone: (843) 849-8400
      Facsimile: (843) 849-8406
      E-mail: jlucey@lucey-law.com
              jevans@lucey-law.com

         - and -

      Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
      Scott C. Harris, Esq.
      WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
      900 West Morgan Street
      Raleigh, NC 27603
      Telephone: (919) 600-5003
      Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
      E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com
              scott@wbmllp.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Moreland" Suit Over Toxic Floorings
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Moreland, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 7:15-cv-01754
(S.D.N.Y., March 9, 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:

      Douglas Gregory Blankinship, Esq.
      Jeremiah Lee Frei-Pearson, Esq.
      Todd Seth Garber, Esq.
      FINKELSTEIN BLANKINSHIP, FREI- PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
      1311 Mamaroneck Avenue, Suite 220
      White Plains, NY 10605
      Telephone: (914) 298-3281
      Facsimile: (914) 824-1561
      E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
              jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com
              tgarber@fbfglaw.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Toxic Floorings
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Johnson and Sarah Johnson, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-00395 (S.D. Ind., March 9, 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:

      Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
      Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
      Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
      Vess Allen Miller, Esq.
      COHEN & MALAD LLP
      One Indiana Square
      Suite 1400
      Indianapolis, IN 46204
      Telephone: (317) 636-6481
      Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
      E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com
              ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
              rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
              vmiller@cohenandmalad.com


MARRIOTT INT'L: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Employees Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marriott International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that plaintiffs filed
a notice of appeal of the dismissal of a class action by former
employees.

"On January 19, 2010, several former Marriott employees (the
"plaintiffs") filed a putative class action complaint against us
and the Stock Plan (the "defendants"), alleging that certain
equity awards of deferred bonus stock granted to the plaintiffs
and other current and former employees for fiscal years 1963
through 1989 are subject to vesting requirements under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended
("ERISA"), that are in certain circumstances more rapid than those
set forth in the awards," the Company said. The action was brought
in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland
(Greenbelt Division), and Dennis Walter Bond Sr. and Michael P.
Steigman were the remaining named plaintiffs. Class certification
was denied, and on January 16, 2015, the court granted Marriott's
motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. Plaintiffs
have filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit.


MCNEIL-PPC INC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Product Packing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mariel Marte, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated v. McNeil-PPC, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson Consumer
Companies, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01745 (S.D.N.Y., March 9, 2015),
arises out of the Defendant's non-functional slack-fill packaging
of their Motrin(R) pain reliever and fever reducer products, which
are produced in the form of caplets containing 200mg ibuprofen, a
non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug. The non-functional slack-
fill, when displayed for sale caused false representations by
implying that the products filled the entire package.

McNeil-PPC, Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation with its
headquarters at 7050 Camp Hill Road, Fort Washington,
Pennsylvania, 19034, which manufactures and markets a broad range
of well-known and trusted over the counter products.

Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. New Jersey Corporation
headquartered at 199 Grandview Road, Skillman, NJ 08558, which
manufactures and markets a broad range of well-known and trusted
over the counter products.

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


MCNEIL-PPC INC: Faces "Fermin" Suit Over Tylenol(R) Packaging
-------------------------------------------------------------
Janckell Fermin, et al., on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. McNeil-PPC, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson
Consumer Companies, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01215 (E.D.N.Y., March
9, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's non-functional slack-fill
packaging of their Tylenol(R) pain reliever and fever reducer
products, which are produced in the form of caplets containing
200mg ibuprofen, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug. The non-
functional slack-fill, when displayed for sale caused false
representations by implying that the products filled the entire
package.

McNeil-PPC, Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation with its
headquarters at 7050 Camp Hill Road, Fort Washington,
Pennsylvania, 19034, which manufactures and markets a broad range
of well-known and trusted over the counter products.

Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. New Jersey Corporation
headquartered at 199 Grandview Road, Skillman, NJ 08558, which
manufactures and markets a broad range of well-known and trusted
over the counter products.

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


NANATORI JAPANESE: "Zheng" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zhi Yong Zheng, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. Nanatori Japanese Restaurant Corp., Ming Lan
Liu and John Does #1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-01222 (E.D.N.Y., March
9, 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 162
Montague Street, Brooklyn, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Stein, Esq.
      SAMUEL & STEIN
      38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
      New York, NY 10001
      Telephone: (212) 563-9884
      E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com


NEWDAY MANAGEMENT: "Medina" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lazaro Medina v. Newday Management LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-20945
(S.D. Fla., March 9, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Newday Management LLC is a Management Services Company registered
to do business in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
      ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
      3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202
      Miami, FL 33133
      Telephone: (305) 446-1500
      Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
      E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


OIL STATES: Faces "Ferrara" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Ferrara and Richard Breaux, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Oil States Energy Services, LLC, Case
No. 6:15-cv-00165 (E.D. Tex., March 9, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked
in excess of 40 in a single work week.

Oil States Energy Services, LLC is a Texas corporation which
provides equipment and services to the oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James Burdett Moulton, Esq.
      JAMES MOULTON - ATTORNEY AT LAW
      109 SH 110S
      Whitehouse, TX 75791
      Telephone: (972) 698-0999
      Facsimile: (903) 705-6860
      E-mail: jim.moulton@gmail.com


PAPA JOHN'S: Court Tosses Bid to Remand "Tucker" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Staci M. Yandle denied a motion to remand the case
captioned ZACHARY TUCKER, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PAPA JOHN'S INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
and PAPA JOHN'S USA, INC., Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV-0618-SMY-
PMF, (S.D. Ill.).

Defendants removed this case from the Third Judicial Circuit for
Madison County, Illinois (state court) to the U.S. District Court
for Southern District of Illinois on May 29, 2014, pursuant to the
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA). Plaintiff alleges lack
of subject matter jurisdiction based on Defendants' failure to
prove the jurisdictional amount in controversy and asked the Court
to (1) remand the case to state court and (2) order Defendants pay
the costs and attorney fees incurred by Plaintiff as a result of
the removal.

"Based on Defendants' estimates, which while uncertain to be
awarded, are not legally impossible as the law would require, this
Court cannot deny jurisdiction," wrote Judge Yandle in his March
6, 2015 memorandum and order, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/7tQ5okfrom Leagle.com.  "Defendants may have
stretched their calculations to include the maximum amounts
allowed by law, but without a showing that such amounts are
legally impossible, Plaintiff cannot prevail on its Motion to
Remand. For these reasons, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is denied
in its entirety."

Zachary Tucker, Plaintiff, represented by Corey D. Sullivan --
csullivan@careydanis.com -- Sullivan Law, LLC, Francis (Casey) J.
Flynn -- francisflynn@gmail.com -- Carey, Danis and Lowe, Tiffany
Marko Yiatras -- tyiatras@careydanis.com -- Carey & Danis, L.L.C.
& Jason Whittemore -- jason@wagnerlaw.com -- Wagner, Vaughan &
McLaughlin PA.

Papa John's International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew
J. Patch -- patcha@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig PA, David B.
Weinstein -- weinsteind@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig PA,
Nicholas J. Secco -- seccon@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig PA & W.
Jason Rankin -- wjr@heplerbroom.com -- HeplerBroom LLC.

Papa John's USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew J. Patch,
Greenberg Traurig PA, David B. Weinstein, Greenberg Traurig PA,
Nicholas J. Secco, Greenberg Traurig PA & W. Jason Rankin,
HeplerBroom LLC.


PDC ENERGY: Final Approval Hearing Held to Approve Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
PDC Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the hearing regarding
final approval of the settlement of the Class Action Regarding
2010 and 2011 Partnership Purchases is currently scheduled for
March 16, 2015.

In December 2011, the Company and its wholly-owned merger
subsidiary were served with an alleged class action on behalf of
unit holders of 12 former limited partnerships, related to its
repurchase of the 12 partnerships, which were formed beginning in
late 2002 through 2005. The mergers were completed in 2010 and
2011. The action was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California and is titled Schulein v. Petroleum
Development Corp. The complaint primarily alleges that the
disclosures in the proxy statements issued in connection with the
mergers were inadequate, and a state law breach of fiduciary duty.

In January 2014, the plaintiffs were certified as a class by the
court.  In October 2014, the Company and plaintiffs' counsel
reached an oral settlement agreement, subject to the contingencies
noted below. That agreement was reduced to writing and signed in
December 2014. Under this agreement the plaintiffs would receive a
cash payment of $37.5 million, of which PDC would pay $31.5
million and insurers would pay $6 million. This all-cash
settlement agreement is a different structure than the initial
agreement in principle, which was structured as part up-front cash
and part interests in future wells.

The proposed all-cash settlement remains subject to the
satisfaction of various conditions, including but not limited to
final court approval; the hearing regarding final approval is
currently scheduled for March 16, 2015. Preliminary approval by
the court was received on December 30, 2014, and notice of the
settlement was mailed to class members in mid-January 2015. Any
class member elections to opt out of the settlement are due in
February 2015.

In late January 2015, PDC deposited the $37.5 million, including
the $6 million paid directly to the Company by its insurers, into
escrow, as provided in the agreement. As a result of this
litigation, the Company accrued $31.5 million of expense in 2014,
which is included in general and administrative expense in the
consolidated statements of operations.

"As of December 31, 2014, the Company has accrued a total gross
liability of $37.5 million related to this litigation, of which
$31.5 million represents our expense and $6 million represents the
portion our insurers would pay, which is our best estimate of the
amount required to settle the case. The liability is included in
other accrued expenses in the consolidated balance sheets. There
is also a corresponding receivable due from our insurers of $6
million included in accounts receivable in the consolidated
balance sheets, which was received from the insurers in January
2015," the Company said.

Under this settlement agreement, the class action would be
dismissed with prejudice and all claims would be released. "If the
matter proceeds to trial, the plaintiffs have indicated that they
will seek damages of approximately $175 million, plus pre-judgment
interest. In such event, we continue to believe we would have good
defenses to both the asserted claims and plaintiffs' damage
calculations," the Company said.


PINKERTON GOVERNMENT: Class Cert. Ruling in "Avilez" Case Vacated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit vacated a
district court order in CATHERINE E. AVILEZ, as an individual and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
PINKERTON GOVERNMENT SERVICES, INC., a corporation, Defendant-
Appellant, NO. 13-55154.

In this action raising claims under the California meal break
statute, California Labor Code Section 226.7, Pinkerton Government
Services appealed the district court's order granting Catherine
Avilez's motion to certify various classes of current and former
Pinkerton employees.

According to the Ninth Circuit's March 9, 2015 memorandum:

1. The district court did not abuse its discretion by striking
Pinkerton's expert survey and supporting declarations. Pinkerton
failed to timely identify its expert, the survey instrument, and
the identities and contact information for its employee
declarants.

2. Pinkerton waived its Rules Enabling Act argument by not raising
it in opposition to the motion for class certification.

3. The district court abused its discretion to the extent it
certified classes and subclasses that include employees who signed
class action waivers. Avilez's arbitration agreement does not
contain a class action waiver and counsel did not dispute that
those who signed such waivers have potential defenses that Avilez
would be unable to argue on their behalf. To the extent the
classes and subclasses include individuals who signed class action
waivers, Avilez is not an adequate representative, Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(a)(4), and her claim lacks typicality, Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(a)(3).

4. If individuals who signed class action waivers are excluded
from the "Meal Break" and "Wage Statement" subclasses, then these
subclasses, along with the "No-Signed-Waiver" subclass, would
satisfy Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a)(1)0(4). The Ninth
Circuit need not decide whether these subclasses, as modified,
would satisfy the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3). On
remand, the district court will certify a class under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(c)(4) on the issue whether there exists a
prima facie case for liability. If a prima facie case exists, the
district court may proceed to entertain Pinkerton's affirmative
defenses and cull the class accordingly.

5. The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting
class certification on Avilez's unfair business practices claim,
which is derivative of her other claims.

6. Because the Meal Break and Wage Statement subclasses include
employees who signed class action waivers, the district court's
class certification order is vacated. On remand, the district
court will enter a new certification order consistent with this
decision.

7. Each party will bear its own costs on appeal.

Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit remands the case for entry of a
revised class certification order.

A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/ehuV1rfrom
Leagle.com.


PREFERRED BUILDING: Faces "Pupo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Dionisio Campos Pupo and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Preferred Building Services, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-20963 (S.D. Fla., March 9, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Preferred Building Services, Inc. provides complete janitorial and
building maintenance services and regularly transacts business
within Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PRICELINE GROUP: Deadline to Appeal Case Dismissal Has Expired
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Priceline Group Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the time to appeal
an October 27, 2014 decision dismissing a class action lawsuit has
expired and the matter is closed.

"On August 20, 2012, one complaint was filed on behalf of a
putative class of persons who purchased hotel room reservations
from certain hotels (the "Hotel Defendants") through certain OTC
defendants, including us," the Company said.  "The initial
complaint, Turik v. Expedia, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-4365, filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
alleged that the Hotel Defendants and the OTC defendants violated
U.S. federal and state laws by entering into a conspiracy to
enforce a minimum resale price maintenance scheme pursuant to
which putative class members paid inflated prices for hotel room
reservations that they purchased through the OTC defendants.
Thirty-one other complaints containing similar allegations were
filed in a number of federal jurisdictions across the country.
Plaintiffs in these actions sought treble damages and injunctive
relief."

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML")
consolidated all of the pending cases under 28 U.S.C. Sec.1407
before Judge Boyle in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas. On May 1, 2013, an amended consolidated
complaint was filed.

On February 18, 2014, Judge Boyle dismissed the amended
consolidated complaint without prejudice. On October 27, 2014 the
court denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a proposed
Second Consolidated Amended Complaint, and on October 28, 2014 the
court issued a final judgment dismissing the case with prejudice.
The time to appeal the court's October 27, 2014 decision has
expired and the matter is closed.


PRICELINE GROUP: Updates on Travel Transaction Tax Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Priceline Group Inc., in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, provided updates on
litigation related to travel transaction taxes.

"We and certain third-party online travel companies ("OTCs") are
currently involved in approximately forty lawsuits, including
certified and putative class actions, brought by or against U.S.
states, cities and counties over issues involving the payment of
travel transaction taxes (e.g., hotel occupancy taxes, excise
taxes, sales taxes, etc.).  Our subsidiaries priceline.com LLC,
Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC are named in some but not all
of these cases," the Company said.  "Generally, the complaints
allege, among other things, that the OTCs violated each
jurisdiction's respective relevant travel transaction tax
ordinance with respect to the charge and remittance of amounts to
cover taxes under each law.  The complaints typically seek
compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by law,
attorneys' fees and other relief."

"In addition, approximately seventy-nine municipalities or
counties, and at least eleven states, have initiated audit
proceedings (including proceedings initiated by more than forty
municipalities in California, which have been inactive for several
years), issued proposed tax assessments or started inquiries
relating to the payment of travel transaction taxes.  Additional
state and local jurisdictions are likely to assert that we are
subject to travel transaction taxes and could seek to collect such
taxes, retroactively and/or prospectively.

"With respect to the principal claims in these matters, we believe
that the laws at issue do not apply to the services we provide,
namely the facilitation of travel reservations, and, therefore,
that we do not owe the taxes that are claimed to be owed.  Rather,
we believe that the laws at issue generally impose travel
transaction taxes on entities that own, operate or control hotels
(or similar businesses) or furnish or provide hotel rooms or
similar accommodations or other travel services.  In addition, in
many of these matters, the taxing jurisdictions have asserted
claims for "conversion" -- essentially, that we have collected a
tax and wrongfully "pocketed" those tax dollars -- a claim that we
believe is without basis and have vigorously contested.  The
taxing jurisdictions that are currently involved in litigation and
other proceedings with us, and that may be involved in future
proceedings, have asserted contrary positions and will likely
continue to do so.  From time to time, we have found it expedient
to settle, and may in the future agree to settle, claims pending
in these matters without conceding that the claims at issue are
meritorious or that the claimed taxes are in fact due to be paid.

"In connection with some of these tax audits and assessments, we
may be required to pay any assessed taxes, which amounts may be
substantial, prior to being allowed to contest the assessments and
the applicability of the laws in judicial proceedings.  This
requirement is commonly referred to as "pay to play" or "pay
first."  For example, the City and County of San Francisco
assessed the Company approximately $3.4 million (an amount that
includes interest and penalties) relating to hotel occupancy
taxes, which the Company paid in July 2009, and issued a second
assessment totaling approximately $2.7 million, which the Company
paid in January 2013.  Payment of these amounts, if any, is not an
admission that we believe we are subject to such taxes.  In the
San Francisco action, for example, the court ruled in February
2013 that we and OTCs do not owe transient accommodations tax to
the city and ordered the city to refund the amount paid in July
2009; we also are seeking a refund of the amount paid in January
2013. San Francisco has appealed the court's ruling and has not
refunded the amount paid in July 2009 pending resolution of the
appeal. The matter has been stayed while the appeal in another
case with the City of San Diego is pending before the California
Supreme Court.

"Litigation is subject to uncertainty and there could be adverse
developments in these pending or future cases and proceedings.
For example, in January 2013, the Tax Appeal Court for the State
of Hawaii held that we and other OTCs are not liable for the
State's transient accommodations tax, but held that the OTCs,
including us, are liable for the State's general excise tax on the
full amount the OTC collects from the customer for a hotel room
reservation, without any offset for amounts passed through to the
hotel. We recorded an accrual for travel transaction taxes
(including estimated interest and penalties), with a corresponding
charge to cost of revenues, of approximately $16.5 million in
December 2012 and approximately $18.7 million in the three months
ended March 31, 2013, primarily related to this ruling. During the
years ended December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2014, we paid
approximately $20.6 million and $2.2 million, respectively, to the
State of Hawaii related to this ruling. We have filed an appeal
now pending before the Hawaii Supreme Court.

"Other adverse rulings include a decision in September 2012, in
which the Superior Court in the District of Columbia granted
summary judgment in favor of the District and against the OTCs
ruling that tax is due on the OTCs' margin and service fees, which
we are appealing. As a result, we increased our accrual for travel
transaction taxes (including estimated interest), with a
corresponding charge to cost of revenues, by approximately $4.8
million in September 2012 and by approximately $5.6 million in the
three months ended March 31, 2013. Also, in July 2013, the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, ruled that we and the other OTCs
are liable for tax and other obligations under the Chicago Hotel
Accommodations Tax. In July 2014, we resolved all claims in this
case through settlement and the claims against us were dismissed
on September 3, 2014. In addition, in October 2009, a jury in a
San Antonio class action found that we and the other OTCs that are
defendants in the lawsuit "control" hotels for purposes of the
local hotel occupancy tax ordinances at issue and are, therefore,
subject to the requirements of those ordinances. We intend to
vigorously appeal the trial court's judgment when it becomes
final.

"An unfavorable outcome or settlement of pending litigation may
encourage the commencement of additional litigation, audit
proceedings or other regulatory inquiries and also could result in
substantial liabilities for past and/or future bookings,
including, among other things, interest, penalties, punitive
damages and/or attorney fees and costs.  There have been, and will
continue to be, substantial ongoing costs, which may include "pay
first" payments, associated with defending our position in pending
and any future cases or proceedings.  An adverse outcome in one or
more of these unresolved proceedings could have a material adverse
effect on our business and could be material to our results of
operations or cash flow in any given operating period. However, we
believe that even if we were to suffer adverse determinations in
the near term in more of the pending proceedings than currently
anticipated, given results to date it would not have a material
impact on our liquidity because of our available cash.

"To the extent that any tax authority succeeds in asserting that
our services are subject to travel transaction taxes and that we
have a tax collection responsibility for those taxes, or we
determine that we have such a responsibility, with respect to
future transactions we may collect any such additional tax
obligation from our customers, which would have the effect of
increasing the cost of travel reservations to our customers and,
consequently, could make our travel reservation services less
competitive (as compared to the services of other OTCs or travel
service providers) and reduce our travel reservation transactions;
alternatively, we could choose to reduce the compensation for our
services.  Either action could have a material adverse effect on
our business and results of operations.

"In many of the judicial and other proceedings initiated to date,
the taxing jurisdictions seek not only historical taxes that are
claimed to be owed on our gross profit, but also, among other
things, interest, penalties, punitive damages and/or attorney fees
and costs.  Therefore, any liability associated with travel
transaction tax matters is not constrained to our liability for
tax owed on its historical gross profit, but may also include,
among other things, penalties, interest and attorneys' fees.  To
date, the majority of the taxing jurisdictions in which we
facilitate hotel reservations have not asserted that these taxes
are due and payable.  With respect to taxing jurisdictions that
have not initiated proceedings to date, it is possible that they
will do so in the future or that they will seek to amend their tax
statutes and seek to collect taxes from us only on a prospective
basis.

"As a result of this litigation and other attempts by
jurisdictions to levy similar taxes, we have established an
accrual (including estimated interest and penalties) for the
potential resolution of issues related to travel transaction taxes
in the amount of approximately $52 million at December 31, 2014
compared to approximately $55 million at December 31, 2013. Our
legal expenses for these matters are expensed as incurred and are
not reflected in the amount accrued. The actual cost may be less
or greater, potentially significantly, than the liabilities
recorded. An estimate for a reasonably possible loss or range of
loss in excess of the amount accrued cannot be reasonably made."


PRICELINE GROUP: To Defend Against Statewide Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------
The Priceline Group Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company intends
to vigorously defend against the claims in all of these
proceedings:

Statewide Class Actions and Putative Class Actions

Such actions include:

* City of Los Angeles, California v. Hotels.com, Inc., et al.
(California Superior Court, Los Angeles County; filed in December
2004); (California Court of Appeal; appeal filed in March 2014);

* City of San Antonio, Texas v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al. (U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas; filed in May
2006);

* Pine Bluff Advertising and Promotion Commission, Jefferson
County, Arkansas, et al. v. Hotels.com, LP, et al. (Circuit Court
of Jefferson County, Arkansas; filed in September 2009); (Arkansas
Supreme Court; appeal filed in March 2013);

* County of Lawrence, Pennsylvania v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.
(Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County, Pennsylvania; filed
Nov. 2009); (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania; appeal filed in
November 2010);

* City of Columbia, South Carolina, et al. v. Hotelguides.com,
Inc. et al. (Court of Common Pleas, Ninth Judicial Circuit, County
of Charleston; filed in July 2013); and

* City of Charleston, et al. v. Hotelguides.com, Inc. et al.
(Court of Common Pleas for Charleston County, South Carolina;
filed January 2014).

Actions Filed on Behalf of Individual Cities, Counties and States

Such actions include:

* City of San Diego, California v. Hotels.com L.P., et al.
(California Superior Court, San Diego County; filed in September
2006) (Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County)
(California Court of Appeal; appeal filed in August 2012);
(California Supreme Court; petition for review granted in July
2014);

* City of Atlanta, Georgia v. Hotels.com L.P., et al. (Superior
Court of Fulton County, Georgia; filed in March 2006); (Court of
Appeals of the State of Georgia; appeal filed in January 2007);
(Georgia Supreme Court; further appeal filed in December 2007;
petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition filed in December
2012; further appeal filed in November 2013 but transferred to
Georgia Court of Appeals in July 2014);

* Leon County, et al. v. Expedia, Inc., et al. (Second Judicial
Circuit Court for Leon County, Florida; filed November 2009);
(Florida First District Court of Appeal; appeal filed in May
2012); (Florida Supreme Court; jurisdiction accepted in September
2013);

* Leon County v. Expedia, Inc. et al. (Second Judicial Circuit
Court for Leon County, Florida; filed in December 2009); (Florida
First District Court of Appeal; appeal filed in October 2012);
(Florida Supreme Court; notice to invoke jurisdiction filed in
October 2013);

* Montana Department of Revenue v. Priceline.com, Inc., et al.
(First Judicial District Court of Lewis and Clark County, Montana;
filed in November 2010); (Montana Supreme Court; appeal filed in
May 2014);

* District of Columbia v. Expedia, Inc., et al. (Superior Court of
District of Columbia; filed in March 2011); (District of Columbia
Court of Appeals; appeal filed in March 2014);

* Volusia County, et al. v. Expedia, Inc., et al. (Circuit Court
for Volusia County, Florida; filed in April 2011);

* Town of Breckenridge, Colorado v. Colorado Travel Company, LLC,
et al. (District Court for Summit County, Colorado; filed in July
2011);

* County of Nassau v. Expedia, Inc., et al. (Supreme Court of
Nassau County, New York; filed in September 2011); (Appellate
Division, Second Department; appeal filed in April 2013);

* State of Mississippi v. Priceline.com Inc., et al., (Chancery
Court of Hinds County, Mississippi; filed in January 2012);

* Fargo v. Expedia, Inc. et al. (District Court for the County of
Cass; filed in February 2013)

* Village of Bedford Park, et al. v. Expedia, Inc. et al. (U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois; filed in
July 2013);

* Department of Revenue, Finance and Administration Cabinet,
Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Expedia Inc., et al. (Franklin Circuit
Court, Kentucky; filed in July 2013);

* State of New Hampshire v. priceline.com Inc., et al. (Merrimack
Superior Court; filed in October 2013);

* Puerto Rico Tourism Company v. Priceline.com Incorporated, et
al. (U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico; filed in
April 2014); and

* City of Phoenix, et al. v. Priceline.com Inc., et al. (Arizona
Tax Court; filed in August 2014).


SEATTLE SERVICE: "Thornell" Suit Goes to Wash. Supreme Court
------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the putative class action captioned SANDRA
THORNELL, Plaintiff, v. SEATTLE SERV. BUREAU, INC. and STATE FARM
AUTO. INS. CO., Defendants, CASE NO. C14-1601 MJP, (W.D. Wash.) is
a Texas resident. According to the Complaint, the Plaintiff
received allegedly deceptive debt collection letters from
Defendant Seattle Service Bureau (SSB), a corporation with its
principal place of business in Washington, pursuant to the
referral of unliquidated subrogation claims to SSB by State Farm,
a corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois.
The Plaintiff argued these letters constitute Consumer Protection
Act violations by both SSB and State Farm. She alleged she
incurred damages by signing up for a credit monitoring service and
retaining counsel.

The Court denied a motion to dismiss in other respects relating to
the WCPA claim, but did not reach a decision with respect to the
extraterritorial application of the Washington Consumer Protection
Act against Washington and Illinois defendants.

The matter is now before the Court on Defendant State Farm
Automobile Insurance Company's request in the alternative to
certify the question of the Washington Consumer Protection Act's
extraterritorial application to the Defendants in this case.

On March 6, 2015, Chief District Judge Marsha J. Pechman issued an
order certifying these questions to the Washington Supreme Court:

1) Does the Washington Consumer Protection Act create a cause of
action for a plaintiff residing outside Washington to sue a
Washington corporate defendant for allegedly deceptive acts?

2) Does the Washington Consumer Protection Act create a cause of
action for an out-of-state plaintiff to sue an out-of-state
defendant for the allegedly deceptive acts of its instate agent?

The Court stayed the action until the Washington Supreme Court
answers the certified questions.

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

Sandra Thornell, Plaintiff, represented by James L Kauffman --
jkauffman@baileyglasser.com -- BAILEY & GLASSER LLP, Michael L
Murphy -- mmurphy@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey & Glasser LLP & Beth
E Terrell -- bterrell@tmdwlaw.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT &
WILLIE PLLC.

Seattle Serv. Bureau, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey I
Hasson -- hasson@dhlaw.biz -- DAVENPORT & HASSON.

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., Defendant, represented by
Cornelius M. Murphy -- nmurphy@winston.com -- WINSTON & STRAWN,
Daniel L Syhre -- dsyhre@bpmlaw.com -- BETTS PATTERSON & MINES,
Joseph D Hampton -- jhampton@bpmlaw.com -- BETTS PATTERSON & MINES
& Thomas J. Frederick -- tfrederi@winston.com -- WINSTON & STRAWN.


SILVER STAR: Faces "Walton" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Taqiy Walton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Silver Star Limo.Com LLC d/b/a Silver Star Limousine,
Mario Darocha Sr., Emilia Darocha, and Mario Darocha Jr., Case No.
1:15-cv-01746 (S.D.N.Y., March 9, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked
in excess of 40 in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a transportation services company
with its principal place of business located at 47 Ash Street,
Yonkers, New York 10701.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
      Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
      PELTON & ASSOCIATES PC
      111 Broadway, Suite 1503
      New York, NY 10006
      Facsimile: (212) 385-0800
      Telephone: (212) 385-9700
      E-mail: pelton@peltonlaw.com
              graham@peltonlaw.com


SILVER STAR: Faces "Walton" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Taqiy Walton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Silver Star Limo.Com LLC d/b/a Silver Star Limousine,
Mario Darocha, Sr., Emila Darocha, and Mario Darocha, Jr., Case
No. 7:15-cv-01746 (S.D.N.Y., March 9, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Silver Star Limo.Com LLC is a chauffeur limousine service located
in Yonkers, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SOL EXPRESS: Faces "Viant" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Icel Robert Viant, and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. Sec. 216(b) v. SOL Express, Inc., Ismael Corzo, Jr., Case
No. 1:15-cv-20950 (S.D. Fla., March 9, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in
excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a freight shipping and trucking
company that regularly transacts business within Miami-Dade
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SPECTRUM TRACER: "Thomas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Billy Thomas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Spectrum Tracer Services, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00113
(S.D. Tex., March 9, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Spectrum Tracer Services, LLC is an oilfield service company
providing oilfield tracer chemicals and tracer services for
hydraulic fracturing processes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP
      1150 Bissonnet St
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com


SULLIVAN, NY: BOE Deprives Hasidic Jews Rights to Vote, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moshe Smilowitz, et al., on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. The Sullivan County Board of Elections,
Ann Prusinski and Rodney Gaebel, individually and in their
official capacities, Case No. 1:15-cv-01757 (S.D.N.Y., March 9,
2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' unyielding discriminatory
campaign to deprive Hasidic Jewish residents of Bloomingburg, New
York of the fundamental right to vote.

The Sullivan County Board of Elections is responsible for the
registration and enrollment of voters within Sullivan County, New
York

Ann Prusinski and Rodney Gaebel are the two Commissioners of the
Sullivan County Board of Elections.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven A. Engel, Esq.
      Jamie Rachel Hacker, Esq.
      Michael H. Park, Esq.
      DECHERT, LLP
      1095 Avenue of the Americas
      New York, NY 10036-6797
      Telephone: (212) 641-5636
      E-mail: steven.engel@dechert.com
              jamie.hacker@dechert.com
              michael.park@dechert.com


SUNCOAST BUILDERS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Foster, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
Suncoast Builders Development, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-00527 (M.D.
Fla., March 9, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, an
additional amount as liquidated damages, declaratory relief and
reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Suncoast Builders Development, Inc. is a Florida corporation that
concrete, masonry, and metal building to general contractors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard Bernard Celler, Esq.
      RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
      Suite 230, 7450 Griffin Road
      Davie, FL 33314
      Telephone: (866) 344-9243
      Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
      E-mail: richard@floridaovertimelawyer.com


TARGET CORPORATION: Faces "Greenfield" Suit Over Misbranding
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Greenfield, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Target Corporation and NBTY, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
20955 (S.D. Fla., March 9, 2015), arises out of the Defendants'
false and misleading representation of their store-brand herbal
supplements that did not contain the herbs identified on their
products' labels but rather contain unlisted fillers such as rice,
beans, garlic, wheat, citrus, and house plants.

Target Corporation is Minnesota Corporation, which the second-
largest discount retailer in the United States.

NBTY, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, which is one of the largest
retailers, manufacturers, and distributors of vitamins,
nutritional supplements, and related products in the United
States, with operations throughout the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
      Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, Esq.
      Robert J. Neary, Esq.
      Tal J. Lifshitz, Esq.
      Monica McNulty, Esq.
      KOZYAK, TROPIN &
      THROCKMORTON LLP
      2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Telephone: (305) 372-1800
      Facsimile: (305) 372-3508
      E-mail: amm@kttlaw.com
              rn@kttlaw.com
              tjl@kttlaw.com
              mmcnulty@kttlaw.com

         - and -

      Jack Scarola, Esq.
      SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA
      BARNHART & SHIPLEY
      2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
      West Palm Beach, FL 33409
      Telephone: (561) 686-6300
      Facsimile: (561) 383-9451
      E-mail: JSX@SearcyLaw.com

         - and -

      Steven C. Marks, Esq.
      PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
      25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 358-2800
      E-mail: smarks@podhurst.com

         - and -

      Lance A. Harke, Esq.
      Sarah Engel, Esq.
      Howard M. Bushman, Esq.
      HARKE CLASBY & BUSHMAN LLP
      9699 NE Second Avenue
      Miami Shores, FL 33138
      Telephone: (305) 536-8220
      Facsimile: (305) 536-8229
      E-mail: lharke@harkeclasby.com
              sengel@harkeclasby.com
              hbushman@harkeclasby.com

         - and -

      Patrick Spellacy, Esq.
      KIRWAN, SPELLACY & DANNER, P.A.
      200 South Andrews Avenue, 8th Floor
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 463-3008
      Facsimile: (954) 463-3010
      E-mail: Spellacy@kirwanspellacy.com


TD BANK: Faces "Robinson" Suit in S.D. Fla. Over Overdraft Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kendall Robinson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. TD Bank, N.A., Case No. 0:15-cv-60476 (S.D. Fla.,
March 9, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's routine practice of
wrongfully assessing its customers sustained overdraft fees.

TD Bank, N.A. is one of the ten largest banks in the United States
with principal place of business located in the State of Delaware.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John R. Hargrove, Esq.
      HARGROVE PIERSON & BROWN P.A.
      21 Southeast 5th Street, Suite 200
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 300-3900
      Facsimile: (561) 300-3890
      E-mail: jrh@hargrovelawgroup.com

         - and -

      John Joseph Uustal, Esq.
      Michael Aaron Hersh, Esq.
      KELLEY UUSTAL, PLC
      700 S.E. 3rd Avenue, Suite 300
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
      Telephone: (954) 522-6601
      Facsimile: (954) 522-6608
      E-mail: johnuustal@justiceforall.com
              mah@kulaw.com

         - and -

      Kristin D. Figueroa-Contreras, Esq.
      NEGRI, TORRES & FIGUEROA-CONTRERAS, PA
      The Minorca, Suite 214
      2030 S. Douglas Road
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Telephone: (305) 639-8599
      Facsimile: (305) 397-1384
      E-mail: kristy@negri-torres.com


TEMPUR-SEALY: Court Enters Discovery/Confidentiality Orders
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action captioned SHIRLEY "ALVIN TODD, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. TEMPUR-SEALY INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-04984-JST (MEJ), (N.D. Cal), Plaintiffs
bring claims against Tempur-Sealy International, Inc. and Tempur-
Pedic North America, LLC arising out of Defendants' marketing and
sale of mattresses, pillows, and other bedding products containing
TEMPUR(R) material. On February 27, 2015, the parties filed a
joint discovery letter regarding Plaintiffs' response to
Defendants' Interrogatory No. 1, which asked each Plaintiff to
"identify all persons with knowledge of the matters contained in
the complaint, and describe the topic areas about which each
person has knowledge."

After subsequent meet and confer efforts, Defendants learned that
Plaintiffs' counsel communicated with at least one former employee
of Tempur-Pedic that Plaintiffs have not identified. The
Defendants seek an order requiring Plaintiff Keith Hawkins to
supplement his amended response to include all persons known by
counsel to have knowledge about the issues raised in this case,
including counsel's contacts with current or former Tempur-Pedic
employees.

In an order dated March 6, 2015, District Judge Edward M. Chen
denied Defendants' request to compel a further response to
Interrogatory No. 1 saying "Defendants have not shown why they are
unable to determine the identity of their own former employees
and, despite their argument to the contrary, have presented no
evidence of any violation of a non-disclosure agreement or
disclosure of privileged information related to this individual.
As to Defendants' argument that Plaintiffs waived any claimed
privilege by serving their supplemental responses, it is unclear
how Plaintiffs' identification of "all persons enumerated in
Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint who complained about
Defendants' products" waives any claim of privilege related to
their counsel's informal consultation with a potential expert."
A copy of Magistrate Judge James' order is available at
http://is.gd/XvCdBQ from Leagle.com.

In a separate request, Tempur-Sealy moved to retain the
confidentiality of certain documents produced in the course of
litigation.

Magistrate Judge James ruled in an order entered March 6, 2015, a
copy of which is available at http://is.gd/Jj5rcifrom Leagle.com,
that the Defendant has shown good cause for maintaining the
confidentiality of the "Gallup Study Reports", as particularized
harm may result from disclosure of information to the public, and
the public interest in disclosure of the challenged materials does
not overcome Defendant's private interest in maintaining their
confidentiality.

"Accordingly, the Motion to Retain Confidentiality is granted as
to Appendix Docs. 1-8," ruled Judge James.  "However, Defendant
has failed to meet its burden as to the remaining documents.
Accordingly, Defendant's Motion is denied as to: (1) the Internal
Market Research document (Appendix Doc. 9); (2) Product Training
Guides (Docs. 10, 12, 14-16, 104-10, 119, 121-22, 131-47, 151-57,
160, 163, 174, 177, 186, 190, 201-02, 204, 207, and 211); and (3)
Internal Emails/Attachments (Docs. 11, 13, 17-25, 27, 29-37, 39-
45, 48-50, 59-103, 111-18, 120, 123-30, 148-50, 158-59,161-62,
164-67, 168-73, 175-76, 178-85, 187-89, 191-200, 203, 205-06, 208-
10, and 212-13). Defendant may redact any information about
specific customers."

Alvin Todd, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams --
aadams@shipmanlaw.com -- Shipman and Wright, LLP, Dana Marie Isaac
-- disaac@audetlaw.com -- Audet & Partners, LLP, Gary K Shipman --
gshipman@shipmanlaw.com -- Shipman and Wright, LLP, Jonas Palmer
Mann -- jmann@audetlaw.com -- Audet & Partners LLP, Michael Andrew
McShane -- mmcshane@audetlaw.com -- Audet & Partners LLP, Steve
Baughman Jensen -- sjensen@allenstewart.com -- Allen Stewart,
William G Wright -- wwright@shipmanandwright.com -- Shipman and
Wright, LLP & Allen Mark Stewart -- astewart@allenstewart.com --
Allen Stewart, P.C.

Brian Stone, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams, Shipman
and Wright, LLP, Dana Marie Isaac, Audet & Partners, LLP, Gary K
Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Jonas Palmer Mann, Audet &
Partners LLP, Michael Andrew McShane, Audet & Partners LLP, Steve
Baughman Jensen, Allen Stewart, William G Wright, Shipman and
Wright, LLP & Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C.

Robbie Simmons, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams, Shipman
and Wright, LLP, Dana Marie Isaac, Audet & Partners, LLP, Gary K
Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Jonas Palmer Mann, Audet &
Partners LLP, Michael Andrew McShane, Audet & Partners LLP, Steve
Baughman Jensen, Allen Stewart, William G Wright, Shipman and
Wright, LLP & Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C.

Thomas Comiskey, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams,
Shipman and Wright, LLP, Dana Marie Isaac, Audet & Partners, LLP,
Gary K Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Jonas Palmer Mann, Audet
& Partners LLP, Michael Andrew McShane, Audet & Partners LLP,
Steve Baughman Jensen, Allen Stewart, William G Wright, Shipman
and Wright, LLP & Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C.

Toni Kibbee, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams, Shipman
and Wright, LLP, Dana Marie Isaac, Audet & Partners, LLP, Gary K
Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Jonas Palmer Mann, Audet &
Partners LLP, Michael Andrew McShane, Audet & Partners LLP, Steve
Baughman Jensen, Allen Stewart, William G Wright, Shipman and
Wright, LLP & Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C..

Tina White, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams, Shipman and
Wright, LLP, Dana Marie Isaac, Audet & Partners, LLP, Gary K
Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Jonas Palmer Mann, Audet &
Partners LLP, Steve Baughman Jensen, Allen Stewart, William G
Wright, Shipman and Wright, LLP & Allen Mark Stewart, Allen
Stewart, P.C.

Johnny Martinez, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams,
Shipman and Wright, LLP, Dana Marie Isaac, Audet & Partners, LLP,
Gary K Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Jonas Palmer Mann, Audet
& Partners LLP, Michael Andrew McShane, Audet & Partners LLP,
Steve Baughman Jensen, Allen Stewart, William G Wright, Shipman
and Wright, LLP & Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C.

Keith Hawkins, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams, Shipman
and Wright, LLP, Dana Marie Isaac, Audet & Partners, LLP, Gary K
Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Jonas Palmer Mann, Audet &
Partners LLP, Michael Andrew McShane, Audet & Partners LLP, Steve
Baughman Jensen, Allen Stewart, William G Wright, Shipman and
Wright, LLP & Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C.

Patricia Kaufman, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams,
Shipman and Wright, LLP, Dana Marie Isaac, Audet & Partners, LLP,
Gary K Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Jonas Palmer Mann, Audet
& Partners LLP, Michael Andrew McShane, Audet & Partners LLP,
Steve Baughman Jensen, Allen Stewart, William G Wright, Shipman
and Wright, LLP & Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C.

Alan Kaufman, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams, Shipman
and Wright, LLP, Gary K Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP & Allen
Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C.

Sara Stone, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams, Shipman and
Wright, LLP, Gary K Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP & Allen Mark
Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C.

Jerry Kucharski, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams,
Shipman and Wright, LLP, Gary K Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP &
Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C.

Julie Davidoff, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams, Shipman
and Wright, LLP, Gary K Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP & Allen
Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C.

Ericka Anderson, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams,
Shipman and Wright, LLP, Gary K Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP &
Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C.

Kurt Anderson, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams, Shipman
and Wright, LLP, Gary K Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP & Allen
Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C.

Melody Todd, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams, Shipman
and Wright, LLP, Gary K Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP & Allen
Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C.

Diane Kucharski, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams,
Shipman and Wright, LLP, Gary K Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP &
Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C.

Tracey Palmer, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams, Shipman
and Wright, LLP, Gary K Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP & Allen
Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C.

Tempur-Sealy International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark
Lemar Eisenhut -- meisenhut@calljensen.com -- Call & Jensen,
Matthew Ryan Orr -- morr@calljensen.com -- Call & Jensen, Samuel
Gary Brooks -- sbrooks@calljensen.com -- Call & Jensen, Daniel Jay
Gerber -- dgerber@rumberger.com -- Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell,
P.A., Darren McCartney -- dmccartney@rumberger.com -- Rumberger
Kirk Caldwell, Douglas Bruce Brown -- dbrown@rumberger.com --
Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell, P.A. & Samantha Crawford Duke --
sduke@rumberger.com -- Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell.

Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC, Defendant, represented by Mark
Lemar Eisenhut, Call & Jensen, Matthew Ryan Orr, Call & Jensen,
Samuel Gary Brooks, Call & Jensen, Daniel Jay Gerber, Rumberger
Kirk & Caldwell, P.A., Darren McCartney, Rumberger Kirk Caldwell,
Douglas Bruce Brown, Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell, P.A. & Samantha
Crawford Duke, Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell.


THORATEC CORP: To Seek Dismissal of "Cooper" Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thoratec Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended January 3, 2015, that Defendants intend to move
to dismiss the Amended Complaint in the action, entitled Cooper v.
Thoratec Corp., by March 23, 2015.

"On January 24, 2014, we and three of our present and former
officers were named as defendants in a complaint filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. The action, entitled Cooper v. Thoratec Corp., Case
No. 4:14-cv-00360, is a putative class action brought on behalf of
purchasers of our securities between April 29, 2010, and November
27, 2013, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and alleges violations
of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On April 21, 2014, the Court
appointed Bradley Cooper as Lead Plaintiff ("Plaintiff"). On June
20, 2014, Plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint
("Complaint"), adding a former officer of the Company as a
defendant. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
Defendants made false or misleading statements in various SEC
filings, press releases, earnings calls, and healthcare
conferences regarding the Company's business and outlook, focusing
primarily on Defendants' alleged failure to disclose that the
HeartMate II Left Ventricular Assist Device had a purported
increased rate of pump thrombosis during the Class Period.
Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, among other relief.

"Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint on August 19, 2014. On
November 26, 2014, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss
the Complaint in its entirety with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed
a second amended complaint on January 20, 2015 ("Amended
Complaint"). In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff amended the Class
Period from May 11, 2011 to August 6, 2014, inclusive, dropped a
former officer of the Company as a defendant, and added Plaintiff
Todd Labak, who is intended to replace Mr. Cooper because Mr.
Cooper no longer has Thoratec stock purchases within the proposed
Class Period, among other changes. Defendants intend to move to
dismiss the Amended Complaint by March 23, 2015. Although the
results of litigation are inherently uncertain, based on the
information currently available, we do not believe the ultimate
resolution of this action will have a material effect on our
financial position, liquidity or results of operations."


THUNDERHORSE FLOWBACK: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Clint Briggs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Thunderhorse Flowback Services, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-
00346 (E.D. Tex., March 9, 2015), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Thunderhorse Flowback Services, LLC offers flowback and well
testing services to the oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP
      1150 Bissonnet St
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Faces Hamilton County Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Trinity Industries, Inc. has received service of process in a
lawsuit filed November 6, 2014, titled Hamilton County, Illinois
and Macon County, Illinois, Individually and on behalf of all
Other Counties in the State of Illinois vs. Trinity Industries,
Inc. and Trinity Highway Products, LLC, the Company said in its
Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on February 19, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

In this case it is alleged that the Company and Trinity Highway
Products made a series of un-tested modifications to the ET Plus
and falsely certified that the modified ET Plus was acceptable for
use on the nation's highways based on federal testing standards
and approval for Federal-aid reimbursement. The Plaintiffs further
allege breach of express and implied warranties, violation of the
Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act and unjust enrichment, for
which Plaintiffs seek actual damages related to purchases of the
ET Plus, compensatory damages for establishing a common fund for
class members, punitive damages, and injunctive relief. The case
is filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois and is being brought by Plaintiffs for and on
behalf of themselves and the other 101 counties of the State of
Illinois.


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Faces City of Stratford Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Trinity Industries, Inc. is aware of, but has not received service
of process in a lawsuit filed February 11, 2015 titled The
Corporation of the City of Stratford and Trinity Industries, Inc.,
Trinity Highway Products, LLC, and Trinity Industries Canada, Inc.
pending in Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the Company said in
its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 19, 2015, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014.

The class in this matter has been identified as persons in Canada
who purchased and/or used an ET Plus guardrail end terminal. The
Statement of Claim in this litigation generally alleges that
Trinity Industries, Inc., Trinity Highway Products, and Trinity
Industries Canada, failed to warn of dangers associated with
undisclosed modifications to the ET Plus guardrail end terminals,
breached its implied warranty, breached its duty of care, and was
negligent. Plaintiff is seeking $400 million in compensatory
damages and $100 million in punitive damages. In the alternative
to damages, Plaintiff further pleads an entitlement to "waive the
tort" and claim an accounting or other such restitution remedy for
disgorgement of the revenues generated by Trinity Industries,
Inc., Trinity Highway Products, and Trinity Industries Canada as a
result of the sale of the modified ET Plus guardrail end terminals
in Canada, due to the product not being fit for its intended
purpose and/or the failure to disclose the modifications and/or
risks associated with the modifications to the ET Plus guardrail
end terminals.


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Still Facing Train Derailment Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Trinity Industries, Inc. was named as a respondent in litigation
filed July 15, 2013 in Superior Court, Province of Quebec,
District of Saint-Francois, styled Yannick Gagne and Guy Ouellet
vs. Rail World, Inc., et al related to the July 2013 crude oil
unit train derailment in Lac-Megantic, Quebec. A partially-owned
subsidiary of the Company owned and leased to a third party 13 of
the railcars involved in the incident, which lessee is also named
as a defendant in the Province of Quebec litigation.

As of June 18, 2014, the petitioners in the Quebec litigation have
voluntarily desisted with their claims against the Company
resulting in the dismissal of the Company without prejudice;
however the partially-owned subsidiary remains as a respondent in
the litigation. The litigation filed in Quebec is seeking "class"
status which, if certified, could lead to multiple individuals and
business entities becoming class members.

The Company was also named as a defendant in multiple cases filed
by the estates of decedents in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois seeking damages for alleged wrongful death and property
damage arising from the July 2013 crude oil unit train derailment
in Lac-Megantic, Quebec. The Company's tank car manufacturing
subsidiary manufactured 35 of the 72 tank railcars involved in the
derailment. However the Illinois cases have since been ordered
transferred to the United States District Court for the District
of Maine. This transfer prompted plaintiffs to seek dismissal of
these actions. Nonetheless, the Maine court has not indicated
those dismissals were effectuated and the cases were transferred
to federal court in Maine and have been assigned new case numbers.

Certain of the plaintiffs in these transferred cases have appealed
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit seeking to
overturn the decision to transfer. This appeal has resulted in a
stay of all proceedings in the transferred cases pending
resolution of the appeal, Trinity Industries said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 19, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

The Company could be named in similar litigation involving other
affected plaintiffs, but the ultimate number of claims and the
jurisdiction in which such claims are filed, may vary. The Company
has recorded an accrual of $11.4 million at December 31, 2014
related to this matter of which expected third-party recoveries of
$10.2 million are recorded in other assets at December 31, 2014.

"We do not believe at this time that an additional loss is
probable nor can a range of additional losses be determined," the
Company said.


VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Faces Antitrust Class Action Complaints
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company
faces Antitrust Class Action Complaints filed in the United States
and Canada.

Since July 18, 2014, the Company has been named as a defendant in
purported antitrust class action complaints in the United States
and Canada. The complaints allege restraints of trade in aluminum
and tantalum electrolytic capacitors, and in some cases, film
capacitors, by the Company and other manufacturers, and seek
injunctive relief and unspecified joint and several treble
damages. The complaints in the United States have been
consolidated into complaints from direct and indirect purchasers.
In the consolidated U.S. complaints, the Company was only named in
the direct purchaser complaint, In Re: Capacitors Antitrust
Litigation, before the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.  In December 2014, Vishay, along
with the other defendants, filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated direct purchaser complaint.  Purported antitrust
class action complaints have been filed against the Company in
Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba.
The Company intends to defend vigorously against the complaints.


WAL-MART STORES: 9th Cir. Upholds $27.2MM Netflix Antitrust Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The 9th Circuit on February 27 upheld Walmart's offer to settle an
antitrust class action by paying Netflix DVD subscribers $27.2
million, reports Katherine Proctor at Courthouse News Service.

The original suit, filed in 2009 by lead plaintiff Andrea Resnick,
claimed that Walmart and Netflix cooperatively violated the
Sherman Act in a 2005 deal in which Walmart transferred all of its
online DVD-rental subscribers to Netflix.

Walmart took a 10 percent revenue share for the transfers, while
Netflix agreed to promote Walmart's DVD sales, the class alleged.

Netflix struck the deal to expand its primary business, a DVD-
rental mail service, into the online-streaming arena.

The subscribers alleged that the deal subjected them to
supracompetitive subscription prices.  Had Walmart remained in the
online DVD-rental market, they claimed, Netflix would have reduced
its prices to stay competitive.

In the 39-page appellate opinion, the three-judge panel said that
the trial court properly ruled for Netflix on this claim because,
when Walmart first entered the market, Netflix did not lower its
prices -- it actually increased them.

Netflix also did not lower its prices in response to a price cut
by Blockbuster, which at the time had a greater share of the
market than Walmart did, the court found, adding that Netflix
never viewed Walmart as a true competitor.

Six class members had who found the settlement unfair had appealed
the case.  They took particular issue with the cut awarded to the
nine class representatives.

The 43-page opinion on the settlement defines the class as "any
person or entity residing in the United States or Puerto Rico that
paid a subscription fee to rent DVDs online from Netflix on or
after May 19, 2005, up to and including the date the court grants
preliminary approval of the settlement, or some other date to be
agreed by the parties to this agreement."

The $27.2 million settlement consisted of a cash component and a
gift card component, and it required class members to claim their
awards.

According to the opinion, the cash component funded attorneys'
fees and expenses, administrative costs and incentive payments to
class representatives.  The gift card component provided class
members with a freely transferrable gift card to the Walmart
website, or its cash equivalent.

Divided among the 1.2 million claimants, the gift card component
came out to $12 per person.

The six objecting class members argued that, among other
complaints, the nine class representatives' awards of $5,000 each
were "unreasonably large" as compared with the awards for the rest
of the class members.

But the appellate panel said that the comparative awards were
reasonable because the totality of the class representatives'
awards constituted only 0.17 percent of the total settlement fund.
The panel also dismissed the objectors' complaints that the
settlement violated their rights to due process, since the terms
of the settlement were clearly stated in the notices emailed to
class members.  The objectors also failed to support claims that
the award's gift card component constituted a "coupon settlement,"
since the court found that gift cards have more flexibility and
purchasing power than coupons have.

In a separate opinion, the same appellate panel also upheld the
finding that the plaintiff Netflix subscribers did not present a
triable issue of fact.

The ruling also shaves the $710,000 in costs awarded to Netflix
for its discovery-related tasks in the case, a figure both the
class and Neflix had contested.

In reversing slightly, the court sided with the subscribers on the
fact that the costs of optical character recognition, TIFF
conversions and "endorsing" activities were non-taxable.

Netflix failed to show however that it deserved $21,000 for the
production of black-and-white PowerPoint documents before the
subscribers requested ones in color, the court found.

Chief Judge Sidney Thomas wrote both opinions for the court.

Objector-Appellants Frank, Cope, Cox, Bandas, Sullivan, and
Zimmerman are represented by:

          Theodore H. Frank, Esq.
          CENTER FOR CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS
          1718 M St NW #236
          Washington, DC 20036
          E-mail: tedfrank@gmail.com

               - and -

          Gary Sibley, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF GARY SIBLEY
          2711 North Haskell, Suite 550
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: (214) 522-5222

               - and -

          Joseph Darrell Palmer, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DARRELL PALMER PC
          2244 Faraday Avenue, Suite 121
          Carlsbad, CA 92008
          Telephone: (858) 215-4064
          Facsimile: (866) 583-8115
          E-mail: darrell.palmer@palmerlegalteam.com

               - and -

          Christopher A. Bandas, Esq.
          BANDAS LAW FIRM, P.C.
          500 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 1020
          Corpus Christi, TX 78471
          Telephone: (361) 698-5200
          Facsimile: (361) 698-5222
          E-mail: cbandas@bandaslawfirm.com

               - and -

          Christopher V. Langone, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER LANGONE
          207 Texas Lane
          Ithaca, NY 14850
          Telephone: (607) 592-2661

               - and -

          Grenville Pridham, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF GRENVILLE PRIDHAM
          2230 West Chapman Avenue
          Orange, CA  92868
          Telephone: (714) 486-5144
          E-mail: info@grenvillepridham.com

               - and -

          Joshua R. Furman, Esq.
          JOSHUA R. FURMAN LAW CORPORATION
          15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 2250
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 646-4300
          Facsimile: (818) 646-4301
          E-mail: jrf@furmanlawyers.com

The Plaintiffs-Appellees are represented by:

          Todd A. Seaver, Esq.
          Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Esq.
          Christopher T. Heffelfinger, 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
                  jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com
                  cheffelfinger@bermandevalerio.com

The appellate case is Andrea Resnick; Bryan Eastman; Amy Latham;
Melanie Miscioscia; Stan Magee; Michael Orozco; Lisa Sivek;
Michael Wiener, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. Theodore H. Frank,
Objector-Appellant v. Netflix, Inc.; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.;
Walmart.Com USA LLC, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 12-15705, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The
multidistrict litigation is captioned In re Online DVD-Rental
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 4:09-md-02029-PJH, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.


WHITING PETROLEUM: Dismissal of Cases, Except Sohler, Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
Whiting Petroleum Corporation said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K/A
(Amendment No. 1) Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 19, 2015, that defendants have filed
motions to dismiss with prejudice in all remaining class action
cases other than the so-called Sohler case.

Kodiak Oil & Gas Corp. on July 13, 2014, entered into an
Arrangement Agreement with Whiting Petroleum Corporation
("Whiting") and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Whiting ("Whiting
Canadian Sub") whereby Whiting Canadian Sub would acquire all of
the outstanding common shares as part of a plan of arrangement
(the "Arrangement").

Subsequent to the announcement of the Arrangement, seven purported
class action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of the Company's
shareholders in the United States District Court for the District
of Colorado: Quigley and Koelling v. Whiting Petroleum
Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-02023, filed July 22, 2014
(the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this lawsuit on September
24, 2014); Fioravanti v. Krysiak, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-02037,
filed July 23, 2014 (the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this
lawsuit October 24, 2014); Wilkinson v. Whiting Petroleum
Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-2074, filed July 25, 2014
(the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this lawsuit on October 23,
2014); Goldsmith v. Krysiak, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-2098, filed
July 29, 2014 (the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this lawsuit
on October 31, 2014); Rogowski v. Whiting Petroleum Corporation,
et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-2136, filed July 31, 2014 (the plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed this lawsuit on October 20, 2014); Reiter v.
Peterson, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-02176, filed August 6, 2014;
Sohler v. Whiting Petroleum Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-
02863, filed October 20, 2014 (the "Sohler Case"); and one
purported class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of the
Company's shareholders in Denver District Court, State of
Colorado: The Booth Family Trust v. Kodiak Oil & Gas Corp., et
al., Case No. 14-cv-32947, filed July 25, 2014. This last case was
removed to the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado on September 4, 2014 and is pending in that court now as
Case No. 1:14-cv-2457. It is possible that other related or
amended suits could subsequently be filed.

The defendants have filed motions to dismiss with prejudice in the
all remaining cases other than the Sohler Case. The allegations in
the three remaining lawsuits are similar. They purport to be
brought as class actions on behalf of all shareholders of the
Company.

The complaints name as defendants the individual members of the
Company's board of directors, Whiting and Whiting Canadian Sub and
list the Company as a nominal party or a defendant. The complaints
allege that the Company's board of directors breached its
fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders by, among other
things, failing to engage in a fair sale process before approving
the Arrangement and to maximize shareholder value in connection
with the Arrangement.

Additionally, the Sohler Case alleges violations under Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder. Specifically, the complaints allege that the Company's
board of directors undervalued the Company in connection with the
Arrangement and that the Company's board of directors agreed to
certain deal protection mechanisms that precluded the Company from
obtaining competing offers. The complaints also allege that
Whiting and Whiting Canadian Sub aided and abetted the Company's
board of directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The
Sohler Case alleges additionally that in issuing the preliminary
joint proxy statement/circular the Company's board of directors
violated the cited sections of and rule promulgated under the
Exchange Act. The complaints seek, among other things, injunctive
relief preventing the closing of the Arrangement, rescission of
the Arrangement or an award of rescissory damages to the purported
class in the event that the Arrangement is consummated, and
damages, including counsel fees and expenses. Whiting and the
Company believe each lawsuit is without merit.


ZAITZEFF BURGERS: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ernesto Licona Perez, Leonardo Rodriguez, Maximino Toxqui
Zambrano and Pedro Carretillo, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Zaitzeff Burgers Corporation
d/b/a Zaitzeff, Zachary Zaitzeff and Amine Zaitzeff, Case No.
1:15-cv-01720 (S.D.N.Y., March 9, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a hamburger restaurant located at
72 Nassau Street, New York, New York 10038.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



                             *********

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  * * *