CAR_Public/150326.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, March 26, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 61


                             Headlines

155 WEST 33 LLC: Accused of Disability Discrimination in New York
2285 REALTY ASSOCIATES: Violates Disabilities Act, Suit Claims
ABB/CON-CISE OPTICAL: Fixes Prices of Contact Lens, Suit Claims
ACCOMODATION BIO: Recalls Garlic Powder Due to Salmonella
AFNI INC: Faces Suit Alleging Fair Debt Collection Act Violations

ALTEC INDUSTRIES: Recalls Aerial Devices and Digger Derricks
ALTEC INDUSTRIES: Recalls Equipment Overt Parts Defect
AMERICAN INVSCO: Court Denies Plaintiffs' Bid for Attoneys' Fees
AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA: Violates Disabilities Act, N.Y. Suit Says
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Decision to Seal Documents Affirmed

ANTHEM INC: Faces "Sizemore" Suit for Not Securing Customers Info
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Hadley" Suit in Ind. Over Alleged Data Breach
APPLE GOLD: Moves "Woodham" Suit to South Carolina District Court
APRIA HEALTHCARE: Couser Suit Settlement Gets Final Court Okay
ARKANSAS COUNSELING: Removes "Glover" Class Suit to E.D. Arkansas

ARS NATIONAL: Sued in N.Y. for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
ATHENS-CLARKE, GA: Wins Partial Judgment in Retirees' Case
BEBE STORES: Court Won't Stay "Meyer" Litigation
CALIFORNIA: SSA Sued Over Same Sex Marriage Discrimination
CARROLS RESTAURANT: Faces Suit in Pa. Alleging Violations of ADA

CERTIFIED CREDIT: Collection Notices Violate FDCPA, Suit Claims
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Bid to Decertify in "Davenport" Denied
CHIMNEY SOLUTIONS: Deprives Class of Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
COBALT INTERNATIONAL: Bids to Consolidate 2 Class Suits Pending
CONSOLIDATED RAIL: Ct. Dismisses Wilson's Claims with Prejudice

COOPERVISION INC: Faces "Buckley" Antitrust Suit in California
COOPERVISION INC: Fixes Contact Lenses' Prices, "Loera" Suit Says
COOPERVISION INC: Faces "Brodsky" Suit Over Resale Price of Lens
COOPERVISION INC: Faces "Price" Suit Over Resale Price of Lens
CONSOLIDATED WORLD: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Moran" Suit Says

CORBET & CONLEY: Faces "Melchor" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CREDIT MANAGEMENT SERVICES: 8th Cir. Flips Cert. in Powers Suit
CRST VAN EXPEDITED: Cal. Judge Affirmed Judgment in "Shank" Suit
DAIMLER TRUCKS: Recalls 4,165 Cascadia Model Trucks
ECOTALITY INC: Final Hearing on Securities Suit Deal on Aug. 14

EHEALTH INC: Sued in N.D. Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
EXECUTIVE CELLULAR: Faces "Luna" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
EXXON MOBIL: Court Denies Class Certification Motion in "LeBlanc"
FESCO LTD: "Mata" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
FIRST AMERICAN: Court Decertified Class in Slapikas Action

FIRST AMERICAN: Court Certified Narrow Class in "Edwards" Suit
FIRST AMERICAN: Court Decertified Class in "Gale" Action
FIRST AMERICAN: Cross Appeal Filed in "Kirk" Case
FITOLOGY: Fails to Pay Employees for All Hours Worked, Suit Says
FRONTIER UTILITIES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Black" Suit Says

G.O.N.E. INC: Cal. App. Court Affirmed Judgment in "Barker" Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Malibu Model Due to Non-Compliance
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Encore Model Due to Non-Compliance
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 2015 Canyon Model Due to Airbag Defects
GRUNBERG 77 LLC: Accused of Unlawful Disability Discrimination

HERITAGE SERVICES: Faces "Shepard" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
HONEST ANSWERING: Suit Challenges Sending of Unsolicited Fax
HORIZON DISTRIBUTORS: Recalls Garlic Powder Due to Salmonella
INDIGENOUS: Recalls Children's Knitted Sweaters and Ponchos
IBIO INC: Faces "Pena" Class Action in Delaware

IOVATE HEALTH: Faces "Eashoo" Suit in Cal. Over Protein Spiking
JILL BELVIN: Faces "Anderson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
KAISER PERMANENTE: Sept. 14 Final Hearing to Approve Benton Deal
KEY ENERGY: Mud Engineer Wants to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
KINDER MORGAN: Del. Sup. Court Heard Oral Argument in Allen Case

KINDER MORGAN: Price Reporting Litigation Stayed Pending Appeal
KINDER MORGAN: Dismissal of Corp. Reorganization Case Sought
KINDER MORGAN: To Defend Against Capex Litigation
KINDER MORGAN: "Walker" Case Stayed Pending Capex Litigation
KINDER MORGAN: San Diego Appeal Remains Pending

KTECH MANAGEMENT: "Molina" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
LATSHAW DRILLING: Sued Over Failure to Give Layoff Warning
LENOVO US: Faces "Hayden" Suit Over Harmful Preinstalled Spyware
LENOVO US: Faces "Thweatt" Class Suit Over Superfish Spyware
LENOVO US: Faces JGX Inc. Suit Over Harmful Preinstalled Spyware

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Accused of Deceiving Wood Flooring Consumers
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Sued for Lying About Formaldehyde in Flooring
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Pinelli" Suit Over Toxic Floorings
MARIGOLD FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Smith" Suit Claims
MEADWESTVACO CORP: Class Suits Filed Challenging Biz Combination

MAXLINEAR INC: Faces Stockholder Actions in Del. Chancery Court
MAXLINEAR INC: Faces 2 Stockholder Class Suits in Cal. Super. Ct.
MIDWESTERN VIDEO: Fails to Pay Overtime Compensation, Suit Says
MONDELEZ CANADA: Recalls Golden Oreo Cookies Due to Mislabeling
NADOR INC: Recalls Ground Cumin Products Due to Almond

NAVISTAR: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Safety Hazard
NORTHLAND GROUP: 6th Cir. Revived "Buchanan" FDCPA Suit
O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: "Wood" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
ON2 TECHNOLOGIES: NY Appeals Court Upholds Denial of Settlement
OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports

P & K RESTAURANT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
PAPATEL INC: Illegally Contacted Class Members' Phones, Suit Says
PATTERSON-UTI DRILLING: Sued Over WARN Act Violations
PAYTIME INC: Storm and Holt Cases Dismissed for Lack of Standing
PITNEY BOWES: Wins Dismissal of "Atkins" Suit

PONTOON SOLUTIONS: Sued in C.D. California Over FCRA Violations
PPL CORPORATION: 6th Cir. to Review Cane Run Case Issues
ROYAL & SUN: Cal. App. Keeps Ruling in Clayton et al. Suit
S A GODINEZ: Dist. Ct. Consolidates Haywood and Norwood Cases
SEADRILL LIMITED: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports

SFBSC MANAGEMENT: Dancers Can Use Pseudonyms in Class Suit
SITEWISE CORPORATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
SOCIAL SECURITY: Faces Cal. Suit Over Civil Rights Violations
SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: "Esqueda" Suit Transferred to C.D. California
SPINRITE LIMITED: Recalls Tizzy Yarn Due to Entanglement Hazard

STAR SCIENTIFIC: "Baldwin" Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend
STRYKER BIOTECH: Physicians Healthsource Suit Goes to Trial
SUKHMANI INC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
TAKATA CORP: Faces "Schwebel" Class Suit Over Defective Airbags
TIFFIN: Recalls Breeze 2014 Models Due to Safety Hazard

TRANSILVANIA TRADING: Recalls Trader Joe's Walnuts
UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Final Hearing Held to Approve Settlement
UMPQUA HOLDINGS: March 27 Hearing to Approve Deal in Merger Suit
UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Opening Brief Due April 3 in Roseville Case
UNITED CONTINENTAL: Faces "David" Suit in District of New Jersey

UNITED STATES: Court Rejects Bid to Dismiss "Smith" Lawsuit
UNITED STATES: "Watkins" Wrongful Imprisonment Suit Dismissed
UNITED STATES: Lopez-Venegas Case Settlement Gets Final Approval
URBAN Q: Faces "Vergara" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
WEST ASSET: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y.

WILLIAMS ALEXANDER: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says
XPO LOGISTICS: Reached Deal to Settle Molina Class Suit
XPO LOGISTICS: Settlement in Pacer Buyout Suit Fully Performed


                            *********


155 WEST 33 LLC: Accused of Disability Discrimination in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Francis and Natasha Phillips v. 155 West 33, LLC, Hooters
of 33rd Street, Inc. and Hooters Management Corporation, Case No.
1:15-cv-01928-AJN (S.D.N.Y., March 13, 2015) opposes the
Defendants' alleged pervasive, ongoing and inexcusable disability
discrimination, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Ms. Francis suffers from medical conditions that inhibit walking
and is a wheelchair user.  Ms. Phillips utilizes crutches with
both arms to ambulate.

155 West 33, LLC owns the property located in New York County, New
York.  Hooters of 33rd Street, Inc. and Hooters Management
Corporation are licensed to do and do business in New York State.
Hooters of 33rd Street, Inc. and Hooters Management Corporation
operate or lease property located in New York City.  The
Defendants own and operate a restaurant.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Glen H. Parker, Esq.
          Adam S. Hanski, Esq.
          Robert G. Hanski, Esq.
          PARKER HANSKI LLC
          40 Worth Street, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 248-7400
          Facsimile: (212) 248-5600
          E-mail: ash@parkerhanski.com
                  ghp@parkerhanski.com
                  rgh@parkerhanski.com


2285 REALTY ASSOCIATES: Violates Disabilities Act, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Francis v. 2285 Realty Associates LLC, Barnes & Noble
Booksellers, Inc. and Barnes & Noble, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
01927-PGG (S.D.N.Y., March 13, 2015) opposes the alleged
pervasive, ongoing and inexcusable disability discrimination by
the Defendants.

The Plaintiff suffers from medical conditions that inhibit walking
and is a wheelchair user.

2285 Realty Associates LLC owns a property located in New York
County, New York.  Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. and Barnes &
Noble, Inc. operate and lease the Property.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Glen H. Parker, Esq.
          Adam S. Hanski, Esq.
          Robert G. Hanski, Esq.
          PARKER HANSKI LLC
          40 Worth Street, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 248-7400
          Facsimile: (212) 248-5600
          E-mail: ash@parkerhanski.com
                  ghp@parkerhanski.com
                  rgh@parkerhanski.com


ABB/CON-CISE OPTICAL: Fixes Prices of Contact Lens, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Sendzik, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. ABB/Con-Cise Optical Group LLC, Alcon Laboratories,
Inc.; Bausch & Lomb Inc.; Johnson& Johnson Vision Care, Inc., and
CooperVision, Inc., Case No. 0:15-cv-60534-DMM (S.D. Fla.,
March 13, 2015) alleges that the Manufacturer Defendants conspired
with each other and with ABB, a wholesaler, as well as independent
eye care professionals represented by ABB, to impose minimum
resale prices on certain contact lens lines by subjecting them to
so-called Unilateral Pricing Policies and, thereby, eliminate
price competition on those products by "big box" stores, and
Internet-based retailers by preventing them from discounting those
products.

ABB is a United States company headquartered in Coral Springs,
Florida, that has its contact lens manufacturing operation and one
of its distribution centers in Alameda, California.  Alcon is a
United States company headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas, that is
owned by Novartis.  J&J is a United States company headquartered
in Jacksonville, Florida.  B&L is a United States company founded
in Rochester, New York, and now headquartered in Bridgewater, New
Jersey; it is now owned by Valeant.  CV is a United States company
headquartered in Pleasanton, California.  ABB, Alcon, J&J, B&L and
CV make eye care products, including contact lenses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Curtis B. Miner, Esq.
          COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A.
          255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 476-7400
          Facsimile: (305) 476-7444
          E-mail: curt@colson.com

               - and -

          Christopher Lovell, Esq.
          Keith D. Essenmacher, Esq.
          Craig M. Essenmacher, Esq.
          LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN and JACOBSON LLP
          61 West Broadway, Suite 501
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 608-1900
          E-mail: CLovell@lshllp.com
                  KEssenmacher@lshllp.com
                  CEssenmacher@lshllp.com


ACCOMODATION BIO: Recalls Garlic Powder Due to Salmonella
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 19, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Accomodation Bio, Country Grocer (Salt Spring)
Distribution: British Columbia, Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail

The food recall warning issued on March 17, 2015 has been updated
to include additional product information. This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

Industry is recalling organic garlic powder from the marketplace
due to possible Salmonella contamination. Consumers should not
consume the recalled products described below.

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

Food contaminated with Salmonella may not look or smell spoiled
but can still make you sick. Young children, pregnant women, the
elderly and people with weakened immune systems may contract
serious and sometimes deadly infections. Healthy people may
experience short-term symptoms such as fever, headache, vomiting,
nausea, abdominal cramps and diarrhea. Long-term complications may
include severe arthritis.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of these products.

This recall was triggered by a recall in the United States by
Frontier Co-op of Norway, Iowa. The recall by the US company is
published on the website of the United States Food and Drug
Administration (USFDA). The CFIA is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If
other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

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

  Brand name   Common  Size     Code(s      UPC   Additional
  ----------   name    ----     on product  ---   info
               -----            ----------        -----------
Accommodation  "Ail   Variable  "Packed on" Vari- Sold by
Bio            en               dates       able  Accommodation
               poudre           31OC2014          Bio, located
               bio"             et 05NO2014       at 1298 2e
                                                  Avenue, Quebec,
                                                  Quebec from
                                                  October 31,
                                                  2014 to March
                                                  17, 2015
None           Organic Variable None        None  Sold from
               garlic                             bulk bins at
               powder                             Country
                                                  Grocer, located
                                                  at 374 Lower
                                                  Ganges Road,
                                                  Salt Spring
                                                  Island, British
                                                  Columbia from
                                                  January 1, 2015
                                                  to January 14,
                                                  2015

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


AFNI INC: Faces Suit Alleging Fair Debt Collection Act Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tonya Peterson-Simmons, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. AFNI, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00323-HLA-MCR
(M.D. Fla., March 13, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Taylor King, Esq.
          MICKLER & MICKLER
          5452 Arlington Expy.
          Jacksonville, FL 32211
          Telephone: (904) 725-0822
          Facsimile: (904) 725-0855
          E-mail: tjking@planlaw.com


ALTEC INDUSTRIES: Recalls Aerial Devices and Digger Derricks
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 16, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Heavy Trailer
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Other
Units affected: 82
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015112TC
ID number: 2015112
Manufacturer recall number: 15V-101

On certain aerial devices and digger derricks, the upstream 30A
breaker to the trailer relay module may react too slowly to
prevent the module from overheating, which could cause a short
circuit increasing the risk of fire, which could result in injury
and/or damage to property. Correction: Altec will instruct owners
to replace 30A breaker with a 20A breaker.

  Make        Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----        -----        ----------------------
  ALTEC       LRV SERIES   2012, 2013, 2014
  ALTEC       DM45         2012, 2013, 2014
  ALTEC       DM47         2012, 2013, 2014
  ALTEC       A77-T        2012, 2013, 2014
  ALTEC       LR7          2012, 2013, 2014
  ALTEC       AA55E        2012, 2013, 2014
  ALTEC       AM50/5/60    2012, 2013, 2014
  ALTEC       AN50E-OC     2012, 2013, 2014
  ALTEC       AP45A        2012, 2013, 2014
  ALTEC       A-T40C       2012, 2013, 2014
  ALTEC       D2/3/4B      2012, 2013, 2014
  ALTEC       D45/47       2012, 2013, 2014
  ALTEC       HD-35A       2012, 2013, 2014


ALTEC INDUSTRIES: Recalls Equipment Overt Parts Defect
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 16, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Equipment
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Accessories
Units affected: 17
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015111TC
ID number: 2015111
Manufacturer recall number: 15V-096

On certain Altec aerial devices, the base end cylinder lug casting
may crack, potentially causing uncontrolled movement of the boom,
which could result in injury and/or damage to property.
Correction: Altec will provide repair instructions and affect the
repairs accordingly.

   Make        Model        Model year(s) affected
   ----        -----        ----------------------
   ALTEC       LRV SERIES   2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
   ALTEC       L36A         2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
   ALTEC       L42E         2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
   ALTEC       LR7          2011, 2012, 2013, 2014


AMERICAN INVSCO: Court Denies Plaintiffs' Bid for Attoneys' Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties moved for attorneys' fees in the case, FRANK TADDEO
and AMELIA TADDEO, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN INVSCO CORPORATION, a
Delaware Corporation; NICHOLAS GOULETAS; KOVAL FLAMINGO, LLC, a
Nevada limited-liability company; CONDOMINIUM RENTAL SERVICES,
INC., an Illinois corporation; REBEKAH DESMET, Defendants, Case
No. 2:12-CV-01110-APG-NJK (D. Nev.).

Plaintiffs Frank Taddeo and Amelia Taddeo brought securities and
various common law claims against Defendants.  Plaintiffs' claims
arose from their purchase of a condo from Defendants. The Court
dismissed Plaintiffs' securities claims and the case proceeded to
trial on the remaining claims. At trial, plaintiffs prevailed on
their claims against Koval and AIC; and failed in their claims
Gouletas, CRS, and Desmet.

Koval and AIC have moved for judgment as a matter of law and for a
new trial.

AIC, Gouletas, and CRS argued they were entitled to fees for the
security claims they prevailed on. CRS and Gouleta also seek
attorneys' fees under Sec. 1927 and N.R.S. 18.010. These
defendants argued plaintiffs must have been asserting their
conversion and contract claims in bad faith or with unreasonable
grounds because little supporting evidence was introduced at
trial.

District Judge Andrew P. Gordon of the United States District
Court for the District of Nevada, in the Opinion dated March 17,
2015 available at http://is.gd/BvnYtlfrom Leagle.com, denied
without prejudice plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees. The
Court further ordered that defendants' motions for attorneys' fees
are denied in part and granted in part. Defendants AIC, Gouletas,
and CRS are entitled to attorneys' fees and costs incurred in
defending against plaintiffs' securities claims. Defendants shall
file affidavits and other supporting documentation as to the fees
and costs incurred defending against these securities claims, in
this case only. Defendants' motions are denied without prejudice
in all other respects.

Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
(PSLRA), Defendants are entitled to fees if plaintiffs brought
claims that were not reasonably supported by law or fact.
Plaintiffs failed to adequately address defendants' arguments
related on this point, and plaintiffs' own evidence indicated a
statute of repose applied to their failure to register claims.

Plaintiffs are represented by  Amy M. Gamage, Esq. --
agamage@gamagelaw.com -- William H. Gamage, Esq. --
wgamage@gamagelaw.com -- GAMAGE & GAMAGE; and Steven M. Shinn,
Esq. -- steven@mushlaw.com -- and Michael R. Mushkin, Esq. at
MICHAEL R. MUSHKIN & ASSOCIATES

Defendants are represented by Anthony J. DiRaimondo, Esq. --
adiraimondo@rrsc-law.com -- David A. Carroll, Esq. --
dcarroll@rrsc-law.com -- RICE REUTHER SULLIVAN & CARROLL LLP,
Jessica A. Green, Esq. -- JGreen@lipsonneilson.com -- Joseph P.
Garin, Esq. -- jgarin@lipsonneilson.com -- Shannon D. Nordstrom,
Esq. -- snordstrom@lipsonneilson.com -- LIPSON NEILSON COLE
SELTZER & GARIN, P.C., Kenneth B. Morgan, Esq. --
kbmorgan@camorlaw.com -- CAMPBELL MORGAN, P.C.


AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA: Violates Disabilities Act, N.Y. Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Francis v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
01926-AJN (S.D.N.Y., March 13, 2015) alleges violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff suffers from medical conditions that inhibit walking
and is a wheelchair user.

The Defendant own and operate a multiplex with six stadium style
movie theaters.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Glen H. Parker, Esq.
          Adam S. Hanski, Esq.
          Robert G. Hanski, Esq.
          PARKER HANSKI LLC
          40 Worth Street, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 248-7400
          Facsimile: (212) 248-5600
          E-mail: ash@parkerhanski.com
                  ghp@parkerhanski.com
                  rgh@parkerhanski.com


AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Decision to Seal Documents Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------
Current and former employees of Ameriprise Financial, Inc., filed
a class action against Ameriprise for breaching their fiduciary
duties to the retirement benefit plan resulting to losses.
Plaintiffs alleged that an Order issued by U.S. Magistrate Judge
Janie S. Mayeron on October 24, 2014, granting in part and denying
in part Plaintiffs' motion to Redesignate and Unseal Documents is
clearly erroneous, stressing that (1) Defendants may not properly
object to the disclosure of the confidential information; and (2)
even if those entities have a lawful interest in seeking to
protect that information, they have not demonstrated any actual
harm that they would suffer from disclosure.

District Judge Susan Richard Nelson of the United States District
Court for District of Minnesota in her Memorandum Opinion and
Order dated January 15, 2015, available at http://is.gd/qA2g7j
from Leagle.com, affirmed the Order issued by Judge Mayeron
stating that Ameriprise has provided specific facts demonstrating
that protection of the information at issue is necessary and
disclosure of such could harm.

The case is, ROGER KRUEGER, JEFFREY OLSEN, DEBORAH TUCKNER, SUSAN
WONES,and MARGENE BAUHS, individually and as representatives of a
class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the
Ameriprise Financial410(k) Plan,Plaintiffs, v. AMERIPRISE
FINANCIAL, INC., AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL, INC. EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE, MICHELLE RUDLONG, AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL,
INC. 401(k) INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS
COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL, INC.,
MARTIN SOLHAUG, and BRENT SABIN, DefendantS, Case No. 11-CV-
02781(SRN/JSM)(D. Minn.).

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq.
Michael A. Wolff, Esq.
SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON
100 South Fourth Street, Suite 900
St. Louis, MO 63102
E-mail: jschlichter@uselaws.com
        mwolff@uselaws.com

     - and -

Thomas W. Pahl, Esq.
Thomas A. Harder, Esq.
FOLEY & MANSFIELD, PLLP
250 Marquette Avenue, Suite 1200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
E-mail: tpahl@foleymansfield.com
        tharder@foleymansfield.com

Defendants are represented by:

Stephen P. Lucke, Esq.
Kirsten E. Schubert, Esq.
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
50 South Sixth Street, Suite 1500
Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498
E-mail: lucke.steve@dorsey.com
        schubert.kirsten@dorsey.com

     - and -

Benjamin G. Bradshaw, Esq.
Shannon M. Barrett, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
1625 Eye Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
E-mail: bbradshaw@omm.com
        sbarrett@omm.com


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Sizemore" Suit for Not Securing Customers Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Ann Sizemore, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Anthem, Inc.; Community Insurance Company d/b/a Anthem
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Ohio; and Does 1-10, Case No. 2:15-
cv-00897-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio, March 13, 2015) is brought for the
Defendants' alleged failure to secure and protect current and
former customers', as well as Anthem employees', sensitive
personally identifiable information and potentially healthcare
data and financial information, including names, birth dates and
Social Security numbers.

Anthem, Inc., previously known as WellPoint, Inc., is the second-
largest health insurer in the United States, and is incorporated
and headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.  Anthem also provides
health insurance to customers throughout the country as
HealthLink, UniCare, and in certain Arizona, California, Nevada,
New York and Virginia markets through its CareMore Health Group,
Inc., or CareMore, subsidiary.

Community Insurance Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Anthem, Inc.  Community Insurance Company provides individual and
group health insurance policies to consumers throughout Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert A. Perez, Esq.
          PEREZ LAW FIRM CO. LPA
          7672 Montgomery Road, Suite 378
          Cincinnati, OH 45236-4204
          Telephone: (513) 891-8777
          Facsimile: (513) 891-0317
          E-mail: rperez@perezfirm.com


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Hadley" Suit in Ind. Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Hadley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Anthem, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00403 (S.D. Ind., March
10, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide
adequate security and protection for its computer systems
containing patient's personally identifiable information and
personal health information.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hamish S. Cohen, Esq.
      Sean P. Burke, Esq.
      MATTINGLY BURKE COHEN BIDERMAN LLP
      3646 N. Washington Blvd.
      Indianapolis, IN 46205
      Telephone: (317) 614-7320
      E-mail: Sean.Burke@MBCBLaw.com
              Hamish.Cohen@MBCBLaw.com

         - and -

      Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
      Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
      Cari Campen Laufenberg, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
      Seattle, WA 98101-3052
      Telephone: (206) 623-1900
      Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
      E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
              gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
              claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com


APPLE GOLD: Moves "Woodham" Suit to South Carolina District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Woodham v. Apple Gold Inc., et
al., Case No. 2015-CP-16-0104, was removed from the Court of
Common Pleas of Darlington County, South Carolina, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina (Florence).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-01212-BHH to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants improperly withheld
"overtime wages" and that he and the class he seeks to represent
"were not paid overtime pay, as legally required."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Scott Kozacki, Esq.
          WILLCOX BUYCK AND WILLIAMS
          PO Box 1909
          Florence, SC 29503-1909
          Telephone: (843) 662-3258
          Facsimile: (843) 662-1342
          E-mail: skozacki@willcoxlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          D. Christopher Lauderdale, Esq.
          Andreas N. Satterfield, Jr., Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          15 South Main Street, Suite 700
          Greenville, SC 29601
          Telephone: (864) 232-7000
          Facsimile: (864) 235-1381
          E-mail: lauderc@jacksonlewis.com
                  sattera@jacksonlewis.com


APRIA HEALTHCARE: Couser Suit Settlement Gets Final Court Okay
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James V. Selna granted final approval of a class
settlement in the case captioned CARRIE COUSER, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. APRIA
HEALTHCARE, INC. and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of
them, Defendant. APRIA HEALTHCARE, INC. Counter-Plaintiff v.
CARRIE COUSER, an individual, on behalf of all others similarly
situated Counter-Defendants, CASE NO. SACV13-00035-JVS (RNBX),
(C.D. Cal.).

The Court granted final approval to the settlement and found that
it is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and in the best interests of
the Class as a whole. The settlement resolved all of the Class's
claims against Apria in exchange for Apria's agreement to provide
certain non-monetary relief, as well as Apria's agreement to pay
claims made by eligible Class Members as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims and debt forgiveness as
set forth in the Agreement.

No objections were brought to the Court's attention, whether
properly filed or not.

The Court also made final the conditional class certification set
forth in the preliminary approval order entered on October 27,
2014.


ARKANSAS COUNSELING: Removes "Glover" Class Suit to E.D. Arkansas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Glover v. Ted E. Suhl, d/b/a
Arkansas Counseling Associates Incorporated, d/b/a Trinity
Behavioral Health, d/b/a Lord's Ranch, et al., Case No. CV-15-68,
was removed from the Faulkner County Circuit Court to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (Little Rock).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-00148-JM to the
proceeding.

The collective action is brought for minimum wage and overtime
violations of the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, and the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Denise Reid Hoggard, Esq.
          RAINWATER, HOLT & SEXTON P.A.
          Post Office Box 17250
          Little Rock, AR 72222-7250
          Telephone: (501) 868-2500
          Facsimile: (501) 868-2505
          E-mail: hoggard@rainfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher Aaron Averitt, Esq.
          SCHOLTENS & AVERITT PLC
          113 East Jackson Avenue
          Jonesboro, AR 72401
          Telephone: (870) 972-6900
          E-mail: chris@scholtensaveritt.com

               - and -

          Tony L. Wilcox, Esq.
          WILCOX & LACY, PLC
          600 South Main Street
          Jonesboro, AR 72401
          Telephone: (870) 931-3101
          Facsimile: (870) 931-3102
          E-mail: twilcox@wilcoxlacy.com


ARS NATIONAL: Sued in N.Y. for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chana Sekula, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. ARS National Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-01315-SLT-RER (E.D.N.Y., March 13, 2015) alleges violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ATHENS-CLARKE, GA: Wins Partial Judgment in Retirees' Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Clay D. Land of the U. S. District Court for
M. D. Georgia granted the Defendant's motion for partial judgment
on the pleadings in the case captioned DAVID WOOD, on behalf of
himself and all persons similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
UNIFIED GOVERNMENT OF ATHENS-CLARKE COUNTY, GEORGIA, Defendant,
Case No.3:14-CV-43(CDL).

On May 15, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a putative class action for
breach of contract, contract impairment under the Georgia
Constitution and contract impairment under the U.S. Constitution.
They alleged that as part of their employment contract, Defendant
promised to award them "cost-free" health insurance benefits
throughout retirement at the same level they received on the date
of their retirement, including dependent coverage which the
Defendant amended through an ordinance in 2002 which the
Plaintiffs claim to be an anticipatory breach of the agreement.

The Defendant objected, saying the case is time-barred considering
that a considerable amount of time has elapsed upon the filing of
the suit which is contrary to the U.S. Constitution.

The Court in the Order dated January 13, 2015, available at
http://is.gd/un2mBDfrom Leagle.com, favored the motion of the
Defendant for partial judgment.  The parties were directed to
submit an amended joint proposed Scheduling/Discovery.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jefferey Spence Johnson, Esq.
     Dustin R. Marlowe, Esq.
     JUSTINE MARLOWE LLP
     455 Epps Bridge Pkwy, Suite 101
     Athens, GA 30606
     Tel: (706) 425-8740

          - and -

     Michael A. Caplan, Esq.
     CAPLAN COBB LLP
     1447 Peachtree Street, N.E. Suite 880
     Atlanta, GA 30309
     Tel: (404) 596-5600
     Fax: (404) 596-5604


BEBE STORES: Court Won't Stay "Meyer" Litigation
------------------------------------------------
MELITA MEYER, Plaintiff, v. BEBE STORES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
14-CV-00267-YGR (N.D. Cal.), sought to represent a class of
persons within the U.S. who purportedly received calls or messages
from defendant or its agents in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Defendant Bebe moved to dismiss
and strike the First Amended Complaint arguing that the FAC failed
to allege properly the use of an "automatic telephone dialing
system" (ATDS) as that term is defined by the TCPA.  That motion
was denied by the court. Bebe then moved to stay the action
pending a ruling from the Federal Communication Commission (FCC).
Plainitiff opposed.

Plaintiffs moved for class/collective certification and
preliminary approval of agreements settling the Spiff Claims and
the ASM Claims, to authorize settlement notices, and to appoint
class counsel.

District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the United States
District Court for Northern District of California in the Order
dated March 17, 2015 sourced at http://is.gd/ZgqSL3from
Leagle.com, denied Defendant's motion finding that a stay was not
appropriate under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. The Court
declined to exercise its inherent authority to stay this case
indefinitely on efficiency grounds. Not only would the stay be
indefinite, but the petition's relevance was questionable and
defendant's proffer was insufficient.

Plaintiff is represented by Karen Emily Nakon, Esq., Payam
Shahian, Esq., Michael George Devlin, Esq. at STRATEGIC LEGAL
PRACTICES, Dara Tabesh, Esq. -- dara.tabesh@ecotechlaw.com -- at
ECOTECH LAW GROUP, P.C., Matthew R. Mendelsohn, Esq. --
mmendelsohn@mskf.net -- at MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN LLC

Defendant Bebe Stores, Inc. is represented by Amy L. Pierce, Esq.
-- amy.pierce@pillsburylaw.com -- at PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW
PITTMAN LLP

Movant Samantah Rodriguez is represented by Richard David Lambert,
Esq. -- rlambert@stonebargerlaw.com -- at STONEBARGER LAW


CALIFORNIA: SSA Sued Over Same Sex Marriage Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------
Hugh Held and Kelley Richardson-Wright, on behalf of themselves
and all other similarly situated v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security, in her official capacity, Case
No. 2:15-cv-01732 (C.D. Cal., March 10, 2015), is brought on
behalf of the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients
married to someone of the same sex who were discriminated against
by the Social Security Administration (SSA), specifically by not
recognizing their marriages.

Carolyn W. Colvin is the Acting Commissioner of California Social
Security Administration.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gerald A. McIntyre, Esq.
      Denny Chan, Esq.
      JUSTICE IN AGING
      3660 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 718
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Telephone: (213) 639-0930
      Facsimile: (213) 550-0501
      E-mail: gmcintyre@justiceinaging.org
              dchan@justiceinaging.org

         - and -

      Anna Rich, Esq.
      JUSTICE IN AGING
      1330 Broadway, Suite 525
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 663-1055
      E-mail: arich@justiceinaging.org

         - and -

      Vickie L. Henry, Esq.
      GAY & LESBIAN ADVOCATES & DEFENDERS
      30 Winter Street, Suite 800
      Boston, MA 02108
      Telephone: (617) 426-1350
      Facsimile: (617) 426-3594
      E-mail: vhenry@glad.org


CARROLS RESTAURANT: Faces Suit in Pa. Alleging Violations of ADA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Damian Zipf, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Carrols Restaurant Group, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
00347-CRE (W.D. Pa., March 13, 2015) seeks relief pursuant to The
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CERTIFIED CREDIT: Collection Notices Violate FDCPA, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick McGeehan v. Certified Credit & Collection Bureau, Case No.
3:15-cv-01871-PGS-TJB (D.N.J., March 13, 2015) is brought on
behalf of all persons/consumers, who have received similar debt
collection notices or letters/communications from the Defendant
which are in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Certified Credit & Collection Bureau is a New Jersey company
engaged in the business of debt collection with an office in
Somerville, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON, P.C.
          1669 East 12 Street, 2nd Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 339-0856
          Facsimile: (347) 244-7178
          E-mail: yzelman@sassonlaw.com


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Bid to Decertify in "Davenport" Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Penny Davenport and three other named Plaintiffs filed a
collective action against Charter Communications for unpaid
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act FSLA, 29 U.S.C.
Sec. 207 wherein approximately 820 opt-in plaintiffs joined suit.
They brought this action on their own behalf and on behalf of
similarly situated call center employees who worked on an hourly
basis at Charter Communications.

The Defendant moved to decertify the FLSA collective action and to
stay discovery pending resolution of its decertification motion.
Chater argued that the Court's denial of certification of
Plaintiffs' Missouri claims clearly manifests that Plaintiffs'
FLSA collective action must likewise be decertified.

On the other hand, Plaintiffs move to stay or deny without
prejudice Charter's decertification motion until after the close
of all discovery, or at least until 30 days after the close of
expert discovery. Plaintiffs argued that the Court cannot base the
decertification decision on the same evidence as Plaintiffs'
motions under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 23 because in the span of time since
the Rule 23 motions were filed, several hundred more Opt-in
Plaintiffs have joined suit.

In the Memorandum and Order issued by District Judge Audrey G.
Fleissig of the United States District Court for Eastern District
of Missouri dated January 13, 2014, available at
http://is.gd/RbvTlvfrom Leagle.com, the Court ordered that (1)
Plaintiff's motion to stay briefing on Defendant's decertification
motion is granted; (2) Defendant's motion to decertify the
conditionally certified FLSA class is denied without prejudice;
(3) Defendant's motion to stay discovery is denied; (4)
Plaintiff's motion to compel is granted; and (5) Plaintiffs'
motion to extend expert deadlines is denied as moot, without
prejudice to including the requested extension in the joint motion
to amend the case management order.

Charter was allowed to refile the decertification after the close
of discovery and to produce prepared corporate representatives to
testify and personnel files and counseling notes for each Opt-in
Plaintiffs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure.

The case is PENNY DAVENPORT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHARTER
COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4: 12CV00007 AGF (E.D.
Mo.).

Penny Davenport, et al. are represented by Mark A. Potashnick Esq.
-- markp@wp-attorneys.com -- Weinhaus and Potashnick, Russel C.
Riggan, Esq. -- russ@rigganlawfirm.com -- Samuel C. Moore, Esq. --
smoore@rigganlawfirm.com -- Riggan Law Firm, LLC

Charter Communications is represented by Clifford A. Godiner, Esq.
-- cgodiner@thompsoncoburn.com -- Laura M. Jordan, Esq. --
LJordan@ThompsonCoburn.com -- and Tabitha G. Davisson, Esq. --
tdavisson@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn LLP


CHIMNEY SOLUTIONS: Deprives Class of Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael A. Walker Jr., On behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Chimney Solutions, Inc., John Susong &
Christian LeBlanc, Case No. 1:15-cv-00761-LMM (N.D. Ga.,
March 13, 2015) is brought to remedy the Defendants' alleged
violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act by depriving the Plaintiff and the class of their lawful
overtime wages.

Chimney Solutions, Inc., is a corporation based in Alpharetta,
Georgia.  The Company owns and operates a service-based business
maintaining chimneys in the Atlanta area.  The Individual
Defendants are owners or officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tyler Brand Kaspers, Esq.
          William F. Kaspers, Esq.
          KASPERS & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES, LLC
          75 14th Street, Suite 2130
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 888-3740
          Facsimile: (404) 888-3737
          E-mail: tyler@kasperslaw.com
                  bill@kasperslaw.com


COBALT INTERNATIONAL: Bids to Consolidate 2 Class Suits Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cobalt International Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that motions to
consolidate two class actions are currently pending.

Two purported stockholders, St. Lucie County Fire District
Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund and Fire and Police Retiree
Health Care Fund, San Antonio, filed on November 30, 2014, a class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers
of the Company's securities from February 21, 2012 through
November 4, 2014 (the "St. Lucie lawsuit").

"The St. Lucie lawsuit, filed against us and certain officers,
former and current members of the Board of Directors,
underwriters, and investment firms and funds, asserts violations
of federal securities laws based on alleged misrepresentations and
omissions in SEC filings and other public disclosures, primarily
regarding compliance with the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
("FCPA") in our Angolan operations and the performance of certain
wells offshore Angola," the Company said.

"On December 4, 2014, Steven Neuman, a purported stockholder,
filed a substantially similar lawsuit against us and certain of
our officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Texas on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of our
securities from February 21, 2012 through August 4, 2014 (the
"Neuman lawsuit"). Like the St. Lucie lawsuit, the Neuman lawsuit
asserts violations of federal securities laws based on alleged
misrepresentations and omissions in SEC filings and other public
disclosures regarding our compliance with the FCPA in our Angolan
operations," the Company said.

Among other remedies, both the St. Lucie and Neuman lawsuits seek
damages in an unspecified amount, along with an award of attorney
fees and other costs and expenses to the plaintiffs. Motions to
consolidate the two actions are currently pending. The deadline to
apply for appointment as lead plaintiff was February 2, 2015. The
Court set a scheduling conference on March 2, 2015 to consider all
pending motions.


CONSOLIDATED RAIL: Ct. Dismisses Wilson's Claims with Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE PAULSBORO DERAILMENT CASES. KATHLEEN A. POLLICINO, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants. DONALD WILSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CONSOLIDATED
RAIL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, MASTER DOCKET NO. 13-784
(RBK/KMW), CIVIL NO. 12-7648 (RBK/KMW)., 12-7586 (RBK/KMW), (D.
N.J.), before the court is the motion of Defendants CSX
Transportation, Inc., Norfolk Southern Railway Company, and
Consolidated Rail Corporation to vacate the notices of dismissal
made by Plaintiffs Donald Wilson, Mishon Wilson, Alvera Blanding
Robinson, Juan Serey, and Nicole Williams pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), and the crossmotion of Plaintiffs to
dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2).

Defendants contend that Plaintiffs filed their notices of
dismissal in order to avoid litigation in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey after the "adverse
ruling" denying class certification.

In an opinion dated March 13, 2015, a copy of which is available
at http://is.gd/VRPMIjfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Robert B.
Kugler wrote, "This Court will not grant a motion for voluntary
dismissal made solely in order to avoid an unfavorable ruling;
however, where plaintiffs have a legitimate reason for dismissal
and have shown that a dismissal would not result in prejudice to
defendants, the court may grant the voluntary dismissal
nonetheless. Even assuming that the denial of class certification
was an "adverse ruling," Plaintiffs have suggested a legitimate
reason for dismissal and the Court does not find that substantial
prejudice to Defendants would result from the dismissal of
Plaintiffs' claims."

For these reasons, Defendants' motion to vacate Plaintiffs'
notices of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(a)(1) is granted; Plaintiffs' cross-motion to dismiss pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) is granted; and Plaintiffs' claims
will be dismissed without prejudice, Judge Kugler added.


COOPERVISION INC: Faces "Buckley" Antitrust Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joanne Buckley, Nick Kehaya, Stephanie Kirkland, Lynne Lagarde,
Tyler Lambert, Christian Miller, Courtney Riley, Jim Ronecker
individually and on behalf of 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-01212-MEJ (N.D. Cal., March 13, 2015) alleges that as
a direct result of the Defendants' unlawful conduct, prices for
disposable contact lenses were raised, fixed, maintained, and
stabilized in the United States.

Cooper is a United States company headquartered in Pleasanton,
California.  Alcon is a United States company headquartered in
Fort Worth, Texas, that is owned by Novartis.  B&L is a United
States company headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey.  B&L is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Valeant Pharmaceuticals, Inc.  J&J is a
United States company headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida.  J&J
is a wholly owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, Inc.  ABB is a
United States company headquartered in Coral Springs, Florida.
The Defendants manufactured, distributed, and sold contact lenses
in the United States and its territories.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lesley E. Weaver, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          492 9th Street, Suite 260
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (415) 968-8999
          Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
          E-mail: lweaver@blockesq.com

               - and -

          Roger Sachar Jr., Esq.
          Peter Safirstein, Esq.
          Domenico Minerva, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          28 West 44th Street, Suite 2001
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (646) 863-5704
          Facsimile: (212) 564-1656
          E-mail: RSachar@MorganSecuritiesLaw.com
                  PSafirstein@ForThePeople.com
                  DMinerva@ForThePeople.com


COOPERVISION INC: Fixes Contact Lenses' Prices, "Loera" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Krysta Loera, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. CooperVision, Inc.; Alcon Laboratories, Inc; Bausch &
Lomb Incorporated; Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc.; and
ABB/Con-Cise Optical Group LLC (a/k/a ABB Optical Group), Case No.
1:15-cv-21033-RNS (S.D. Fla., March 13, 2015) alleges conspiracy
among four manufacturers of Contact Lenses and the largest
distributor of Contact Lenses in the United States to eliminate
discounting among retailers of Contact Lenses and to artificially
fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the prices charged to consumers
for Contact Lenses.

Alcon is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Fort Worth,
Texas, that is owned by Novartis International AG, a Swiss
multinational pharmaceutical company based in Basel, Switzerland.
J&J is a Florida corporation headquartered in Jacksonville,
Florida.  Defendant B+L is a New York corporation headquartered in
Bridgewater, New Jersey; it is now owned by Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.  CooperVision is a United
States company incorporated in New York and headquartered in
Pleasanton, California.  Alcon, J&J, B+L and CooperVision make eye
care products, including Contact Lenses.

ABB is a Delaware Corporation headquartered in Coral Springs,
Florida.  ABB states on its website that it "is the nation's
largest distributor of soft Contact Lenses," and that it
"suppl[ies] more than two-thirds of [ECPs] in America with brand
name Contact Lenses, high grade ophthalmic and fully customizable
Gas Permeable Lenses."  ABB is a wholesale seller of Contact
Lenses it purchases from the Manufacturer Defendants and services
over 19,000 independent eye care professionals (ECPs) nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq.
          PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
          25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 358-2800
          Facsimile: (305) 358-2382
          E-mail: rjosefsberg@podhurst.com

               - and -

          M. Stephen Dampier, Esq.
          THE DAMPIER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          55 North Section Street
          P.O. Box 161 (36533)
          Fairhope, AL 36532
          Telephone: (251) 929-0900
          Facsimile: (251) 929-0800
          E-mail: stevedampier@dampierlaw.com

               - and -

          Craig L. Briskin, Esq.
          MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC
          1250 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 822-5100
          Facsimile: (202) 882-4997
          E-mail: cbriskin@findjustice.com


COOPERVISION INC: Faces "Brodsky" Suit Over Resale Price of Lens
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juliana Brodsky, 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-01123 (N.D. Cal., March 10, 2015), alleges
that the Defendants entered into a conspiracy to impose minimum
resale prices on certain contact lens lines by subjecting them to
so called Unilateral Pricing Policies (UPPs) and eliminate price
competition on those products by big box stores, buying clubs, and
internet-based retailers that prevent them from discounting those
products.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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

          - and -

      Theodore B. Bell, Esq.
      Carl Malmstrom, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
      55 West Monroe Street, Suite 1111
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 984-0000
      Facsimile: (312) 984-0001
      E-mail: tbell@whafh.com
              malmstrom@whafh.com


COOPERVISION INC: Faces "Price" Suit Over Resale Price of Lens
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dusty Price and Jessika Stetler, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Bausch +
Lomb, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., Cooper Vision, Inc.,
and ABB Optical Group, Case No. 3:15-cv-01124 (N.D. Cal., March
10, 2015), alleges that the Defendants entered into a conspiracy
to impose minimum resale prices on certain contact lens lines by
subjecting them to so called Unilateral Pricing Policies (UPPs)
and eliminate price competition on those products by big box
stores, buying clubs, and internet-based retailers that prevent
them from discounting those products.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
      Thomas K. Boardman, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      The Chrysler Building
      405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
      New York, NY 10174-4099
      Telephone: (212) 223-6444
      Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
      E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
              tboardman@scott-scott.com

         - and -

      Casey L. Lott, Esq.
      LANGSTON & LOTT
      P.O. Box 382
      100 South Main Street
      Booneville, MS 38829
      Telephone: (662) 728-9733


CONSOLIDATED WORLD: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Moran" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nolan Moran, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Consolidated World Travel, Inc. d/b/a Holiday Cruise
Line, Case No. 0:15-cv-60482 (S.D. Fla., March 10, 2015), seeks to
stop the Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls to the
telephones of consumers nationwide.

Consolidated World Travel, Inc. offers cruise packages and
operates a cruise ship known as the Grand Celebration.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
      Ismael T. Salam, Esq.
      SIPRUT PC
      17 North State Street, Suite 1600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 236-0000
      Facsimile: (312) 241-1260
      E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
              isalam@siprut.com

         - and -

      Scott D. Owens, Esq.
      SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
      3800 S. Ocean Dr., Ste. 235
      Hollywood, FL 33019
      Telephone: (954) 589-0588
      Facsimile: (954) 337-0666
      E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com

         - and -

       Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
       Tina Wolfson, Esq.
       Brad King, Esq.
       AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
       1016 Palm Avenue
       West Hollywood, CA 90069
       Telephone: (310) 474-9111
       Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
       E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
               twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
               bking@ahdootwolfson.com


CORBET & CONLEY: Faces "Melchor" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Domingo Perez Melchor, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Corbet & Conley Bakery Inc. d/b/a
Corbet & Conley, George Jamieson, Renee Jamieson, Joseph
Castiglione and Mohammed Sama, Case No. 1:15-cv-01786 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 10, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime compensation for the hours in excess of
40 hours in a single week.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 145 E. 17th
Street, New York, New York 10003.

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


CREDIT MANAGEMENT SERVICES: 8th Cir. Flips Cert. in Powers Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, reversed a
district court order certifying four classes of Nebraska consumers
in a class action lawsuit commenced by Laura Powers.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action against Credit
Management Services, Inc., et al. for violations of various
provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, for unfair
or deceptive acts or practices also in violation of the Nebraska
Consumer Protection Act (NCPA).  The district court certified four
classes of Nebraska consumers.

CMS et al. sought interlocutory appeal of the district court's
order.

The Eighth Circuit said the trial court (1) failed to conduct a
"rigorous analysis" of what plaintiffs must prove to prevail on
their facial invalidity theories; (2) failed to address a legal
question whose resolution may depend on the facts of a particular
class member's claim; and (3) erred in ruling that plaintiffs'
separate claims against the in-house collection attorneys did not
affect class certification because "the question of individual
defendant liability should be addressed at a later stage in the
proceedings."  The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's
class certification order dated July 12, 2013.

The appellate cse is, Laura Powers, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees
v. Credit Management Services, Inc., et al., Defendants-
Appellants, Case No. 13-2831 (8th Cir.).  A copy of the Eighth
Circuit's Opinion dated January 13, 2015 is available at
http://is.gd/EIcBTZfrom Leagle.com.


CRST VAN EXPEDITED: Cal. Judge Affirmed Judgment in "Shank" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Shank sued CRST International, Inc. for sexual harassment,
intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Pursuant to a special verdict, the jury awarded plaintiff
approximately $391,000 in compensatory damages, $1.17 million in
punitive damages against CRST, and $3,500 in punitive damages
against Wilson. The trial court awarded plaintiff attorney fees in
the sum of not quite $433,000.

Defendants appealed, arguing that (1) there is no substantial
evidence to support the award of damages to Plaintiff of
approximately $391,000 for compensatory damages, $1.17 milion in
punitive damages against CRST, $3,500 in punitive damages against
Wilson and $433,000 attorney fees; (2) the Court erred by
admitting evidence of several other female drivers' sexual
harassment complaints and by excluding evidence of a decision in a
case where the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC)
has sued CRST; (3)Plaintiff is not entitled to ny damages based on
the avoidable consequences doctrine; and (4) they should have
recovered on their cross-complaint to collect tuition from
Plaintiff.

Plaintiff , on the other hand, claimed that the Court erred by
granting Defendants' judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV),
thereby striking the award of punitive damages; and that the Court
abused its discretion when it reduced the claimed hourly rate and
failed to use a multiplier in calculating her attorney fees.

Judge J. Thompson of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District
of California affirmed the judgment against Defendants, finding
that there is evidence of a hostile work environment sufficient to
support against all Defendants.  The judge found no evidentiary
errors in the judgment of the trial court since the Defendants
cannot preserve a defense based on avoidable consequence and
further stressed that the Court did not commit error in finding
for plaintiff on the breach of contract claim.

Judge Thompson agreed in the claims of the Plaintiff, and awarded
and reversed the punitive damages. In all other respects the
judgment is affirmed. Plaintiff has to recover her costs on
appeal.

The case is, KAREN SHANK, Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and
Appellant, v. CRST VAN EXPEDITED, INC., Defendant, Cross-
complainant and Appellant; CRST INTERNATIONAL, INC. et al.,
Defendants and Appellants, Case No. G049844 (Cal. App.).  A copy
of the Opinion dated January 14, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/n5vAzRfrom Leagle.com.

Karen Shank is represented by:

Karine Bohbot, Esq.
Elizabeth L. Riles, Esq.
BOHBOT & RILES, LLP
1814 Franklin Street, Suite 800
Oakland, CA 94612
Tel: (510) 250-7278
Fax: (510) 273-8911

Defendants are represented by Rick Richmond, Esq. --
rrichmond@jenner.com -- Christopher C. Chiou, Esq. --
cchiou@jenner.com,Jean -- M. Doherty, Esq., James T. Malaysiak,
Esq. -- jmalysiak@jenner.com -- Jener & Block.


DAIMLER TRUCKS: Recalls 4,165 Cascadia Model Trucks
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 16, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Lights And Instruments
Units affected: 4165
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015113TC
ID number: 2015113
Manufacturer recall number: FL-679

On certain vehicles water intrusion could occur, and corrode and
damage inside of the Signal-detect and Activation Module (SAM)
Chassis. This corrosion could cause electrical shorts or
intermittent operation of trailer tail lamps, trailer stop lamps,
trailer side marker lamps and trailer lighting. Failure of the
stop lamps to illuminate when the brakes are applied may result in
following road users being unaware of the driver's intentions,
increasing the risk of a crash causing property damage and/or
personal injury. Also, under certain conditions, an electrical
short in the Chassis SAM could also cause melting in the SAM or
other electrical components, which could result in a vehicle fire.
Correction: Dealers will inspect the Signal-detect and Activation
Module (SAM) Chassis for evidence of corrosion and proper drip
loop wire routing, and SAM Chassis damaged by corrosion will be
replaced. A drip shield will be mounted inside the cab over the
SAM chassis if not previously installed.

  Make         Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----         -----        ----------------------
FREIGHTLINER   CASCADIA     2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011


ECOTALITY INC: Final Hearing on Securities Suit Deal on Aug. 14
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Samuel Conti signed on March 16, 2015, a
stipulation and order continuing the hearing to consider final
approval of the settlement in In re Ecotality, Inc. Securities
Litigation, CASE NO. 3:13-CV-03791-SC, NO. 13-CV-03840., 13-CV-
45679, (N.D. Cal.).

Pursuant to the court-approved stipulation of the parties, a copy
of which is available at http://is.gd/3GbGptfrom Leagle.com, the
Settlement Hearing currently scheduled for June 26, 2015, will be
continued to August 14, 2015, as counsel for the Defendants are
unavailable to attend the hearing on June 26.

The stipulation relates to all actions.

COOLEY LLP, TOWER C. SNOW, JR. -- tsnow@cooley.com -- San
Francisco, CA.

COOLEY LLP, JESSICA VALENZUELA SANTAMARIA --
jsantamaria@cooley.com -- ADAM C. TRIGG -- atrigg@cooley.com --
Palo Alto, CA.

COOLEY LLP, JOSEPH B. WOODRING -- jwoodring@cooley.com -- Santa
Monica, CA, Attorneys for Defendants, H. RAVI BRAR --
rbrar@ecotality.com -- and SUSIE HERRMANN --
sherrmann@ecotality.com

ROBBINS GELLAR RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, CHRISTOPHER P. SEEFER --
chriss@rgrdlaw.com -- KENNETH J. BLACK -- kennyb@rgrdlaw.com --
San Francisco, CA, Lead Counsel for Plaintiff.

ZELDES HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP, AMBER L. ECK -- ambere@zhlaw.com --
San Diego, CA, Additional Counsel for Plaintiff.


EHEALTH INC: Sued in N.D. Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Laborers' Local #231 Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. EHealth, Inc., Gary L. Lauer and
Stuart M. Huizinga, Case No. 3:15-cv-01106 (N.D. Cal., March 10,
2015), alleges that the Defendants issued materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's operations, finances
and ability to meet financial targets.

EHealth, Inc. offers Internet-based health insurance agency
services for individuals, families and small businesses in the
United States, as well as technology licensing and Internet
advertising services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      Post Montgomery Center
      One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 288-4545
      Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
      E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      David C. Walton, Esq.
      Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101-8498
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
      E-mail: davew@rgrdlaw.com
              bcochran@rgrdlaw.com


EXECUTIVE CELLULAR: Faces "Luna" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
David Luna and Rafael Fland, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Executive Cellular Phones, Inc., Case
No. 2:15-cv-01205 (E.D. Pa., March 10, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Executive Cellular Phones, Inc. owns and operates T-Mobile retail
stores throughout Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Casey Green, Esq.
      SIDKOFF, PINCUS & GREEN, P.C.
      1101 Market Street, 2700 Aramark Tower
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 574-0600
      E-mail: cg@sidkoffpincusgreen.com


EXXON MOBIL: Court Denies Class Certification Motion in "LeBlanc"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff moved for class certification in the case, ROGER JEAN
LEBLANC, Individually and on Behalf of all others similarly
situated v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, Case No. 14-201-SDD-RLB (M.D.
La.).  The Plaintiffs are individuals who purchased gasoline in
March 2014 that had been distributed from Exxon's Baton Rouge
Terminal and produced at Exxon's Baton Rouge refinery. Exxon
concedes that, in March of 2014, Exxon distributed fuel from its
Baton Rouge terminal that contained elevated unwashed gum (UWG)
levels due to what appears to have been an accidental introduction
of Escorez(TM) resin into Exxon's gasoline production process.
Exxon offered evidence that, upon receiving consumer complaints,
Exxon shut down its Baton Rouge Terminal on March 26, 2014 and
established a claims handling program to address consumer concerns
and provided relief to those who sustained damages as a result of
purchasing the subject gasoline. According to the evidence, Exxon
has paid approximately $4.6 million in claims.

Plaintiffs moved for class certification under Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Exxon opposed.

Distict Judge Shelly D. Dick of the United States District Court
for Middle District of Louisiana, in a Ruling dated March 17, 2015
available at http://is.gd/sKuPpmfrom Leagle.com, denied
Plaintiff's motion for class certification due to the fact that
the claims failed the predominance and superiority requirements of
Rule 23(b)(3) and that the class is not ascertainable.

Plaintiffs are represented by Charles F. Zimmer, II, Esq. --
czimmer@cfzii.com -- Eric J. O'Bell, Esq. -- ejo@OBellLawFirm.com
-- O'BELL LAW FIRM, LLC, John H. Smith, Esq., Loren Diane
Shanklin, Esq. -- SMITH SHANKLIN, LLC, Paul M. Brannon, Esq. --
paul@georgia-elderlaw.com -- BRANNON LAW FIRM, LLC, Salvadore
Christina, Jr., Esq. -- schristina@becnellaw.com -- BECNEL LAW
FIRM, LLC


Defendants is represented by Andrew G. Phillips, Esq. --
aphillips@mcguirewoods.com -- Angela M. Spivey, Esq. --
aspivey@mcguirewoods.com -- Kelly Beth Hapgood, Esq. --
khapgood@mcguirewoods.com -- Ronald G. Franklin, Esq. --
rfranklin@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIRE WOODS LP, Michael Ryan Rhea,
Esq. -- mrhea@joneswalker.com -- William D. Lampton, Esq. --
wlampton@joneswalker.com -- James Conner Percy, Esq. --
jpercy@joneswalker.com -- JONES, WALKER, LLP


FESCO LTD: "Mata" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rigoberto Mata, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Fesco, Ltd., Case No. 2:15-cv-00118 (S.D. Tex., March
10, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Fesco, Ltd. is an oilfield service company with 22 locations that
provide many well testing related services.

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


FIRST AMERICAN: Court Decertified Class in Slapikas Action
----------------------------------------------------------
First American Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that most of
the non-ordinary course lawsuits to which the Company and its
subsidiaries are parties challenge practices in the Company's
title insurance business, though a limited number of cases also
pertain to the Company's other businesses. These lawsuits include,
among others, cases alleging, among other assertions, that the
Company, one of its subsidiaries and/or one of its agents charged
an improper rate for title insurance in a refinance transaction,
including:

* Levine v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on
February 26, 2009 and pending in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,

* Lewis v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on
November 28, 2006 and pending in the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho,

* Raffone v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on
February 14, 2004 and pending in the Circuit Court, Nassau County,
Florida, and

* Slapikas v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on
December 19, 2005 and pending in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

All of these lawsuits are putative class actions. A court has only
granted class certification in Lewis and Raffone. The class
originally certified in Slapikas was subsequently decertified. For
the reasons stated, the Company has been unable to assess the
probability of loss or estimate the possible loss or the range of
loss or, where the Company has been able to make an estimate, the
Company believes the amount is immaterial to the consolidated
financial statements as a whole.


FIRST AMERICAN: Court Certified Narrow Class in "Edwards" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
First American Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that most of
the non-ordinary course lawsuits to which the Company and its
subsidiaries are parties challenge practices in the Company's
title insurance business, though a limited number of cases also
pertain to the Company's other businesses.  These lawsuits
include, among others, cases alleging, among other assertions,
that the Company, one of its subsidiaries and/or one of its agents
purchased minority interests in title insurance agents as an
inducement to refer title insurance underwriting business to the
Company or gave items of value to title insurance agents and
others for referrals of business in violation of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act, including:

* Edwards v. First American Financial Corporation, filed on June
12, 2007 and pending in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.

In Edwards a narrow class has been certified. For the reasons
stated, the Company has been unable to estimate the possible loss
or the range of loss.


FIRST AMERICAN: Court Decertified Class in "Gale" Action
--------------------------------------------------------
First American Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that most of
the non-ordinary course lawsuits to which the Company and its
subsidiaries are parties challenge practices in the Company's
title insurance business, though a limited number of cases also
pertain to the Company's other businesses.  These lawsuits
include, among others, cases alleging, among other assertions,
that the Company, one of its subsidiaries and/or one of its agents
engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, including:

* Gale v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al., filed on
October 16, 2006 and pending in the United States District Court
of Connecticut.

The class originally certified in Gale was subsequently
decertified. For the reasons described, the Company has not yet
been able to assess the probability of loss or estimate the
possible loss or the range of loss.


FIRST AMERICAN: Cross Appeal Filed in "Kirk" Case
-------------------------------------------------
First American Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that most of
the non-ordinary course lawsuits to which the Company and its
subsidiaries are parties challenge practices in the Company's
title insurance business, though a limited number of cases also
pertain to the Company's other businesses.  These lawsuits
include, among others, cases alleging, among other assertions,
that the Company, one of its subsidiaries and/or one of its agents
overcharged or improperly charged fees for products and services,
denied home warranty claims, failed to timely file certain
documents, and gave items of value to developers, builders and
others as inducements to refer business in violation of certain
laws, such as consumer protection laws and laws generally
prohibiting unfair business practices, and certain obligations,
including:

* Bushman v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al., filed
on November 21, 2013 and pending in the Circuit Court of the State
of Michigan, County of Washtenaw,

* Chassen v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed
on January 22, 2009 and pending in the United States District
Court of New Jersey,

* DeLaurentis v. Data Tree Information Services LLC, filed on
January 16, 2015 and pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York,

* Gunning v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on July
14, 2008 and pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Kentucky,

* Kaufman v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed
on December 21, 2007 and pending in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Los Angeles,

* Kirk v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed on
June 15, 2006 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles,

* Sjobring v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed
on February 25, 2005 and pending in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Los Angeles,

* Snyder v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed on
June 21, 2014 and pending in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado,

* Wilmot v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed on
April 20, 2007 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, and

* In re First American Home Buyers Protection Corporation,
consolidated on October 9, 2014 and pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California.

All of these lawsuits, except Kaufman and Kirk, are putative class
actions for which a class has not been certified. In Kaufman a
class was certified but that certification was subsequently
vacated. A trial of the Kirk matter has concluded, plaintiff has
filed a notice of appeal and the Company filed a cross appeal. For
the reasons described, the Company has not yet been able to assess
the probability of loss or estimate the possible loss or the range
of loss or, where the Company has been able to make an estimate,
the Company believes the amount is immaterial to the consolidated
financial statements as a whole.


FITOLOGY: Fails to Pay Employees for All Hours Worked, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shahrzad Ardalan, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Fitology, Andrea Benson, John Benson, Independents by
the Book, Robin Pullara, and Does 1 to 10, Case No. 2:15-cv-01880
(C.D. Cal., March 13, 2015) alleges that the Defendants did not
pay the Plaintiff and the similarly situated employees for all
hours worked, including overtime compensation -- in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Fitology is a business entity with its principal place of business
in Los Angeles County, California.  Independents by the Book is a
business entity with its principal place of business in Los
Angeles County.  The Individual Defendants are residents of Los
Angeles County and are agents or employees of the Corporate
Defendants.  The Plaintiff does not know the true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam M. Rose, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR
          23277 Ventura Boulevard
          Woodland Hills, CA 91364
          Telephone: (818) 225-9040
          Facsimile: (818) 225-9042
          E-mail: adam@starrlaw.com


FRONTIER UTILITIES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Black" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Black, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Frontier Utilities, LLC, a Texas limited liability
company, Case No. 1:15-cv-01234 (E.D.N.Y., March 10, 2015), seeks
to stop the Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls to
the telephones of consumers nationwide.

Frontier Utilities, LLC is a retail electricity and gas provider
serving Texas, Pennsylvania, New York and New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew Wurgaft, Esq.
      KRAVIS & FILE, P.C.
      201 Washington Street
      Newark, NJ 07102
      Telephone: (201) 340-2664
      Facsimile: (201) 340-2666
      E-mail: mwurgaft@kravisfile.com

         - and -

      Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
      Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
      Courtney C. Booth, 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
              brichman@edelson.com
              cbooth@edelson.com

         - and -

      Stefan L. Coleman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, LLC
      201 South Biscayne Boulevard, 28th Floor
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (877) 333-9427
      Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
      E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com


G.O.N.E. INC: Cal. App. Court Affirmed Judgment in "Barker" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the appellate case, KELLY BARKER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.
G.O.N.E., INC. et al., Defendant and Respondent, Case No. F066342
(Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California, Fifth District
denied Barker's motion to file a late reply brief, granted his
motion to augment the record on appeal filed on July 21, 2014, and
affirmed the lower court's judgment and discovery orders.
Respondents shall recover costs.

This dispute started when an apartment complex claimed that
Barker, its former tenant, failed to pay rent and provide notice
that he was quitting the premises. Cheryl C. Koff d.b.a. G.O.N.E.,
sued Barker on these claims, alleging that it had received an
assignment of the apartment complex's claims against Barker. As a
result, a $1,833.62 default judgment was entered against Barker in
2004.

In the following years, Barker filed several lawsuits pertaining
to the complex's allegedly improper assessment of fees, retention
of his security deposit, and debt collection practices. Among
those actions is the present suit, a class action, filed in 2010.
Barker seeks recovery on various theories primarily pertaining to
his allegation that respondents used a perjured declaration to
obtain the 2004 default judgment.

The trial court granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings,
ruling that Barker's present suit is barred by (1) the 2004
judgment pursuant to the doctrine of collateral estoppel and (2)
the applicable statute of limitations.

A copy of the Court of Appeals' Opinion dated January 15, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/LKp1TMfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiff Kelly Barker is represented by:

     Martha Bronson, Esq.
     BRONSON & ASSOCIATES
     762 West 11th Street,
     Suite 330-Tracy, CA 95376
     Tel: (209) 830-0400
     Fax: (209) 832-5000

Attorney for Defendant G.O.N.E. INC., et al., is:

     Richard Schneider, Esq.
     DALEY AND HEFT LLP
     462 Stevens Ave Suite 201
     Solana Beach, CA 92075
     Tel: (858) 755-5666
     E-mail: RSchneider@daleyheft.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Malibu Model Due to Non-Compliance
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 18, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Compliance Mfr
System: Structure
Units affected: 4927
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015118TC
ID number: 2015118
Manufacturer recall number: 15176

Certain vehicles equipped with power-operated sunroof systems may
fail to conform to Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (CMVSS)
118 - Power-Operated Window, Partition and Roof Panel Systems. The
roof panels could close automatically when the non-recessed
portion of the "Slide' or "Tilt" switches are pressed and the roof
panel is open, which is contrary to the standard. The switch could
be more susceptible to an inadvertent actuation, which could
result in unintended auto-closure of the roof panel, increasing
the risk of injury. Correction: Dealers will update the Body
Control Module (BCM), which will remove the "one touch" (momentary
actuation) feature for certain switch positions.

  Make       Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----      ----------------------
  CHEVROLET  MALIBU     2013, 2014, 2015


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Encore Model Due to Non-Compliance
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 18, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Compliance
Mfr System: Label
Units affected: 2061
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015117TC
ID number: 2015117
Manufacturer recall number: 15166

Certain vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Canada
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 110 - Tire Selection and Rims. The
Tire and Loading Information Label does not contain the rim size
information for the front or rear wheels, contrary to the
requirements of the standard. This could result in incorrect
replacement rims being installed on the vehicle, which could
increase the risk of injury and/or damage to property. Correction:
Dealers will provide new corrected labels.

   Make        Model        Model year(s) affected
   ----        -----        ----------------------
   BUICK       ENCORE       2015


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 2015 Canyon Model Due to Airbag Defects
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 18, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D., Light Truck & Van
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Airbag
Units affected: 1
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015121TC
ID number: 2015121
Manufacturer recall number: 15037

  Make      Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----      ----------------------
  GMC       CANYON     2015


GRUNBERG 77 LLC: Accused of Unlawful Disability Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Terrell Thomas v. Grunberg 77 LLC and 359 Columbus Avenue, LLC,
Case No. 1:15-cv-01925-GBD (S.D.N.Y., March 13, 2015) seeks
declaratory, injunctive and equitable relief, as well as monetary
damages and attorneys' fees, costs and expenses to redress the
Defendants' alleged unlawful disability discrimination against the
Plaintiff, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff suffers from medical conditions that inhibit walking
and is a wheelchair user.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant (Isabella) located in
New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Glen H. Parker, Esq.
          Adam S. Hanski, Esq.
          Robert G. Hanski, Esq.
          PARKER HANSKI LLC
          40 Worth Street, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 248-7400
          Facsimile: (212) 248-5600
          E-mail: ash@parkerhanski.com
                  ghp@parkerhanski.com
                  rgh@parkerhanski.com


HERITAGE SERVICES: Faces "Shepard" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Shepard, individually, and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals v. Heritage Services, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-
10885 (E.D. Mich., March 10, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Heritage Services, LLC is a Michigan company that provides
transportation services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zachary A. Hallman, Esq.
      BURGESS SHARP & GOLDEN, PLLC
      43260 Garfield, Suite 280
      Clinton Two, MI 48038
      Telephone: (586) 226-2627
      Facsimile: (586) 226-2630
      E-mail: zach@bsglawfirm.com


HONEST ANSWERING: Suit Challenges Sending of Unsolicited Fax
------------------------------------------------------------
Medical & Chiropractic Clinic, Inc., a Florida corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-
situated persons v. Honest Answering, LLC and John Does 1-10, Case
No. 8:15-cv-00566-MSS-EAJ (M.D. Fla., March 13, 2015) challenges
the Defendants' alleged practice of sending unsolicited
facsimiles, in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act
of 2005.

Medical & Chiropractic Clinic, Inc., is a Florida corporation with
its principal place of business in Hillsborough County, Florida.

Honest Answering, LLC, is a Texas limited liability company with
its principal place of business in Houston, Texas.  John Does 1-10
will be identified through discovery, but are not presently known.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com


HORIZON DISTRIBUTORS: Recalls Garlic Powder Due to Salmonella
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 17, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Horizon Distributors Ltd., Indigo Natural Foods
Inc., Loblaw Companies Limited, PSC Natural Foods Ltd., Satau
Inc., UNFI Canada Central Region, UNFI Canada Grocery West
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail

Industry is recalling various products containing garlic powder
from the marketplace due to possible Salmonella contamination.
Consumers should not consume the recalled products described
below.

The following products have been sold nationally and through
Internet sales.

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

Food contaminated with Salmonella may not look or smell spoiled
but can still make you sick. Young children, pregnant women, the
elderly and people with weakened immune systems may contract
serious and sometimes deadly infections. Healthy people may
experience short-term symptoms such as fever, headache, vomiting,
nausea, abdominal cramps and diarrhea. Long-term complications may
include severe arthritis.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of these products.

This recall was triggered by a recall in the United States by
Frontier Co-op of Norway, Iowa. The recall by the US company is
published on the website of the United States Food and Drug
Administration (USFDA). The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)
is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the
recall of other products. If other high-risk products are
recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food
Recall Warnings.

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

  Brand name    Common name   Size   Code(s)      UPC
  ----------    ----------    ----   on product   ---
                                     ----------
Simply Organic  Vegetarian    28 g   5015, 5047   0 89836 18870 0
                chili
                seasoning
Simply Organic  Spicy chili   28 g   4260, 4282,  0 89836 18871 7
                seasoning            4343, 5016,
                                     5050
Simply Organic  Spicy chili   28 g   4212, 4260,  0 89836 18537 2
                seasoning            4272, 4282,
                                     4311, 4343,
                                     5016, 5050
Simply Organic  Ranch dip mix 42 g   4194, 4226,  0 89836 18877 9
                                     4274, 4315,
                                     4356, 5028
Simply Organic  Ranch         28 g   4147, 4195,  0 89836 18833 5
                dressing mix         4225, 4274,
                                     4315, 4356,
                                     5027, 5028
Simply Organic  French onion  31 g   4157, 4197,  0 89836 18878 6
                dip mix              4258, 4325,
                                     4364, 5040
Simply Organic  Guacamole dip 22 g   4148, 4302,  0 89836 18879 3
                mix                  4318, 4363,
                                     5029
Simply Organic  Guacamole dip 22 g   4148, 4176,  0 89836 18842 7
                mix                  4195, 4254,
                                     255, 4302,
                                     4318, 4363,
                                     5029, 5030   0 89836 18880 9
Simply Organic   Creamy dill  24 g   4156, 4197,
                 dip mix             4237, 4323,
                                     4365, 5035
Simply Organic   Fajita       28 g   5007         0 89836 20002 0
                 seasoning
Simply Organic   Fajita       28 g   4118, 4246,  0 89836 18535 8
                 seasoning           4287, 4332,
                                     5008, 5030
Simply Organic   Sweet basil  15 g   4364, 5037   0 89836 20004 4
                 pesto mix
Simply Organic   Vegetarian   28 g   4230, 4268,  0 89836 20007 5
                 brown gravy         4310, 5026
                 mix
Simply Organic   Fish taco    32 g   4245, 4300,  0 89836 18534 1
                 seasoning           4330, 5012
Simply Organic   Classic      35 g   4149, 4196,  0 89836 18836 6
                 Caesar              4232
                 dressing mix
Frontier         Powdered     453 g  4156, 4171,  0 89836 00352 2
                 Garlic              4238, 4297,
                                     4325, 4342,
                                     5033, 5041
Frontier         Low Sodium   453 g  4157, 4198,  0 89836 02780 1
                 Broth Powder        4240, 4281,
                 Vegetable           4328, 5002
                 Flavored
Frontier         Vegetarian   453 g  4157, 4178,  0 89836 02869 3
                 Broth Powder        4197, 4238,
                 No-Chicken          4239, 4267,
                                     4280, 4336,
                                     4353, 5007,
                                     5035, 5036
Frontier        Onion Soup &  453 g  4143, 4246,  0 89836 02918 8
                Dip Mix              4258, 4279,
                                     4290, 4318,
                                     4335, 4349,
                                     5036


INDIGENOUS: Recalls Children's Knitted Sweaters and Ponchos
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 19, 2015
Posting date: March 19, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Children's Products, Clothing and Accessories
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Strangulation Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-52631

This recall involves various designs and sizes of children's
knitted sweaters and ponchos with hood, neck and waist
drawstrings.

Health Canada has determined that drawstrings on children's upper
outerwear can become caught on playground equipment, fences or
other objects and result in strangulation, or in the case of a
vehicle, the child being dragged.

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

For more information on the hazards related to drawstrings on
children's upper outerwear and tips to help consumers eliminate
these hazards, see Health Canada's Is Your Child Safe, Industry
Guide to Second-hand Products, and Children's Sleepwear:
Flammability Requirement Guidelines fact sheets.

Approximately 50 of the recalled products were sold at Indigenous
in City Centre Mall in Edmonton, Alberta.

The recalled products were sold from December 2014 to February
2015.

Manufactured in Ecuador.

Distributor: Indigenous
             Edmonton
             Alberta
             CANADA

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the
sweaters and ponchos to eliminate the hazard.

For additional information, consumers may contact Indigenous at 1-
780-243-2615 from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. MST, Monday through
Saturday, and 12:00 pm to 5:00 p.m. MST on Sunday.

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

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/WVq1EH


IBIO INC: Faces "Pena" Class Action in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------
iBio, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2014, that a putative class action
captioned Juan Pena, Individually and on Behalf of All Other
Similarly Situated vs. iBio, Inc. and Robert B. Kay was filed on
October 24, 2014, in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware. The action alleges that the Company and its
Chief Executive Officer made certain statements in violation of
federal securities laws and seeks an unspecified amount of
damages. On November 19, 2014, the Court ordered that iBio and Mr.
Kay shall not have any obligation to respond to the Complaint
until after the appointment by the Court of a lead plaintiff and
the filing of an amended complaint and, therefore, no response to
the Complaint has been made. Three individuals have filed motions
to be appointed lead plaintiff, which are currently pending before
the Court.

The Company has advised its insurers about the class action and
intends to vigorously defend against any claims if this action
continues. The Company is unable to predict the outcome of this
Complaint and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss
nor estimate a range of possible loss.


IOVATE HEALTH: Faces "Eashoo" Suit in Cal. Over Protein Spiking
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Eashoo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Iovate Health Sciences USA, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
01726 (C.D. Cal., March 10, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's
practice of inflating the amount of protein in their Protein
Products by adding non-protein additives, such as amino acids.

Iovate Health Sciences USA, Inc. is a global manufacturer of
health and wellness products including, protein supplements,
weight management products, and other nutrition products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
      Bobby Pouya, Esq.
      Matthew A. Pearson, Esq.
      PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
      15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
      Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
      Telephone: (818) 788-8300
      Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
      E-mail: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com
              bpouya@pswlaw.com
              mapearson@pswlaw.com


JILL BELVIN: Faces "Anderson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Krystal Anderson a/k/a Krystal Cox, individually and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated v. Jill Belvin Insurance Agency,
LLC & Jill Belvin, Case No. 4:15-cv-00633 (S.D. Tex., March 10,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime compensation for the hours in excess of 40 hours in a
single week.

The Defendants own and operate an insurance agency with its
principal place of business located at 12370 Jones Road, Houston,
Texas 77070.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy Daniel Saenz, Esq.
      WAGNER SAENZ DORITY
      3700 Buffalo Speedway, Ste 610
      Houston, TX 77098
      Telephone: (713) 554-8450
      E-mail: jsaenz@wsdllp.com


KAISER PERMANENTE: Sept. 14 Final Hearing to Approve Benton Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Benjamin H. Settle granted preliminary approval of
a class settlement in the case captioned MARY E. BENTON,
individually; LINDA J. McPHERSON, individually, DORINDA M. OTERO,
individually and collectively on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. KAISER PERMANENTE, a business entity,
exact form unknown; KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, a California
corporation; KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC. D.B.A. KAISER
FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, a California corporation KAISER FOUNDATION
HEALTH PLAN OF THE NORTHWEST, an Oregon corporation; KAISER
PERMANENTE HEALTH ALTERNATIVES, an Oregon corporation; NORTHWEST
PERMANENTE, P.C., an Oregon professional corporation; ROE
CORPORATIONS 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, NO. 3:13-CV-
05998-BHS, (W.D. Wash.).

The Court, for settlement purposes only, conditionally certified a
class consisting of: "All Kaiser patients for whom HIV tests were
batch-ordered, and who were tested for HIV in Washington or
Oregon, between and including April 16, 2013 and May 6, 2013."

Mary E. Benton, Linda S. McPherson, Dorinda M. Otero, Barbara
Kelley, and William Pearse were designated as Class
Representatives.

The Court appointed Stritmatter, Kessler, Whelan as counsel for
the Class.

The final approval hearing will be held before the Court on
September 14, 2015 at 11:00 a.m., to determine whether the
Agreement is fair, reasonable and adequate and should be given
final approval.

In summary, the dates of performance are:

(a) Notice will be sent to potential Class Members on or before
March 30, 2015.

(b) Class Members who desire to be excluded will mail requests for
exclusion postmarked by May 14, 2015.

(c) Class Members who desire to submit Claim Forms will do so by
May 14, 2015;

(d) All objections to the Agreement or the Fee and Expense
Application will be filed and served by May 14, 2015;

(e) Representative Plaintiffs' final approval motion, Class
Counsel's fee and expense motion, and all supporting materials,
will be filed no later than August 10, 2015;

(f) Responses to objections, if any, and in further support of the
Fee and Expense Application, will be filed by September 7, 2015;
and

(g) The Settlement Hearing will be held on September 14, 2015 at
11:00 a.m.

A copy of the Court's February 26, 2015 order is available at
http://is.gd/wJc4upfrom Leagle.com.

R. Travis Jameson -- Travis@stritmatter.com -- Paul Stritmatter --
pauls@stritmatter.com -- Brad Moore -- brad@stritmatter.com --
Stritmatter Kessler Whelan, Seattle, WA, Counsel for Plaintiffs.


KEY ENERGY: Mud Engineer Wants to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cristobal Lazo, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly
Situated v. Key Energy Services, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00126 (S.D.
Tex., March 13, 2015) is brought to recover the unpaid overtime
wages owed to Key Energy's "Mud Engineers," also known as "Mud
Men," under federal law.

Mr. Lazo was a Mud Engineer employed at Key Energy until November
2014.

Key Energy is a limited liability company headquartered in Texas
and is a subsidiary of the publically traded corporation, Key
Energy Services, Inc.  Key Energy is one of the largest onshore
well services company in the USA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, L.L.P.
          1150 Bissonnet
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (713) 751-0025
          Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
          E-mail: mjosephson@fhl-law.com


KINDER MORGAN: Del. Sup. Court Heard Oral Argument in Allen Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Delaware Supreme
Court was to hear oral argument on February 25, 2015, in the
appeal in the case Allen v. El Paso Pipeline GP Company, L.L.C.,
et al.

In May 2012, a unitholder of El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P. or
EPB filed a purported class action in Delaware Chancery Court,
alleging both derivative and non derivative claims, against EPB,
and EPB's general partner and its board. EPB was named in the
lawsuit as both a "Class Defendant" and a "Derivative Nominal
Defendant." The complaint alleges a breach of the duty of good
faith and fair dealing in connection with the March 2011 sale to
EPB of a 25% ownership interest in SNG. On June 20, 2014,
defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing
the case in its entirety. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to
the Delaware Supreme Court, which was to hear oral argument on
February 25, 2015.


KINDER MORGAN: Price Reporting Litigation Stayed Pending Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that oral argument in the
appeal related to the Price Reporting Litigation was heard on
January 12, 2015 and the matter is stayed pending appeal.

Beginning in 2003, several lawsuits were filed against El Paso
Marketing L.P. (EPM) alleging that El Paso Corporation or EP, EPM
and other energy companies conspired to manipulate the price of
natural gas by providing false price information to industry trade
publications that published gas indices. Several of the cases have
been settled or dismissed. The remaining cases, which were pending
in Nevada federal court, were dismissed, but the dismissal was
reversed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. A petition for
certiorari was granted by the U.S. Supreme Court. Oral argument
was heard on January 12, 2015 and the matter is stayed pending
appeal.

"Although damages in excess of $140 million have been alleged in
total against all defendants in one of the remaining lawsuits
where a damage number is provided, there remains significant
uncertainty regarding the validity of the causes of action, the
damages asserted and the level of damages, if any, that may be
allocated to us. Therefore, our costs and legal exposure related
to the remaining outstanding lawsuits and claims are not currently
determinable," the Company said.


KINDER MORGAN: Dismissal of Corp. Reorganization Case Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that defendants have moved to
dismiss the Kinder Morgan, Inc. Corporate Reorganization
Litigation.

Certain unitholders of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. or KMP
and El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P. or EPB filed five putative
class action lawsuits in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware in connection with the Merger Transactions, which the
Court consolidated under the caption In re Kinder Morgan, Inc.
Corporate Reorganization Litigation (Consolidated Case No. 10093-
VCL). The plaintiffs originally sought to enjoin one or more of
the proposed Merger Transactions, which relief the Court denied on
November 5, 2014.

On December 12, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a Verified Second
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, which purports to
assert claims on behalf of both the former EPB unitholders and the
former KMP unitholders. The EPB plaintiff alleges that (i) El Paso
Pipeline GP Company, L.L.C. (EPGP), the general partner of EPB,
and the directors of EPGP breached duties under the EPB
partnership agreement, including the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, by entering into the EPB Transaction; (ii)
EPB, E Merger Sub LLC, or KMI and individual defendants aided and
abetted such breaches; and (iii) EPB, E Merger Sub LLC, KMI, and
individual defendants tortiously interfered with the EPB
partnership agreement by causing EPGP to breach its duties under
the EPB partnership agreement.

The KMP plaintiffs allege that (i) KMR, KMGP, and individual
defendants breached duties under the KMP partnership agreement,
including the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, by
entering into the KMP Transaction and by failing to adequately
disclose material facts related to the transaction; (ii) KMI aided
and abetted such breach; and (iii) KMI, KMP, KMR, P Merger Sub
LLC, and individual defendants tortiously interfered with the
rights of the plaintiffs and the putative class under the KMP
partnership agreement by causing KMGP to breach its duties under
the KMP partnership agreement. The complaint seeks declaratory
relief that the transactions were unlawful and unenforceable,
reformation, rescission, rescissory or compensatory damages,
interest, and attorneys' and experts' fees and costs. On December
30, 2014, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.

The defendants believe the allegations against them lack merit,
and they intend to vigorously defend these lawsuits.


KINDER MORGAN: To Defend Against Capex Litigation
-------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that defendants believe the
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. Capex Litigation is without
merit and intend to defend it vigorously.

Putative class action and derivative complaints were filed in the
Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware against defendants
Kinder Morgan Inc. or KMI, Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. or KMGP and
nominal defendant Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. or KMEP on
February 5, 2014 and March 27, 2014 captioned Slotoroff v. Kinder
Morgan, Inc., Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. et al (Case No. 9318) and
Burns et al v. Kinder Morgan, Inc., Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. et al
(Case No. 9479) respectively. The cases were consolidated on April
8, 2014 (Consolidated Case No. 9318). The consolidated suit seeks
to assert claims both individually and on behalf of a putative
class consisting of all public holders of KMEP units during the
period of February 5, 2011 through the date of the filing of the
complaints.

The suit alleges direct and derivative causes of action for breach
of the partnership agreement, breach of the duty of good faith and
fair dealing, aiding and abetting, and tortious interference.
Among other things, the suit alleges that defendants made a bad
faith allocation of capital expenditures to expansion capital
expenditures rather than maintenance capital expenditures for the
alleged purpose of "artificially" inflating KMEP's distributions
and growth rate. The suit seeks disgorgement of any distributions
to KMGP, KMI and any related entities, beyond amounts that would
have been distributed in accordance with a "good faith" allocation
of maintenance capital expenses, together with other unspecified
monetary damages including punitive damages and attorney fees.


KINDER MORGAN: "Walker" Case Stayed Pending Capex Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the case Walker v.
Kinder Morgan, Inc., Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. et al., is stayed
pending further resolution of the Kinder Morgan Energy Partners,
L.P. Capex Litigation.

On March 6, 2014, a putative class action and derivative complaint
was filed in the District Court of Harris County, Texas (Case No.
2014-11872 in the 215th Judicial District) against KMI, KMGP, KMR,
Richard D. Kinder, Steven J. Kean, Ted A. Gardner, Gary L.
Hultquist, Perry M. Waughtal and nominal defendant KMEP. The suit
was filed by Kenneth Walker, a purported unit holder of KMEP, and
alleges derivative causes of action for alleged violation of
duties owed under the partnership agreement, breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, "abuse of control" and
"gross mismanagement" in connection with the calculation of
distributions and allocation of capital expenditures to expansion
capital expenditures and maintenance capital expenditures. The
suit seeks unspecified money damages, interest, punitive damages,
attorney and expert fees, costs and expenses, unspecified
equitable relief, and demands a trial by jury. Defendants believe
this suit is without merit and intend to defend it vigorously. By
agreement of the parties, the case is stayed pending further
resolution of the Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. Capex
Litigation.


KINDER MORGAN: San Diego Appeal Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the appeal by the City
of San Diego in the Mission Valley Terminal Lawsuit remains
pending.

In August 2007, the City of San Diego, on its own behalf and
purporting to act on behalf of the People of the State of
California, filed a lawsuit against us and several affiliates
seeking injunctive relief and unspecified damages allegedly
resulting from hydrocarbon and methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE)
impacted soils and groundwater beneath the City's stadium property
in San Diego arising from historic operations at the Mission
Valley terminal facility. The case was filed in the Superior Court
of California, San Diego County (Case No. 37-2007-00073033).

"On September 26, 2007, we removed the case to the U.S. District
Court, Southern District of California (Case No. 07CV1883WCAB).
The City disclosed in discovery that it is seeking approximately
$170 million in damages for alleged lost value/lost profit from
the redevelopment of the City's property and alleged lost use of
the water resources underlying the property. Later, in 2010, the
City amended its initial disclosures to add claims for restoration
of the site as well as a number of other claims that increased its
claim for damages to approximately $365 million," the Company
said.

"On November 29, 2012, the Court issued a Notice of Tentative
Rulings on the parties' summary adjudication motions. The Court
tentatively granted our partial motions for summary judgment on
the City's claims for water and real estate damages and the
State's claims for violations of California Business and
Professions Code Sec. 17200, tentatively denied the City's motion
for summary judgment on its claims of liability for nuisance and
trespass, and tentatively granted our cross motion for summary
judgment on such claims. On January 25, 2013, the Court rendered
judgment in favor of all defendants on all claims asserted by the
City."

"On February 20, 2013, the City of San Diego filed a notice of
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which
heard oral argument on February 3, 2015. The appeal remains
pending."


KTECH MANAGEMENT: "Molina" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Efrain Molina v. KTech Management Corp d/b/a 49.99 sewer
Service, and Kamran Mushtaq individually, Sayeed (Last Name
Unknown) individually, Rick (Last Name Unknown) individually, Case
No. 1:15-cv-01240 (E.D.N.Y., March 10, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, additional amount as liquidated damages and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a chemical process development and
applications company located at 1746 Summer Field Street,
Ridgewood NY 11385.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jesse Curtis Rose, Esq.
      THE ROSE LAW GROUP, PLLC
      3109 Newtown Avenue, Suite 309
      Astoria, NY 11102
      Telephone: (718) 989-1864
      E-mail: jrose@tpglaws.com


LATSHAW DRILLING: Sued Over Failure to Give Layoff Warning
----------------------------------------------------------
Johnny L. Meadows, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Latshaw Drilling Company, LLC, Case No. 7:15-cv-00031
(W.D. Tex., March 10, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to give the required WARN Act written notice in connection
with a recent Mass Layoff and Plant Closing.

Latshaw Drilling Company, LLC is an oilfield service company with
drilling operations in Texas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma.

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


LENOVO US: Faces "Hayden" Suit Over Harmful Preinstalled Spyware
----------------------------------------------------------------
Branden Hayden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lenovo, Inc. and Superfish, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
02132 (N.D. Ill., March 10, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants'
practice of selling new computers with preinstalled harmful and
offensive spyware and malware.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John P. Orellana, Esq.
      Clinton A. Krislov, Esq.
      Ken Goldstein, Esq.
      KRISLOV & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
      20 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1350
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (732) 770-1177
      E-mail: johno@krislovlaw.com
              clinton@krislovlaw.com
              goldstein@krislovlaw.com


LENOVO US: Faces "Thweatt" Class Suit Over Superfish Spyware
------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Thweatt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lenovo (United States) Inc., Lenovo Group Limited, and
Superfish, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00390 (W.D. Wash.,
March 13, 2015) is a consumer class action brought on behalf of
all similarly situated consumers in the United States of America,
who have purchased certain models of computers manufactured and
marketed by Lenovo that were pre-installed with spyware and
malware called Superfish from at least September 2014 through
February 2015.

Superfish, among other actions, monitors, intercepts, analyzes and
redirect users' web activity and personal information and tampers
with Windows' security system to procure advertising into secure
pages.  As a result, the Plaintiff contends, users of these
computers were exposed to potential computer hackers and
unauthorized activity monitoring.

Lenovo (United States) Inc. is a Delaware corporation
headquartered ion Morrisville, North Carolina.  Lenovo Group
Limited is a Hong Kong Corporation headquartered in Beijing,
China.  Lenovo Group is the parent company of Lenovo US.  Lenovo
is a computer technology company that designs, develops, and
manufactures various computer and technological products,
including laptops, tablets, desktops, all-in-ones, and
workstations.

Superfish, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Palo
Alto, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cliff Cantor, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CLIFFORD A. CANTOR, P.C.
          627 208th Ave. SE
          Sammamish, WA 98074
          Telephone: (425) 868-7813
          Facsimile: (425) 732-3752
          E-mail: cliff.cantor@outlook.com

               - and -

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560
          Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com


LENOVO US: Faces JGX Inc. Suit Over Harmful Preinstalled Spyware
----------------------------------------------------------------
JGX, Inc. d/b/a Lefty O'Doul's, individually and on behalf of a
class of those similarly situated v. Lenovo Group Limited, Lenovo
(United States), Inc., and Superfish, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-01113
(N.D. Cal., March 10, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants'
practice of selling new computers with preinstalled harmful and
offensive spyware and malware.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven N. Williams, Esq.
      Matthew K. Edling, Esq.
      Elizabeth Tran, Esq.
      COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
      San Francisco Airport Office Center
      840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
      Burlingame, CA 94010
      Telephone: (650) 697-6000
      Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
      E-mail: swilliams@cpmlegal.com
              medling@cpmlegal.com
              etran@cpmlegal.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Accused of Deceiving Wood Flooring Consumers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeannate Jardine, Donald and Ruth Fugate, and Lindel and Ronnie
Perkins, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated
v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Lumber Liquidators Leasing, LLC,
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., and Lumber Liquidators
Services, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-01316-LFR (E.D. Pa., March 13,
2015) arises from Lumber Liquidators' alleged fraudulent,
deceptive, and misleading sale of Chinese wood flooring products.

Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered
in Toano, Virginia.  Lumber Liquidators Leasing, LLC is a Delaware
Limited Liability Corporation headquartered in Toano.  Lumber
Liquidators Holdings, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered
in Toano.  Lumber Liquidators Services, LLC, is a Delaware limited
liability corporation headquartered in Toano.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard M. Golomb, Esq.
          Ruben Honik, Esq.
          Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
          David J. Stanoch, Esq.
          GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 985-9177
          Facsimile: (215) 985-4169
          E-mail: rgolomb@golombhonik.com
                  rhonik@golombhonik.com
                  kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com
                  dstanoch@golombhonik.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Sued for Lying About Formaldehyde in Flooring
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Spivak Individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
00178-SJD (S.D. Ohio, March 13, 2015) alleges that contrary to
Lumber Liquidators' repeated, detailed representations on its
product labels, Web site, and elsewhere, that its flooring
complies with strict formaldehyde standards, the toxic
formaldehyde emissions from the Company's Flooring Products are in
fact multiple times the maximum permissible limits set by those
standards at the time of purchase.

Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal executive offices located in Toano, Virginia.  Lumber
Liquidators is one of the largest specialty retailers of hardwood
flooring in the United States.  Lumber Liquidators has mills in,
and buys many of its source wood flooring material from, China.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
          Todd B. Naylor, Esq.
          Robert B. Sherwood, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
          One West Fourth Street, 18th Floor
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 345-8291
          Facsimile: (513) 345-8294
          E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
                  tnaylor@gs-legal.com
                  rsherwood@gs-legal.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Vincent J. Esades, Esq.
          James W. Anderson, Esq.
          HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
          310 Clifton Ave.
          Minneapolis, MN 55403
          Telephone: (612) 338-4605
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4692
          E-mail: vesades@heinsmills.com
                  janderson@heinsmills.com

               - and -

          Jason S. Hartley, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON, LLP
          550 West C Street, Suite 1750
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 400-5822
          E-mail: hartley@steuvesiegel.com

               - and -

          Douglas A. Millen, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN, LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015 USA
          Telephone: (224) 632-4500
          Facsimile: (224) 632-4521
          E-mail: dmillen@fklmlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert J. Gralewski, Jr., Esq.
          KIRBY McINERNEY, LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 398-4340
          E-mail: bgralewski@kmllp.com

               - and -

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
          Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
          1625 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Suite 605
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 429-2290
          Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
          E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com
                  dbryson@wbmllp.com
                  jrathod@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          Andrew J. McGuinness, Esq.
          ANDREW J. McGUINNESS, ESQ.
          122 S Main St., Suite 118
          P.O. Box 7711
          Ann Arbor, MI 48107
          Telephone: (734) 274-9374
          Facsimile: (734) 786-9935
          E-mail: drewmcg@topclasslaw.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Pinelli" Suit Over Toxic Floorings
-------------------------------------------------------------
Meri Pinelli, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00780 (E.D.
La., March 10, 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 E. Becnel Jr., Esq.
      Matthew Moreland, Esq.
      Salvadore Christina Jr., Esq.
      BECNEL LAW FIRM, LLC
      P.O. Drawer H
      Reserve, LA 70084
      Telephone: (985) 536-1186
      Facsimile: (985) 536-6446
      E-mail: dbecnel@becnellaw.com
              mmoreland@becnellaw.com
              schristina@becnellaw.com


MARIGOLD FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Smith" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abrendal Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Marigold Financial, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-00457 (C.D.
Cal., March 10, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants abusive,
deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices.

Marigold Financial, LLC owns and operates a debt collection
company headquartered in Riverside, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MEADWESTVACO CORP: Class Suits Filed Challenging Biz Combination
----------------------------------------------------------------
MeadWestvaco Corporation announced on January 26, 2015, that it
has entered into a Business Combination Agreement (the
"Combination Agreement") with Rock-Tenn Company ("Rock-Tenn") to
create a leading global provider of consumer and corrugated
packaging ("TopCo").

MeadWestvaco said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that putative class actions
challenging the Business Combination have been filed on behalf of
the company's stockholders. Among other remedies, the plaintiffs
seek to enjoin the Business Combination from proceeding. The
outcome of any such litigation is uncertain.

"Moreover, additional lawsuits related to the Business Combination
may be filed against us, Rock-Tenn, and our affiliates and
directors. These lawsuits could prevent or delay completion of
Business Combination and/or result in substantial costs to us,
including any costs associated with the indemnification of our
directors. The company believes these actions are without merit,"
the Company said.


MAXLINEAR INC: Faces Stockholder Actions in Del. Chancery Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
MaxLinear, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that beginning on February 9,
2015, a number of stockholder class action complaints were filed
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on behalf of a
putative class of Entropic Communications, Inc. ("Entropic")
stockholders and naming as defendants Entropic, the board of
directors of Entropic, MaxLinear, Excalibur Acquisition
Corporation, and Excalibur Subsidiary, LLC.

Langholz v. Entropic Communications, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10631-
VCP (Del. Ch. filed Feb. 9, 2015); Tomblin v. Entropic
Communications, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10632-VCP (Del. Ch. filed
Feb. 9, 2015); Crill v. Entropic Communications, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 10640-VCP (Del. Ch. filed Feb. 11, 2015); Wohl v.
Entropic Communications, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10644-VCP (Del.
Ch. filed Feb. 11, 2015); Parshall v. Entropic Communications,
Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10652-VCP (Del. Ch. filed Feb. 12, 2015);
Saggar v. Padval, et al., C.A. No. 10661-VCP (Del. Ch. filed Feb.
13, 2015); Respler v. Entropic Communications, Inc., et al., C.A.
No. 10669-VCP (Del. Ch. filed Feb. 17, 2015); Gal v. Entropic
Communications, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10671-VCP (Del. Ch. filed
Feb. 17, 2015); Werbowsky v. Padval, et al., C.A. No. 10673-VCP
(Del. Ch. filed Feb. 18, 2015); and Agosti v. Entropic
Communications, Inc., C.A. No. 10676-VCP (Del. Ch. filed Feb. 18,
2015).  The complaints generally allege that, in connection with
the proposed acquisition of Entropic by MaxLinear, the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Entropic
stockholders by, among other things, purportedly failing to take
steps to maximize the value of Entropic to its stockholders and
agreeing to allegedly preclusive deal protection devices in the
merger agreement.  The complaints further allege that Entropic,
MaxLinear, and/or the merger subsidiaries aided and abetted the
individual defendants in the alleged breaches of their fiduciary
duties.  The complaints seek, among other things, an order
enjoining the defendants from consummating the proposed
transaction, an order declaring the merger agreement unlawful and
unenforceable; in the event that the proposed transaction is
consummated, an order rescinding it and setting it aside or
awarding rescissory damages to the class, imposition of a
constructive trust; damages; and/or attorneys' fees and costs.


MAXLINEAR INC: Faces 2 Stockholder Class Suits in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MaxLinear, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that beginning on February
10, 2015, two stockholder class action complaints were filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California County of San Diego
on behalf of a putative class of Entropic stockholders and naming
as defendants Entropic, the board of directors of Entropic,
MaxLinear, Excalibur Acquisition Corporation, and Excalibur
Subsidiary, LLC.

Krasinski v. Entropic Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. 37-
2015-00004613-CU-SL-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct. San Diego Cnty. filed
Feb. 9, 2015); and Khoury v. Entropic Communications, Inc., et
al., Case No. 37-2015-00004737-CU-SL-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct. San
Diego Cnty. filed Feb. 11, 2015).

The complaints generally allege that, in connection with the
proposed acquisition of Entropic by MaxLinear, the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Entropic
stockholders by, among other things, purportedly failing to take
steps to maximize the value of Entropic to its stockholders and
agreeing to allegedly preclusive deal protection devices in the
merger agreement.  The complaints further allege that MaxLinear
and the merger subsidiaries aided and abetted the individual
defendants in the alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties.  The
complaints seek, among other things, an order enjoining the
defendants from consummating the proposed transaction, an order
rescinding, to the extent already implemented, the proposed
transaction or any of its terms, or granting the class rescissory
damages, damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.


MIDWESTERN VIDEO: Fails to Pay Overtime Compensation, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Tatomir, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Midwestern Video Personnel, Inc. and Deb Coch,
individually, Case No. 2:15-cv-10969-BAF-APP (E.D. Mich.,
March 13, 2015) alleges that the Plaintiff and those similarly
situated routinely worked hours in excess of 40 hours per work
week without receiving overtime compensation as required by the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Midwestern Video Personnel, Inc. is an Ohio corporation.  Debra
Coch is the owner and top executive and management official of
Midwestern Video Personnel.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert D. Fetter, Esq.
          MILLER COHEN, P.L.C.
          600 W. Lafayette Blvd., 4th Floor
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 964-4454
          Facsimile: (313) 964-4490
          E-mail: rfetter@millercohen.com


MONDELEZ CANADA: Recalls Golden Oreo Cookies Due to Mislabeling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 20, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Labelling, Nutrition
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Mondelez Canada Inc.
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail

Mondelez Canada Inc. is voluntarily recalling select 300 g and 500
g Christie brand Golden Oreo Cookies from the marketplace due to
an incorrect carbohydrate declaration on the Nutrition Facts
table. Affected products declare 8 g of carbohydrate per serving,
but contain 17 g of carbohydrate per serving. Impacted Best Before
dates are set out below; all other Best Before dates are
unaffected. People who are monitoring blood glucose levels and
carbohydrate consumption should be aware that the amount of
carbohydrate in a serving is 17 g, not 8 g as indicated on the
label, or should not consume the recalled products described
below.

The following products have been sold nationally in Canada only.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. If you
have diabetes or are monitoring carbohydrate consumption you
should be aware that the amount of carbohydrate in a serving is 17
g, not 8 g as indicated on the label, or should not consume the
recalled products described.

This recall was triggered by consumer complaints.

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

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

There have been complaints associated with these products.

  Brand name   Common name  Size   Code(s)      UPC
  ----------   ----------   ----   on product   ---
                                   ----------
Christie       Golden Oreo  300 g  All codes    0 66721 00098 9
               Cookies             which declare
                                   carbohydrate
                                   as 8 g per 2
                                   cookies (23 g).
                                   This affects
                                   Best Before
                                   dates:
                                   2015FE16KM
                                   2015FE17KM
                                   2015FE18KM
                                   2015FE19KM
                                   2015FE23KM
                                   2015MR23KM
                                   2015MR24KM
                                   2015MR25KM
                                   2015AL28KM
                                   2015AL29KM
                                   2015MA25KM
                                   2015MA26KM
                                   2015MA27KM
                                   2015JN15KM
                                   2015JN16KM
                                   2015JN17KM
                                   2015JL13KM
                                   2015JL14KM
                                   2015JL15KM

Christie       Golden Oreo  500 g  All codes    0 66721 00106 1
               Cookies             which declare
                                   carbohydrate
                                   as 8 g per 2
                                   cookies (23 g).
                                   This affects
                                   Best Before
                                   dates:
                                   2015FE16KM
                                   2015FE17KM
                                   2015MR23KM
                                   2015MR24KM
                                   2015JN15KM
                                   2015JN16KM

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/reyE8g


NADOR INC: Recalls Ground Cumin Products Due to Almond
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 20, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Tree Nut
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Nador Inc.
Distribution: National

Nador Inc. is recalling Ground Cumin from the marketplace because
it contains almond which is not declared on the label. People with
an allergy to almond should not consume the recalled products
described below.

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

If you have an allergy to almond, do not consume the recalled
products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of these products.

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

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

  Brand name   Common name   Size   Code(s)     UPC
  ----------   -----------   ----   on product  ----
                                    ----------
  Signal       ground cumin  39 g   15 NO 13    6 28333 10429 7
                                    and
                                    16 MR 06
  No Name      ground cumin  97 g   2015 OC 24  0 60383 71408 6
  Sunspun      ground cumin  450 g  2015 NO 12  0 60383 99746 5
Irresistibles  Ground Cumin  43 g   13340 and   0 59749 87254 6
                                    14013

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/6Man1n


NAVISTAR: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Safety Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 18, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D., Bus
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Brakes
Units affected: 493
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015120TC
ID number: 2015120
Manufacturer recall number: 15504

On certain vehicles, brake chamber diaphragm(s) may not be
properly seated. This could lead to brake drag, causing brake
overheating or unintended spring brake application. These issues
could increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or property
damage. Correction: Dealers will replace the brake chambers. Note:
This is an expansion of recall 2014-573.

  Make          Model               Model year(s) affected
  ----          -----               ----------------------
INTERNATIONAL   9900                2015, 2016
INTERNATIONAL   PROSTAR             2015, 2016
IC               CE COMMERCIAL BUS  2015
INTERNATIONAL    LONESTAR           2015, 2016
INTERNATIONAL    DURASTAR           2015, 2016
INTERNATIONAL    WORKSTAR           2015, 2016
INTERNATIONAL    TRANSTAR           2015
INTERNATIONAL    PAYSTAR            2015, 2016


NORTHLAND GROUP: 6th Cir. Revived "Buchanan" FDCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Esther Buchanan filed a class action against Northland Group Inc.
for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Northland
Group made a "settlement offer" to Buchanan to resolve an unpaid
debt without disclosing that the statute of limitations had run on
the debt.  Buchanan claimed that Northland's letter falsely
implied that Northland could enforce the debt in court. Northland
moved to dismiss the claim under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 12(b)(6) which
the district court granted concluding that Northland's letter was
not misleading as a matter of law. Buchanan appeals the dismissal
of her lawsuit.

Judge Jeffrey Sutton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit delivered an opinion of the Court, reversing the order of
the district court.  The Sixth Circuit stated that the settlement
offer plausibly misled an unsophisticated consumer into thinking
her lender could enforce the debt in court.  Judge Alan Rosenthal
joined.

Circuit Judge Raymond Kethledge dissented.  "Buchanan seeks up to
$1,000 in statutory damages-for herself, and also for each member
of a putative statewide class-for the trouble of reading a letter
that offered her a discount on an entirely valid debt that for
years she failed to pay. I would reject this claim as a matter of
law, rather than continue to make a federal case out of it," Judge
Kethledge said.

The appellate case is, ESTHER BUCHANAN, on behalf of herself and a
class, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTHLAND GROUP, INC., Defendant-
Appellee, Case No. 13-2523 (6th Cir.).  A copy of the Sixth
Circuit's January 13, 2015 Opinion is available at
http://tinyurl.com/q5xywgmfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiff-Appellant ESTHER BUCHANAN, on behalf of herself and a
class, is represented by:

     Daniel Edelman, Esq.
     Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
     Thomas E. Soule, Esq.
     EDELMAN COMBS LATTURNER & GOODWIN LLC
     20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Tel: (312)739-4200
     Fax: (312)419-0379

Defendant-Appellee Northland Group is represented by:

     David M. Schultz, Esq.
     Joel B. Bertocchi, Esq.
     HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
     222 North LaSalle Street, Suite 300
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Tel: 312-704-3130
     E-mail: dschultz@hinshawlaw.com
             jbertocchi@hinshawlaw.com


O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: "Wood" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Wood v. O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc. d/b/a O'reilly
Auto Parts, Case No. 4:15-cv-00409 (N.D. Ala., March 10, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc. is a supplier of auto parts to
retail customers, professional installers and jobbers with 4,257
locations throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel E. Arciniegas, Esq.
      Jon C. Goldfarb, Esq.
      L. William Smith, Esq.
      WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER & GOLDFARB
      The Kress Building
      301 19th Street North
      Birmingham, AL 35203-3204
      Telephone: (205) 314-0500
      Facsimile: (205) 254-1500
      E-mail: dea@wigginschilds.com
              jcg@wigginschilds.com
              wsmith@wigginschilds.com


ON2 TECHNOLOGIES: NY Appeals Court Upholds Denial of Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The appellate case, MICHAEL JIANNARAS, Plaintiff, v. MIKE ALFANT,
ET AL., Appellants, ET AL., Defendant; KATHLEEN M. ACKERMAN, ET
AL., Nonparty-Respondents, Case No. 20120-10477, Index No.
21262/09 (NY Sup.), arises from a merger between the defendant On2
Technologies, Inc., a publicly held Delaware corporation that
developed video compression technology, and Google, Inc., the
global technology conglomerate specializing in Internet-related
services. On August 4, 2009, On2 entered into a merger agreement
with Google and Oxide, Inc., a subsidiary of Google, pursuant to
which Google agreed to acquire each share of On2 common stock in
exchange for 60 cents worth of Google Class A common stock. At
that time, the proposed transaction was valued at approximately
$106.5 million.

On August 7, 2009, the plaintiff, on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated shareholders of On2, commenced the action,
alleging that On2's board of directors breached its fiduciary
duties to the shareholders by, inter alia, failing to ensure that
the shareholders would receive maximum value for their shares.
Among other things, the plaintiff sought certification of a class
to prosecute the matter as a class action, a declaration that the
merger agreement was unlawful and unenforceable, rescission of the
merger agreement, and injunctive relief. In August 2009, other
shareholders of On2 -- the Delaware plaintiffs -- commenced
similar actions in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

On February 22, 2010, the parties to this action, as well as the
Delaware plaintiffs, proposed a settlement, pursuant to which they
agreed that "solely for the purpose of effectuating the
[s]ettlement," the instant action "may be maintained . . . as a
non-opt out class action." The settlement provided, inter alia,
for dismissal of the New York and Delaware actions in their
entirety, with prejudice, and a release of "any and all" merger-
related claims. The proposed settlement class encompassed "all
persons and entities who held shares of the common stock of On2
. . . at any time between August 4, 2009 and February 19, 2010."

Upon notice of the proposed settlement to all record holders of
On2 common stock, 226 of those shareholders filed objections to
the proposed settlement. The objectors contested the proposed
settlement, claiming that it contained "an astonishingly broad"
release that would "unlawfully restrict" and "unduly burden" the
rights of shareholders to pursue their own individual claims for
damages.

Following a fairness hearing, the Supreme Court denied approval of
the settlement because it did not afford nonresident class members
the opportunity to opt out of the settlement in order to preserve
their right to assert claims for damages.

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York affirmed.
The Appeals Court cited the doctrine of "stare decisis" and
stressed out that the Supreme Court providently exercised its
discretion in declining to approve the settlement that would have
extinguished the right of out-of-state class members to litigate
damage claims without giving them the opportunity to opt out of
the class.

A copy of the Appeals Court's Decision and Order dated January 14,
2015, available at http://is.gd/F3iJBZfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs are represented by David Wertheimer, Esq. --
david.wertheimer@hoganlovells.com -- Neal K.Katyal, Esq. --
neal.katyal@hoganlovells.com -- Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Esq. and
Frederick Liu, Esq. -- frederick.liu@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan
Lovells US LLP

Defendants are represented by Martin E. Karlinsky, Esq. --
martin.karlinsky@karlinskyllc.com -- Alexis L. Cirel, Esq. and
Emily A. Seiderman, Esq., at Karlinsky LLC


OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Colley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., Joseph P. Hagan and
Michael A. Narachi, Case No. 3:15-cv-00540 (S.D. Cal., March 10,
2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused
on the development of pharmaceutical product candidates for the
treatment of obesity.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


P & K RESTAURANT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Shatrailia Jackson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated who consent to their inclusion in a collective
action v. P & K Restaurant Enterprise, LLC d/b/a Lacura Bar &
Bistro; Ramondo J. Davidson; Alonzo A. Ross; and Lamarcus K.
Allison, Case No. 1:15-cv-00753-MHC (N.D. Ga., March 13, 2015) is
brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to:

   (1) recover due but unpaid minimum wages and an additional
       like amount as liquidated damages;

   (2) recover compensatory damages arising from her retaliatory
       termination by Defendants and an additional like amount as
       liquidated damages;

   (3) obtain reinstatement of her employment, or front pay in
       lieu of reinstatement; and

   (4) be reimbursed her costs of litigation, including her
       reasonable attorneys' fees.

Ms. Jackson was employed by the Defendants as a server in and
around Lacura Bar & Bistro from early May 2014 until February 4,
2015.

The Defendants jointly operated Lacura Bar & Bistro, located in
Atlanta, Georgia.  P & K Restaurant Enterprise, LLC, doing
business as Lacura Bar & Bistro, is a Georgia corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles R. Bridgers, Esq.
          Kevin D. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Esq.
          DELONG CALDWELL BRIDGERS & FITZPATRICK, LLC
          3100 Centennial Tower
          101 Marietta Street
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 979-3171
          Facsimile: (404) 979-3170
          E-mail: kevin.fitzpatrick@dcbflegal.com
                  charlesbridgers@dcbflegal.com


PAPATEL INC: Illegally Contacted Class Members' Phones, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Thiry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Papatel, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 8:15-
cv-00409-JLS-RNB (C.D. Cal., March 13, 2015) arises from the
Defendant's alleged illegal actions in negligently and
intentionally contacting the Plaintiff on his cellular telephone,
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Papatel, Inc., is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Newark.
The Company provides international long distance calls for free,
as well as offering a prepaid calling service.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sahar S. Pugh, Esq.
          MILSTEIN ADELMAN LLP
          2800 Donald Douglas Loop North
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: (310) 396-9600
          Facsimile: (310) 396-9635
          E-mail: spugh@milsteinadelman.com

               - and -

          Joshua Masatsura Kimura, Esq.
          KIMURA LONDON LLP
          3 Park Plaza, Suite 1520
          Irvine, CA 92614-8558
          Telephone: (949) 474-0940
          Facsimile: (949) 485-2946
          E-mail: jkimura@kimuralondon.com


PATTERSON-UTI DRILLING: Sued Over WARN Act Violations
-----------------------------------------------------
Jeremiah Heikkila and Kevin Brengelmann, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Patterson-Uti Drilling
Company, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00500 (D. Colo., March 10, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to give the required
WARN Act written notice in connection with a recent mass layoff
and plant closing.

Patterson-Uti Drilling Company, LLC is a Texas limited liability
company that operates land based drilling rigs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Allen Ryan Vaught, Esq.
      BARON & BUDD, P.C.
      3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
      Dallas, TX 75219-4283
      Telephone: (214) 521-3605
      Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
      E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com


PAYTIME INC: Storm and Holt Cases Dismissed for Lack of Standing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pending before the court are two putative class actions concerning
a security breach of Defendant Paytime, Inc.'s computer systems,
in which an unknown third party allegedly accessed Plaintiffs'
confidential personal and financial information. The cases are
DANIEL B. STORM, HOLLY P. WHITE, DORIS McMICHAEL, and KYLE
WILKINSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. PAYTIME, INC., Defendant. BARBARA HOLT
and LINDA REDDING, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PAYTIME HARRISBURG, INC., d/b/a
PAYTIME, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, Defendant, NO. 14-CV-
1138, (M.D. Penn.).

These cases have been consolidated. Prior to consolidation,
Paytime filed in each case a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), contending that
Plaintiffs lack standing, or in the alternative, that they have
failed to state claims as a matter of law. Paytime also filed a
Motion to Strike Class Allegations Pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(f) in each case.

"[W]e will dismiss the consolidated case for lack of standing, and
accordingly, not address Paytime's other motions," wrote District
Judge John E. Jones, III, in his March 13, 2015 memorandum, a copy
of which is available at http://is.gd/WPpmMlfrom Leagle.com.

"Plaintiffs have failed to plead specific facts demonstrating they
have standing to bring this suit under Article III. Consistent
with our above discussion, we will grant Paytime's motion to
dismiss . . . Because we are dismissing the instant case for lack
of standing under Rule 12(b)(1), the dismissal is without
prejudice," Judge Jones concluded.

A copy of Judge Jones' order granting the Defendant's motions to
dismiss the amended complaint in Storm and the Complaint in Holt
is available at http://is.gd/8Q0iVsfrom Leagle.com.  The First
Amended Class Action Complaints in Storm and in Holt are dismissed
without prejudice, in their entirety.  The Clerk of Court was
directed to close the consolidated case.

Daniel B. Storm, Plaintiff, represented by Gary F. Lynch --
glynch@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP,
Edwin J Kilpela -- ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch,
LTD, Eric N Linsk -- rnlinsk@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal
Nauen PLLP & Karen H Riebel -- khriebel@locklaw.com -- Lockridge
Grindal Nauen PLLP.

Holly P. White, Plaintiff, represented by Gary F. Lynch, Carlson
Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP, Edwin J Kilpela, Carlson Lynch, LTD,
Eric N Linsk, Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP & Karen H Riebel,
Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP.

Doris McMichael, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Gary F. Lynch,
Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP, Edwin J Kilpela, Carlson
Lynch, LTD, Eric N Linsk, Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP & Karen H
Riebel, Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP.

Kyle Wilkinson, Plaintiff, represented by Edwin J Kilpela --
ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch, LTD, Eric N Linsk --
rnlinsk@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, Karen H
Riebel -- khriebel@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP &
Gary F. Lynch -- glynch@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Sweet &
Kilpela, LLP.

Barbara Holt, Plaintiff, represented by Joel C. Meredith --
jmeredith@m-npartners.com -- Meredith & Narine & Krishna B. Narine
-- knarine@m-npartners.com -- Law Office of Krishna B. Narine, PC.
Linda Redding, Plaintiff, represented by Joel C. Meredith --
jmeredith@m-npartners.com -- Meredith & Narine & Krishna B.
Narine, Law Office of Krishna B. Narine, PC.

Paytime, Inc., Defendant, represented by Claudia D McCarron --
Claudia.McCarron@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Brisgaard &
Smith, LLP & Kathryn C. Mellinger --
Kate.Mellinger@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith.


PITNEY BOWES: Wins Dismissal of "Atkins" Suit
---------------------------------------------
District Judge John G. Koeltl granted the defendant's motion for
summary judgment and denied the motion of the plaintiff for
summary judgment in the case, DANIEL ATKINS, Plaintiff, v. PITNEY
BOWES MANAGEMENT SERVICES ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 12 CV 5575
(JGK)(S.D.N.Y.).

The plaintiff was employed at Pitney Bowes from June 1990 until
January 2012. He filed claims against Pitney Bowes for wrongful
termination, employment discrimination and retaliation, hostile
work environment, assault, battery and defamation.

In a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated January 12, 2015 available
at http://is.gd/DG1V90from Leagle.com, Judge Koeltl granted the
defendants'the motions for summary judgment, holding that the
complaint lacked genuine dispute as to any material fact.  The
judge denied the Plaintiff's own motion for summary judgement
because (1) he failed to provide undisputed facts on the basis of
which such motion; (2) no pre-motion conference was sought before
makinf the motion as required by the Court; and (3) his claims for
class action has no basis.  The judge further ordered the Clerk of
Court to enter judgment dismissing the case, to close all pending
motions, and to close the case.

Defendant Pitney Bowes is represented by:

     Rory J. McEvoy, Esq.
     Julie Lynn Weber, Esq.
     EDWARDS WILDMAN PALMER LLP
     750 Lexington Avenue
     New York, NY 10022
     Tel: 212 308 4411
     Fax: 212 308 4844
     E-mail: rory.mcevoy@lockelord.com
             Julie.weber@lockelord.com


PONTOON SOLUTIONS: Sued in C.D. California Over FCRA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
J. Robert Berrellez, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated v. Pontoon Solutions, Inc., a Delaware corporation;
ADECCO USA, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Rose International,
Inc., a Missouri corporation; Bank Of America, N.A.; and Does
1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-01926-SDW-SCM (D.N.J., March 15,
2015) is brought on behalf of all similarly situated current,
former, and prospective employees, and seeks compensatory and
punitive damages due to the Defendants' alleged systematic and
willful violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Pontoon is a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in
California.  Rose is a Missouri corporation and also a citizen of
California.  BANA is a United States National Association
authorized to do business in California.  ADECCO is a Delaware
corporation authorized to do business in California.  The
Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Doe
Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neil Michael Larsen, Esq.
          C. Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
          Los Angeles, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: neil@setarehlaw.com
                  shaun@setarehlaw.com


PPL CORPORATION: 6th Cir. to Review Cane Run Case Issues
--------------------------------------------------------
PPL Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued an order granting appellate
review regarding issues to be presented by both parties in the
case related to the Cane Run Environmental Claims.

On December 16, 2013, six residents, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against
Louisville Gas and Electric Company and PPL Corporation in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky alleging
violations of the Clean Air Act and Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976.  In addition, these plaintiffs assert common
law claims of nuisance, trespass and negligence.  These plaintiffs
seek injunctive relief and civil penalties, plus costs and
attorney fees, for the alleged statutory violations.  Under the
common law claims, these plaintiffs seek monetary compensation and
punitive damages for property damage and diminished property
values for a class consisting of residents within four miles of
the plant.  In their individual capacities, these plaintiffs seek
compensation for alleged adverse health effects.  In response to a
motion to dismiss filed by PPL and LG&E, on July 17, 2014 the
court dismissed the plaintiffs' RCRA claims and all but one of its
Clean Air Act claims, but declined to dismiss their common law
tort claims.  Upon motion of LG&E and PPL, the district court
certified for appellate review the issue of whether the state
common law claims are preempted by federal statute.  In December
2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued an
order granting appellate review regarding issues to be presented
by both parties.  PPL, LG&E and KU Energy LLC, and LG&E cannot
predict the outcome of this matter or the potential impact on
operations of the Cane Run plant.  LG&E has previously announced
that it anticipates retiring the coal-fired units at Cane Run
before the end of 2015.


ROYAL & SUN: Cal. App. Keeps Ruling in Clayton et al. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Ronnie Clayton et al. entered into a written agreement with
Commercial Money Center, Inc. (CMC), a Nevada corporation,
providing that CMC would purchase equipment for Clayton et al.'s
use in their respective businesses, in exchange for Clayton et
al.'s promise to make monthly payments.  CMC subsequently bundled
these Contracts into "contract pools," and sold or assigned the
payment streams associated with the pooled contracts to various
financial institutions (the Assignees). The payment streams were
insured by insurance or surety companies (the Sureties) under
surety bonds. In separate indemnity agreements in favor of the
Sureties, Clayton et al. agreed to accept liability if they failed
to make payments under their Contracts, and the Sureties were
required to make payments under the terms of the surety bonds. In
addition, the Sureties were purportedly the Contract servicers,
who collected the Contract payments from appellants. According to
Clayton et al., the Sureties delegated this task to Commercial
Servicing Corporation (CSC), which was also a Nevada corporation.

In 2001, Clayton et al. sued CMC, alleging that the Contracts,
although entitled equipment leases, were actually loans that
charged usurious rates.  Clayton et al. also sued (1) CSC, (2) the
shareholders of CMC and CSC, (3) the Assignees, and (4) the
Sureties. The complaint also included a representative claim under
California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Business & Professions
Code section 17200. In 2002, respondents Guardian Capital XV, LLC
(Guardian), NorStates Bank, formally known as Bank of Waukegan
(NorStates), and Citibank, N.A. (Citibank), were substituted in
place of doe assignee defendants. Additionally, Royal & Sun
Alliance US (Royal) was substituted into the case in place of a
doe surety defendant.

In June 2002, the case was automatically stayed pursuant to
Bankruptcy Code section 362, after CMC and CSC filed voluntary
bankruptcy petitions under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The
case was then removed to the bankruptcy court. After obtaining an
order from the bankruptcy court remanding their claims against the
other defendants, on October 15, 2003, plaintiffs filed a second
amended and supplemental complaint (SAC). After the trial court
(Judge Charles McCoy) sustained demurrers to the SAC and entered
judgments of dismissal in favor of certain defendants, Clayton et
al. appealed.

While the appeal was pending, Proposition 64 was passed. It
provided that a named plaintiff may bring a representative UCL
claim only if the plaintiff "'has suffered injury in fact and has
lost money or property as a result of such unfair competition.'"
(Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn's, LLC (2006) 39
Cal.4th 223, 227.)

After ordering supplemental briefing on the impact of Proposition
64, the Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Four, issued its decision. (Clayton v. Fisher (November 18, 2008,
B179134) [nonpub. opn.].)  The Appeals Court held that as no
judgment of dismissal had been entered in favor of defendants
named in both the individual and representative claims (such as
Guardian and Royal), appellants could not appeal from the trial
court's rulings, as there was no final judgment. (Hill v. City of
Long Beach (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 4th 1684, 1695 [order sustaining
demurrers not appealable; appeal may be taken only after trial
court enters judgment of dismissal].) As to defendants named in
the representative UCL claim (such as Citibank and NorStates), the
Appeals Court vacated the judgments of dismissal and remanded the
matter to the superior court to allow Clayton et al. to amend and
substitute a new plaintiff or plaintiffs with standing under the
UCL.

After remand, Clayton et al. filed a fourth amended and
supplemental complaint (4thAC). The trial court (Judge Emilie H.
Elias) sustained demurrers to certain causes of action, but
granted Clayton et al. leave to amend others.  Clayton et al.
subsequently filed a fifth amended complaint (5thAC). The trial
court (Judge Carl J. West) sustained respondents' demurrers to
this complaint, and judgments of dismissal in favor of respondents
were entered.  Clayton et al. filed an appeal, challenging the
prior orders sustaining respondents' demurrers.

In a January 13, 2015 decision available at http://is.gd/nWmZKz
from Leagle.com, the Appeals Court concluded that Clayton et al.'s
claims against respondents fail for numerous reasons. First,
Citibank and NorStates cannot be sued on any claim except the UCL
claim, as the non-UCL claims were time-barred. Second, Royal
cannot be sued for receiving purportedly usurious payments
pursuant to orders of a bankruptcy court. Third, respondents
cannot be directly liable for usury or failure to be licensed, as
they made no loans to appellants. Finally, respondents cannot be
vicariously liable for CMC's making of allegedly usurious loans
and failure to be licensed as a California finance lender.
Accordingly, there was no reversible error in the trial court
orders sustaining demurrers to appellants' various complaints.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Appellants are Barton, Klugman &
Oetting's Thomas E. McCurnin, Esq. -- tmccurnin@bkolaw.com -- and
Mark A. Newton, Esq. -- mnewton@bkolaw.com -- and Affeld Grivakes
Zucker's David W. Affeld, Esq. dwa@agzlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent Royal &Sun:

     James Patterson, Esq.
     PATTERSON LAW GROUP
     402 W Broadway, 29th Floor
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Tel: (619) 398-4760
     Fax: (619) 756-6991

          - and -

     Steve Merouse, Esq.
     Richard Zuckerman, Esq.
     DENTONS US LLP
     1221 Avenue of the Americas
     New York, NY 10020-1089
     Tel: (212) 768 6700
     Fax: (212) 768 6800
     E-mail: steven.merouse@dentons.com
             richard.zuckerman@dentons.com


S A GODINEZ: Dist. Ct. Consolidates Haywood and Norwood Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
SEYON HAYWOOD, Plaintiff, v. S A GODINEZ, et al., Defendants.
LAMONT NORWOOD, Plaintiff, v. S A GODINEZ, et al., Defendants,
CASE NOS. 14-CV-01027-JPG-DGW, 15-CV-00035-JPG-PMF, (S.D. Ill,)
are before the Court for case management purposes. Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) the Court has discretion to
consolidate actions that involve a common question of law or fact.
Haywood v. Godinez, (Case Number 14-cv-1027-JPG-DGW) and Lamont
Norwood v. Godinez, (Case Number 15-cv-00035-JPG-PMF) both involve
common questions of law and fact, namely, the reduction to two
meals a day at the Pinckneyville Correctional Center.

Accordingly, for the purposes of discovery and trial, District
Judge J. Phil Gilbert, in a memorandum and order dated March 16,
2015, consolidated Haywood v. Godinez, (Case Number 14-cv-1027-
JPG-DGW) with Norwood v. Godinez, (Case Number 15-cv-00035-JPG-
PMF). All future filing will bear the consolidated caption used in
the order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/zj5c7a
from Leagle.com, and will be filed only in Haywood v. Godinez,
(Case Number 14-cv-1027-JPG-DGW). The Court will strike any
filings in Case Number 15-cv-0035-JPG-PMF subsequent to the order.
Further, due to the consolidation, Norwood v. Godinez, (Case
Number 15-cv-00035-JPG-PMF) is reassigned from Magistrate Judge
Frazier to Magistrate Judge Wilkerson.

Judge Gilbert added that counsel has been appointed for plaintiff
in Haywood v. Godinez, and he will be notified of the
consolidation. At this time, Plaintiff Norwood's Motions for
Recruitment of Counsel, Motion for Class Action Certification, and
Motion for Recruitment of Counsel filed in Norwood v. Godinez,
(Case Number 15-cv-00035-JPG-PMF) are denied without prejudice.
Plaintiff can refile, if necessary, after a ruling on the Motion
for Class Action currently pending in the Haywood matter, he said.

Judge Gilbert directed the Clerk of Court to consolidate these
cases and to reassign Norwood v. Godinez, (Case Number 15-cv-
00035-JPG-PMF) to Magistrate Judge Wilkerson.

Lamont Norwood, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


SEADRILL LIMITED: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sheldon Glow, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Seadrill Limited, John Fredriksen, Per Wullf and Rune
Magnus Lundetre, Case No. 1:15-cv-01770 (S.D.N.Y., March 10,
2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects

Seadrill Limited is a Bermuda-based offshore drilling contractor,
providing offshore drilling services to the oil and gas industry
worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SFBSC MANAGEMENT: Dancers Can Use Pseudonyms in Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Former dancers of SFBSC Management, LLC alleged that the Defendant
wrongfully classified them as independent contractors, and thus
denied them minimum wage and other benefits. They filed a putative
class action against SFBSC for unfair lablor practices under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) 29 U. S. C. Sections 201-219 and
under various California labor laws in the case JANE ROES 1-2, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. SFBSC MANAGEMENT, LLC and DOES 1-200, Defendants,
Case No. 143616-LB (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs asked the court to allow them to proceed under
"Jane Roe" pseudonyms and for future Plaintiffs to join suit by
filing their FLSA consent under seal. The Defendants argued that
the Plaintiff failed to establish a severe or even reasonable
threat of harm from being made to proceed under their own names;
that their "alleged privacy concerns" do not justify anonymity;
and that SFBSC will be prejudiced if the Plaintiffs use pseudonyms
because anonymity will both impede discovery in this case and deny
SFBSC effective res judicata defenses in the future.

Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of the United States District Court
for Northern District of California signed a Stipulated and
(Proposed) Protective Order Governing Confidential and Highly
Confidential Information dated January 12, 2015, available at
http://is.gd/E2U1rKfrom Leagle.com, granting the motion to
proceed pseudonymously.  Because that decision should largely
answer the concerns that drive the sealing motion, and because
sealing requests should be made with respect to particular
documents as the case progresses, the court denied the sealing
motion.  The Court found the matter suitable for determination
without oral argument.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Steven Gregory Tidrick, Esq.
Joel Benjamin Young, Esq.
THE TIDRICK LAW FIRM
2039 Shattuck Ave., #308
Berkeley, CA 94704
Tel: (510)788-5100
Fax: (510)291-3226

Defendants are represented by Douglas J. Melton, Esq. --
dmelton@longlevit.com -- and Shane Michael Cahill, Esq. --
scahill@longlevit.com -- Long & Levitt LLP


SITEWISE CORPORATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Anderberg, Rex Catasus, Dallas Hensley, and Nickolas Jenkin,
each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Sitewise Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-00501 (D. Colo., March
10, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime compensation for the hours in excess of
40 hours in a single week.

Sitewise Corporation engaged in providing multifaceted oil and gas
services throughout the State of Colorado.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua Jon Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM
      650 South Shackleford, #400
      Little Rock, AR 72211
      Telephone: (501) 221-0088
      Facsimile: (866) 591-4661
      E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


SOCIAL SECURITY: Faces Cal. Suit Over Civil Rights Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mohammad Nassiri, Anh T. Thai, Diep Thi Nguyen, Ahmed Mohamed
Jeylani and Does 1-100, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Commissioner of Social
Security; Social Security Administration; Nick LNU, SSA Agent;
SSA-Agent 2, Case No. 3:15-cv-00583-MMA-JMA (S.D. Cal., March 14,
2015) asserts Civil Rights-related claims.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alexandra T. Manbeck, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDRA T. MANBECK
          P.O. Box 449
          Cross River, NY 10518
          Telephone: (914) 763-2426
          E-mail: manbeckjd@optonline.net


SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: "Esqueda" Suit Transferred to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Martin Esqueda v. Sonic Automotive
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00444-JM-NLS, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Santa Ana).  The Central District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:15-cv-00404-JVS-DFM to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from labor-related disputes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP APC
          550 South Hope Street, Suite 2655
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
          E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

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


SPINRITE LIMITED: Recalls Tizzy Yarn Due to Entanglement Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 19, 2015
Posting date: March 19, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Hobby/Craft Items
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-52613

The recall includes all 11 colors of Bernat brand Tizzy Yarn. The
yarn was sold as a ball or skein in a 100 gram (3.5 ounce) package
with a paper sleeve. The green sleeve has a striped border with a
photo of a baby in a knitted sweater and "Bernat" printed in all
white capital letters and "Tizzy" printed in yellow and orange
letters. UPC codes included in the recall are printed under the
barcode on the paper sleeve.

Below is a full listing of the colour numbers, colour names and
UPC codes included in the recall:

   Colour Codes   Colour Name         UPC
   ------------   -----------         ---
   24005          Mashmallow White    057355350380
   24114          Playtime Denim      057355375970
   24128          Blue Skies          057355350397
   24230          Sweet Green Pea     057355350403
   24305          Pixie Purple        057355350410
   24412          Red Riding Hood     057355375987
   24421          Posey Pink          057355350427
   24611          Dandelion Yellow    057355350434
   24627          Playtime            057355366336
   24628          Creamsicle          057355350441
   24711          Day Dream           057355355521

In finished knit or crochet items, the yarn can unravel or snag
and form a loop, posing an entanglement hazard to young children.

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

Spinrite has received two reports of children becoming entangled
from unraveling or snagging yarn blankets. One incident occurred
in Canada and one occurred in the US. No consumer injuries were
reported.

Approximately 220,000 units of yarn have been sold in Canada.

The recalled products were sold from November, 2011 to February,
2015.

Manufactured in China.

Distributor: Spinrite Limited Partnership

Consumers should immediately stop using the yarn or finished yarn
projects, keep them out of the reach of young children, and
contact Bernat a full refund.

For more information, consumers can contact Bernat toll-free at 1-
844-418-7973 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern, or by visiting
the Bernat's recall website.

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

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

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/AmaTH9


STAR SCIENTIFIC: "Baldwin" Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend
-------------------------------------------------------------
Howard T. Baldwin filed a putative class action against Star
Scientific, Inc. et al. for violations of consumer protection
statutes, breaches of express and implied warranties and claims on
common law unjust enrichment in the case.  The Plaintiff alleged
that he purchased a pharmaceutical product from the Defendants
that turned out to be ineffective. He further alleged that he was
deceived by the the Defendants' advertisements and specify a total
claims of more than 100 individual class members exceed $5,000,000
in the aggregate.

Defendants contend that Plaintiff lacks Article III standing to
assert claims under the laws of any state other than Illinois.
Defendants also argue that Plaintiff's allegations underlying his
Illinois state-law claims are insufficient.

In the Order dated January 13, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/EObeSdfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Rebecca R.
Pallmeyer of the United States District Court for Northern
District of Illinois granted Defendants' motion to dismiss all of
the Plaintiff's individual claims because they fail to satisfy
federal pleading standards. The claims are dismissed without
prejudice. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a claim under
Illinois law, the court declined to rule on Defendants' challenge
to Plaintiff's ability to assert claims under the laws of other
states. Plaintiff was given leave to file an amended complaint.

The case is captioned, HOWARD T. BALDWIN,individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STAR
SCIENTIFIC, INC., ROCK CREEK PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., and GNC
HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 14C588 (N.D. Ill.).

Howard T. Baldwin is represented by Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq. --
dank@hbsslaw.com -- Steve W. Berman, Esq. -- steve@hbsslaw.com --
Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq. -- beth@hbsslaw.com -- at Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP

Defendants are represented by Paul J. Walsen, Esq. --
paul.walsen@klgates.com -- John William Rotunno, Esq. --
john.rotunno@klgates.com -- Molly K. McGinley, Esq. --
molly.mcginley@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP


STRYKER BIOTECH: Physicians Healthsource Suit Goes to Trial
-----------------------------------------------------------
PHYSICIANS HEALTHSOURCE, INC., Plaintiff, v. STRYKER SALES
CORPORATION, STRYKER BIOTECH, L.L.C., STRYKER CORPORATION, JOHN
DOES 1-10, and HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS CORP., Defendants, Case No.
Case No. 1:12-CV-0729 (W.D. Mich.), alleges that Defendants'
practice of sending faxes violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.  A motion to certify class was granted on December
11, 2013 in the case.  The Plaintiff, Defendant Stryker and
defendant Howmedica all filed motions for summary judgment on the
case.

District Judge Robert J. Jonker, in his Opinion and Order dated
January 12, 2015 available at http://is.gd/U1wnoSfrom Leagle.com,
ruled that Defendant Howmedica's Motion for Summary Judgment is
denied; Defendant Stryker's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied;
and Plaintiff PHI's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied in all
respects except one: the fax was considered "unsolicited".

"The Court finds as a matter of law that the faxes at issue are
"unsolicited," but that genuine issues of material fact preclude
summary judgment for any party on all other issues. Accordingly,
the motions are denied because no party is entitled to judgment as
a matter of law," the ruling said.

Plaintiff Physicians Healthsource is represented by:

     David Max Oppenheim, Esq.
     Glenn L. Hara, Esq.
     Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
     Wallace C. Solberg, Esq.
     Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
     ANDERSON & WANCA
     3701 West Algonquin Road #760,
     Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
     Tel: (855)827-2329

Defendants Stryker Sales Corporation and Howmedica Osteonics Corp.
are represented by:

     Anthony J. Anscombe, Esq.
     David S. Almeida, Esq.
     Mary Elizabeth Buckley, Esq.
     SEDGWICK LLP
     One North Wacker Drive, Suite 4200
     Chicago, IL 60606-2841
     E-mail: anthony.anscombe@sedgwicklaw.com
             dalmeida@sheppardmullin.com
             mary.buckley@sedgwicklaw.com


SUKHMANI INC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Juris Ivans, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons v. Sukhmani Inc. d/b/a Tamarind Tribeca, Rattan
Inc. d/b/a Tamarind, Avtar Singh Walia, and Gary Walia, Case No.
1:15-cv-01915-UA (S.D.N.Y., March 13, 2015) seeks, for the
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees, unpaid wages, unpaid
minimum wage, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, and all other appropriate legal and
equitable relief, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Sukhmani Inc., doing business as Tamarind Tribeca, is a New York
State domestic corporation with its principal office and place of
business located in New York City.  Rattan Inc., doing business as
Tamarind, was a New York State domestic corporation with its
principal office and place of business in New York City.  The
Individual Defendants are owners, officers, managers or operators
of Sukhmani.  The Defendants operate an Indian food restaurant
under the names of Tamarind and Tamarind Tribeca.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
          NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          2747 Coney Island Ave
          Brooklyn, NY 11235
          Telephone: (718) 808-2224
          E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com


TAKATA CORP: Faces "Schwebel" Class Suit Over Defective Airbags
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joan Schwebel, PhD and Adeline Cadit, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Takata Corporation, TK
Holdings, Inc., Highland Industries, Inc., Honda Motor Co., Ltd.,
and American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-21030-PCH
(S.D. Fla., March 13, 2015) is brought on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, who purchased or leased Defective Vehicles
manufactured, distributed, or sold by the Vehicle Manufacturer
Defendants that contain airbags manufactured by Takata.

The "Defective Vehicles" refers to all vehicles purchased or
leased in the United States that have airbags manufactured by
Takata and have been subject to an airbag-related warning or
recall.  The Plaintiffs allege that the Defective Vehicles contain
airbags manufactured by Defendant Takata that, instead of
protecting vehicle occupants from bodily injury during accidents,
violently explode and expel vehicle occupants with lethal amounts
of metal debris and shrapnel.

Takata Corporation is a foreign for-profit corporation with its
principal place of business in Tokyo, Japan.  Takata is a
specialized supplier of automotive safety systems that designs,
manufactures, tests, markets, distributes, and sells airbags.  TK
Holdings Inc. is a subsidiary of Takata Corporation headquartered
in Auburn Hills, Michigan.  TK Holdings sells, designs,
manufactures, tests, marks, and distributes airbags in the United
States.  Highland Industries, Inc. is a subsidiary of Takata
Corporation and is headquartered in Greensboro, North Carolina.
Highland manufactures industrial and automotive textile product
solutions, including airbag fabrics for the automotive airbag
industry.

Honda Motor Co., Ltd. is a foreign for-profit corporation with its
principal place of business in Tokyo, Japan.  Honda Motor
manufactures and sells motorcycles, automobiles, and power
products through independent retail dealers, outlets, and
authorized dealerships primarily in Japan, North America, Europe,
and Asia.  American Honda Motor Co., Inc. is a subsidiary of Honda
Motor headquartered in Torrance, California.  American Honda
conducts the sale, marketing, and operational activities for Honda
cars, trucks, and sport utility vehicles automobile parts in the
United States.  American Honda manufactures and assembles its
vehicles for sale in the United States in automobile plants
located in Greensburg, Indiana, East Liberty, Ohio, Lincoln,
Alabama, and Marysville, Ohio.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John B. Ostrow, Esq.
          JOHN B. OSTROW, P.A.
          777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1210
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 358-1496
          Facsimile: (305) 371-9628
          E-mail: jostrow@bellsouth.net
                  jbostrow@yahoo.com


TIFFIN: Recalls Breeze 2014 Models Due to Safety Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 17, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motorhome
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Steering
Units affected: 6
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015114TC
ID number: 2015114

On certain motorhomes, the left front steering knuckle may have
been manufactured with material that do not meet specification.
Steering knuckle failure could result in a sudden loss of control
of the vehicle, increasing the risk of a crash causing injury
and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will inspect and
replace left front steering knuckles with date code 24D3.

  Make      Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----      ----------------------
  TIFFIN    BREEZE     2014


TRANSILVANIA TRADING: Recalls Trader Joe's Walnuts
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 17, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Transilvania Trading
Distribution: British Columbia
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9717

Transilvania Trading is recalling Trader Joe's brand walnuts from
the marketplace due to possible Salmonella contamination.
Consumers should not consume the recalled products described
below.

The following products may have been sold at Pirate Joe's, located
at 2348 West 4th Avenue, Vancouver, British Columbia.

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

Food contaminated with Salmonella may not look or smell spoiled
but can still make you sick. Young children, pregnant women, the
elderly and people with weakened immune systems may contract
serious and sometimes deadly infections. Healthy people may
experience short-term symptoms such as fever, headache, vomiting,
nausea, abdominal cramps and diarrhea. Long-term complications may
include severe arthritis.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of these products.

This recall was triggered by a recall in another country. The
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If
other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.
00
The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

  Brand name   Common name    Size   Code(s)          UPC
  ----------   -----------    ---    on product       ---
                                     ----------
Trader Joe's   Raw California 454 g  Best By: 12/2015 0037 3685
               Walnut Pieces         Lot: GU4345
Trader Joe's   Raw California 454 g  Best By: 12/2015 0094 3338
               Walnut Halves         Lots: GU4346,
               & Pieces              GU4349, GU4356
Trader Joe's   Raw California 454 g  Best By: 12/2015 0051 9342
               Walnut Baking         Lot: GU4350
               Pieces
Trader Joe's   Raw California 454 g  Best By: 12/2015 0051 9328
               Premium Walnut        Lots: GU4343,
               Halves                GU4344, GU4351,
                                     GU4352
Trader Joe's   Organic Raw    340 g  Best By:         0058 6627
               Walnut Pieces         OCT 15 2015
               & Halves              OCT 16 2015
                                     OCT 17 2015
                                     OCT 20 2015
                                     NOV 17 2015
                                     NOV 18 2015
                                     NOV 19 2015
                                     NOV 20 2015
                                     NOV 28 2015
                                     DEC 01 2015

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/iH8BkX


UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Final Hearing Held to Approve Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Umpqua Holdings Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the court held a
final approval hearing on February 19, 2015, to approve a
settlement in the class action against the bank by Amber
Hawthorne.

"In our Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2011, we
initially reported on a class action lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California against the
Bank by Amber Hawthorne relating to overdraft fees and the posting
order of point of sale and ACH items.  In March 2014, the parties
reached an agreement to settle the case and have executed a
comprehensive written settlement agreement. On September 15, 2014,
the court entered an order granting a motion for preliminary
approval of the class settlement and held a final approval hearing
on February 19, 2015. Settlement of this matter on the agreed
terms will have no material adverse effect on the Company's
consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash
flows," the Comany said.


UMPQUA HOLDINGS: March 27 Hearing to Approve Deal in Merger Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Umpqua Holdings Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the court will
consider final approval of the proposed settlement at a hearing
scheduled for March 27, 2015, in the class action related to the
merger with Sterling Financial Corporation.

"In our Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2013, we
initially reported on two separate class action lawsuits filed in
Spokane County, Washington, Superior Court against the Company and
other defendants arising from the then-proposed Merger, which the
court consolidated. The consolidated litigation generally alleges
that directors of Sterling breached their duties to the Sterling
shareholders by approving the Merger, failing to take steps to
maximize shareholder value, engaging in a flawed sales process,
and agreeing to deal protection provisions in the Merger agreement
that are alleged to unduly favor the Company. The Company is
alleged to have aided and abetted the alleged breaches of duty.
The consolidated litigation also alleges that the disclosures
approved by the Sterling board in connection with the Merger and
the vote thereon are false and misleading in various respects. As
relief, the complaints sought to enjoin the Merger and seek, among
other things, damages in an unspecified amount and payment of
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs. The defendants believe that
the lawsuits are without merit. On January 16, 2014, the parties
executed a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") that contains
the essential terms of a settlement and dismissal of the
consolidated cases. The MOU does not call for the payment of any
money damages, but required the defendants to make certain
additional disclosures relating to the Merger and to pay the
attorney fees, costs, and expenses of plaintiffs' counsel incurred
in connection with the action. The agreed additional disclosures
were made and included in the joint proxy statement/prospectus
filed January 22, 2014. The MOU further provides that if the
parties cannot agree on the amount of fees, costs, and expenses to
be paid by the defendants to plaintiffs' counsel, such amount
shall be decided by the court. There has been no significant
activity in the cases since the MOU was executed. On September 26,
2014, the parties to the litigation filed a notice of settlement
with the Court.  The Court preliminarily approved the proposed
settlement on December 5, 2014.  The Court will consider final
approval of the proposed settlement at a hearing scheduled for
March 27, 2015," the Company said.


UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Opening Brief Due April 3 in Roseville Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Umpqua Holdings Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the and
appellant's opening brief is due April 3, 2015, in the appeal
related to the case Roseville Employees' Retirement System v.
Sterling Financial Corp.

The Company assumed, as successor-in-interest to Sterling, the
defense of litigation matters pending against Sterling. Sterling
previously reported that on December 11, 2009, a putative
securities class action complaint captioned City of Roseville
Employees' Retirement System v. Sterling Financial Corp., et al.,
No. CV 09-00368-EFS, was filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington against Sterling and
certain of its current and former officers. On June 18, 2010, lead
plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint alleging that the
defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making false and
misleading statements concerning Sterling's business and financial
results. Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages and attorneys' fees
and costs. On August 30, 2010, Sterling moved to dismiss the
Complaint, and the court granted the motion to dismiss without
prejudice on August 5, 2013. On October 11, 2013, the lead
plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint with the same
defendants, class period, alleged violations, and relief sought.
On January 24, 2014, Sterling moved to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint, and on September 17, 2014, the court
entered an order dismissing the amended consolidated complaint in
its entirety with no further leave to amend. On October 24, 2014,
plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit from the district court's order granting the
motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint and
appellant's opening brief is due April 3, 2015.


UNITED CONTINENTAL: Faces "David" Suit in District of New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cary M. David, On behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. United Continental Holdings, Inc., and United
Airlines, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01926-SDW-SCM (D.N.J., March 15,
2015) asserts breach of contract claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          560 Sylvan Avenue
          Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
          Telephone: (201) 567-7377
          Facsimile: (201) 567-7337
          E-mail: jsarnelli@GARDYLAW.com


UNITED STATES: Court Rejects Bid to Dismiss "Smith" Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States government moved to dismiss class action and
willfulness claims in the case captioned, ROY SMITH, on his own
behalf and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED
STATES, Defendant, Case No. 13-161C.

On March 4, 2013, Plaintiff Roy Smith, a former General Manager in
Training at the Veterans Canteen Service (VCS) in Temple, Texas,
filed a complaint on behalf of himself and all those similarly
situated to him alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act. He alleged that he worked more than 40 hours per week; that
defendant had "failed and/or refused" to pay plaintiff, and those
similarly situated, overtime compensation for excess hours; and
that defendant had acted willfully in its refusal to pay plaintiff
and those similarly situated at overtime rates.

On August 9, 2013, Mr. Smith moved to conditionally certify a
nationwide class of current and former VCS Interns. On August 11,
2014, the Court granted-in-part and denied-in-part plaintiff's
motion, authorizing plaintiff to notify similarly situated
employees at the Temple, Texas VCS facility, but denying
plaintiff's motion for conditional class certification.

Defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff's class action and
willfulness claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted under Rules of the United States Court of Federal
Claims (RCFC) 12(c) and RCFC 12(h)(2)(B). The government further
asserted that plaintiff had failed to allege any of the required
elements for a class action under RCFC 23, such as numerosity,
commonality, typicality, adequacy of representation, and
superiority of a class action in resolving the case, and that
plaintiff's willfulness claim should also be dismissed because the
original complaint failed to provide sufficient evidence that the
government acted willfully.

District Judge Victor J. Wolski of the Unites States Court of
Federal Claims, in the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March
17, 2015 available at http://is.gd/W3FukMfrom Leagle.com, granted
Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint pursuant
to RCFC 15(a)(2).  The judge said Defendant's motion to dismiss
the original complaint is moot and therefore denied. It can be
noted that prior to the filing of Defendant's motion to dismiss
the orginal complaint, Plaintiff already moved to amend the
complaint. When an amended complaint is filed, the new complaint
supersedes all previous complaints and controls the case from that
point forward.

The government is directed to file its response to the amended
complaint on or by March 31, 2015.

Plaintiff Roy Smith is represented by Ryan Morgan, Esq., at MORGAN
& MORGAN, P.A.

Defendant is represented by:

Joshua A. Mandlebaum, Esq.
US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL DIVISION
Ben Franklin Station, PO Box 480
Washington, DC 20044
Tel: 202-305-309


UNITED STATES: "Watkins" Wrongful Imprisonment Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Charles F. Lettow of the Court of Federal Claims granted the
motion to dismiss of the Defendant in the case captioned DENNIS
WATKINS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, Case No. 14-639C.

Dennis Watkins sued the United States government for wrongful
imprisonment.  He is currently serving a five-year sentence at a
correctional facility in New York. He averred that all information
extracted from him and six other co-accused are compelled under
duress, threat and coercion. He demanded for his and his co-
accused release from prison and $630 million as relief.

The United States moved for the dismissal of the case for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12 (b)(1) of the
Rules of the Court of Federal Claims.

Tha Court in its Opinion and Order ruled in favor of the Defendant
stating that the Plaintiff failed to identify an applicable money-
mandating statute and and meet the burden of establishing the
court's jurisdiction over his claims. His motion to schedule
preliminary hearing is denied in light of the jurisdictional
defects in his complaint.

A copy of the Opinion and Order dated Jan. 12, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/XzsSKYfrom Leagle.com.

Defendant is represented by:

     Robert C. Bigler, Esq.
          Joyce R. Branda, Esq.
     Robert E. Kirschman, Esq.
     Kirk T. Manhardt, Esq.
     U.S. Department of Justice
     450 Fifth Street, NW,
     Suite 6400 South
     Washington, DC 20530
     Tel: (202)532-4882
     Fax: (202) 514-8742


UNITED STATES: Lopez-Venegas Case Settlement Gets Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John A. Kronstadt entered final judgment on March
11, 2015, in ISIDORA LOPEZ-VENEGAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JEH
JOHNSON, et al., Defendants, NO. CV 13-03972-JAK (PLAX), (C.D.
Cal.) approving the class action settlement in the case.

The Court granted final certification of a class defined as: "all
Individuals who returned to Mexico pursuant to a Qualifying
Voluntary Return between June 1, 2009 and August 28, 2014, and who
are:

(a) Based on the facts as they existed at the time of his or her
Qualifying Voluntary Return, the Individual:

        (i) Last entered the United States with inspection prior
to his or her Qualifying Voluntary Return and satisfied the non-
discretionary criteria for submitting an approvable application to
adjust status under 8 U.S.C. Section 1255(a), based on a bona fide
immediate relative relationship defined in 8 U.S.C. Section
1151(b)(2)(A)(i);

       (ii) Was the beneficiary of a properly filed Form I-130
Petition for Alien Relative based on a bona fide family
relationship, which was pending or approved at the time of the
Qualifying Voluntary Return;

      (iii) Satisfied the non-discretionary criteria to apply for
cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. Section 1229b; or

       (iv) His or her Qualifying Voluntary Return occurred on or
after June 15, 2012, and he or she satisfied the non-discretionary
criteria for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals ("DACA")
listed on page one of the June 15, 2012 memorandum from former
Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano; and

(b) At the time of application for class membership, the
Individual:

        (i) Is physically present within Mexico; and

       (ii) Is inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. Section 1182(a)(9)(B),
due to his or her Qualifying Voluntary Return, except that this
requirement does not apply to an Individual seeking recognition as
Class Member Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 106 Filed
03/11/15 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:2318 under Paragraph (a)(i) above.

The term "ICE" means U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and
the term "Border Patrol" means U.S. Border Patrol, both of which
are within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.  The term
"Qualifying Voluntary Return" means "any Voluntary Return that
occurred within the Relevant Area during the period starting June
1, 2009, and ending on the date of the District Court's
Preliminary Approval of the Classwide Settlement," August 28,
2014. The term "Voluntary Return" means "the process by which an
Individual in the custody of ICE or Border Patrol admits being
unlawfully present in the United States, and returns to his or her
country of citizenship or nationality under 8 U.S.C. Section
1229c(a), in lieu of formal removal proceedings. This term does
not include voluntary departure granted by an immigration judge
during or at the conclusion of formal removal proceedings."
Further, the term "Individual" means "a natural person who is not
a citizen or national of the United States."

All persons who satisfy the class definition are Class Members,
regardless of whether they file an application for class
membership. However, an Individual is not a Class Member if: (1)
Defendants deny his or her application for class membership and
that decision is not otherwise reversed; or (2) Defendants deny
him or her physical entry into the United States.

Class Counsel is awarded $700,000 (total) in fees and costs, in
full settlement of attorneys' fees and costs for this action and
all obligations and disputes arising from it.

A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/1xkg27from
Leagle.com.


URBAN Q: Faces "Vergara" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Vergara, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown v. Urban Q Company d/b/a
Wrigley Q and Joyce Jones, Case No. 1:15-cv-02130 (N.D. Ill.,
March 10, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime compensation for the hours in excess of
40 hours in a single week.

The Defendants own and operate Wrigley Q restaurant located in
Schaumburg, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WEST ASSET: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mordechai Deutsch, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. West Asset Management, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-01316 (E.D.N.Y., March 13, 2015) accuses the Defendant of
violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WILLIAMS ALEXANDER: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Normarily Cruz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Williams, Alexander & Associates, Inc., and John Does
1-25, Case No. 2:15-cv-01895-MCA-JBC (D.N.J., March 13, 2015) is
brought for damages and declaratory and injunctive relief arising
from the Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, which prohibits debt collectors from engaging in
abusive, deceptive and unfair practices.

WAA is a New Jersey corporation with its executive offices located
in Wayne, New Jersey.  WAA is a company that uses the mail,
telephone, and facsimile and regularly engages in business the
principal purpose of which is to attempt to collect debts alleged
to be due another.  The identities of the Doe Defendants are
currently unknown.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
          375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Telephone: (973) 227-5900
          Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
          E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com

               - and -

          Benjamin J. Wolf, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
          375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Telephone: (973) 227-5900
          Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
          E-mail: bwolf@legaljones.com

               - and -

          Ari Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS LAW, LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 660-8169
          Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com


XPO LOGISTICS: Reached Deal to Settle Molina Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company has reached
a tentative agreement to settle the class action litigation
brought by Edwin Molina.

Pacer International Inc. is a party to a putative class action
litigation brought by Edwin Molina in the U.S. District Court,
Southern District of California. Molina asserts that he should be
classified as an employee, as opposed to an independent
contractor, and seeks damages for alleged violation of various
California wage and hour laws. Molina seeks to have the litigation
certified as a class action involving all owner-operators
contracted with Pacer Cartage at any time from August 2009 to the
present, which could involve as many as 600 claimants. Certain of
these potential claimants also may have claims under the actions
pending in California Superior Court. This matter is in the
initial stages of discovery and the court has not yet determined
whether to certify the matter as a class action. The Company has
reached a tentative agreement to settle this litigation with the
claimant, subject to court approval and acceptance by a minimum
percentage of members of the purported class. There can be no
assurance that the settlement agreement will be finalized and
executed, that the court will approve any such settlement
agreement or that it will be accepted by the requisite members of
the purported class.


XPO LOGISTICS: Settlement in Pacer Buyout Suit Fully Performed
--------------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the settlement agreement
in the Pacer Acquisition Litigation has received final court
approval and has been fully performed.

Between January 8 and January 16, 2014, five substantially
identical putative class actions were filed in the Tennessee
Chancery Court against the Company, Pacer International Inc. and
Pacer's directors challenging the Company's acquisition of Pacer.
By stipulation and order dated February 18, 2014, the Chancery
Court for Davidson County consolidated these cases under the
caption In re Pacer International, Inc. Shareholder Litigation,
No. 14-39-IV. The operative complaint in the consolidated case
alleges, among other things, that the directors of Pacer breached
their fiduciary duties to Pacer's shareholders in connection with
the proposed acquisition of Pacer by XPO by agreeing to the
proposed merger at an allegedly unfair price pursuant to a
purportedly flawed and conflicted sales process, by including
certain allegedly preclusive deal-protection measures, and by
misrepresenting and/or omitting certain allegedly material
information in the proxy statement relating to the transaction.
The parties have reached a settlement agreement that required
certain additional disclosures which were made pursuant to a
Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on March 18, 2014,
and the Company's payment of the plaintiff attorneys' fees of $0.6
million. The settlement agreement has received final court
approval and has been fully performed.


                             *********

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  * * *