CAR_Public/150330.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, March 30, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 63


                             Headlines

76 CARRIAGE: Faces "McLean" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
94 CHRISTOPHER: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ABC CORP: "Wang" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
ALL AROUND: Faces "Mahon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
AMERICAN FAMILY: Faces "Hinely" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

AT&T MOBILITY: Says FTC Can't Sue Over Throttling
AVON PRODUCTS: Imprudently Manages Plan's Investment, Suit Says
BASIC RESEARCH: Settles Deceptive Advertising Class Action
BLACKBERRY LTD: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
BNY MELLON: Settles Suits Over Currency Transactions

CARGOLUX INTERNATIONAL: Deutsche Bahn Settles Antitrust Suit
CARPENTER CO: Price-Fixing Class Action Can Proceed
CATAMARAN HEALTH: Faces "Imes" Suit Over Illegal Insurance
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Judge Withdraws Temporary Restraining Order
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Faces "Muse" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

COOPER VISION: Faces "Hewitt" Suit Over Resale Price of Lens
CORPORATE RESOURCE: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
DBTG14 LTD: Faces "Cortes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
DELILAH'S DEN: Dancer Joins Minimum Wage Class Action
DIRECTV: FTC Files False Advertising Suit in California

DIRECTV: Court to Hear Appeal in Termination Fees Class Action
EASTERN ARMORED: Truckers Obtain Favorable Ruling in FLSA Suit
ESTES HEATING: "Elery" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
EXXON MOBIL: Judge Dismisses Mayflower Oil Spill Class Action
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Automated Text Messages

FOREST PHARMACEUTICALS: Illegally Records Calls, Action Claims
FORT COLLINS, CO: Judge Vacates Hearing in Panhandling Suit
FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Pleads Guilty to Spill-Related Charges
FT MEAT: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Gilman Law Pursues Securities Class Action

GENERAL MOTORS: CEO to Be Deposed in Ignition Switch Suits
GENERAL MOTORS: Documents Reveal Ignition Switch Problem Cover-Up
GOLDMAN SACHS: Magistrate Judge Rejects Gender Bias Class Action
GREEN BROOK: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Broking" Suit Claims
HAD INC: "Hannah" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

HAMILTON SCIENTIFIC: Sued Over Illegal Termination Policies
HERBALIFE LTD: Judge Dismisses Pyramid-Scheme Suit
HESKA CORPORATION: Faces "Fauley" Suit Over Unsolicited Faxes
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Judge OKs Autonomy Shareholder Settlement
IBM CORP: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Securities Fraud

IL MULINO: "Hawes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
INTER-CON SECURITY: Illegally Obtains Consumer Reports, Suit Says
JANI-KING: Franchisees Can Proceed With Class Action
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS: 4 Conn. Law Firms File Xarelto Suits
JM MATTRESS: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Action Claims

JOHNS HOPKINS: Nikita Levy Settlement Class Action Appeal Tossed
JSV ENTERPRISES: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
KAHALA CORP: Has Sent Unsolicited Fax Advertisements, Suit Claims
LENOVO US: Faces "Behren" Suit Over Harmful Spyware
LENOVO US: Faces "Russell" Suit Over Harmful Spyware

LEWIS ENERGY: Faces "Dominguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
LOS TAQUITOS: Faces "Olvera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Ashley" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Kleinsasser" Over Toxic Flooring
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Sahn" Suit Over Toxic Flooring

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Vickery" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "White" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Parnella" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Class Action Over Laminate Formaldehyde
LUZERNE COUNTY, PA: Bank May Not Be Added as Defendant in Suit

LYFT INC: Sued in Cal. Over Delayed Background Check Policies
MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Sheriff's Contempt May Spur Victim Payouts
MDHEARINGAID INC: Illegally Records Calls, "Byrd" Suit Claims
MEE CHI: "Mao" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
MERCK & CO: Claims Process Litigation Underway in NuvaRing Case

MERRILL LYNCH: Judge Denies Stay in "Naked" Short Sales Suit
MILLENNIUM PRODUCTS: Faces "Retta" Suit Over Product Misbranding
NAPER GOLD: Faces "Huerta" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Jury Awards $75,000 to Ticketholder Plaintiffs
NESTLE PURINA: Faces "Malcom" Class Action Over Beneful Pet Food

NESTLE PURINA: Parallel Litigation at Issue in "Adkins"
NESTLE PURINA: Says Beneful Pet Dog Class Action Baseless
NOMAC DRILLING: "Norrell" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
NVIDIA CORPORATION: Falsely Marketed GTX 970, "Palagno" Suit Says
OMNICARE INC: High Court Limits Suits Over Misleading Statements

OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Efforts to Settle Suit Over Forfeiture Laws Fail
RATP: Paris Commuters Mull Class Action Over Transport System
RAWLINGS COMPANY: Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in ERISA Suit
RAYONIER INC: Investors' Suits Consolidated Into Class Action

REDFLEX: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Red-Light Camera Suit
RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
ROYAL CANIN: Faces "Fauley" Suit Over Unsolicited Facsimiles
SAKS FIFTH: Faces Class Action Over Restrictive Return Policy
SANDHURST TRUSTEES: Class Action Over Wickham Collapse May Expand

SEARS CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Wrongful Dismissal
SIEMENS: Faces Suit in Brazil Over Alleged in Price-Fixing
SILVERBRICK GROUP: Faces "Byers" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
SONY PICTURES: Former Employees File Amended Class Action
STEWART'S SHOPS: Class Action Over Unpaid Wages Moves Forward

SUN PHARMACEUTICAL: Illegally Records Calls, "Gu" Suit Claims
T & S ROOFING: "Flores" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
TAKATA CORP: Faces "Taylor" Suit Over Defective Airbags
TARGET CORP: Judge Approves $10MM Data Breach Settlement
TCWD LIDO: "Lopez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

TEXCALE INC: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TIFFANY'S CABARET: Exotic Dancers File Wage Class Action
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Faces Class Actions Over Guardrail System
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Guardrail System Meets Safety Standards
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Antman Suit Over Alleged Data Breach

UNITED RECOVERY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
VECTREN CORPORATION: Sued Over Retirement Medical Benefits
WAL-MART STORES: Sued Over Pomegranate Juice Mislabeling

* Class Actions Over Herbal Supplements Fraud Pile Up
* FCRA Class Actions Against Employers Prevalent
* Securities Class Actions Against Life-Science Companies Double
* Oregon Votes for Bill to Change Handling of Class Action Funds


                            *********


76 CARRIAGE: Faces "McLean" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
David McLean, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. 76 Carriage Company, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01274 (E.D. Pa.,
March 12, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

76 Carriage Company, Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation
headquartered in Philadelphia, PA, which is a provider of
Sightseeing Tours and Specialty Transportation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter D. Winebrake, Esq.
      WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
      Twining Office Center, Suite 211
      715 Twining Road
      Dresher, PA 19025
      Telephone: (215) 884-2491
      Facsimile: (215) 884-2492
      E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com


94 CHRISTOPHER: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sergio Vilchis Garcia, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. 94 Christopher Inc. d/b/a Havana Alma De
Cuba, Louis Skibar, Gerardo Tlapa and Beatriz Dearmas, Case No.
1:15-cv-01822 (S.D.N.Y., March 12, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime pay as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 94
Christopher Street, New York, New York, 10014.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis Pechman, Esq.
      PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
      488 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 583-9500
      Facsimile: (212) 308-8582
      E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com


ABC CORP: "Wang" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Qu Wang, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated v. ABC Corp. d/b/a Wang's Kitchen, Wang Chen,
Jane (first name unknown) Zheng, "John Doe" and "Jane Doe" #1-10,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00372 (D. Conn., March 12, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, other wages, liquidated
damages, attorney's fees, costs of court, pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest and injunctive relief under the provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Wang's Kitchen restaurant located
at 251 Silas Deane Highway, Wethersfield, Connecticut 06109.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Avenue., Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8388
      Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
      E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


ALL AROUND: Faces "Mahon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Mahon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. All Around Transportation, Inc., et al, Case No. 1:15-cv-00180
(S.D. Ohio, March 14, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of
40 per workweek.

All Around Transportation, Inc. maintained its principal place of
business in Cincinnati, Hamilton County, Ohio and provides
transportation services to customers throughout the Greater
Cincinnati, Ohio area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Francis Scott, Esq.
      Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
      SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
      17410 Dorchester Dr.
      Cleveland, OH 44119
      Telephone: (216) 650-3318
      Facsimile: (216) 664-2663
      E-mail: jfscld@yahoo.com
              rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com


AMERICAN FAMILY: Faces "Hinely" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tammie Hinely and Jesus Sanchez, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. American Family Mutual Insurance
Company, Case No. 1:15-cv-00519 (D. Colo., March 12, 2015), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

American Family Mutual Insurance Company provides insurance
coverage to residents throughout the state of Colorado.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Karen Beth O'Connor, Esq.
      BACHUS & SCHANKER, LLC
      1899 Wynkoop Street, Suite 700
      Denver, CO 80202
      Telephone: (303) 893-9800
      Facsimile: (303) 893-9900
      E-mail: karen.oconnor@coloradolaw.net


AT&T MOBILITY: Says FTC Can't Sue Over Throttling
-------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that as the Federal
Communications Commission released long-awaited rules for
broadband Internet service on March 12, lawyers for AT&T Mobility
LLC asked a federal judge to toss a lawsuit brought by a separate
federal agency last year claiming AT&T misled some smartphone
customers with unlimited-data plans.

AT&T's lawyers at Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel and
Sidley Austin argued on March 12 that the company's status as a
"common carrier" under purview of the FCC shields it from Federal
Trade Commission enforcement actions.

The FTC sued AT&T in October in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California claiming that the company failed
to adequately disclose to unlimited-data customers that it would
cut speeds for those who reached certain use thresholds.  The
practice, known as throttling in the mobile industry, led to
problems with basic smartphone activities such as web browsing,
GPS navigation and streaming video, the FTC claims.

During arguments before U.S. District Judge Edward Chen on
March 12, Kellogg Huber's Michael Kellogg -- mkellogg@khhte.com --
said the FTC couldn't point to "a single case in which the FTC has
successfully asserted jurisdiction over a common carrier" in the
past 100 years.  Kellogg said the FCC rules issued on March 12
remove any doubt that mobile data services fall within its role as
a common carrier, making AT&T's mobile Internet service exempt
from FTC enforcement.

The FTC's Evan Rose said that the term common carrier applies to
activity rather than entities. "AT&T is not a common carrier when
it's providing service that's not subject to the Communications
Act," Ms. Rose said.  Ms. Rose pointed in particular to the
company's sale of giftcards as a service that would fall outside
the common-carrier activity regulated by the FCC.  Even though
Ms. Rose conceded that FTC won't be bringing enforcement actions
related to broadband Internet service going forward, the agency
didn't lose all authority to continue its lawsuit the moment FCC's
reclassification went into effect, he argued.  If it did, he said,
that would effectively immunize AT&T from any restitution and
consumer benefits that can come from FTC enforcement for its prior
unlawful behavior.

Judge Chen did little to indicate which way he might rule during
arguments, asking pointed questions of both sides.  However, Judge
Chen took note when Sidley's David Anderson --
dlanderson@sidley.com -- said the FCC has told AT&T that it
intends to bring an enforcement action of its own related to the
company's throttling practices.

Said Judge Chen, "When it comes out, notify the court -- if I
haven't already issued an order."


AVON PRODUCTS: Imprudently Manages Plan's Investment, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen A. McCoy and Katherine C. Walker, on behalf of themselves
and the Avon Personal Savings Account Plan, and/or alternatively
on behalf of a class consisting of similarly situated participants
and beneficiaries of the Plan v. Avon Products, Inc., Retirement
Board, Plan Administrator, Investment Committee, Shalabh Gupta,
Richard J. Valone, Michael Seay, and John Doe Defendants, Case No.
1:15-cv-01828 (S.D.N.Y., March 12, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, specifically by failure to prudently and loyally
manage the Plan's investment in Company stock.

Avon Products, Inc. is engaged in manufacturing and marketing
beauty and related products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Jason Klein, Esq.
      STULL STULL & BRODY
      6 East 45th Street, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 687-7230
      Facsimile: (212) 490-2022
      E-mail: mklein@ssbny.com


BASIC RESEARCH: Settles Deceptive Advertising Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a Salt Lake City-based company
has agreed to pay refunds to consumers who purchased its weight-
loss tablets to settle a class-action lawsuit that claimed its
advertising slogan, "Eat All You Want & Still Lose Weight," was
deceptive.

Under the proposed settlement, Basic Research will pay a refund of
$25 per box after being sued by law firms on behalf of consumers
who purchased the product called Akavar beginning in 2007.

A Basic Research representative didn't respond to requests for
comment.  But the company has denied any wrongdoing and would
still be able to use the slogan under the proposed agreement.

Salt Lake City attorney Jon Harper, who represents consumers, told
The Salt Lake Tribune that he couldn't comment other than to say
the litigation was resolved "on terms satisfactory to the
parties."

In 2007, a proposed class-action lawsuit was filed in U.S.
District Court in Utah against Basic Research on behalf of
consumers who bought Akavar based on the company's advertising.  A
second similar complaint was filed in state court in California in
2008.

The two lawsuits, which were eventually consolidated into one
action in federal court in Utah, said the company lacked a
scientific basis for the weight-loss claims and was deceiving
consumers.

Akavar was sold by major retailers and marketed as a wonder pill
in which consumers could "Eat All You Want & Still Lose Weight
. . . (And we couldn't say it in print if it wasn't true!)"

The company sold 60 capsules for $39.99 and two bottles for $79.98
with a third one for free, and sales brought in millions of
dollars, according to court documents.

In 2006, the Federal Trade Commission fined Basic Research $3
million and reached a settlement requiring the company to have a
scientific basis for the claims of its products.

The FTC and Basic Research sued each other in 2009 in federal
court in Utah over whether the company was violating the 2006
deal.

But last year, U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups sided with Basic
Research, noting two of four case studies done in 2001 suggested
the herbal compounds in Akavar helped users to lose weight.  His
decision is cited in the proposed settlement of the class-action
lawsuit, The Tribune reported.


BLACKBERRY LTD: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for Law.com, reports that BlackBerry Ltd.
may still be grasping at the heels of its smartphone competitors,
but the company isn't having much trouble beating back securities
class actions over its spotty performance.  On March 13, U.S.
District Judge Thomas Griesa in Manhattan dismissed the latest
investor lawsuit, handing a win to BlackBerry's defense team at
Morrison & Foerster.

The plaintiffs, represented by Kahn Swick & Foti, bought
BlackBerry stock between March 2013 and September 2013, when the
company was touting the prospects of its BlackBerry 10 line of
devices.  They alleged that they were duped into investing by the
company's overly rosy statements, but Judge Griesa held that
investors hadn't done enough to allege securities fraud and that
BlackBerry's alleged misstatements amounted to "puffery."

Although BlackBerry sounded an optimistic tone in some of its
earnings releases, Judge Griesa wrote, the company wasn't out of
line when it made certain statements about the BlackBerry 10
devices, including that the new line marked a transition point for
the company.

"While the complaint succeeds in showing that defendants put a
positive gloss on the company's performance, it fails to show how
that gloss amounted to fraud," Judge Griesa wrote.  "These
statements were so optimistic, and so lacking in tangible detail,
that they would be immaterial from a reasonable investor's
standpoint."

The Feb. 13 decision isn't BlackBerry's only recent litigation
victory over disgruntled investors.  In June, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit sided with the smartphone maker and
its lawyers at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in a similar
suit.

The Second Circuit's ruling came in a proposed class action that
dated back to 2011 and accused BlackBerry of misleading investors
about the prospects of its Playbook tablet and overall financial
performance.

Morrison & Foerster's Dan Marmalefsky -- dmarmalefsky@mofo.com --
who represented BlackBerry in the case before Judge Griesa, wasn't
immediately available to comment on March 16.  Law.com also
reached out to Kim Miller at Kahn Swick & Foti but didn't hear
back.


BNY MELLON: Settles Suits Over Currency Transactions
----------------------------------------------------
Michael Virtanen, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
New York and federal authorities reached a $714 million settlement
Thursday with Bank of New York Mellon in lawsuits alleging the
bank fraudulently represented rates for client currency
transactions for a decade.

Lawsuits filed in 2011 said BNY Mellon misrepresented rates it
would give in currency exchanges, providing clients nearly the
worst rates of the trading day while promising the best, obtaining
the best rates for itself and keeping the difference.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and U.S. Attorney
Preet Bharara said their joint effort showed the bank misled
customers and breached their trust.  The bank has agreed to
terminate certain executives involved, they said.

"Investors count on financial institutions to tell them the truth
about how their investments are being managed," Mr. Schneiderman
said.  "But Bank of New York Mellon misled customers and traded at
their expense."

Mr. Bharara said: "The bank, after three years of litigation, has
finally admitted what was always clear from the evidence --
contrary to its various representations, including a claim of
'best rates,' the bank in fact gave clients prices at or near the
worst interbank rates reported during the trading day.  The bank
repeatedly deceived its customers and is paying a heavy penalty
for it."

The bank said the agreement fully resolves lawsuits and
enforcement proceedings concerning its standing instructions on
foreign-exchange services for custodial clients before early 2012.

"We are pleased to put these legacy FX matters behind us, which is
in the best interest of our company and our constituents," the
bank said in a prepared statement.  "We continue to improve our
product offerings to ensure they are meeting client demand and
positioning clients to succeed in an increasingly complex
financial environment."

The investigation began with a 2009 whistleblower complaint.
Clients included public pension funds and nonprofits.

"The Bank was generally buying low from, and selling high to, its
own clients," according to a statement of facts attached to the
court settlement.  "The bank recorded the difference or 'spread'
between the rates it gave clients and the interbank market price
at the time the . . . transactions were priced as 'sales margin.'"


CARGOLUX INTERNATIONAL: Deutsche Bahn Settles Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Natalia Drozdiak, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports
that the cargo unit of German state railway Deutsche Bahn AG has
reached a settlement with three airlines that colluded to inflate
airfreight fees, increasing pressure on three other airlines still
targeted by the U.S. lawsuit.

Deutsche Bahn filed the lawsuit last August at a district court in
New York, seeking a total of $370 million in damages from six
airlines.  The airlines had already pleaded guilty to conspiring
on surcharges for fuel and security fees charged between 2000 and
2006.  The lawsuit relates only to shipments to, from or within
the U.S.

The German company has settled claims in the U.S. with Cargolux
International Airlines SA, Scandinavian airline SAS and Nippon
Cargo Airlines for a total amount under $100 million, according to
a person familiar with the matter.

"We have been able to dismiss the claims against several
airlines," said Deutsche Bahn management board member Gerd Becht.
"Deutsche Bahn will continue to pursue our claims against other
air carriers vigorously."

The overall compensation sought by Deutsche Bahn in the suit
remains the same and now pertains to a cargo unit of Air France-
KLM SA,All Nippon Airways and Qantas Airways Ltd.

Under U.S. law, if Deutsche Bahn wins the case, it could be
awarded up to three times its claim, or about $1.1 billion,
despite having settled with some of the airlines.

The remaining airlines could also choose to settle but there
haven't yet been talks between Deutsche Bahn and Air France-KLM,
according to the person familiar with the matter.  The three
airlines still involved in the lawsuit didn't respond to requests
for comment.

The U.S. filing describes details of an industrywide effort to
make a large portion of cargo airlines' costs not subject to
traditional discounting negotiations with customers.  The airlines
also coordinated efforts to increase surcharges for fuel and
security fees at a faster rate than the costs actually rose.

In a parallel case filed at a German regional court, Deutsche Bahn
and several other companies are seeking a total of EUR2 billion
($2.24 billion) plus around EUR1 billion in interest payments.
Deutsche Bahn's own claims in the German case, which relates to
shipments all over the world, stand around EUR1.2 billion and
EUR560 million in interest payments.

The lawsuits, first reported by The Wall Street Journal last year,
initially targeted a total of 13 airlines including British
Airways, a unit of International Consolidated Airlines Group SA,
and Deutsche Lufthansa AG.

The claims from the U.S. and German lawsuits come on top of other
damages and fines the 13 carriers, along with almost 20 other
airlines, have already had to pay because of the cartel.

Antitrust regulators in the U.S., the European Union, Australia,
South Korea and other countries fined them more than $3 billion
between 2007 and 2013.  The airlines have also already agreed to
pay more than $1 billion in damage settlements in class-action and
private lawsuits filed on behalf of shippers.

Most of the airlines involved in the cartel have recognized they
could be made accountable for potential claims and have set aside
financial provisions.  British Airways, for example, provisioned
œ350 million ($539.6 million) in 2007 for litigation relating to
the cartel.  And in its 2013 annual report, Lufthansa acknowledged
it and other cargo airlines were involved in a cartel between
December 1999 and February 2006, adding the airline was thus "at
risk of civil claims for damages by customers."


CARPENTER CO: Price-Fixing Class Action Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Hurley, writing for Reuters, reports that the U.S.
Supreme Court on March 2 allowed to move forward antitrust class
action claims against various manufacturers of polyurethane foam
that face accusations of price-fixing.

Without comment, the court said it would not hear a case filed by
manufacturers that objected to a September 2014 ruling by the 6th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals favoring plaintiffs suing the
companies.  The appeals court refused to review a district judge's
decision to certify the class of plaintiffs, which allowed the
claims to proceed.

The manufacturers include Carpenter Co, Foamex Innovations Inc and
Woodbridge Foam Corp.  The plaintiffs are companies that make
products using foam and indirect purchasers who later bought
products containing the foam. They say the manufacturers conspired
to fix prices.

The case is Carpenter Co. v. Ace Foam Inc, U.S. Supreme Court, No.
14-577.


CATAMARAN HEALTH: Faces "Imes" Suit Over Illegal Insurance
----------------------------------------------------------
James Imes and Emma Imes, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Catamaran Health Solutions, LLC, f/k/a
Catalyst Health Solutions, Inc., f/k/a Healthextras, Inc.,
Stonebridge Life Insurance Company and Virginia Surety Company,
Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-00101 (E.D.N.C., March 11, 2015), arises
out of the Defendants' wrongful conduct of charging excessive
premiums for disability insurance that were not approved and could
never be approved by the North Carolina Department of Insurance
under North Carolina law.

The Defendants are Delaware limited liability companies that
markets and sales of insurance products in North Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Karolina Viehe, Esq.
      Lane C. Siesky, Esq.
      SIESKY & VIEHE, PC
      4424 Vogel Rd. Suite 305
      Evansville, IN 47715
      Telephone: (812) 402-7700
      Facsimile: (812) 402-7744
      E-mail: karolina@sieskylaw.com
              lane@sieskylaw.com


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Judge Withdraws Temporary Restraining Order
--------------------------------------------------------------
Max Baker, writing for Star-Telegram, reports that an Oklahoma
judge withdrew a temporary restraining order on March 3 against a
Fort Worth attorney who was urging landowners to challenge the
$119 million settlement of a class action lawsuit against
Chesapeake Energy.

State District Judge Jon Parsley lifted a measure that prevented
McDonald from sending out mass mailers, buying newspaper ads or
conducting public meetings where he says the settlement will pay
plaintiffs little while attorneys get $48 million in fees.

Judge Parsley was scheduled to hold a hearing on the matter on
March 4 in his remote Oklahoma Panhandle courtroom in Beaver
County.  The attorneys who negotiated the settlement accused
McDonald of conducting an "unethical solicitation campaign."

McDonald had filed a lengthy response to Parsley's temporary
restraining order, saying that it was improper and violated his
First Amendment rights to free speech, among other things.

"I maintained all along that I didn't do anything wrong in
Oklahoma and Judge Parsley's order speaks for itself and says just
that," McDonald said.  "This is no surprise."

Rex Sharp, the attorney who asked for the order, did not return
phone calls seeking comment. But Parsley's order says the counsel
in the case was withdrawing its motion for the temporary
injunction and order.

Judge Parsley is presiding over a lawsuit filed in 2010 that
accused Chesapeake of underpaying oil and gas royalties by
improperly deducting postproduction costs -- claims similar to
those made by McDonald and other attorneys in North Texas.

Classified as a class action by Judge Parsley in February 2013,
the suit covers drilling going back to 2004 and claims by
thousands of royalty owners involving possibly 10,000 wells.

In January, Chesapeake agreed to settle for $119 million.
Attorneys' fees of up to 40 percent would be paid from that total,
which could leave about $71 million for the plaintiffs.

Judge Parsley set a schedule under which notices describing the
settlement would go out to plaintiffs and set an April 1 deadline
for individuals to object to or opt out of the settlement.  On
April 17, Judge Parsley is set to hold a "settlement fairness
hearing" for final arguments in the case.

But before many of the plaintiffs had time to consider the
settlement, McDonald began questioning it, saying it "stinks."  He
said the royalties were miscalculated by at least $1 billion.
Sharp and others said McDonald's action caused "unnecessary"
confusion.

If the order had been left in place, McDonald would have been shut
down in his attempts to take on Chesapeake in its home state.


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Faces "Muse" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------
Berkeley Muse, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Computer Sciences Corporation, a Foreign Profit
Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-00323 (E.D. Va., March 12, 2015), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Computer Sciences Corporation owns and operates an IT services and
solutions company with its principal place of business in Falls
Church, Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregg Cohen Greenberg, Esq.
      ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC.
      836 Bonifant St
      Silver Spring, MD 20910
      Telephone: (301) 587-9373
      Facsimile: (301) 587-9397
      E-mail: ggreenberg@zipinlaw.com


COOPER VISION: Faces "Hewitt" Suit Over Resale Price of Lens
------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin W. Hewitt, Gabrielle Pavelko and John Weissman on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Alcon
Laboratories, Inc., Bausch + Lomb, Cooper Vision, Inc., Johnson &
Johnson Vision Care, Inc., and ABB Optical Group, Case No. 3:15-
cv-01196 (N.D. Cal., March 12, 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:

      Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq.
      Jonathan K. Levine, Esq.
      Bethany L. Caracuzzo, Esq.
      Shiho Yamamoto, Esq.
      PRITZKER LEVINE LLP
      180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1390
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (415) 692-0772
      Facsimile: (415) 366-6110
      E-mail: ecp@pritzkerlevine.com
              jkl@pritzkerlevine.com
              bc@pritzkerlevine.com
              sy@pritzkerlevine.com

         - and -

      Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
      Steven N. Williams, Esq.
      Elizabeth Tran, Esq.
      Joyce Chang, Esq.
      COTCHETT PITRE & McCARTHY LLP
      840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
      Burlingame, CA 94010
      Telephone: (650) 697-6000
      Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
      E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
              swilliams@cpmlegal.com
              etran@cpmlegal.com
              jchang@cpmlegal.com


CORPORATE RESOURCE: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., a global investor rights firm, on
March 2 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on
behalf of purchasers of Corporate Resource Services, Inc. common
stock between July 1, 2014 and February 6, 2015. The lawsuit seeks
to recover damages for Corporate Resource Services investors under
the federal securities laws.

To join the Corporate Resource Services class action, go to the
website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-518.htmlor call
Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or
email pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information
on the class action.  The suit is pending in U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, Corporate Resource Services issued
materially false and misleading statements to investors by failing
to disclose that its co-employer, Tri-State Employment Services,
Inc., had a material unpaid federal payroll tax liability, which
would adversely impact the Company and the Company was not in
compliance with the Account Purchase Agreements with Wells Fargo
as of November 30, 2014.  When the truth was revealed to
investors, the price of Corporate Resource Services common stock
dropped, damaging investors.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
May 1, 2015.  If you wish to join the litigation go
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-518.htmlor to discuss your rights
or interests regarding this class action, please contact, Phillip
Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


DBTG14 LTD: Faces "Cortes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Calep Cortes, Nasario Garcia Teran and Sebastian Guzman,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. DBTG14
Ltd. d/b/a Dirty Bird To Go and Joseph Ciriello, Case No. 1:15-cv-
01907 (S.D.N.Y., March 12, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a fried chicken restaurant located
at 204 W. 14th Street, New York NY 10011.

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


DELILAH'S DEN: Dancer Joins Minimum Wage Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Jane M. Von Bergen, Philadelphia Inquirer Staff Writer, reported
that Melody Schofield has joined a class action against Delilah's
Den.  Ms. Schofield is done with it. Done with private lap dances
in the Champagne Room at Delilah's Den, where everyone knew her as
Coco.  Done with dancing half-naked on a bar stage.  Done with
paying to work -- as much as $85 for a "house fee," due to
Delilah's management at the start of every shift.

"I was tired of it," she said.  "I felt like it was time to go."

Except for one detail.  She's not done with not getting paid, she
said, and that's why Schofield, 26, of Philadelphia, has put her
name on the top of a potential class-action lawsuit filed in
Common Pleas Court against Delilah's Den.

"I think it's really unfair that they weren't compensating us for
our time," Ms. Schofield said.

In filing the lawsuit, Ms. Schofield joins thousands of other
erotic dancers around the nation who have filed wage and hour
lawsuits and together have won millions of dollars in settlements.

Ms. Schofield's attorney, Edward "Ted" Millstein, thinks the
potential class in this case could consist of hundreds of
Delilah's Den dancers.  What drives these kinds of lawsuits "is a
rising tide of consciousness of violations of the law," said
Robert O'Brien, a Cherry Hill employment lawyer who represents
workers.

The increasing activism directed at Walmart and McDonald's, the
nationwide drive to raise the minimum wage, the sick-pay debates,
he said, are part of a "general movement in this country to
fairness in the workplace."

In her lawsuit, Ms. Schofield alleges that Delilah's Den violated
state and federal labor laws because she wasn't paid minimum wage
or overtime.  Sometimes, she said, on a slow night, she'd work an
entire shift - and after paying the house fee and tipping the disc
jockey, the bouncer, and "house mom," who runs the dressing room,
her wallet would be bare.  She wasn't even getting the minimum
wage.

"The entertainers aren't on the payroll," said Delilah's Den's
attorney, Stephen Howard, who hadn't seen the lawsuit and declined
to comment on its specifics other than to confirm that Schofield
had worked at the club near the Delaware River waterfront.

"The entertainers pay a stage lease fee -- that's customary in the
industry," he said. "

The club owners argue that the dancers are independent
contractors, in business for themselves, working for tips, and are
free to dance elsewhere.  The dancer plaintiffs disagree, saying
they are employees, required, like most employees, to follow a
dress (or maybe undress) code, wear certain types of outfits on
certain days, and to show up for scheduled shifts -- even slow
Sunday-night shifts.

"I like to keep things simple," said Millstein, Schofield's Center
City lawyer.  "At the end of the day, the causes of action are the
same" -- the failure to properly pay dancers.

Ms. Schofield applied for a job at Delilah's Den in 2007, hoping
to work as a cocktail waitress, something lucrative because the
jobs she was piecing together weren't adding up to a living.

Instead, she said, the managers suggested she dance, even though
her only dance experience was as a school cheerleader in Boise,
Idaho.

"That was the first time I was in a club," she said.  "Watching
the others was how I learned."

They sent her to the South Street Candy Barrel -- the unofficial
uniform store for Delilah's, where the dancers could buy easy-exit
gowns for about $120, plus designated red-and-green holiday
outfits for Christmas, and gold-and-black outfits for the club's
annual Entertainer of the Year of event.

Wednesday was lingerie night.

"At first, they made us work during the day," Ms. Schofield said,
but later, she landed night shifts, earning lots of money in tips.

"It was nice being young and supercomfortable," said
Ms. Schofield, who left Delilah's in November and now works in a
hair salon.

"You just get used to it," she said about her work at Delilah's.
"Anything you do over and over becomes second nature.  You get
treated a lot better by the customers there than you do in most
customer-service jobs."

At Delilah's, bouncers strictly watched patrons to make sure they
kept their hands to themselves, even during a lap dance, even in
the semiprivate Champagne Room.

Both Ms. Schofield and Delilah's lawyer made the point that the
clubs wanted to provide a pleasant experience for male patrons
while avoiding prostitution, which would lead law enforcement to
shut down the clubs.

That's one tightrope, and the other in employment law is the
"misclassification" issue over whether workers, be they dancers or
FedEx drivers, are employees or independent contractors.

The classification has implications, said New York lawyer Justin
M. Swartz, who has represented "at least 2,000 dancers" at clubs
such as Cheetah's Gentleman's Club & Restaurant in Times Square.

"It's not a safe job, dancing on a stage and dealing with
customers.  If they get hurt, they have no workers' compensation
insurance," he said.  "It's a tough enough job if you are a
dancer.  You can make a good living, but many don't.  They go to
work just like anybody else."


DIRECTV: FTC Files False Advertising Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Greene, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
seeking refunds for millions of consumers, the Federal Trade
Commission on March 11 sued DirecTV for false advertising,
alleging that the satellite television provider misrepresented the
true cost of its service.

"Companies can't hide important information from consumers to
trick them into buying goods and services, and that's what we
allege DirecTV did," FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection head
Jessica Rich said in a conference call with reporters.

The FTC filed suit in San Francisco federal court, charging that
DirecTV violated Section 5 of the FTC Act as well as the Restore
Online Shoppers' Confidence Act.  The FTC said the company lured
consumers by advertising satellite TV service for $19.95 a month
without clearly disclosing that the price jumps another $25 to $45
a month in the second year of the contract.  If consumers tried to
cancel, they faced early termination fees of up to $480, according
to the FTC.

The FTC said the company also didn't explain that after three
months of free premium channels such as HBO, consumers had to
contact DirecTV before the trial period ended to avoid being
charged.

The FTC is seeking consumer refunds that Rich estimated will total
"many millions of dollars."

A DirecTV spokesman disputed the allegations across the board.
"The FTC's decision is flat-out wrong and we will vigorously
defend ourselves, for as long as it takes," spokesman Darris
Gringeri wrote in an email.  "We go above and beyond to ensure
that every new customer receives all the information they need,
multiple times, to make informed and intelligent decisions.  For
us to do anything less just doesn't make sense."

DirecTV is represented by Clayton Friedman -- cfriedman@manatt.com
-- Chad Hummel and Linda Goldstein of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips.
Mr. Friedman was not immediately reached for comment.

The FTC's complaint comes as the Justice Department and Federal
Communications Commission weigh approval of the $49 billion merger
between AT&T Inc. and DirecTV.  Ms. Rich said the FTC case "has
nothing to do with any evaluation of that merger."

DOJ considers mergers on antitrust grounds, while the FCC
evaluates whether the combination is in the public interest.

AT&T has also run afoul of the FTC of late.  In October, the
agency sued AT&T Mobility for allegedly misleading its smartphone
customers by promising them unlimited data, only to throttle their
data speeds if they used too much.  That case is also pending in
San Francisco federal court.


DIRECTV: Court to Hear Appeal in Termination Fees Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the Supreme Court will consider
whether satellite provider DirecTV can cut off a class action
lawsuit and force customers suing over early termination fees into
private arbitration hearings instead.

The justices agreed on March 23 to hear an appeal from DirecTV,
which says its customer agreements do not allow customers to band
together to sue the company.  The company argues that customers
must use arbitration to resolve their claims one by one.

A California state appeals court ruled against the DirecTV last
year, saying that state law forbids agreements that waive
customer's rights to bring a class action.  The state Supreme
Court affirmed.

DirecTV argues that California law is pre-empted by the Federal
Arbitration Act, which favors such agreements.

Justices will hear arguments this fall in the case, DirecTV v.
Imbruglia, 14-462.


EASTERN ARMORED: Truckers Obtain Favorable Ruling in FLSA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled March 11
that a motor carrier exemption to the Fair Labor Standards Act
overtime pay requirement does not apply to truck drivers who spend
all or part of their time operating vehicles that weigh under
10,000 pounds.

In a precedential ruling, the appeals court affirmed a district
judge's ruling granting overtime pay to armored vehicle driver
Ashley McMaster, a former hourly employee of Eastern Armored
Services, who regularly worked in excess of 40 hours but did not
receive overtime pay.  Because about half of McMaster's schedule
involved driving vehicles weighing less than 10,000 pounds, her
work week falls under an FLSA revision known as the Corrections
Act of 2008, the appeals court said.

Ms. McMaster's claim is part of an FLSA collective action that
also includes 25 other current and former Eastern employees,
according to plaintiffs counsel.

Eastern sought to rely on a case from the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit, which said in a policy statement that
trucking companies should not be subject to simultaneous
jurisdiction of the FLSA and the Motor Carrier Act.  But the Third
Circuit panel rejected that claim, citing its own case law
establishing a "strict separation" between jurisdiction of the
Motor Carrier Act and the FLSA.

Third Circuit Judge Julio Fuentes, joined by Judges Morton
Greenberg and Robert Cowen, said professional motor carriers are
generally exempt from the FLSA but the Corrections Act waives the
exemption for truck drivers who, for all or part of their work
week, drive vehicles weighing less than 10,000 pounds.  The
exemption does not apply to vehicles designed to transport eight
or more passengers or those that transport hazardous materials.

Under the unambiguous language of the Corrections Act,
Ms. McMaster is entitled to overtime pay, the panel said.

Ms. McMaster, who worked for the company from March 2010 to June
2011, spent about 51 percent of her time driving vehicles weighing
more than 10,000 pounds and 49 percent driving vehicles under that
weight.  Therefore, she falls within the "carveout" of the
Corrections Act of 2008, Judge Fuentes said.

Eastern Armored Services took the case to the Third Circuit to
appeal a March 2013 ruling by U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp of
the District of New Jersey, who granted summary judgment to
McMaster.  Eastern cited district court rulings from Maryland,
North Dakota and Oregon that relied on a "policy statement" in
Collins v. Heritage Wine Cellars Ltd., a Seventh Circuit ruling
from 2009.  That decision said holding truck drivers subject to
regulation of the Motor Carrier Act when they drive trucks over
10,000 pounds and to the regulation of the FLSA when they drive "a
truck that might weigh only a pound less, would require burdensome
record-keeping, create confusion and give rise to mistakes and
disputes."

However, the Seventh Circuit's policy statement cannot overcome
"an express change to the statutory scheme," the Third Circuit
said.  The Corrections Act plainly says that it applies to a
covered employee notwithstanding the Motor Carrier Act exemption,
the court said.

The case was remanded to the district court for assessment of
wages owed to Ms. McMaster and additional proceedings relating to
the other members of the class.  The district court is set to
consider whether they, too, are covered by the Corrections Act,
according to R. Andrew Santillo of Winebrake & Santillo, in
Dresher, Pennsylvania, who filed the FLSA collective action along
with Peter Winebrake of the same firm.

"If there was any question before, I think [the decision] provides
further support for the idea that these overtime laws should be
interpreted broadly and the express meaning of the statute should
apply," Mr. Santillo said.

Christina Vassilou Harvey of Lomurro, Munson, Corner, Brown &
Schottland in Freehold, New Jersey, who represented Eastern,
declined to comment.


ESTES HEATING: "Elery" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Elery, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. Estes Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:15-cv-
00738 (N.D. Ga., March 12, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Estes Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. is Georgia Corporation that
operates as a heating and air conditioning contractor.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
      Charles Ryan Morgan, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      Suite 400, 600 N. Pine Island Road
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 318-0268
      Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
      E-mail: AFRISCH@FORTHEPEOPLE.COM
              rmorgan@forthepeople.com


EXXON MOBIL: Judge Dismisses Mayflower Oil Spill Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal class-action lawsuit
against Exxon Mobil Corporation over a 2013 crude oil spill in
central Arkansas has been dismissed by a federal judge, who
acknowledged in his ruling that his decision seems unfair.

U.S. District Judge Brian Miller on March 17 dismissed the lawsuit
with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled.  Judge Miller said
in a 22-page ruling that he was incorrect in granting class-action
status in the case and concluded that the easement contracts Exxon
Mobil held with the property owners do not require the company to
maintain the pipeline.

Judge Miller said his task was to decide between two options,
neither of which seem desirable.

"If Exxon's position prevails, the message to easement grantors is
that they are helpless in attempting to avoid a pipeline oil
spill, and have no rights until after the oil starts spewing from
the pipeline.  And, this does not seem fair," Judge Miller wrote.

"On the other hand, if plaintiffs' position prevails, easement
grantors would essentially be able to hold pipeline easement
holders hostage, threatening them with lawsuits or contract
rescission every time the easement grantors possess any notion
that the companies are not meeting the easement grantors' personal
safety standards.  And, this appears to be neither fair nor
commercially acceptable."

Judge Miller agreed with Exxon Mobil, which argued that Arkansas
law interprets the easement contracts "as the mere granting of a
right of way, without any affirmative duty to maintain or repair."
He also noted a lack of similarities among class members, which
likely would have included thousands of people in Arkansas, Texas,
Illinois and Missouri, writing that an oil leak in Illinois "would
have no practical effect on a landowner in Texas."

Exxon Mobil spokesman Christian Flathman said in an email to the
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that the company is "pleased with the
Court's ruling [] and believe it properly applied the law to the
facts of this case."

Tom Thrash, an attorney for the two couples who filed the lawsuit,
told The Associated Press on March 18 that he could appeal.

"We're disappointed in the ruling and we just really haven't had a
chance to analyze it," Mr. Thrash said.  "An appeal is certainly a
possibility."

The 850-mile-long Pegasus pipeline runs from Texas to Illinois and
was closed shortly after the oil spill.  A just more than 200-mile
segment of the pipeline in Texas has been restarted.

The pipeline ruptured March 29, 2013, in Mayflower, spilling more
than 200,000 gallons of crude oil in the town about 25 miles
northwest of Little Rock.


FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Automated Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, reports that Facebook Inc. was
hit on March 3 in California federal court with a $5 million
proposed class action accusing it of spamming cellphones and
invading people's privacy with unwanted automated text messages
notifying them that their accounts have supposedly been logged
into.

The suit -- whose allegations are similar to those contained in
recent complaints lodged against Domino's Pizza LLC, American
Eagle Outfitters Inc. and eBay Enterprise Marketing Solution Inc.
-- claims Facebook knowingly violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act with the texts.  The law prohibits automated calls
to a cellphone without prior express consent by the person being
called, unless it's an emergency.

Facebook offers an "extra security feature" in which it sends log-
in notifications to alert users when their account is accessed
from a new device, according to the suit.  But the text messages
are allegedly sent, sometimes many times a day, to the cellphones
of people who haven't granted such authorization, who have asked
that they stop or, even worse, who don't even use Facebook.

While Facebook's website has instructions on how to deactivate the
log-in notification feature, they only discuss changing a Facebook
user's account settings, according to the putative class action.
The company allegedly hasn't explained how people who get the
messages despite not having a Facebook account can stop the spam.

"Servicing over a billion Facebook accounts worldwide, Facebook's
automated systems are powerful and, when used improperly, capable
of extreme invasions into the privacy of American consumers," the
complaint claims.  "Facebook operates a sloppy system and in doing
so shows complete disregard for the privacy of consumers."

The instant suit comes after a California federal judge in October
squashed a putative class action accusing gym chain Crunch San
Diego LLC of spamming its members' cellphones with promotional
text messages, finding that the TCPA didn't apply because the
company hadn't used an autodialer.

Lead plaintiff Noah Duguid, a Montana resident, said Facebook
started texting his cellphone in late January of last year, even
though he never gave his number to the company and never did
business dealings with it.  After Mr. Duguid allegedly sent the
defendant a detailed email in April 2014 complaining about the
messages and asking that they stop, Facebook replied with an
automatic email telling him to log on to its website to report the
problematic content.  Mr. Duguid allegedly answered with a message
saying, "A human needs to read this email and take action.  Thank
you!" But he received the same automated email.

The following October, the plaintiff allegedly responded to a
Facebook text with the word "off," after which the company
replied, "Facebook texts are now off.  Reply on to turn them back
on."  Regardless, the company continued to text Mr. Duguid,
according to his proposed class action.

The suit seeks to represent a class of individuals in the U.S. who
didn't give Facebook their cell number and received one or more of
the accused texts within the four years before the filing of the
complaint, and a class of individuals who received texts in the
same time frame despite telling Facebook they didn't want them.
Plaintiff seeks at least $500 in damages for each violation of the
TCPA.

Mr. Duguid filed a nearly identical version of the suit in late
November in New York federal court, saying it had jurisdiction
because Facebook, which is based in Menlo Park, California, has an
office in New York City.  But after the defendant argued the state
has no personal jurisdiction over the company, the plaintiff
voluntarily withdrew that suit on Tuesday.

Sergei Lemberg of Lemberg Law LLC, which is representing Duguid,
told Law360 on March 3 that they "look forward to vindicating our
clients rights and the rights of those similarly situated."

Mr. Duguid is represented by Trinette Kent, Sergei Lemberg and
Stephen Taylor of Lemberg Law LLC.

The case is Noah Duguid et al. v. Facebook Inc., case number 3:15-
cv-00985, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


FOREST PHARMACEUTICALS: Illegally Records Calls, Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jan Jerome Roaquin, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, and DOES 1-10, Inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-01841
(C.D. Cal., March 12, 2015), arises out of the Defendants unlawful
practice of recording telephone calls and failing disclose its
intentional recording.

Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company
headquartered in New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
      Richard H. Hikida, Esq.
      David W. Reid, Esq.
      Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
      NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP
      4100 Newport Place, Ste. 800
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Telephone: (949) 706-6464
      Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
      E-mail: sferrell@trialnewport.com
              rhikida@trialnewport.com
              dreid@trialnewport.com
              vknowles@trialnewport.com


FORT COLLINS, CO: Judge Vacates Hearing in Panhandling Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jason Pohl, writing for The Coloradoan, reports that Fort Collins'
goal of staving off a class-action lawsuit that takes aim on the
city's panhandling enforcement seems to have worked -- at least
temporarily.  But the suit's future remains unknown.

A federal judge vacated on March 2 a hearing that could have
resulted in a preliminary injunction on the city's panhandling
ordinance enforcement -- an ordinance the American Civil Liberties
Union asserts is over-broad and unconstitutional.  That motion
could have barred Fort Collins from enforcing seven particular
provisions of its panhandling ordinance until the court could more
exhaustively critique the class-action suit.

Fort Collins City Council voted on Feb. 27 to dial back
enforcement of the elements in question in the suit in hopes of
buying time to re-evaluate what was working and where the
ordinance could be strengthened to appease residents and
panhandlers.

Federal District Court Judge William J. Martinez has presided over
the case since it was filed Feb. 10.  Judge Martinez also served
on the ACLU's legal panel from 2006 to 2010.  Fort Collins has
since requested he recuse himself from the proceedings.

If the city's request is granted, and if the case continues to be
aired through court, the suit would be assigned to another federal
judge.  Judge Martinez could also deny the motion and reset the
date for the preliminary injunction hearing, officials said.

The Colorado arm of the American Civil Liberties Union sued the
city on behalf of four homeless individuals.  It did so on the
grounds police were infringing upon free-speech rights by warning
individuals about solicitation or citing people for some forms of
panhandling.  The 29-page document also includes allegations from
Greenpeace, Inc., that Fort Collins police have started targeting
the environmental group's canvassing procedures in Old Town.


FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Pleads Guilty to Spill-Related Charges
----------------------------------------------------------
John Raby, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
now-bankrupt chemical company pleaded guilty on March 23 to three
pollution charges related to last year's spill that contaminated a
West Virginia river.

Mark Welch, chief restructuring officer of Freedom Industries,
entered the plea on behalf of the company in federal court to
negligent discharge of a pollutant and unlawful discharge of
refuse matter, both misdemeanors, and violating a permit condition
under the Clean Water Act, a felony.

Thousands of gallons of a coal-cleaning agent from Freedom
Industries in Charleston spilled into the Elk River and went into
West Virginia American Water's intake 2 miles downstream on
Jan. 9, 2014.  It prompted a tap water ban for 300,000 residents
in nine counties for up to 10 days while the water company's
system was flushed out.

Freedom Industries, which filed for bankruptcy eight days after
the spill, faces a maximum $900,000 fine.  Sentencing was set for
June 29.

"Extreme fines would be very difficult for the estate," Mr. Welch
told U.S. District Judge Thomas Johnston.  "I have limited
resources."

In ordering a presentencing report, Judge Johnston said, "We'll
find out how much money Freedom Industries has."

An FBI affidavit says Freedom knew about critical flaws at its
Charleston plant but never dealt with them.  Federal investigators
have said holes in a corroded tank's floor and roof likely helped
cause the spill.

Prosecutors have said the tank conditions "put an entire
population needlessly at risk."

In September a federal bankruptcy judge approved a $2.9 million
settlement between the company and businesses and residents under
which a panel would choose public interest projects that would
benefit those whose tap water was contaminated.  The settlement
would rely on insurance proceeds from Freedom Industries.

Former Freedom owners William Tis and Charles Herzing and two
lower-level employees pleaded guilty to a pollution charge and
will be sentenced in June.

Another former Freedom owner, Dennis Farrell, and former President
Gary Southern face trial later this year on charges related to the
spill. In addition, Southern faces charges related to Freedom's
bankruptcy.

Tis, Herzing and Farrell owned Freedom until December 2013, when
they sold it to Pennsylvania-based Chemstream Holdings for $20
million.  Southern became president afterward, but he was in
charge of Freedom's day-to-day operations for years beforehand,
his FBI affidavit states.

Southern is accused of scheming to defraud Freedom's creditors and
plaintiffs who sued the company and him after the spill.
Prosecutors claim he attempted to protect some of his assets from
possible verdicts and judgments.

One count, fraud by interstate commerce carrier, alleges that
Southern sent a $6.5 million check from a personal bank account
around Feb. 7, 2014, to an insurance company to be deposited in an
annuity.

Southern also previously was charged with bankruptcy fraud, wire
fraud and lying in oath in relation to the bankruptcy case.


FT MEAT: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hildeberto Ibarra Perez, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. F.T. Meat Corp. d/b/a Fine Fare Supermarket,
and Kent Tavera, Case No. 1:15-cv-01906 (S.D.N.Y., March 12,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a supermarket located at 1065 East
163rd Street, Bronx, New York 10459.

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


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Gilman Law Pursues Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gilman Law LLP on March 3 disclosed that it is pursuing a
securities class action lawsuit against Lumber Liquidators
Holdings, Inc. and certain officers and/or directors of the
Company.

According to a filing in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia (no. 4:13-cv-00157) on behalf of all persons
or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Lumber Liquidators
common stock between February 22, 2012 and July 9, 2014, certain
false and/or misleading statements were made by Lumber Liquidators
in violation of federal law.

According to Lumber Liquidators' website, the Company is
headquartered in Toano, Virginia, has stores in 46 states, and is
the nation's largest retailer of hardwood flooring.

The Virginia Case against Lumber Liquidators is generally focused
on two key areas of alleged misconduct.  First, the plaintiff
alleges that Lumber Liquidators made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that certain of Lumber
Liquidators' products did not comply with applicable laws and
regulations pertaining to formaldehyde emissions from composite
wood products.

Second, the Wall Street Journal previously reported, and the
Company confirms in its securities filings, that federal
authorities, including agents from the Department of Homeland
Security Investigations and the Department of Justice, executed
search warrants at the headquarters of Lumber Liquidators on
September 26, 2013 looking for information relating to the
importation of certain of its wood flooring products.  The
Virginia Case alleges that Lumber Liquidators violated the Lacey
Act, which bans the import and trade of illegally sourced wood
products.  The Company notes in a recent securities filing that
the Department of Justice is contemplating seeking criminal
charges against Lumber Liquidators under the Lacey Act.

On March 1, 2015, 60 Minutes ran a story focusing on the excessive
formaldehyde levels contained in certain laminate flooring Lumber
Liquidators purchased from manufacturers in China.  As reported by
60 Minutes, certain of those manufacturers admitted that certain
flooring manufactured for Lumber Liquidators was not CARB Phase 2
compliant even though it was labeled as such. CARB Phase 2
compliant refers to compliance with certain California
formaldehyde emissions standards.

If you are an investor who purchased Lumber Liquidators common
stock on or after January 1, 2011, and continues to hold any of
the stock purchased as of the present date, and suffered a loss or
would like more information concerning Lumber Liquidators'
products, then please contact Gilman Law LLP today, at 1-888-252-
0048 or http://www.gilmanlawllp.comto ensure your legal rights
are not forfeited.

                      About Gilman Law LLP

Gilman Law LLP is a financial law firm that deals with range of
claims stemming from securities class actions and derivative
actions to consumer product injury lawsuits.


GENERAL MOTORS: CEO to Be Deposed in Ignition Switch Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that General Motors CEO Mary Barra
will be deposed this fall by lawyers suing GM over its defective
ignition switches.

Ms. Barra is one of 35 current and former GM employees who will
be deposed, attorney Bob Hilliard said on March 19.  The
depositions begin May 6 with the questioning of GM customer
experience chief Alicia Boler-Davis.

Mr. Hilliard sued GM last July on behalf of people who were
injured or killed in crashes allegedly caused by faulty ignition
switches.

The switches could slip into the "off" position, disabling power
steering and air bags.  The lawsuit alleges GM knew about the
defective switches as early as 2001 but didn't recall any cars
until last year.

Ms. Barra told Congress she learned about the defective switches
in December 2013, just before GM began recalling affected
vehicles.


GENERAL MOTORS: Documents Reveal Ignition Switch Problem Cover-Up
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sue Reisinger, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that lawyers
in a Georgia lawsuit against General Motors Co. said at a news
conference on March 16 that they have obtained documents
contradicting Anton Valukas' report and showing that GM was
engaged in a "strong case of fraud" and a cover-up of its fatal
ignition-switch problems.

The lawyers also said the role of former General Counsel
Michael Millikin in the alleged cover-up is still being examined
and will be subject to "further inquiry."  Mr. Millikin retired
under pressure and was replaced by Craig Glidden on March 1.  GM
spokesman Jim Cain declined to comment on the allegations.

The alleged cover-up reached a "high level," according to
Jere Beasley, and went well beyond the 15 former GM lawyers and
other employees who were dismissed last year in the scandal.
Mr. Beasley is founder of the Montgomery, Alabama, law firm
Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles.

"GM will never try a lawsuit where the defective ignition is
involved, in my opinion," Mr. Beasley said, because he and other
lawyers obtained documents "that make out a total case of product
liability against GM and a very strong case of fraud.  They will
never let a jury hear it."

Mr. Beasley said he couldn't give specifics about the documents
because they remain under a court seal and confidential. But most
of them involve manufacturer Delphi Corp., which made the faulty
switch to GM's specifications.

He also said the lawyers obtained documents that contradict the
report done for GM by Mr. Valukas, managing partner of Jenner &
Block.  "His report concluded that engineers legitimately believed
this wasn't a safety issue," Mr. Beasley said.  But the documents
show "they knew it was, and ignored it for cost reasons."

Mr. Valukas' office said he was traveling and could not be reached
for comment.

Pressed for details, Mr. Beasley added, "You could take the Delphi
documents alone and make out a fraud case against GM.  They
intentionally covered up a known defect.  And they threw the
lower-level employees under the bus."

Mr. Beasley continued, "Hopefully the government will continue to
pursue this."  He was referring to an ongoing criminal
investigation of GM by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Mr. Beasley and attorney Lance Cooper, of the Cooper Firm in
Marietta, Georgia, spoke at a news conference on March 16
ostensibly to discuss the settlement of the Ken and Beth Melton
case against GM.  The Meltons' daughter, Brooke, died in an
accident caused by one of the switches.  Terms of the settlement
are confidential.

But Mr. Cooper used the occasion to also talk about state and
federal cases against GM that are still ongoing, especially a big
multidistrict litigation that is tentatively scheduled for trial
in January.  He said he believed the Melton documents would be
used and made public during the other trials.

Mr. Cooper said if it hadn't been for the Melton case, which
uncovered that a faulty spring in the ignition switch had been
secretly replaced in new units, without GM ever doing a recall on
the old ones, the company might have kept secretly settling
lawsuits over crashes.

But the Meltons fought to uncover the truth, he said, and GM had
to admit its culpability before Congress, conduct millions of
recalls and change its safety culture.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Magistrate Judge Rejects Gender Bias Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for Law.com, reports that after almost
five years of intense, closely-watched litigation, defense lawyers
at Sullivan & Cromwell and Paul Hastings may finally be close to
knocking out a proposed gender discrimination class action against
Goldman Sachs & Co.

The lawsuit was brought by former Goldman vice president Cristina
Chen-Oster and former associate Shanna Orlich, who sought to
represent a class of nearly 1,800 women who worked at the bank
from 2002 to the present.  The women, represented by Outten &
Golden and Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, allege that
Goldman's pay and promotion practices systematically favored men
and that the bank maintained a "boy's club" work atmosphere.

In a 46-page opinion issued on March 10, U.S. Magistrate Judge
James Francis in Manhattan recommended against certifying the case
as a class action.  While the plaintiffs had presented evidence
that female Goldman vice presidents and associates earned less
than their male counterparts, the judge found, differences between
individual business units at the bank made it too hard to show on
a classwide basis that gender discrimination was the cause of any
disparities.

If adopted by U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres, the decision
could spell the end of the case.  But the defendants haven't
always had the upper hand. U.S. District Judge Leonard Sand, who
originally presided over the case, refused in 2011 to force a
third plaintiff, former Goldman managing director Lisa Parisi, to
arbitrate her claims against Goldman individually.  Judge Sands
also refused to dismiss most of the class allegations in July
2012.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed Sand's
decision on Ms. Parisi's arbitration agreement in 2013, siding
with Goldman counsel Robert Giuffra Jr. -- giuffrar@sullcrom.com
-- of Sullivan & Cromwell.

With those rulings behind them, in October the two sides clashed
at a lengthy hearing on class certification before Judge Francis.

Plaintiffs lawyers Adam Klein of Outten & Golden and Kelly Dermody
of Lieff Cabraser argued that the former employees' suit
challenged common practices, such as Goldman's review process and
the forced ranking of employees into different tiers, that
effectively favored men.

Goldman's defense team -- led by Mr. Giuffra, Sullivan &
Cromwell's Theodore Rogers -- rogersto@sullcrom.com -- and Barbara
Brown of Paul Hastings -- maintained that the investment bank's
corporate structure was complex and included a host of separate
business with different compensation ranges based on their
profitability.

Judge Francis concluded on March 10 that the plaintiffs lawyers
had teed up a common question of whether Goldman's reviews and
rankings put women at a disadvantage.  But citing the organization
of Goldman's business units, the judge concluded that individual
factors affecting pay and promotion "would effectively swamp the
common question of whether the evaluative policies have, on
average a discriminatory impact."

"While the validity or bias of Goldman Sachs' performance measures
is a common issue, there are countless individualized factors that
influence whether those performance measures cause legally
cognizable injury," Judge Francis wrote.

Outten & Golden's Klein, who took the lead for the plaintiffs at
the class certification hearing, wasn't immediately available to
comment.  Goldman spokesman David Wells said the bank is pleased
with Francis' opinion.  S&C's Giuffra declined to comment.


GREEN BROOK: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Broking" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Broking, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Green Brook Buick GMC Suzuki, Case No. 3:15-cv-01847
(D.N.J., March 12, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice
of making unsolicited calls using an automatic dialing system.

Green Brook Buick GMC Suzuki is an automobile dealership with its
principal place of business in Green Brook, N.J.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
      LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
      Two Gateway Center, Suite 1201
      Newark, NJ 07102
      Telephone: (973) 623-3000
      Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
      E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com

         - and -

      Adam Gonnelli, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 983-9330
      E-mail: agonnelli@faruqilaw.com


HAD INC: "Hannah" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Hannah, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. H.A.D, Inc. c/o its registered agent John Hatfield,
Case No. 2:15-cv-00933 (S.D. Ohio, March 14, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

H.A.D, Inc. is a drilling company that provides services to the
environmental, gas, oil and water industries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
      Shannon Marie Draher, Esq.
      NILGES DRAHER LLC
      4580 Stephen Circle, N.W., Suite 201
      Canton, OH 44718
      Telephone: (330) 470-4428
      Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
      E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
              sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com

         - and -

      Thomas A. Downie, Esq.
      46 Chagrin Falls Plaza #104
      Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
      Telephone: (440) 973-9000
      Facsimile: (440) 210-4610
      E-mail: tom@chagrinlaw.com


HAMILTON SCIENTIFIC: Sued Over Illegal Termination Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------
Arturo Almaraz and Isodoro Martinez on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Hamilton Scientific, LLC, Case
No. 1:15-cv-00206 (W.D. Tex., March 12, 2015), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to provide former employees at least 60
days' advance written notice of termination.

Hamilton Scientific, LLC is a Delaware corporation with its
headquarters at 1716 Lawrence Drive, Suite 1 DePere. It is a
manufacturer of lab equipment and supplies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carolyn Carollo, Esq.
      SNOW SPENCE GREEN LLP
      2929 Allen Parkway, Suite 2800
      Houston, TX 77019
      Telephone: (713) 335-4800
      Facsimile: (713) 335-4848
      E-mail: carolyncarollo@snowspencelaw.com
            kennethgreen@snowspencelaw.com

         - and -

      Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
      LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
      132 Nassau Street, Suite1100
      New York, NY 10038
      Telephone: (212) 581-5005
      Facsimile: (212) 581-2122

         - and -

      Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
      M. Vance McCrary, Esq.
      David C. Tufts, Esq.
      THE GARDNER FIRM, PC
      210 S. Washington Ave.
      Post Office Drawer 3103
      Mobile, AL 36652
      Telephone: (251) 433-8100
      Facsimile: (251) 433-8181
      E-mail: molsen@thegardnerfirm.com
              vmccrary@thegardnerfirm.com
              dtufts@thegardnerfirm.com


HERBALIFE LTD: Judge Dismisses Pyramid-Scheme Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Christopher Weber, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
a judge dismissed a lawsuit by Herbalife shareholders who claimed
that the business structure and marketing practices of the weight
loss and nutritional supplements company violated the law and that
they lost money because it amounts to a pyramid scheme.

Plaintiffs did not show that accusations by activist investor
Bill Ackman proved fraud by Herbalife, U.S. District Judge Dale
Fischer in Los Angeles wrote in his ruling on March 17.  Mr.
Ackman, who runs Pershing Square Capital Management, bet heavily
against the company's stock, describing Herbalife as a pyramid
scheme.  Because no fraud was proven, the judge said, the
shareholders can't show that losses they suffered were caused by
the company's perceived misrepresentations.

Herbalife said it welcomed the judge's decision.

"We are confident in the strong fundamentals of our business
model," Julian Cacchioli, a company spokesman, said in a
statement.

Shareholder Abdul Awad sued and later was joined by the Oklahoma
Firefighters Pension and Retirement System and the City of Atlanta
Firefighters' Pension Fund.  A lawyer for the pension funds,
Maya Saxena, said on March 18 that her clients were considering
whether to amend the complaint.

Judge Fischer gave the investors until April 8 to make revisions.

The case relied heavily on accusations made by Mr. Ackman in a
three-hour presentation in New York last year.  He focused on
Herbalife's "nutrition clubs," private settings where Herbalife
distributors sell the company's products -- such as weight-loss
shakes -- and recruit new members.

Mr. Ackman said that because the clubs run by Herbalife's
distributors focus on recruiting instead of selling products, the
clubs are by definition a pyramid scheme.

He repeatedly tried to persuade other investors to bet against
Herbalife, most memorably in a shouting match with billionaire
investor Carl Icahn on live television in January 2013. Icahn has
defended Herbalife.

Herbalife has vigorously denied Mr. Ackman's arguments and says it
operates like a multi-level marketing company similar to Avon,
Amway and Mary Kay.

Nutrition clubs have become an increasingly lucrative business
model for Herbalife in the last 10 years, with more than 4,000
operating in the U.S. alone, according to the company.

Mr. Ackman alleged that those attending nutrition clubs were not
actually consumers of the products.  Instead, they were often
recruits to become nutrition club operators of their own.  These
recruits should not be thought of as customers, but rather the
next layer in the pyramid, he said.

Pyramid schemes are illegal because they eventually collapse once
there are no more people to recruit.


HESKA CORPORATION: Faces "Fauley" Suit Over Unsolicited Faxes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shaun Fauley, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons v. Heska Corporation and John
Does 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-02171 (N.D. Ill., March 12, 2015),
seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of sending unsolicited
facsimiles.

Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. is a manufacturers of all natural dog and
cat food.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
      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: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
              rkelly@andersonwanca.com


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Judge OKs Autonomy Shareholder Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal
judge on March 13 finally green-lighted a settlement that resolves
shareholder derivative claims against Hewlett-Packard Co. over its
disastrous 2011 acquisition of British software firm Autonomy.

The proposed deal, which provides for governance reforms but no
cash for shareholders, represents the lawyers' fourth attempt to
settle the case. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer rejected the
last proposal because it released HP from allegations unrelated to
Autonomy.  But the latest deal resolves those concerns, the judge
wrote on March 13 in an order granting preliminary approval.  He
set a final approval hearing for July.

"And here we go again," Judge Breyer wrote.  But unlike last time,
in this deal "the shareholders do not appear to be relinquishing
any claims that lack a factual overlap with the substance of this
litigation," and, he concluded, "the trade-off of Autonomy-related
claims for corporate governance reforms appears fair."

Judge Breyer wrote he also appreciates that the new settlement
will reform the merger and acquisition policies of both HP and its
new arm.  In October, HP announced plans to separate into two
companies -- Hewlett-Packard Enterprise, focusing on software and
service, and HP Inc., focusing on personal systems.

The settlement, forged by plaintiffs lawyers with Cotchett, Pitre
& McCarthy and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, and HP's counsel with
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, has been hotly contested from the
start.

Judge Breyer rejected the first deal in August, after taking issue
with a provision that would give plaintiffs lawyers $18 million
plus up to $30 million in contingency fees in exchange for teaming
up with HP to go after Autonomy.  Firms including Keker & Van Nest
and Greenfield & Goodman in New York have lined up to intervene in
the litigation multiple times, arguing each draft of the
settlement is unfair to the shareholders.  Judge Breyer denied
Greenfield & Goodman's outstanding motions on March 13.

The proposal Judge Breyer preliminarily approved provides for $7.2
million in fees and costs for Cotchett Pitre and $1.6 million for
Robbins Geller.


IBM CORP: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Securities Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that IBM Corp was
sued on March 2 by a shareholder that said it committed securities
fraud by failing to write down a money-losing semiconductor unit
before agreeing to pay another company $1.5 billion to take that
unit off its hands.

The lawsuit filed in Manhattan federal court arose from IBM's
announcement last Oct. 20 that it would sell the unit to
GlobalFoundries Inc, and take a related $4.7 billion pre-tax
charge.

IBM also announced third-quarter results that day.  Its share
price fell 9 percent over the next two trading days, wiping out
more than $18 billion of market value.

The Armonk, New York-based company did not immediately respond to
requests for comment on the suit.  Warren Buffett's Berkshire
Hathaway Inc is among IBM's largest shareholders.

According to the complaint, IBM inflated its stock price before
selling the semiconductor unit by carrying the unit's property,
plant and equipment assets on its books at $2.4 billion, when it
should have known the assets were worthless.

The complaint said potential bidders had been unwilling to pay
much more than $1 billion for the entire unit, including
intellectual property and personnel, suggesting that the hard
assets had no or negative market value.

The lawsuit by the City of Sterling Heights Police & Fire
Retirement System in Michigan also named three IBM officials as
defendants, including Chief Executive Virginia Rometty.

It seeks class-action status on behalf of shareholders from
April 17 to Oct. 17, 2014.

"Defendants presented a misleading picture of IBM's business and
prospects," the complaint said.  "When the truth about the company
was revealed to the market, the price of IBM common stock fell
precipitously."

GlobalFoundries is an affiliate of Mubadala Development Co, an Abu
Dhabi state investment fund.

The case is City of Sterling Heights Police & Fire Retirement
System v. IBM Corp et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District
of New York, No. 15-01513.


IL MULINO: "Hawes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Hawes and Alex Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Il Mulino, IM NY
AC, LLC t/a and/or d/b/a Il Mulino and John Does 1-5 and 6-10,
Case No. 1:15-cv-01863 (D.N.J., March 12, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys'
fees, and all other appropriate, legal and equitable relief
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located in Atlantic
City, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Deborah L. Mains, Esq.
      COSTELLO & MAINS, P.C.
      18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
      Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
      Telephone: (856) 727-9700
      Facsimile: (856) 727-9797
      E-mail: dmains@costellomains.com


INTER-CON SECURITY: Illegally Obtains Consumer Reports, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Easterbrook, an individual, on behalf of himself, and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Inter-Con Security
Systems, Inc., a California Corporation, Case No. 3:15-cv-00565
(S.D. Cal., March 12, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's
practice of procuring consumer reports without proper
authorization and disclosure.

Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc. is a security company that
provides physical security services to government, commercial, and
Fortune 100 customers in the United States and internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
      Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
      Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
      BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
      2255 Calle Clara
      La Jolla, CA 92037
      Telephone: (858)551-1223
      Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
      E-mail: Norm@bamlawca.com
      Website: www.bamlawca.com


JANI-KING: Franchisees Can Proceed With Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that nearly 250 people who run franchises for the cleaning company
Jani-King got certification to bring a class action suit against
the company for misclassifying them as independent contractors.

According to the two plaintiffs who brought the suit on behalf of
area Jani-King franchisees, they are really just employees of the
Texas-based company.

"Plaintiffs contend that under Pennsylvania law, specifically the
WPCL, plaintiffs, and the proposed class members, should have been
treated as employees of Jani-King -- not independent contractors
-- because Jani-King's universal policies and procedures were so
controlling that they created an employment relationship," said
U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, referring to the state's Wage Payment and Collection
Law.  The case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.

"Plaintiffs further claim that, as a result of this alleged
misclassification, Jani-King took improper deductions from
franchisees' wages," Judge Surrick said.

The judge granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification
that is expected to cover 185 people in Pennsylvania and 61 people
who live out-of-state.

The plaintiffs met the federal requirements for getting class
status by showing numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy
and predominance.

Jani-King contested the plaintiffs' arguments for typicality,
adequacy and predominance.

The typicality standard requires the named plaintiffs who are
bringing the case as a class action to show that their claims are
typical of the class as a whole.  They argued that Jani-King's
policies and procedures -- which include the company doling out
cleaning contracts to its franchisees and handling all of the
billing from customers, sending the franchisees payment each month
with the company's fees subtracted -- kept such extensive control
over the manner and means by which the franchisees were required
to do their work that they should have been classified as
employees.  This situation would hold for all of the area
franchisees, they argued.

Jani-King, however, argued the claims aren't typical of the class
because some franchisees performed the cleaning services
themselves and others hired employees to do the cleaning and some
franchisees incorporated while others did not.

"These factual differences do not make plaintiffs' claims
atypical," the judge said.  "All the class members will be
asserting the same legal claim as plaintiffs (violation of the
WPCL stemming from misclassification as independent contractors)
based upon the same conduct by Jani-King (control over franchisees
through the franchise agreement and universal policies and
procedures)."

On the related element of adequacy, which requires the class
representatives protect the interest of the class, Jani-King
argued that one of the two named plaintiffs, Howard Brooks,
wouldn't qualify because he runs his franchise as a corporate
entity and, under Pennsylvania law, a corporate entity can't bring
a claim under the WPCL.

That's true, Judge Surrick said, but that doesn't mean that Brooks
can't bring a WPCL claim.

"He is a qualified class representative to the extent that he can
properly bring a claim under the WPCL," the judge said.  "If
plaintiffs claim that a corporation formed by a Jani-King
franchisee is an employee of Jani-King and that improper
deductions were taken from the corporation, in violation of the
WPCL, those claims will fail.  We do not read the word
'individuals' in plaintiffs' class definition to include
corporations."

Judge Surrick also disposed of Jani-King's second argument against
adequacy, which was that there is "an inherent conflict of
interest among class members" because some franchisees would
rather remain independent contractors than become employees.

Judge Surrick included the company's citation to several
franchisees' statements that they are satisfied with their current
setup, but said that any large-scale class action could include
some class members who disagree with the named plaintiffs.

"Furthermore, even if we believed that some class members
disagreed with the remedy plaintiff was seeking, that would not
necessarily undermine adequacy," Judge Surrick said.  "A number of
courts have hesitated to find class representatives inadequate
based on some class members preferring that an alleged illegal
practice continues."

On the question of predominance, Judge Surrick said, "We agree
with Jani-King that to satisfy the predominance requirement, the
plaintiffs must show that Jani-King has the right to control the
manner in which its franchisees perform their day-to-day
activities through common evidence.  However, Jani-King takes
their argument a step too far."

The company asked the court to adopt the reasoning of the Northern
District of California in its 2011 opinion in Juarez v. Jani-King,
which would exclude evidence showing just the "common hallmarks of
a franchise," Judge Surrick said, including Jani-King's policies
to protect its service mark and goodwill.

However, that case was decided on California law.
"That approach would be inappropriate here, as Pennsylvania law is
different," Judge Surrick said.  "Pennsylvania does not
distinguish between controls put in place to protect a franchise's
goodwill and intellectual property and controls for other
purposes. Rather, Pennsylvania is solely concerned with whether
the franchisor has the ability to control the manner of the
franchisee's work."

The judge held the plaintiffs met the predominance requirement.
David J. Cohen of Kolman Ely in Penndel represented the plaintiffs
and couldn't be reached for comment.

Aaron Van Oort of Faegre Baker Daniels in Minneapolis represented
Jani-King and couldn't be reached for comment.


JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS: 4 Conn. Law Firms File Xarelto Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Stapleton, writing for The Recorder, reports that hundreds of
lawsuits have been filed nationally against the makers of Xarelto,
a blood thinner that is alleged to cause uncontrollable and
sometimes fatal bleeding, are mounting nationally, and four
Connecticut law firms have brought claims.

One of the first Connecticut plaintiffs is Elsie Smith, 87, of
Bridgeport, who was prescribed the Food and Drug Administration-
approved medication in 2012.  Ms. Smith used Xarelto for about two
years before she suffered "a life-threatening bleeding incident"
in 2014, according to one of her lawyers, Kelly Fitzpatrick, of
Ventura Ribeiro & Smith in Danbury.

Although initially approved for deep vein thrombosis, the
medication was later approved and used to reduce the risk of blood
clots and strokes. But the drug manufacturers, including a Johnson
& Johnson subsidiary, failed to adequately warn doctors of the
risks of side effects, including uncontrolled bleeding.

Three other lawsuits have been filed in Connecticut against
Xarelto over the past two months, and all have been tranferred to
leading to a docket of consolidated cases in Louisiana.

Fitzpatrick, who recently joined the Danbury-based firm in its
mass torts practice group, said the Connecticut lawsuit has been
transferred to the mass tort docket in New Orleans.  "The
litigation is just starting," she said.  The cases will be heard
by Judge Eldon Fallon of the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Because the anti-coagulant drug was widely used in Connecticut,
Mr. Fitzpatrick said there could be many more plaintiffs in the
state. "We have been evaluating a number of possible plaintiffs'
cases," she said.

The lawsuits are filed against Johnson & Johnson subsidiary
Janssen Pharmaceuticals and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals.
Connecticut law firms that have filed lawsuits on behalf of
clients include Scott & Scott in Colchester, Motley Rice in
Harford, and Ury Moskow in Fairfield.  All of the suits claims
Xarelto can cause "bleeding that cannot be stopped because there's
no antidote," Fitzpatrick said. The person can bleed to death or
sustain serious injuries.

Albert Bixler -- abixler@eckertseamans.com -- of Eckert Seamans
Cherin & Mellott, represents Bayer and was not available for
comment.  David F. Abernethy -- David.Abernethy@dbr.com -- of
Drinker Biddle & Reath, represents Janssen, did not immediately
return a call seeking comment.

"We will defend ourselves against the claims raised in this
litigation," a Janssen spokesman said in a published statement.
"Xarelto is an important anticoagulant used to treat and reduce
the risk of life-threatening blood clots.  After more than three
years on the U.S. market, to date, the benefit-risk profile of
Xarelto remains favorable and consistent with clinical trials.

"All anticoagulants, or blood thinners, carry the risk of
bleeding, and the prescribing information for Xarelto has always
warned of these risks," the spokesman said.

According to the lawsuit, Xarelto was marketed as the "next
generation" of blood thinners in that it does not require
monitoring of blood plasma levels, as its counterpart medications
do.  Xarelto was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
and eventually went on to garner $2 billion in sales nationwide
with roughly one million prescriptions written by 2013, two years
after the drug's introduction into the market, according to court
documents.

While sales representatives continued to market Xarelto as a
convenient alternative to the established blood-thinner warfarin,
according to the lawsuit, by the end of 2012, there had been 2,080
Xarelto-related injuries, including 151 deaths.  The lawsuit filed
by the Danbury firm, and others like it, emphasize that there is
currently no available medication or other agent to reverse the
effects of Xarelto.


JM MATTRESS: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Martinez-Negrete, Cristian Zarate-Gutierrez, Miguel
Martinez, Angel Lopez, and Angelica Figueroa, individually and on
behalf of other employees similarly situated v. JM Mattress, Inc.,
and Nabil Kouk, Case No. 1:15-cv-02195 (N.D. Ill., March 12,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a furniture store in Cook County,
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JOHNS HOPKINS: Nikita Levy Settlement Class Action Appeal Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Danny Jacobs, writing for Daily Record, reports that a lone
objector to Johns Hopkins Hospital System's $190 million
settlement with more than 8,000 patients of former gynecologist
Nikita Levy has dismissed her appeal, according to court records.

The Court of Special Appeals docketed Audrey Dagmar Tomerlin's
appeal as dismissed Feb. 5, and six days later issued a mandate
closing the case at the appellate court level, according to court
records.  The mandate was filed in Baltimore City Circuit Court on
Feb. 18, according to court records.

Ms. Tomerlin, a former Hopkins dietician and patient of Levy's,
filed her notice of appeal in October, a month after the
settlement was approved.  She alleged the mandatory class action
denied her due process and that the resulting settlement was "only
fair and financially beneficial to Johns Hopkins and class
counsel."

Under a mandatory class action, prospective plaintiffs cannot opt
out and sue on their own.

Ms. Tomerlin declined to comment on March 2 about the dismissal.
In October, she said she was not against Levy's patients receiving
compensation but that there were "a lot of violations left out of
the class action."

Ms. Tomerlin, who now lives in California, represented herself on
appeal.

Levy worked at Hopkins from 1988 until Feb. 8, 2013, when the
hospital terminated his employment after being alerted to his
possible misconduct.  Police found 10 file servers' worth of
photos and videos among his possessions.  Levy committed suicide
less than two weeks after he was fired and days before two groups
totaling 2,500 women filed multimillion-dollar class-action
lawsuits against the hospital over his conduct.

Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Sylvester B. Cox has yet to
rule on whether to award the plaintiffs' class counsel their
requested 35 percent in attorneys' fees after hearing arguments in
October.


JSV ENTERPRISES: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Lopez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JSV Enterprises, Inc., Flagship Queens, Inc., Fotios
"Frank" Lountzis, Vincent Pupplo, and Demetrios "Jimmy"
Skartsiaris, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:15-cv-01306
(E.D.N.Y., March 12, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 13830
Queens Boulevard, Briarwood, New York 11435.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KAHALA CORP: Has Sent Unsolicited Fax Advertisements, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
M & G Auto Parts, Inc., individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Kahala Corp., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01860
(D.N.J., March 12, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice
of sending unsolicited faxed advertisements.

Kahala Corp. owns and operates a restaurant within the State of
Arizona.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Greogry Michael Dexter, Esq.
      SCHEPISI & MCLAUGHLIN PA
      473 Sylvan Avenue
      Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
      Telephone: (201) 569-9898
      E-mail: gdexter@schepisi.com


LENOVO US: Faces "Behren" Suit Over Harmful Spyware
---------------------------------------------------
Michelle Behren and Mary Jane Barbosa, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. Lenovo (United States) Inc.
and Superfish Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01177 (N.D. Cal., March 12,
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:

      Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
      Steven R. Jaffe, Esq.
      FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
      425 N. Andrews Ave., Suite 2
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 524-2820
      Facsimile: (954) 524-2822
      E-mail: seth@pathtojustice.com
              steve@pathtojustice.com


LENOVO US: Faces "Russell" Suit Over Harmful Spyware
----------------------------------------------------
Russell Wood and Thomas Wilson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Lenovo (United States) Inc., Lenovo
Holding Company, Inc., Lenovo Group Limited, and Superfish Inc.,
Case No. 5:15-cv-01166 (N.D. Cal., March 12, 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:

      Christopher B. Dalbey, Esq.
      Robin L. Greenwald, Esq.
      James J. Bilsborrow, Esq.
      WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
      700 Broadway
      New York, NY 10003
      Telephone: (212) 558-5500
      Facsimile: (212) 344-5461
      E-mail: cdalbey@weitzlux.com
              rgreenwald@weitzlux.com
              jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com


LEWIS ENERGY: Faces "Dominguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Raul Dominguez and Rafael Martinez, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Lewis Energy Group, L.P. a/k/a
Lewis Resource Management, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-00185 (W.D. Tex.,
March 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
week.

Lewis Energy Group, L.P. is a Delaware oil and gas exploration
company that transacts business in the State of Texas.

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


LOS TAQUITOS: Faces "Olvera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Olvera, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Los Taquitos Del Tig Inc. (d/b/a Los Taquitos Del Tio)
and Virginio Munoz, Case No. 1:15-cv-01262 (E.D.N.Y., March 11,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a Mexican restaurant located at 32-
15 Junction Boulevard, East Elmhurst, New York 11369.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Ashley" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Ashley and Nicole Ashley, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-14081 (S.D. Fla., March 11, 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:

      Scott P. Schlesinger, Esq.
      Jeffrey L. Haberman, Esq.
      SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A.
      1212 SE 3rd Avenue
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316-1906
      Telephone: (954) 467-8800
      Facsimile: (954) 320-9509
      E-mail: scott@schlesingerlaw.com
      jhaberman@schlesingerlaw.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Kleinsasser" Over Toxic Flooring
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mary Kleinsasser, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:15-cv-00376 (W.D. Wash., March 12, 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:

      Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
      Jason T. Dennett, Esq.
      TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
      1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 682-5600
      Facsimile: (206) 682-2992
      E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com
              jdennett@tousley.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Sahn" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
---------------------------------------------------------
Tara Sahn, Michael Sahn, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-01176 (D.S.C., March 12, 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:

      Jesse Allen Kirchner, Esq.
      THURMOND KIRCHNER TIMBES AND YELVERTON
      15 Middle Atlantic Wharf, Suite 101
      Charleston, SC 29401
      Telephone: (843) 937-8000
      Facsimile: (843) 937-4200
      E-mail: jkirchner@tktylawfirm.com

         - and -

      Matthew Stephen Byzet, Esq.
      KEAVENY LAW FIRM
      1634 Ashley River Road
      Charleston, SC 29412
      Telephone: (843) 225-2820
      E-mail: mbyzet@keavenylawfirm.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Vickery" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
------------------------------------------------------------
Stacy Vickery, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-
00106 (E.D. Tenn., March 11, 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:

      Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
      Lisa A. White, Esq.
      Mark E. Silvey, Esq.
      GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
      Bank of America Center
      550 Main Avenue, Suite 600
      Knoxville, TN 37902
      Telephone: (865) 247-0080
      Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
      E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
              lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com
              mark@gregcolemanlaw.com

          - and -

      Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
      Russell D. Paul, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000
      Facsimile: (2150 875-4604
      E-mail: scarson@bm.net
              rpaul@bm.net


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "White" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
----------------------------------------------------------
Adam White and Julia White, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
01175 (D.S.C., March 12, 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:

      Catherine H. McElveen, Esq.
      T. Christopher Tuck, Esq.
      James L. Ward Jr., Esq.
      Robert S. Wood, Esq.
      RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC
      1037 Chuck Dawley Blvd.
      Building A
      Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
      Telephone: (843) 727-6500
      E-mail: hrowell@rpwb.com
              ctuck@rpwb.com
              jward@rpwb.com
              bwood@rpwb.com

         - and -

      Mark C. Tanenbaum, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MARK C. TANENBAUM, PA
      241-243 East Bay Street
      Charleston, SC 29401
      Telephone: (843) 577-5100
      E-mail: mark@tanenbaumlaw.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Parnella" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Parnella, Joan Kahn, Shawn Burke, Don Pickett, Eli Adam,
Helyn Palmer, Cyndy Thompson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., a
Delaware Corporation, Case No. 4:15-cv-00166 (E.D. Tex., March 12,
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., a retailer of hardwood flooring, is a
Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 3000
John Deere Road, Toano, Virginia 23168.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul Scott Summy, Esq.
      Cary McDougal, Esq.
      Carla Burke, Esq.
      BARON & BUDD, P.C.
      3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
      Dallas, TX 75219
      Telephone: (214) 521-3605
      Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
      E-mail: ssummy@baronbudd.com
              cmcdougal@baronbudd.com
              cburke@baronbudd.com

         - and -

      Roland Tellis, Esq.
      Mark Pifko, Esq.
      David Fernandes, Esq.
      BARON & BUDD, P.C.
      15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600
      Encino, CA 91436
      Telephone: (818) 839-2333
      Facsimile: (818) 986-9698
      E-mail: rtellis@baronbudd.com
              mpifko@baronbudd.com
              dfernandes@baronbudd.com

         - and -

      J. Burton LeBlanc, Esq.
      BARON & BUDD, P.C.
      2600 CitiPlace Drive
      Baton Rouge, LO
      Telephone: (225) 927-5441
      Facsimile: (225) 927-5449
      E-mail: bleblanc@baronbudd.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Class Action Over Laminate Formaldehyde
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Meg Wagner, writing for New York Daily News, reports that Chinese-
made laminate flooring sold by retailer Lumber Liquidators
contains up to 20 times more cancer-causing formaldehyde than
regulatory standards permit, a California lawyer claims.

Environmental attorney Richard Drury filed a class action against
the lumber giant, arguing that the company's Chinese laminates,
used in home construction across the country, fail to meet
California standards for the toxic emissions, CBS "60 Minutes"
reported.  California's limits are set to become the national
standard later this year.

Laminate is legally allowed to contain some traces of
formaldehyde, a chemical known to cause cancer and respiratory
ailments, because the compound is used in some cheap flooring
glues.

But when Drury and Denny Larson, who heads the environmental
nonprofit Global Community Monitor, tested 150 boxes of Lumber
Liquidators' flooring, they found that every single one that was
made in China exceeded the state's limit.  Most were seven times
over the state standard, and some were close to 20 times greater
than the legal threshold.

"It's a startling amount.  It was so high, in fact, that one of
our test labs thought their machine was broken," Drury told "60
Minutes."

American-made laminates sold at Lumber Liquidators had acceptable
levels of the toxin.  So did flooring sold at Lowe's and Home
Depot.

"They're guilty of selling people product that could make them
sick," Larson said of Lumber Liquidators.

"60 Minutes" tested flooring sold at Lumber Liquidators stores in
Florida, Illinois, New York, Texas and Virginia.  Of the 31 boxes
of flooring, only one met the formaldehyde limit.

Advocates accuse Lumber Liquidators of skimping on regulations to
save money: Formaldehyde-rich glues are cheaper than safer
alternatives, they said.

Lumber Liquidators' founder and Chairman Tom Sullivan said the
company is not required to test finished flooring.  He told "60
Minutes" he'd investigate the claims against the Chinese
factories.


LUZERNE COUNTY, PA: Bank May Not Be Added as Defendant in Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Kalinowski, writing for The Standard Speaker, reports that an
attorney representing juveniles in a class action lawsuit over
Luzerne County's kids-for-cash scandal said he doubts First
National Community Bank could be added as a defendant despite news
that the bank failed to report suspicious transactions from a
corrupt judge who sat on its board of directors.

"It would be a stretch," attorney Michael Cefalo of West Pittston
said.

Federal regulators have said then-Luzerne County Judge Michael T.
Conahan made multiple suspicious transactions, as early as 2005,
while the scandal unfolded, but the bank failed to file a
"Suspicious Activity Report."  The bank was fined $1.5 million.

Not filing a report doesn't mean there was a connection to the
illegal activities of the judges, Mr. Cefalo said.

"It would be hard pressed to say the bank, because of their
failure to respond, would have alerted" authorities to the scheme,
Mr. Cefalo said.

Bank officials have said they had no knowledge of Judge Conahan's
wrongdoing.

Judge Conahan and former Judge Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. conspired to
shutter a county-run juvenile detention center and funneled youths
to for-profit detention centers while accepting $2.8 million in
cash payments, according to authorities. Both are jailed in
federal prison.

The builder of the detention center, Robert Mericle, who pleaded
guilty to failing to report a felony in the case, reached a $17.75
million settlement in the lawsuit in 2012. He is serving a one-
year prison sentence.

The civil suit in the case against Robert Powell -- co-owner of
the facilities who served 18 months in federal prison -- remains
open, but the sides are in settlement talks, attorneys have said.

Mr. Cefalo said they are first waiting for a resolution in another
related case involving Powell and his former business partner,
Gregory Zappala.

Messrs. Powell and Zappala are suing one another in federal court,
each claiming the other tried to steal as a result of the
notorious scandal.  The suit filed by Mr. Zappala targets a
potential $200 million windfall that is due to Mr. Powell and his
law firm for his representation of local clients who were part of
an environmental contamination lawsuit that settled nationwide for
$5.15 billion.


LYFT INC: Sued in Cal. Over Delayed Background Check Policies
-------------------------------------------------------------
Casey Loewen and Jonathan Wright, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated v. Lyft,
Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. 3:15-cv-01159 (N.D. Cal., March 11, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to timely process background
check to ensure that new drivers would be able to give their first
ride.

Lyft, Inc. is a San Francisco-based transportation network company
that facilitates peer-to-peer ridesharing through its mobile-phone
application by connecting passengers who need a ride to drivers
who have a car.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Rex Parris, Esq.
      Alexander R. Wheeler, Esq.
      Kitty Szeto, Esq.
      John M. Bickford, Esq.
      R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM
      43364 10th Street West
      Lancaster, CA 93534
      Telephone: (661) 949-2595
      Facsimile: (661) 949-7524
      E-mail: rrparris@rrexparris.com
              awheeler@rrexparris.com
              kszeto@rrexparris.com
              jbickford@rrexparris.com

         - and -

      Daniel A. Carpio, Esq.
      Michael B. Turner, Esq. (SBN 281229)
      DUNN & ASSOCIATES
      854 Pico Boulevard
      Santa Monica, CA 90405
      Telephone: (310) 393-2769
      Facsimile: (310) 396-7575
      E-mail: carpio@dunnpi.com
              turner@dunnpi.com


MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Sheriff's Contempt May Spur Victim Payouts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Cassidy, writing for AZCentral, reports that a federal
lawsuit that has already cost Maricopa County Sheriff's Office
millions in a court-imposed policy overhaul may soon lead to
payouts for victims of racially motivated policing.

In the nearly two years since a federal judge found that Maricopa
County Sheriff's deputies routinely discriminated against Latinos
during immigration-enforcement efforts, the agency has been forced
to spend $30 million in an attempt to end the unconstitutional
practices.

The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge G. Murray Snow was the
result of a successful class-action lawsuit leveled against
Sheriff Joe Arpaio.  The plaintiffs did not ask for monetary
damages, but called for big-ticket remedies, including a court-
appointed monitor and recording devices for deputies.

Judge Snow has indicated there may be more expenses to come should
the six-term sheriff be found in contempt of the court.  Judge
Snow has repeatedly blasted the agency's brass for defying his
orders and this month followed through on his threat to order a
civil contempt hearing, currently slated for April 21-24.

During a hearing, Judge Snow and attorneys discussed the
possibility of establishing a compensation fund for people who
were unlawfully detained by deputies after the judge explicitly
barred them from doing so in an earlier 2011 ruling.

"We know there was a significant amount of them, that they were
picked up after the preliminary injunction or held longer . . .
and that would be a violation of the order," said plaintiffs'
attorney Dan Pochoda with the American Civil Liberties Union of
Arizona.  "The problem we have is being able to identify any of
those people."

Lawsuit fines are paid out by the county's insurance policy, which
is funded by taxpayers.

Defying an order

On Dec. 23, 2011, months before the civil-rights trial began,
Judge Snow issued a preliminary injunction that precluded deputies
from detaining any person "only on knowledge or reasonable belief,
without more, that the person is unlawfully present within the
United States."

But Judge Snow said it's recently become apparent to him that his
order did little to thwart the practice.

After a former deputy committed suicide last May, investigators
unearthed a stash of stolen ID cards and license plates, as well
as evidence that the deputy, Ramon "Charley" Armendariz, had been
recording many of his traffic stops.  The revelation prompted the
discovery of thousands more recordings that revealed the
immigration-enforcement agenda persisted months after the order.

Sheriff's officials have corroborated this evidence, as Snow
points out in his recent contempt hearing directive.

"[T]he Armendariz videotapes resulted in administrative interviews
with MCSO personnel that have apparently revealed that Defendants,
as a matter of regular practice and operation, continued actively
enforcing federal immigration law by conducting immigration
interdiction operations, and detaining persons after officers
concluded that there was not criminal law basis for such
detention," he wrote.

Sheriff's officials do not deny this allegation, defense attorney
Tom Liddy said.

"It was the MCSO that discovered it and reported it to the monitor
and to the court immediately," he said in a phone interview on
Feb. 27.

Judge Snow has outlined the sheriff's defiance as one of the three
broad topics for the contempt hearings.  Sheriff's officials will
also have to answer why they did not disclose all relevant
information during pre-trial proceedings, and why Arpaio's aides
failed to properly follow Snow's May order to quietly collect
audio and video-recording devices from deputies.

Payout for victims?

At a Feb. 26 hearing, Judge Snow asked attorneys whether
compensation issues stemming from the preliminary injunction would
warrant a separate class-action damage case against the county.

Plaintiff's attorney Cecillia Wang from the ACLU's Immigrants'
Rights Project mentioned the possibility of a compensation fund
for victims, to be paid out by the defendants.  Ms. Wang said she
believed it would be more efficient to keep the possibility within
the confines of Snow's court.

There's a compensation aspect to any contempt finding, Pochoda
explained on Feb. 27. What makes this case problematic is the
unknown number of victims and the inherent difficulties in
locating someone outside U.S. borders.

One of the popular mechanisms for dealing with those kinds of
issues is a compensation fund  --  essentially a pot of money that
can be tapped for years after a settlement, as victims come
forward. Similar methods have been used after natural and human
disasters like the 2010 BP oil spill and the 9/11 terrorist
attacks, Mr. Pochoda said.

There is no exact formula for identifying victims.

Some may present documents that they were detained and had
criminal charges dropped or never filed; some may report that they
were brought by deputies to U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement.

Mr. Pochoda said plaintiffs' attorneys have issued a number of
records and discovery requests to the Sheriff's Office to try to
identify victims who were detained from the day after the
preliminary injunction and on.

Mr. Liddy said locating the victims is a "high priority for the
sheriff," as well.

"He has directed MCSO personnel to do that," he said.

On Feb. 26, as Judge Snow mulled over the possibility of a
settlement rather than contempt hearing, the judge indicated that
victim compensation would be a key element to any final
determination.

Judge Snow said his ultimate goal was to ensure compliance from
the defendants in the future, and has often wondered aloud whether
civil-contempt remedies will be sufficient.  A criminal-contempt
hearing, he has often said, may be more appropriate.

However, he said on Feb. 26, "I don't want to refer this matter to
criminal-contempt hearing if I can have adequate remedies for the
victims in this case."


MDHEARINGAID INC: Illegally Records Calls, "Byrd" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Deanna Byrd, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MDHearingAid, Inc., an Illinois corporation and DOES
1-10, Inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-01839 (C.D. Cal., March 12,
2015), arises out of the Defendant's unlawful practice of
recording telephone calls and failing disclose its intentional
recording.

MDHearingAid, Inc. owns and operates a Hearing Aid store.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
      Richard H. Hikida, Esq.
      David W. Reid, Esq.
      Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
      NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP
      4100 Newport Place, Ste. 800
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Telephone: (949) 706-6464
      Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
      E-mail: sferrell@trialnewport.com
              rhikida@trialnewport.com
              dreid@trialnewport.com
              vknowles@trialnewport.com


MEE CHI: "Mao" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yue Jian Mao, Guo Bin Liu, individually and on behalf of all other
employees similarly situated v. Mee Chi Corp. d/b/a Mee Noodles,
Jiang Qing Chen, "John" Zhou, John Doe and Jane Doe # 1-10, Case
No. 1:15-cv-01799 (S.D.N.Y., March 11, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate 3 restaurants in Manhattan, New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HNAG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Avenue Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
      E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


MERCK & CO: Claims Process Litigation Underway in NuvaRing Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Pat Gallagher, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports
that 13 months after Merck agreed to pay $100 million to settle
litigation over the NuvaRing contraceptive, not a single active
case remains in New Jersey.  Meanwhile, lawyers for the plaintiffs
acknowledged that the settlement, which must be divided among
thousands of claimants, is not as large as they had hoped but said
it was as good as they could get, given the difficulty in proving
liability.

Paul Rheingold of Rheingold Valet Rheingold McCartney & Giuffra in
New York, whose firm represents hundreds of claimants in New
Jersey and elsewhere, blamed the small settlement amount for
claims processing shortcuts that put added burdens on both
claimants and their lawyers.  Mr. Rheingold said the settlement
was unlike others he has seen, in that instead of knocking off
points by showing conditions such as obesity or smoking, claimants
must prove the absence of such conditions to bump up their
payments and must do so through medical records contemporaneous
with their claimed injuries.

A medical observation made at a different time would not suffice,
nor would a sworn statement, Rheingold said, adding that he was
forced to hire two registered nurses to scour clients' medical
records.  Mr. Rheingold said he is now getting calls from unhappy
clients and having to tell them, "I know you weren't fat, but it's
not in the chart."

Two clients walked away "as a matter of principle" because they
were unwilling to incur costs for expert reports and depositions
on our settlement , according to Mr. Rheingold.

The $100 million paid by Merck stands in contrast to the nearly
$1.6 billion the German company Bayer AG has paid to resolve
claims over its Yasmin and Yaz birth control pills, which
allegedly caused the same types of harm as NuvaRing.

Professor Carl Tobias, who teaches torts and products liability
law at the University of Richmond School of Law, said liability
was less clear cut against Merck than other birth control makers
that paid more.

Shelly Leonard of Blau Leonard, one of plaintiffs liaison counsel
in New Jersey, called the NuvaRing settlement "a very just one,"
given that "the science just was not there."

The vast majority of plaintiffs in the NuvaRing litigation opted
to settle and the claims resolution process is underway.

March 2 was the final date for appealing denials of claims and
though some opted out, the litigation has ended in New Jersey,
where the last six active matters were thrown out in January.

The products liability suits, which have been centralized as a
mass tort in Bergen County Superior Court since March 2009, once
numbered in the hundreds in New Jersey, with many more
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri, by the Federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation (MDL).

None of them made it to trial in federal or state court.
NuvaRing is a vaginal contraceptive ring made of flexible plastic
that releases a low dose of synthetic progestin and estrogen
hormone over a three-week period. It was marketed as an easier
once-monthly alternative to birth control pills.

Approved by the FDA in 2001 and under patent protection until
2018, it is manufactured by Merck & Co., based in Kenilworth, New
Jersey.

Merck's most recent 10-K filing, on Feb. 27, reported NuvaRing
sales of $723 million for 2014, up from $686 million the year
before.

The plaintiffs alleged that NuvaRing causes blood clots that can
lead to strokes, heart attacks and even death, and that they were
not adequately warned of the dangers, according to court papers.

The Feb. 7, 2014, global settlement was endorsed that same day by
Judge Brian Martinotti in Bergen County and U.S. District Judge
Raymond Sippel.

Mediated with the help of retired federal district judge Wayne
Anderson, the agreement was negotiated between the company and
three plaintiffs lawyers -- Roger Denton -- rdenton@uselaws.com --
and Kristine Kraft of Schlichter Bogard & Denton in St. Louis and
Hunter Shkolnik -- Hunter@NapoliBern.com -- of New York's Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik.

There were 3,800 eligible claimants, consisting of the New Jersey
and MDL plaintiffs, as well as others who had not yet filed suit
but retained an attorney by the Feb. 7, 2014, date.

The settlement agreement required at least 95 percent
participation or Merck could walk away.

Prior to the settlement, in 2011, Sippel had ordered that a common
benefit fund be set up, with 11 percent of any recovery to be
reserved for legal fees and 4.5 percent for MDL administration
expenses.

Following the $100 million settlement, Sippel held that $11
million was reasonable for attorney fees, given the 34,400 hours
the lawyers and their staff had spent on the litigation, and he
allocated the money among 21 firms.

The largest portion, $6.9 million, went to Schlichter Bogard,
followed by $1.6 million to Napoli Bern, $510,000 to the Alvarez
Law Firm in Coral Gables, Florida, $300,000 to Rheingold Valet and
$200,000 to Blau Leonard.

The Plaintiffs' Claims Review Committee, the same lawyers who
negotiated the agreement, was tasked with deciding which claimants
were eligible to recover and how much.

About 3,500 hundred claims were submitted.  At the time of the
settlement, New Jersey had 215 cases pending but Shkolnik
estimated that there were probably another 100 qualifying unfiled
claims.

The claims have now all been reviewed and claimants have been
notified of how much they are to receive.

Mr. Rheingold said six categories of injury were established,
including death, which pays $75,000, pulmonary embolism, paying
$26,000, and deep vein thrombosis, paying $16,400, with additional
sums available to claimants who earned points for proving the
absence of factors such as obesity and smoking.

Of the 400-plus cases his firm is handling together with Blau
Leonard Law Group in Jersey City, New Jersey, there are about 36
pending appeals stemming from the claims review process,
Mr. Rheingold said.

Given only 10 days -- including non-business days -- to appeal,
his firm had to "rush around and pull people off other jobs" to
meet the deadline, he said.

Despite his unhappiness with the small size of the settlement,
Rheingold said it could not be avoided because "the liability
turned out to be very poor."  He attributed much of that to
Martinotti's 2013 summary judgment decision in Merck's favor on
the adequacy of its warnings.

The ruling on a group of bellwether cases with implications for
others was appealed but the appeal was dropped in light of the
settlement, Mr. Rheingold said.

"It was a hard-fought case and came to a point when resolution was
appropriate," Shkolnik said.

The appeals of claims reviews are to be decided by a special
master, Daniel Stack, a retired Illinois state judge who is now
with Aequitas Dispute Resolution.

Neither Kraft nor Shkolnik could say how long it will be until
claims start to be paid, only that payment cannot commence until
all claims review appeals are resolved and medical liens are
satisfied.

"We're working hard and steadily for the benefit of the women that
have been victimized by use of the NuvaRing," Kraft said.  "That
is our focus."

The Feb. 27 10-K filing said that cases will be dismissed once the
claims administration process concludes and the company expects
that process to begin in the second quarter of 2015 and to
continue on a rolling basis through the year.

The filing also stated that as of Dec. 31, 2014, about 80 cases
outside of the settlement program remained and those plaintiffs
and any future ones in the MDL or New Jersey who failed to meet
various discovery and evidentiary requirements specified in
post-settlement case management orders would be subject to an
order to show cause why their case should not be dismissed with
prejudice.

That is what happened to the last six New Jersey plaintiffs, whose
claims were thrown out Jan. 22.

Four of those plaintiffs were represented by Napoli Bern and two
by Valet Rheingold.

Martinotti said in his order that they failed to comply with a
Feb. 7, 2014, case management order, which set requirements for
those not participating in the settlement, either because they
chose not to or filed afterward.

Among other things, the plaintiffs were required to notify
pharmacies and medical providers to preserve evidence related to
their claims, give defense counsel a list of who got the notice,
and provide certain discovery within a specified time frame.

Shortly after the dismissals, Martinotti asked that the mass-tort
designation be terminated because "all active litigation has been
concluded."

The time to comment on his request expired March 2 and no comments
were made.

Merck lawyer Melissa Geist -- mgeist@reedsmith.com -- of Reed
Smith in Princeton, New Jersey, referred a request for comment to
Merck.

Merck's Global Communications Director Lainie Keller said
questions about the claims process should be addressed to the
claims administrator, who did not respond to a request for comment
by press time.

Ms. Keller also sent a link to a Merck Web page that said the
company stands behind the safety profile and efficacy of NuvaRing
but noted that the medication has risks such as "thromboembolic
and other vascular events," toxic shock syndrome and liver disease
and should not be used by women with certain conditions or those
over 35 who smoke.


MERRILL LYNCH: Judge Denies Stay in "Naked" Short Sales Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Pat Gallagher, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports
that a multimillion-dollar racketeering case over alleged illegal
"naked" short sales of stock is about to start moving forward in
New Jersey state court almost three years after it was filed.

On March 9, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito denied a
request to stay a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit, which had remanded the suit back to Morris County
Superior Court based on a lack of federal subject-matter
jurisdiction.

The defendants, which include Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner &
Smith, Knight Capital Americas, UBS Securities and E-Trade Capital
Markets, had applied for a stay pending decision on a petition for
certiorari they plan to file.

The plaintiffs in Manning v. Merrill Lynch are shareholders in the
Escala Group, a New York-based international network of companies
specializing in collectibles such as stamps, according to court
documents.

One of them, Greg Manning, of Boonton, New Jersey, claimed he
owned 2.1 million shares at the relevant time, with lesser amounts
held by the other plaintiffs, a Swedish individual and companies
in Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Luxembourg, according to court
documents.

Plaintiffs allege in court documents that the defendants engaged
in a massive manipulation of the market for the company's common
stock over a four-day period in May 2006 and again from Dec. 1,
2006, through Jan. 9, 2007, trading a combined 182 million Escala
shares.

"Defendants substantially injured plaintiffs while at the same
time reaping enormous profits by knowingly and intentionally
creating, loaning and selling unauthorized fictitious and
counterfeit shares of Escala stock, through various unlawful
schemes and devices and by engaging in the unlawful practice of
naked short sales," the complaint says.

Short sales are sales of securities that the seller does not own
but has borrowed in the expectation that when the short seller
later acquires the stock for delivery to the buyer, the price will
have fallen, with the short seller profiting from the drop.

In naked short sales, which are not inherently illegal, the seller
has not borrowed the stock or assured that it will be available
later to deliver to the buyer within a required timeframe.

Merrill Lynch and the other defendants conducted short sales of
Escala stock without having reasonable grounds to believe the
securities could be borrowed and become available for delivery,
the complaint alleges.

The complaint claims the defendants increased the pool of tradable
Escala shares by "electronically manufacturing fictitious and
unauthorized phantom shares" and using non-registered shares to
dilute the fixed percentage owned by the plaintiffs to cause their
shares to decline in value.  They then allegedly sold or loaned
the fictitious shares, "reaping significant monies in unlawful
profits and fees" and covered up the scheme.

The 10-count complaint, filed in state court in May 2012, alleged
violation of the New Jersey Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act based on predicate acts of New Jersey securities
fraud and theft and state common-law claims, including breach of
contract, unjust enrichment and interference with economic
advantage.

The defendants removed it to federal court in Newark in July 2012,
asserting federal question jurisdiction on the grounds that the
crux of the action was the violation of the federal regulatory
scheme regarding short sales.

In particular, they relied on Regulation SHO, adopted by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission in 2005 to address problems
with failure to deliver, including "potentially abusive 'naked'
short-selling." New Jersey has no analogous provision.

In December 2012, U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael Hammer of the
District of New Jersey agreed with the plaintiffs that the case
should be remanded because it consisted of state law claims that
could be decided "without addressing the embedded federal issues."

U.S. District Judge Jose Linares of the District of New Jersey,
however, rejected Hammer's recommendation and denied a remand in
March 2013.

The Third Circuit granted an interlocutory appeal and reversed
Nov. 10, 2014, finding that the issue of whether naked short-
selling violates New Jersey law need not be answered by reference
to Regulation SHO.

"Because the success of plaintiffs' state-law causes of action
does not 'necessarily' depend upon the contents of federal law,
this case does not 'arise under' the laws of the United States,"
wrote Judge D. Brooks Smith, joined by Judges Thomas Vanaskie and
Dolores Sloviter.  "The presence of an exclusive jurisdiction
provision governing Regulation SHO does not change the analysis,
as such provisions cannot independently generate jurisdiction."

On Jan. 15, the Third Circuit denied rehearing en banc and refused
a stay pending decision on the defendants' anticipated petition
for certiorari.

Subsequently, the case was sent back to the district court, which
on Feb. 19 transmitted it to Morris County.

On Feb. 24, the stay application was submitted to Justice Alito,
who handles such filings within the Third Circuit.

The defendants argued that their planned certiorari petition
raised important issues, noting that Section 27 of the Exchange
Act grants federal courts exclusive jurisdiction of actions to
enforce duties created by federal securities laws.

They pointed out that the circuits had split on whether the
section provides an independent basis for jurisdiction, with the
Second and Third circuits saying it did not while the Fifth and
Ninth held that it did.

Allowing the litigation to go forward in New Jersey state court
would cause irreparable harm to them and every other participant
in the national securities market if the New Jersey court rules
before the U.S. Supreme Court resolves the conflict on
jurisdiction, the defendants contended.

"The result would be inconsistent enforcement of securities
regulations, as state courts begin to interpret issues that are
supposed to be exclusively federal under Section 27," the
defendants argued in court papers, adding that would be "a
regulatory nightmare."

In addition, the defendants said they would be denied their rights
to a federal forum and the federal law's prohibition on discovery
in securities cases until heightened pleading standards have been
met.

Justice Alito denied the application without explanation.

John Schepisi and Gregory Dexter of Schepisi & McLaughlin in
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, who along with Neal Flaster of
Florham Park, New Jersey, represent Manning, said they expect the
defendants will move to dismiss in state court.

The case involves practices that are common in the industry, and
the defendants are "so desperate to defend this proceeding because
it will change the way they function," Mr. Schepisi said.

The plaintiffs prefer to be in state court because they expect a
quicker resolution there than in federal court, he said.
The plaintiffs are claiming damages of about $50 million, which
could be trebled under RICO.

Merrill Lynch lawyer Andrew Frackman -- afrackman@omm.com -- of
O'Melveny & Myers referred a request for comment to Bank of
America Merrill Lynch in-house counsel Brendan Dowd, who in turn
referred the request to the company press office, which declined
to comment.

Rebecca Brazzano -- Rebecca.Brazzano@ThompsonHine.com -- of
Thompson Hine in New York, representing National Financial
Services, and Andrew Clubok -- andrew.clubok@kirkland.com -- of
Kirkland & Ellis in Washington, D.C., representing UBS, also
declined to comment.

Other defense counsel did not return calls seeking comment.

The defendants have argued in motion papers that the plaintiffs
are to blame for the stock drop, referring to a police raid on
Escala's offices in Spain during an investigation into a pyramid
scheme and SEC charges against Manning that ended with an order
requiring him to pay nearly $670,000 in fines and barring him from
serving as an officer or director of a public company for 10
years.


MILLENNIUM PRODUCTS: Faces "Retta" Suit Over Product Misbranding
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Retta, Kirsten Schofield, and Jessica Manire on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Millennium
Products, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01801 (C.D. Cal., March 11,
2015), alleges that the Defendant's GT's Kombucha Beverages are
misbranded and improperly labeled as antioxidant because they do
not have even a single antioxidant nutrient that the Food and Drug
Administration recognizes and approves.

Millennium Products, Inc. is a California corporation located
at 4646 Hampton St., Vernon, California 90058. It manufactures
kombucha home brew beverages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
      Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
      Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
      Walnut Creek, CA 94596
      Telephone: (925) 300-4455
      Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
      E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
              apersinger@bursor.com
              ykrivoshey@bursor.com


NAPER GOLD: Faces "Huerta" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Huerta, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Naper Gold Hospitality, LLC and Jayesh
Patel, Case No. 1:15-cv-02191 (N.D. Ill., March 12, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a hotel in Cook County, 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


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Jury Awards $75,000 to Ticketholder Plaintiffs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Rozen, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that neither the
National Football League officials nor NFL's outside counsel from
Haynes and Boone coached or counseled a contractor who worked on
seating for Super Bowl XLV before he testified for a videotaped
deposition played at a federal trial, according to Thad Behrens --
thad.behrens@haynesboone.com -- a partner in Dallas' Haynes and
Boone, who represents the NFL.

That trial ended  with a jury verdict which awarded about $75,000
to ticketholder plaintiffs who had alleged breach of contract
claims against the NFL; but the same jury nixed the plaintiffs'
fraudulent inducement claims against the league.

According to Mr. Behrens, the contractor, Scott Suprina, who
worked on the stadium seating construction, clarified at a court-
ordered post-verdict deposition, held in judge's chambers on
March 17, that no one from Haynes and Boone or the NFL influenced
him before his previous videotaped deposition.  The court had
scheduled Mr. Suprina's post-verdict deposition after the
plaintiffs alleged that the NFL or its counsel had possibly
influenced the contractor prior to his first deposition.  The
plaintiffs based their suspicions on an ESPN.com interview of
Mr. Suprina posted March 11.

At the post-verdict March 17 deposition, according to Mr. Behrens,
Mr. Suprina stated specifically that he did not have a
conversation with anyone from Haynes and Boone before a videotaped
deposition that played at trial.  Nor did he have a conversation
about the first deposition prior to it taking place with anyone
from the NFL.  The judge asked Mr. Suprina if, given the
opportunity, he would make any changes to his first deposition
testimony.  He said no, according to Behrens.

ESPN Article

In the ESPN.com article, posted March 11, Mr. Suprina was quoted
as saying league officials encouraged him to stay quiet.

"They encouraged me not to tell the whole story," ESPN quoted
Mr. Suprina as saying.  "They reinforced what my position should
be before the deposition."

According to the article, Mr. Suprina said that the NFL failed
five of his employees on background checks, causing delays.  "They
never told us why," ESPN quoted Mr. Suprina as saying.

After ESPN's publication of Mr. Suprina's interview, the
plaintiffs filed an emergency motion seeking the opportunity to
depose Mr. Suprina again.

U.S. District Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn agreed, but also ordered
that the deposition take place under her supervision and that she
would rule on any objections during the proceeding.  Judge Lynn
also ordered that "no party" may pay Mr. Suprina's expenses.  She
did not allow reporters to attend the deposition.

Michael J. Avenatti of Newport Beach, California's Eagan Avenatti,
who represents plaintiffs, did not return a call after Mr.
Suprina's post-verdict deposition.

Prior to it, Mr. Avenatti said: "We look forward to getting to the
bottom of the statements made by Mr. Suprina in the ESPN article.
If they are true, and we don't know yet if they are true, it will
have serious ramifications for this case and the National Football
League."

Stephen Jones, a lawyer in Enid, Oklahoma, reportedly has begun
representing Mr. Suprina.  But Mr. Jones did not return a call to
confirm that by press time.  Mr. Jones previously defended Timothy
McVeigh, who was convicted and executed for the 1995 truck bombing
in Oklahoma City that left more than 100 dead.


NESTLE PURINA: Faces "Malcom" Class Action Over Beneful Pet Food
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Newsham, writing for The Boston Globe, reports that a
Massachusetts man has filed suit against pet food maker Nestle
Purina alleging that its Beneful food kills dogs.

It's the second potential class-action lawsuit filed against the
company in less than a month.  Rumors about the dog food line have
swirled around the Internet since at least 2007, according to the
website Snopes.com, and Nestle Purina has consistently asserted
that its product is safe.

The lawsuit, filed Feb. 27 in federal court in Boston, said that
Saugus resident Paul Malcolm suffered "severe physical and
emotional distress" after his Rotweiler-bulldog mix Ben died on
February 26 after collapsing several times during the night of
February 25 and the next morning.  Although Malcolm rushed his
135-pound dog to Saugus Animal Hospital, the complaint says, the
dog died en route.

Ben had been fed a diet of Beneful Healthy Weight for three to
four years, which the complaint asserts had a "direct and
proximate" role in the dog's death. To support their claims, the
attorneys offered 11 testimonials from pet owners culled from the
Internet, as well as studies they claim prove the food to be
toxic.

Mr. Malcolm's attorneys said in a filing they were seeking over $5
million in damages for the entire class.  Although they didn't
know how many people were affected, dog food maker Nestle Purina
has said 1.5 billion Beneful meals were served to dogs in 2014.

Nestle Purina didn't immediately reply to a request for comment.
In past statements, the company has said its own tests have shown
the food to be safe, including batches tied to claims of pet
deaths. In a statement made to Snopes in February, the company
called the California suit "baseless" and said two similar
lawsuits had been dismissed.

"Bottom line: Consumers can continue to feed Beneful with total
confidence," the company told Snopes.

Earlier in February, a California man named Frank Lucido filed a
class-action suit against Purina with similar allegations about
the dog food after three of his dogs fell ill and one later died.
Nestle Purina Petcare Co., a subsidiary of the Swiss conglomerate
Nestle, is based in St. Louis, Mo.


NESTLE PURINA: Parallel Litigation at Issue in "Adkins"
-------------------------------------------------------
Frank P. Trapani and Peter J. Kreher of Kreher & Trapani, in
article for The Legal Intelligencer, report that there is a split
of authority over whether a federal district court that has
preliminarily approved a class action settlement may enjoin class
members from pursuing related litigation pending final approval of
the settlement.  In a recent opinion authored by Judge Frank
Easterbrook, Adkins v. Nestle Purina PetCare, --- F.3d ---, (7th
Cir. Mar. 2, 2015), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit entered the fray and held emphatically that federal
district courts lack the power to issue such injunctions, at least
with respect to litigation pending in state court.  This article
explains the court's analysis and discusses its implications for
counsel involved in parallel class action proceedings.

The Parallel Litigation at Issue in 'Adkins'

The plaintiffs in Adkins alleged that Nestle Purina PetCare Co.
and another defendant sold dog treats that injured their dogs.
They brought their lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of a nationwide class.
The parties reached a settlement, which the district court
preliminarily approved pending a fairness hearing on whether the
settlement should receive final approval.  The district court's
preliminary approval order enjoined all class members from
prosecuting litigation about the dog treats in any other forum.
One case directly affected by the injunction was a statewide class
action that had been pending in Missouri state court for two years
and was scheduled for trial in May 2015.  The certified
representative of the Missouri class intervened in the federal
case to challenge the injunction, but the federal judge declined
to grant her any relief.  Thus, she appealed to the Seventh
Circuit.

The Seventh Circuit's Decision

The Seventh Circuit began its analysis by explaining that to
obtain an injunction barring state-court litigation, the parties
in the federal case had to satisfy both the traditional
requirements for obtaining injunctive relief and the standards of
the federal Anti-Injunction Act.  Although the court suggested
that the parties may not have satisfied the traditional
requirements, it did not reach that issue because it concluded
that the injunction violated the act.

The act provides: "A court of the United States [e.g., a federal
district court] may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in
a state court except as expressly authorized by act of Congress,
or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or
effectuate its judgments."  There was not yet a final judgment in
the federal case, and no act of Congress expressly authorized the
federal court's injunction.  Therefore, the parties in the federal
case argued that the injunction was "necessary in aid of [the
federal court's] jurisdiction," and pointed to supporting case law
from other jurisdictions, including the Third Circuit. (See, e.g.,
In re Diet Drugs, 282 F.3d 220, 236 (3d Cir. 2002) ("If, for
example, the possibility of an earlier state court judgment is
disruptive to settlement negotiations in federal court, the
existence of the state court action might sufficiently interfere
with the federal court's flexibility to justify an injunction.").)

The Seventh Circuit rejected this argument.

"Jurisdiction," the court explained, "means adjudicatory
competence," and it was undisputed that a trial or judgment in the
Missouri litigation would not "imperil the district court's
ability and authority to adjudicate the federal suit." Indeed, if
the Missouri litigation caused the settlement in the federal case
to collapse, the federal court's "adjudicatory competence" would
not be affected, because "a need to adjudicate a suit on the
merits after settlement negotiations fail does not undermine the
nature or extent of a court's jurisdiction."

The court acknowledged that enjoining the Missouri action might be
"prudent" and "beneficial" for all class members.  But in the
court's view, the premise of any argument based on such concerns
"is that [the act] allows whatever a federal court thinks is good
litigation management."  Such a broad interpretation, the court
explained, is "not what 'necessary' means" in the act.  The court
noted, however, that injunctive relief might be permitted under
the act to protect a final judgment resolving a federal class
action.

With respect to contrary authority from other jurisdictions, the
court explained that "to the extent any of them supports
injunctive relief before the settlement of a federal class action
has become final, it fails to discuss the Supreme Court's
understanding of 'jurisdiction' and predates its reminder in
[Smith v. Bayer, 131 S. Ct. 2368 (2011)] that doubts must be
resolved in favor of allowing state courts to proceed with
litigation pending there."

Implications

Defendants in class action litigation are understandably reluctant
to settle unless they can achieve something approaching complete
peace; they generally are not looking to settle one class action
merely to continue incurring the time and expense associated with
litigating another arising out of the same facts.  Thus, Adkins
may encourage defendants to engage in global settlement
discussions with class counsel in all related class actions,
rather than relying on the preliminary approval of a federal
settlement to stop related state court litigation in its tracks.
In any such negotiations, Adkins may give class counsel in state
court litigation increased leverage.

Adkins may also encourage defendants and class counsel to
accelerate the often lengthy time period between beginning
negotiations and obtaining final approval of a settlement, so that
they can use a final federal judgment to more quickly terminate
unresolved state court litigation.  In addition, defendants may
ask the state court to stay any litigation pending before it on
the ground that potentially complex and time-consuming state court
proceedings might later be mooted by the final approval of a
settlement in a parallel federal class action.

Finally, it is important to remember that Adkins is binding
authority only within the Seventh Circuit, and counsel in other
circuits are likely to continue to seek injunctions at the
preliminary approval stage.  Counsel in such cases should be
prepared to address whether Adkins is out of step with the
majority view and whether the case law that Adkins rejected is
consistent with recent Supreme Court precedent, including the
Bayer decision.


NESTLE PURINA: Says Beneful Pet Dog Class Action Baseless
---------------------------------------------------------
Amy Cutler, writing for News10, reports that local pet owners are
expressing their concerns after a class action lawsuit was filed
against one of the country's most popular dog food brands.

The lawsuit against the Nestle Purina Pet Care Company claims that
Beneful dry kibble dog food contains toxins that are poisoning and
even killing pets. A man in Amsterdam believes his dog may have
been one of the victims.

For John Lennon of Amstersdam, his dog Duncan was a member of the
family.  In December of 2013 Duncan unexpectedly became sick. He
rushed him to an emergency clinic where he died soon after.

Now, Lennon believes it was the Purina Beneful dog food he was
feeding Duncan.  "He was eating that dog food all this life and
the next thing I know, he swells up and dies of internal
bleeding," said Lennon.

The lawsuit has caused many pet owners like Lennon to question the
effects Purina's dog food may have had on their animals.  The
concern centers on the ingredient propylene glycol.  Many have
confused the ingredient for ethylene glycol, also known as
antifreeze.

Latham veterinarian Eileen Geagan says there's a misconception
about what's in Beneful, saying the ingredients in Beneful are
safe.

"Propylene glycol is not ethylene glycol. They are not similar at
all. Ethylene glycol is antifreeze." Ms. Gaegan says she has heard
from local clients with concerns about Beneful.

Ms. Geagan wants to remind pet owners that propylene glycol has
been in pet foods for years and is approved by the FDA.

"A lawsuit is a complaint that doesn't necessarily mean it's based
in fact," said Ms. Geagan.

"We believe the lawsuit is baseless, and we intend to vigorously
defend ourselves and our brand.  Beneful is backed by Purina's
strict quality controls and comprehensive food safety program,"
said Purina in a statement.

                           *     *     *

WCPO.com reports that Purina fired back on March 2, following a
class action lawsuit filed in February that said the Beneful brand
dog food had killed multiple dogs.  After all the concerns over
its dog food, Purina says it will leave the product on the
shelves. The company does not plan to back down.


NOMAC DRILLING: "Norrell" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Norrell and Gabriel Russell, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Nomac Drilling, L.L.C., and
Seventy Seven Energy, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-00266 (W.D. Okla.,
March 15, 2015), seeks to recover the unpaid overtime wages and
other damages under the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are Oklahoma-based oilfield services companies with
significant operations throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NVIDIA CORPORATION: Falsely Marketed GTX 970, "Palagno" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Francis Palagano, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Nvidia Corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-01248
(E.D. Pa., March 12, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's false
and misleading representations of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
graphics processing units that it operate with a 4 gigabyte pool
of video random access memory (VRAM), 64 Raster Operations
Pipelines (ROP), and 2048 kilobytes (KB) of L2 cache capacity.

Nvidia Corporation is a Delaware corporation with a principal
place of business in California. It is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, selling, and distributing computing
equipment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan Shub, Esq.
      SEEGER WEISS LLP
      1515 Market Street, Suite 1380
      PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102
      Telephone: (215) 564-2300
      Facsimile: (215) 851-8029
      E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com

         - and -

      Gary E. Mason, 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

         - and -

      Charles Schaffer, Esq.
      LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
      510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
      Philadelphia, PA 19106
      Telephone: (215) 592-1500
      Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
      E-mail: cschafer@lfsb.com


OMNICARE INC: High Court Limits Suits Over Misleading Statements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Hananel, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
unanimous Supreme Court ruled on March 24 that investors can't sue
companies for making misleading statements of opinion prior to a
public stock offering just because those statements ultimately
turn out to be wrong.

But the ruling said some opinions in registration documents might
omit important facts that could mislead investors, giving them a
right to sue for securities fraud.

The narrow opinion offered a limited victory to nursing home
pharmacy -- Omnicare Inc. -- which was sued by two pension funds
that bought stock when the company went public in 2005.

Investors claimed the Cincinnati-based Omnicare mislead them when
it said in registration documents that it "believed" its contracts
with other companies were legal.  Omnicare later paid $124 million
to settle charges it gave kickbacks to facilities in exchange for
patient referrals.

A federal judge dismissed the investors' lawsuit, ruling they
failed to show Omnicare knowingly made false statements.  But a
federal appeals court reversed, saying the plaintiffs only had to
allege the statements were "objectively false."

The high court said that wasn't the right standard.  The justices
sent the case back to lower courts to decide whether Omnicare's
statement left out facts that would have been material to
investors.

Writing for the court, Justice Elena Kagan said opinion statements
are not automatically immune from liability.  Investors could try
to show that a company did not sincerely believe the opinions it
made, or that they are based on inaccurate facts.

Omnicare's statements essentially boiled down to "we believe we
are obeying the law," Justice Kagan said.  The pension funds did
not dispute that Omnicare officials believed that, even though it
was later discovered to be wrong.  Justice Kagan said securities
laws do not give investors "an invitation to Monday morning
quarterback an issuer's opinions."

But Justice Kagan said Omnicare could be liable if the
registration statement left out critical facts, such as making an
opinion about legal compliance without having consulted a lawyer,
or in the face of its lawyer's contrary advice.

"If a registration statement omits material facts about the
issuer's inquiry into or knowledge concerning a statement of
opinion, and if those facts conflict with what a reasonable
investor would take from the statement itself," those omissions
give investors a right to sue, Justice Kagan said.

Justice Kagan said she sees no reason the court's ruling would
make companies hesitant to disclose information useful to
investors.

"To the extent our decision [] chills misleading opinions, that is
all to the good," Justice Kagan said, noting that Congress wanted
investors to have better information, not simply more of it.


OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt R. Yantz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., Michael A. Narachi and
Joseph P. Hagan, Case No. 3:15-cv-00557 (S.D. Cal., March 11,
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. headquartered in La Jolla, California
and incorporated in Delaware, is a biopharmaceutical company
developing pharmaceutical product for the treatment of obesity.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen Richard Basser, Esq.
      Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
      BARRACK RODOS AND BACINE
      One America Plaza
      600 West Broadway, Suite 900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 230-0800
      Facsimile: (619) 230-1874
      E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com
              sward@barrack.com


PHILADELPHIA, PA: Efforts to Settle Suit Over Forfeiture Laws Fail
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Roebuck, writing for Philly.com, reports that efforts to
settle a lawsuit that challenges the city's use of state civil
forfeiture laws have failed, lawyers told a federal Judge on
March 2.

The announcement came a day after District Attorney Seth Williams
laid out his most detailed defense yet of the controversial
program -- one aimed at depriving drug dealers of cash and
property, but increasingly under scrutiny for instances involving
innocents evicted for only tangential connections to crime.

"Drug dealers and the social rot that comes with their trade ruin
neighborhoods -- they bring addiction, illegal firearms, death,
despair, and destruction," Mr. Williams wrote in a column
published Sunday in The Inquirer.  "With our growing epidemic of
prescription-drug and heroin overdoses, making it harder for
dealers to operate by removing their profits and profit motive is
a good thing."

Darpana Sheth, a lawyer representing four Philadelphia homeowners
whose houses were seized last year, declined on March 2 to discuss
her settlement talks with the city.  She told U.S. District Judge
Eduardo Robreno only that "negotiations have broken down, and we
intend to fully litigate this case."

City lawyers said they will seek to have the class-action suit
dismissed.

Ms. Sheth's clients, who filed in August, had their houses
threatened after relatives were accused of dealing drugs on their
properties. None of the plaintiffs in the civil suit has been
accused of a crime.

That didn't stop authorities from evicting lead plaintiffs
Christos and Markela Sourovelis from their house in Somerton after
their 22-year-old son was arrested in May for selling marijuana.

Since the Sourovelises filed their lawsuit, the city has dropped
its forfeiture effort against their property but maintained it had
every right to pursue it.

Pennsylvania's civil forfeiture law allows authorities to go after
properties suspected as criminal hot spots even if no one
associated with them is charged with a crime.  And unlike in a
criminal case, where prosecutors must offer "proof beyond a
reasonable doubt," authorities in forfeiture cases must only show
it is more likely than not that the property was used in or
obtained as a result of a crime.

Property owners can challenge the seizures, but those efforts can
take months and multiple court visits to resolve.

The program has netted Philadelphia $64 million over the last
decade -- much of which has gone to fund the district attorney's
annual budget.  Critics say those numbers create a clear profit
motive for city prosecutors to pursue forfeiture actions.

Mr. Williams downplayed those numbers on March 1 in his op-ed.  He
cited statistics indicating that Philadelphia prosecutors seize
cash far more than they seek to take houses, and noted that the
U.S. Justice Department remains a leading advocate of civil
forfeiture -- seizing about $9 billion in 2012 alone.

"Don't believe the claims that we are just snatching up property,
mostly homes and autos, owned by random individuals who have
nothing to do with drug dealing," Mr. Williams wrote of the
Philadelphia program.

He also cited a number of changes he has made to the program since
taking office.  They include shifting the focus of forfeiture
actions toward cash over properties, tightening internal rules for
house seizures, and working with legislators to improve the
state's civil forfeiture laws.


RATP: Paris Commuters Mull Class Action Over Transport System
-------------------------------------------------------------
TheLocal.fr reports that a collective of commuters in the Paris
region have launched a bid to take the capital's transport chiefs
RATP to court over the daily travel misery they say they face on
RER trains.

The class action suit, which is the first of its kind involving a
group of rail passengers, focuses on the problems of the RER A,
the capital's busiest line that runs from east to west and passes
through the capital's financial district of La Defense.  But those
behind the lawsuit say the whole network is failing the public.

Travellers on the line face regular disruption and only last month
The Local reported how a wildcat strike by train drivers led to
near pandemonium during rush hour.

The class action suit is being led by banker Jean-Louis Roura, who
is hoping the consumer group UFC-Que Choisir will back their
lawsuit, as the law requires.  If that happens they may get their
date in court with RATP.

A class action lawsuit allows groups of individuals to
collectively sue a defendant or group of defendants, without
separately having to file a case and hire a lawyer. But each one
must be backed by a recognized consumer group.

"The state of the French economy is not good," he says.  "People
are facing difficulties finding jobs and keeping them.  Today I
had two messages from people who both told me they lost their jobs
because they were late due to public transport problems.

"The rail transport network in the Paris region is in a state of
failure and it impacts on people's ability to find and keep jobs.

"Despite all this the government and regional authorities remain
deaf to these concerns. The politicians are completely
disconnected from the concerns of citizens.

"Over the last two years, the problems have increased. It's not
just the RER A, but the whole network.  Trains are cancelled and
services are cut or delayed.  Then there are problems with trains
breaking down and problems we don't even understand.  It's a
nineteenth century transport system that is not fit for the 21st
century.

"Almost every day there's a case of a driver who doesn't turn up
for work, which causes delays. If that was in any other job they
would be sacked.

"The authorities talk about the project Grand Paris [the ambitious
transport plan for the greater Paris region], but that won't be
until 2030 or 2050.  We need a solution for the commuters today,
who can't even get to work.  We are angry and there's no response.

"The government talks about the financial district at La Defense
being the biggest in Europe, but people struggle to get there on
time.  Ten-minute journeys are taking up to 40 minutes on a daily
basis.

"The network needs massive investment.  Commuters are told that
works are going on but we never see any improvement.

"This is a cause that everyone is talking about.  It's on the
television and in the press so that's already a success, but now
we want the politicians to wake up.  There are elections coming up
and they have to realize commuters are electors.

"The aim of this class action group is not to obtain money it's
just to show transport chiefs they have a problem and they need to
fix it."


RAWLINGS COMPANY: Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parker Waichman LLP said that on February 23, 2015, the U.S.
Supreme Court denied certiorari in Wurtz v. Rawlings Co., LLC,
2014 WL 3746801, Second Circuit 2014.

A Writ of Certiorari is an order under which a higher court, in
this case, the Supreme Court, reviews a lower court decision,
Parker Waichman LLP notes. (Certiorari denied: 14-487 Rawlings
Company, LLC, et al. v. Wurtz, Megan, et al.)

On July 31, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
rendered a decision that New York State's anti-subrogation law,
which extinguished the rights of private health insurers to seek
reimbursement for medical benefits paid out of a tort settlement,
was not preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) and that the law was found applicable to health insurers
providing ERISA coverage.  The class action lawsuit was originally
filed in New York State Supreme Court but was removed by
Defendants to federal court where the District Court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim based
on ERISA preemption.  On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit vacated the District Court's decision and remanded
the matter to the District Court in holding that the plaintiffs'
claims were not subject to complete ERISA preemption.  The Supreme
Court's decision to decline to hear Defendants' appeal of the
Court of Appeal's decision allows for the class action lawsuit to
proceed.  The class action alleges violations of New York State's
anti-subrogation law by insurers who recovered for medical
benefits paid on behalf of injured plaintiffs from their tort
settlements. (Meghan Wurtz, Mindy Burnovski, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. The Rawlings Company,
LLC, Oxford Health Plans (N.Y.), Inc., UnitedHealth Group
Incorporated, Defendants; No. 13-1695-cv; in the United States
Court of Appeals, Second Circuit)

"These insurers must now decide if they seek to continue to burden
the courts with frivolous motions that do not have any legal
basis," said Melanie Muhlstock, Managing Attorney for Parker
Waichman LLP.

This decision is a major victory for both ERISA participants and
their beneficiaries, notes Parker Waichman LLP.

"We are happy that the justice system seeks to put an end to these
insurers' attempts at stopping lawsuits brought by individuals who
have suffered from various significant injuries by further seeking
financial gain at additional cost to these allegedly injured
parties," said Ms. Muhlstock.


RAYONIER INC: Investors' Suits Consolidated Into Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ronnie Greene, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
while preparing a run for the White House, former Florida Gov.
Jeb Bush made headlines by resigning from several corporate
positions at year's end.  Less noticed: One of the companies where
he served on the board, Florida timber company Rayonier Inc.,
faced a flurry of lawsuits not long before his exit.

One case alleges a company facility in Georgia violated the Clean
Water Act and contaminated the Altamaha River, and five others
suits filed by investors contend the company made false and
misleading statements that caused them losses.  All are active in
court.

Gov. Bush is not named as a defendant in the cases, but he is
listed among Rayonier board members in court papers filed in the
Georgia environmental case.  The lawsuits could renew questions
about the former Florida governor's stewardship in the corporate
world as he aspires to step back into public office.  At least
four times, Bush served on the board of companies sued by
investors or the government.

"You are not going to find with board members a lot of successful
lawsuits," said Elizabeth Nowicki, an Albany Law School professor
and former Securities and Exchange Commission lawyer.  Still, she
added: "The buck stops with the board members."

Gov. Bush is "proud of his service on Rayonier's board," said his
spokeswoman, Kristy Campbell.

A spokesman for Rayonier, Mike Bell, said there was no
environmental harm.  Both Mr. Bell and Ms. Campbell said the
company's board took decisive action when the financial issues
surfaced.

Gov. Bush, appointed to Rayonier's board in 2008, resigned
effective Dec. 31.  He earned nearly $198,000 in compensation from
Rayonier in 2013, $99,750 in cash and $98,149 in stock value and
dividends, the company said.

Just before his departure, investors filed the first of five
securities cases alleging Rayonier made public misstatements that
caused them significant losses and damages.  The five cases --
filed in November and December -- have been consolidated into one
class-action lawsuit in federal court in Jacksonville, Florida,
where Rayonier is based.

The Clean Water Act case, filed in federal court nearly a year
ago, contends that a Rayonier paper mill in Jesup, Georgia, a
small city four hours downstate from Atlanta, fouled the Altamaha
River.  Altamaha Riverkeeper Inc., a Georgia environmental
nonprofit, filed the lawsuit and alleged company operations harmed
a waterway that is home to 120 species of rare or endangered
animals.

In 2008, responding to fishermen and others complaining of a
smelly brown discharge from its mill, Rayonier entered into a pact
with state regulators to spend millions on anti-pollution
controls.  A spokesman with the Georgia Environmental Protection
Division, Kevin Chambers, said Rayonier is in compliance with that
consent order.

Yet the lawsuit cited an "ongoing environmental calamity" and
accused Rayonier of discharging more than 50 million gallons daily
of "highly discolored, inescapably foul-smelling effluent" into
the river.

The other cases involve investors -- including the Lake Worth
Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund and others -- who said Rayonier's
financial statements in 2014 overstated the company's timber
inventory and income from operations.

Rayonier restated its financial statements in November 2014,
citing errors, and a company senior vice president resigned.  The
day the news broke, company shares fell almost 15 percent.

Rayonier and several executives, but not Gov. Bush, are
defendants.

"The board, with management and independent advisers, moved
quickly to conduct its review and took swift and decisive actions
to realign Rayonier's strategy and operations," said Ms. Campbell,
Gov. Bush's spokeswoman.

The Rayonier case is not the first time Bush has served on the
board of a private company sued by investors in federal court.
Others include sanitation company Swisher Hygiene and, years
earlier, credit card protection company Ideon Group Inc.

Bush also served on the board of InnoVida Holdings, a Miami Beach
company that won a $10 million loan from the government's Overseas
Private Investment Corp. to help build prefabricated housing for
victims of the 2010 Haiti earthquake.  Gov. Bush served on the
board when the loan was approved in January 2010.

Federal prosecutors and the SEC later charged that InnoVida's
owner, Claudio Osorio, defrauded investors.  Mr. Osorio pleaded
guilty in 2013 to wire fraud and money laundering and got a 12-
1/2-year prison sentence.  Gov. Bush left InnoVida's board later
in 2010 and was not accused of wrongdoing.


REDFLEX: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Red-Light Camera Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Shea Johnson, writing Daily Press, reports that A California
appeals court on March 3 affirmed a San Bernardino County judge's
2013 decision that a class-action lawsuit "lacked standing" in
alleging Victorville's Redflex red light camera system violated
due process rights.

In their unpublished opinion, a three-judge panel in the state's
Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, said that "the
Complaint failed to state a cause of action for violation of civil
rights or declaratory relief, and (the) plaintiffs have not sought
leave to amend."

Victorville-based Attorney Bob Conaway, who filed the class-action
suit in 2012 and filed the subsequent appeal, said on March 3 that
he hadn't yet received word of the decision, but he nonetheless
spoke about the issue.

"Is this the Big Brother state saying, 'shut up and pay your
fine?' " he asked.

But Mr. Conaway, a former 8th Congressional District candidate,
also framed the ruling as having the potential to push the shift
to alternatives.

"I don't know that it's a setback.  I think it's maybe a refocus,"
he said.  "I think it has some benefits.  It will allow people to
decide if this issue is important enough to us.  Do we have the
moxy and the smarts to sit down and really talk?"

Alternatives, he said, should include legislative changes, where
municipalities review "checks and balances" of the systems or
enact local initiatives to block the cameras altogether.

In December, Mr. Conaway had been seeking to test his latest
argument: the assumption that red light camera images were really
automatic and not human influenced.

"That is not a trivial distinction considering what is known about
the non-man-caused failures of software being used," he wrote in a
Dec. 9 brief to the court.

He had sought additional time to gather evidence four months
before the March 3 decision, which ultimately sided with the
earlier conclusion that the lawsuit "lacked standing to maintain
the complaint or any cause of action therein."


RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Zachary Zagger, writing for Law360, reports that The Ritz-Carlton
Hotel Co. LLC, Marriott International Inc. and several associated
companies were hit with a putative class action in a California
state court alleging that the hotel chains shorted its workers on
wages and failed to provide proper meal breaks, among a number of
violations of California labor laws.

Plaintiffs Lavina Sanchez and Elvia Puentes alleged that nonexempt
hourly workers at Marriott International's The Ritz-Carlton
hotels, including approximately seven locations in California,
were not paid for all hours worked nor were they paid for overtime
or given legally required meal breaks, according to the lawsuit
dated Feb. 25, 2015.

The plaintiffs, both residents of Los Angeles County, California,
also alleged that hotel workers were not provided with complete
and accurate wage statements and did not receive timely payment of
all unpaid wages upon termination, both in violation of the
California Labor Code.

"The plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that
class members were not paid for all hours worked because all hours
worked were not recorded . . . that defendants knew or should have
known that plaintiff and class members were entitled to receive
certain wages for overtime compensation and that they were not
receiving certain wages for overtime compensation," the complaint
alleged.

The suit also seeks damages under California's Private Attorney
General Act of 2004, which allows private citizens to pursue
penalties on behalf of the state Labor and Workforce Development
Agency.

"Plaintiff, acting in the public interest as a private attorney
general, seeks assessment and collection of unpaid wages and civil
penalties for plaintiff, all other aggrieved employees and the
state of California against defendants, in addition to other
remedies," the complaint said.

The suit brings a total of seven causes of action and seeks
damages for unpaid wages, penalties, injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees for up to $5 million; however, the complaint said
that the plaintiff reserves the right to seek a larger amount
based on new information and discovery.

Representatives of Marriott International and The Ritz-Carlton did
not immediately respond to a request for comment on Tuesday.

Marriott International is a global lodging company with more than
3,800 lodging properties in 74 countries and territories and
operates several well-known brands, including luxury hotels The
Ritz-Carlton, Bulgari and JW Marriott, in addition to other
brands, including Marriott Hotels, Courtyard by Marriott,
SpringHill Suites and Fairfield Inn and Suites.

The plaintiffs are represented by Carney R. Shegerian --
cshegerian@shegerianlaw.com -- of Shegerian & Associates Inc.

The case is Lavina Sanchez and Elvia Puentes v. The Ritz Carlton
et al., case number BC573996, in the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Los Angeles, Central District.


ROYAL CANIN: Faces "Fauley" Suit Over Unsolicited Facsimiles
------------------------------------------------------------
Shaun Fauley, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons v. Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. and John
Does 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-02170 (N.D. Ill., March 12, 2015),
seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of sending unsolicited
facsimiles.

Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. is a manufacturers of all natural dog and
cat food.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
      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: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
              rkelly@andersonwanca.com


SAKS FIFTH: Faces Class Action Over Restrictive Return Policy
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Randles, writing for Law360, reports that a Saks Fifth
Avenue Inc. customer on March 2 defended her proposed class action
alleging the retailer violated California law by failing to
properly post its return and refund policies at its stores,
arguing that she wouldn't have purchased items from Saks had she
known how restrictive the company's return policy is.

Named plaintiff Jennifer Shaouli filed a brief in California
federal court opposing Saks' bid to dismiss her complaint.
Ms. Shaouli disputes Saks' claim that she lacks standing to bring
her case, saying her buying habits were directly influenced by the
company's "deceptive business practices."

"Saks mislead plaintiff and putative class members into purchasing
products that they would not have purchased, would have purchased
less of or paid less for such products, believing that such
products were not subjected to such restrictive return and refund
policies," the brief said.  "Logically, and somewhat obviously, a
product's present or future property interest is diminished when
its liquidity is encumbered by restrictions unknown to the
consumer at the time of purchase."

According to the complaint, Ms. Shaouli purchased shoes at a Saks
located in Beverly Hills in January 2014.  Ms. Shaouli claims that
Saks' return policy was not posted at the entrance to the store.

Saks later informed Ms. Shaouli that it would no longer accept her
returns because her account had a high return rate.  The company
restricts returns if it finds based on a customer's shopping
history an "unreasonable return pattern."

"Had Saks properly displayed its return policy as required by law,
plaintiff would not have purchased Saks' products, would have
purchased less of the products and/or would have paid less for the
products," the lawsuit says.

Ms. Shaouli filed the proposed class action in December.  She is
seeking to represent a nationwide class of Saks shoppers and a
separate class of California shoppers.  The company has filed its
motion to dismiss Ms. Shaouli's complaint.

Ms. Shaouli is represented by L. Paul Mankin of the Law Offices of
L. Paul Mankin IV.

Saks is represented by David Fink -- dfink@kelleydrye.com -- and
Ken Kronsta -- kkronstadt@kelleydrye.com -- of Kelley Drye &
Warren LLP.

The case is Jennifer Shaouli v. Saks Fifth Avenue Inc., case
number 2:14-cv-09590, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.


SANDHURST TRUSTEES: Class Action Over Wickham Collapse May Expand
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Spits, writing for Money Management, reports that the
potential class action against Sandhurst Trustees may expand out
to represent up to 180 investors, none of whom have received any
funds since the failure and closure of Wickham Securities in early
2013.

Shine Lawyers financial services class actions department manager
Jan Saddler said that a decision by the Federal Court of Australia
to order Sandhurst to hand over documents would be instrumental in
deciding if a class action would proceed.

Mr. Saddler said it was expected the documents -- 39 in all
covering financial, director's and liquidator's reports and
trustee agreements -- would be received within a month and then a
further three to six months would be required to assess them and
see if investors had grounds to seek compensation from Sandhurst.

Sandhurst acted as the trustee for failed property lender Wickham
Securities which was owned and operated by Bradley Sherwin.

Mr. Sherwin was banned by the Australian Securities and Investment
Commission for a period of two years and seven months from
September 2013.  The ban corresponded with the period remaining on
his bankruptcy and is set to end in April 2016.

Mr. Saddler said Shine expected the class action to grow to
include 150 to 180 investors after having grown from 80 in 2013 to
100 at present but stated the record keeping of Wickham Securities
was poor and identifying investors, sums invested and levels of
losses had been difficult.

The class action would seek to reclaim as much as possible for
investors with Mr. Saddler stating that liquidators PBB Advisory
had estimated total losses to initially be between $28 million and
$32 million with investor losses at around $27 million but this
was subject to change as Shine made contact with more Wickham
investors.

According to Mr. Saddler the case was not brought to the Financial
Ombudsman Service (FOS) as Wickham Securities was not a member of
the service and any potential claims against Sandhurst of alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty and alleged breaches of the
Corporations Act were not covered by FOS terms of service.

Sandhurst was initially ordered to hand over the relevant
documents in a court ruling brought by two Wickham Securities
investors but appealed against the ruling, which was dismissed.
However Sandhurst can still appeal to the High Court of Australia
if it receives a special leave application to do so.


SEARS CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Wrongful Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------
Business Vancouver reports that a former employee is suing Sears
Canada in a class action for wrongful dismissal just more than a
year after its doomed home services division went into
receivership.

Leonard Kenneth Tonn filed a notice of civil claim in BC Supreme
Court on February 17.  Mr. Tonn claims he worked for Sears Home
Services, which Sears had been priming to sell since 2012.  Sears
Canada spun off the division and handed it over to non-party SHS
Services Management Inc., which was not run by Sears, but bought a
license to use the name under a "Branded Concession Agreement"
relying on Sears Canada's annual sales estimates of $208 million.
Sears Canada also lent the firm more than $5.6 million for the
division's assets, according to the lawsuit.

The new company was also bound to offer jobs to the division's
workers, 92 of whom worked in British Columbia at the time, the
suit says.  The deal closed on March 2, 2013, but less than a year
later, the company went into receivership after "experiencing
significant financial difficulties."

Mr. Tonn's complaint says that revenues were "substantially less
than represented by Sears" and that the retailer demanded full
repayment of its loan in September 2013, six months after the deal
closed.  The company went into receivership on December 13, 2013,
and the doomed firm claimed the "Branded Concession Agreement"
made SHS "not a viable business" and had "dismal financial
prospects" while Sears Canada refused to provide further
financing.  Sears Canada was also one of two secured creditors of
SHS, claiming indebtedness of about $2 million.

The same day the Ontario Superior Court of Justice appointed a
receiver, all the company's employment contracts were terminated
without cause, notice or compensation, according to the claim.

Mr. Tonn seeks class certification, and unspecified general,
special and punitive damages for wrongful dismissal.

The allegations have not been tested or proven in court and the
defendant had not filed a response by press time.


SIEMENS: Faces Suit in Brazil Over Alleged in Price-Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------
Stan Lehman, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
Brazilian judge has accepted charges filed by state prosecutors
against 11 companies accused of forming a cartel to raise prices
on the construction and upkeep of subway and train systems in the
state of Sao Paulo.

A press officer of the prosecutor's office said on March 21 that
Judge Marcos Pimentel Tamassia accepted the charges that involve
contracts signed between 2000 and 2007.  She spoke on condition of
anonymity because she was not authorized to comment the case.

Among the companies charged are Germany's Siemens, CAF of Spain,
Mitsui of Japan, Bombardier of Canada and Alstom of France.

Prosecutors have said that the companies were involved in price
fixing, and that those that won bids then contracted the losing
companies to provide services.

Brazil's antitrust agency, the Administrative Council for Economic
Defense has said that the companies used several anticompetitive
strategies, such as the prearrangement of offers tendered in
bidding processes.  At times, it said, the cartel would also
determine which company would win a bid by allowing only one to
tender an offer.

In 2013, Siemens struck a plea agreement with authorities and
denounced the existence of the price-fixing scheme.


SILVERBRICK GROUP: Faces "Byers" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Ray Byers and Bert Lagasse, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated employees v. Silverbrick Group, LLC, Case No.
3:15-cv-00370 (D. Conn., March 12, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for hours
worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.

Silverbrick Group, LLC owns and operates apartment buildings
located in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William G. Madsen, Esq.
      MADSEN, PRESTLEY & PARENTEAU, LLC
      402 Asylum Street
      Hartford, CT 06103
      Telephone: (860) 246-2466
      Facsimile: (860) 246-1794
      E-mail: wmadsen@mppjustice.com


SONY PICTURES: Former Employees File Amended Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Ted Johnson, writing for Variety.com, reports that nine former
Sony employees have filed an amended class action lawsuit against
Sony Pictures Entertainment, alleging that the studio failed to
take adequate safeguards to protect personal information that was
exposed in the hacking attack last year.

"Following the breach, SPE has focused on its own remediation
efforts, not on protecting employees' sensitive records or
minimizing the harm to its employees and their families," states
the amended complaint, filed on March 2 in U.S. District Court in
Los Angeles.  "Rather, SPE has focused on securing its own
intellectual property from pirates and a public relations campaign
directed at controlling damage to SPE associated with the release
of embarrassing internal emails."

The lawsuit is similar to individual suits filed by the nine
ex-employees in December and January, albeit going into additional
detail about the breach.  The plaintiffs claim that the hacking
has left them vulnerable to identity theft, tax fraud, and
financial theft because their Social Security numbers and other
information has been made "publicly available to anyone with an
Internet connection."

The class action asks the court to require SPE to "implement and
maintain security practices to comply with regulations designed to
prevent and remedy these types of breaches," as well as
restitution and damages.

A spokeswoman for SPE did not immediately respond to a request for
comment.

Among other things, the lawsuit points to reports that the breach
exposed more than 47,000 Social Security numbers, including 15,200
from current and former employees.  Some of the employees last
worked at the studio as long ago as 1955, the suit claims, raising
concerns about data retention policies.  It also points to reports
that the initial leak included a spreadsheet that listed the
names, birthdates and Social Security numbers of 3,803 employees.
And it contends that hackers used the stolen data to threaten
employees and their families with physical harm.

The lawsuit contends that the studio's security practices fell
below "prudent industry standards."  It cites, among other things,
an audit by PricewatershouseCoopers in September 2014 that found
gaps in the company's monitoring of its systems.  It also claims
that SPE has yet to notify all of its former employees about the
breach and the extent of their data that was exposed.

Last month, SPE's legal team responded to the first lawsuit filed
related to the hacking attack, a claim from ex-employees Michael
Corona and Christina Mathis.  The studio said that the breach was
"massive and unprecedented," but also claimed that the plaintiffs
did not having standing.

"There are no allegations of identity theft, no allegations of
fraudulent charges, and no allegations of misappropriation of
medical information," Sony said in a brief filed in U.S. District
Court in Los Angeles.  "Instead, the plaintiffs assert a broad
range of common-law and statutory cases of action based on their
alleged fear of an increased risk of future harm, as well as
expenses they claim to have incurred to prevent that future harm."

Sony contends that the plaintiffs fall short of the requirement
that they suffer "some concrete and particularized injury" before
a lawsuit is filed.

In the amended complaint, Mr. Corona contends that he has incurred
out-of-pocket costs of $700 per year in identity theft protection,
which thwarted an attempt by an identity thief to open a new bank
account.  Ms. Mathis claims that she incurred costs of $300.
Although Sony has offered identity theft protection to employees
and ex-employees for 12 months, she claims that she will spend
time and money for the rest of her life trying to contain the
impact of the data breach.


STEWART'S SHOPS: Class Action Over Unpaid Wages Moves Forward
-------------------------------------------------------------
E. Stewart Jones Hacker Murphy, LLP on March 4 disclosed that
current and former employees have filed a proposed class action
seeking in excess of $20 million dollars in alleged unpaid wages,
punitive damages and statutory penalties against Stewart's Shops
Corp.  Stewart's Shop has denied liability in the case and
promptly filed a motion to dismiss all claims against it.

On March 2, 2015 Federal District Court Judge Thomas J. McAvoy
issued a Decision on the motion.  Judge McAvoy closely examined
the Complaint and decided that the majority of the claims will
proceed to the next phase of the litigation.  These claims
include: overtime pay; minimum wage pay; time worked off the clock
(before and after shift); call-in pay; uniform maintenance pay;
and, violation of the Wage Theft Prevention Act for failing to
provide appropriate wage disclosures.

The proposed class action case is venued in the Northern District
of New York Federal District Court (Docket Number 7:14-cv-33).
The case seeks class action status for approximately 4500 current
and former employees of Stewart's Shops who allege they were
deprived of pay for hours worked.  To date 30 individuals have
joined the suit but that number is expected to grow if the Court
grants permission to send out a Class Notice to all potentially
affected current and former employees.

Ryan M. Finn, Esq. -- rfinn@joneshacker.com -- of E. Stewart Jones
Hacker Murphy, LLP -- http://www.joneshacker.com-- represents the
proposed class and has stated that he is very pleased with the
Court's decision.  "This is a great decision for our clients.  We
will continue to fight for justice for our clients."


SUN PHARMACEUTICAL: Illegally Records Calls, "Gu" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Qi Gu, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., a Michigan
Corporation and Does 1-10, Inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-01844 (C.D.
Cal., March 12, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's unlawful
conduct of failing to disclose intentional recording of telephone
communications.

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. is a Michigan pharmaceutical
company that does business in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
      Richard H. Hikida, Esq.
      David W. Reid, Esq.
      Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
      NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP
      4100 Newport Place, Ste. 800
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Telephone: (949) 706-6464
      Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
      E-mail: sferrell@trialnewport.com
              rhikida@trialnewport.com
              dreid@trialnewport.com
              vknowles@trialnewport.com


T & S ROOFING: "Flores" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Acosta Flores v. T & S Roofing Systems, Inc. a Florida Profit
Corporation, and Louis E. Toledo, Case No. 1:15-cv-21003 (S.D.
Fla., March 12, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

T & S Roofing Systems, Inc. is a residential and commercial
roofing company having their main place of business in Broward
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      K. Brian Roller, Esq.
      SCHWARTZ ZWEBEN ROBINS BURNETTE & ROLLER
      3876 Sheridan Street
      Hollywood, FL 33021
      Telephone: (954) 966-2483
      Facsimile: (954) 374-6974
      E-mail: broller@szalaw.com


TAKATA CORP: Faces "Taylor" Suit Over Defective Airbags
-------------------------------------------------------
Dorry Taylor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00303
(M.D. Fla., March 11, 2015), alleges that the Defective Vehicles
contain airbags manufactured by the Defendant that, instead of
protecting vehicle occupants from bodily injury during accidents,
they violently explode and expel vehicle occupants with lethal
amounts of metal debris and shrapnel.

Takata Corporation is a specialized supplier of automotive safety
systems that designs, manufactures, tests, markets, distributes,
and sells airbags.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Matthew Stephens, Esq.
      MCCALLUM,METHVIN &TERRELL, P.C.
      2101 Arlington Avenue South
      Birmingham, AL 35205
      Telephone: (205) 939- 0199
      Facsimile: (205) 939-0399
      E-mail: mstephens@mmlaw.net

         - and -

      Diandra Debrosse Zimmermann, Esq.
      ZARZAUR,MUJUMDAR &DEBROSSE
      2332 Second Avenue North
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 983-7985
      Facsimile: (888) 505-0523
      E-mail: fuli@zarzaur.com


TARGET CORP: Judge Approves $10MM Data Breach Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Steve Karnowski and Michelle Chapman, writing for The Associated
Press, report that a Minnesota judge has endorsed a settlement in
which Target Corp. will pay $10 million to settle a class-action
lawsuit over a massive data breach in 2013.

U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson said at a hearing on March 19 in
St. Paul, Minnesota, that he would grant preliminary approval of
the settlement in a written order, probably later in the day.  The
move will allow people to begin filing claims ahead of another
hearing for final approval, which he'll hold in late October or
early November.

People affected by the breach can file for up to $10,000 with
proof of their losses, including unauthorized charges, higher fees
or interest rates, and lost time dealing with the problem.

"Target really needs to be commended for being willing to step
up," Judge Magnuson said.

Target's data breach in 2013 exposed details of as many as 40
million credit and debit card accounts and hurt its holiday sales
that year.  The company offered free credit monitoring for
affected customers and overhauled its security systems.

The settlement would also require Minneapolis-based Target to
appoint a chief information security officer, keep a written
information security program and offer security training to its
workers.  It would be required to maintain a process to monitor
for data security events and respond to such events deemed to
present a threat.

"We are pleased to see the process moving forward and look forward
to its resolution," Target spokeswoman Molly Snyder said in an
emailed statement.

Claims will mostly be submitted and processed online through a
dedicated website.

Vincent Esades, an attorney for Target customers, said after the
hearing that the settlement could end up costing Target $25
million, when attorneys' fees and administrative costs are added
in.

He said consumers will likely be able to start filing claims
around April 30, and 100 million people may be eligible.
Consumers can claim up to $10,000 if they can document
unreimbursed losses; after those claims are paid out, the rest of
the settlement funds will be divided among consumers who state
under oath that they suffered a qualifying loss, but don't have
documentation.  People who've already been fully reimbursed aren't
eligible, he said.

Mr. Esades said customers who opt out of the settlement have the
right to object.  Since the funds can't be paid out until all
appeals are resolved, he said, the earliest that customers would
see any money would be early next year.

Target attorney David McDowell declined to comment after the
hearing.

The chain has worked hard to lure back customers that were
hesitant to shop there after the incident.  Over the 2014 holiday
season, Target offered free shipping on all items.  It recently
announced that it was cutting its minimum online purchase to
qualify for free shipping in half to $25.  And on March 18 the
retailer said it will now allow returns for up to a year for its
private and exclusive brands.

Earlier in March, Target said it would lay off about 1,700 people,
eliminate another 1,400 unfilled positions and cut up to $2
billion in costs.  It will also focus more on technology to boost
online sales growth. T he latter move will involve about $1
billion aimed at beefing up business from shoppers who are more
likely to shop online.


TCWD LIDO: "Lopez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jose I. Lopez, Fausto Marmol, Nelson Marmol, Jose S. Velasquez,
Alfonson C. Villagran, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. TCWD Lido Rest Inc. d/b/a Olive Oils et al,
Docket No. 2:15-cv-01283 (E.D.N.Y., March 12, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

TCWD Lido Rest Inc. owns and operates Olive Oils restaurant in New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Saul D. Zabell, Esq.
      ZABELL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      1 Corporate Drive, Suite 103
      Bohemia, NY 11716
      Telephone: (631) 589-7242
      Facsimile: (631) 563-7475
      E-mail: SZabell@laborlawsny.com


TEXCALE INC: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
German Flores, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Texcale Inc., Mecate Inc., and Albert Lucero,
individually and/ jointly d/b/a Joe Jr's Restaurant, Case No.
1:15-cv-01846 (S.D.N.Y., March 12, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for hours
worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 167 3rd
Ave., New York, NY 10003.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason Travis Brown, Esq.
      Patrick Sidney Almonrode, Esq.
      JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
      155 2nd Street, Suite 4
      Jersey City, NJ 07302
      Telephone: (212) 725-7272
      Facsimile: (212) 488-4848
      E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
              patalmonrode@jtblawgroup.com


TIFFANY'S CABARET: Exotic Dancers File Wage Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Mayra Moreno, writing KENS-TV, reports that two exotic dancers who
sued their employer alleging that Tiffany's Cabaret violates
minimum-wage laws go to court on March 2.

The club, a Tiffany's Cabaret, has at least two lawsuits against
it for wage and hour violations, according to the San Antonio
Express-News. Dancers Alexis Alex and Nicolette Prieto brought
their original suit in August 2013.

But several other dancers who wanted to add their names to the
complaint were not allowed, so Samantha Marez and Veronica
Michelle Ayala filed their own federal labor lawsuit in July
asking that it be certified as a class action.  In December, a
federal magistrate judge allowed a conditional class action,
saying strippers who had worked for Tiffany's since July 1, 2011,
could join the second suit.

"The club claims that the tips the ladies get for the dances are a
service charge that the club charges," making the women
contractors rather than employees, said Martin Shellist, the
Houston-based lawyer representing Alex and Prieto.  The lawsuit
heading to court Monday claims that Tiffany's didn't pay the
dancers at all.

As with restaurant wait staff, even a dancer who is considered an
employee probably wouldn't receive the federal minimum wage of
$7.25 an hour.  Instead, Texas state law allows tipped employees
to receive an hourly wage of $2.13 with the understanding that
$5.12 of their tips will be credited toward the federal minimum.

But Alex and Prieto, who no longer work at the club, claim that
they were not allowed to keep all of what they considered tips and
Tiffany's considered service charges.  Instead they contend they
had to give part of the total to the house deejay and the club
manager, another violation of wage law, Mr. Shellist said.

In a partial summary judgment in November, a federal judge in
New York ruled that Rick's Cabaret in Manhattan owed $10.8 million
in back pay to almost 2,000 dancers after failing to pay them an
hourly wage and improperly retaining tips.  That determination,
not yet final, could significantly increase after a trial
scheduled later this year.

Representatives of Tiffany's Cabaret did not respond to requests
for comment but have denied the allegations in previous court
hearings, saying that any disputes should be handled under
arbitration agreements that their employees signed.

"I think we have a lot of good evidence," Mr. Shellist said.  "We
feel good about the case. We are ready for trial, (and) we are
curious to see what Tiffany's says."


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Faces Class Actions Over Guardrail System
-------------------------------------------------------------
WAVY.com reports that more lawsuits are being filed, as the study
of Trinity Industries crash test results for their ET-Plus
guardrail system continues.  But now the company has filed
documents of its own, defending its product that lines Virginia
roads.

Three class action lawsuits have now been filed against Trinity
Industries, including the latest one from Stratford, Ontario in
Canada for $500 million.  But the embattled company is also
striking back at experts who are calling their product and their
yet-to-be-released crash test results into question.

In February, 10 On Your Side said the Federal Highway
Administration said the guardrail end treatments that have been
called potentially deadly and dangerous passed the first round of
tests.  On that same day, though, court documents were filed with
claims that an expert had reviewed photographs and videos of the
next set of tests and concluded, "The deformation of the driver's
side door not only could have caused disabling injuries, but
showed a propensity to penetrate the vehicle and cause devastating
injuries."

Trinity has responded by filing court documents of its own in
Texas.  A section of Trinity's legal filings is as follows:

Dr. Coon's opinions cannot be based on the crash test report,
photographs, videos or any of the actual data collected in
connection with the crash test since these materials have not yet
been released by Southwest Research Institute.  Drawing
conclusions without access to the complete crash test data or test
report, as Dr. Coon has done, is premature, scientifically unsound
and irresponsible.  All of Dr. Coon's opinions are unreliable
because they lack any basis in the technical data and information
necessary for properly analyzing a crash test.

Trinity Industries continues to deny claims that their guardrails
are unsafe in any way, even as more lawsuits assert that they
misled customers by not disclosing secret modifications that they
made.

Virginia was the first state to sue Trinity over these guardrails
in December.  Attorney General Mark Herring said he determined,
"the company's fraud against the Virginia Department of
Transportation is real and has been continuous and pervasive" at
the expense of the taxpayer.


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Guardrail System Meets Safety Standards
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Stengle, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
federal officials said on March 13 that a guardrail system found
on many U.S. highways met safety standards in crash tests that
followed accusations they have speared cars.

Forty states have stopped installing the guardrails, and Trinity
Industries Inc. stopped shipping them after a Texas jury found in
October that the company had failed to tell regulators about
design changes made in 2005.

Guardrails are designed to crumple and absorb impact, but critics
said the cost-cutting design change made it more likely the
guardrails would spear cars that crash into either end of the
guardrail.  The jury verdict in October centered on the company's
failure to tell regulators about the changes, not whether the
guardrails were safe.  Trinity faces several wrongful-death and
injury lawsuits.

The Dallas-based company said it would decide soon whether to
resume shipping the guardrails after the March 13 findings from
the Federal Highway Administration.  The agency said Trinity's
ET-Plus systems passed the last four of eight safety tests.  The
agency had already announced last month that the guardrails passed
the first four tests.

In the tests, the guardrails did not penetrate the cars, although
in one case the driver's door was crumpled.  The highway agency
said an independent safety reviewer judged that the driver in such
a wreck would have been unlikely to be seriously injured.

In a letter to state highway officials, a Trinity executive and an
official for Texas A&M University, which helped design the
ET-Plus, anticipated that the last test would be criticized even
though the guardrails passed.  In crashes at 60 mph, extensive
damage to the outside of vehicles should be expected, they said.

There are an estimated 200,000 ET-Plus units along the nation's
roadways.  Highway agency officials said their analysis of the
guardrails is not finished.  Officials from the Federal Highway
Administration and the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials are still looking at other crash data
collected involving the guardrails.

"The analysis we are conducting is aimed at providing every
possible assurance that this device and devices like it down the
road are performing as designed," Federal Highway Administration
Deputy Administrator Gregory Nadeau said, adding, "We are going to
continue to drill down and provide as much data as we possibly can
to give decisions makers, in the states especially, the
information they need to render appropriate judgment for this and
other road safety hardware."

He said that because of the successful crash tests, the ET-Plus
will remain eligible for federal funding.

Some lawmakers have been critical of FHWA's evaluation of the
guardrails, including U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal.  The
Connecticut Democrat accused the Federal Highway Administration of
having "an "unacceptable pattern of inadequate oversight" and
called the crash tests "sham tests rife with flaws."  He said the
agency allowed the manufacturer to apply "older, less rigorous
testing standards."

However, administration spokesman Neil Gaffney defended the tests,
saying the agency used criteria that were the safety standards at
the time the guardrails were developed.

The device met the crash test criteria and developed by the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
that is followed by individual states.

Texas is among states that had suspended any new installations of
the ET-Plus.  A Texas Department of Transportation spokesman said
on March 13 that the agency was waiting further analysis by
highway officials before deciding what to do next.

The jury in October found that Trinity should to pay at least $175
million for failing to tell regulators about the design change.

Following the verdict, which Trinity said it would appeal, the
judge ordered mediation between Trinity and the whistleblower who
filed the lawsuit, Virginia guardrail installer Joshua Harman.
Talks have not yet produced a settlement. If they fail, the judge
could triple the damages.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Antman Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sasha Antman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Uber Technologies, Inc., and Does 1-50, Case No. 3:15-
cv-01175 (N.D. Cal., March 12, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to secure and safeguard its drivers'
personally identifiable information including names, driver's
license numbers, and other personal information.

Uber Technologies, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that develops,
markets, and operates a mobile-app-based transportation network.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tina Wolfson, Esq.
      Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
      Theodore W. Maya, Esq.
      Keith Custis, Esq.
      AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C.
      1016 Palm Ave.
      West Hollywood, CA 90069
      Telephone: (310) 474-9111
      Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
      E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
              rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
              tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
              keith@custis-law.com


UNITED RECOVERY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia Rodriguez, Franklin White and Christopher Temple,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
United Recovery Systems, L.P., John Does 1-10 and ABC INC. 1-10,
Case No. 4:15-cv-00662 (S.D. Tex., March 12, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, other wages, liquidated
damages, attorney's fees, costs of court, pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest and injunctive relief under the provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

United Recovery Systems, L.P. is a collection agency and an
accounts receivables management company that provided third-party
debt collection services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles W. Branham III, Esq.
      DEAN OMAR & BRANHAM, LLP
      3900 Elm Street
      Dallas, TX 75226
      Telephone: (214) 722-5990
      Facsimile: (214) 722-5991
      E-mail: tbranham@dobllp.com

         - and -

      Jason T. Brown,Esq.
      JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
      155 2nd Street, Suite 4
      Jersey City, NJ 07302
      Telephone: (201) 630-0000
      Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
      E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com


VECTREN CORPORATION: Sued Over Retirement Medical Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------
Donald B. Gray, et al., on their own behalf and on behalf of a
class of persons similarly situated v. Vectren Corporation
Combined Non-Bargaining Retirement Plan and Vectren Corporation as
plan administrator for the plan, Case No. 3:15-cv-00031 (S.D.
Ind., March 12, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act,
specifically by concealing material information about yearly pay
credits, yearly interest credits and yearly contributions to post-
retirement medical benefits.

Vectren Corporation owns and operates energy holding company
headquartered in Evansville, Indiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lane C. Siesky, Esq.
      Karolina Viehe, Esq.
      SIESKY & VIEHE, PC
      4424 Vogel Rd., Suite 305
      Evansville, IN 47715
      Telephone: (812) 402-7700
      Facsimile: (812) 402-7744
      E-mail: lane@sieskylaw.com
              karolina@sieskylaw.com

         - and -

      Todd C. Barsumian, Esq.
      BARSUMIAN LAW
      5455 Old Indiana 261
      Newburgh, IN 47630
      Telephone: (812) 490-0820
      Facsimile: (812) 490-0821
      E-mail: todd@barsumianlaw.com

         - and -

      Kyle F. Biesecker, Esq.
      BIESECKER DUTKANYCH & MACER, LLC
      411 Main Street
      Evansville, IN 47708
      Telephone: (812) 424-1001
      Facsimile: (812) 424-1005
      E-mail: kfb@bdlegal.com


WAL-MART STORES: Sued Over Pomegranate Juice Mislabeling
--------------------------------------------------------
John Kennedy and Ryan Davis, writing for Law360, report that
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is purposefully misleading consumers by
labeling as cranberry-pomegranate juice a beverage that's
primarily a mixture of water and other juice concentrates,
according to a proposed class action filed in Florida federal
court.

Lead plaintiff Cheryl Hulse filed the complaint on Feb. 27, saying
Wal-Mart is violating Florida law by intentionally marketing its
"Great Value 100% Juice Cranberry Pomegranate" beverage as
something its not in an effort to tap into the "enormous new
market" of health-conscious people looking to buy cranberry and
pomegranate products.

"With the nutritional and health benefits of pomegranate and
cranberry juices becoming widely known, consumer demand for
pomegranate and cranberry juices has increased rapidly," the
complaint says.

Cranberries and pomegranates are prominently displayed and named
on the juice label, while the other ingredients, including white
grape, apple and plum juice concentrates, are described in a
smaller font, according to the suit.

As a result of this "misleading and unfair marketing tactic,"
Ms. Hulse bought the juice believing it contained the health and
nutritional benefits commonly associated with pomegranate and
cranberry juices, the complaint says, adding that studies have
shown the fruits contribute to a healthy heart.

"This labeling tactic misleads the average reasonable consumer to
believe that they are purchasing a product that primarily contains
pomegranate and cranberry, when in reality, they are being
deceived into paying a price premium for water and cheap juices,"
the complaint says.

Because of the juice's makeup, Wal-Mart should have advertised it
as white grape juice or apple juice or placed images of these
fruits alongside the cranberries and pomegranates on the front
label, the lawsuit says.  It also argues that the information on
the back label can't be used to defend deceptive front-label
claims.

The complaint cited a September 2010 decision in California
federal court in which a jury found that while the name of Welch
Foods Inc.'s "Welch's 100% Juice White Grape Pomegranate" drink
was literally accurate, it was still deceptive, and Welch had
intended to deceive consumers.

The plaintiff in that case, Pom Wonderful LLC, said the juice was
mostly grape and apple juice, with about 1 ounce of pomegranate
juice in a 64-ounce bottle.

If the immediate case is certified as a class action, it would
include any Florida residents who bought the juice for personal
use in the past four years. The plaintiffs are looking to recover
all revenue Wal-Mart received from the sale of the juice during
that time, and for the retailer to stop its alleged mislabeling of
the product.

Joshua H. Eggnatz -- JEggnatz@ElpLawyers.com -- of Eggnatz Lopatin
& Pascucci LLP, one of Hulse's lawyers, said he couldn't comment
on the pending litigation.

Ms. Hulse is represented by Joshua H. Eggnatz and Michael J.
Pascucci of Eggnatz Lopatin & Pascucci LLP.

The case is Hulse v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., case number 3:15-cv-
00233, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida.


* Class Actions Over Herbal Supplements Fraud Pile Up
-----------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that the plaintiffs bar has filed more than 50 class actions in
the past month that accuse retailers like Target Corp. and
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. of widespread fraud through the sale of
herbal supplements.

The lawsuits cite New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's
findings last month that just 21 percent of herbal supplements
subjected to a series of tests in his office had DNA of the plants
listed on the labels.  In most cases, the results found various
unlisted fillers, including houseplants and rice.

Mr. Schneiderman has subpoenaed Target Corp., Wal-Mart Stores
Inc., GNC Holdings Inc. and Walgreen Co., insisting that they
explain the ingredients in their products.

Plaintiffs lawyers expect that more companies will be named in
their lawsuits, in addition to the defendants already identified.

"You have companies that say they're selling a particular product
that contains certain ingredients and, in fact, many of their
products don't contain the ingredients they say is in the
product," said Jason Zweig -- jasonz@hbsslaw.com -- head of the
New York office of Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro,
which filed a class action against all four retailers last month.

"Unlike a lot of claims with different food products that seem to
be focused primarily on issues regarding efficacy or the amount of
fat, or all natural, this is just an outright brazen fraud by
these companies."

Industry groups have challenged the science behind the findings,
arguing that the tests are unreliable because DNA gets destroyed
in the manufacturing of herbal supplements.

"The litigation is likely to focus in substantial part on the
testing criteria," said Daniel Girard, managing partner of San
Francisco's Girard Gibbs, who filed a class action against Target.

GNC, represented by John Hooper -- jhooper@reedsmith.com -- a
partner in the New York office of Reed Smith, is seeking to debunk
the attorney general's science and, on March 10, announced that a
new round of its own tests found its Herbal Plus products to be
"safe, pure, properly labeled and in full compliance with all
regulatory requirements."

Wal-Mart, which faces the most lawsuits, has retained Kevin
Rising, a partner in the Los Angeles office of Indianapolis-based
Barnes & Thornburg.  Spokesman Randy Hargrove said the products at
issue were found to be safe in tests the manufacturers conducted.
Walgreen has retained Amanda Groves, a partner in the Charlotte
office of Chicago-based Winston & Strawn.  Spokeswoman Emily
Hartwig said Walgreen is reviewing the matter and will cooperate
with the attorneys general.

A spokesman for Target, which has retained Jonathan Paikin, a
Washington partner at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr,
declined to comment.

The global market for herbal supplements and remedies, which don't
require FDA approval as do food and drugs, is projected to reach
$115 billion by 2020, according to a report released last month by
Global Industry Analysts Inc.  Many of the fastest-growing
supplements, such as ginseng and St. John's wort, were among the
six tested by Mr. Schneiderman's office.  The tests found that 35
percent of the products actually contained fillers and allergens,
such as wheat.

In addition to the four retailers, Mr. Schneiderman sent letters
to four brand-name manufacturers.  He's also expanded his
investigation to include attorneys general from Connecticut,
Indiana and Puerto Rico.

In court, plaintiffs attorneys have accused the companies of
violating various state consumer fraud statutes by misrepresenting
the ingredients in their products.  Mr. Zweig said his case isn't
limited to the herbal supplements that Mr. Schneiderman tested.
"We have information that suggests that what the attorney general
has uncovered is not specific to these herbal supplements that he
disclosed in his letters," he said.

Plaintiffs lawyers have asked the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation to coordinate the cases before a single
judge, advocating for several courts in Arkansas, California,
Florida, Illinois, Ohio and Kentucky.  The panel is expected to
take up the matter at its May 28 hearing in Minneapolis.
The retailers have pulled some products from shelves but so far
haven't responded in court.


* FCRA Class Actions Against Employers Prevalent
------------------------------------------------
According to Attorney Lester Rosen, Founder & CEO of Employment
Screening Resources, two class action lawsuits filed in federal
courts in Wisconsin by the same lawyers and the same lead
plaintiff within one week of each other and both alleging the same
cause of action underscore the prevalence of class action lawsuits
for violations of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

It also demonstrates that employers can easily avoid these
lawsuits by paying attention to the basics of the FCRA since both
lawsuits were based on the use of language that Employment
Screening Resources (ESR) has long warned employers to avoid.

On January 30, 2015, attorneys for Cory Groshek filed an FCRA
class action lawsuit against a hospitality management company
alleging that the Candidate Release Authorization form contained
language that purported to release from liability both the
employer and anyone providing information.  The complaint further
alleged that other extraneous information was on the form.  The
case was filed in United States District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin.

On February 6, 2015, the same attorneys filed another lawsuit
against a national cable company also on behalf of Mr. Groshek.
In a similar allegation, the complaint noted that the online
onboarding form for the background check contained the language:
"I hereby release from liability all persons and organizations
furnishing references or other information."  That case was filed
in the United District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin.

Both complaints noted that the language is "contrary to the
unambiguous language of the (FCRA) statute and are in direct
contradiction to judicial and regulatory guidance that has been in
place for more than 16 years."  The complaints discuss that such
release language has the effect of adding excess language to the
disclosure that is not permitted and that such release of
liability clauses are not permitted.

The complaints both cite the Hauxwell advisory letter issued by
the Federal Trade Commission in 1998 that advised employers and
screening firms that the required  disclosure forms for a
background check should not contain any extraneous information and
that any waivers of rights potentially violates the FCRA.

The FCRA in section 604(b((2)(A) also requires that a disclosure
for a background check (called a Consumer Report) must be
contained "in a document that consists solely of the disclosure,
that a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes."

In both complaints, an allegation of willfulness is made, meaning
that the plaintiff's attorneys are not just seeking $100 to $1,000
for every applicant who signed the allegedly defective forms, but
also cost and attorneys fees.  The willfulness allegations also
allow the class action attorneys to seek punitive damages.  Under
the FCRA, punitive damages can be sought where an employer engaged
in conduct that was "objectively" unreasonable, even if the
employer did not intend any harm.

It should be noted that these cases are entirely avoidable by
following the most basic requirements of the FCRA.  In the First
Edition of "The Safe Hiring Manual" issued in 2004 by Employment
Screening Resources (ESR), it is clearly stated that such language
should not be included in a discourse.  ESR had also published
educational materials prior to that cautioning employers not to
include such release language in the disclosure forms.  Although
background checks are mission critical for any employer, it is
equally critical to ensure that the process is done correctly.


* Securities Class Actions Against Life-Science Companies Double
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Qualters, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
securities class actions against life-sciences companies more than
doubled last year, to 39 cases compared with 19 during 2013,
according to a survey by Dechert.

The firm attributed the trend to a large number of pharmaceutical
companies with products in the early stages of development  Any
negative news about these products could prompt securities fraud
lawsuits, said David Kotler, a white-collar and securities
litigation partner who practices in New York and Princeton, N.J.

Mr. Kotler wrote the Dechert Survey of Securities Fraud Class
Actions Brought Against U.S. Life Sciences Companies, issued on
March 16.  "It's really just a reflection on the increased stakes
in the game for early-stage life-sciences companies," he said.

The lack of recent economic catastrophes and stock-price plunges
that might trigger securities lawsuits is another factor,
Mr. Kotler said.

Securities fraud filings against life-sciences companies
represented 23 percent of the cases filed last year, compared with
11 percent in 2013, 18 percent in 2012 and 9 percent in 2011.

More than one-fifth of life-sciences securities cases filed since
2011 -- 22 percent -- have already been tossed out of court, Mr.
Kotler found.  That's 23 out of 106 total cases.  He said the
average dismissal rate of securities class action cases is usually
about 10 to 15 percent.

"Just because there was an adverse development in the
commercialization of a product doesn't mean it was fraud," he
said.  "[That argument] hasn't made logical sense in the eyes of
the court."

Nine cases have settled and 20 have pending dismissal or summary-
judgment motions. Just over half, or 54 cases, are in the
discovery stage.

Mr. Kotler acknowledged that two recent plaintiff-friendly
securities rulings by U.S. Supreme Court haven't yet affected
life-sciences fraud litigation. In 2013, the court ruled, 6-3, in
Amgen v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds that
plaintiffs do not have to prove at the class-certification stage
that a company misrepresentation was material to the stock-price
change.

And last year, in Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund, known as
Halliburton II, the court upheld the fraud-on-the-market
presumption.  That theory posits that share prices reflect
publicly available information or misinformation, and allows
plaintiffs to bring cases without specific proof that company
statements misled particular investors.

"As the active cases work their way through courts and class
certification, I would expect to see some impact by this time next
year," Mr. Kotler said.


* Oregon Votes for Bill to Change Handling of Class Action Funds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan J. Cooper, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Oregon legislative Democrats voted on March 3 to change the way
the state handles class-action lawsuits, rejecting objections from
Republicans who insisted the bill would damage the state's
business climate.

Democrats say their bill would prevent companies that break the
law from keeping the tainted money. Republicans say it would
become far too easy to bring large lawsuits in Oregon.  They also
say it would unfairly change the rules for a lawsuit already in
progress against the oil company BP, potentially costing the
company tens of millions of dollars.

The state Senate approved the measure in a 17-13 vote, with one
Democrat, Sen. Betsy Johnson of Scappoose, joining all Republicans
in opposition.

The bill goes next to Democratic Gov. Kate Brown, who is
"supportive," said a spokeswoman, Melissa Navas.

Class-action lawsuits involve multiple plaintiffs who allege they
were harmed in the same way by a defendant, usually a corporation.
If the company settles the lawsuit or loses at trial, it is
required to make a payout to all the people who have been harmed.

On large cases, there are often thousands of people entitled to a
payout who never claim one because they can't be located or
because the amount of money they'd receive doesn't justify the
effort.

Democrats say they want to make sure businesses don't get to keep
the money they'd owe those people who don't claim their portion of
the judgment.

"You would think that this is a bill that's about lawyers, or
legal procedures, and to me, nothing could be further from the
truth," said Sen. Diane Rosenbaum, D-Portland.  "This is a bill
that will affect the lives of real people.  People who have been
wronged."

Under the Democratic bill, the defendant would have to pay the
unclaimed money toward another cause.  At least half would have to
go toward legal services for the poor, and the rest, at the
judge's discretion, could go to a charity.

Republicans and business interests contend the bill would require
businesses to make payouts to charities on behalf of people who
weren't actually harmed.  And they say it would unfairly change
the rules in the middle of the game for lawsuits already in
progress.

"This bill also would have an impact on a case already adjudicated
and sitting on the judge's desk," said Sen. Jeff Kruse, R-
Roseburg.  "This is not the way we do things in Oregon."

The bill is likely to cost BP West Coast Products, an oil company,
tens of millions of dollars in a class-action lawsuit it lost at
trial in Multnomah County Circuit Court.  A jury said BP broke the
law when it charged customers a fee to use an ATM card at its Arco
and AM-PM gas stations.  The company was ordered to pay $200 to
each of the more than 2 million people estimated to be affected.
It's appealing the verdict.


                             *********

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  * * *