CAR_Public/150401.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, April 1, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 65


                             Headlines

ADECCO USA: June 18 Final Hearing on Miller Suit Settlement
AKORN INC: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action in Illinois
ALABAMA: Civil Rights Groups File Same-Sex Marriage Class Action
ALBERTSONS LLC: Faces Suit Over Accessibility Barriers in Store
ALLIANZ LIFE: Court Enters Final Judgment in Negrete Class Suit

AMERICAN HOME: Denial of Matrix Benefits to Grundner Upheld
AMERICAN NATIONAL: Farm Bureau Dismissed From Basham Class Suit
AMERICAN NATIONAL: 21st Century Dismissed From "Basham" Case
AMERICAN NATIONAL: Claims vs. Erie in "Basham" Suit Dismissed
AMERICAN NATIONAL: Claims v. ANPAC in "Basham" Action Dismissed

ANTHEM INC: Brunswick Man Files Data Breach Class Action
APARTMENTS DOWNTOWN: Iowa High Court to Hear Landlord-Tenant Case
APPLIANCE RECYCLING: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
APPLE INC: Judge Okays $415MM "No Poach" Class Action Settlement
ARAKELIAN ENTERPRISES: Modified Opinion Entered in "Franco" Case

BAI BRANDS: Vassigh Gets More Time to Reply to Dismissal Bid
BEAR STEARNS: May 27 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
BENCHMARK ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Leasing Surcharge
BENECARD SERVICES: Faces Class Action Over Security Breach
BIG LOTS: Faces Class Action Over Meal Break Policy

BLANCHARD MERRIAM: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
BLUE CROSS: Sued by Galactic Funk Over Conspiracy With Blue Plans
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Bid to Dismiss in Blankenship Case Denied
BUCCANEERS: Settles Cheerleaders' Wage Class Action
CALPERS: Appellate Court Affirms Decision in "Malkenhorst" Case

CATELLUS THIRD: Appellate Court Reverses Class Cert. Ruling
CENTURY GOLF: "Ashby" Suit Moved From W.D. New York to N.D. Texas
CERTIFIED SITE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid or Underpaid OT Wage
CHURCH & DWIGHT: Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. Court OK
CLEVELAND BROWNS: Faces Class Action Over Personal Seat Licenses

CORPORATE RESOURCE: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action in New York
CRESA PARTNERS: Suit Seeks to Recover Damages for Pregnancy Bias
CVS PHARMACY: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in California
ELTMAN ELTMAN: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

EXCLUSIVE ONE LLC: Made Illegal Deductions From Wages, Suit Says
FMS INC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Claims
FOWLER PACKING: Seasonal Workers Sue to Recover Unpaid Wages
GENERAL MOTORS: Two Workers Sue Over Unpaid Religious Days Off
GLOBAL CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, N.Y. Suit Says

GOLDMAN SACHS: Defendants Filed Motion for Summary Judgment
GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Denied Motion to Sever Claims
GOLDMAN SACHS: Underwriters Settle RALI Pass-Through Cert. Case
GOLDMAN SACHS: Paid Full Contribution Amount to MF Global Deal
GOLDMAN SACHS: Paid Contribution Amount to P/E Litigation Deal

GOLDMAN SACHS: Defendant in GT Advanced Securities Litigation
GOLDMAN SACHS: Defending Against FireEye Securities Litigation
GOLDMAN SACHS: Defending Against Millennial Media Securities Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Zynga Securities Litigation Dismissed in February
GOLDMAN SACHS: Defending Against Cobalt Securities Litigation

GOLDMAN SACHS: Female Employees Move for Class Certification
GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Narrows Claims in Credit Derivatives Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Plaintiffs in Commodities Suit Revise Complaint
GOLDMAN SACHS: Defending Against Zinc Storage Class Action
GOLDMAN SACHS: Defending Against Platinum & Palladium Class Suit

GOLDMAN SACHS: 2nd Amended Complaint Filed in ISDAFIX Litigation
GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Ruled on Bid to Dismiss in Currencies Suit
GUTHY-RENKER LLC: June 17 Deadline to File Bid for Class Cert.
HALLIBURTON CO: Judge Denies Class Status to Property Owners Suit
HIKO ENERGY: "Bogdanski" Suit Moved From Pennsylvania to New York

HITACHI-LG DATA: Settlement Hearing Scheduled for May 14
INDIANA: Class Action Over BMV Overcharges Heads to Mediation
JUST ENERGY: Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Overtime Under FLSA
LENOVO US: Weitz & Luxenberg Files Class Action Over Malware
LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: To Oppose 2nd Amended Securities Suit

LITTON LOAN: Perryman Case Stayed Pending Settlement Proceedings
LMS CONCEPTS: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Texas Suit Says
LOS ANGELES, CA: DWP Sued Over Botched Computer System Rollout
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Laminate Flooring Class Action in Fla.
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Laminate Flooring Class Suit in Calif.

MERRILL LYNCH: Former Trainees File Overtime Class Action
METRIC PRECISION: Faces Wage Class Action in California
MICHIGAN: Bradford-Bey's Motions for Class Cert., TRO Denied
NESTLE PURINA: Class Action Over Dog Treats Can Proceed
NEW ALBERTSON'S: Faces Class Action Over Coupon Sales Tax

NEW YORK: More Police Officers Join Quota Punishment Lawsuit
NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals Court Reverses Class Certification
NORTH CAROLINA: Magistrates' Pay Suit Gets Class Action Status
NORTHLAND GROUP: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Seeks Dismissal of Tax Reporting Class Action

PANERA BREAD: To Defend Against Class Action by Former Employee
PDL BIOPHARMA: "Hampe" Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
PEPSICO INC: Judge Dismisses Cancer-Warning Class Action
PETROBRAS: Judge Named Pension Fund Trustee as Lead Plaintiff
PIZZA PLUS: "Chimbay" Suit Transferred From E.D. to S.D. New York

POLAND: Class Action Over Pensions Reform Can Proceed
PROFESSIONAL RECOVERY: Violates FDCPA in New York, Suit Claims
PROVIDE COMMERCE: 9th Cir. Vacates Ruling in EasySaver Litigation
PUBLIC STORAGE: Attorneys Withdraw Insurance Class Action
RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL: July 31 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

RETRIEVAL-MASTERS CREDITOR'S: Violates FDCPA in N.J., Suit Says
ROBERT J. POWELL: Settlement Mulled for Kids-for-Cash Class Suit
ROBERT MANAGEMENT: Trial Court Decision Upheld
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Demands for Arbitration Brought by Crew Members
SAFEWAY INC: Plaintiff in "Rodman" Case Wins Summary Judgment

SANOFI PASTEUR: Asks 3rd Cir. to Dismiss Junk Fax Class Action
SBTICKETS.COM: Keller Rohrback Files Super Bowl Tickets Suit
SCHIFF NUTRITION: Faces Class Action Over MegaRed Supplement
SEAWORLD PARKS: Auto-Renew Ticket Class Action Can Proceed
SELECTIVE INSURANCE: Evidentiary Hearing Set for May 18

SHELLPOINT PARTNERS: Faces Suit Linked to Home Mortgage Servicing
SHEPHERD COMMUNICATIONS: "Sparacino" Case Stayed Until April 20
SHRED-IT USA: Court Signs Protective Order in "Kirchner" Case
SOUTHERN MAINE MOTORS: Sued for Violating Age Discrimination Act
STARION ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Consumer Fraud

TARGET CORP: Nov. 10 Final Hearing on Security Breach Suit Deal
TCF BANK: Faces Overtime Class Action in Illinois
TENET HEALTHCARE: Made $5.5MM Initial Deposit in Class Suit Deal
TEREX CORP: Filed Motions to Dismiss ERISA and Securities Lawsuit
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Region of Waterloo Delists Guadrail System

UBER TECH: California Taxi Drivers Join Class Action
ULTIMATE FITNESS: Removes "Villoch" Class Suit to M.D. Florida
UNITED STATES: FBI Accused of Retaliation by Jewish Employee
UNITED STATES: Seeks Dismissal of Child Immigration Class Action
VELDOS LLC: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y.

VIDA CAFE: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
VOLVO CARS: Sued Over Side-Impact Protection Defect
WASHINGTON: Child Care Providers Sue Over Forced Unionization
Z-ULTIMATE SELF DEFENSE: "Geiger" Case Wins Conditional Cert.


                            *********


ADECCO USA: June 18 Final Hearing on Miller Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Troy L. Nunley signed on March 10, 2015, a
stipulation and order regarding hearing on plaintiffs' motions for
final approval and for attorney fees and cost in the case
captioned KEN MILLER, JEREMIE TODD, and CHRISTOPHER FRANKLIN, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. ADECCO USA, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; CEVA
LOGISTICS U.S., INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 2:13-CV-01321-TLN-CKD, (E.D.
Cal.).

Under the court-approved stipulation, a copy of which is available
at http://is.gd/UKMIN8from Leagle.com, a scheduling order in the
case provides, among other things, that:

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

* The Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement and Motion for Attorney Fees and Cost must be filed by
May 21, 2015.

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

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

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

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

Charles F. Barker, SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP,
Attorneys for Defendant ADECCO USA, INC.


AKORN INC: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action in Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on March 4 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Akorn, Inc. and certain of its officers.
The class action, filed in United States District Court, Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and docketed under 15-cv-
01944, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased Akorn securities between April 17, 2014 and
March 2, 2015, inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover
damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Akorn securities during the
Class Period, you have until May 4, 2015 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Akorn, Inc. engages in the manufacture and marketing of diagnostic
and therapeutic ophthalmic pharmaceuticals products, hospital
drugs, and injectable pharmaceuticals in the United States and
internationally.  The Company offers products in various specialty
areas, including ophthalmology, antidotes, anti-infectives, pain
management, anesthesia, and vaccines.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.

Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) as of December 31, 2014, more
than eight months after it acquired Hi-Tech and four months after
it acquired VersaPharm, Akorn did not yet integrate those
subsidiaries into the Company's centralized accounting department
and accounting systems; (2) certain financial and other related
data related to Hi-Tech and VersaPharm, which require inclusion in
Akorn's annual report to be filed with the SEC on Form 10-K, could
not be timely collected and compiled; (3) due to the
aforementioned issues, the Company would be unable to timely
complete its assessment of the effectiveness of its internal
control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2014; (4)
Akorn's internal control over financial reporting was ineffective
and material weaknesses existed relating to the completeness and
accuracy of underlying data used in the determination of
significant estimates and accounting transactions and accurate and
timely reporting of its financial results and disclosures in its
Form 10-K; (5) and as a result of the foregoing, Akorn's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On March 2, 2015, after the close of trading, the Company issued a
press release and filed a Form 12b-25, Notification Of Late
Filing, with the SEC, announcing that it would need an extension
to file its annual report on Form 10-K for the year ending
December 31, 2014.

As a result of this news, shares of Akorn fell $4.38, or over 8%,
on unusually heavy volume, to close at $49.33 on March 3, 2015.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.


ALABAMA: Civil Rights Groups File Same-Sex Marriage Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
LGBTQ Nation reports that a group of civil rights organizations
has filed a motion asking a federal judge to order Alabama probate
judges to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to add
plaintiffs to the suit challenging the state's same-sex marriage
ban.

The request, filed as part of a lawsuit brought by five same-sex
couples who previously obtained an order from the same court
requiring issuance of marriage licenses in Mobile County, seeks
class-action status that would include all same-sex couples in
Alabama who wish to marry and have their marriage recognized by
the state.

The motion requests that the federal district court expand their
lawsuit to cover all county probate judges in the state.

In Alabama, probate judges are responsible for issuing marriage
licenses, and the filing asks the federal district court order to
require all probate judges to issue marriage licenses to same-sex
couples.

The joint motion was filed by the Americans United for Separation
of Church and State, the American Civil Liberties Union of
Alabama, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the Southern
Poverty Law Center.

A federal judge in late January ruled that Alabama's ban on same-
sex marriage is unconstitutional.  But the Alabama Supreme Court
ordered probate judges to stop issuing licenses to same-sex
couples, saying the state retains authority over state law, not a
federal trial judge.

"If Alabama officials thought we were going to sit back and allow
them to deny same-sex couples their constitutional right to marry,
they thought wrong," said Ayesha N. Khan, legal director of
Americans United.  "We are going to fight for these couples.


ALBERTSONS LLC: Faces Suit Over Accessibility Barriers in Store
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Moras, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Albertsons, LLC and ABS ID-O, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-
00093-CWD (D. Idaho, March 17, 2015) alleges violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act in connection with accessibility
barriers at various properties owned, operated, controlled or
leased by the Defendants.

Mr. Moras has a mobility disability and relies upon a wheelchair
for mobility.  He alleges that the Defendants' facilities are not
fully accessible to, and independently usable by individuals, who
use wheelchairs.

Albertson, LLC is the second largest supermarket chain in North
America and is headquartered in Boise, Idaho.  ABS ID-O, LLC is
also headquartered in Boise.  The Defendants own, operate, control
or lease places of public accommodation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gabriel J. McCarthy, Esq.
          GABRIEL J. MCCARTHY, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          401 Front St., Suite 302
          Boise, ID 83702
          Telephone: (208) 343-8888
          Facsimile: (208) 345-9982
          E-mail: mccarthylaw@cableone.net

               - and -

          R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
          Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
          Stephanie Goldin, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP
          PNC Park
          115 Federal Street, Suite 210
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com
                  bsweet@carlsonlynch.com
                  sgoldin@carlsonlynch.com


ALLIANZ LIFE: Court Enters Final Judgment in Negrete Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Christina A. Snyder on March 18, 2015, issued a
final judgment in the case captioned VIDA F. NEGRETE, as
Conservator for EVERETT E. OW, on behalf of themselves and all
others, similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant. CAROLYN Y. HEALEY, on
behalf of themselves and all others, similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA,
INC., Defendant, CASE NOS. 05-CV-6838-CAS (MANX), 05-CV-8908-CAS
(MANX), (C.D. Cal.).

Under the final judgment, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/lYdV74from Leagle.com, Judge Snyder held that based
upon and subject to the class-wide settlement approved by the
Court in this action and the Final Order: (1) Approving Class
Action Settlement, (2) Approving Class Counsel Attorneys' Fees and
Class Counsel Expenses, (3) Awarding Service Awards to Class
Representatives, (4) Permanently Enjoining Parallel Proceedings,
and (5) Dismissing Action with Prejudice, the certified Class
subject to and bound by the Final Judgment includes, subject to
the exclusions: (a) all persons except those excluded below, who,
while age 65 or older and between September 19, 2001 and November
21, 2006, purchased one or more Settlement Annuities from Allianz
Life either directly, or through surrender (in whole or part) of
an existing permanent life insurance policy or annuity, or by
borrowing against an existing permanent life insurance policy; (b)
all persons to whom an ownership interest in such Settlement
Annuities was subsequently assigned or transferred or who
otherwise held any interest as an Owner; and (c) Beneficiaries of
such Settlement Annuities terminated by death on or before the
Annuity Status Date. Excluded from the Settlement Class are the
following persons (and all the subsequent owners, co-owners, and
Beneficiaries of such persons' Settlement Annuities): (i)
purchasers who exercised their right to rescind the purchase of
their annuity contracts without penalty pursuant to the applicable
"free look" provision in their annuity contracts (with respect to
such a rescinded contract); (ii) the plaintiffs and class members
in Castello v. Allianz Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., Case No. MC03-
20405 (Hennepin Cty., Minn.); (iii) the plaintiffs and class
members in Iorio v. Allianz Life Ins. Co. of North America, Case
No. 05CV633JLS (CAB) (S.D. Cal.) to the extent those claims were
extinguished by the Final Judgment and release in that action;
(iv) persons who properly opted-out of the Action, whether
pursuant to the Special Notice mailed as part of the Settlement
Notice Package or earlier; (v) any officer, director, employee or
agent of Allianz Life; and (vi) any judge, justice, or judicial
official presiding over the Action and the staff and immediate
family of any such judge, justice, or judicial official.

The Settlement Annuities that are included in the Settlement Class
are those annuities described in the Stipulation, some of which
are Single-Tier Settlement Annuities and others of which are Two-
Tier Settlement Annuities.

The Action -- including all individual claims and Settlement Class
claims -- is dismissed, with prejudice on the merits.

All Settlement Class Members and/or their representatives are
barred and enjoined from filing, commencing, prosecuting,
maintaining, intervening in, participating in, conducting, or
continuing litigation as class members or otherwise, or from
receiving any benefits from any lawsuit, administrative,
arbitration, remediation or regulatory proceeding or order, or
other legal proceeding in any jurisdiction.

Vida F Negrete, as Conservator for Everette E Ow, an individual
and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiff,
represented by Andrew S Friedman, Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman and
Balint PC, Christa L Collins, Christa L Collins LLC, Elaine A
Ryan, Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman and Balint PC, Evangeline F
Grossman, Shernoff Bidart Darras Echeverria LLP, Howard David
Finkelstein, Finkelstein & Krinsk, Ingrid M Evans, The Evans Law
Firm, J Andrew Meyer, Morgan & Morgan, PA, John J Stoia, Jr,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, John A Yanchunis, Morgan and
Morgan PA, Kimberly C Page, Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint
PC, Mark L Knutson, Finkelstein and Krinsk LLP, Michael D Thamer,
Michael D Thamer Law Offices, Patricia N Syverson, Bonnett
Fairbourn Friedman and Balint PC, Phong L Tran, Robbins Geller
Rudman and Dowd LLP, Rachel L Jensen, Robbins Geller Rudman and
Dowd LLP, Stephen R Basser, Barrack Rodos and Bacine, Steven M
Jodlowski, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Theodore J Pintar,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, William M Shernoff, Shernoff
Bidart Escheverria LLP, Wilson F Green, Battle Fleenor Green Winn
and Clemmer LLP, Patrick Joseph Coughlin, Robbins Geller Rudman
and Dowd LLP, Randi D Bandman, Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP &
Tonna Kaye Farrar, Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman and Balint PC.

Carolyn B Healey, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Andrew S
Friedman, Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman and Balint PC, Ingrid M
Evans, The Evans Law Firm, John J Stoia, Jr, Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP, Kimberly C Page, Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint
PC, Rachel L Jensen, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, Steven M
Jodlowski, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Theodore J Pintar,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Howard David Finkelstein,
Finkelstein & Krinsk, John A Yanchunis, Morgan and Morgan PA, Mark
L Knutson, Finkelstein and Krinsk LLP, Patrick Joseph Coughlin,
Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, Randi D Bandman, Robbins
Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Stephen R Basser, Barrack Rodos and Bacine
& William M Shernoff, Shernoff Bidart Escheverria LLP.

Margene McCracken, Movant, represented by James Paul Sizemore, The
Sizemore Law Firm PLC & Leah O Taylor, Taylor and Taylor.

Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America, a Minnesota
corporation, Defendant, represented by Arthur G Boylan, Leonard
Street and Deinard, C Todd Willis, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt,
P.A., Denise A Fee, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., Eric C
Schaffer, Reed Smith, Frank G Burt, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt PA,
James F Jorden, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., Jeffrey L
Williams, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, PA, Kurtis J Kearl, Reed
Smith, Lawrence J Field, Leonard Street and Deinard, Linda B
Oliver, Reed Smith LLP, Raul A Cuervo, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt,
P.A., Stephen J Jorden, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt PA, Thomas
Jerome Nolan, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP, Dawn B
Williams, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt PA, Jason A Morris, Carlton
Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., Kristin A Shepard, Carlton Fields Jorden
Burt, P.A., Lance A Etcheverry, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and
Flom LLP, Michael A Valerio, Carlton Fiels Jorden Burt PA, Roland
C Goss, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A. & Stephen R Basser,
Barrack Rodos and Bacine.

NBC Universal, Inc., Objector, represented by Tania Marie Hoff,
NBC Universal Television Group.

Robin Gill, Objector, Pro Se.

Stephen Joseph Madigan, Objector, Pro Se.


AMERICAN HOME: Denial of Matrix Benefits to Grundner Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE: DIET DRUGS (PHENTERMINE FENFLURAMINE/DEXFENFLURAMINE)
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: SHEILA
BROWN, et al. v. AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORPORATION, CIVIL ACTION
NO. 99-20593, MDL NO. 1203, NO. 2:16 MD 1203, (E.D. Penn.), the
Estate of Jennifer E. Grundner, a representative claimant under
the Diet Drug Nationwide Class Action Settlement Agreement with
Wyeth, seeks benefits from the AHP Settlement Trust (Trust). Based
on the record developed in the show cause process, District Judge
Harvey Bartle must determine whether the Estate has demonstrated a
reasonable medical basis to support its claim for Matrix
Compensation Benefits (Matrix Benefits).

Under the Settlement Agreement, only eligible claimants or
representative claimants are entitled to Matrix Benefits.
Generally, a claimant or representative claimant is considered
eligible for Matrix Benefits if the Diet Drug Recipient is
diagnosed with mild or greater aortic and/or mitral regurgitation
by an echocardiogram performed between the commencement of Diet
Drug use and the end of the Screening Period.

"As the Estate has not established a reasonable medical basis for
finding that Ms. Grundner had at least mild aortic regurgitation
between the commencement of Diet Drug use and the end of the
Screening Period, the Estate's claim must be denied," ruled Judge
Bartle.  "Therefore, we will affirm the Trust's denial of the
Estate's claim for Matrix B-1, Level III benefits."

Copies of the Court's March 17, 2015 memoranda are available at
http://is.gd/00vFhRand http://is.gd/GQGin2from Leagle.com.


AMERICAN NATIONAL: Farm Bureau Dismissed From Basham Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In EDDIE BASHAM, as administrator of the estate of James Basham,
and FREDA MCCLENDON, individually and as class representatives on
behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN
NATIONAL COUNTY MUTUAL INS. CO., et al., Defendants, CASE NO.
4:12-CV-4005, (W.D. Ark.), before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss
filed on behalf of Farm Bureau Property & Casualty Insurance
Company (Farm Bureau).

This action is against more than 70 insurance companies, including
Farm Bureau, and it arises from their alleged use of a computer
software program known as "Colossus."  The program was marketed to
insurance companies nationwide as a "knowledge-based system for
assessing general damages for bodily injury claims." According to
Plaintiffs, Colossus was capable of being "tuned" or "calibrated"
to achieve the goal of underpaying claims by up to twenty percent.
Plaintiffs allege that through the use of the Colossus software
program, Defendants "systematically and uniformly pay and paid
claimants . . . less than they were owed for bodily injury claims.

The Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants were involved in a
conspiracy to fraudulently conceal their use of Colossus.
Plaintiffs allege that, by virtue of their participation in a
Colossus conspiracy, Defendants "have subjected themselves to co-
equal responsibility for the actions of all fellow conspirators."
These conspiracy allegations and their impact on the Court's
jurisdiction over certain Defendants are the primary focus of the
present motion to dismiss.

In an order entered March 10, 2015, District Judge Susan O. Hickey
held that Plaintiffs have failed to make a prima facie showing
that Farm Bureau participated in a conspiracy with knowledge of
its effects in Arkansas so that Farm Bureau can be said to have
purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting
business in Arkansas. Even if Plaintiffs had made the requisite
prima facie showing of a conspiracy, their allegations are not
specific enough to warrant the inference that Farm Bureau
participated in that conspiracy. For these reasons, the Court
finds no basis on which to exercise personal jurisdiction over
Farm Bureau.

Accordingly, the Court found that Farm Bureau's Motion to Dismiss
should be granted and all of Plaintiffs' claims against Farm
Bureau are dismissed without prejudice.

A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/5hDOeXfrom
Leagle.com.


AMERICAN NATIONAL: 21st Century Dismissed From "Basham" Case
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan O. Hickey dismissed 21st Century Casualty
Company, 21st Century Insurance Company, 21st Century Insurance
Company of the Southwest, and 21st Century Insurance Group from
the case captioned EDDIE BASHAM, as administrator of the estate of
James Basham, and FREDA MCCLENDON, individually and as class
representatives on behalf of all similarly situated persons,
Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN NATIONAL COUNTY MUTUAL INS. CO., et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 4:12-CV-4005, (W.D. Ark.).

This action is against more than 70 insurance companies, including
21st Century, and it arises from their alleged use of a computer
software program known as "Colossus."  The program was marketed to
insurance companies nationwide as a "knowledge-based system for
assessing general damages for bodily injury claims." According to
Plaintiffs, Colossus was capable of being "tuned" or "calibrated"
to achieve the goal of underpaying claims by up to twenty percent.
Plaintiffs allege that through the use of the Colossus software
program, Defendants "systematically and uniformly pay and paid
claimants . . . less than they were owed for bodily injury claims.

The Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants were involved in a
conspiracy to fraudulently conceal their use of Colossus.
Plaintiffs allege that, by virtue of their participation in a
Colossus conspiracy, Defendants "have subjected themselves to co-
equal responsibility for the actions of all fellow conspirators."
These conspiracy allegations and their impact on the Court's
jurisdiction over certain Defendants are the primary focus of the
present motion to dismiss.

"Due to Plaintiffs' failure to state a claim for conspiracy, all
of Plaintiffs' underlying causes of action which were premised on
the existence of a conspiracy must also be dismissed. This
includes Plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract, breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing (insurance bad faith),
unjust enrichment, tortious interference with contract, fraud, and
constructive fraud," ruled Judge Hickey in her March 10, 2015
order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/dwhkY1from
Leagle.com.

The Court granted 21st Century's Motion to Dismiss, and dismissed
without prejudice, all of Plaintiffs' claims against 21st Century.


AMERICAN NATIONAL: Claims vs. Erie in "Basham" Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The action captioned EDDIE BASHAM, as administrator of the estate
of James Basham, and FREDA McCLENDON, individually and as class
representatives on behalf of all similarly situated persons,
Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN NATIONAL COUNTY MUTUAL INS. CO., et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 4:12-CV-4005, (W.D. Ark.) is against more
than 70 insurance companies and it arises from their alleged use
of a computer software program known as "Colossus."  The program
was marketed to insurance companies nationwide as a "knowledge-
based system for assessing general damages for bodily injury
claims." According to Plaintiffs, Colossus was capable of being
"tuned" or "calibrated" to achieve the goal of underpaying claims
by up to twenty percent. Plaintiffs allege that through the use of
the Colossus software program, Defendants "systematically and
uniformly pay and paid claimants . . . less than they were owed
for bodily injury claims. The Amended Complaint alleges that
Defendants were involved in a conspiracy to fraudulently conceal
their use of Colossus.  Plaintiffs allege that, by virtue of their
participation in a Colossus conspiracy, Defendants "have subjected
themselves to co-equal responsibility for the actions of all
fellow conspirators."

Erie Insurance Company; Erie Insurance Company of New York, Erie
Insurance Exchange; Erie Insurance Group; Erie Insurance Property
& Casualty Company; and Erie Indemnity Company (collectively,
Erie) have filed a motion to dismiss.  The conspiracy allegations
and their impact on the Court's jurisdiction over the Defendants
are the primary focus of the present motion to dismiss.

According to District Judge Susan O. Hickey's order dated March
10, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/iH2S7Gfrom
Leagle.com, the Motion to Dismiss is granted, and all of
Plaintiffs' claims against Erie are dismissed without prejudice.

"Due to Plaintiffs' failure to state a claim for conspiracy, all
of Plaintiffs' underlying causes of action which were premised on
the existence of a conspiracy must also be dismissed. This
includes Plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract, breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing (insurance bad faith),
unjust enrichment, tortious interference with contract, fraud, and
constructive fraud," Judge Hickey concluded.


AMERICAN NATIONAL: Claims v. ANPAC in "Basham" Action Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan O. Hickey dismissed American National County
Mutual Insurance Company, ANPAC Louisiana Insurance Company, and
Pacific Property & Casualty Company (collectively, ANPAC) from the
case captioned EDDIE BASHAM, as administrator of the estate of
James Basham, and FREDA McCLENDON, individually and as class
representatives on behalf of all similarly situated persons,
Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN NATIONAL COUNTY MUTUAL INS. CO., et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 4:12-CV-4005, (W.D. Ark.).

This action is against more than 70 insurance companies, including
ANPAC, and it arises from their alleged use of a computer software
program known as "Colossus."  The program was marketed to
insurance companies nationwide as a "knowledge-based system for
assessing general damages for bodily injury claims." According to
Plaintiffs, Colossus was capable of being "tuned" or "calibrated"
to achieve the goal of underpaying claims by up to twenty percent.
Plaintiffs allege that through the use of the Colossus software
program, Defendants "systematically and uniformly pay and paid
claimants . . . less than they were owed for bodily injury claims.
The Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants were involved in a
conspiracy to fraudulently conceal their use of Colossus.
Plaintiffs allege that, by virtue of their participation in a
Colossus conspiracy, Defendants "have subjected themselves to co-
equal responsibility for the actions of all fellow conspirators."
These conspiracy allegations and their impact on the Court's
jurisdiction over certain Defendants are the primary focus of the
present motion to dismiss.

According to Judge Hickey's March 10, 2015 order, a copy of which
is available at http://is.gd/ZyCGuHfrom Leagle.com, "Due to
Plaintiffs' failure to state a claim for conspiracy, all of
Plaintiffs' underlying causes of action which were premised on the
existence of a conspiracy must also be dismissed. This includes
Plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant
of good faith and fair dealing (insurance bad faith), unjust
enrichment, tortious interference with contract, fraud, and
constructive fraud."

"The Court finds that ANPAC's Motion to Dismiss should be and
hereby is granted. All of Plaintiffs' claims against ANPAC are
hereby dismissed without prejudice," Judge Hickey added.


ANTHEM INC: Brunswick Man Files Data Breach Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Beth Brogan, writing for Bangor Daily News, reports that a
Brunswick man on March 5 filed a $5 million class action suit
against Anthem Health Plans of Maine, charging that the company
failed to adequately protect the personal information of its
clients before the data breach reported in February.

In a complaint filed on March 5 in U.S. District Court in
Portland, attorney Benjamin K. Grant of McTeague Higbee in Topsham
wrote on behalf of his client, Brian Mason, that Anthem Inc. acted
unreasonably by failing to encrypt clients' confidential
information, including Social Security numbers and medical and
financial information.

On Feb. 4, Anthem disclosed the breach, announcing that it
suspected hackers had stolen information belonging to tens of
millions of current and former customers and employees, including
at least 300,000 Maine residents, Reuters reported.

Social Security numbers, names, dates of birth, medical
identification numbers, street and email addresses, and employment
information including income data of approximately 80 million
people was hacked between Dec. 10, 2014, and Jan. 27, 2015.

Although the breach was discovered on Dec. 10, Anthem did not
announce it until Feb. 4, according to the suit, which notes, "The
Maine Attorney General has joined attorneys general from other
affected states in criticizing Anthem Inc.'s delay in notifying
affected customers."

Anthem is the second-largest health insurer in the country and
conducts business in Maine as a wholly owned subsidiary, Anthem
ME. According to the complaint, one in every nine Americans
receives coverage through Anthem or an affiliated plan.

The suit alleges that Anthem also failed to maintain the
information in an adequate computer system, failed to implement a
process to detect a data breach in a timely way, failed to
disclose the breach to consumers and failed to disclose that it
could not adequately secure the personal information from theft or
misuse.

In court documents, Mr. Grant refers to a 2014 FBI report in which
the agency's cyber division warned that health care companies were
susceptible to cyberattacks.

According to Mr. Grant, had Anthem encrypted the data, "hackers
would now possess electronic gibberish" instead of personal
information that "is now freely readable by the hackers who
acquired it and by whomever these hackers choose to sell the
[information] to."

Mr. Mason and other plaintiffs "now face a lifelong battle against
identity theft," Grant wrote, quoting from various publications
that labeled the stolen personal information "a treasure trove for
cybercriminals" that can "easily be sold on underground markets
within hours and used for a wide variety of identity fraud
schemes" such as filing fraudulent tax returns and stealing
refunds.

The suit seeks "damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and any
other appropriate relief" on behalf of the plaintiff "and millions
of Anthem's customers in Maine and throughout the United States"
whose information was stolen.

Reached by email on March 6, Mr. Grant declined to comment on the
suit, although he confirmed that more than 60 similar lawsuits
have been filed in other states.

A spokesman for Anthem also did not offer immediate comment on
March 6, saying that the company's policy is not to comment on
pending litigation.


APARTMENTS DOWNTOWN: Iowa High Court to Hear Landlord-Tenant Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Josh O'Leary, writing for Iowa City Press-Citizen, reports that
the Iowa Supreme Court will consider a case this year involving an
Iowa City tenant and the city's largest student housing provider.

The state's high court issued an order to retain a case that
originated in Johnson County -- Elyse DeStefano v. Apartments
Downtown -- rather than sending it to the Court of Appeals.

Christopher Warnock, an Iowa City attorney representing
Ms. DeStefano, said the case involves undergraduate tenants who
rented from Apartments Downtown and were billed for repairs after
a burglar kicked down their door.  It also focuses on the issue of
whether automatic carpet cleaning clauses in leases are legal,
said Mr. Warnock.

The district court had ruled in favor of Ms. DeStefano in 2013,
but a magistrate overturned part of that ruling a year later,
according to online court records.

The state Supreme Court says it will inform the parties involved
about a month in advance of when the case is submitted and whether
the court will hear oral arguments.

Mr. Warnock is part of the Iowa City Tenants' Project, a group
that has brought legal action against local landlords on behalf of
student renters.  The group has pursued a class-action suit
against Apartments Downtown and other local property companies in
recent years.


APPLIANCE RECYCLING: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., a global investor rights law firm, on
March 6 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on
behalf of purchasers of Appliance Recycling Centers of America,
Inc. common stock between March 15, 2012 and February 11, 2015.
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for ARCA investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the ARCA class action, go to the website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-510.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
Central District of California.

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, ARCA issued materially false and
misleading statements to investors and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) ARCA's financial statements contained errors concerning sales
tax related to its appliance replacement programs; and (2) the
Company lacked adequate internal controls.  On August 6, 2014, the
Company announced that the California Board of Equalization
("BOE") is conducting an examination of sales and use taxes
covering ARCA's appliance replacement sales.  On this news, the
Company's shares fell $1.11 per share or over 27% to close at
$2.99 per share on August 7, 2014, damaging investors.  On
February 11, 2015, the Company announced that it expects an
assessment of at least $4.0 million from the BOE and will need to
restate its previously issued financial statement for the years
ended December 28, 2013, December 29, 2012 and December 31, 2011,
for the quarters in those years, and for the quarters ended March
29, June 28 and September 27, 2014.  On this news, the Company's
shares fell $0.43 per share or over 14% to close at $2.54 per
share on February 12, 2015, further 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 5, 2015.  If you wish to join the litigation go
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-510.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.


APPLE INC: Judge Okays $415MM "No Poach" Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Hughes, writing for Apple Insider, reports that Apple, Google
and other parties accused of being involved in an illegal "no-
poach" employee policy may be on the verge of settling the class-
action complaint, after the judge overseeing the lawsuit has given
initial approval for their proposed $415 million settlement.

Defendants in the case agreed to a smaller $324.5 million
settlement last April, but Judge Lucy Koh rejected the offer after
hearing objectives from one plaintiff, Michael Devine, who said
Apple and others should "pay their fair share."  Apple and the
other parties later upped their settlement offer to $415 million
in January of this year.

That increase appears to be enough for Judge Koh, who said that
she was satisfied with the $415 million offer, according to the
Associated Press.  If all goes as expected, final approval will be
given at a hearing on June 9.

The other parties accused in the complaint are Intel and Adobe.
Employees working for the four Silicon Valley firms sued their
employers over alleged anti-poaching mandates enacted by
executives, including late Apple cofounder Steve Jobs.

Earlier in the suit, other codefendants included Intuit, Pixar,
and Lucasfilm.  They settled out of court for $20 million, and the
terms of that settlement helped, in part, to justify Judge Koh's
rejection of the initial $324.5 million proposal from the
remaining companies.

In the complaint, the employees said the companies in question
effectively put a cap on their salaries through various no-poach
tactics, including "do not call" lists, emails, and intra-office
communications.

Apple and the other companies were also the subject of a U.S.
Department of Justice investigation and lawsuit over the same
supposed anti-competitive agreements. That also ended in a
settlement in 2010.


ARAKELIAN ENTERPRISES: Modified Opinion Entered in "Franco" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division One
issued on March 11, 2015, an order modifying an opinion in the
case captioned EDIXON FRANCO, Plaintiff and Respondent, v.
ARAKELIAN ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant and Appellant, NO. B232583.

According to the Calif. Appeals Court, the opinion filed on
February 26, 2015, will be modified so that on page 1, the counsel
listing for Defendant and Appellant will read as:

"Hill, Farrer & Burrill, Kyle D. Brown, James A. Bowles and E.
Sean McLoughlin; Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Julian W. Poon and
Jesse A. Cripps for Defendant and Appellant."

Moreover, on page 13, second full paragraph, lines 21 and 22, the
case cited as "Iskanian, supra, 206 Cal.App.4th at pp. 959-961"
will be removed.

There is no change in judgment, the Calif. Courts of Appeals
clarified in its modified opinion, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/Vgvlebfrom Leagle.com.

As previously reported, plaintiff Edixon Franco on April 9, 2007,
filed a lawsuit individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated current and former employees, alleging his status as an
employee of "Athens Disposal Company, Inc., dba Athens Services"
(Athens Services). In the first through fourth and sixth causes of
action, Franco brought claims as an individual and putative class
representative, seeking relief against Athens Services based on
his employment as a nonexempt hourly employee, alleging that
Athens Services engaged in systematic and illegal Labor Code and
wage-order violations. In the fifth cause of action, Franco sued
in a representative capacity under the PAGA, seeking civil
penalties for Athens Services' violations of its Labor Code
obligations to Franco and other current and former employees. The
sixth cause of action alleged a violation of the California unfair
competition law.

The central issue in this appeal concerns the impact of the
decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014)
59 Cal.4th 348 (Iskanian) on the trial court's determination that
the Athens Services' Mutual Arbitration Policy (MAP)'s agreement
to forego representative and class actions is unenforceable:
whether the trial court erred in refusing to compel arbitration of
Franco's claims against Arakelian for individual and class action
relief, and his claim for relief under the PAGA.

The Supreme Court has transferred this matter to the Calif.
Appeals Court with directions to vacate its decision filed
November 26, 2012 and to reconsider the cause in light of
Iskanian.

Following the rule announced in Iskanian, the Calif. Appeals Court
reversed and remanded with directions the trial court's order
denying the petition of defendant Arakelian Enterprises, Inc.
(Arakelian) to compel arbitration of the plaintiff's claims for
individual and class action relief, and for representative relief
under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Lab.
Code, Sections 2698-2699.5) (PAGA).

Hill, Farrer & Burrill, Kyle D. Brown, James A. Bowles and E. Sean
McLoughlin for Defendant and Appellant.

Rastegar & Matern, Matthew J. Matern, Farzad Rastegar and Thomas
S. Campbell for Plaintiff and Respondent.


BAI BRANDS: Vassigh Gets More Time to Reply to Dismissal Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Haywood G. Gilliam, Jr., signed on March 9, 2015, a
stipulation pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-2 to extend time to respond
to defendant's motion to dismiss in the case captioned DORINDA
VASSIGH, SAMANTHA LEWIN, RICHARD DRAEGER, TRACEY HECHLER and MARK
KORABELNIKOV, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. BAI BRANDS LLC, Defendant, CASE NO. 3:14-
CV-05127 HSG, (N.D. Cal.).

On January 14, 2015, the Court granted the parties' stipulation
that Plaintiffs would file a First Amended Class Action Complaint
by February 6, 2015, and Defendant Bai Brands, LLC would answer or
otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action
Complaint by March 9, 2015. According to the parties in the case,
the Plaintiffs have a number of pressing scheduling matters and
need adequate time to respond to the Defendant's motion. Allowing
Plaintiffs additional time to respond to Defendant's motion will
not alter the date of any event or deadline already fixed by Court
order, they explained.

Accordingly, pursuant to the court-approved stipulation, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/DzR02xfrom Leagle.com,
Plaintiffs will file an Opposition to Defendant's motion to
dismiss on April 3, 2015, and Defendant will file a reply in
support of its motion on April 17, 2015.

A hearing on Defendant's motion to dismiss will be held on May 7,
2015 at 2:00 p.m. before the Court, or at a time more convenient
for the Court.

BURSOR & FISHER, P.A., L. Timothy Fisher, Annick M. Persinger,
Yeremey Krivoshey, Walnut Creek, CA, LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC.,
C.K. Lee (pro hac vice), New York, NY, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

LINER LLP, Wendy S. Dowse, Angela C. Agrusa, Los Angeles,
California, Attorneys for Defendant Bai Brands, LLC.


BEAR STEARNS: May 27 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP and Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC on March 10 issued a statement regarding the
In re Bear Stearns Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Litigation.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE BEAR STEARNS MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES LITIGATION,
Case No. 1:08-cv-08093-LTS

SUMMARY NOTICE

TO: ALL Persons who (i) prior to July 9, 2009, purchased or
otherwise acquired offered residential mortgage-backed securities
("RMBS") pursuant or traceable to offerings BALTA 2006-5, BALTA
2006-6, BALTA 2006-7, BALTA 2006-8, BALTA 2007-1, BSARM 2006-4,
BSARM 2007-1 (certificates backed by groups 1, 3 and 5 only), or
BSARM 2007-3, and were damaged thereby; (ii) prior to August 20,
2008, purchased or otherwise acquired offered RMBS pursuant or
traceable to offering BSMF 2006-AR1, and were damaged thereby; or
(iii) prior to May 15, 2009, purchased or otherwise acquired
offered RMBS pursuant or traceable to offerings BSMF 2006-AR2,
BSMF 2006-AR3, BSMF 2006-AR4, BSMF 2006-AR5, BSMF 2007-AR1, BSMF
2007-AR3, SAMI 2006-AR4, SAMI 2006-AR5, SAMI 2006-AR6, SAMI 2006-
AR7, SAMI 2006-AR8, SAMI 2007-AR1 (certificates backed by group 1
only), or SAMI 2007-AR2 (certificates backed by group 1 only), and
were damaged thereby (the "Class").  CERTAIN PERSONS, SUCH AS
PERSONS THAT HAVE SEPARATELY ASSERTED AND/OR PURSUED THEIR CLAIMS
AGAINST DEFENDANTS, ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITION OF THE CLASS.
The excluded Persons are specified in the available Stipulation.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY.  YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED
BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, (i) of the pendency
of this action asserting claims against Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.,
J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. (n/k/a J.P. Morgan Securities LLC),
EMC Mortgage Corporation (n/k/a EMC Mortgage LLC), Structured
Asset Mortgage Investments II, Inc., Jeffrey L. Verschleiser,
Michael B. Nierenberg, Jeffrey Mayer, and Thomas F. Marano,
relating to the sale of mortgage-backed securities (the "Action")
as a class action on behalf of the Persons described above (the
"Class"); and (ii) that a settlement of the Action for a total of
$500 million in cash and payment of up to $5 million in litigation
and administrative expenses has been proposed.  A hearing will be
held on May 27, 2015, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Laura
Taylor Swain, at the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007,
Courtroom 12D: (a) to determine whether the proposed Settlement on
the terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair,
reasonable, and adequate and should be approved by the Court; (b)
to determine whether the Order and Final Judgment as provided for
under the Stipulation should be entered, dismissing the Action, on
the merits and with prejudice, and to determine whether the
release by the Class of the Released Claims against the Released
Parties, as set forth in the Stipulation, should be ordered; (c)
to determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation for
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund is fair and reasonable and
should be approved by the Court; (d) to determine whether the
application by Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses should be approved; and (e) to rule upon such other
matters as the Court may deem appropriate.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED BY THE PENDING ACTION AND THE SETTLEMENT, AND YOU MAY
BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND.  If you have not yet
received the full printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action and
Proposed Settlement, Final Approval Hearing, and Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Costs (the
"Notice") and Proof of Claim Form (the "Claim Form"), you may
obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims
Administrator:

In re Bear Stearns Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Litigation

c/o GCG
P.O. Box 1014
Dublin, OH 43017-3148
Toll-free number: (855) 382-6452

Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from
the Settlement website maintained by the Claims Administrator,
www.BearStearnsCertificateSettlement.com or from Lead Counsel's
websites, www.blbglaw.com and www.cohenmilstein.com

If you are a Member of the Class, in order to be potentially
eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund,
you must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than July 6,
2015.  If you are a Member of the Class and do not exclude
yourself from the Class, you will be bound by any judgment entered
in the Action whether or not you make a Claim.  To exclude
yourself from the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion
such that it is received no later than May 6, 2015, in accordance
with the instructions set forth in the Notice.  Any objections to
the proposed Settlement, Plan of Allocation, and/or Lead Counsel's
application for attorneys' fees and expenses must be filed with
the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and counsel for Defendants
such that they are received no later than May 6, 2015, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.  If you
are a Member of the Class and do not submit a proper Claim Form,
you will not share in the Settlement Fund but you will
nevertheless be bound by the Judgment of the Court.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.  Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and
Claim Form, may be made to Lead Counsel:

David R. Stickney, Esq.
Niki L. Mendoza, Esq.
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92130
(866) 648-2524

    - or -

Daniel S. Sommers, Esq.
S. Douglas Bunch, Esq.
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
1100 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 500 East
Washington, D.C. 20005
(888) 240-0775

By Order of the Court


BENCHMARK ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Leasing Surcharge
-----------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a class action lawsuit filed against
an energy transport company on Feb. 23 alleged the business
assessed an undisclosed surcharge against individuals it leased
vehicles from and failed to clearly state the compensation to the
plaintiffs in lease contracts.

Wayne Gassoway, Juan Avina and Kenneth Johnson filed the suit
against Benchmark Energy Transport alleging their contracts
violated federal law.

The plaintiffs leased commercial vehicles to Benchmark. The
lawsuit alleged the leases didn't comply with federal law because
the contracts did not state how much Benchmark would pay to each
vehicle owner.

Instead, the plaintiffs received a percentage of the adjusted
gross line-haul revenue that Benchmark billed to its customers.
The adjusted gross line-haul revenue was allegedly never defined
in the contracts.

The plaintiffs also alleged Benchmark assessed a secret surcharge
and underreported revenue by up to 12.5 percent, which caused them
to be underpaid.

The lawsuit seeks class status for anyone who leased vehicles to
Benchmark in the last four years and asks for an unspecified
amount of damages plus court costs.

The plaintiffs are represented by Matthew C. Matheny and Michael
A. Harvard, of Provost Umphrey Law Firm, LLP in Beaumont, Texas;
Paul O. Taylor, of Taylor & Associates, LTD in Burnsville, Minn.;
and Karl L. Cambronne -- kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com --
Jeffrey D. Bores and Sarah B. Bennett --
sbennett@chestnutcambronne.com -- of Chestnut Cambronne, P.A. in
Minneapolis.

United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
case number 4:15-cv-00488


BENECARD SERVICES: Faces Class Action Over Security Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that five individuals have sued their
former employer for damages allegedly caused by a security breach.

Joan Longenecker-Wells, Kenneth Dodson, Genevieve Regal, Benjamin
Huffnagle and Nicholas Dankosky filed a lawsuit Feb. 26 in U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against
Benecard Services Inc. doing business as Benecard; Benecard
Central Fill of PA; Benecard Marketing; National Vision
Administrators; and Contact Fill, alleging breach of trust and
identity fraud.

According to the class action complaint, each of the five
plaintiffs furnished confidential personal information to their
employer via tax forms and other paperwork, and it is believed the
IRS consequently issued tax refunds to unknown parties instead of
the plaintiffs.  The defendants failed to protect their privacy
and violated administrative guidelines and industry standards, the
suit states, and the plaintiffs suffered financial injury for the
2014 tax year.

On behalf of all current and former employees, the plaintiffs
allege negligence and breach of contract.  They seek compensatory
damages in excess of $5 million, attorney fees and court costs.
The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Benjamin Andreozzi and
Nathaniel Foote of Andreozzi & Associates in Harrisburg.

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case
number: 1:15-cv-00422


BIG LOTS: Faces Class Action Over Meal Break Policy
---------------------------------------------------
John Kennedy, writing for Law360, reports that a former employee
has accused Big Lots Stores Inc. of stiffing California workers on
pay for overtime and off-the-clock work and failing to provide
adequate meal breaks, according to a proposed class action that
was removed to federal court on March 5.

Viola Hubbs, a former cashier for the closeout retailer,
originally filed the suit in February 2014 in California Superior
Court in Los Angeles County, claiming Big Lots and its affiliate
PNS Stores Inc. kept workers locked in the store after they'd
clocked out and frequently kept them working during meal and rest
breaks.

"Defendants had a policy and/or practice of requiring [Hubbs] and
class members to clock-out and then wait for a manager to unlock
the door and release them at the end of closing shifts,"
Ms. Hubbs' first amended complaint, which was filed in March 2014,
said.  "In addition, defendants had a policy and/or practice of
failing to staff a sufficient number of employees at its stores
and failing to take efforts to relieve [Hubbs] and class members
of all duties such that they could take compliant meal periods."

Ms. Hubbs, who worked for Big Lots in Los Angeles between July
2010 and August 2013, said that she often worked more than 40
hours per week and that some off-the-clock work done while waiting
for release from the store qualifies for overtime pay.  But even
if some of this work doesn't qualify as overtime, Big Lots and PNS
still didn't pay workers at least minimum wage for it, according
to the complaint.

The stores are also accused of maintaining an illegal meal break
policy because workers had to wait more than five hours to eat.
California law says workers are required to have 30-minute meal
breaks for every five hours of work unless the shift is shorter
than six hours and both the employer and employee agree to waive
meal time, the complaint said.

But some workers with six-hour shifts were denied meal breaks even
when they hadn't agreed to waive them, Ms. Hubbs noted.

The complaint also said the stores broke state law by refusing to
pay employees one hour of pay at minimum wage in addition to their
daily wage when they worked split shifts.  Ms. Hubbs said that
it's impossible to determine if all hours worked were paid and to
measure the extent of the underpayment because Big Lots and PNS
didn't record off-the-clock work.

If the case is certified as a class, it would include anyone who
has worked for Big Lots or PNS in a California Big Lots store in
an hourly-paid position during the past four years.

Big Lots and PNS are represented by Lisa K. Horgan --
lhorgan@littler.com -- Nancy E. Pritikin-- nepritikin@littler.com
-- and Kurt R. Bockes of Littler Mendelson PC.

Ms. Hubbs is represented by Mark Yablonovich of The Law Offices of
Mark Yablonovich.

The case is Viola Hubbs v. Big Lots Stores Inc. et al, case number
2:15-cv-01601, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California.


BLANCHARD MERRIAM: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Ioime, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Blanchard, Merriam, Adel & Kirkland, P.A., a Florida
Corporation, and Ocala Palms Operations, LLC, a Florida Company,
Case No. 5:15-cv-00130-JSM-PRL (M.D. Fla., March 17, 2015) accuses
the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.


BLUE CROSS: Sued by Galactic Funk Over Conspiracy With Blue Plans
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Galactic Funk Touring, Inc., et al., on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of
Arizona, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00483-PGR (D. Ariz., March 17,
2015) arises from the alleged unlawful conspiracy between and
among Defendant BCBS-AZ, the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association
and the 36 other Blue Cross Blue Shield member plans of the BCBSA
to divide and allocate geographic markets among the Individual
Blue Plans, including BCBS-AZ.

The Plaintiffs are Galactic Funk Touring, Inc.; American Electric
Motor Services, Inc.; CB Roofing, LLC; Linda Mills; Frank Curtis;
Judy Sheridan; Jennifer Ray Davidson; Lawrence W. Cohn, AAL, ALC;
Saccoccio & Lopez; Monika Bhuta; Michael E. Stark; G&S Trailer
Repair Inc.; Renee E. Allie; John G. Thompson; Harry M. McCumber;
Gaston CPA Firm; Jeffrey S. Garner; Erik Barstow; GC/AAA Fences,
Inc.; Keith O. Cerven; Teresa M. Cerven; SHGI Corp.; Kathryn
Scheller; Iron Gate Technology, Inc.; Nancy Thomas; Pioneer Farm
Equipment, Inc.; Danny J. Curlin; Amedius, LLC; and Brett Watts.

BCBS-AZ is the health insurance plan operating under the Blue
Cross and Blue Shield trademarks and trade names in Arizona.  Like
many other Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans nationwide, BCBS-AZ is
the largest health insurer as measured by number of subscribers
within its service area, which is defined as the state of Arizona.
The principal headquarters for BCBS-AZ is located in Phoenix,
Arizona.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP
          14646 N. Kierland Blvd., Suite 145
          Scottsdale, AZ 85254
          Telephone: (480) 348-6400
          Facsimile: (480) 348-6415
          E-mail: Hart.Robinovitch@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          David Boies, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          333 Main Street
          Armonk, NY 10504
          Telephone: (914) 749-8200
          Facsimile: (914) 749-8200
          E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Michael Hausfeld, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street NW, Suite 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
          E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Chris T. Hellums, Esq.
          PITTMAN, DUTTON & HELLUMS, P.C.
          2001 Park Place N, 1100 Park Place Tower
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 322-8880
          Facsimile: (205) 328-2711
          E-mail: chrish@pittmandutton.com

               - and -

          William A. Isaacson, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          5301 Wisconsin Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20015
          Telephone: (202) 237-2727
          Facsimile: (202) 237-6131
          E-mail: wisaacson@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Gregory Davis, Esq.
          DAVIS & TALIAFERRO, LLC
          7031 Halcyon Park Drive
          Montgomery, AL 36117
          Telephone: (334) 832-9080
          Facsimile: (334) 409-7001
          E-mail: gldavis@knology.net

               - and -

          Megan Jones, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 744-1970
          Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
          E-mail: mjones@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Kathleen Chavez, Esq.
          FOOTE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ & O'NEIL, LLC
          10 West State Street, Suite 200
          Geneva, IL 60134
          Telephone: (630) 797-3339
          Facsimile: (630) 232-7452
          E-mail: kcc@fmcolaw.com

               - and -

          Cyril V. Smith, Esq.
          ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER, LLP
          100 East Pratt Street, Suite 2440
          Baltimore, MD 21202-1031
          Telephone: (410) 949-1145
          Facsimile: (410) 659-0436
          E-mail: csmith@zuckerman.com

               - and -

          Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (800) 424-6690
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: ecramer@bm.net

               - and -

          Karen Dyer, Esq.
          Hamish P.M. Hume, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          5301 Wisconsin Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20015
          Telephone: (202) 237-2727
          Facsimile: (202) 237-6131
          E-mail: kdyer@bsfllp.com
                  hhume@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Patrick Cafferty, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
          101 North Main Street, Suite 565
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 769-2144
          Facsimile: (734) 769-1207
          E-mail: pcafferty@caffertyclobes.com

               - and -

          Bryan Clobes, Esq.
          Ellen Meriwether, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
          1101 Market Street, Suite 2650
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 864-2800
          Facsimile: (215) 864-2810
          E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com
                  emeriwether@caffertyclobes.com

               - and -

          Douglas Dellaccio, Esq.
          CORY WATSON CROWDER & DEGARIS, P.C.
          2131 Magnolia Avenue, Suite 200
          Birmingham, AL 32505
          Telephone: (205) 328-2200
          Facsimile: (205) 324-7896
          E-mail: ddellaccio@cwcd.com

               - and -

          Chris Cowan, Esq.
          THE COWAN LAW FIRM
          209 Henry Street
          Dallas, TX 74226-1819
          Telephone: (214) 826-1900
          Facsimile: (214) 826-8900
          E-mail: chris@cowanlaw.net

               - and -

          Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq.
          Benjamin Sweet, Esq.
          DEL SOLE CAVANAUGH STROYD LLC
          200 First Avenue, Suite 300
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 261-2393
          Facsimile: (412) 261-2110
          E-mail: ekilpela@dsclaw.com
                  bsweet@dsclaw.com

               - and -

          Robert M. Foote, Esq.
          FOOTE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ & O'NEIL, LLC
          10 West State Street, Suite 200
          Geneva, IL 60134
          Telephone: (630) 797-3339
          Facsimile: (630) 232-7452
          E-mail: rmf@fmcolaw.com

               - and -

          Charles T. Caliendo, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER
          485 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 722-8500
          Facsimile: (646) 722-8501
          E-mail: ccaliendo@gelaw.com

               - and -

          Robert Eisler, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER
          123 Justison Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 622-7000
          Facsimile: (302) 622-7100
          E-mail: reisler@gelaw.com

               - and -

          David Guin, Esq.
          Tammy Stokes, Esq.
          GUIN, STOKES & EVANS, LLC
          The Financial Center
          505 20th Street North, Suite 1000
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 226-2282
          Facsimile: (205) 226-2357
          E-mail: davidg@gseattorneys.com
                  tammys@gseattorneys.com

               - and -

          Daniel Gustafson, Esq.
          Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          William Butterfield, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street NW, Suite 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
          E-mail: wbutterfield@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Arthur Bailey, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 744-1970
          Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
          E-mail: abailey@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Brent Hazzard, Esq.
          HAZZARD LAW, LLC
          447 Northpark Drive
          Ridgeland, MS 39157
          Telephone: (601) 977-5253
          Facsimile: (601) 977-5236
          E-mail: brenthazzard@yahoo.com

               - and -

          John Saxon, Esq.
          JOHN D. SAXON, P.C.
          2119 3rd Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203-3314
          Telephone: (205) 324-0223
          Facsimile: (205) 323-1583
          E-mail: jsaxon@saxonattorneys.com

               - and -

          Lawrence Jones, Esq.
          JONES WARD PLC
          312 South Fourth Street, Sixth Floor
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 882-6000
          E-mail: larry@jonesward.com

               - and -

          Andrew Lemmon, Esq.
          LEMMON LAW FIRM
          650 Poydras Street, Suite 2335
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 581-5644
          Facsimile: (504) 581-2156
          E-mail: andrew@lemmonlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Virginia Buchanan, Esq.
          LEVIN PAPANTONIO THOMAS MITCHELL RAFFERTY
          & PROCTOR, P.A.
          316 South Baylen Street, Suite 600
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Telephone: (850) 435-7000
          Facsimile: (850) 435-7020
          E-mail: vbuchanan@levinlaw.com

               - and -


          Robert Methvin, Esq.
          James M. Terrell, Esq.
          MCCALLUM, METHVIN & TERRELL, P.C.
          The Highland Building
          2201 Arlington Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 939-0199
          Facsimile: (205) 939-0399
          E-mail: rgm@mmlaw.net
                  jterrell@mmlaw.net

               - and -

          Michael McGartland, Esq.
          MCGARTLAND & BORCHARDT LLP
          1300 South University Drive, Suite 500
          Fort Worth, TX 76107
          Telephone: (817) 332-9300
          Facsimile: (817) 332-9301
          E-mail: mike@attorneysmb.com

               - and -

          H. Lewis Gillis, Esq.
          MEANS GILLIS LAW, LLC
          3121 Zelda Court
          Montgomery, AL 36106
          Telephone: (800) 626-9684
          E-mail: hlgillis@tmgslaw.com

               - and -

          David J. Hodge, Esq.
          MORRIS, KING & HODGE
          200 Pratt Avenue NE
          Huntsville, AL 35801
          Telephone: (256) 536-0588
          Facsimile: (256) 533-1504
          E-mail: lstewart@alinjurylaw.com

               - and -

          Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
          NASTLAW LLC
          1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 923-9300
          Facsimile: (215) 923-9302
          E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick W. Pendley, Esq.
          Christopher Coffin, Esq.
          PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP
          Post Office Drawer 71
          Plaquemine, LA 70765
          Telephone: (225) 687-6369
          E-mail: pwpendley@pbclawfirm.com
                  ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com

               - and -

          Edgar D. Gankendorff, Esq.
          Eric R.G. Belin, Esq.
          PROVOSTY & GANKENDORFF, LLC
          650 Poydras Street, Suite 2700
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 410-2795
          Facsimile: (504) 410-2796
          E-mail: egankendorff@provostylaw.com
                  ebelin@provostylaw.com

               - and -

          Richard Rouco, Esq.
          QUINN, CONNOR, WEAVER, DAVIES & ROUCO LLP
          2700 Highway 280 East, Suite 380
          Birmingham, AL 35223
          Telephone: (205) 870-9989
          Facsimile: (205) 870-9989
          E-mail: rrouco@qcwdr.com

               - and -

          Garrett Blanchfield, Esq.
          REINHARDT, WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
          E-1250 First National Bank Building
          332 Minnesota Street
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 287-2100
          Facsimile: (651) 287-2103
          E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jason Thompson, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ
          One Towne Square, 17th Floor
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com

               - and -

          Larry McDevitt, Esq.
          David Wilkerson, Esq.
          VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
          11 North Market Street
          Asheville, NC 28801
          Telephone: (828) 258-2991
          E-mail: lmcdevitt@vwlawfirm.com
                  dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Carl S. Kravitz, Esq.
          ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
          1800 M Street NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036-5807
          Telephone: (202) 778-1800
          Facsimile: (202) 822-8106
          E-mail: ckravitz@zuckerman.com


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Bid to Dismiss in Blankenship Case Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE: BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORP., PELVIC REPAIR SYSTEM PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION, pending before the court in the case
captioned Mildred Blankenship v. Boston Scientific Corp., No.
2:12-cv-86198, MDL NO. 2326, (S.D. W. Va.) is the defendant's
motion for summary judgment based on statute of limitations.

This case resides in one of seven MDLs assigned to District Judge
Joseph R. Goodwin by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation concerning the use of transvaginal surgical mesh to
treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence
(SUI).

Ms. Blankenship was surgically implanted with the Obtryx
Transobturator Mid-Urethral Sling System (the Obtryx) on May 26,
2010, a product manufactured by BSC to treat SUI. She received her
surgery at a hospital in Shreveport, Louisiana.  Ms. Blankenship
claims that as a result of implantation of the Obtryx, she has
experienced multiple complications, including, but not limited to,
pain, urinary problems, infections, scarring, and erosion.  She
brings these claims against BSC: strict liability for design
defect, manufacturing defect, and failure to warn; negligence;
breaches of express and implied warranties; and punitive damages.

In the pending motion, BSC argues that each of the plaintiff's
claims is barred by Louisiana's prescriptive statute, and
consequently, the court should grant summary judgment in favor of
BSC and dismiss Ms. Blankenship's entire case.

Judge Goodwin, in an order entered March 18, 2015, a copy of which
is available at http://is.gd/APl1Wefrom Leagle.com, denied the
motion saying "this determination is a fact question left to the
jury."

Mildred Blankenship, Plaintiff, represented by Ami Rebecca
Romanelli, BABBITT JOHNSON OSBORNE & LECLAINCHE, D. Renee Baggett,
AYLSTOCK WITKIN KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, Joseph A. Osborne, BABBITT
JOHNSON OSBORNE & LE CLAINCHE, Katharine Gale Krottinger, THE
MONSOUR LAW FIRM, Robert L. Salim, LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. SALIM,
Brandon Stewart Morris, AYLSTOCK WITKIN KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, Bryan
F. Aylstock, AYLSTOCK WITKIN KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, Douglas C.
Monsour, THE MONSOUR LAW FIRM, Douglass Alan Kreis, AYLSTOCK
WITKIN KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, Lisa L. Causey, SALIM-BEASLEY & Patty
Ann Trantham, AYLSTOCK WITKIN KREIS & OVERHOLTZ.

Boston Scientific Corporation, Defendant, represented by A.
Bradley Bodamer, SHOOK HARDY & BACON, Brent A. Talbot, CHAFFE
MCCALL, Eric M. Anielak, SHOOK HARDY & BACON, Jon A. Strongman,
SHOOK HARDY & BACON, Lindsey M. Saad, FLAHERTY SENSABAUGH &
BONASSO, Matthew D. Keenan, SHOOK HARDY & BACON, Robert T. Adams,
SHOOK HARDY & BACON, Steven D. Soden, SHOOK HARDY & BACON, Eva
Marie Mannoia Weiler, SHOOK HARDY & BACON, Peter J. Rotolo, III,
CHAFFE MCCALL & Skye Eiswirth Prince, CHAFFE MCCALL.


BUCCANEERS: Settles Cheerleaders' Wage Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Shawn Krest, writing for CBSSports.com, reports that The
Buccaneers agreed to a settlement of the class-action lawsuit
filed by 94 former cheerleaders.

The cheerleaders accused the team of violating federal and state
laws by requiring cheerleaders to work extra hours without being
paid.  The Bucs will set up a fund with up to $825,000 to
reimburse cheerleaders for hours worked. Each of the cheerleaders
named in the class action will receive an average of $5,254.78 in
back wages, which comes to about $3,400 after attorney's fees.

The terms of the settlement were reached on Dec. 23, but the
motion wasn't filed in court until March 6.


CALPERS: Appellate Court Affirms Decision in "Malkenhorst" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Feuer of the Court of Appeals of California, Second
District, Division Seven, affirmed the trial court's decision in
the appealed case entitled BRUCE V. MALKENHORST, SR., Plaintiff
and Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM
et al., Defendants and Respondents, NO. B247676 (Cal. Ct. App.)

The Public Employees Retirement Law (PERL) established the
California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) to
administer the statute and manage pensions for public employees.
CalPERS's Board manages and controls the system, makes such rules
as it deems proper and determines who the employees are and which
employees are entitled to receive retirement benefits.

The plaintiff Bruce V. Malkenhorst, Sr. was the City Administrator
of the City of Vernon (Vernon) from 1975 until his retirement in
2005. In early 1995, CalPERS began an administrative investigation
of Malkenhorst's pension. It requested information on the salary
schedules for employees in the same group or class of employees.

On August 17, 2006, CalPERS sent a letter to Vernon finding that
Malkenhorst's compensation, including calculation of his longevity
pay would be allowed. However, on May 25, 2012, CalPERS notified
Malkenhorst that it had conducted an audit of Vernon and a review
of the compensation reported by Vernon for Malkenhorst. CalPERS
informed Malkenhorst that, if after review of that documentation
CalPERS's preliminary determination remained unchanged, it would
reduce Malkenhorst's benefits and it might also seek to collect
overpayments made to him.

Malkenhorst submitted a response on July 25, 2012. He claimed that
CalPERS had no jurisdiction to reduce his pension because it was
collaterally estopped by its prior decision to approve his
pension, the statute of limitations for correcting a mistake had
run, and his current pension was a property interest that could
not be reduced without a hearing. Malkenhorst additionally claimed
that CalPERS's decision to reduce his pension violated Vernon's
constitutional autonomy and Malkenhorst's constitutionally
protected and vested contract rights. Malkenhorst also argued that
his compensation met PERL requirements.

Prior to CalPERS issuance of final decision, Malkenhorst filed a
complaint in the Orange County Superior Court for declaratory and
injunctive relief and petition for writ of mandate against CalPERS
and the Board, naming Vernon as a real party in interest. On
October 18, 2012, the court sustained the demurrer without leave
to amend for Malkenhorst's failure to exhaust his administrative
remedies. Malkenhorst filed a motion for reconsideration of the
Orange County Superior Court's order sustaining CalPERS's demurrer
without leave to amend but the court denied the same. While
Malkenhorst was litigating his claim in the Orange County action,
CalPERS continued with its administrative process. On October 22,
2012, CalPERS wrote to Malkenhorst that it had affirmed its
preliminary determination and issued a final determination to
reduce Malkenhorst's pension amount.

On December 21, 2012, while Malkenhorst's motion for
reconsideration was pending in the Orange County action,
Malkenhorst filed a timely appeal in the administrative action.
While his administrative appeal was pending and before judgment
was entered in the Orange County action on January 16, 2013,
Malkenhorst filed an action in Los Angeles County Superior Court
against CalPERS.  Again, he sought declaratory and injunctive
relief and a writ of mandate, and he added a cause of action for
administrative mandate. He sought to have the court order CalPERS
to terminate its administrative process, cease all efforts to
reduce Malkenhorst's pension based on issues decided "years ago,"
and preserve Malkenhorst's higher pension. Malkenhorst alleges
that based on the 2005 proceedings, collateral estoppel and res
judicata bar CalPERS from reopening issues regarding his pension.
CalPERS and the Board filed their demurrer on February 14, 2013.

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order in sustaining
the demurrer on the ground that Malkenhorst's civil action is
barred by his failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.

A copy of Justice Feuer unpublished opinion dated February 13,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/UgfJnjfrom Leagle.com.

John Michael Jensen -- johnjensen@johnmjensen.com -- at Law
Offices of John Michael Jensen, for Plaintiff and Appellant

Gina M. Ratto, Interim General Counsel, and Wesley E. Kennedy,
Senior Staff Attorney, for Defendants and Respondents

The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Seven panel consists of Presiding Justice Dennis M. Perluss, and
Associate Justices Fred Woods and Feuer.


CATELLUS THIRD: Appellate Court Reverses Class Cert. Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Acting Presiding Justice Mark B. Simons of the Court of Appeals of
California, First District, Division Five, reversed and remanded
the case entitled BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CATELLUS THIRD AND KING, LLC, et al.,
Defendants and Respondents, NO. A138609 (Cal. Ct. App.)

Beacon Residential Community Association is the homeowners'
association for a 595-unit residential condominium project in San
Francisco. The Association sued the defendants-respondents
entities involved in the development, design, sale, and/or
construction of the residential condominium, alleging various
construction defects. The complaint asserts causes of action for
violation of Civil Code section 895 et seq., strict liability,
negligence, breach of implied warranty, breach of contract (third
party beneficiary), and fraudulent concealment.

The Association sought to certify a class of all of its members
with respect to certain aspects of its claims. The Association
also sought certification of two subclasses. The first proposed
subclass consists of approximately 34 of the Association's members
who were plaintiffs (or whose units had been owned by plaintiffs)
in previous lawsuits against some of the same Respondents, which
resulted in stipulated dismissals (the Zucker subclass). The
second proposed subclass consists of the Association's members who
purchased units from a prior owner other than Mission Place (the
subsequent purchaser subclass). The trial court denied the motion.
The Association took an appeal.

Acting Presiding Justice Simons held that the portion of the
appeal challenging the order denying class certification with
respect to the Association's seventh cause of action is dismissed.
The order denying class certification with respect to the sixth
and eighth causes of action is reversed and remanded for
proceedings consistent with this opinion.

A copy of Acting Presiding Justice Simons's unpublished opinion
dated February 13, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/cKIEgqfrom
Leagle.com.

The California Court of Appeals, First District, Division Five
panel consists of Acting Presiding Justice Mark B. Simons, and
Justices Henry E. Needham and Terence L. Bruiniers.


CENTURY GOLF: "Ashby" Suit Moved From W.D. New York to N.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Ashby v. Century Golf Partners
Management LP, Case No. 1:14-cv-00759, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas).
The Texas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-00861-M
to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges that that Defendant failed to pay proper
overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          P. Andrew Vona, Esq.
          Brian James Hutchison, Esq.
          MUSCATO, DIMILLO & VONA, LLP
          107 East Avenue
          Lockport, NY 14094
          Telephone: (716) 434-9177
          Facsimile: (716) 434-9196
          E-mail: bjhesq@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Erin W. Smith, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          400 Linden Oaks, Suite 110
          Rochester, NY 14625
          Telephone: (585) 203-3406
          Facsimile: (585) 486-1609
          E-mail: ewsmith@littler.com


CERTIFIED SITE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid or Underpaid OT Wage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Earl Rose, individually and in behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Certified Site Safety. Inc.; Certified Site
Safety of NY, LLC; ISG Risk Management, Inc.; MRG Engineering &
Construction. Inc.; and Michael R. Gianatasio, jointly and
severally, Case No. 1:15-cv-02020-UA (S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2015)
alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
and that they are liable to the Plaintiff for unpaid or underpaid
overtime compensation.

Certified Site Safety, Inc., is a New York business corporation
with its office in Westchester County.  Certified Site Safety of
NY, LLC is a New York limited liability company with its office in
Westchester County.  ISG Risk Management, Inc., and MRG
Engineering & Construction, Inc., are Delaware Corporations with
their office in New Castle County.  Michael R. Gianatasio is an
owner, shareholder, officer, or manager of the Corporate
Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Gurrieri, Esq.
          Brandon David Sherr, Esq.
          Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007-2036
          Telephone: (212) 229-2249
          Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
          E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com
                  bsherr@zellerlegal.com
                  Jazeller@zellerlegal.com


CHURCH & DWIGHT: Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. Court OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the action captioned Trewin et al. v. Church &
Dwight Co., Inc., No. 3:12-cv-01475, on March 6 disclosed that the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey has
preliminarily approved a class action settlement.  The Class
includes all people who purchased Arm & Hammer(R) Essentials(TM)
deodorant with a label stating "Natural Deodorant".

The Plaintiffs, represented by Class Counsel, Shepherd, Finkelman,
Miller & Shah, LLP, alleged that the labeling of the
Essentials(TM) deodorant with the words "Natural Deodorant" ("Old
Label") was false and misleading to consumers.  Church & Dwight
expressly denies Plaintiffs' allegations and claims and maintains
that its Essentials(TM) deodorant with the Old Label is not in any
way false or misleading.  Nevertheless, the parties believe that
resolving the claims would be desirable in order to end the
expenses, burdens and uncertainties associated with continuing the
litigation.

The settlement provides, among other things, that Church & Dwight
will make a cash payment for the benefit of the class in exchange
for certain releases and covenants by the Plaintiffs.  The
settlement was reached after almost two years of litigation and
months of negotiation and is subject to approval by the District
Court of New Jersey and to other conditions specified in the
settlement documents.


CLEVELAND BROWNS: Faces Class Action Over Personal Seat Licenses
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adriana Adkins, writing for The Morning Journal, reports that a
Cleveland Browns fan filed a lawsuit March 4 against the NFL team
after discovering that the team stopped making the purchase of
personal seat licenses a prerequisite for obtaining season
tickets.

The class action suit in Lorain County Common Pleas Court was
filed by Mike Brosky on behalf of himself and other Browns fans
who purchased personal seat licenses for season tickets prior to
the team discontinuing the requirement March 4, 2014.

Mr. Brosky, who wrote in the suit he's been a devoted Cleveland
Browns fan for the last 16 years, purchased two personal seat
licenses, also known as PSLs, for $750 each in 1999 giving him the
right to purchase season tickets each year.

The purchase of PSLs also gave the owners the right to gift or
sell the licenses, the lawsuit states.  Those who purchased PSLs
were entitled to the best seats in FirstEnergy Stadium.  It was
formerly named Cleveland Browns stadium.

The team's decision to do away with the PSL prerequisite caused
the class action suit members' PSLs to lose their value, attorney
Eric Zagrans wrote in the suit.

"The Browns represented to Brosky and other class members that no
one could buy season tickets in the best locations in FirstEnergy
Stadium without first buying a PSL for each season ticket,"
Mr. Zagrans wrote.  "Now that the Browns have removed the PSL
requirement and cost to new purchasers of season tickets, the PSLs
owned by Brosky and the class members have lost their value to
anyone interested in acquiring Browns season tickets."

Due to the team's recent decision to make season tickets available
to all fans without the purchase of a PSL, Mr. Zagrans accused the
Brown's of breaching the contract and said the team made "knowing,
intentional or reckless misrepresentations that fraudulently
induced Brosky and other class members to enter into their
respective transactions to purchase PSL's from the Browns."

The suit seeks reimbursement of the cost of the PSLs for all fans
who bought them prior to the team's 2013 decision in addition to
monetary damages to be shared among current holders.


CORPORATE RESOURCE: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on March 5 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Corporate Resource Services, Inc. and
certain of its officers.  The class action, filed in United States
District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under
15-cv-01632, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased Corporate Resource Services securities
between July 1, 2014 and February 6, 2015, inclusive.  This class
action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged
violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Corporate Resource Services
securities during the Class Period, you have until May 1, 2015 to
ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A
copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Corporate Resource Services, Inc. provides diversified technology,
staffing, recruiting, and consulting services in the United
States.  It offers companies trained employees in the areas of
insurance, information technology, accounting, legal, engineering,
science, healthcare, life sciences, creative services,
hospitality, retail, general business, and light industrial work.

The Complaint alleges that the Company 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 that the Company was not in compliance with the
Account Purchase Agreements with Wells Fargo as of November 30,
2014.

On September 29, 2014, the Company announced the abrupt
resignation of Defendant Amato on September 28, 2014, who would be
replaced by Defendant Holzer.

On February 3, 2015, the Company filed a Form 8-K with the SEC,
which revealed that: (i) as of November 30, 2014, the Company was
not in compliance with the Net Worth covenant under the Account
Purchase Agreements; (ii) on January 27, 2015, the Company learned
that TSE had a material unpaid federal payroll tax liability;
(iii) on January 28, 2015, Wells Fargo indicated to the Company
that it would need to reconsider funding the Company's operations
through the Account Purchase Agreement; (iv) on February 2, 2015,
TSE filed for bankruptcy.

On this news, shares of the Company fell $0.39 per share over the
next two days, or 59%, from its previous closing price on February
2, 2015, to close at $0.27 per share on February 4, 2015.

On February 6, 2015, the Company filed a Form 8-K with the SEC
during after-market hours revealing that the financial statements
for the year ended January 3, 2014 and the quarters ended April 4,
2014, July 4, 2014 and October 3, 2014 can no longer be relied on
due to TSE's material unpaid federal payroll tax liability.

On this news, shares of the Company fell $0.06 per share, or over
18%, from its previous closing price to close at $0.27 per share
on February 9, 2015.

On February 10, 2015, the Company announced the abrupt resignation
of Defendants Clarke, Holzer, and Melby -- the members of the
Audit Committee -- effective February 5, 2015.  In each of their
resignation letters, Defendants Clarke, Holzer, and Melby
indicated that they learned of TSE's unpaid federal payroll tax
liability on January 29, 2015 and the Audit Committee sought to
commence an investigation on the matter, but was denied funding by
Wells Fargo, which had sole control of the Company's financing.
They also stated that their resignation stemmed from their
inability to obtain funding to conduct the necessary investigation
and other concerns about the situation, including the related
party relationships between the Company and TSE.

On this news, shares of the Company fell $0.04, per share or over
14%, from its previous closing price to close at $$0.23 per share
on February 10, 2015.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation.


CRESA PARTNERS: Suit Seeks to Recover Damages for Pregnancy Bias
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hillary Walter v. Cresa Partners, LLC and Cresa New York, LLC,
Case No. 1:15-cv-01995-ER (S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2015) is brought to
recover damages for alleged pregnancy discrimination, retaliation,
violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act and other matters.

Ms. Walter worked for the Defendants for almost 10 years, as well
as its Boston affiliate.  Boston is also where its headquarters,
Defendant Cresa Partners LLC, is located.  The Company and its
affiliates specialize in finding commercial space for corporate
tenants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory S. Antollino, Esq.
          GREGORY ANTOLLINO, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          275 Seventh Avenue, Suite 705
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 334-7397
          E-mail: gantollino@nyc.rr.com


CVS PHARMACY: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hoang Minh Le, an individual v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., a California
Corporation; Garfield Beach CVS, LLC, a limited liability company;
and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 5:15-cv-00513 (C.D. Cal.,
March 17, 2015) seeks damages, injunctive and declaratory relief,
attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990.

The Plaintiff is a T-12 paraplegic, and as a result is unable to
walk or stand and, thus, requires a use of a wheelchair at all
times when traveling in public.

The Defendants are the owners, operators, lessors or lessees of
the building, structure, facility, complex, property, land,
development, and surrounding business complex known as: CVS
Pharmacy located in Ontario, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Pamela Tsao, Esq.
          ASCENSION LAW GROUP
          2030 E. 4th Street, Suite 205
          Santa Ana, CA 92705
          Telephone: (714) 783-4220
          Facsimile: (888) 505-1033
          E-mail: Pamela.Tsao@ascensionlawgroup.com


ELTMAN ELTMAN: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Itzchak Hirsch, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Eltman, Eltman & Cooper, P.C., and Palisades
Acquisition XVI, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-01437 (E.D.N.Y., March 18,
2015) is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Laytora Robertson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, Case No.
2:15-cv-01970-CCC-JBC (D.N.J., March 17, 2015) seeks relief under
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON PC
          1669 East 12th Street
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 339-0856
          E-mail: yzelman@sassonlaw.com


EXCLUSIVE ONE LLC: Made Illegal Deductions From Wages, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Volkan Bahce and Kasim Batirbek v. Exclusive One LLC d/b/a
Montclair Limo and Serdar Has, Case No. 2:15-cv-01984-JLL-JAD
(D.N.J., March 18, 2015) alleges that the Defendants failed to pay
the Plaintiffs overtime for hours worked over 40 per week and made
unlawful deductions from their pay.

Exclusive One LLC, doing business as Montclair Limo, provides
limousine services.  The Company is a New Jersey domestic business
corporation headquartered in Montclair, New Jersey.  The
Individual Defendants is the owner and an officer of Montclair
Limo.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael R. DiChiara
          KRAKOWER DICHIARA LLC
          One Depot Square
          77 Market Street, Suite 2
          Park Ridge, NJ 07656
          Telephone: (201) 746-0303
          Facsimile: (347) 765-1600
          E-mail: md@kdlawllc.com


FMS INC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Serge Jean-Jacques, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. FMS Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01381 (E.D.N.Y., March 17,
2015) seeks relief over alleged violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gus Michael Farinella, Esq.
          The Westminster Building
          180 West 20th Street, Suite 12b
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 675-6161
          Facsimile: (212) 675-4367
          E-mail: gmf@lawgmf.com


FOWLER PACKING: Seasonal Workers Sue to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Beatriz Aldapa and Elmer Avalos, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. Fowler Packing Company, Inc., a
California Corporation; AG Force LLC; a California Limited
Liability Company; Fowler Marketing International LLC, a
California Limited Liability Company; and Does 1 - 10, Case No.
1:15-cv-00420-SAB (E.D. Cal., March 17, 2015) is brought on behalf
of current and former employees of the Defendants for recovery of
unpaid wages and penalties, restitution, attorneys' fees and costs
and injunctive relief.

The Plaintiffs and Members of the Proposed Class are seasonal
agricultural workers, within the meaning of the Migrant and
Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, who have worked in
Defendants' fields, for the Defendants.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of cultivating,
harvesting and packing fruit, mostly tree fruits -- generally
peaches, nectarines, plums, and pomegranates -- as well as table
grapes on land located primarily in or near Fresno County,
California.  The Defendants also own and operate packing
facilities in or near Fresno County, California, to sort, grade,
package and distribute fruit harvested by the Plaintiffs and other
agricultural employees under the "Fowler Packing" brand and other
related brands.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ira L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          BUSH GOTTLIEB, A LAW CORPORATION
          500 North Central Avenue, Suite 800
          Glendale, CA 91203-3345
          Telephone: (818) 973-3200
          Facsimile: (818) 973-3201
          E-mail: igottlieb@bushgottlieb.com

               - and -

          Mario Martinez, Esq.
          Edgar I. Aguilasocho, Esq.
          Anna K. Walther, Esq.
          MARTINEZ AGUILASOCHO & LYNCH, APLC
          1227 California Avenue
          Bakersfield, CA 93304
          Telephone: (661) 324-8100
          Facsimile: (661) 324-8103
          E-mail: mmartinez@farmworkerlaw.com
                  edgara@ufw.org
                  awalther@ufw.org


GENERAL MOTORS: Two Workers Sue Over Unpaid Religious Days Off
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Klayman, writing for Reuters, reports that two General Motors
Co. workers at its Arlington, Texas, assembly plant have sued the
No. 1 U.S. automaker and are seeking class-action status, claiming
the company violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by denying them
unpaid religious days off.

The lawsuit, filed on March 4 in U.S. District Court in Forth
Worth, Texas, charged the company with violating Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act "by denying a reasonable religious accommodation"
to James Robinson III, a Seventh-day Sabbatarian, and Chris
Scruggs, a Messianic Jew, who had previously taken off religious
holidays without pay.

Messrs. Robinson and Scruggs are seeking class-action status for
the lawsuit, an injunction allowing them and similar employees to
take unpaid leave on holy days in accordance with their religious
beliefs, unspecified lost wages, and punitive and compensatory
damages, and legal fees, according to the lawsuit.

GM spokesman Patrick Morrissey said it was premature for the
company to comment because it had not formally been served with
the lawsuit.

The two men, both electricians at the plant, said they had taken
off holy days according to their religious beliefs without pay for
several years, but that allowance ceased in 2013, according to the
lawsuit.

GM failed to see if volunteers were available to cover the men's
shifts and the cost of allowing them to take unpaid leave was
minimal, according to the lawsuit.  Both men experienced "stress,
humiliation, frustration, sadness and embarrassment" and were made
to "feel inferior and different because of their beliefs,"
according to the lawsuit.

The case is Robinson v General Motors, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Texas, No. 15-158.


GLOBAL CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, N.Y. Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dunstan A. Weerasinghe, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Global Credit & Collection Corporation, Case
No. 1:15-cv-01428 (E.D.N.Y., March 18, 2015) alleges violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gus Michael Farinella, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF GUS MICHAEL FARINELLA
          180 West 20th Street, Suite 12b
          The Westminster Building
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 675-6161
          Facsimile: (212) 675-4367
          E-mail: gmf@lawgmf.com


GOLDMAN SACHS: Defendants Filed Motion for Summary Judgment
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that defendants have
moved for summary judgment in a class action lawsuit.

On September 30, 2010, a class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.), Group Inc. and two former GS&Co.
employees on behalf of investors in $823 million of notes issued
in 2006 and 2007 by two synthetic CDOs (Hudson Mezzanine 2006-1
and 2006-2). The amended complaint asserts federal securities law
and common law claims, and seeks unspecified compensatory,
punitive and other damages. The defendants' motion to dismiss was
granted as to plaintiff's claim of market manipulation and denied
as to the remainder of plaintiff's claims by a decision dated
March 21, 2012. On May 21, 2012, the defendants counterclaimed for
breach of contract and fraud. On June 27, 2014, the appellate
court denied defendants' petition for leave to appeal from the
district court's January 22, 2014 order granting class
certification. On January 30, 2015, defendants moved for summary
judgment.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Denied Motion to Sever Claims
--------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Group Inc.,
Litton Loan Servicing LP (Litton), Ocwen Financial Corporation
(Ocwen) and Arrow Corporate Member Holdings LLC, a former
subsidiary of Group Inc., are defendants in a putative class
action pending since January 23, 2013 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York generally challenging the
procurement manner and scope of "force-placed" hazard insurance
arranged by Litton when homeowners failed to arrange for insurance
as required by their mortgages. The complaint asserts claims for
breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation,
conversion, unjust enrichment and violation of Florida unfair
practices law, and seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. An amended
complaint, filed on November 19, 2013, added an additional
plaintiff and RICO claims. On September 29, 2014, the court denied
without prejudice and with leave to renew at a later date Group
Inc.'s motion to sever the claims against it and certain other
defendants.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Underwriters Settle RALI Pass-Through Cert. Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Goldman, Sachs &
Co. (GS&Co.), and the other underwriter defendants agreed to a
settlement with the plaintiffs in the RALI Pass-Through
Certificates Litigation.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.), is among numerous underwriters
named as defendants in a securities class action initially filed
in September 2008 in New York Supreme Court, and subsequently
removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York. As to the underwriters, plaintiffs allege that the
offering documents in connection with various offerings of
mortgage-backed pass-through certificates violated the disclosure
requirements of the federal securities laws. In addition to the
underwriters, the defendants include Residential Capital, LLC
(ResCap), Residential Accredit Loans, Inc. (RALI), Residential
Funding Corporation (RFC), Residential Funding Securities
Corporation (RFSC), and certain of their officers and directors.

On January 3, 2013, the district court certified a class in
connection with one offering underwritten by GS&Co. which includes
only initial purchasers who bought the securities directly from
the underwriters or their agents no later than ten trading days
after the offering date. On April 30, 2013, the district court
granted in part plaintiffs' request to reinstate a number of the
previously dismissed claims relating to an additional nine
offerings underwritten by GS&Co. On May 10, 2013, the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint incorporating those nine additional
offerings. On December 27, 2013, the court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification as to the nine additional offerings
but denied the plaintiffs' motion to expand the time period and
scope covered by the previous class definition.

On October 17, 2014, the plaintiffs and defendants moved for
summary judgment. On February 11, 2015, GS&Co. and the other
underwriter defendants agreed to a settlement with the plaintiffs,
subject to court approval. The firm has reserved the full amount
of its proposed contribution to the settlement.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Paid Full Contribution Amount to MF Global Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Goldman, Sachs &
Co. (GS&Co.) has paid the full amount of its contribution to the
settlements in the MF Global Securities Litigation.

GS&Co. is among numerous underwriters named as defendants in class
action complaints and an individual action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York commencing
November 18, 2011. These complaints generally allege that the
offering materials for two offerings of MF Global Holdings Ltd.
(MF Global) convertible notes (aggregating approximately $575
million in principal amount) in February 2011 and July 2011, among
other things, failed to describe adequately the nature, scope and
risks of MF Global's exposure to European sovereign debt, in
violation of the disclosure requirements of the federal securities
laws. On December 12, 2014, the court preliminarily approved a
settlement resolving the class action, and on January 5, 2015, the
court entered an order effectuating the settlement of all claims
against GS&Co. in the individual action. GS&Co. has paid the full
amount of its contribution to the settlements.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Paid Contribution Amount to P/E Litigation Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Group Inc.,
together with its affiliates, has paid the full amount of its
proposed contribution to the settlement in the Private Equity-
Sponsored Acquisitions Litigation.

Group Inc. is among numerous private equity firms named as
defendants in a federal antitrust action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts in December 2007.
As amended, the complaint generally alleges that the defendants
have colluded to limit competition in bidding for private equity-
sponsored acquisitions of public companies, thereby resulting in
lower prevailing bids and, by extension, less consideration for
shareholders of those companies in violation of Section 1 of the
U.S. Sherman Antitrust Act and common law. The complaint seeks,
among other things, treble damages in an unspecified amount. In
June 2014, Group Inc. and the plaintiffs agreed to a settlement,
which the court preliminarily approved on September 29, 2014.
Group Inc., together with its affiliates, has paid the full amount
of its proposed contribution to the settlement.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Defendant in GT Advanced Securities Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Goldman, Sachs &
Co. (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as defendants in
several putative securities class actions filed in October 2014 in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire. In
addition to the underwriters, the defendants include certain
directors and officers of GT Advanced Technologies Inc. (GT
Advanced Technologies). As to the underwriters, the complaints
generally allege misstatements and omissions in connection with
the December 2013 offerings by GT Advanced Technologies of
approximately $86 million of common stock and $214 million
principal amount of convertible senior notes, assert claims under
the federal securities laws, and seek compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount and rescission. GS&Co. underwrote 3,479,769
shares of common stock and $75 million principal amount of notes
for an aggregate offering price of approximately $105 million. On
October 6, 2014, GT Advanced Technologies filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Defending Against FireEye Securities Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Goldman, Sachs &
Co. (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as defendants in
several putative securities class actions, filed beginning in June
2014 in the California Superior Court, County of Santa Clara. In
addition to the underwriters, the defendants include FireEye, Inc.
(FireEye) and certain of its directors and officers. The
complaints generally allege misstatements and omissions in
connection with the offering materials for the March 2014 offering
of approximately $1.15 billion of FireEye common stock, assert
claims under the federal securities laws, and seek compensatory
damages in an unspecified amount and rescission. GS&Co. underwrote
2,100,000 shares for a total offering price of approximately $172
million.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Defending Against Millennial Media Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Goldman, Sachs &
Co. (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as defendants in a
putative securities class action filed on September 30, 2014 in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In
addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Millennial
Media, Inc. (Millennial Media) and certain of its directors,
officers and shareholders. As to the underwriters, the complaint
generally alleges misstatements and omissions in connection with
Millennial Media's $152 million March 2012 initial public offering
and the October 2012 offering of approximately $163 million of
Millennial Media's common stock, asserts claims under the federal
securities laws, and seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified
amount and rescission. GS&Co. underwrote 3,519,000 and 3,450,000
shares of common stock in the March and October 2012 offerings,
respectively, for an aggregate offering price of approximately $95
million.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Zynga Securities Litigation Dismissed in February
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Goldman, Sachs &
Co. (GS&Co.) was among the underwriters named as defendants in a
putative securities class action filed on August 1, 2012 in the
California Superior Court, County of San Francisco. In addition to
the underwriters, the defendants included Zynga Inc. (Zynga) and
certain of its directors and officers. The consolidated amended
complaint, filed on April 29, 2013, generally alleged that the
offering materials for the March 2012 $516 million secondary
offering of Zynga common stock by certain of Zynga's shareholders
violated the disclosure requirements of the federal securities
laws, and sought compensatory damages in an unspecified amount and
rescission. On February 11, 2015, the court dismissed the action.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Defending Against Cobalt Securities Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Cobalt
International Energy, Inc. (Cobalt), certain of its officers and
directors (including employees of affiliates of Group Inc. who
served as directors of Cobalt), shareholders of Cobalt (including
certain funds affiliated with Group Inc.), affiliates of these
shareholders (including Group Inc.) and underwriters (including
Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.)) for certain offerings of Cobalt's
securities are defendants in a putative securities class action
filed on November 30, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas. The complaint asserts claims under the
federal securities laws, seeks compensatory and rescissory damages
in unspecified amounts and alleges material misstatements and
omissions concerning Cobalt in connection with a $1.67 billion
February 2012 offering of Cobalt common stock, a $1.38 billion
December 2012 offering of Cobalt's convertible notes, a $1.00
billion January 2013 offering of Cobalt's common stock, a $1.33
billion May 2013 offering of Cobalt's common stock, and a $1.30
billion May 2014 offering of Cobalt's convertible notes. The
complaint alleges that Group Inc., GS&Co. and the affiliated funds
are liable as controlling persons with respect to all five
offerings. The complaint also seeks damages (i) from GS&Co. in
connection with its acting as an underwriter of 14,430,000 shares
of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of
approximately $465 million, $690 million principal amount of
convertible notes, and approximately $508 million principal amount
of convertible notes in the February 2012, December 2012 and May
2014 offerings, respectively, for an aggregate offering price of
approximately $1.66 billion, and (ii) from Group Inc. and the
affiliated funds in connection with their sales of 40,042,868
shares of common stock for aggregate gross proceeds of
approximately $1.06 billion in the February 2012, January 2013 and
May 2013 common stock offerings.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Female Employees Move for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that plaintiffs in a
putative class action filed by female former employees moved for
class certification.

On September 15, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by three
female former employees alleging that Group Inc. and Goldman,
Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) have systematically discriminated against
female employees in respect of compensation, promotion,
assignments, mentoring and performance evaluations. The complaint
alleges a class consisting of all female employees employed at
specified levels in specified areas by Group Inc. and GS&Co. since
July 2002, and asserts claims under federal and New York City
discrimination laws. The complaint seeks class action status,
injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of compensatory,
punitive and other damages. On July 17, 2012, the district court
issued a decision granting in part Group Inc.'s and GS&Co.'s
motion to strike certain of plaintiffs' class allegations on the
ground that plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue certain equitable
remedies and denying Group Inc.'s and GS&Co.'s motion to strike
plaintiffs' class allegations in their entirety as premature. On
March 21, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
held that arbitration should be compelled with one of the named
plaintiffs, who as a managing director was a party to an
arbitration agreement with the firm. On May 19, 2014, plaintiffs
moved for class certification.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Narrows Claims in Credit Derivatives Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the court
granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to
dismiss the credit derivatives antitrust matters.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) and Group Inc. are among the
numerous defendants in putative antitrust class actions relating
to credit derivatives, filed beginning in May 2013 and
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York. The complaints generally allege that defendants
violated federal antitrust laws by conspiring to forestall the
development of alternatives to OTC trading of credit derivatives
and to maintain inflated bid-ask spreads for credit derivatives
trading. The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief as
well as treble damages in an unspecified amount. On September 4,
2014, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants'
motion to dismiss, permitting the claim alleging an antitrust
conspiracy to proceed but confining it to a period after the fall
of 2008.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Plaintiffs in Commodities Suit Revise Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the remaining
plaintiffs in the commodities-related litigation filed proposed
amended complaints on October 9 and 10, 2014.

Group Inc. and its subsidiary, GS Power Holdings LLC (GS Power),
as well as Metro International Trade Services LLC (Metro), a
previously consolidated subsidiary of Group Inc. that was sold in
the fourth quarter of 2014, are among the defendants in a number
of putative class actions filed beginning on August 1, 2013 and
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York. The complaints generally allege violation of federal
antitrust laws and other federal and state laws in connection with
the management of aluminum storage facilities. The complaints seek
declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief as well as
unspecified monetary damages, including treble damages. On August
29, 2014, the court granted the Goldman Sachs defendants' motion
to dismiss. Certain plaintiffs appealed on September 24, 2014, and
the remaining plaintiffs filed proposed amended complaints on
October 9 and 10, 2014.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Defending Against Zinc Storage Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Group Inc., GS
Power Holdings LLC (GS Power), Metro International Trade Services
LLC (Metro), Goldman Sachs International (GSI) are among the
defendants named in putative class actions, filed beginning on May
23, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, based on similar alleged violations of the federal
antitrust laws in connection with the management of zinc storage
facilities.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Defending Against Platinum & Palladium Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Goldman Sachs
International (GSI) is among the defendants named in putative
class actions relating to trading in platinum and palladium, filed
beginning on November 25, 2014, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York. The complaints generally allege
that the defendants violated federal antitrust laws and the
Commodity Exchange Act in connection with an alleged conspiracy to
manipulate a benchmark for physical platinum and palladium prices
and seek declaratory and injunctive relief as well as treble
damages in an unspecified amount.


GOLDMAN SACHS: 2nd Amended Complaint Filed in ISDAFIX Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that plaintiffs filed
a second amended consolidated complaint in the ISDAFIX-Related
Litigation.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) is among the defendants named in
several putative class actions relating to trading in interest
rate derivatives, filed beginning in September 2014 in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
complaints generally allege that the defendants violated federal
antitrust laws and the Commodity Exchange Act in connection with
an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the ISDAFIX benchmark and seek
declaratory and injunctive relief as well as treble damages in an
unspecified amount. On December 12, 2014, defendants moved to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, and on February 12,
2015, the plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated
complaint.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Ruled on Bid to Dismiss in Currencies Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the court denied
defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated action and granted
defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint on behalf of
the non-U.S. plaintiffs in the Currencies-Related Litigation.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) and Group Inc. are among the
defendants named in several putative antitrust class actions
relating to trading in the foreign exchange markets, filed
beginning in December 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York. The complaints generally allege
that defendants violated federal antitrust laws in connection with
an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the foreign currency exchange
markets and seek declaratory and injunctive relief as well as
treble damages in an unspecified amount. On February 13, 2014, the
cases were consolidated into one action. On February 28, 2014,
Group Inc. was named in a separate putative class action on behalf
of non-U.S. plaintiffs containing substantially similar
allegations, which was not consolidated but was coordinated with
the other proceedings for pretrial purposes; that complaint was
amended on April 30, 2014. On January 28, 2015, the court denied
defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated action and granted
defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint on behalf of
the non-U.S. plaintiffs.


GUTHY-RENKER LLC: June 17 Deadline to File Bid for Class Cert.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The original putative class action complaint in the matter
captioned AMY FRIEDMAN and JUDI MILLER, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GUTHY-RENKER
LLC, Defendant, CASE NO. 2:14-CV-06009-ODW(AGRX), (C.D. Cal.) was
filed on July 31, 2014. On October 16, the parties stipulated to
an extension of time to file the First Amended Complaint and an
extension to file a class certification motion, with the
suggestion that a new timeline would be submitted to the Court
once it ruled on Guthy-Renker's imminent Motion to Dismiss.  On
October 17, 2014, the Court granted the joint stipulation and
instructed the parties to submit a proposed schedule regarding the
motion for class certification within ten days of the Court's
ruling on the Motion to Dismiss.  In granting the joint
stipulation, the Court waived the requirements of Local Rule 23-3
which requires the proponent of the class to file a motion for
certification "[w]ithin ninety days after service of a pleading
purporting to commence a class action."  On December 10, 2014,
Defendant Guthy-Renker LLC filed its Motion to Dismiss the First
Amended Complaint.

On February 27, 2015, the Court granted in part and denied in part
Guthy-Renker's Motion to Dismiss. On March 13, 2015, the parties
filed the pending Joint Stipulation regarding the class
certification deadlines, in compliance with the Court's October
17, 2014 Order.  In the Joint Stipulation, the parties request a
bifurcation of class certification and the merits, and propose a
December 18, 2015 deadline for Plaintiffs to file their motion for
class certification.

District Judge Otis D. Wright, II, in his order dated March 17,
2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/op2ZNsfrom
Leagle.com, rejected both proposals saying the proposed class
certification deadline is arbitrary and excessive, and the Court
sees no need to bifurcate the discovery in this matter.

Accordingly, the Court rejects the proposed timeline in the Joint
Stipulation, and the deadline to file a class certification is on
Wednesday, June 17, 2015.

Amy Friedman, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Tate Shippen-Murray,
Johnson and Johnson LLP, Brian W Warwick, Varnell and Warwick PA,
Janet R Varnell, Varnell and Warwick PA, William H Anderson, Cuneo
Gilbert and LaDuca LLP, Charles J LaDuca, Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca
LLP, Douglas L Johnson, Johnson and Johnson LLP, Neville Lawrence
Johnson, Johnson and Johnson LLP & Michael J Flannery, Cuneo
Gilbert and LaDuca LLP.

Judi Miller, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas L Johnson, Johnson
and Johnson LLP & Michael J Flannery, Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca
LLP.

Krystal Henry-McArthur, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas L
Johnson, Johnson and Johnson LLP & Michael J Flannery, Cuneo
Gilbert and LaDuca LLP.

Guthy-Renker LLC, Defendant, represented by David J Schindler,
Latham and Watkins LLP, Dina M Cox, Lewis Wagner LLP, Jonathan
Michael Jackson, Latham and Watkins LLP & Robert M Baker, IV,
Lewis Wagner LLP.


HALLIBURTON CO: Judge Denies Class Status to Property Owners Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brianna Bailey, writing for NewsOK, reports that a federal judge
in Oklahoma City has denied class-action status to a group of
Duncan property owners who are suing Halliburton after pollution
from rocket fuel seeped into the groundwater in their
neighborhood.

The property owners in the north Duncan neighborhood contend
Halliburton is liable for damages after ammonium perchlorate
contamination from Cold War-era defense contract work was
discovered in residential water wells in the area.  A separate
class of property owners where high levels of perchlorate were not
found claimed the value of their property has been threatened by
the proximity to the groundwater pollution.

In a nine-page order handed down on March 3, U.S. District Judge
Vicki Miles-LaGrange ruled that Halliburton's liability to each
property owner should be determined as an individual case and not
as a class.

Showing how each owner was damaged by Halliburton would be a
"highly individualized determination requiring each plaintiff to
show that his property contains perchlorate and that the
perchlorate came from the site and not from some other source,"
Miles-LaGrange said in the ruling. ". . . Simply put, the
individual issues would dwarf whatever common issues there may be,
such that a vast array of mini-trials would be required for each
class member if certification were granted."

The lawsuit, McCormick et al v. Halliburton Company et al, is one
of several pending lawsuits that Halliburton faces after
perchlorate pollution was found in 28 residential water wells on
the north side of Duncan in the area around Osage Road.

"Halliburton is pleased with the Court's denial of class
certification in this case," Susie McMichael, a spokeswoman for
Halliburton said in an email.  The company declined to comment
further because the litigation is ongoing.

The ruling essentially means that property owners who believe they
have been damaged by the perchlorate pollution and have not yet
filed a claim against Halliburton will now have a limited amount
of time to do so on their own, said attorney Todd Ommen, an
attorney from the firm Weitz & Luxenberg who represents some of
the homeowners.

The property owners could still decide to appeal the judge's
ruling.

"That is one of the options we are considering," Mr. Ommen said.

In 2011, Halliburton disclosed that it had found ammonium
perchlorate in residential water wells around its closed plant in
north Duncan, where the company had carried out Cold War-era
defense contract work to clean fuel from spent missile casings.
Ash from the burned rocket fuel waste was stored in an evaporation
pond on the site that was unlined until the late 1980s, records
show.

Residents file several lawsuits against Halliburton, claiming the
company knew about the contamination at Osage Road for years, but
failed to warn residents or conduct adequate water testing.
Halliburton pays to have bottled water delivered to residents in
affected areas and paid $2.5 million to extend a city water line
to areas where testing showed perchlorate in residential water
wells.  The company said in a 2012 regulatory filing that it had
spent more than $25 million in its initial response to the
problems on Osage Road.


HIKO ENERGY: "Bogdanski" Suit Moved From Pennsylvania to New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Bogdanski v. HIKO Energy, LLC,
Case No. 3:14-cv-01948, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (White Plains).  The
New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 7:15-cv-02024-CS
to the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts claims for breach of contract.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Michelle R. O'Brien, Esq.
          THE O'BRIEN LAW GROUP LLC
          4099 Birney Avenue
          Moosic, PA 18507
          Telephone: (570) 209-7901
          E-mail: mobrien@theobrienlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Richard Greenfield, Esq.
          GREENFIELD & GOODMAN LLC
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (917) 495-4446
          E-mail: whitehatrdg@earthlink.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ginene A. Lewis, Esq.
          DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
          One Logan Square, Suite 2000
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 988-2707
          E-mail: ginene.lewis@dbr.com

               - and -

          Vincent E. Gentile, Esq.
          DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
          105 College Road East
          P.O. Box 627
          Princetonille, NJ 08542
          Telephone: (609) 716-6500
          Facsimile: (609) 799-7000
          E-mail: vincent.gentile@dbr.com

               - and -

          Motty Shulman, Esq.
          William Marsillo, Esq.
          Andrew J. Dressel, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP (ARMONK)
          333 Main Street
          Armonk, NY 10504
          Telephone: (914) 749-8244
          Fax: (914) 749-8300
          E-mail: mshulman@bsfllp.com
                  wmarsillo@bsfllp.com
                  adressel@bsfllp.com


HITACHI-LG DATA: Settlement Hearing Scheduled for May 14
--------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA

If You Directly Bought An Optical Disk Drive Or An Optical
Disk Drive Device, A Class Action Settlement May Affect You.
Optical Disk Drive Devices include devices incorporating Optical
Disk Drives such as desktop computers, mobile/laptop computers,
videogame consoles, CD players/recorders, DVD players/recorders,
and Blu-Ray disc players/recorders.

A Federal Court authorized this Notice. This is not a solicitation
from a lawyer.

Why did I get this notice? You or your company may have directly
purchased an Optical Disk Drive or an Optical Disk Drive Device
between January 1, 2004 - December 31, 2011.  A direct purchaser
is a person or business who bought an Optical Disk Drive or an
Optical Disk Drive Device directly from one or more of the
Defendants, affiliates, or subsidiaries.  A direct purchaser is
NOT a person or company who purchased an Optical Disk Drive or an
Optical Disk Drive Device from a wholesaler or a retail store.  If
you are a direct purchaser, you have the right to know about the
litigation and about your legal rights and options.  The Court in
charge of the case is the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, and the case is called In re
Optical Disk Drive Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2143.  The people
who sued are called Plaintiffs and the companies they sued are
called Defendants.

On October 3, 2014 the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, and Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Permission to
Appeal Pursuant to Rule 23(f).  On January 14, 2015 the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals denied Plaintiffs' petition for
permission to appeal the order denying class certification.

Some Defendants in the Direct Purchaser Optical Disk Drive
Antitrust Litigation have settled their claims ("Settling
Defendants").  A settlement was reached with Hitachi-LG Data
Storage, Inc., Hitachi-LG Data Storage Korea, Inc., LG
Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics USA, and Hitachi, Ltd.
(collectively, "HLDS") for $26,000,000.  The HLDS settlement
released claims asserted in the Second Consolidated Direct
Purchaser Class Action Complaint.  Subsequently, a settlement was
reached with Panasonic Corporation and Panasonic Corporation of
North America (collectively, "Panasonic") for $5,750,000.
Finally, a settlement was reached with NEC Corporation ("NEC") for
$6,000,000 (plus up to an additional $150,000 for notice costs).
The Panasonic and NEC settlements released claims asserted in the
Third Consolidated Direct Purchaser Class Action Complaint.  The
Court has finally approved each of the settlements with Settling
Defendants and the settlement proceeds are ready to be distributed
to qualified claimants.  A proof of claim form has been approved
by the Court.  All Claim Forms must be postmarked or submitted
online no later than June 22, 2015.  Claims may be submitted
online at www.ODDDirectPurchaserAntitrustSettlement.com
Additional Claim Forms may be obtained at
www.ODDDirectPurchaserAntitrustSettlement.com  by calling
1-888-270-0759, or writing to ODD Direct Settlement, P.O. Box
808054, Petaluma, CA 94975-8054.  Please do not contact the Court
about claim administration.

Class Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Incentive
Awards is on file with the Court and available at
www.ODDDirectPurchaserAntitrustSettlement.com
Class Counsel have asked the Court for attorneys' fees not
exceeding one-third (33.3%) of the Settlement Fund plus
reimbursement of their costs and expenses, in accordance with the
provisions of the Settlement Agreements.  Class Counsel have also
asked for incentive awards for the named plaintiffs.  The Court
has set a hearing on Class Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees,
Costs, and Incentive Awards for May 14, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. in
Courtroom 3.  Any comments or objections to Plaintiffs Motion for
Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Incentive Awards must be filed with
the Court (Honorable Richard Seeborg, United States District
Court, Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue,
Courtroom 3, 17th floor, San Francisco, CA 94102) on or before
April 13, 2015.

Dated: March 23, 2015
BY ORDER OF THE COURT

For More Information: Call 1-888-270-0759 or Visit
www.ODDDirectPurchaserAntitrustSettlement.com

CLAIMS MAY BE FILED ONLINE AT
www.ODDDirectPurchaserAntitrustSettlement.com


INDIANA: Class Action Over BMV Overcharges Heads to Mediation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Evans, writing for Indystar, reports that a second class-
action lawsuit alleging the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles
overcharged Hoosier motorists millions of dollars is headed toward
mediation.

In a similar lawsuit filed in 2013, the BMV agreed to refund $30
million to drivers it overcharged for operator's licenses -- and
also acknowledged it had overcharged Hoosiers an additional $29
million due to mistakes in calculating motor vehicle excise taxes.

The BMV is repaying those overcharges through refunds and credits.

The second lawsuit, also filed in 2013, alleges the BMV owes
motorists for even more overcharges -- possibly as much as $38
million more.  The excessive fees, the lawsuit contends, may go as
far back as 2002.

A joint notice of mediation in that lawsuit was filed on March 4
by attorneys for the BMV and motorists challenging the alleged
overcharges.

John L. Krauss, an adjunct professor at the Indiana University
Robert H. McKinney School of Law in Indianapolis, said he could
not comment on specifics of the BMV case.  In general, he said, a
move to mediations is "a healthy sign" but does not guarantee a
settlement is imminent.

"It is a sign that the parties would like to sit down and try to
craft some possible options and see if any of them would be
acceptable to both sides," Mr. Krauss said.

Refunds, accounting sought

Mr. Krauss added that mediation is a voluntary process and any
potential settlement agreement would have to be approved by the
court.

The case had been set for a bench trial June 1 before Marion
Superior Judge James Osborn, but that trial date was vacated after
the mediation notice was filed.

A BMV spokesman directed The Star to Indianapolis attorney Carl
Hayes, who is defending the agency in the lawsuit, for comment.

"We're always interested in any solution that makes sense for the
taxpayers of Indiana," said Mr. Hayes, who is with the law firm
Bingham Greenebaum Doll.

Scott Gilchrist -- sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com -- an attorney
with Cohen & Malad, the Indianapolis law firm that filed the
lawsuit in October 2013, said his policy is to not comment on
cases scheduled for mediation.

The pending lawsuit asks the BMV to refund millions for
overcharges on a variety of fees and services.  It also asks for a
full accounting of all overcharges and access to public records
that could reveal how long BMV had known about the overcharges.

Agency shakeup

The latest action in the case comes a month after Gov. Mike Pence
announced a major leadership shakeup at the BMV -- and that the
troubled agency revealed yet another $2 million in mistaken taxes
and fees.

Pence named Kent Abernathy, formerly chief of staff at the Indiana
Department of Environmental Management, to replace BMV
Commissioner Don Snemis.  Mr. Snemis was moved to a new position
as special counsel for program integrity at the state's Family and
Social Services Administration.

The leadership change came as the BMV acknowledged overcharging
nearly 30,000 customers a total of about $2 million over six
years.  The mistaken charges involved delinquent fees for mobile
and manufactured home titles, reinstatement fees paid by people
who later proved they had insurance and other miscellaneous taxes
and fees.

The BMV plans to issue refunds or credits to affected customers.

In announcing the appointment of Abernathy last month, Pence
warned that an ongoing BMV review by accounting firm BKD could
trigger additional refunds in the future.

"I want to emphasize," the governor said, "there will likely be
more to come."

Beyond the leadership change, Pence announced a number of other
steps his administration is taking in an effort to fix the BMV's
financial mistakes.  The changes include creating an internal BMV
audit group made up of BMV employees, auditors from the State
Board of Accounts and representatives from the state technology
department.


JUST ENERGY: Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Overtime Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Flood, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Just Energy Marketing Corp., Just Energy New York
Corp. and Just Energy Group, Inc., Case No. 7:15-cv-02012-NSR
(S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2015) seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages
and overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.

Ontario-based Just Energy Group, Inc., is a Canadian for-profit
corporation doing business in New York.  Just Energy Marketing
Corp. and Just Energy New York Corp. are Delaware for-profit
corporations doing business in New York and are subsidiaries of
Just Energy Group.  The Defendants market and sell natural gas and
electricity supply to residential and commercial customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Catherine Elizabeth Anderson, Esq.
          GISKAN, SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON & STEWART, LLP
          11 Broadway, Suite 2150
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 847-8315
          Facsimile: (646) 520-3236
          E-mail: canderson@gslawny.com


LENOVO US: Weitz & Luxenberg Files Class Action Over Malware
------------------------------------------------------------
New York-based Weitz & Luxenberg P.C. on March 4 announced the
filing of a class action lawsuit against Lenovo and Superfish for
a recent case of laptop security failings.  The suit was filed in
response to the growing concern over computer manufacturer
Lenovo's inclusion of Superfish "malware" on laptops purchased
after Sept. 1, 2014.

In January 2015, a security expert discovered that Superfish's
VisualDiscovery software had been installed on Lenovo laptops
before they were shipped out to customers.  This software has
security defects that endanger all communications made on the
affected laptops.

According to published reports, more than just a few models are
affected. Laptops purchased after Sept. 1, 2014 and during
Feb. 2015 may all contain this damaging software.  The models
containing Superfish include the Lenovo G, U, Y, Z, S, Flex, MIIX,
YOGA, and E series.

As Robin L. Greenwald, head of Weitz & Luxenberg's Environmental,
Toxic Tort & Consumer Protection Unit explained, "Lenovo sold you
a laptop that you thought you could trust to protect confidential
internet communications.  But Lenovo didn't care about your
security; instead, it cared about exploiting you and helping
advertisers promote their products.  By doing so, Lenovo and
Superfish exposed you to a serious security risk."

How Superfish Causes a Security Risk:

It has been announced in news reports that hackers can use Wi-Fi
networks, which are found across the U.S. in many public places --
including coffee shops, restaurants and bars -- to hack into your
computer.  The Superfish software is what allows them in,
according to Weitz & Luxenberg.

Once these thieves access your computer, they can capture any data
you have stored on it.  This gives them possible access to your
passwords, bank account numbers, tax records and any other private
information, according to industry reports.

The hackers then can use the information themselves to open credit
card or cell phone accounts in your name, file false tax returns
in your name, or sell your information on the black market to
others who will do so.

Christopher Dalbey, an attorney with Weitz & Luxenberg, explained,
"Lenovo's actions are also reprehensible because it installed
software that allows hackers to easily mimic the look and feel of
other companies' secure websites."

Mr. Dalbey emphasized, "You think that you're visiting a website
for your bank, but instead the software tricks you into giving up
personal and private information.  And that software is installed
on your own computer by a manufacturer you trusted."

Lenovo explained the inclusion of this malware as an attempt to
improve the advertising experience for its customers.  The company
claimed not to have realized that the software gives Superfish
access to all of a customer's online communications and enables
hackers to easily spy on customers, according to news outlets.

Join Our Class Action Against Lenovo:

The attorneys at Weitz & Luxenberg believe that you have certain
privacy rights that are safeguarded by federal and state laws.
These include the federal wiretapping statute and state laws about
deceptive trade practices, breach of implied warranty and
fraudulent concealment.  And at least one state has an anti-
spyware law.

The firm believes that the evidence indicates that Lenovo
knowingly violated those rights.  Therefore, both Lenovo and
Superfish should be held accountable and people who have been
damaged should receive compensation.

W&L invites anyone who has purchased a Lenovo laptop during this
time period to reach out to us to discuss joining our class action
lawsuit.

"Lenovo put your security and privacy at risk, and you deserve to
be compensated for that," affirms Ms. Greenwald.  "Big
corporations must learn that they cannot take advantage of people.
And if they do so, they will be held accountable for it."

                    About Weitz & Luxenberg

Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. -- http://www.weitzlux.com/-- is a
personal injury and consumer protection law firm.  Weitz &
Luxenberg's numerous litigation areas include mesothelioma,
defective medicine and devices, environmental pollutants, consumer
protection, accidents, personal injury, and medical malpractice.
Victims of corporate wrongdoing are invited to rely on Weitz &
Luxenberg's more than 25 years of experience handling such cases.


LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: To Oppose 2nd Amended Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ligand Pharmaceuticals Incorporated plans to oppose within the
first quarter of 2015 a second amended complaint to be filed in a
securities litigation, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

On June 8, 2012, a federal securities class action and shareholder
derivative lawsuit was filed in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania against Genaera Corporation and its officers,
directors, major shareholders and trustee ("Genaera Defendants")
for allegedly breaching their fiduciary duties to Genaera
shareholders. The lawsuit also names the Company and its CEO as
additional defendants for allegedly aiding and abetting the
Genaera Defendants' various breaches of fiduciary duties based on
the Company's purchase of a licensing interest in a development-
stage pharmaceutical drug program from the Genaera Liquidating
Trust in May 2010 and the Company's subsequent sale of half of its
interest in the transaction to Biotechnology Value Fund, Inc.

Following an amendment to the complaint and a round of motions to
dismiss, the court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice
on August 12, 2013. The plaintiff appealed that dismissal on
September 10, 2013, and the Third Circuit reversed on October 17,
2014.  The plaintiff has indicated that he intends to move to file
a second amended complaint, which the Company plans to oppose
within the first quarter of 2015.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against the
claims against the Company and its CEO. Due to the complex nature
of the legal and factual issues involved, however, the outcome of
this matter is not presently determinable.


LITTON LOAN: Perryman Case Stayed Pending Settlement Proceedings
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar signed on March 12, 2015, a joint
stipulation in the case captioned MARGO PERRYMAN individually, and
for other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LITTON LOAN
SERVICING, LP; OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC; SOUTHWEST BUSINESS
CORPORATION; AMERICAN SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN MODERN
HOME INSURANCE COMPANY; ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO SOLUTIONS, S.A.; and
DOES 4-100, Defendants, CASE NO. 3:14-CV-02261-JST, (N.D. Cal.).

The joint stipulation provides that the case will be stayed
against defendant Beltline Road Insurance Agency, Inc. and
specially appearing defendant Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A.
pending resolution of settlement proceedings in Lee v. Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC.

Defendants Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (Ocwen) and American Security
Insurance Company (ASIC) executed on December 18, 2014, a
settlement agreement in the case Lee v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC,
No. 0:14-CV-60649, pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida, which, if approved, will release
Plaintiff's claims, and the claims of the classes she seeks to
represent, against Altisource and Beltline in this case. On
January 23, 2015, the Lee court entered an order preliminarily
approving the Settlement.

The current response, reply, and hearing dates for Altisource's
pending motion to dismiss and Beltline's pending motion to stay
are vacated.

If the Lee Court denies final approval, Altisource will have 14
days after the date final approval is denied to respond to
Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

A copy of the court-approved stipulation is available at
http://is.gd/4SGsU1from Leagle.com.

Barry Himmelstein, HIMMELSTEIN LAW NETWORK, Emeryville, CA, Sheri
L. Kelly, LAW OFFICE OF SHERI L. KELLY, San Jose, CA, Attorneys
for Plaintiff Margo Perryman.

David W. Moon, STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN, Attorneys for Defendants
ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO SOLUTIONS, S.A., and BELTLINE ROAD INSURANCE
AGENCY, INC.


LMS CONCEPTS: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Texas Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kassie J. Rehmert v. LMS Concepts, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00131
(S.D. Tex., March 18, 2015) alleges that the Defendant violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay the Plaintiff, a
nonexempt employee, at one and one half times her regular rate of
pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per each seven-day
workweek.

LMS Concepts, Inc. operates residential group homes in Corpus
Christi, Texas, serving the intellectually disabled, and is doing
business in Nueces County, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gay E. Gilson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF GAY E. GILSON
          5525 S. Staples, Suite 3B
          Corpus Christi, TX 78411
          Telephone: (361) 887-0552
          Facsimile: (210) 887-0554
          E-mail: gegilson@gilsonlaw.com

               - and -

          Adriaan T. Jansse, Esq.
          THE JANSSE LAW FIRM
          8438 Fountain Circle
          San Antonio, TX 78229
          Telephone: (210) 595-8665
          Facsimile: (210) 592-1793
          E-mail: aj@janssemoore.com


LOS ANGELES, CA: DWP Sued Over Botched Computer System Rollout
--------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Saillant, writing for The Los Angeles Times, reports
that the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power lost up to $88
million in commercial billings because of the botched rollout of a
computer billing system, city lawyers said March 6.

The news that tens of millions of dollars in revenue went
uncollected at the city-owned utility came as City Atty. Mike
Feuer announced he was suing PricewaterhouseCoopers, the
consultant hired to oversee the launch of the complex system.  The
$70-million billing program had been touted as a major initiative
to streamline the ratepayer experience and increase efficiency by
integrating a variety of functions, including service calls and
billings.

But it didn't work, Mr. Feuer said, and the DWP spent an
additional $41 million trying to correct problems.  Among those
were customers receiving highly inflated, error-filled bills.
Most of the breakdowns have been fixed, Chief Deputy City Atty.
Jim Clark said, adding that the utility still appears to be losing
an undetermined amount of money because of the troubles.

After the system was activated in September 2013, DWP customers
flooded the utility with complaints about delayed or incorrectly
estimated bills and late notices.  The telephone call volumes were
so high that some customers had to wait on hold for up to 40
minutes. The backlog got so bad that the DWP added a voice message
advising customers to try again during off-hours.

A 57-page complaint alleges that PricewaterhouseCoopers breached
its contract and fraudulently misrepresented how it could help the
city implement the new system. Cleveland Water, another municipal
utility, encountered similar problems when it hired
PricewaterhouseCoopers to integrate new billing software, but the
accounting firm concealed that fact from Los Angeles officials,
the lawsuit alleges.

"The city of Los Angeles is out tens of millions, perhaps hundreds
of millions of dollars," Mr. Feuer told the press gathering.
"Today we are here to get it back."

An outside counsel for PricewaterhouseCoopers called the lawsuit
"meritless."

Daniel J. Thomasch -- dthomasch@gibsondunn.com -- of Gibson, Dunn
& Crutcher, said the lawsuit is an attempt by the DWP "to shift
blame . . . for its self-inflicted billing problems."  Mr.
Thomasch said the DWP "acknowledged in writing last year that
[PricewaterhouseCoopers] fulfilled each one of its contractual
obligations" and it paid the firm in full.

"We will defend [the firm's] excellent work and this case
vigorously," he said.

Mr. Feuer told reporters that the DWP was not able to bill 40,000
of its 400,000 commercial customers for up to eight months,
resulting in losses of $11 million a month.  That doesn't include
potential losses incurred from botched residential billings, he
said.

In November, DWP chief Marcie Edwards released a consultant's
report blaming the rocky transition on poor management, an
underprepared workforce and a decision to move forward despite
warnings that the system wasn't ready.  Ms. Edwards, hired by
Mayor Eric Garcetti after the rollout debacle, paid Texas-based
TMG Consulting to prepare the report and asked a senior manager,
Randy Howard, to present it to DWP commissioners.

"There's overwhelming evidence that we weren't ready to go live,
and yet the department made the decision to go live," Mr. Howard
told commissioners at the November meeting.

When Mr. Feuer was asked about the November report, and whether it
opened the city up to a countersuit by PricewaterhouseCoopers, he
responded: "Bring it on."

Ms. Edwards on March 6 acknowledged the lawsuit's filing and
sought to assure the public that the utility will continue to fix
problem billings.  The utility has hired more than 200 customer
service representatives and meter readers to address incorrect
billings based on estimated meter readings, Ms. Edwards said.  It
has also reduced average call wait times from 35 minutes to five
minutes, she said.

"We have made tremendous progress and appreciate the action by the
city attorney today," she said.

Three class-action lawsuits have been filed against the DWP on
behalf of ratepayers who may have received incorrect billings.
Those suits are ongoing, Mr. Feuer said.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Laminate Flooring Class Action in Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zachary Fagenson, writing for Reuters, reports that a $5 million
class-action lawsuit filed in Florida accuses hardwood and
laminate flooring giant Lumber Liquidators, Inc of selling
products laden with cancer-causing chemicals.

The case, filed on March 3 in federal court in Miami, claims the
company "deceptively manufactured, labeled and sold the toxic
laminate flooring."

A similar lawsuit was filed late last year in California.

U.S. Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, the ranking Democrat on the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, called
on federal agencies on March 4 to investigate the Delaware-based
company's flooring.

"Because this could affect millions of homeowners, it's imperative
we get some answers quickly," Mr. Nelson said.

His statement followed a report on March 1 on CBS' "60 Minutes"
that found high levels of the carcinogen formaldehyde in the
lumber company's products.

The report sampled Chinese-made laminate flooring sold in
California, Virginia, Florida, Texas, and Illinois.  Out of 31
samples, CBS found only one was compliant with California
formaldehyde emissions standards.

Lumber Liquidators representatives could not immediately be
reached for comment.  The company has disputed the network's
testing methods and said it complies with U.S. emissions
regulations.

In the Southern District of Florida the case is number 1:15-cv-
20876, Joaquin F. Badias vs. Lumber Liquidators, Inc. et al.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Laminate Flooring Class Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Geiger, writing for Richmond Times-Dispatch, reports that a
California couple want Lumber Liquidators to stop selling laminate
flooring in that state and to pay damages to people who bought the
company's products in the past four years.

John and Tracie-Linn Tyrrell filed a lawsuit in federal court in
California on March 5 and are seeking class-action status.  If
their request is granted, all customers who bought laminate
flooring in California during the past four years could be covered
by the lawsuit.  They are seeking an injunction that would
prohibit the company from selling certain types of its laminate
flooring in California. The Tyrrells also want to be repaid for
the cost of the flooring and to receive payment for damages.

"Based on lawsuits, articles and blog posts, (Lumber Liquidators)
knew or should have known that its laminate wood flooring products
were not compliant with (California emissions) standards," the
lawsuit said.  "Despite this knowledge, defendant failed to
reformulate its flooring products so that they are compliant or to
disclose to consumers that these products emit unlawful levels of
formaldehyde."

Lumber Liquidators said in a statement on March 6 that it believes
the lawsuit mirrors similar accusations made by the company's
opponents.

"We are currently reviewing the allegations contained in this
lawsuit," the company said.  "It appears that many of the claims
mimic contentions raised in a separate suit that was filed by a
law firm that also represents a short-seller, which looks to
benefit from decreases in our stock price, in another action
against us.  We believe in the safety of our products and intend
to defend this suit vigorously."

The lawsuit quotes articles written by short sellers -- investors
who have made bets that Lumber Liquidators stock would decline in
value.  It also quotes extensively from a "60 Minutes" segment
that aired on March 1.

The CBS report alleged Lumber Liquidators sold laminate flooring
made in China that exceeds California standards for formaldehyde
emissions.  Formaldehyde, a carcinogen, is used in some glues in
the flooring. It can cause certain cancers and respiratory issues
when inhaled in unsafe levels.

The Toano-based specialty retailer of hardwood flooring, which has
a large distribution center in eastern Henrico County, said on
March 2 in a regulatory filing that it had contacted its Chinese
suppliers and that those suppliers said products sold to Lumber
Liquidators met the required environmental standards.

"We believe that '60 Minutes' used an improper test method in its
reporting that is not included in California regulations and does
not measure a product according to how it is actually used by
consumers," the company said in the filing.  "We stand by every
single plank of wood and laminate we sell all around the country."
The lawsuit claims John Tyrrell began "experiencing symptoms that
include extreme shortness of breath, weakness, fatigue, and
incessant coughing and sneezing," shortly after he and his son-in-
law installed the laminate flooring.  "Despite repeated medical
tests, his doctors have not been able to identify the cause of
these symptoms."

Shares of Lumber Liquidators have shed about half their value
since the company first warned that it would be the subject of a
"60 Minutes" report.


MERRILL LYNCH: Former Trainees File Overtime Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Chris Isidore, writing for CNNMoney, reports that two former
trainees of Merrill Lynch have filed a federal suit charging the
Wall Street firm with violating federal overtime laws.

Andrew Blum and Zaq Harrison, who both worked for the firm from
2011 to 2012, say they regularly worked 10 to 12 hour days and
more than five days a week.  But they say that neither of them,
nor any of the other trainees in the program, were paid overtime.
The suit seeks to be granted class action status on behalf of
other trainees whom it argues should also have been paid overtime.
According to Merrill Lynch's web site, the trainee program
prepares employees to become financial advisers with the firm.  It
can last for three years and promises a "rewarding compensation
structure that includes salary, bonuses and incentive payouts."

Under federal law, overtime pay is due to non-management hourly
workers who work more than 40 hours a week.  But salaried workers
who earn more than $455 a week are not promised overtime under
current federal law. That works out to $23,660 a year.

The trainee complaint did not specify what their annual salaries
were.

The Obama administration has proposed raising the minimum salary
above which OT is not guaranteed.

Merrill Lynch and Bank of America (BAC), which owns the firm, will
not comment on the suit, according to spokesman Bill Halldin.


METRIC PRECISION: Faces Wage Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Harding, writing for Law360, reports that a former Metric
Precision and Engineering LLC employee accused the aerospace and
defense manufacturer of violating California labor laws by
requiring employees to work at least five minutes past their shift
without pay, according to a recent class action filed in
California state court.

Jorge A. Monterosa, who worked for Metric Precision from April
2006 until March 2014, accused the company on March 3 of failing
to pay wages for all time worked at minimum wage, failing to pay
overtime, failing to provide second meal periods or third rest
periods and other violations of the state's labor laws.  Metric
Precision, now known as AMG Torrance, manufactures parts for fixed
and rotary winged aircraft.

Mr. Monterosa said he and other hourly nonexempt employees
regularly had to stay at least five minutes after the end of their
shift to explain to employees on the next shift what work had to
be done, the complaint said.

"Defendants suffered, permitted and required hourly non-exempt
employees to be subject to defendants' control for at least five
minutes at the end of each work period without paying wages for
that time," the complaint said.  "This resulted in hourly
employees working time for which they were not compensated any
wages."

The complaint also claimed that Metric Precision failed to provide
second meal periods when employees worked more than 10 hours, as
required by California law, or third rest periods.

"If the employees worked shifts between 10 and 14 hours in length,
defendants did not authorize or permit and therefore failed to
provide a third rest period of ten net minutes," the complaint
said.

The cost of work uniforms was also deducted from every bi-weekly
paycheck Mr. Monterosa received, the suit said.  The deduction
violates California labor law that requires employers to indemnify
employees from necessary expenditures incurred during the duties
of the employees, according to the suit.

"Moreover, an employer is prohibited from passing the ordinary
business expenses and losses of the employer onto the employee,"
it said.

Mr. Monterosa also accused Metric Precision of failing to pay for
all accrued time off, to provide accurate and complete wage
statements and to timely provide all earned wages and final
paychecks upon separation.

Mr. Monterosa seeks to include all current or former hourly,
nonexempt employees in the suit, although the complaint said it's
unclear how many people that would entail.  A class action would
give class members the anonymity some may feel they need in suing
an employer, the complaint said.

"Current employees often are afraid to assert their rights out of
fear of direct or indirect retaliation" the complaint said.
"Former employees fear bringing actions because they perceive
their former employers can blacklist them in their future
endeavors with negative references and by other means."

A representative with AMG Torrance and Mr. Monterosa's attorney
did not immediately return a message seeking comment.

Jorge A. Monterosa is represented by Joseph Lavi of Lavi &
Ebrahimian LLP.

Counsel information for the defendants was not immediately
available.

The case is Jorge A Monterosa VS Metric Precision Machine &
Engineering, case number BC574447, in the Superior Court of
California for the County of Los Angeles.


MICHIGAN: Bradford-Bey's Motions for Class Cert., TRO Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
Leonard Bradford-Bey, a prisoner under the control of the Michigan
Department of Corrections (MDOC), filed the lawsuit captioned
LEONARD BRADFORD, # 131806, a/k/a LEONARD BRADFORD-BEY, Plaintiff,
v. DANIEL HEYNES, et al., Defendants, NO. 1:14-CV-679, (W.D.
Mich.) in which he alleges violations of his religious freedoms.
The Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, a motion for
reconsideration, and a motion for a temporary restraining order
and a preliminary injunction.

The Plaintiff, however, did not file a motion for class
certification with the complaint. Approximately four weeks after
the complaint was filed, Magistrate Judge Phillip J. Green issued
an order denying class certification.  Four weeks later, the
Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification and a motion for
reconsideration of the order denying class certification. The
magistrate judge recommended denying both because, as an
incarcerated, pro se plaintiff, he is not an appropriate
representative of a class. A copy of the report and recommendation
is available at http://is.gd/qHsF0Mfrom leagle.com.  The
Plaintiff has not objected to this conclusion.  Therefore, any
objection Plaintiff has to the recommendations concerning the
complaint moving forward as a class action are waived.

"On this issue, the report and recommendation is adopted as the
opinion of this Court," ruled Chief District Judge Paul L. Maloney
in his March 17, 2015 order, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/Ebn0INfrom Leagle.com.

Having adopted the report and recommendation as the opinion of the
District Court, the Plaintiffs' motions are denied, ruled Judge
Maloney.

Leonard Bradford, plaintiff, Pro Se.

Daniel Heyns, defendant, represented by Cori Eve Barkman, MI Dept
Attorney General.

Michael Martin, defendant, represented by Cori Eve Barkman, MI
Dept Attorney General.

Unknown Wilcoxson-Bey, defendant, Pro Se.

John Prelesnik, defendant, represented by Cori Eve Barkman, MI
Dept Attorney General.

G. Wyma, defendant, represented by Cori Eve Barkman, MI Dept
Attorney General.

Unknown Pattison, defendant, represented by Cori Eve Barkman, MI
Dept Attorney General.

C. Stoddard, defendant, represented by Cori Eve Barkman, MI Dept
Attorney General.


NESTLE PURINA: Class Action Over Dog Treats Can Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Dye, writing for Reuters, reports that a U.S. appeals
court will let a class action proceed in Missouri state court over
allegedly tainted Nestle Purina Petcare dog treats, after ruling
that a federal judge had improperly stayed the state action as
part of a nationwide settlement in a parallel suit.

A unanimous three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals on March 2 said the Missouri case was "free to proceed"
despite an injunction in the national settlement that prohibits
class members from pursuing litigation about the dog treats in
other courts.


NEW ALBERTSON'S: Faces Class Action Over Coupon Sales Tax
---------------------------------------------------------
Catherine A. Battin, Esq. and Matthew Boch, Esq., of McDermott
Will & Emery LLP, report that a class action complaint was filed
in federal court against New Albertson's, Inc. the operator of the
Jewel-Osco grocery chain, alleging failure to deduct
manufacturers' coupons from the tax base on which sales tax was
calculated and collected from customers.  Wong v. New Albertson's
Inc. d/b/a Jewel-Osco, no. 1:15-cv-01732 (N.D. Ill.).  This latest
attack on a retailer relies on an interpretation of a Department
of Revenue regulation that, if correct, would be overly burdensome
on Illinois retailers.  Other Illinois retailers that accept
manufacturers' coupons may be at risk of being sued in similar
actions or may be forced to change their practices.

The Illinois sales tax, the Retailers' Occupation Tax, is a tax on
a retailer's gross receipts.  Store coupons, where a retailer does
not receive reimbursement from another party, constitute a
reduction in a retailer's gross receipts and therefore reduce the
tax owed. 86 Ill. Admin. Code 130.2125(b)(1).  Manufacturers'
coupons, on the other hand, involve reimbursement to a retailer
from a third party. This reimbursement constitutes taxable gross
receipts. 86 Ill. Admin. Code 130.2025(b)(2).  As such,
manufacturers' coupons do not decrease the amount of Retailers'
Occupation Tax owed by the retailer.

An Illinois retailer collects Use Tax from its customer as
reimbursement for its Retailers' Occupation Tax. See 35 ILCS
105/3-45; 86 Ill. Admin. Code 130.101(d).  The difficulty with
manufacturers' coupons is that the customer has not paid the
entire amount of the retailer's receipts on which Retailers'
Occupation Tax is due.  The Department's regulation addresses the
issue by calling for the customer to assume liability for Use Tax
in the fine print of the coupon:

Technically, the coupon issuer . . . owes the corresponding Use
Tax on the value of the coupon.  However, in many cases, the
coupon issuer incorporates language into the coupon that requires
the bearer . . . to assume this Use Tax liability.  86 Ill. Admin.
Code 130.2025(b)(2).

The theory of the complaint is that the coupon did not contain
this language shifting the Use Tax liability, and therefore it was
improper of the retailer to collect tax on the coupon amount.  If
the class action attorneys' theory is correct, store clerks would
be expected to carefully read the fine print of each and every
coupon that customers present.  Surely, the Department of Revenue
could not have intended such a result.  The complaint seeks
compensatory damages, punitive damages of at least 1 percent of
the revenue from Illinois stores during years in which violations
occurred, and fees and costs. Other retailers may risk similar
suits and should consider seeking clarity from the Department of
Revenue.


NEW YORK: More Police Officers Join Quota Punishment Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Antennuci and Dana Sauchelli, writing for New York Post,
report that more than a dozen additional police officers have
sought to join a class-action lawsuit against the NYPD for
allegedly discriminating against black and Hispanic cops who fall
short of arrest and ticket quotas in minority neighborhoods.

Lawyer Emeka Nwokoro said on March 4 that 15 more cops stepped up
after The Post on March 2 revealed the claims that officers face
retribution if they don't make at least one arrest and issue 20
summonses a month.

"These are minority police officers walking in minority areas and
they are being pressured by their white superiors to basically get
more arrests," Ms. Nwokoro said.  "When they don't do it, they get
punished by the NYPD."

Ms. Nwokoro said the additional cops will be evaluated before
determining if they will become plaintiffs.


NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals Court Reverses Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Greenwald, writing for Business Insurance, reports that a
federal appeals court on March 4 reversed a ruling that had
established a class action in a discrimination case involving
telecommunications firm Nextel Communications Inc.

In the complex litigation, New York law firm Leeds, Morelli &
Brown P.C., which represented 587 plaintiffs with discrimination
claims against Reston, Virginia-based Nextel, had agreed with
Nextel to set up a dispute resolution process to settle all claims
without going to court, according to the unanimous ruling by the
2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York in Michael S.
Johnson et al. v. Nextel Communications Inc.

After most of the cases were settled through the out-of-court
process, a group sued both the law firm and Nextel on behalf of
the entire class. The suit alleged breach of fiduciary duty, legal
malpractice and breach of contract.

In September 2013, a New York federal judge certified a class
action, holding that common issues "predominated over any
individual issues" and that New York law applied even though the
class members were from 27 states, according to the appeals ruling
that overturned the class certification.

The federal judge erred in certifying the class, the appeals court
said.  "Under the circumstances of the case," the common issues
"are substantially outweighed by individual issues," the three-
judge appeals court panel said.

Furthermore, "It is clear that New York is not the state with the
most significant relationship to the claims here and, instead, the
class members' individual home states have the most significant
contacts," the appeals court ruled in remanding the case for
further proceedings.


NORTH CAROLINA: Magistrates' Pay Suit Gets Class Action Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a judge has given class-action
status to a lawsuit saying North Carolina has broken its promise
to give magistrates pay raises.

Forty magistrates filed the lawsuit last year in Burke County.
The lawsuit, which has plaintiffs from Burke County, has since
been moved to Wake County, said Scott Jones, an Asheville attorney
for the magistrates.  While 40 magistrates originally filed the
lawsuit, with Superior Court Judge Michael O'Foghludha's ruling,
the number could jump to more than 500.

Magistrates make $37,000 to $57,000 a year, based on the number of
years of experience.

"We are very pleased with the judge's order," an attorney for the
magistrates, David Wijewickrama, said on March 6.  "We are
cautiously optimistic moving forward that, as the voices of state
employees grow louder with more participants, state government
will start to listen and pay them the moneys they are owed."

The lawsuit is similar to one filed last year by Mr. Wijewickrama
on behalf of state Highway Patrol troopers, who say they are
facing severe financial hardships because they haven't gotten pay
raises as promised.

A hearing is pending on whether to grant the troopers' lawsuit
class-action status.

During the hearing for the magistrates' lawsuit, Mr. Wijewickrama
said the pay raises were contractual, and were not discretionary.
The increases were supposed to come in steps.

The state, however, said it lawfully suspended step increases for
the magistrates between 2009 and 2014.

But Judge O'Foghludha said the lawsuit should extend beyond the 40
plaintiffs.

"Whether the state could suspend step increases for the
magistrates between 2009 and 2014 without incurring liability is
an issue" that affects "all members of the class," the judge said.

He noted that the class-action would head off any confusion for
magistrates who are not part of it, but who decide to file similar
lawsuits.  He said the class will include all magistrates who were
employed by the state at any time between June 30, 2009 and July
1, 2014.  The lawsuit said magistrates have lost pay and benefits,
including retirement benefits.  They are seeking back pay plus
interest, to pay the magistrates' attorneys' fees and the lawsuit
requests a jury trial.

The state representatives have told magistrates numerous times to
wait for the state to address its failing to pay what the
magistrates were promised, the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit says the state never denied its obligations under the
magistrates' contracts and that money was in the state budget to
honor the contracts.

Mr. Wijewickrama said lawmakers and government officials have put
other interests ahead of magistrates.

"It is not unreasonable to ask that magistrates, who serve their
communities 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and who have already
worked the hours based on a promise of a certain rate of pay . . .
be paid what they are owed," he said.


NORTHLAND GROUP: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chaya F. Posen, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Northland Group, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01422
(E.D.N.Y., March 18, 2015) accuses the Defendant of violating the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Seeks Dismissal of Tax Reporting Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Kroh, writing for Law360, reports that Ocwen Financial Corp.
on March 5 asked a California federal court to dismiss a proposed
class action alleging the company failed to report home mortgage
interest to the Internal Revenue Service because the relevant
statute does not allow for private action.

Plaintiffs George and Claudia Camberis should have sought a refund
rather than suing Ocwen if they believed they did not receive the
full amount of the mortgage interest deduction they were entitled
to, Ocwen said.  Two federal district courts have rejected the
existence of a right to bring action for incorrect Forms 1098,
which financial institutions use to report mortgage interest paid
by homeowners, the company said in a motion to dismiss the
Camberises' complaint.

"Courts have long held that claims pertaining to IRS information
returns, such as the Form 1098, do not support a private civil
claim absent express language in the Tax Code creating one," Ocwen
said.

The couple alleges that Ocwen did not include so-called negative
amortization in the nearly $15,000 in mortgage interest the
company reported the Camberises paid in 2013 on the Form 1098 it
sent to the IRS.  Negative amortization is unpaid monthly interest
added to the loan's principal balance.  The couple claims some
$30,000 in negative amortization that Ocwen omitted from the form
remained on their mortgage when they paid it off, according to the
motion.

In addition to a lack of a private action under the statute, the
Camberises' complaint fails to establish that Ocwen violated
Section 6050H, which governs the reporting of home mortgage
interest payments to the IRS, the company said.  No IRS authority
requires negative amortization to be reported on the Form 1098,
the motion said.

Also, only the IRS may enforce the tax code, and the court cannot
direct the IRS to declare a violation of the code because doing so
would run afoul of the Anti-Injunction Act and the Declaratory
Judgment Act, Ocwen said.

The Camberises have not shown that they have been injured by
Ocwen, the motion said. They have not stated that they filed
income tax returns for 2013 seeking a deduction for the negative
amortization and were denied by the IRS, the company said.  If
they were injured, it was a result of their own inaction, not
Ocwen's, the motion said.

The couple also failed to state claims for breach of contract,
fraud and negligence under state law and those claims should be
dismissed, Ocwen said.

The Camberises are represented by Michael R. Brown of Michael R.
Brown APC.

Ocwen is represented by Jeff E. Scott -- scottj@gtlaw.com --
Jennifer L. Gray -- grayjen@gtlaw.com -- and Sarah E. Barrows of
Greenberg Traurig LLP.

The case is Camberis v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, case number
3:14-cv-02970, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


PANERA BREAD: To Defend Against Class Action by Former Employee
---------------------------------------------------------------
Panera Bread Company is prepared to vigorously defend a class
action lawsuit filed by a former employee of one its subsidiaries,
Panera said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 30, 2014.

"On July 2, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against one of our subsidiaries by Jason Lofstedt, a former
employee of one our subsidiaries. The lawsuit was filed in the
California Superior Court, County of Riverside," the Company said.

The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the
California Labor Code, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide
meal and rest periods, and violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law. The complaint seeks, among other relief,
collective and class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified
damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and such
other relief as the Court might find just and proper.

"We believe our subsidiary has meritorious defenses to each of the
claims in the lawsuit and we are prepared to vigorously defend the
lawsuit. There can be no assurance, however, that our subsidiary
will be successful, and an adverse resolution of the lawsuit could
have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial
position and results of operations in the period in which the
lawsuit is resolved. We are not presently able to reasonably
estimate potential losses, if any, related to the lawsuit," the
Company said.


PDL BIOPHARMA: "Hampe" Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
PDL BioPharma, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23,
2015, the federal class action entitled Hampe v. PDL Biopharma,
Inc., et al., No. 2:14-cv-01526-APG-NJK (D. Nev.), was voluntarily
dismissed on February 2, 2015, without prejudice.  Shortly
thereafter, on February 17, 2015, the federal derivative action
entitled Freely, et ano. v. Lindell, et al., No. 2:14-cv-01738-
APG-GWF  (D. Nev.) was likewise voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice.  On February 18, 2015, the parties to the Nevada state
court derivative action, Marchetti, et ano. v. Lindell, et al.,
No. A-14-708757-C (Dist. Ct. Clark Co., Nev.), filed a stipulation
and proposed order of dismissal, which is subject to the approval
of the court.


PEPSICO INC: Judge Dismisses Cancer-Warning Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Emily Field and Beth Winegarner, writing for Law360, report that a
California judge on March 4 dismissed with prejudice a proposed
class action that sought to compel PepsiCo Inc. to provide medical
monitoring to consumers after failing to warn them that a chemical
in its drinks is linked to a form of lung cancer, ruling that the
plaintiffs' causation and injury allegations aren't factually
supported.

U.S. District Judge Edward M. Chen granted PepsiCo's motion to
dismiss the suit, agreeing with the beverage giant that plaintiffs
Paul R. Riva and Danielle Ardagna lack standing and their
allegations aren't backed by sufficient facts.  The plaintiffs
claimed that the chemical 4-methylimidazole, present in some of
its sodas, has been found to cause lung tumors in lab mice and
rats.  But the judge ruled that it was speculative to infer an
increased risk of harm to humans.

"As noted above, even considering the rodent studies, the levels
allegedly consumed by the named plaintiffs herein would not appear
to come close to the equivalent exposure in those studies," the
judge said.  "The specific problem here is not the general value
of animal studies but the lack of any factual content to show that
4-MeI causes bronchioloalveolar cancer in humans and the failure
to plead that the levels of consumption alleged herein are
sufficient to trigger credible risk of such cancer."

Under a California appeals court's ruling in Potter v. Firestone
Tire & Rubber Co., the judge said that plaintiffs have to show
that a chemical is significantly likely to cause serious disease
to obtain medical monitoring.

The judge said the plaintiffs didn't show how much 4-Mel humans
would have to be exposed to in order to bring the risk of
bronchioloalveolar cancer to a credible level.  Even considering
the rodent studies cited by the plaintiffs, the levels consumed by
the plaintiffs don't seem to come close to an equivalent exposure
to the levels in those studies, the judge said.

The plaintiffs said in their amended complaint that the National
Toxicology Program has found 4-Mel to cause lung tumors in
laboratory rats and mice, based on two-year studies of exposure.

"At the hearing, plaintiffs acknowledged they were not aware of
any additional scientific studies they could cite to support their
claim," the judge said.

Alternative sources of the chemical made it problematic to
establish causation between Diet Pepsi or Pepsi One and consuming
levels of 4-Mel above certain threshold limits, the judge said.

The plaintiffs claimed that the soft drinks had an average of 30
to 40 micrograms of the chemical in a can, according to testing by
Consumer Reports, according to the ruling.  The plaintiffs cited a
Consumer Reports toxicologist's opinion that there is no "safe
level" of 4-MeI, and that the threshold should be "more like 3
micrograms/day," according to the judge.

Pepsi moved to dismiss the amended complaint in November, saying
Riva's suit was one of nine filed after the Consumer Reports
piece, all of which the soda company called "a misguided
overreaction to that article."

The other class actions had been consolidated, but Riva's case was
severed to allow the plaintiffs to chance to plead a personal
injury medical monitoring claim, according to the ruling.

The plaintiffs are represented by Roy A. Katriel of the Katriel
Law Firm and by Ralph B. Kalfayan and Amanda Marie Friedman of
Krause Kalfayan Benink & Slavens LLP.

Pepsi is represented by Andrew Tulumello --
atulumello@gibsondunn.com -- Christopher Chorba, Sapna D. Pandya
and Lauren M. Blas -- lblas@gibsondunn.com -- of Gibson Dunn and
by Trenton H. Norris -- Trent.Norris@aporter.com  -- and Sarah
Esmaili -- Sarah.Esmaili@aporter.com -- of Arnold & Porter LLP.

The case is Riva et al v. PepsiCo, Inc., case number 3:14-cv-
02020, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


PETROBRAS: Judge Named Pension Fund Trustee as Lead Plaintiff
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that a U.S. federal judge on March 4 named a
trustee of a British pension fund as the lead plaintiff in a
class-action lawsuit against Brazil's state-run oil company
Petroleo Brasileiro SA and its top executives.

Universities Superannuation Scheme Ltd (USS) will represent people
and companies that bought U.S.-listed securities in Petrobras, as
the oil company is known.  A corruption scheme has helped wiped
about $90 billion of the value of the company in six months.

The judge also named the law firm of Pomerantz LLP in New York as
the lead counsel and ordered lawyers for both side to contact the
court on March 6 to schedule further proceedings.

More than three-dozen Brazilian executives have been indicted in
Brazil in a case that prosecutors say involved price-fixing,
bribery and political kickbacks.  On March 3, the country's top
prosecutor asked the Supreme Court to open investigations into an
additional 54 people, many expected to be sitting politicians.

The case is expected to be the largest ever corruption case in
Brazil.  The lawsuit, filed in the Southern District of New York
on Dec. 8, alleges that Petrobras made false statements and
engaged in a multibillion dollar money-laundering and bribery
scheme since 2006.  Petrobras officials did not immediately
respond to a request for comment but in the past the company said
it will evaluate the value of some assets due to allegations of
corruption.

U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff chose USS from among four final
candidates.  These were the Skagen-Danske group of three European
asset management companies, Danske Invest Management AS, and
Danske Invest Management Co., both part of the Danske Bank Group
and Skagen AS; the State Retirement Systems group, representing
the public-employee retirement funds of Ohio, Idaho and Hawaii;
USS; and Daniela Freitas Da Silva, an individual investor.

The original action was filed by New York law firm Wolf Popper
LLP.

                            *     *     *

Petrobras disclosed that on March 4, 2015, the presiding judge
appointed Universities Superannuation Scheme, Ltd. as the lead
plaintiff in the Class Action filed against Petrobras in the New
York federal court.

A conference call between the presiding judge, Petrobras and the
lead plaintiff was set to take place on March 6th, 2015, in order
to plan the next steps in the proceeding.

As the Company stated on February 13, 2015, it has hired a
specialized U.S. law firm and will defend itself against the
allegations in this lawsuit.


PIZZA PLUS: "Chimbay" Suit Transferred From E.D. to S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Chimbay, et al. v. Pizza Plus at
Staten Island Ferry Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-07169, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Foley Square).  The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:15-cv-02000-KBF to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Lee Nuwesra, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LEE NUWESRA
          1623 Unionport Rd., Suite 101
          New York, NY 10462
          Telephone: (718) 942-4294
          Facsimile: (718) 942-4295
          E-mail: lnuwesra@optonline.net


POLAND: Class Action Over Pensions Reform Can Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------
Krystyna Krzyzak at Investment & Pensions Europe reports that
Poland's controversial second-pillar pensions law, which took
effect in 2014, is facing a new legal challenge.

On March 4, the Warsaw District Court ruled that a class action
initiated by lawyer Pawel Kowalczyk for 53 claimants could go
ahead.

The lawsuit -- against the Polish State Treasury, Social Insurance
Institution (ZUS) and pension fund management companies -- claims
the transfer of Polish sovereign bonds from pension fund (OFE)
portfolios to ZUS violated members' property rights.  The
transfer, in February 2014, removed PLN153.2 billion (EUR36.7
billion) in assets, equivalent to 51.2% of the previous month's
net asset value.

The Court ruled that, because the claims of the individuals -- all
OFE members -- were substantially the same, the lawsuit could
proceed as a group action.

Other members can now sign up to the action.  Any compensation
from the State Treasury, should the case succeed, would be subject
to a separate lawsuit.

The ruling, which is subject to appeal, has already caused
disquiet, given that the government had earlier insisted its
reforms were legally watertight.  There are other outstanding
challenges to the 2014 law.

In January 2014, president Bronislaw Komorowski, after signing off
the law, referred sections to the Constitutional Tribunal.

These included the ban on investments in sovereign bonds, the
requirement for a high level of equity investment and the
prohibition on pension companies advertising during the window
when all members had to declare that they wanted to remain in the
second pillar or default to ZUS.

Subsequently, Irena Lipowicz, Poland's Human Rights Ombudsman,
referred the law to the tribunal on the grounds it violated public
confidence in the State.  Neither party addressed the issue of
legal ownership of second-pillar assets.  The tribunal has yet to
set a date for the hearings.

Meanwhile, the size of the second pillar has shrunk dramatically
following the bond removal, the decision of the majority of former
members to stop further contributions once the system became
voluntary, the incremental transfer to ZUS of the assets of
members with 10 or fewer years left till retirement, and the
massive indifference of new labor market entrants.

In January 2015, net assets, at PLN150.6 billion, were down 49.6%
year on year in Polish zloty terms, while the total monthly
contribution plunged by 78.5% to PLN231 million.


PROFESSIONAL RECOVERY: Violates FDCPA in New York, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hector Isaac, Sr. on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Professional Recovery Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-01376 (E.D.N.Y., March 17, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gus Michael Farinella, Esq.
          The Westminster Building
          180 West 20th Street, Suite 12b
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 675-6161
          Facsimile: (212) 675-4367
          E-mail: gmf@lawgmf.com


PROVIDE COMMERCE: 9th Cir. Vacates Ruling in EasySaver Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In In re: EASYSAVER REWARDS LITIGATION, JOSUE ROMERO; DEANNA HUNT;
KIMBERLY KENYON; GINA BAILEY; ALISSA HERBST; GRANT JENKINS;
BRADLEY BERENTSON; JENNIFER LAWLER; DANIEL COX; JONATHAN WALTER;
CHRISTOPHER DICKEY, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BRIAN PERRYMAN,
Objector-Appellant, v. PROVIDE COMMERCE, INC.; REGENT GROUP, INC.,
a California corporation, DBA Encore Marketing International;
ENCORE MARKETING INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendants-Appellees, NO. 13-55373, Objector-Appellant Brian
Perryman appealed the district court's approval of the class
settlement agreement reached by Defendant-Appellee Provide
Commerce, Inc., Defendant-Appellee Regent Group, Inc., d/b/a
Encore Marketing International, and Plaintiffs-Appellees.  Mr.
Perryman contends that the district court abused its discretion in
approving the settlement agreement and the attorney's fee award,
because the $20 credit offered to the class was a coupon subject
to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1712.  Mr.
Perryman further contends that the district court abused its
discretion in approving the cy pres distribution.

This case was originally set for argument on February 2, 2015.
That argument date was vacated, and submission was deferred
pending resolution of Frank v. Netflix, No. 12-15705+. On February
27, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
decided Frank v. Netflix (In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust
Litig.), No. 12-15705, ___ F.3d ___, 2015 WL 846008 (9th Cir. Feb.
27, 2015).

Having reviewed the parties' submissions, the Ninth Circuit, in an
order and memorandum entered March 19, 2015, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/NBYdegfrom Leagle.com, vacated the
district court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings
consistent with Frank. According to the Ninth Circuit, because
class settlement is a package deal that must "stand or fall in its
entirety," it need not now address whether the district court
abused its discretion in approving the cy pres distribution.

Each party will bear its own costs on appeal.


PUBLIC STORAGE: Attorneys Withdraw Insurance Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Caroline Simson, writing for Law360, reports that Newport Trial
Group attorneys defending Public Storage in a putative class
action accusing it of overcharging customers for its self-storage
insurance have withdrawn from the suit after weathering
accusations that they paid a potential class member to cooperate
in the company's defense, according to documents filed in Florida
federal court.

Lead plaintiffs Colin Bowe and Brian Morgan notified the court
they were withdrawing their motion seeking disqualification and
other sanctions against Public Storage's defense attorneys, but
did not provide details of the events that had transpired.

Attorney for the plaintiffs Seth Miles of Grossman Roth PA told
Law360 on March 5 that the Newport Trial Group's withdrawal from
the case mooted the majority of the relief they had sought, but
declined further comment.

Attorneys from Newport Trial Group did not immediately respond to
a request for comment.

An evidentiary hearing on the motion set for March 5 was canceled,
but as of early afternoon on March 5, the case docket did not
reflect Newport Trial Group's withdrawal.

The suit has been punctuated by attacks among the parties' counsel
regarding their conduct, particularly with regard to depositions,
over the last few months, beginning in December when Public
Storage asked the court to sanction the plaintiffs' counsel "for
abusive misconduct" by harassing putative class declarants during
depositions.

Public Storage claimed that the plaintiffs' counsel wasted time
during the deposition of two witnesses by "battering" them with
repetitive, legalistic and often speculative questioning.

Messrs. Bowe and Morgan had responded with their own motion on
Dec. 9 -- the one withdrawn on March 4 -- seeking to disqualify
Newport Trial Group attorneys for allegedly paying a putative
class member to cooperate in the company's defense by signing a
declaration expressing complete satisfaction with his experience
as a customer of the company, despite his unhappiness about being
allegedly overcharged.

The class member later refused to continue cooperating with the
company because he had received less money than he was promised,
according to that motion.

Thereafter, Messrs. Bowe and Morgan accused Public Storage on Dec.
22 of violating discovery rules by serving a privilege log that
didn't meet the burden to establish that attorney-client privilege
protected the withheld documents, among other things.

The defendants asked the court to sanction the plaintiffs'
attorneys on Jan. 27 for not properly responding to requests for
admissions based on the bad-faith assertion that they didn't
understand the meaning of the the term "valid" insurance,
according to the motion.

A magistrate judge later denied the sanctions motion, but ordered
the plaintiffs to respond to the requests for admission.

The plaintiffs responded with another sanctions motion on Feb. 5,
saying a Public Storage attorney was repeatedly coaching witnesses
during depositions even after the court already found that defense
counsel had inappropriately coached a witness during a deposition.
They also accused Public Storage of improperly withholding certain
records.

They asked the court to prohibit defense attorney James Hardin
from participating in depositions and the trial in the case, along
with attorneys' fees in connection with a Jan. 29 deposition
during which Hardin allegedly attempted to turn a plaintiffs'
witness against them.

During that deposition, Hardin allegedly also accused plaintiffs'
counsel of "trying to destroy Mr. Hardin's family and his ability
to earn a livelihood," according to the motion.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo-Reyes denied the plaintiffs'
motion to compel and for sanctions in a Feb. 11 order, but
required the defendants to complete the outstanding production of
documents relevant to the remaining depositions, and ordered
defense counsel to abide by her admonitions regarding his conduct
at the remaining depositions.

The complaint alleges that Public Storage unfairly induces its
customers to purchase its own self-storage insurance at inflated
rates while retaining the excess premium for its own coffers in an
undisclosed kickback. The suit claims that of the nearly $85
million the company grossed from its tenant insurance program in
2013, nearly $68 million of it was net profit.

Public Storage is represented by David P. Ackerman --
dackerman@alslaw.com -- of Ackerman Link & Sartory PA.

The plaintiffs are represented by Scott B. Cosgrove --
scosgrove@leoncosgrove.com -- Alec H. Schultz --
aschultz@leoncosgrove.com -- and David A. Karp of Leon Cosgrove
LLC, David M. Buckner -- dbu@grossmanroth.com -- Seth E. Miles and
Brett E. von Borke -- bvb@grossmanroth.com -- of Grossman Roth PA.

The case is Bowe v. Public Storage, case number 1:14-cv-21559, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.


RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL: July 31 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC on March 10 issued a statement
regarding the RALI Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

NEW JERSEY CARPENTERS HEALTH FUND, ET AL., Plaintiffs,
v.
RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL, LLC, ET AL., Defendants.
No. 08-cv-8781 (KPF)

SUMMARY NOTICE OF: (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION; (II) PROPOSED
$235 MILLION SETTLEMENT WITH THE UNDERWRITER DEFENDANTS; (III)
SETTLEMENT HEARING; (IV) PLAN OF ALLOCATION FOR DISTRIBUTION OF
BOTH THE $235 MILLION SETTLEMENT WITH THE UNDERWRITER DEFENDANTS
AND PREVIOUSLY APPROVED $100 MILLION SETTLEMENT WITH THE RESCAP
DEFENDANTS, THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, AND ALLY SECURITIES; AND
(V) LEAD COUNSEL'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF
LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
interests in any mortgage asset-backed pass-through certificates
issued by any of the following twenty (20) RALI trusts:  RALI
Series 2006-QH1, RALI Series 2006-QO1, RALI Series 2006-QO2, RALI
Series 2006-QO3, RALI Series 2006-QO5, RALI Series 2006-QS7, RALI
Series 2006-QO6, RALI Series 2006-QS8, RALI Series 2006-QO7, RALI
Series 2006-QS15, RALI Series 2006-QO10, RALI Series 2007-QS1,
RALI Series 2007-QS2, RALI Series 2007-QS5, RALI Series 2007-QH1,
RALI Series 2007-QH2, RALI Series 2007-QH3, RALI Series 2007-QH4,
RALI Series 2007-QH5, and RALI Series 2007-QH6 (the
"Certificates").

              -  AND  -

TO: All persons or entities who purchased certificates or
otherwise acquired beneficial interests in any of the following
fifty-nine (59) RALI trusts:  RALI Series 2007-QS1, RALI Series
2007-QO4, RALI Series 2007-QH4, RALI Series 2006-QO7, RALI Series
2007-QS5, RALI Series 2006-QS7, RALI Series 2007-QO2, RALI Series
2006-QS11, RALI Series 2007-QS4, RALI Series 2006-QA4, RALI Series
2006-QA6, RALI Series 2006-QA7, RALI Series 2006-QA8, RALI Series
2006-QA10, RALI Series 2006-QA11, RALI Series 2007-QA1, RALI
Series 2007-QA2, RALI Series 2007-QO3, RALI Series 2007-QA3, RALI
Series 2007-QA5, RALI Series 2007-QH8, RALI Series 2007-QH9, RALI
Series 2007-QO5, RALI Series 2007-QS11, RALI Series 2007-QS6, RALI
Series 2006-QS8, RALI Series 2006-QS9, RALI Series 2007-QS7, RALI
Series 2007-QH2, RALI Series 2007-QH5, RALI Series 2007-QH6, RALI
Series 2006-QS18, RALI Series 2006-QO10, RALI Series 2006-QO3,
RALI Series 2006-QO6, RALI Series 2007-QH3, RALI Series 2007-QS2,
RALI Series 2006-QO9, RALI Series 2006-QO8, RALI Series 2006-QO5,
RALI Series 2006-QA5, RALI Series 2006-QA9, RALI Series 2006-QH1,
RALI Series 2006-QO4, RALI Series 2006-QS5, RALI Series 2006-QS16,
RALI Series 2006-QS17, RALI Series 2007-QH1, RALI Series 2007-QO1,
RALI Series 2007-QS3, RALI Series 2007-QA4, RALI Series 2007-QH7,
RALI Series 2007-QS8, RALI Series 2007-QS10, RALI Series 2006-
QS12, RALI Series 2006-QS13, RALI Series 2006-QS6, RALI Series
2007-QS9, and RALI Series 2006-QS15.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY.  YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT, SETTLEMENT, AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION PENDING
IN THIS COURT.

NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, SETTLEMENT WITH THE
UNDERWRITER DEFENDANTS, PLAN OF ALLOCATION, AND LEAD COUNSEL'S
MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION
EXPENSES:  You are hereby notified: (i) of the pendency of the
above-captioned class action lawsuit (the "Action") asserting
claims against defendants Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Goldman,
Sachs & Co., and UBS Securities LLC (collectively, the
"Underwriter Defendants"), relating to certain mortgage asset-
backed pass-through certificates and brought on behalf of those
who purchased or otherwise acquired interests in the Certificates
described above on or before the date when a claim concerning
those Certificates was first asserted in the Action (i.e., the
"Date of First Suit") (the "Underwriter Settlement Class");1 (ii)
that a proposed settlement has been reached in the Action (the
"Underwriter Settlement"); (iii) of the plan of allocation
pertaining to the Underwriter Settlement's funds; and (iv) of Lead
Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement
of litigation expenses.  A hearing with respect to the Underwriter
Settlement, the plan of allocation, and Lead Counsel's motion for
an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation
expenses will be held on July 31, 2015, at 2:30 P.M. before the
Honorable Katherine Polk Failla, at the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, Thurgood Marshall
United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, Courtroom 618, New
York, New York 10007.

The purpose of the hearing is to determine, among other things:
(i) whether the proposed settlement of the claims asserted in this
Action, pursuant to which the Underwriter Defendants will cause to
be deposited the sum of $235,000,000.00 into a settlement fund in
exchange for (among other things) the dismissal of the Action and
a release of claims against the Underwriter Defendants and other
related persons and entities, is fair, reasonable, and adequate,
and should be finally approved by the Court; (ii) whether the
Action should be dismissed, on the merits and with prejudice, and
whether the releases set forth in the Underwriter Settlement
should be ordered by the Court; (iii) whether the proposed plan of
allocation of the settlement fund is fair and reasonable, and
should be approved by the Court; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's
motion for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
litigation expenses should be approved.

If you are a member of the Underwriter Settlement Class, you may
be entitled to share in the distribution of the Underwriter
Settlement if you submit a claim form postmarked no later than
July 3, 2015, establishing that you are entitled to a recovery.

If you are a member of the Underwriter Settlement Class, you have
the right to object to the Underwriter Settlement, the plan of
allocation, and/or Lead Counsel's motion for an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses, or
otherwise request to be heard, by submitting a written objection
so that it is received by July 1, 2015, in accordance with the
procedures described in a more detailed notice that has been
mailed to persons or entities known to be potential members of the
Underwriter Settlement Class, and that is available at
www.RALIMBSLitigation.com

You also have the right to exclude yourself from the Underwriter
Settlement Class by submitting a written request for exclusion so
that it is received by June 22, 2015, in accordance with the
procedures described in the more detailed notice.  If the
Underwriter Settlement is approved by the Court, you will be bound
by the terms of that settlement and the Court's final order and
judgment, including the releases provided for in the final order
and judgment, unless you submit a request to be excluded.

NOTICE OF PLAN OF ALLOCATION FOR DISTRIBUTION OF THE PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED $100 MILLION SETTLEMENT WITH RESCAP DEFENDANTS AND LEAD
COUNSEL'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF
LITIGATION EXPENSES:  You are also hereby notified of: (i) the
plan of allocation pertaining to funds from a previously approved
$100 million settlement (the "ResCap Settlement") with defendants
Residential Capital, LLC, Residential Funding Company, LLC,
Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Bruce J. Paradis, Kenneth M.
Duncan, Davee L. Olson, Ralph T. Flees, Lisa R. Lundsten, James G.
Jones, David M. Bricker, James N. Young, and Ally Securities (the
"ResCap Defendants") pertaining to persons or entities who
purchased certificates or otherwise acquired beneficial interests
in any of the following fifty-nine (59) RALI trusts: RALI Series
2007-QS1, RALI Series 2007-QO4, RALI Series 2007-QH4, RALI Series
2006-QO7, RALI Series 2007-QS5, RALI Series 2006-QS7, RALI Series
2007-QO2, RALI Series 2006-QS11, RALI Series 2007-QS4, RALI Series
2006-QA4, RALI Series 2006-QA6, RALI Series 2006-QA7, RALI Series
2006-QA8, RALI Series 2006-QA10, RALI Series 2006-QA11, RALI
Series 2007-QA1, RALI Series 2007-QA2, RALI Series 2007-QO3, RALI
Series 2007-QA3, RALI Series 2007-QA5, RALI Series 2007-QH8, RALI
Series 2007-QH9, RALI Series 2007-QO5, RALI Series 2007-QS11, RALI
Series 2007-QS6, RALI Series 2006-QS8, RALI Series 2006-QS9, RALI
Series 2007-QS7, RALI Series 2007-QH2, RALI Series 2007-QH5, RALI
Series 2007-QH6, RALI Series 2006-QS18, RALI Series 2006-QO10,
RALI Series 2006-QO3, RALI Series 2006-QO6, RALI Series 2007-QH3,
RALI Series 2007-QS2, RALI Series 2006-QO9, RALI Series 2006-QO8,
RALI Series 2006-QO5, RALI Series 2006-QA5, RALI Series 2006-QA9,
RALI Series 2006-QH1, RALI Series 2006-QO4, RALI Series 2006-QS5,
RALI Series 2006-QS16, RALI Series 2006-QS17, RALI Series 2007-
QH1, RALI Series 2007-QO1, RALI Series 2007-QS3, RALI Series 2007-
QA4, RALI Series 2007-QH7, RALI Series 2007-QS8, RALI Series 2007-
QS10, RALI Series 2006-QS12, RALI Series 2006-QS13, RALI Series
2006-QS6, RALI Series 2007-QS9, and RALI Series 2006-QS15 (the
"ResCap Settlement Class"); and (ii) Lead Counsel's motion for an
award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses.
A hearing with respect to the plan of allocation and Lead
Counsel's motion for and award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of litigation expenses will be held on July 31,
2015, at 2:30 P.M. before the Honorable Katherine Polk Failla, at
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square,
Courtroom 618, New York, New York 10007.

The purpose of the hearing is to determine, among other things:
(i) whether the proposed plan of allocation of the settlement fund
is fair and reasonable, and should be approved by the Court; and
(ii) whether Lead Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees
and reimbursement of litigation expenses should be approved.

If you are a member of the ResCap Settlement Class, you may be
entitled to share in the distribution of the settlement fund if
you submit a claim form postmarked no later than July 3, 2015,
establishing that you are entitled to a recovery.

If you are a member of the ResCap Settlement Class, you have the
right to object to the plan of allocation and/or Lead Counsel's
motion for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
litigation expenses, or otherwise request to be heard, by
submitting a written objection so that it is received by July 1,
2015, in accordance with the procedures described in a more
detailed notice that has been mailed to persons or entities known
to be potential members of the ResCap Settlement Class, and that
is available at www.RALIMBSLitigation.com.

This notice provides only a summary of matters regarding the
Action and the ResCap Settlement and the Underwriter Settlement.
A more detailed notice describing the Action, the Underwriter
Settlement, and the rights of members of the ResCap Settlement
Class and/or the Underwriter Settlement Class to appear in Court
at the hearing referenced above, to request to be excluded from
the Underwriter Settlement Class and/or to object to that
settlement, the plan of allocation, and/or Lead Counsel's motion
for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation
expenses, has been mailed to persons or entities known to be
potential members of the ResCap Settlement Class and/or
Underwriter Settlement Class.  You may obtain a copy of that more
detailed notice, a claim form, or other information by writing to
the following address or calling the following telephone number:

RALI MBS Litigation
c/o Garden City Group, LLC
P.O. Box 9991
Dublin, OH 43017-5991
(888) 985-9201
info@RALIMBSLitigation.com

or by downloading the same from www.RALIMBSLitigation.com

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.  Inquiries, other than requests for the more detailed
notice and claim form referenced above, may be made to Lead
Counsel for the ResCap Settlement Class and the Underwriter
Settlement Class:

COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC

Joel P. Laitman
Christopher Lometti
Michael Eisenkraft
88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
New York, N.Y. 10005
Telephone: (212) 838-7797
Email: jlaitman@cohenmilstein.com
       clometti@cohenmilstein.com
       meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com

Steven J. Toll
1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
Suite 500, West Tower
Washington, D.C. 20005
Tel.:  (202) 408-4600
Email: stoll@cohenmilstein.com

Dated:   March 5, 2015

By Order of the Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York

1 The Date of First Suit is September 22, 2008 for the
Certificates issued by the RALI Series 2006-QO1, RALI Series 2006-
QO2, RALI Series 2006-QO3, RALI Series 2006-QO5, RALI Series 2006-
QO6, RALI Series 2006-QO7, and RALI Series 2006-QO10 trusts and
May 18, 2009 for the Certificates issued by the RALI Series 2006-
QH1,  RALI Series 2006-QS7, RALI Series 2006-QS8, RALI Series
2006-QS15, RALI Series 2007-QS1, RALI Series 2007-QS2, RALI Series
2007-QS5, RALI Series 2007-QH1, RALI Series 2007-QH2, RALI Series
2007-QH3, RALI Series 2007-QH4, RALI Series 2007-QH5, and RALI
Series 2007-QH6 trusts


RETRIEVAL-MASTERS CREDITOR'S: Violates FDCPA in N.J., Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yael Sokol, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. Retrieval-Masters Creditor's Bureau, Inc. d/b/a AMCA a/k/a
American Medical Collection Agency, Case No. 2:15-cv-01971-CCC-MF
(D.N.J., March 17, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON PC
          1669 East 12th Street
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 339-0856
          E-mail: yzelman@sassonlaw.com


ROBERT J. POWELL: Settlement Mulled for Kids-for-Cash Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Citizens' Voice reports that attorneys for kids-for-cash
figure Robert J. Powell and juveniles improperly jailed in a
detention center he co-owned plan to file a settlement in the
juveniles' class-action suit, according to a motion filed in U.S.
District Court.

Powell served an 18-month prison sentence in the kids-for-cash
case after testifying he paid more than $700,000 in bribes to two
Luzerne County judges who directed the juveniles to his center.

The class-action suit filed against Mr. Powell and other kids-for-
cash figures has already resulted in a $17.75 million settlement
with local developer Robert Mericle, who built the center and paid
the same judges more than $2 million.

Mr. Mericle is serving a one-year prison term.  The judges, Mark
A. Ciavarella and Michael T. Conahan, are serving 28 and 17 years
respectively.


ROBERT MANAGEMENT: Trial Court Decision Upheld
----------------------------------------------
Judge Max N. Tobias Jr. of the Court of Appeals of Louisiana,
Fourth Circuit, affirmed the trial court's judgment in the case
ANDRE' J. ROBERT, RANDALL G. MOUROT, AND J. STOREY CHARBONNET, v.
ROBERT MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, ET AL., NO. 2014-CA-0822 (La Ct.
App.)

In 1999, MarketFare, L.L.C., was formed by Marc Robert (Marc) as a
manager-managed Louisiana limited liability company for purposes
of acquiring, through a bankruptcy action, leases on former
Schwegmann Grocery Stores in New Orleans. Marc recruited
investors, including the plaintiffs, his brother Andre J. Robert
(Andre), J. Storey Charbonnet (Storey), and Randall G. Mourot
(Randy).  The plaintiffs collectively own 32.2% of the membership
interest in MarketFare, whereas Marc and his wife, Darlene Robert
(Darlene), own 65% of the membership interest of the company in
community.  MarketFare created four wholly owned subsidiaries to
separately own and operate each of the four stores; namely:
MarketFare N. Broad, LLC; MarketFare Canal, LLC; MarketFare St.
Claude, LLC; and, MarketFare Annunciation, LLC. RMC was designated
as the manager for the newly-formed MarketFare as well as for the
Subsidary LLCs.  Marc and Darlene are the sole members of RMC.

From 1995 to 2005, the MarketFare stores lost more than a million
dollars per year. In May 2004, due to a continuous loss in
revenue, the Broad Street Store was closed. Following severe
property damage sustained during Hurricane Katrina in August 2005,
MarketFare's operations at the remaining three grocery stores
ceased and the Subsidiary LLCs were over $6 million in debt. As a
result of the severe damages sustained to the various properties
during the hurricane and the denial of payment for its insurance
claims by MarketFare's insurers, MarketFare filed lawsuits for the
collection of insurance proceeds.

On September 13, 2006, without notice to the plaintiffs or other
investors, the defendants formed Claiborne Fresh Market, LLC
(Claiborne LLC), establishing RMC as its managing member, for
purposes of pursuing the Claiborne Avenue Store opportunity. The
Claiborne Avenue Store opened in August 2008, one year from the
execution of the ground lease. MarketFare, the Subsidiary LLCs,
and the individual plaintiffs held no ownership interest in the
Claiborne Avenue Store.

The plaintiffs, on behalf of MarketFare, subsequently filed suit
in April 2010 against RMC, Marc, and Darlene alleging not only
derivative claims on behalf of MarketFare under a corporate veil
piercing/alter ego theory, but also individual claims. The
verified petition, as amended, averred that by pursuing and
developing the Claiborne Avenue Store through a new limited
liability company without their involvement, thereby usurping
business opportunities that belonged to MarketFare, the defendants
intentionally breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and good
faith owed to the Plaintiffs. In response, the defendants filed a
peremptory exception of preemption in June 2010 relative to the
Claiborne Avenue Store opportunity. The trial court granted the
defendants' exception in November 2010, finding that the
plaintiffs failed to bring suit within three years of September
2006, the date Claiborne LLC was formed.  The appellate court
reversed the trial court's judgment on the basis that La. R.S.
12:1502 is a "prescriptive statute with peremptive time
limitations and remanded the matter back to the trial court.

In May 2013, the defendants filed a second peremptory exception of
prescription averring that, given the allegations contained in the
plaintiffs' original and previous supplemental and amending
verified petitions stating they were aware in 2007 that Marc was
not offering the Claiborne Avenue Store opportunity to MarketFare,
the plaintiffs' claims for breach of fiduciary duties for seizure
and theft of the Claiborne Avenue Store opportunity (Count I) and
conspiracy to breach fiduciary duties (Count III) set forth in the
plaintiffs' fourth and fifth supplemental and amending petitions
had prescribed. The trial judge rendered judgment granting the
defendants' exception and dismissing Counts I and III. Plaintiffs
appealed.

Judge Tobias affirmed the judgment of the trial court granting the
exception of prescription in favor of the defendants.  A copy of
Judge Tobias's decision dated February 11, 2015 is available at
http://is.gd/ezsba6from Leagle.com.

Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant:

Robert Patrick Vance, Esq.
Andrew R. Lee, Esq.
Avery B. Pardee, Esq.
Brett S. Venn, Esq.
JONES WALKER WAECHTER POITEVENT CARRERE & DENEGRE, L.L.P.
201 St. Charles Avenue, 49th Floor
New Orleans, LA 70170-5100
Telephone: 504-582-8000
Facsimile: 504-585-8583

Counsel for Defendant/Appellee:

Kyle D. Schonekas, Esq.
Patrick Shaw McGoey, Esq.
Andrea V. Timpa, Esq.
SCHONEKAS EVANS McGOEY & McEACHIN, L.L.C.
909 Poydras Street, Suite 1600
New Orleans, LA 70112
Telephone: 504-680-6050
Facsimile: 504-680-6051


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Demands for Arbitration Brought by Crew Members
----------------------------------------------------------------
Demands for arbitration are being brought individually by crew
members and not on behalf of a purported class of stateroom
attendants, Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

A class action complaint was filed in June 2011 against Royal
Caribbean Cruises Ltd. in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on behalf of a purported class of
stateroom attendants employed onboard Royal Caribbean
International cruise vessels. The complaint alleged that the
stateroom attendants were required to pay other crew members to
help with their duties and that certain stateroom attendants were
required to work back of house assignments without the ability to
earn gratuities, in each case, in violation of the U.S. Seaman's
Wage Act.

"In May 2012, the district court granted our motion to dismiss the
complaint on the basis that the applicable collective bargaining
agreement requires any such claims to be arbitrated. The United
States Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, affirmed the district
court's dismissal and denied the plaintiffs' petition for re-
hearing and re-hearing en banc," the Company said.

In October 2014, the United States Supreme Court denied the
plaintiffs' request to review the order compelling arbitration.
Subsequently, approximately 575 crew members submitted demands for
arbitration. The demands make substantially the same allegations
as in the federal court complaint and are similarly seeking
damages, wage penalties and interest in an indeterminate amount.

"Unlike the federal court complaint, the demands for arbitration
are being brought individually by each of the crew members and not
on behalf of a purported class of stateroom attendants. At this
time, we are unable to estimate the possible impact of this matter
on us. However, we believe the underlying claims made against us
are without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves
against them," the Company said.


SAFEWAY INC: Plaintiff in "Rodman" Case Wins Summary Judgment
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar of the Northern District of California
granted plaintiff's motion in the case MICHAEL RODMAN, Plaintiff,
v. SAFEWAY INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 11-CV-03003-JST (N.D. Cal.)

Since 2006, Safeway has operated an online grocery delivery
service on its website, Safeway.com. Prior to placing a delivery
order with Safeway.com, customers must register for an account.
Once registered, customers place orders for home delivery by
browsing selections and prices displayed on the website. For each
item, the online store describes the item, displays its image, and
displays a price next to the item.  Customers select a delivery
time, which can be several days after the order is placed online.
Groceries are then selected from a physical Safeway store and
delivered to the customer. Prices for products in Safeway's
physical stores, and in its online store, change frequently.

The plaintiff Michael Rodman used the Safeway.com delivery service
and later discovered the prices were higher than those in his
local store.  He brought suit, alleging causes of action for
breach of contract and under California's Unfair Competition Law,
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and False Advertising Law. Plaintiff
argued that he understood the Special Terms to promise the same
prices in the local stores as were charged on the website, and
Safeway argued that his claims failed as a matter of law.
Plaintiff argues that Defendant breached the terms of the parties'
agreement by charging higher prices for groceries on its online
Safeway.com delivery service than it charged in the stores where
the groceries were selected.  On November 1, 2011, the Court
denied Safeway's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims.

On November 15, 2011, Safeway revised the Special Terms to include
the following language: "Please note before shopping online at
Safeway.com that online and physical store prices, promotions, and
offers may differ." On August 29, 2012, Safeway sent an email to
customers who had opened an email from Safeway.com in the last six
months, informing them that "Grocery delivery prices, promotions,
discounts, and offers may differ from your local store."

On March 9, 2014, the court granted plaintiff's motion to certify
a class for purposes of bringing the breach of contract action,
although not for the CLRA, UCL and FAL causes of action.

Both plaintiff and defendant have filed cross-motions for partial
summary judgment on the class's breach of contract claim.

Judge Tigar granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and
finds that Safeway breached the contract by charging plaintiff and
the class members who registered beginning in 2006 more than the
prices permitted under the terms of the contract and the class is
entitled to damages even for purchases which occurred after the
Special Terms were amended on November 15, 2011.

A copy of Judge Tigar's amended order dated February 12, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/Dx8NBkfrom Leagle.com.

Michael Rodman, Plaintiff, represented by, James C Shah --
jshah@sfmslaw.com -- Rosemary Farrales Luzon -- rluzon@sfmslaw.com
-- Scott Rhead Shepherd -- at -- Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller &
Shah, LLP; Steven Alan Schwartz -- SteveSchwartz@chimicles.com --
Timothy Newlyn Mathews -- TimothyMathews@chimicles.com -- at
Chimicles & Tikellis LLP

Safeway Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian R. Blackman --
bblackman@sheppardmullin.com -- Elizabeth Sarah Berman --
ebarcohana@sheppardmullin.com -- P. Craig Cardon --
ccardon@sheppardmullin.com -- at -- Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP


SANOFI PASTEUR: Asks 3rd Cir. to Dismiss Junk Fax Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Packel and Lisa Ryan, writing for Law360, report that Sanofi
Pasteur Inc. on March 4 asked the Third Circuit to throw out a
putative class action over the company's alleged transmission of
unsolicited faxes to consumers, arguing that its unaccepted offer
to resolve the suit put the case to rest.

Carl J. Greco, representing Sanofi, told the three-judge panel
that the company's offer of judgment mooted the plaintiffs'
individual claims, as well as the class claims, since no motion
for class certification had been filed at that time.

"In the three years after the filing in federal court, the
plaintiffs have taken no action to move for class certification,"
he said.  "We believe there was undue delay."

The federal suit, filed in November 2011, alleges advertisers
VisionLab Inc., Westfax Inc. and Velofax LLP sent more than 10,000
unsolicited fax advertisements to consumers on behalf of Sanofi
and Vaxserve Inc.  The suit claims the faxes violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The advertisers allegedly began sending the faxes in April 2004
after purchasing the fax numbers from list broker List Strategies
Inc, the suit says.  The lead plaintiff had originally filed in
Pennsylvania state court in February 2005.

The issue before the Third Circuit flows out of the U.S. Supreme
Court's 2013 decision in a case against Genesis Health Care Corp.,
in which it ruled that the company's offer of full relief to the
named plaintiff mooted a putative wage-and-hour collective action,
but didn't address the question of whether an unaccepted offer can
moot a case.

"This is an area of the law that is in great turmoil," Judge
Anthony Scirica said on March 4.

Mr. Greco argued that Sanofi's Rule 68 offer of judgment to the
lead plaintiffs in November 2013 mooted the plaintiffs' individual
claims well as the class claims, since no motion for class
certification had been filed at that time.

In response to questions from Judges Jane Roth and Patty Shwartz,
he said that even though the offer had expired, it still stood and
could be approved by the court.

"We could consent to the entry of a judgment," he said.

Todd Bank, representing the plaintiffs, responded that the court
should follow Justice Elena Kagan's dissent in the Genesis case,
which said that an unaccepted offer did not moot a case.  She was
joined by three other justices in the 5 to 4 decision.

"Every single district court -- except for those finding binding
precedent in their circuits -- has followed Justice Kagan's
dissent," he said.

"The issue couldn't be more clear: an offer that has expired, it's
like it has never been made," he continued.  "It's just not
logical."

But Judge Roth noted while the offer might have been expired for
the purposes of Rule 68, it could still be on the table for the
purposes of making the plaintiffs whole, pointing to Greco's
previous acknowledgment in open court that Sanofi was willing to
stand by the offer.

"If it makes the plaintiffs whole, it's not a chimera," she said.

The plaintiffs are represented by P. Timothy Kelly of Mattise &
Kelly PC, Daniel A. Osborn of Osborn Law PC and Todd C. Bank of
the Law Office of Todd C. Bank.

The defendants are represented by Carl J. Greco of Carl J. Greco
PC.

The case is Weitzner et al. v. Sanofi Pasteur Inc. et al., case
number 14-3423 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.


SBTICKETS.COM: Keller Rohrback Files Super Bowl Tickets Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Keller Rohrback L.L.P. on March 4 disclosed that it has filed a
class action complaint against SBTickets.com and Paul Jones,
president and founder of SBTickets.com, alleging the Company did
not fulfill its "100% guarantee" of delivering Super Bowl XLIX
tickets to their customers.  According to the complaint, despite
repeated representations that the tickets would be delivered as
promised, customers from all over the world traveled to Phoenix
only to find that SBTickets did not have their tickets, leaving
them without a seat for this once-in-a-lifetime event.

The complaint further states that customers spent at least $2,000
per ticket as well as thousands of dollars more to travel to
Phoenix, Arizona.  Most, if not all, SBTickets customers received
messages assuring them that "by having chosen SBTickets as your
Super Bowl ticket provider, your ticket(s) are guaranteed and
waiting to get you into the Big Game," only to find out there was
no ticket waiting for them.  Many customers were first notified
that they had no ticket just hours before kick-off, when they were
at the University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale, Arizona.

"For many football fans, a trip to Super Bowl XLIX was the trip of
a lifetime.  But the failure of this ticket broker to fulfill its
promise left those fans with huge travel bills and nothing to show
for it," said Gary Gotto -- sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com -- a
partner in Keller Rohrback's nationally recognized Complex
Litigation Group who has practiced in the Phoenix area since 1982.

If you would like more information about this case, contact
attorneys Gary Gotto or David Ko at (206) 623-1900 or (800) 776-
6044 or via email at info@kellerrohrback.com.  People who bought
tickets through a broker but did not have their orders fulfilled
can contact Keller Rohrback if they would like the firm's
attorneys to evaluate their potential claims.

Keller Rohrback L.L.P. is a sixty-plus lawyer law firm with a
national reputation as a go-to plaintiffs' firm for large-scale,
complex individual and class action cases.  With offices in
Seattle, Phoenix, New York, and Santa Barbara, Keller Rohrback
represents harmed consumers in class action cases in a variety of
contexts.


SCHIFF NUTRITION: Faces Class Action Over MegaRed Supplement
------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a dietary supplement maker is being
sued over allegations it falsely advertises one of its products
could reduce the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD).

Seth Sultan filed the lawsuit on Feb. 25 against Schiff Nutrition
International over its MegaRed supplement, which claims on its
label that it "may reduce the risk" of CHD.

MegaRed contains omega-3 fatty acids, which in some research has
indicated it may reduce CHD risk, the complaint says.  That
research, however, has not been adopted by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit also said nutritional supplements like MegaRed are
only allowed to include a statement that says consuming omega-3
fatty acids may reduce the risk of CHD, but that research on the
subject likewise is not conclusive.

"For this same reason, the FDA has stated that any claim
suggesting a level of omega-3 fatty acids to be useful in
achieving a reduction in the risk of CHD for the general healthy
population is presumed to be false and misleading," the lawsuit
said.

Despite the FDA stance, MegaRed still states on its label that it
"may reduce the risk of coronary heart disease" without any
information that the research hasn't been confirmed, the suit
says.

The lawsuit seeks class status and more than $5 million in damages
plus court costs.  Mr. Sultan is represented by Lionel Glancy and
Mark Greenstone -- mgreenstone@glancylaw.com -- of Glancy Binkow &
Goldberg, LLP in Los Angeles and Stuart Scott and Daniel Frech of
Spangenberg Shibley & Liber, LLP in Cleveland.

United States District Court for Central District of California
case number is 8:15-cv-00315.


SEAWORLD PARKS: Auto-Renew Ticket Class Action Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------
Zachary Zagger and Linda Chiem, writing for Law360, report that a
Florida federal judge on March 5 refused to dismiss a putative
class action against SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment Inc. alleging
the theme park operator wrongfully renewed and automatically
charged customers for annual passes to its parks without their
permission.

Plaintiff Jason Herman alleges SeaWorld breached its "EZpay"
payment plan contract by automatically renewing and charging
customers for annual passes to its parks for the upcoming year
before the current 12-month period was up and without obtaining
authorization from the customers.  In a two-page order, U.S.
District Judge Mary S. Scriven denied SeaWorld's motion to
dismiss, except for an unjust enrichment claim that the plaintiff
stipulated to dismissal, ordering SeaWorld to answer Herman's
complaint within 14 days.

According to his December complaint, Mr. Herman bought two adult
passes good for one year's worth of unlimited admission to Busch
Gardens Tampa and SeaWorld Orlando on March 18, 2013, opting to
pay for the passes through SeaWorld's EZpay monthly payment plan
instead of paying for them upfront in full.

Mr. Herman said that despite making the full payment for the year
passes in 11 months, SeaWorld continued to charge his credit card
on a monthly basis.  He alleged that SeaWorld did not have the
contractual right to automatically renew the passes or continue to
charge him on a month-to-month basis.

But in its motion to dismiss, SeaWorld called Mr. Herman's
interpretation of the contract "nonsensical," saying it focuses on
a single clause in the EZpay contract contending that the contract
clearly allowed for automatic renewal unless the purchaser
canceled.

Following the 12th monthly payment in February 2014, Mr. Herman's
contract renewed automatically on a month-to-month basis pursuant
to its terms and he continued to make the monthly payments up
until September to keep his annual pass valid and he never
canceled his EZpay plan, SeaWorld said in its motion to dismiss.

The theme park giant argued that, reading the contract as a whole,
"there can be no question that SeaWorld's conduct was authorized"
and that the "plain language of the contract simply does not
permit plaintiff's strained reading to the contrary," in its
motion to dismiss.

SeaWorld had also sought to bifurcate the discovery process to
first handle discovery related to class certification, leaving the
discovery on the merits of the claim for when and if the court
certifies the class.

However, the court denied this request in its order on March 5,
saying bifurcation was premature.

Mr. Herman is represented by Paul R. Fowkes and Ryan C. Hasanbasic
of Disparti Law Group PA.

SeaWorld is represented by Colin C. Deihl --
colin.deihl@faegrebd.com -- and Ann E. Prouty --
ann.prouty@faegrebd.com -- of Faegre Baker Daniels and Christopher
T. Hill of Hill Rugh Keller & Main.

The case is Herman v. SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment Inc., case
number 8:14-cv-03028, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida.


SELECTIVE INSURANCE: Evidentiary Hearing Set for May 18
-------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Dunn, writing for International Business Times, reports
that Humphrey Uddoh wrote a letter to a federal judge in New
Jersey in February about two insurance adjusters who appeared at
his Jersey City home after Superstorm Sandy in 2012 -- one a
welcome guest, the other quite suspicious.  The first man,
Mr. Uddoh says, assessed that the home had sustained flood damage
totaling at least $80,000.  The second man, Uddoh says, showed up
under false pretenses, but eventually admitted the true nature of
the visit: An insurance company had dispatched him to "undercut"
the initial estimate.

Incensed, Mr. Uddoh threatened to call the police.  He then
watched the man "scatter like a vermin," almost knocking over one
of Mr. Uddoh's neighbors on the sidewalk before he jumped into an
SUV and peeled away.

The mysterious visitor "put the 'pedal to the metal' and screeched
out of his parking spot so fast that he left burned black tire
marks behind," according to the 187-page document Mr. Uddoh filed
with a federal district court in New Jersey early February.

The letter has won Mr. Uddoh a new hearing in a case that
illustrates deeper problems within the Federal Emergency
Management Agency's embattled National Flood Insurance Program,
already reeling from allegations of widespread fraud.  Mr. Uddoh
said he now has evidence that a common document was first
wrongfully altered and then kept hidden by his insurance carrier
and a powerful private law firm that has served FEMA for decades.

The document that Mr. Uddoh unearthed -- an adjuster's report --
is the cornerstone of nearly every insurance claim.  Thousands
more people are at risk of having received manipulated adjusters'
reports, and reduced claims payments, attorneys say.  "If that
part of the process is manipulated, altered, or tainted, the
entire process is manipulated, altered and tainted," said
Mr. Uddoh's lawyer, Mitchell B. Shpelfogel.

Both Mr. Uddoh's insurance carrier, Selective Insurance Co. of
America, and one of its attorneys from the firm Nielsen, Carter &
Treas LLC declined to comment for this story, citing the pending
litigation.

A lawyer for the adjusting firm, CNC Catastrophe & National
Claims, also declined to comment, citing a judge's dismissal of
the company's involvement in the case.  The firm reached a
settlement agreement with Mr. Uddoh in January.

A FEMA representative declined to comment on Mr. Uddoh's case, but
said, "We expect every insurance company we partner with to share
FEMA's values of putting survivors first."

Mr. Uddoh said the evidence he now has shows Selective
fraudulently reduced his claim from the $80,000 the original
adjuster set aside.  The final estimate he was issued back in 2012
totaled $334.  The new report he obtained shows an estimate of
$16,170.  Mr. Shpelfogel said he believes even the newly uncovered
version was altered, and that repairs to Mr. Uddoh's home -- which
he hasn't been able to complete -- could ultimately top $150,000.

What's more is that Selective maintained that no other version
existed, Mr. Shpelfogel said.  Despite spending nearly two years
in litigation with Selective and CNC, Mr. Uddoh managed to obtain
the new copy only when he settled part of the case with CNC in
January.  "The continued lies and cover-ups is why we're still in
litigation," Mr. Shpelfogel said.

Until February, Mr. Uddoh, a lawyer by trade, represented himself
in the lawsuit.  He was up against a law firm -- Nielsen, Carter &
Treas -- that has a long history with FEMA. Partner Gerald Nielsen
has represented National Flood Insurance Program carriers since
1988.  He is a noted speaker on the workings of the NFIP, and a
fixture at the National Flood Conference, an annual gathering of
executives from insurance companies, banks, adjusting firms and
engineering firms.

FEMA pays the legal bills for defense attorneys when homeowners
sue on their flood-insurance claims.  Nielsen's comments about how
much defense lawyers would earn from Sandy litigation have drawn
heightened scrutiny.  Last June, he predicted that defense fees
from Sandy were "likely to exceed the total costs" from the
previous 20 years combined, reaching $100 million.  In December,
the two U.S. senators in New York requested that the Government
Accountability Office audit the flood-insurance program's legal
fees, quoting directly from Nielsen's statements in the federal
court for the Eastern District of New York.  In mid-February, FEMA
confirmed it had so far spent $12.4 million on outside attorneys
for Sandy lawsuits.

Mr. Shpelfogel and Mr. Mostyn argued that they see another
troubling pattern: In several cases involving allegations of
manipulated damage reports, as well as evidence that has not been
produced in litigation, the Nielsen firm is a "common
denominator," Mr. Shpelfogel said.

Gerald Nielsen did not respond to requests for comment.

In the Raimey v. Wright case, U.S. Magistrate Judge Gary R. Brown
found in November the altered engineering report was "concealed by
design" from the homeowners and that Wright's counsel "violated
its obligations" to turn over evidence. In that same order, Brown
sanctioned Wright's attorneys, which included lawyers from the
Nielsen firm.

Mr. Shpelfogel and Mr. Mostyn are suing Nielsen, Carter & Treas in
a class-action racketeering suit, alleging the firm took part in a
scheme to reduce flood-insurance payments, based on altered
engineering reports.

Mr. Uddoh filed suit against Selective and CNC in April 2013, and
attempted to subpoena documents from the original adjuster -- an
outside contractor who was not an employee of the adjusting firm.
In a previous conversation with Mr. Uddoh, this adjuster "spoke of
the pressure that CNC was subjecting him to" and "stated his
directive by CNC and Selective to lower his $80,000 damage award,"
according to Mr. Uddoh's court filing.

An attorney with Nielsen, Carter & Treas intervened in that
subpoena attempt. Court documents show that lawyer Kristie Mouney
emailed Daniel Jules April 11, 2013, "instructing that you not
provide any response to" Mr. Uddoh's subpoena.

Looking back, Mr. Mostyn said, "Uddoh had to fight very, very hard
to get his documents."  A hearing on evidence in the case is
scheduled for May 18.


SHELLPOINT PARTNERS: Faces Suit Linked to Home Mortgage Servicing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Un Boon Kim, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated and the general public v. Shellpoint Partners, LLC dba
Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing, Case No. 3:15-cv-00611-LAB-BLM
(S.D. Cal., March 17, 2015) seeks redress for damages caused by
the Defendant's alleged numerous violations of California and
federal laws related to the servicing of home mortgages.

Shellpoint is a mortgage lender and servicer with headquarters in
Greenville, South Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Robert Forde, Esq.
          Matthew B. Bernstein, Esq.
          HOFFMAN & FORDE, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
          3033 5th Avenue, Suite 225
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 546-7880
          Facsimile: (619) 546-7881
          E-mail: dforde@hoffmanforde.com
                  mbernstein@hoffmanforde.com

               - and -

          Frank J. Polek, Esq.
          POLEK LAW
          701 B. Street, Suite 1110
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 550-2455
          Facsimile: (619) 274-8166
          E-mail: frank@poleklaw.com


SHEPHERD COMMUNICATIONS: "Sparacino" Case Stayed Until April 20
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Colin H. Lindsay of the Western District of
Kentucky, Louisville Division, sustained in part and overruled in
part the parties' joint motion in the case JEREMY SPARACINO and
RONNIE SPATE, on behalf of THEMSELVES and All Others Similarly
Situated, PLAINTIFFS, v. SHEPHERD COMMUNICATIONS, INC., TIME
WARNER CABLE MIDWEST, LLC, INSIGHT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, L.P.,
and ERIC SHEPHERD, DEFENDANTS, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-298-JHM-
CHL (W.D. Ky.)

The parties filed a joint motion to stay litigation and toll the
claims. The parties have proposed that the Court enter an agreed
order staying the action and tolling the applicable statutes of
limitations.

The parties seek a stay of the litigation from the date of filing
the Joint Motion, February 2, 2015, until April 20, 2015. The
purpose of the proposed stay is to provide adequate time for the
parties to engage in limited discovery and to mediate this matter
on April 13, 2015. The parties agree that, should a stay be
imposed, any party may move to lift or prolong the stay depending
on the status of settlement discussions.

Also the parties have moved the court for an order tolling the
applicable statutes of limitations for the same period of time
that the matter is stayed. The parties ask that the statutes of
limitations be tolled with respect to all claims asserted by
plaintiffs and potential opt-in plaintiffs, as well as claims
asserted in the lawsuit by former plaintiffs and opt-in plaintiffs
whom the court previously compelled to arbitration.

Judge Lindsay sustained in part and overruled in part the parties'
joint motion. The litigation is stayed from the date of filing of
the joint motion, February 2, 2015, until April 20, 2015. During
the period of time that the stay is in effect, the parties are
free to move the Court to lift or extend the stay. The Court
overruled the parties' request that it equitably toll the statutes
of limitations applicable to the claims in this action.

A copy of Judge Lindsay's memorandum opinion and order dated
February 12, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/89A470from
Leagle.com.

Ian Coram, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E.
Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

George Bright, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry
E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Philip Hess, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E.
Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Howard L. Sutton, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by David W.
Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris
Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC,
Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M.
Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Jerome Trowell, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry
E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Ryan Cagle, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E.
Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Chet Emerson Glisson, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry
E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

James Clemons, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry
E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Chris J. Ennis, Plaintiff, represented by Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Greggory Mick, Plaintiff, represented by Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Brian Adams, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E.
Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Christopher J. Buckman, Plaintiff, represented by David W.
Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris
Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC,
Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M.
Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Jacob Dunham, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E.
Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Edward Hohmann, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry
E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Mitchell Lilly, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry
E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Brandon Howard, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry
E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Tyrone Cardwell, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry
E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Tom Riddell, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E.
Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Joseph A. Brown, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry
E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Lloyd W. Brown, Sr., Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC,J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E.
Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Rodney Long, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E.
Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Jonatan Cisneros Rodriguez, Plaintiff, represented by David W.
Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris
Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC,
Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M.
Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Anthony Roussel, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry
E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Patrick Ferguson, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry
E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Adam Guenther, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry
E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Shawn Gray, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E.
Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

James Travis Barker, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry
E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Michael Hicks, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry
E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Charles Yocum, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry
E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Mark Miracle, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E.
Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Benji Riddell, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry
E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

George Cline, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E.
Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Jason Messer, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E.
Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Richard Smith, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC,J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E.
Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Ashley Wasielewski, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC,J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E.
Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Dustin Leatherwood, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC,J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E.
Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Michael Snell, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry
E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Jeremy Loney, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E.
Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Jeremy Sparacino, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC,J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E.
Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Philip John Thomas, III, Plaintiff, represented by Philip John
Thomas, III

Anna Roberts, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E.
Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Sammy Wayne Lester, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by David W.
Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris
Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC,
Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M.
Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Jeff Redmon, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E.
Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Michael Logan, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry
E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Chris Murphy, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E.
Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Matthew P. Reese, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC,J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E.
Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Brandon W. Chesser, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry
E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Brian Marksbury, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry
E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Jason Keith, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E.
Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Todd Ogden, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E.
Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Victor D. Davenport, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC,J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E.
Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Ronnie Spate, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E.
Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Jesse Noel, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E.
Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Thomas Abbott, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry
E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Kevin Ritchie, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry
E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Arnoldo Hutchinson, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC,J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E.
Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

John T. Ivey, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E.
Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Terell Purnell, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry
E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Shepherd Communications, Inc., Defendant, represented by John C.
Roach, Ransdell & Roach PLLC, S. Chad Meredith, Ransdell & Roach
PLLC & W. Keith Ransdell, Ransdell & Roach PLLC

Insight Communications Company, L.P., Defendant, represented by
Barry L. Dunn, Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC, Culver V. Halliday, Stoll
Keenon Ogden PLLC, J. Scott Carr, Wargo & French, LLP, Michael D.
Kabat, Wargo & French, LLP & Stephanie L. McAlister, Wargo &
French LLP

Time Warner Cable Midwest LLC, Defendant, represented by Culver V.
Halliday, Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC, J. Scott Carr, Wargo & French,
LLP & Stephanie L. McAlister, Wargo & French LLP

Eric Shepherd, Defendant, represented by W. Keith Ransdell,
Ransdell & Roach PLLC


SHRED-IT USA: Court Signs Protective Order in "Kirchner" Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan approved on March 18, 2015,
a stipulation for protective order in the case captioned MICHAEL
KIRCHNER, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SHRED-IT USA INC., a Delaware
Corporation, FIRST ADVANTAGE LNS SCREENING SOLUTIONS, INC., and
DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, CASE NO. 2:14-CV-01437-WBS-EFB,
(E.D. Cal.).

Among other things, the parties agreed that in connection with
discovery proceedings in this action, including document
productions, interrogatory answers, responses to requests to
admissions, depositions, and discovery materials, the parties
designate documents as "confidential" under the terms of the
Stipulation for Protective Order. The documents protected pursuant
to the Order have not been made public and the disclosure of these
documents would have the effect of causing harm.

A copy of the court-approved stipulation is available at
http://is.gd/t3tjWNfrom Leagle.com.

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP, Mark P. Grajski, Sacramento, California,
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP, Frederick T. Smith (Admitted Pro Hac Vice),
Esther Slater McDonald (Admitted Pro Hac Vice), Atlanta, Georgia,
Attorneys for Defendant FIRST ADVANTAGE BACKGROUND SERVICES CORP.

THE DION-KINDEM LAW FIRM, Peter R. Dion-Kindem, P.C., Peter R.
Dion-Kindem, Woodland Hills, California, THE BLANCHARD LAW GROUP,
APC Lonnie C. Blanchard, III, Los Angeles, California, Attorneys
for Plaintiff MICHAEL KIRCHNER.


SOUTHERN MAINE MOTORS: Sued for Violating Age Discrimination Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
John A. Williams v. Southern Maine Motors, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-
00109-GZS (D. Me., March 18, 2015) challenges the Defendant's
alleged:

   (1) unlawful age discrimination against the Plaintiff, in
       violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and
       the Maine Human Rights Act;

   (2) unlawful whistleblower retaliation against Plaintiff in
       violation of the Maine Whistleblower Protection Act; and

   (3) false and misleading advertising causing harm to the
       Plaintiff and confusion among the Defendant's customers,
       in violation of the Lanham Act.

Southern Maine Motors, LLC is a Maine Limited Liability Company
doing business in Maine.  The Company operates a dealership
located in Saco, Maine.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laura H. White, Esq.
          BERGEN & PARKINSON, LLC
          62 Portland Rd., Suite 25
          Kennebunk, ME 04043
          Telephone: (207) 985-7000
          E-mail: lwhite@bergenparkinson.com


STARION ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Consumer Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a Pennsylvania resident has filed a
class action lawsuit against an energy manufacturing group for
alleged fraud in marketing and retaining customers.

John D. Orange, of Punxsutawney, filed a lawsuit Feb. 18 in U.S.
District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against
three entities doing business as Starion Energy, alleging consumer
fraud.  According to the complaint, Starion misled consumers by
advertising a "teaser rate" for electricity provision and
Mr. Orange, who enrolled as a Starion customer in September 2013,
says his electric bill was nearly triple that of his previous
provider.

The suit states Starion led customers to believe their bills would
be lower when, in fact, they increased and the defendants knew
they would not provide the advertised savings.

Orange alleges breach of contract, good faith and fair dealing.
He seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory damages,
attorney fees and court costs. He is represented by attorneys
Jonathan Shub and Scott Alan George of Seeger Weiss in
Philadelphia.

U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case
2:15-cv-00773


TARGET CORP: Nov. 10 Final Hearing on Security Breach Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Paul A. Magnuson entered an order on March 19, 2015
Granting preliminary approval to a settlement in In re: Target
Corporation Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL NO. 14-
2522 (PAM/JJK), (D. Minn.).  The ruling, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/p9GFg0from Leagle.com, relates to all
Consumer Cases.

The Court certified the Settlement Class defined: All persons in
the United States whose credit or debit card information and/or
whose personal information was compromised as a result of the data
breach that was first disclosed by Target on December 19, 2013.
Excluded from the class are the Court, the officers and directors
of Target, and persons who timely and validly request exclusion
from the Settlement Class.

The Court held that the Settlement is fair, reasonable and
adequate to warrant providing notice of the Settlement to the
Class and accordingly is preliminarily approved.

The Settlement Agreement contemplates the establishment of a
Settlement Fund and a claims process. Target will fund the payment
of claims to be determined by the Settlement Administrator and the
Service Payments awarded to the Settlement Class Representatives
up to a combined total of $10 million.

The Court designated these professionals as Settlement Class
Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g): Consumer Plaintiffs'
Lead Counsel Vincent J. Esades, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C.; E.
Michelle Drake, Nichols Kaster, PLLP, appointed by the Court to
serve as Liaison Counsel in the Consumer Actions; John A.
Yanchunis, Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group, PA, who
serves on the Executive Committee - Coordinating Lead and Liaison
Counsel; and members of the Consumer Steering Committee, Ariana J.
Tadler, Milberg LLP, Norman E. Siegel, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP
and Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs, LLP.

The Court appointed Rust Consulting, Inc. as the Settlement
Administrator, with responsibility, together with Kinsella Media,
LLC, for class notice and claims administration. Target will pay
reasonable costs of administration and class notice costs, which
payments will be in addition to and independent of the Settlement
Fund.

Any Class Member who wishes to be excluded from the Settlement
Class must mail a personally signed, written request for exclusion
to the Settlement Administrator, postmarked no later than July 31,
2015 (the Opt-Out Deadline).

A Final Approval Hearing will be held on Tuesday, November 10,
2015, at 10:00 a.m.

IN RE: Target Corporation Customer Data Security Breach
Litigation, In Re, represented by Brian C Gudmundson, Zimmerman
Reed, PLLP.

Plaintiff's Lead Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by Charles S
Zimmerman, Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Felipe J Arroyo, Robbins Arroyo
LLP, Karl L Cambronne, Chestnut Cambronne, PA, Vincent J Esades,
Heins Mills & Olson, PLC, Brian C Gudmundson, Zimmerman Reed,
PLLP, Bryan L Bleichner, Chestnut Cambronne, PA, James J
Pizzirusso, Hausfeld LLP & Jennifer J Sosa, Milberg LLP.

Plaintiff's Liaison Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher
R Walsh, Walsh Law Firm, E Michelle Drake, Nichols Kaster, PLLP,
Garrett D Blanchfield, Jr, Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, Karen
Hanson Riebel, Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, Amanda R Cefalu,
Anderson, Helgen, Davis & Nissen, LLC & Jennifer J Sosa, Milberg
LLP.

Target Corporation, Defendant, represented by Douglas H Meal,
Ropes & Gray LLP, Michael A Ponto, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Wendy
J Wildung, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, David F McDowell, Morrison &
Foerster LLP, David Frank McDowell, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Fred
B Burnside, DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, Harold J McElhinny, Morrison &
Foerster LLP, Jack W Londen, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Michael John
Agoglia, Morrison & Foerster, Michelle L Visser, Ropes & Gray LLP,
Nancy R Thomas, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Patrick J. Kenny,
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Rebekah Kaufman, Morrison & Foerster LLP,
Robert G. Flanders,Jr, Jr., Hinckley, Allen & Snyder LLP, Samuel
James Boone Lunier, Morrison & Foerster LLP & Sterling Arthur
Brennan, MASHOFF BRENNAN.

Target.com, Defendant, represented by Douglas H Meal, Ropes & Gray
LLP, Michael John Agoglia, Morrison & Foerster, Michael A Ponto,
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Wendy J Wildung, Faegre Baker Daniels
LLP, David F McDowell, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Harold J
McElhinny, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Jack W Londen, Morrison &
Foerster LLP & Rebekah Kaufman, Morrison & Foerster LLP.

Target Corporation of Minnesota, Defendant, represented by Douglas
H Meal, Ropes & Gray LLP, Michael A Ponto, Faegre Baker Daniels
LLP, Wendy J Wildung, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, David F McDowell,
Morrison & Foerster LLP, Michelle L Visser, Ropes & Gray LLP,
Rebekah Kaufman, Morrison & Foerster LLP & Seth A. Schmeeckle,
Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard.

Target Corporation of Minnesota, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Douglas H Meal, Ropes & Gray LLP, Michelle L Visser, Ropes & Gray
LLP, Rebekah Kaufman, Morrison & Foerster LLP & Wendy J Wildung,
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.

Target.com, Defendant, represented by Douglas H Meal, Ropes & Gray
LLP, Michelle L Visser, Ropes & Gray LLP, Rebekah Kaufman,
Morrison & Foerster LLP & Wendy J Wildung, Faegre Baker Daniels
LLP.


TCF BANK: Faces Overtime Class Action in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------
Nick Woltman, writing for TwinCities.com, reports that a class
action lawsuit filed on March 3 in U.S. District Court in Illinois
alleges that TCF Bank misclassified employees to avoid paying them
overtime.

The complaint accuses Wayzata-based TCF of trying to reduce labor
costs by classifying assistant branch managers as overtime-exempt,
despite being assigned to the same type of work as overtime-
eligible employees.

"We have reviewed the lawsuit and deny the allegations," TCF
spokesman Mark Goldman said.  "Beyond that, we cannot comment on
the specifics of the case.  We look forward to presenting our
argument in court."

The two former employees named in the suit seek back overtime pay
and a judgment declaring illegal a waiver they signed giving up
their rights to join a class action.

TCF is Minnesota's third-largest bank by deposits and has branches
in eight states.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Made $5.5MM Initial Deposit in Class Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation made an initial deposit of $5.5
million into an escrow account in late November 2014, related to
the settlement in a class action lawsuit, the company said in its
Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

"In October 2014, we received court approval of a final agreement
to settle a previously disclosed class action lawsuit captioned
Doe, et al. v. Jo Ellen Smith Medical Foundation, which was filed
in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans in Louisiana
in March 1997. The plaintiffs pursued a claim for tortious
invasion of privacy due to the fact that in April 1996 patient
identifying records from a psychiatric hospital we closed in 1995
were temporarily placed in an unsecure location while the hospital
was undergoing renovations. The court certified a class of over
5,000 persons; however, only eight individuals (in addition to the
two plaintiffs) have been identified to date in the class
certification process. The plaintiffs have asserted each member of
the class is entitled to common damages under a theory of presumed
"common damage" regardless of whether or not any members of the
class were actually harmed or even aware of the incident. In an
effort to avoid protracted litigation, the parties settled this
matter in June 2014 for a maximum potential payment of $32.5
million, subject to the number and type of claims asserted by the
class members between January 15 and March 31, 2015. We made an
initial deposit of $5.5 million into an escrow account in late
November 2014. The settlement will be funded in amounts and on a
schedule to be agreed to by the parties. Management has
established a reserve of $11.5 million, recorded in discontinued
operations, to reflect our current estimate of probable liability
for this matter based on anticipated levels of class member
participation," the Company said.


TEREX CORP: Filed Motions to Dismiss ERISA and Securities Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Terex Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company has received
complaints seeking certification of class action lawsuits in an
ERISA lawsuit, a securities lawsuit and a stockholder derivative
lawsuit as follows:

   * A consolidated complaint in the ERISA lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court, District of Connecticut on
September 20, 2010 and is entitled In Re Terex Corp. ERISA
Litigation.

   * A consolidated class action complaint for violations of
securities laws in the securities lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court, District of Connecticut on November 18,
2010 and is entitled Sheet Metal Workers Local 32 Pension Fund and
Ironworkers St. Louis Council Pension Fund, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Terex Corporation, et
al.

   * A stockholder derivative complaint for violation of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary duty,
waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment was filed on April
12, 2010 in the United States District Court, District of
Connecticut and is entitled Peter Derrer, derivatively on behalf
of Terex Corporation v. Ronald M. DeFeo, Phillip C. Widman, Thomas
J. Riordan, G. Chris Andersen, Donald P. Jacobs, David A. Sachs,
William H. Fike, Donald DeFosset, Helge H. Wehmeier, Paula H.J.
Cholmondeley, Oren G. Shaffer, Thomas J. Hansen, and David C.
Wang, and Terex Corporation.

These lawsuits generally cover the period from February 2008 to
February 2009 and allege, among other things, that certain of the
Company's SEC filings and other public statements contained false
and misleading statements which resulted in damages to the
Company, the plaintiffs and the members of the purported class
when they purchased the Company's securities and in the ERISA
lawsuit and the stockholder derivative complaint, that there were
breaches of fiduciary duties and of ERISA disclosure requirements.
The stockholder derivative complaint also alleges waste of
corporate assets relating to the repurchase of the Company's
shares in the market and unjust enrichment as a result of
securities sales by certain officers and directors. The complaints
all seek, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages,
costs and expenses. As a result, the Company is unable to estimate
a possible loss or a range of losses for these lawsuits. The
stockholder derivative complaint also seeks amendments to the
Company's corporate governance procedures in addition to
unspecified compensatory damages from the individual defendants in
its favor.

The Company believes that the allegations in the suits are without
merit, and Terex, its directors and the named executives will
continue to vigorously defend against them. The Company believes
that it has acted, and continues to act, in compliance with
federal securities laws and ERISA law with respect to these
matters. Accordingly, the Company has filed motions to dismiss the
ERISA lawsuit and the securities lawsuit. These motions are
currently pending before the court. The plaintiff in the
stockholder derivative lawsuit has agreed with the Company to put
this lawsuit on hold pending the outcome of the motion to dismiss
in connection with the securities lawsuit.


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Region of Waterloo Delists Guadrail System
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paige Desmond, writing for TheRecord.com, reports that since 2005,
the Region of Waterloo has been using guardrails made by a U.S.-
based company that have recently become the subject of a class-
action lawsuit over potential safety issues.  But the region is
taking a "wait-and-see" approach before deciding to join the $500-
million suit launched against Trinity Industries by the Town of
Stratford in February.

"I think that's what a lot of jurisdictions are doing,
particularly the (Transportation Ministry) and the province,"
Coun. Tom Galloway said.  "If it doesn't meet the code, then we
will have to consider what our alternatives are and whether or not
we would want to join the lawsuit or proceed in some manner."

At issue is the end piece of the ET-Plus guardrail system.  It's
designed to keep cars from hitting the sharp end of a guardrail.

Stratford claims a design modification was made in 2005, but
customers were not notified.  It is alleged the change jeopardizes
safety, according to the suit filed in Superior Court on behalf of
all affected Canadian jurisdictions.

Thomas Schmidt, regional commissioner of transportation and
environmental services, said the region has delisted the product
but won't be removing what's already installed.

"Now that we're aware of it, we're not going to keep installing
them, but it's a little bit different dealing with the past," he
said.

Mr. Schmidt said there is no danger to the public.

Trinity Industries stopped shipping the guardrails last year but
denies the modifications compromise safety.

Updated crash tests and ET-Plus statistics are being reviewed by
the Federal Highway Administration.

The ET-Plus system has passed four of the necessary tests, which
were also conducted by accredited facilities in 2005 and 2010,
according to the federal administration.  More results are
pending.

In a year-end report to the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, Trinity Industries says Stratford's lawsuit is without
merit and will be vigorously defended.

A firm number on units installed isn't available, Mr. Schmidt
said.  He isn't aware of any municipality that has ripped out the
existing Trinity product.

"Most municipalities have taken the position that, one, we have a
lot of them out there, to go and tear them all out and replace
them without knowing (if they're unsafe) is a considerable
expense. Two, the evidence seems to be that the testing . . .
seems to be headed toward a position where they would be safe,"
Mr. Schmidt said.

In an email to The Record, provincial Transportation Ministry
spokesperson Ajay Woozageer said the government has been
monitoring the Trinity issue since October 2014.

"We are not aware of any safety performance issues with the
Trinity Highway Products steel beam rail energy-absorbing
terminals installed on provincial highways," he said.

The ministry is awaiting data from the final four crash tests
before making any decisions on the product.

More than 40 U.S. states have stopped installing the ET-Plus
units.  Alberta, Nova Scotia and Quebec have done the same.

According to media reports, the ET-Plus guardrail system has been
linked to five deaths, several injuries and at least 14 collisions
in the U.S.

The City of Waterloo said it has not installed the product in the
city.  Most roads with guardrails are under regional jurisdiction.
Kitchener staff said they were not aware of any in use either.
The City of Cambridge could not be reached.


UBER TECH: California Taxi Drivers Join Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Oakland North reports that California taxi divers face a new
frustration: booming competition from companies like Uber and
other app-based taxi companies that have recently entered the
market with new services, systems and often better cars.

Standing close to his cab in a taxi garage, Ben Ezeokoli, a driver
who works at the Oakland Airport, says he has been in business for
nearly 30 years.  Back when he started driving his taxi, the
business was paying off -- there were a lot of customers and few
taxis.  But now private cars are also joining the market.

"Sometime you see the cabs parked and waiting, but suddenly you
see a private car comes by," says Mr. Ezeokoli, 55.  He used to
think that these private cars had drivers there to pick their
family members or friends.  "But now you know these are Uber
drivers," he said.

By last fall, Business Insider was reporting that Uber was
recruiting about 50,000 drivers a month nation-wide.  And some of
those new drivers work at the Oakland Airport, too.  The Uber cars
are newer than most taxis, and ride sometimes costs less, and you
can get one within 3 to 5 minutes.  That makes it hard for
Ezeokoli and his peers -- the traditional taxi drivers -- to make
a living.


ULTIMATE FITNESS: Removes "Villoch" Class Suit to M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Villoch v. Ultimate Fitness Group,
LLC, et al., Case No. 15-CA-001444, was removed from the
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Hillsborough County,
Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida (Tampa).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:15-
cv-00587-SDM-MAP to the proceeding.

The action is brought for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Kevin Savage, Esq.
          SAVAGE, COMBS & VILLOCH, PLLC
          412 E. Madison Street, Suite 1120
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 251-4890
          Facsimile: (813) 354-4561
          E-mail: bert@savagelaw.us

Defendant Ultimate Fitness Group, LLC d/b/a Orange Theory Fitness
is represented by:

          Daniel R. Levine, Esq.
          BENNARDO LEVINE, LLP
          1860 NW Boca Raton Blvd.
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 392-8074
          Facsimile: (561) 368-6478
          E-mail: drlevine@bennardolevine.com


UNITED STATES: FBI Accused of Retaliation by Jewish Employee
------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Weber v. United States Department of Justice, Attorney
General Eric Holder, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and FBI
Director James B. Comey, Case No. 1:15-cv-02045 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 18, 2015) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

Mr. Weber alleges that the Defendants have discriminated and
retaliated against him, based on his religion and protected
activities, in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  He is a
resident of County of Kings, New York, and a member of the
Orthodox Jewish faith.

Department of Justice is a federal agency within the Executive
Branch of the United States government.  The DOJ has its
headquarters in Washington, DC, but has field offices throughout
the United States.  Federal Bureau of Investigation is a federal
agency operated and controlled by the United States Department of
Justice.  James B. Comey is the Director of the FBI.  Eric Holder
is the Attorney General of the United States and, thus, the head
of the United States Department of Justice.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew S. Porges, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW S. PORGES, ESQ.
          641 President Street, Suite 205
          Brooklyn, NY 11215
          Telephone: (718) 673-2578
          Facsimile: (718) 619-8654
          E-mail: mspesq@mspesq.com


UNITED STATES: Seeks Dismissal of Child Immigration Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Ingalls, writing for KING 5 News, reports that government
lawyers have asked a Seattle federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit
that would fundamentally change immigration law in the U.S.

The proposed class action lawsuit asks the court to require
lawyers for all "unaccompanied minors" arrested by immigration
officers in the US.  Right now, there are 28,000 children in the
federal immigration system who fit that class.  Under current law,
they may face an immigration judge without help from a lawyer.

"It's a joke to pit a child against a government attorney and
pretend that child is getting their fair day in court," said
attorney Matt Adams of the NW Immigrant Rights Project.

Mr. Adams and lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union
represent nine children from Seattle and Los Angeles who could
face deportation.

The children are often sent to the U.S. by their families to
escape violence or abuse in their homeland.  The children are
smuggled onto U.S. soil by "coyotes" who leave the children at the
border.

Last year, the U.S. captured more than twice as many unaccompanied
minors as the year before.  Authorities say most of those children
came from Honduras and El Salvador, which are rife with violence
and poverty.

In a hearing on March 6, lawyers from the U.S. Department of
Justice said the district court in Seattle did not have
jurisdiction to hear the case.  They also say the government
already has programs to assist child immigrants and requiring
lawyers for them would be costly and unnecessary.

Leon Fresco of the DOJ said that it is a simple process for a
child to explain to a judge that they are fearful of returning to
their homeland.

"How does a 10-year-old who doesn't speak the language even know
to (raise) that question?" Judge Thomas Zilly asked the government
lawyer.

Judge Zilly did not immediately rule on the government's motion to
dismiss the case.


VELDOS LLC: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shaya Bodansky, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Veldos LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-01400
(E.D.N.Y., March 18, 2015) accuses the Defendant of violating the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


VIDA CAFE: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zeferino Castelan-Hilario, Mario Quirino, Oscar Ortega, and Marcos
Geovanny, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v.
Vida Cafe Inc. d/b/a Mamajuana Cafe, Rancho Vida LLC d/b/a
Mamajuana Cafe, Victor Osorio, Victor Santos, and John Does 1-10,
Case No. 1:15-cv-02015-RJS (S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2015) alleges that
the Plaintiffs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, are
entitled to recover from the Defendants: (a) unpaid minimum wages,
(b) unpaid overtime compensation, (c) liquidated damages, (d)
prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and (e) attorneys' fees
and costs.

Mamajuana Cafe is a New York domestic business corporation with a
principal place of business in New York City.  The Corporate
Defendants operate restaurants in New York, New Jersey, and the
Dominican Republic, each doing business under the "Mamajuana"
brand.  The Individual Defendants are owners, principals or
officers of the Corporate Defendants.  The true names and
identities of the Doe Defendants are unknown at this time.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Giustino Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, P.L.L.C.
          708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209-3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
          E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com
                  pcooper@jcpclaw.com


VOLVO CARS: Sued Over Side-Impact Protection Defect
---------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck and Aaron Vehling, writing for Law360, report that
plaintiffs' attorney in a $5 million class action accusing Volvo
Cars of North America LLC of selling cars with an allegedly fatal
side-impact protection defect urged a Pennsylvania federal judge
on March 4 to stop its counsel's "attacks" over a sanctions
motion.

In a letter to the court, Francis Malofiy of Francis Alexander LLC
-- whom Volvo is trying to have sanctioned for allegedly altering
a document in the dispute -- accused defendant's attorneys of
trying to prejudice Volvo owners' case through inappropriate
personal attacks.

On Feb. 27, Volvo filed a memorandum supporting its sanctions
motion, which was originally filed in October 2013, before the
case was stayed due to proceedings in a related state suit.  Volvo
argued that its earlier motion for sanctions against Mr. Malofiy
was now ripe for decision, since the stay had been lifted.

Mr. Malofiy replied with a March 3 letter requesting an immediate
telephone conference with the court to address the sanctions
request, which he claimed the parties had agreed was moot after
Mr. Malofiy filed an amended complaint omitting the altered
document. He said it appeared Volvo's filing was made solely to
attack plaintiffs' counsel on the public docket.

"Just a few hours after Volvo filed their memorandum, plaintiffs'
counsel received a rare Friday night email from a reporter asking
for comment about the improper memorandum," Mr. Malofiy's March 3
letter said.  "If Volvo filed this memorandum on the docket,
regarding a motion it agreed was moot, for the sole purpose of
publicly attacking plaintiffs' counsel and having the press seize
on the improper memorandum, then that is a very serious situation
that must be addressed by the court."

After submitting that letter, Volvo's attorneys responded on
March 4 with a letter saying they had no recollection that the
parties had agreed that the sanctions motion was moot.

"We feel very much as the Honorable John M. Younge did in
responding to Mr. Malofiy's post-trial arguments: 'I will say that
you remember things in a way that's totally distinct and different
from the way I remember it,'" the letter stated.

In his March 4 letter, Mr. Malofiy accused Volvo of engaging in
further inappropriate personal attacks on him through its letter
from earlier that day.  He asked the judge to order Volvo's
attorneys to stop making gratuitous filings and admonish them
accordingly.

The suit claims the 1997 Volvo 850 was marketed and advertised as
containing rear door bars, even though the vehicles did not.  The
absence of the rear door beams allegedly led to the death of a
child of lead plaintiffs Ana and Mark Webb after a side-impact
collision.

Volvo said Mr. Malofiy should be sanctioned after he admitted
during a December 2013 hearing to removing the words "Volvo 900
Series" from an image of a brochure included in a version of the
complaint and changing it to "Volvo 850."  Mr. Malofiy -- who has
faced sanctions in other litigation -- has claimed he was trying
to clarify that the vehicles depicted on the brochure were Volvo
850s, even though it said they were from the 900 Series.

Mr. Malofiy claimed in a November 2013 opposition filing to
Volvo's sanctions motion: "It is laughable to suggest that anyone
would look at such an image and conclude that it was being passed
off as a piece of manufactured evidence."  He said in his March 4
letter that a judge in a different suit recently threatened
Richard B. Wickersham Jr. of Post & Schell PC, which is
representing Volvo, with contempt for deliberately disobeying a
court order.

Plaintiffs are represented by Francis Malofiy of Francis Alexander
LLC.

Volvo is represented by Peter W. Herzog III --
pherzog@wtotrial.com -- of Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP and Richard
B. Wickersham Jr. -- rwickersham@postschell.com -- of Post &
Schell PC.

The case is Ana Webb et al. v. Volvo Cars of NA LLC et al., case
number 2:13-cv-02394, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.


WASHINGTON: Child Care Providers Sue Over Forced Unionization
-------------------------------------------------------------
On March 5, 2015, a group of family child care providers filed a
federal class-action lawsuit challenging a 2006 law that
authorizes the forcible unionization of Washington State's 12,000
home-based child care providers.

With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation
attorneys in conjunction with the Freedom Foundation,
Cindy Mentele and three other providers from around the state
filed the suit against Governor Jay Inslee and the Service
Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 925.  The suit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington.

The child care providers' lawsuit challenges the forced-unionism
scheme on the grounds that it violates the U.S. Constitution's
guarantees of free political expression and association.  National
Right to Work Foundation attorneys argue that such schemes violate
providers' First Amendment right to choose with whom they
associate to petition the government because the government does
not have the constitutional authority to force citizens to accept
its handpicked political representative to lobby itself.

The child care providers seek repayment of union fees illegally
taken from them by the Governor, and given to SEIU Local 925, over
the past three years.

Home-based child care and personal care providers, with Right to
Work Foundation attorneys' assistance, have challenged similar
forced-unionization-by-government-fiat schemes in several states
across the country, including Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, and New York.  On June 30, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court
issued a landmark ruling in Harris v. Quinn striking down the
Illinois scheme, ruling that individuals who receive state
subsidies based on their clientele cannot be forced to pay
compulsory union fees.  The Court did not rule on whether
providers can be forced to accept the union's so-called
representation under a monopoly bargaining scheme.  The next day,
the Court cleared the path for 50,000 home child care providers in
Michigan to receive a refund of union dues illegally taken during
Michigan's now-defunct unionization scheme.

"Citizens have the power to select their political representation
in government, not the other way around," said Mark Mix, president
of the National Right to Work Foundation.  "This scheme, which
forces small business owners, and even grandma taking care of her
grandchildren, into SEIU union political association is a slap in
the face of fundamental American principles we hold dear."


Z-ULTIMATE SELF DEFENSE: "Geiger" Case Wins Conditional Cert.
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert E. Blackburn granted a motion for
conditional collective action certification in the case captioned
ZACH GEIGER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Z-ULTIMATE SELF DEFENSE
STUDIOS LLC. et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-CV-00240-REB-
NYW, (D. Col.).

This case involves alleged violations of the wage and record
keeping provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA or Act).

According to Judge Blackburn's March 10, 2015 ruling, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/CilKanfrom Leagle.com,
under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), this case is conditionally
certified as a collective action concerning the claims of the
named plaintiffs under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of
all current and former Chief Instructors who worked for the
defendants or any of them, whether designated as an employee or as
an independent contractor, between March 10, 2011, and the present
and who (a) were not paid the minimum wage for all hours worked;
and/or (b) were not paid for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in
one week at the required overtime rate of pay; and/or (c) for whom
the defendants failed to keep accurate employment records.

With the amendments specified in the order, the Notice of
Collective Action Lawsuit and the Consent to Join Collective
Action forms proposed by the plaintiffs are approved.

Any and all Notice of Collective Action Lawsuit forms must be
received by counsel for plaintiffs no later than June 10, 2015.

The Notice of Collective Action Lawsuit form will not include the
statement "You are eligible to join this lawsuit if you believe
you were paid less than $670.62 in any one-week period".

On or before March 30, 2015, the defendants were to provide to the
plaintiffs the names, addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail
addresses of all current and former Chief Instructors employed by
any of the defendants on or after March 10, 2011, whether
designated as an employee or as an independent contractor.

On or before April 20, 2015, counsel for the plaintiffs must the
Notice of Collective Action Lawsuit and the Consent to Join
Collective Action forms, as approved, to all potential plaintiffs
via first class mail.


                             *********

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  * * *