CAR_Public/150402.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, April 2, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 66


                             Headlines

ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
ADVENT SOFTWARE: Faces 3 Class Actions Over Plan of Merger
ANTHEM INC: Expects Decision on Liability in "Gold" Suit in 2015
ANTHEM INC: Awaits High Court Ruling in UCR Rates Litigation
ANTHEM INC: Discovery Commenced in Blue Cross Antitrust Suit

ARCELORMITTAL: Indirect Purchaser Claims Not Covered by Accord
ARCELORMITTAL: Brazilian Unit Defending Class Action
ASCENA RETAIL: Removes "Cowhey" Class Suit to E.D. Pennsylvania
BANK OF NEW YORK: Sued in E.D. Pa. Over Civil Rights Violations
BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Court Won't Reconsider Conditional Cert. Order

BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Dropped From California Plaintiffs' Suit
BMW: FTC Sides with Mini Owners in Warranty Coverage Dispute
C & C SECURITY: "Wright" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
CARDTRONICS INC: Entered Into Amended Class Action Settlement
CENTRAARCHY RESTAURANT: "Bradley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT

CENTURYLINK INC: Embarq et al. Defending Appeal in Fulghum Case
CENTURYLINK INC: Settlement Administration Process Continuing
CENTURYLINK INC: Defending Against Consolidated Securities Action
CEPHALON: Lawyers Sort Out Expert Reports in Antitrust Suit
CLAY'S PROCESSING: Faces "Pierce" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

COLONIAL ICE: Faces "Steward" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
COOPER VISION: Faces "Grossman" Suit Over Retail Price of Lens
CRACKER BARREL: Recorded Provision Related to "Proper" Lawsuit
DIRECTV INC: Supreme Court Agrees to Review Class Action Ruling
DIRECTV LLC: Faces "Ferrie" Suit in Connecticut District Court

E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Filed Motion to Strike in "Scranton" Case
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Faces Class Actions by Providence et al.
ENTROPIC COMMUNICATIONS: Faces 13 Suits Over MaxLinear Merger
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
ESPAR INC: Faces Raccoon Valley Suit Over Sale of Parking Heaters

ESPAR INC: Faces Triple Cities Suit Over Sale of Parking Heaters
FBCS INC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, "Miles" Suit Claims
GENERAL MOTORS: Removes "Forthun" Class Suit to S.D. California
GLOBAL DATA: Faces "Lekkala" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
GORAYA & GREWAL: "Thurmond" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

HESS: Judge Sends Strict Product Liability Claims to Trial
ILLINOIS: Accused of Abuses During Orange Crush Shakedown
JANSSEN PHARMA: Risperdal Closings Showcase Lawyer Styles
JANSSEN PHARMA: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Risperdal Case
JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: Shareholder Lawsuit Has Been Dismissed

JJ AND M MACHINE: Faces "Ruiz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Supreme Court Denies Appeal in Motrin Case
JPMORGAN CHASE: Removes "DiResta" Suit to New York District Court
K&H RESTAURANT: "Mendez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
LENOVO US: Taps Dykema Gossett to Defend Superfish Class Action

LONDONBOY STATION: Fails to Pay Required Minimum Wage, Suit Says
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Petho" Suit Over Chinese Flooring
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Doss" Suit in Cal. Over Toxic Flooring
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Irving" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
MCDONALD'S INC: Faces Complaints Over Workplace Safety Conditions

MOURAD RESTAURANTS: Accused of Not Having Accessible Facilities
NAV-EX LLC: Faces "Cisneros" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
NEW YORK KIMCHI: "Burgos" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
NORTHLAND GROUP: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
NU LIFE: Faces "Madison" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

OLIPHANT FINANCIAL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says
PACIRA PHARMACEUTICALS: To File Motion to Dismiss "Lovallo" Case
PORTAGE METROPOLITAN: Faces "Bosley" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
PRO-FAB SHEET: Faces "Sanchez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Consumer Can Seek Injunction in Wipes Suit

QEP RESOURCES: La. Supreme Court Dismissed Claim in "Gatti" Case
QEP RESOURCES: Class Certification Pending in "Gagne" Case
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Insurers to Cover Settlement in Celera Suit
SOLARCITY CORPORATION: To Defend Against Stockholder Class Action
SUN DRILLING: Faces "Defoor" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

TARGET CORP: Settles Data Breach Suits for $10 Million
TEXAS A&M: Sued in S.D. Florida Over Alleged Contract Dispute
TORNIER N.V.: Amended Complaint Filed in Anthony Marks Suit
TORNIER N.V.: Faces Paul Parshall Class Action
TORNIER N.V.: Amended Complaint Filed in Warwick Retirement Suit

TORNIER N.V.: Amended Complaint Filed in Paulette Jacques Suit
TOST CAFE: "Garcia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Car-Hacking Threats
TREX COMPANY: Distributed Cash Payments and Rebate Certificates
UBER TECH: Ride-Sharing Companies Face Liability Questions

UNITED STATES STEEL: Court Entered Final Settlement Approval
VERISK ANALYTICS: April 3 Fairness Hearing in Interthinx Case
VERISK ANALYTICS: Briefing in ISO Litigation Now Complete
VERISK ANALYTICS: "Snyder" Plaintiffs File 2nd Amended Complaint
WARNER/CHAPPELL MUSIC: Judge to Hear Birthday Song Copyright Suit

WILLIS GROUP: Defendants Answered 3rd Amended "Troice" Suit
WILLIS GROUP: "Ranni" Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismissed Case
WILLIS GROUP: Defendants Have Yet to Respond to "Rupert" Action
WILLIS GROUP: Defendants Have Yet to Respond to "Casanova" Action
WILLIS GROUP: Defendants Have Yet to Respond to "Rishmague" Suit

WILLIS GROUP: Defendants Have Yet to Respond to "MacArthur" Suit
WILLIS GROUP: Defendants Have Yet to Respond to Florida Actions
WILLIS GROUP: Court Denied Motion to Amend December 5 Order
XEROX CORP: Deadline to File Petition in Securities Case Expired
XPRESSPA AT TERM: Faces "Chen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

ZYNGA INC: Court Vacated Hearing in Securities Litigation
ZYNGA INC: Plaintiff's Bid for Voluntary Case Dismissal Granted
ZYNGA INC: Court Denied Company & Directors' Motion to Dismiss

* "High Risk" Class Actions Triple to 16.4%, Survey Shows
* SC Called to Review Consumer Contract Arbitration Terms


                            *********


ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steve A. Wright and Vicki G. Wright, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc., Uli
Hacksell and Stephen R. Davis, Case No. 3:15-cv-00593 (S.D. Cal.,
March 16, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.

Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused
on the development and commercialization of medicines to address
unmet medical needs in neurological and related central nervous
system disorders.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      468 North Camden Drive
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Telephone: (310) 285-5330
      E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

         - and -

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


ADVENT SOFTWARE: Faces 3 Class Actions Over Plan of Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
On February 2, 2015, Advent Software, Inc. entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with SS&C
Technologies Holdings, Inc. ("Parent" or "SS&C") and Arbor
Acquisition Company, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent
("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which, subject to the satisfaction or
waiver of certain conditions therein, Merger Sub will merge with
and into Advent. As a result of the merger, Merger Sub will cease
to exist, and Advent will survive as a wholly owned subsidiary of
SS&C.

Advent Software said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of February 20, 2015,
three putative class action lawsuits challenging the transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement have been filed by purported
Advent stockholders in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware against Advent, Advent's Board of Directors, SS&C, and
Merger Sub. These actions are captioned Chitwood v. Advent
Software, Inc., et al., Case No. 10623-VCL, City of Atlanta
Firefighters' Pension Fund v. David Peter F. Hess, Jr., et al.,
Case No. 10633-VCL, and Klein v. Advent Software, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 10670-VCL. The actions generally allege, among other
things, that the Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties
to Advent's stockholders by engaging in a flawed sales process,
agreeing to a transaction price that does not adequately
compensate Advent stockholders, and agreeing to certain deal
protection terms in the Merger Agreement that allegedly preclude a
potential competing bid. The actions also allege that the other
defendants aided and abetted the Board of Directors' breaches of
fiduciary duties. The actions seek various remedies including to
enjoin or rescind the merger, damages, and costs.


ANTHEM INC: Expects Decision on Liability in "Gold" Suit in 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthem Inc. expects the trial court to issue its decision on
liability sometime in 2015 in the case, Ronald Gold, et al. v.
Anthem, Inc. et al., the Company said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

"We are defending a certified class action filed as a result of
the 2001 demutualization of Anthem Insurance," the Company said.
"The lawsuit names Anthem Insurance as well as Anthem, Inc. and is
captioned Ronald Gold, et al. v. Anthem, Inc. et al. Anthem
Insurance's 2001 Plan of Conversion, or the Plan, provided for the
conversion of Anthem Insurance from a mutual insurance company
into a stock insurance company pursuant to Indiana law. Under the
Plan, Anthem Insurance distributed the fair value of the company
at the time of conversion to its Eligible Statutory Members, or
ESMs, in the form of cash or Anthem common stock in exchange for
their membership interests in the mutual company. Plaintiffs in
Gold allege that Anthem Insurance distributed value to the wrong
ESMs. Cross motions for summary judgment were granted in part and
denied in part on July 26, 2006 with regard to the issue of
sovereign immunity asserted by co-defendant, the state of
Connecticut, or the State. The trial court also denied our motion
for summary judgment as to plaintiffs' claims on January 10,
2005."

The State appealed the denial of its motion to the Connecticut
Supreme Court.

"We filed a cross-appeal on the sovereign immunity issue. On May
11, 2010, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial
court denying the State's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims
under sovereign immunity and dismissed our cross-appeal. The case
was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted on December
15, 2011. We and the plaintiffs filed renewed cross-motions for
summary judgment on January 24, 2013. On August 19, 2013, the
trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The
trial court deferred a final ruling on our motion for summary
judgment.

"On March 6, 2014, the trial court denied our motion for summary
judgment finding that an issue of material fact existed. A trial
on liability commenced on October 14, 2014 and concluded on
October 16, 2014. The matter was taken under advisement by the
trial court, which has requested post-trial briefing. We expect
the trial court to issue its decision on liability sometime in
2015. We intend to vigorously defend the Gold lawsuit; however,
its ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined."


ANTHEM INC: Awaits High Court Ruling in UCR Rates Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Anthem, Inc. is awaiting a ruling from the U.S Supreme Court in
the WellPoint, Inc. (n/k/a Anthem, Inc.) Out-of-Network "UCR"
Rates Litigation, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

"We are currently a defendant in eleven putative class actions
relating to out-of-network, or OON, reimbursement that were
consolidated into a single multi-district lawsuit called In re
WellPoint, Inc. (n/k/a Anthem, Inc.) Out-of-Network "UCR" Rates
Litigation that is pending in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California. The lawsuits were filed in
2009. The plaintiffs include current and former members on behalf
of a putative class of members who received OON services for which
the defendants paid less than billed charges, the American Medical
Association, four state medical associations, OON physicians, OON
non-physician providers, the American Podiatric Medical
Association, California Chiropractic Association and the
California Psychological Association on behalf of putative classes
of OON physicians and all OON non-physician health care
providers," the Company said.

The plaintiffs have filed several amended complaints alleging that
the defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, or RICO, the Sherman Antitrust Act, ERISA,
federal regulations, and state law by using an OON reimbursement
database called Ingenix and by using non-Ingenix OON reimbursement
methodologies.

"We have filed motions to dismiss in response to each of those
amended complaints. Our motions to dismiss have been granted in
part and denied in part by the court. The most recent pleading
filed by the plaintiffs is a Fourth Amended Complaint to which we
filed a motion to dismiss most, but not all, of the claims. In
July 2013 the court issued an order granting in part and denying
in part our motion. The court held that the state and federal
anti-trust claims along with the RICO claims should be dismissed
in their entirety with prejudice. The court further found that the
ERISA claims, to the extent they involved non-Ingenix
methodologies, along with those that involved our alleged non-
disclosures should be dismissed with prejudice. The court also
dismissed most of the plaintiffs' state law claims with prejudice.

"The only claims that remain after the court's decision are an
ERISA benefits claim relating to claims priced based on Ingenix, a
breach of contract claim on behalf of one subscriber plaintiff, a
breach of implied covenant claim on behalf of one subscriber
plaintiff, and one subscriber plaintiff's claim under the
California Unfair Competition Law. The plaintiffs filed a motion
for reconsideration of the motion to dismiss order, which the
court granted in part and denied in part. The court ruled that the
plaintiffs adequately allege that one Georgia provider plaintiff
is deemed to have exhausted administrative remedies regarding non-
Ingenix methodologies based on the facts alleged regarding that
plaintiff so those claims are back in the case. Fact discovery is
complete.

"The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in November
2013 seeking the following classes: (1) a subscriber ERISA class
as to OON claims processed using the Ingenix database as the
pricing methodology; (2) a physician provider class as to OON
claims processed using Ingenix; (3) a non-physician provider class
as to OON claims processed using Ingenix; (4) a provider ERISA
class as to OON claims processed using non-Ingenix pricing
methodologies; (5) a California subscriber breach of
contract/unfair competition class; and (6) a subscriber breach of
implied covenant class for all Anthem states except California.

"Following expert discovery and briefing, oral argument was held
on the motion. In late 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification in its entirety. The California
subscriber plaintiffs are seeking leave to file a renewed motion
for class certification with more narrowly defined proposed
classes. We will oppose their request. Earlier in the case, in
2009, we filed a motion in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida, or the Florida Court, to enjoin
the claims brought by the physician plaintiffs and certain medical
association plaintiffs based on prior litigation releases, which
was granted in 2011. The Florida Court ordered those plaintiffs to
dismiss their claims that are barred by the release. The
plaintiffs then filed a petition for declaratory judgment asking
the court to find that these claims are not barred by the releases
from the prior litigation. We filed a motion to dismiss the
declaratory judgment action, which was granted.

"The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the declaratory judgment
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit,
but the dismissal was upheld. The enjoined physicians and some the
medical associations did not dismiss their barred claims. The
Florida Court found those enjoined plaintiffs in contempt and
sanctioned them in July 2012. Those plaintiffs appealed the
Florida Court's sanctions order to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The Eleventh Circuit upheld the
Florida court's enforcement of the injunction as it relates to the
plaintiffs' RICO and antitrust claims, but vacated it as it
relates to certain ERISA claims. The plaintiffs filed a petition
for rehearing en banc as to the antitrust claims only, which was
denied. The plaintiffs then filed a petition for writ of
certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. The American Medical
Association filed an amicus brief in support of the petition. We
filed a response in opposition to the petition and the plaintiffs
filed a reply. The petition is now full briefed and we are
awaiting a ruling from the U.S Supreme Court. We intend to
vigorously defend these suits; however, their ultimate outcome
cannot be presently determined."


ANTHEM INC: Discovery Commenced in Blue Cross Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that discovery has commenced
in the case Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation.

"We are a defendant in multiple lawsuits that were initially filed
in 2012 against the BCBSA as well as Blue Cross and/or Blue Shield
licensees across the country. The cases were consolidated into a
single multi-district lawsuit called In re Blue Cross Blue Shield
Antitrust Litigation that is pending in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama," the Company said.

"Generally, the suits allege that the BCBSA and the Blue plans
have engaged in a conspiracy to horizontally allocate geographic
markets through license agreements and other arrangements in
violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and related state laws. The
cases were brought by two putative nationwide classes of
plaintiffs, health plan subscribers and providers. Subscriber and
provider plaintiffs each filed consolidated amended complaints on
July 1, 2013. The consolidated amended subscriber complaint was
also brought on behalf of putative state classes of health plan
subscribers in Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii,
Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New
Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. Defendants filed motions to
dismiss in September 2013, which were argued in April 2014.

"In June 2014, the court denied the majority of the motions,
ruling that plaintiffs had alleged sufficient facts at this stage
of the litigation to avoid dismissal of their claims. Following
the subsequent filing of amended complaints by each of the
subscriber and provider plaintiffs, we filed our answer and
asserted our affirmative defenses in December 2014. Discovery has
commenced. We intend to vigorously defend these suits; however,
their ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined."


ARCELORMITTAL: Indirect Purchaser Claims Not Covered by Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
ArcelorMittal said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that two putative class
actions on behalf of indirect purchasers have been filed and are
not covered by the settlement of the direct purchaser claims.

On September 12, 2008, Standard Iron Works filed a purported class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court in the Northern
District of Illinois against ArcelorMittal, ArcelorMittal USA LLC,
and other steel manufacturers, alleging that the defendants had
conspired to restrict the output of steel products in order to
fix, raise, stabilize and maintain prices at artificially high
levels in violation of U.S. antitrust law. Other similar direct
purchaser lawsuits were also filed in the same court and  were
consolidated with the Standard Iron Works lawsuit.  A hearing on
class certification of the direct purchaser claims took place in
March/April 2014 and a decision remains pending.

On May 29, 2014, ArcelorMittal entered into an agreement to settle
the direct purchaser claims. On October 17, 2014, the court gave
its final approval of the settlement.

Two putative class actions on behalf of indirect purchasers have
been filed and are not covered by the settlement of the direct
purchaser claims.


ARCELORMITTAL: Brazilian Unit Defending Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
ArcelorMittal said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that there is a class action
commenced by the Federal Public Prosecutor of the state of Minas
Gerais against ArcelorMittal Brasil.

In September 2000, two construction trade organizations filed a
complaint with Brazil's Administrative Council for Economic
Defence ("CADE") against three long steel producers, including
ArcelorMittal Brasil. The complaint alleged that these producers
colluded to raise prices in the Brazilian rebar market, thereby
violating applicable antitrust laws. In September 2005, CADE
issued its final decision against ArcelorMittal Brasil, imposing a
fine of $52 million (at December 31, 2014 values). ArcelorMittal
Brasil appealed the decision to the Brazilian Federal Court. In
September 2006, ArcelorMittal Brasil offered a letter guarantee
and obtained an injunction to suspend enforcement of this decision
pending the court's judgment.

There is also a related class action commenced by the Federal
Public Prosecutor of the state of Minas Gerais against
ArcelorMittal Brasil for damages based on the alleged violations
investigated by CADE.

A further related lawsuit was commenced by four units of
Sinduscons, a civil construction trade organization, in federal
court in Brasilia against, inter alia, ArcelorMittal Brasil, in
February 2011, claiming damages based on an alleged cartel in the
rebar market as investigated by CADE.


ASCENA RETAIL: Removes "Cowhey" Class Suit to E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Cowhey v. Ascena Retail Group,
Inc., et al., Case No. 150201156, was removed from the
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-01423-MAK to the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts fraud-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin E. Raphael, Esq.
          PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO BOSICK & RASPANTI LLP
          1818 Market St., Suite 3402
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 320-6200
          E-mail: ker@pietragallo.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gregory T. Parks, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
          Telephone: (215) 963-5156
          E-mail: gparks@morganlewis.com


BANK OF NEW YORK: Sued in E.D. Pa. Over Civil Rights Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Butterline and Mark Butterline, on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated v. Bank of New York Trust Co., City
of Philadelphia and Philadelphia Sheriff's Office, Case No. 2:15-
cv-01429-JS (E.D. Pa., March 19, 2015) is brought pursuant to the
Civil Rights Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
          LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          E-mail: dlevin@lfsblaw.com


BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Court Won't Reconsider Conditional Cert. Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bloomin' Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a court denied the
Company's Motion to reconsider the October 27, 2014 order granting
conditional certification.

On October 4, 2013, two then current employees (the "Nevada
Plaintiffs") filed a purported collective action lawsuit against
the Company, OSI, and two of its subsidiaries in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nevada (Cardoza, et al. v. Bloomin'
Brands, Inc., et al., Case No.: 2:13-cv-01820-JAD-NJK). The
complaint alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by
requiring employees to work off the clock, complete on-line
training without pay, and attend meetings in the restaurant
without pay. The suit seeks to certify a nationwide collective
action that all hourly employees in all Outback Steakhouse
restaurants would be permitted to join. The suit seeks an
unspecified amount in back pay for the employees that join the
lawsuit, an equal amount in liquidated damages, costs, expenses,
and attorney's fees. The Nevada Plaintiffs also filed a companion
lawsuit in Nevada state court alleging that the Company violated
the state break time rules.

On October 27, 2014 the Court conditionally certified a class for
notice purposes consisting of all employees that worked at a
company-owned Outback Steakhouse between October 27, 2011 and
October 27, 2014. The Company subsequently filed a Motion to
Reconsider the October 27, 2014 order.

On February 5, 2015 the Court denied the Company's Motion to
reconsider the October 27, 2014 order granting conditional
certification. The Company believes these lawsuits are without
merit, and is vigorously defending all allegations.


BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Dropped From California Plaintiffs' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Bloomin' Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the California
Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss Bloomin' Brands and its related
entities as defendants.

On November 8, 2013, three employees of the Company's franchisee
(collectively, the "California Plaintiffs") filed a purported
class action lawsuit against the Company, OSI Restaurant Partners,
Inc., and OS Restaurant Services, LLC, two of its subsidiaries,
and T-Bird Restaurant Group, Inc. ("T-Bird"), one of its
franchisees, in the California Superior Court, County of Alameda.
The defendants removed the matter to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California in December 2013 (Holly Gehl,
et al. v. Bloomin' Brands, Inc., et al., Case No.: 4:13-cv-05961-
KAW). The complaint alleged, among other things, violations of the
California Labor Code, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide
meal and rest periods and termination compensation, and violations
of California's Business and Professions Code. On September 23,
2014, the California Plaintiffs' agreed to dismiss Bloomin' Brands
and its related entities as defendants.


BMW: FTC Sides with Mini Owners in Warranty Coverage Dispute
------------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Greene, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
the Federal Trade Commission put the brakes on a bid by BMW of
North America to force Mini owners to take their cars to the
dealer for work or lose warranty coverage.

BMW told Mini owners it was a "requirement for warranty claims"
that all maintenance and repair work be performed by a Mini
dealership.  That's a no-no under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act,
which prohibits companies from conditioning warranties on using
specific brands of parts or service centers (unless it's free).

In settling the administrative case, BMW is barred from telling
owners they must use a Mini dealer to keep their car running
safely or to maintain its value "unless the statement is true and
BMW can back it up with reliable scientific evidence."

Further, BMW is required to contact affected Mini owners to tell
them it's OK to use third-party parts and services.

BMW was represented by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius partner Daniel
Savrin -- daniel.savrin@morganlewis.com -- who did not respond
immediately to a request for comment.

A BMW spokesman said in an email that the company "did not agree
with the FTC's claims, but believes that it is in the best
interest of our customers to send the notices and avoid a
potentially lengthy dispute with the FTC over the issue."  He
added that the Mini division "did not receive any customer
complaints on the matter challenged by the FTC."

Minis have a suggested retail price of $21,700.


C & C SECURITY: "Wright" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Wright, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. C & C Security, Inc. and Robert T. Cummins, Case No. 5:15-cv-
00061 (E.D. Ky., March 16, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, obtain
declaratory relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

The Defendants own and operate a security installation and
maintenance company, with its principal place of business in
Lincoln County, Kentucky.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CARDTRONICS INC: Entered Into Amended Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cardtronics Inc. has entered into an Amended and Restated Class
Action Settlement Agreement to resolve all remaining disputes
concerning Cardtronics' alleged noncompliance with the Settlement
Agreement and Remediation Plan, the Company said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 24, 2015.

On December 4, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts ("District Court") granted final approval of a class
action settlement agreement ("Settlement Agreement")  in regard to
Civil Action No. 03-11206-NMG (the "Lawsuit") wherein the National
Federation of the Blind, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, et.
al. and certain individuals ("Class Members") representing a class
of similarly situated persons (collectively the "Plaintiffs")
sought to require, among other things, that ATMs deployed by
Cardtronics be voice-guided.

The parties subsequently had a number of disputes concerning
performance of the Settlement Agreement by Cardtronics. The
parties ultimately resolved these disputes through a revised
agreement called a Remediation Plan, which was granted final
approval by the Court on November 3, 2010. The Remediation Plan
extended some of the deadlines in the Settlement Agreement and
also obligated Cardtronics to install customized voice-guidance
software on the vast majority of its owned machines by December
31, 2010.

On July 29, 2011, and again in August 2012, Plaintiffs moved for
contempt sanctions, alleging that Cardtronics was not in
compliance with the Settlement Agreement and Remediation Plan. On
March 21, 2013, the Court issued an Order finding that contempt
sanctions against Cardtronics were warranted, but stating further
that the extent of Cardtronics' violations remained to be
ascertained.

After extensive negotiations, and with the assistance of a Court-
appointed Special Master, the parties have now entered into an
Amended and Restated Class Action Settlement Agreement ("Proposed
Amended Agreement") to resolve all remaining disputes concerning
Cardtronics' alleged noncompliance with the Settlement Agreement
and Remediation Plan. This Proposed Amended Agreement is subject
to approval by the District Court, following a notice and comment
period provided to the Class Members.

A copy of the Proposed Amended Agreement is available on
Cardtronics' website: http://is.gd/AODFlD

and the website of the National Federation of the Blind, Inc:
http://is.gd/xkRl0S

"The net impact of the Proposed Amended Agreement will require us
to incur costs to ensure compliance with the agreement, but it is
not expected to have a material adverse impact on our financial
results in the future. However, should we fail to comply with the
terms of the Proposed Amended Agreement, we could incur
significant costs, including penalties and fines, the Company
said.


CENTRAARCHY RESTAURANT: "Bradley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brittany Bradley, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Centraarchy Restaurant Management Company,
Case No. 2:15-cv-01218 (D.S.C., March 16, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and other relief under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Centraarchy Restaurant Management Company owns and operates at
least twenty restaurants in South Carolina, Georgia, Florida,
Alabama, and Louisiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Badge Humphries, Esq.
      James Mixon Griffin, Esq.
      Margaret Nicole Fox, Esq.
      LEWIS BABCOCK AND GRIFFIN
      PO Box 768
      Sullivan's Island, SC 29482
      Telephone: (843) 883-7444
      Facsimile: (843) 883-7462
      E-mail: bh@lbglegal.com
              jmg@lbglegal.com
              mnf@lbglegal.com

         - and -

      Todd R. Ellis, Esq.
      TODD ELLIS LAW OFFICE
      7911 Broad River Road, Suite 100
      Irmo, SC 29063
      Telephone: (803) 732-0123
      Facsimile: (803) 732-0124
      E-mail: todd@toddellislaw.com


CENTURYLINK INC: Embarq et al. Defending Appeal in Fulghum Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Embarq and the other
defendants are defending the appeal related to the case, William
Douglas Fulghum, et al. v. Embarq Corporation, et al.

In William Douglas Fulghum, et al. v. Embarq Corporation, et al.,
filed on December 28, 2007 in the United States District Court for
the District of Kansas, a group of retirees filed a class action
lawsuit challenging the decision to make certain modifications in
retiree benefits programs relating to life insurance, medical
insurance and prescription drug benefits, generally effective
January 1, 2006 and January 1, 2008 (which, at the time of the
modifications, was expected to reduce estimated future expenses
for the subject benefits by more than $300 million). Defendants
include Embarq, certain of its benefit plans, its Employee
Benefits Committee and the individual plan administrator of
certain of its benefits plans. Additional defendants include
Sprint Nextel and certain of its benefit plans. The Court
certified a class on certain of plaintiffs' claims, but rejected
class certification as to other claims.

On October 14, 2011, the Fulghum lawyers filed a new, related
lawsuit, Abbott et al. v. Sprint Nextel et al. In Abbott,
approximately 1,500 plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary duty in
connection with the changes in retiree benefits that also are at
issue in the Fulghum case. The Abbott plaintiffs are all members
of the class that was certified in Fulghum on claims for allegedly
vested benefits (Counts I and III), and the Abbott claims are
similar to the Fulghum breach of fiduciary duty claim (Count II),
on which the Fulghum court denied class certification. The Court
has stayed proceedings in Abbott indefinitely, except for limited
discovery and motion practice as to approximately 80 of the
plaintiffs.

On February 14, 2013, the Fulghum court dismissed the majority of
the plaintiffs' claims in that case. On July 16, 2013, the Fulghum
court granted plaintiffs' request to seek interlocutory review by
the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Embarq and the other defendants are defending the appeal, continue
to vigorously contest any remaining claims in Fulghum and seek to
have the claims in the Abbott case dismissed on similar grounds.

"We have not accrued a liability for these matters because we
believe it is premature (i) to determine whether an accrual is
warranted and (ii) if so, to determine a reasonable estimate of
probable liability," the Company said.


CENTURYLINK INC: Settlement Administration Process Continuing
-------------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the settlement
administration process is continuing in relation to a number of
the settlements in the class actions relating to the installation
of fiber optic cable in certain rights-of-way.

Several putative class actions relating to the installation of
fiber optic cable in certain rights-of-way were filed against
Qwest on behalf of landowners on various dates and in courts
located in 34 states in which Qwest has such cable (Alabama,
Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia,
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North
Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin.)

"For the most part, the complaints challenge our right to install
our fiber optic cable in railroad rights-of-way," the Company
said.  "The complaints allege that the railroads own the right-of-
way as an easement that did not include the right to permit us to
install our cable in the right-of-way without the plaintiffs'
consent. In general, the complaints seek damages on theories of
trespass and unjust enrichment, as well as punitive damages. After
previous attempts to enter into a single nationwide settlement in
a single court proved unsuccessful, the parties proceeded to seek
court approval of settlements on a state-by-state basis.

"To date, the parties have received final approval of such
settlements in 31 states. The settlement administration process,
including claim submission and evaluation, is continuing in
relation to a number of these settlements. The parties have not
yet received final approval in two states (Texas and New Mexico).
There is one state where an action was at one time, but is not
currently, pending (Arizona). We have accrued an amount that we
believe is probable for resolving these matters; however, the
amount is not material to our consolidated financial statements."


CENTURYLINK INC: Defending Against Consolidated Securities Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that CenturyLink and certain
of its affiliates are defendants in one consolidated securities
and four shareholder derivative actions. The actions are pending
in federal court in the Western District of Louisiana. Plaintiffs
in these actions have variously alleged, among other things, that
CenturyLink and certain of its current and former officers and
directors violated federal securities laws and/or breached
fiduciary duties owed to the Company and its shareholders.
Plaintiffs' complaints focus on alleged material misstatements or
omissions concerning CenturyLink's financial condition and changes
in CenturyLink's capital allocation strategy in early 2013.

"These matters are in preliminary phases and the Company intends
to defend against the filed actions vigorously. We have not
accrued a liability for these matters as it is premature (i) to
determine whether an accrual is warranted and (ii) if so, to
determine a reasonable estimate of probable liability," the
Company said.


CEPHALON: Lawyers Sort Out Expert Reports in Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that defense lawyers have 30 days to whittle down their 13
voluminous expert reports to the essential points before the
federal judge overseeing the case decides who will be allowed to
testify to what at trial.

U.S. District Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg of the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, who is handling the case filed by the Federal
Trade Commission and competing pharmaceutical companies against
Cephalon and four generic drugmakers over their alleged reverse-
payment settlements, asked the defense lawyers to distill the
reports into seven-to-10 paragraph abstracts for the court to
review.

He made the request toward the end of a Daubert hearing, which
allows parties in a case to challenge expert testimony before the
start of trial and is named for the 1993 U.S. Supreme Court case
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, on March 23.

"They need to be precise, with facts to back up opinions,"
Goldberg said of what he expects from the abstracts. "I want it
succinct."

The hearing was permeated with differing interpretations of the
U.S. Supreme Court's 2013 opinion in Federal Trade Commission v.
Actavis, which dealt with the issue of reverse-payment
settlements, which are the deals made by major pharmaceutical
companies with generic drugmakers in order to keep the cheaper
drugs off the market.

"This is the playbook," Judge Goldberg told the dozens of lawyers
gathered in the courtroom, referring to Actavis.

"You're hyper-focusing on one section and I think that you're
losing sight of what I think is, frankly, the prevailing guidance
from the Supreme Court, which is, it's a rule-of-reason case,"
Judge Goldberg told Russell Chorush -- rchorush@hpcllp.com -- of
Heim, Payne & Chorush in Houston.  Mr. Chorush is on the team
representing one of the plaintiffs in the case, King Drug Co.

In January, Judge Goldberg denied the defendants' motion for
summary judgment, ruling that challenges to reverse-payment
settlements don't have a new threshold to meet, in an opinion that
defined the contours left open in Actavis.

"Actavis primarily instructs that the familiar antitrust rule-of-
reason analysis be applied to cases challenging reverse-payment
settlements.  This analysis does not include a 'threshold
burden,'" as the defendants had argued.

Cephalon, the maker of the name-brand wakefulness drug called
Provigil, and the four generic drugmakers with which there were
deals, ranging from $25 million to $164 million, are the
defendants in the case.  They argued that with the Actavis
opinion, the Supreme Court had introduced a new threshold for
challengers to meet in cases like this.

The majority's opinion in Actavis, while it does emphasize the
importance of the size of the payments and the ability to justify
them, it doesn't explicitly spell out a threshold encompassing
those two things.

Judge Goldberg integrated the duty to address the size and the
justification for the payment into two different parts of the
rule-of-reason analysis.

Since it was introduced in the U.S. Supreme Court's 1918 decision
in Chicago Board of Trade v. United States, the burden-shifting
rule-of-reason analysis applied to antitrust cases has stayed,
essentially, the same, according to the opinion.

The plaintiffs bear the initial burden to show that the deals they
challenge have had anti-competitive effects.  If they meet that
bar, then the burden shifts to the defendants to show that the
challenged deal had contributed to objectives that promote
competition.  Following that, the plaintiffs can come back and
demonstrate that the challenged deal wasn't necessary to promote
competition.

The judge then considers the arguments and balances them to rule
on whether the deal was anti-competitive.

"We're going to get into issues about anti-competitive versus
competitive and burden-shifting as I've explained it, and we're
going to, mostly, I think, as the trial is going to occur, is
going to be about explaining the supply agreements and things like
that -- and that is the bulk of the case," Judge Goldberg told
Chorush at the hearing on March 23.

Later, the judge suggested bifurcating the case, which also
involves both patent and antitrust claims, saying, "Maybe we do
bifurcate the Walker Process and Actavis cases and maybe in the
Actavis case we just have a trial about the agreements and keep
the patent out of it."

In 2011, Goldberg found that Cephalon's patent was invalid and
that the company committed fraud on the patent office by
concealing the fact that a French company, Laboratoire L. Lafon,
had actually developed the drug.

Not only did Cephalon hide from the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office that the French company had invented the drug, with the
active ingredient of modafinil, it also misled the office by
suggesting that it had altered the particle size of modafinil,
according to that opinion, the judge had found.

Lawyers on March 23 had differing views of the extent to which the
patent could be discussed at trial.


CLAY'S PROCESSING: Faces "Pierce" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Johnnie Pierce, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Clay's Processing & Smokehouse, and Clayton R. Estes,
Sr. "Clay Estes", and Scott R. Estes, Case No. 3:15-cv-00846 (N.D.
Tex., March 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 per
week.

The Defendants own and operate meat product wholesale and retail
store in Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
      LEE & BRAZIEL LLP
      1801 Lamar Blvd, Suite 325
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Telephone: (214) 749-1400
      Facsimile: (214) 749-1010
      E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com


COLONIAL ICE: Faces "Steward" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rhonda Steward, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown v. Colonial Ice Cream, Inc.
d/b/a Colonial Cafe & Ice Cream, Case No. 1:15-cv-02284 (N.D.
Ill., March 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate 7 full-service restaurants in
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
      WERMAN SALAS P.C.
      77 West Washington, Suite 1402
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 419-1008
      Facsimile: (312) 419-1025
      E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com


COOPER VISION: Faces "Grossman" Suit Over Retail Price of Lens
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mallory L. Grossman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Novartis Corporation, Alcon Laboratories,
Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc.,
Bausch & Lomb, Inc., Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC,
Cooper Vision, Inc., and ABB/CON-Cise Optical Group LLC, Case No.
2:15-cv-01930 (D.N.J., March 16, 2015), alleges that the
Defendants entered into a conspiracy to impose minimum resale
prices on certain contact lens lines by subjecting them to so
called Unilateral Pricing Policies (UPPs) and eliminate price
competition on those products by big box stores, buying clubs, and
internet-based retailers that prevent them from discounting those
products.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James E. Cecchi, Esq.
      CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
      5 Becker Farm Road
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Telephone: (973) 994-1700
      Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
      E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com


CRACKER BARREL: Recorded Provision Related to "Proper" Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 24, 2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31,
2014, that the Company has recorded a provision at January 30,
2015 related to certain New York state law claims in the so-called
Proper lawsuit.

On April 11, 2014, a putative collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of New York, Proper v.
Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., in which the named
plaintiff is challenging the Company's classification of associate
managers as being exempt from the minimum wage and overtime
requirements and is asserting various New York state law wage
notice claims. Two other putative collective action suits alleging
claims under the FLSA, Hill and Hernandez v. Cracker Barrel and
Perzan et al. v. Cracker Barrel, were filed in the United States
District Courts for the Middle District of Florida in August 2014
and for the District of Massachusetts in September 2014,
respectively.  These lawsuits assert essentially duplicative
claims under select state laws challenging the same exempt
classification of associate managers.  The plaintiffs in these
lawsuits seek an unspecified amount of alleged back wages,
liquidated damages, statutory damages and attorneys' fees. Unlike
a class action, a collective action requires potential class
members to "opt in" rather than "opt out".  If any of these
putative collection actions is conditionally certified, the
Company would have an opportunity to seek to have the class de-
certified and/or seek to have the case dismissed on its merits.

"We believe that we have meritorious defenses to all of the claims
raised in these three lawsuits, and accordingly plan to defend
them vigorously.  All of these proceedings, including attempts to
resolve through mediation, remain in the early stages with
significant uncertainty as to factual issues, outcome of legal
proceedings (including certification of the collective action),
and likely number of opt-in plaintiffs and/or damages claimed.  At
this time neither the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome nor the
total amount of the ultimate liability, if any, with respect to
these cases, taken as a whole, can be determined with any
certainty," the Company said.

However, the Company has recorded a provision at January 30, 2015
related to certain New York state law claims in the Proper
lawsuit.  At October 31, 2014, the Company recorded a provision of
$600 in the Proper lawsuit during mediation.  During the second
quarter of 2015, the Company increased this provision by $2,150 to
a total of $2,750.  With the exception of this provision relating
to New York state law claims recorded at January 30, 2015, no
other provision for any potential liability has been made in the
condensed consolidated financial statements of the Company related
to these proceedings.


DIRECTV INC: Supreme Court Agrees to Review Class Action Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for Law.com, reports that four years after
holding that federal law trumps California's ability to block
class action waivers, the U.S. Supreme Court plunged back into the
consumer arbitration debate on March 23 in a case involving the
satellite television provider DirecTV Inc.

Granting a petition filed by Christopher Landau of Kirkland &
Ellis, the justices agreed to review a California appellate ruling
that cleared the way for a class action on behalf of DirecTV
customers.  The plaintiffs, who allege that DirecTV's cancellation
fees violated California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, were
allowed to proceed with the case despite clauses in their
contracts with DirecTV that required them to arbitrate disputes
individually.

DirecTV's petition asserted that the California decision
contradicted the Supreme Court's 2011 ruling in AT&T Mobility v.
Concepcion.  In Concepcion, the justices held that AT&T could
enforce mandatory arbitration clauses in its customer agreements,
concluding that the Federal Arbitration Act pre-empted a
California law cracking down on class action waivers.

Named plaintiffs Amy Imburgia and Kathy Greiner, represented at
the Supreme Court by Paul Stevens of Milstein Adelman, both signed
customer agreements with DirecTV in 2007 that included an
arbitration clause and a waiver of class action rights.  After
they sued in 2008, DirecTV sought to compel arbitration in light
of Concepcion.

A California trial court denied DirecTV's request, and
California's Second District Court of Appeals affirmed in April
2014, blocking DirecTV from forcing the fee dispute into
individual arbitration.

The state appellate panel found that specific provisions in the
2007 customer contract voided the arbitration clause because the
applicable state law -- the CLRA -- bars consumers from giving up
their class action rights.

DirecTV asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the state court's
ruling in October, arguing that it ran counter to Concepcion.  The
company also cited a 2013 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, which applied Concepcion and determined the
same DirecTV customer arbitration clause was enforceable.

"The California Court of Appeal's decision in this case does
precisely what Concepcion prohibits: It applies state law to
invalidate an arbitration agreement solely because that agreement
includes a class action waiver," Kirkland's Landau wrote in
DirecTV's petition.

Milstein Adelman's Stevens filed an opposition brief in January,
arguing that DirecTV had overstated the potential conflict between
the California state appeals court's ruling and the Ninth
Circuit's decision.

"The two opinions conflict only marginally," Mr. Stevens wrote.
"To the extent that they do, the conflict comes down to a question
concerning the interpretation of seldom-used language in an
unnecessary class waiver provision."

In addition to Landau, DirecTV's legal team includes Kirkland's
Melissa Ingalls -- melissa.ingalls@kirkland.com -- and
Robyn Bladow -- rbladow@kirkland.com

For the plaintiffs, Mr. Stevens is joined by F. Edie Mermelstein
of FEM Law Group and others.

A DirecTV spokesman said the company is pleased the Supreme Court
will consider the case.


DIRECTV LLC: Faces "Ferrie" Suit in Connecticut District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Ferrie, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. DirecTV, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-00409-JCH
(D. Conn., March 19, 2015) asserts fraud-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Louis Cordani, Jr., Esq.
          CARMODY TORRANCE SANDAK & HENNESSEY, LLP
          195 Church St. 18th floor
          PO Box 1950
          New Haven, CT 06510-1950
          Telephone: (203) 784-3110
          Facsimile: (203) 784-3199
          E-mail: jlcordani@carmodylaw.com


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Filed Motion to Strike in "Scranton" Case
------------------------------------------------------------
E*TRADE Financial Corporation filed a third demurrer and motion to
strike in the case filed by John Scranton, E*TRADE said in its
Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

On April 30, 2013, a putative class action was filed by John
Scranton, on behalf of himself and a class of persons similarly
situated, against E*TRADE Financial Corporation and E*TRADE
Securities LLC in the Superior Court of California, County of
Santa Clara, pursuant to the California procedures for a private
Attorney General action. The Complaint alleged that the Company
misrepresented through its website that it would always
automatically exercise options that were in-the-money by $0.01 or
more on expiration date. Plaintiffs allege violations of the
California Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumer
Remedies Act, fraud, misrepresentation, negligent
misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty. The case has been
deemed complex within the meaning of the California Rules of
Court, and a case management conference was held on September 13,
2013. The Company's demurrer and motion to strike the complaint
were granted by order dated December 20, 2013. The Court granted
leave to amend the complaint.

A second amended complaint was filed on January 31, 2014. On March
11, 2014, the Company moved to strike and for a demurrer to the
second amended complaint. On October 20, 2014, the Court sustained
the Company's demurrer, dismissing four counts of the second
amended complaint with prejudice and two counts without prejudice.
The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on November 10,
2014. The Company filed a third demurrer and motion to strike on
December 12, 2014. The Company will continue to defend itself
vigorously in this matter.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Faces Class Actions by Providence et al.
-----------------------------------------------------------
E*TRADE Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a putative class
action was filed on April 18, 2014, by the City of Providence,
Rhode Island against forty-one high frequency trading firms, stock
exchanges, market-makers, and other broker-dealers, including the
Company, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York. The Complaint alleges that the high frequency trading
firms, certain broker-dealers managing dark pools, and the
exchanges manipulated the U.S. Securities markets, and that
numerous market-makers and broker-dealers participated in that
manipulation by doing business with the high frequency traders. As
to the Company, the Complaint alleges violation of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On May 2, 2014, a similar putative class action was filed by
American European Insurance Company against 42 high frequency
trading firms, stock exchanges, market-makers, and other broker-
dealers, including the Company, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York. The action filed by American
European Insurance Company made allegations substantially similar
to the allegations in the City of Providence complaint.

On June 13, 2014, a putative class action was filed by James J.
Flynn and Dominic Morelli against 26 firms including the Company
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  The Flynn Complaint made allegations substantially
similar to the allegations in the City of Providence Complaint.
The consolidated amended complaint does not identify the Company
as a defendant or make any allegations regarding the Company.


ENTROPIC COMMUNICATIONS: Faces 13 Suits Over MaxLinear Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Entropic Communications, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that between February
9 and February 18, 2015, 13 putative class-action lawsuits were
filed challenging the Company's proposed Merger with MaxLinear and
related entities. Eleven actions were filed in the Court of
Chancery for the State of Delaware (captioned Langholz v. Entropic
Communications, Inc., C.A. No. 10631-VCP; Tomblin v. v. Entropic
Communications, Inc., C.A. No. 10632-VCP; Crill v. v. Entropic
Communications, Inc., C.A. No. 10640-VCP; Wohl v. Entropic
Communications, Inc., C.A. No. 10644-VCP; Parshall v. Entropic
Communications, Inc., C.A. No. 10652-VCP; Saggar v. Padval, C.A.
No. 10661-VCP; Iyer v. Tewksbury, C.A. No. 10665-VCP; Respler v.
Entropic Communications, Inc., C.A. No. 10669-VCP; Gal v. Entropic
Communications, Inc., C.A. No. 10671-VCP; Werbowsky v. Padval,
C.A. No. 10673-VCP; and Agosti v. Entropic Communications, Inc.,
C.A. No. 10676-VCP), and two actions were filed in the Superior
Court for the State of California, County of San Diego (captioned
Krasinski v. Entropic Communications, Inc., Case No. 37-2015-
00004613-CU-SL-CTL; and Khoury v. Entropic Communications, Inc.,
Case No. 37-2015-00004737-CU-SL-CTL) (collectively, the
"Stockholder Litigation").

"The complaints in the Stockholder Litigation name as defendants:
(i) each member of our Board of Directors, (ii) Entropic, and
(iii) MaxLinear and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Excalibur
Acquisition Corporation and Excalibur Subsidiary, LLC. The
plaintiffs in the Stockholder Litigation allege that the our
directors breached their fiduciary duties to our public
stockholders by, among other things, (a) approving the Merger at
an inadequate price, (b) implementing an unfair process, and (c)
agreeing to certain deal protections that allegedly favor
MaxLinear and deter alternative bids. The plaintiffs also
generally allege that the entity defendants aided and abetted the
purported breaches of fiduciary duty by the directors. The
plaintiffs seek, among other things, an injunction against the
consummation of the proposed Merger and an award of costs and
expenses, including a reasonable allowance for attorneys' and
experts' fees. On February 12, 2015, plaintiffs in the Wohl action
served their first set of requests for production of documents on
defendants. On February 18, 2015, plaintiffs in the Krasinski and
Khoury actions filed requests for dismissal of each case. We
intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously. It is not possible to
estimate a probable outcome or potential loss in the event an
unfavorable outcome is achieved," the Company said.


ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Borysenko, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Environmental Defense Fund, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
10908 (D. Mass., March 16, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's
practice of making unsolicited calls.

Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. is a nonprofit environmental
advocacy group.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John F. Skinner, III, Esq.
      SKINNER LAW PLLC
      587 Union Street, Second Floor
      Manchester, NH 03104
      Telephone: (603) 622-8100
      E-mail: AttorneySkinner@gmail.com


ESPAR INC: Faces Raccoon Valley Suit Over Sale of Parking Heaters
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Raccoon Valley Transport, Inc. and Audrius Labaciauskas,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Espar Inc. and John Does 1-100, Case No. 1:15-cv-01338 (E.D.N.Y.,
March 16, 2015), alleges that the Defendants conspired to suppress
and eliminate competition for the sale of parking heaters for
commercial vehicles in the aftermarket.

Espar Inc. is an Illinois corporation headquartered at 29101
Haggerty Road Novi, MI 48377-2913. It manufactures and supplies
fuel operated air and coolant heater products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason Zweig, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 752-5455
      Facsimile: (917) 210-3980
      E-mail: jasonz@hbsslaw.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1144 West Lake Street, Suite 400
      Oak Park, IL 60301
      Telephone: 708-628-4949
      Facsimile: 708-628-4950
      E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com

         - and -

      J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
      HUDSON MALLANEY SHINDLER & ANDERSON PC
      5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
      West Des Moines, IA 50265
      Telephone: 515-223-4567
      E-mail: jbgoplerud@hudsonlaw.net


ESPAR INC: Faces Triple Cities Suit Over Sale of Parking Heaters
----------------------------------------------------------------
Triple Cities Acquisition, LLC d/b/a Cook Brothers Truck Parts, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Espar Inc.
and Espar Products Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01343 (E.D.N.Y., March
16, 2015), alleges that the Defendants conspired to fix prices for
parking heaters sold in the aftermarket for use in commercial
vehicles.

Espar Inc. is an Illinois corporation headquartered at 29101
Haggerty Road Novi, MI 48377-2913. It manufactures and supplies
fuel operated air and coolant heater products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brent W. Landau, Esq.
      Jeannine M. Kenney, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      325 Chestnut Street, Suite 900
      Philadelphia, PA 19106
      Telephone: (215) 985-3270
      Facsimile: (215) 985-3271
      E-mail: blandau@hausfeld.com
              jkenney@hausfeld.com

         - and -

      Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
      Seth R. Gassman, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      1700 K St. NW, Suite 650
      Washington, D.C. 20006
      Telephone: (202) 540-7200
      Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
      E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com
              sgassman@hausfeld.com

         - and -

      Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
      Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 633-1908
      Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
      E-mail: bsweeney@hausfeld.com
              clebsock@hausfeld.com

         - and -

      Arthur N. Bailey, Esq.
      ARTHUR N. BAILEY & ASSOCIATES
      111 West Second Street, Suite 4500
      Jamestown, NY 14701
      Telephone: (716) 664-2967
      Facsimile: (716) 664-2983
      E-mail: artlaw@windstream.net


FBCS INC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, "Miles" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anita Miles, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. FBCS, Inc. a/k/a Federal Bond and Collection Service
and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:15-cv-02007-PGS-LHG (D.N.J.,
March 19, 2015) seeks relief over alleged violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GENERAL MOTORS: Removes "Forthun" Class Suit to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Forthun v. General Motors LLC,
et al., Case No. 37-2015-00004862-CU-BC-CTL, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Diego, Central Division, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California (San Diego).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-00623-MMA-WVG to the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts claims for product liability.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael E. Lindsey, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL E. LINDSEY
          4455 Morena Boulevard, Suite 207
          San Diego, CA 92117-4325
          Telephone: (858) 270-7000
          Facsimile: (858) 270-7710
          E-mail: mlindsey@lemonlawcenter.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeffrey Sinek, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          333 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 680-8139
          Facsimile: (213) 680-8500
          E-mail: jeff.sinek@kirkland.com


GLOBAL DATA: Faces "Lekkala" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Muralikrishna Lekkala, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. Global Data Solutions, Inc. and Nageswara R.
Morampudi, Case No. 1:15-cv-01106 (C.D. Ill., March 16, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Global Data Solutions, Inc. is an Illinois corporation that
provides IT consulting services with principal place of business
is located at 301 S. Prospect Road, Suite 1H, Bloomington,
Illinois 61704.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Fred A. Smith, Esq.
      SEDGWICK LLP
      One North Wacker Drive, Suite 4200
      Chicago, IL 60606-2841
      Telephone: (312) 641-9050
      Facsimile: (312) 641-9530
      E-mail: fred.smith@sedgwicklaw.com


GORAYA & GREWAL: "Thurmond" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Thurmond, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Goraya & Grewal Petroleum Inc. d/b/a Food Xpress and
Daljeet K. Goraya, Case No. 1:15-cv-00068 (N.D. Ind., March 16,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a convenience store and gas station
located in Columbia City, Indiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert J. Hunt, Esq.
      GIBBONS LEGAL GROUP PC
      3091 E 98th St Suite 280
      Indianapolis, IN 46280
      Telephone: (317) 706-1100
      E-mail: rob@gibbonslegalgroup.com


HESS: Judge Sends Strict Product Liability Claims to Trial
----------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that in one of the first federal opinions to address the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court's November decision that retooled
products liability law in the state, the judge decided to send the
claims for negligence and strict products liability to trial.

U.S. District Judge Robert D. Mariani of the Middle District of
Pennsylvania let both claims survive a motion for summary judgment
from the defendant, a German machine manufacturer called Hess.
Joseph Capece, who had his ankle fractured by a plate ejected from
a Hess machine at a plant in Pen Argyl, filed the suit in 2012.
For claims of both negligence and strict products liability, the
threshold question is whether the product at issue is defective,
Judge Mariani said.

And, "under the approach set forth in Tincher," the judge said,
referring to the state Supreme Court's November ruling in Tincher
v. Omega Flex, "a plaintiff may prove that a product is in a
defective condition by showing either that (1) the danger is
unknowable and unacceptable to the average or ordinary consumer
(consumer expectations test), or (2) a reasonable person would
conclude that the probability and seriousness of harm caused by
the product outweighs the burden or costs of taking precautions
(risk-utility test)."

"Under either test, whether a product is in a defective condition
is a question of fact to be decided by the jury," Judge Mariani
said.

Mr. Capece pursued an argument under only the risk-utility test.

"Under Tincher's risk-utility test, 'proof of risks and utilities
are part of the burden to prove that the harm suffered was due to
the defective condition of the product,'" the judge said, quoting
from Tincher.  "In explaining the risk-utility standard of proof,
the court in Tincher referenced Dean [John] Wade's factors, which
include the 'usefulness and desirability of the product -- its
utility to the user and to the public as a whole' and the
'manufacturer's ability to eliminate the unsafe character of the
product without impairing its usefulness or making it too
expensive to maintain its utility.'"

Hess had argued the utility factor would weigh in its favor,
noting that Mr. Capece's own expert had testified that the "risk
of harm could not be 'designed out'" of the machine, according to
the opinion.  It also pointed to the efficiency of results from
its product, which allowed the Pennsylvania plant to double its
output, according to the opinion.

Mr. Capece, though, argued that a "fixed and interlocked barrier
fence along the conveyor" wouldn't interfere with the utility of
the machine and would add a useful safety feature.

The effect of that alternative design on the machine's utility is
a question for a jury, Judge Mariani said.

As for the risk side of the test, Hess had argued that the facts
weighed in its favor since the plant where Mr. Capece worked had
an excellent safety history with an "accident-free rate of
99.99999 percent," according to the opinion, and that there were a
host of precautions that Mr. Capece could have taken in order to
prevent injury.  The company's expert said that his "'injury was
the result of his own carelessness and disregard of the proper use
of the . . . safety gate,'" according to the opinion.

According to Mr. Capece, however, Hess' own corporate
representative testified that the company's machines have been
involved in three accidents over the last decade in other plants,
including an accident that killed a worker in Russia.  He also
disputed the availability of further precautions he could have
taken.

"The court concludes that there is a genuine issue for trial as to
whether the Hess machine was in a 'defective condition' under a
risk-utility test," Judge Mariani said.  "There are factual
disputes regarding the risks of harm from the machine as presently
designed, the feasibility and effectiveness of a safer alternative
design, and the alternative design's effect on the product's
utility.  These disputes are material because they go to the
'probability and seriousness of harm' and 'the burden or costs of
taking precautions.'"

The judge denied summary judgment for negligence and strict
liability.

He granted summary judgment on a claim for breach of warranty.
Mr. Capece had agreed to drop that claim, the judge said, but that
move wasn't in the record.

This is the second opinion that Judge Mariani has issued this year
that included an analysis of Tincher.  Last month, he issued an
opinion in Nathan v. Techtronic Industries North America, which
applied Tincher retroactively in a products liability case.

Here, Mr. Capece's lawyer, Peter Patton --
ppatton@galfandberger.com -- of Galfand Berger in Philadelphia,
said the judge recognized the disputed issues of fact and
differing views of the experts and held summary judgment wouldn't
be appropriate.

Mr. Patton speculated the judge "would have . . . probably decided
the case the same way" before Tincher came down.

Joshua Wall of Gordon & Rees in Philadelphia represented Hess and
declined to comment.


ILLINOIS: Accused of Abuses During Orange Crush Shakedown
---------------------------------------------------------
Demetrius Ross, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Greg Gossett, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00309-SMY (S.D.
Ill., March 19, 2015) alleges violations of prisoner civil rights.

In late April 2014, the "Orange Crush" -- a tactical team --
conducted a shakedown of cells at Illinois River Correctional
Center (Illinois River).  Rather than pursue this shakedown as a
legitimate security procedure, however, the Defendants beat,
sexually humiliated, and otherwise abused Mr. Ross (and hundreds
of other prisoners), destroyed his property, and otherwise
gratuitously inflicted punishment for the sole purpose of causing
humiliation and needless pain, the lawsuit alleges.  The Plaintiff
seeks damages for his injuries (and those of other similarly
abused prisoners), and an injunction prohibiting the Defendants
from inflicting abuse during future searches.

Mr. Ross is a prisoner in the custody of the Illinois Department
of Corrections.  At all times relevant to the events at issue in
this case, Mr. Ross was housed at Illinois River.

Mr. Gossett is the Warden at Illinois River, and an employee of
the Illinois Department of Corrections.  The rest of the
Defendants are agents and employees of the IDOC.

The Defendants are Greg Gossett; Zach Roeckeman; Stephen Duncan;
Kim Butler; Joseph Yurkovich; Donald Stolworthy; Brian Piper;
Brenden Ankrom; Justin Hammers; Brad Johnson; Fred Williams; Frank
Thompson; Derek Smith; Steve Albrecht; Robert Adams; Sarah Arnett;
Bryan Bailey; Shawn Bailliez; Andrew Bottrell; Larry Boyd; Douglas
Brown; Dennis Bucco; Vincent Cogdal; Nick Conklin; Jason Dams;
Robert Dorethy; Olin Eldridge; Lisa Ellinger; Curtis Jenkins;
Scott Lamb; Chris Luker; Canduce Morrill; Andrew Moser; William
Myers; Lee Parker; Chad Sappington; Ron Shoultz; Jamie Skaggs;
Cally Stein; Mike Stufflebeam; Ashley Thompson; Steve Wilcoxen;
Drew Derenzy; Justin Dircks; David English; M. Fluder; Joseph
France; Jason Jester; Loretta Joachim; Nick Lohnes; Robert
Passmore; Andy Phelps; Sam Taylor; Tammy Thousand; Cayd
Walljasper; Chris White; Keneth Finney; David Hermetz; Robert
Walsh; Ryan Davis; James Bruce; Matt Dees; Donald Pulliam; Jeremy
Mcbride; Nick Nalley;Gary Stark; William Hughey; Ayla Heinzmann;
Kenny Brown; Randy Smith;Shane Smith; Robert Rivett; Larry
Provence; Kyle Massey; Dawayne Cotton; Bradley Herzog; Dale
Martin; Pat Anderson; Dwight Dilg; Rene Degroof; Angela Craddock;
Sierra Tate; John Mohr; John Jones; Doug Mason; Justin Johnson;
Khorey Anderton; Matt Cannon; James Johnson; John Maragni; Mike
Bowers; Blake Elliot; Ray Mccann; Brice Wilson; Josh Curry;
Kendall Harris; Eric Shelton; Rene Waters; Stephanie Beasley;
Michael Gilreath; Jason Zollars; Jerry Tanner; Andy Stout; Dale
Monical; Ben Lewis; Brad Yonaka; Kevin W. Johnson; Marcus Jenkins;
Janet Carle; Bud Brown; Stephen Sawyer; Walter Mccormick; Jerry
Harper; Jason Ginder; Jeremiah Patterson; James Berry; Randy
Baylor; Bill Carroll; Brad Stuck; Eric Weber; Lance Wise; Daniel
Dust; Steven Conrad; Jarrod Carter; Timothy Mcallister; Noble
Harrington; Samuel Shehorn; Jeffrey Kidd; Ben Vaughn; Travis Ochs;
Brian Livingston; Robert Kamp; Anthony Senn; Trent Ralston; Maury
Goble; Bradley Ausbrook; Seth Hough; Christopher Brant; Ethan
Clary; Matthew Winka; Michael Dean; Nicholas Lampley; Dallas
Willis; Timothy Conrad; Christopher Cales; James Gosnell;
Alexander Lockhart; Matthew Tribble; Andrew Gangloff; Maryellen
Thomason; Justin Eckelberry; Doug Line; Jacob Milam; Zachariah
Buchanan; Akeem Hamilton; Andrew Volk; Gary Perkins; Kyle Brooks;
John Chenault, Jr.; Dan Mullin; Andrew Mays; Brandon Richey; Jerry
Witthoft; Frank Eovaldi; Mark Bower; Fredrick Carter; Kevin
Cartwright; Nathan Berry; Chase Caron; Kyle Donjon; Justin
Engelage; Wesley Engelage; Charles Fricke; Jason Furlow; Brian
Guetersloh; Shane Gregson; Mark Hanks; Joel Hepp; Kevin Hirch;
Anthony Jones; Tyler Jones; Brian Kulich; Jason Lane; Jay
Mcmillan; Alex Moll; Wesley Monroe; Jared Phillips; Kenny Porter;
Rory Renk; Minh Scott; James Watkins; Eric Wenzel; Aaron
Westerman; Carson Winter; Caleb Zang; Gene Bailey; Derek Baylon;
David Brock; Benny Davis; Bryan Easton; Richard Harris; Shayne
Howell; Brandon Hunter; Michael Laminack; James Lloyd; Lucas
Mennerich; Jason Migneron; Jason Morris; John Restoff; Steven
Richard; Tyson Shurtz; Ryan Ziegler; Trevor Rowland; David Holder;
Scott Ebers; Mike Baughman; Hubert Brace; James Cissell; Bradley
Clark; Charles Compton; Dustin Harmon; John Koch; Brandon Lloyd;
Kenneth Smith; Nathan Ward; Mitch Simmons; Michael Jones; Tracy
Heiman; Aaron Campbell; Edwin Gladney; Kyle Hughhey; Erik Krammer;
Wendy Parks; James Rigdon; Unknown Members of Tactical Team known
as "Orange Crush."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mike Kanovitz, Esq.
          Jon Loevy, Esq.
          Sarah Grady, Esq.
          LOEVY & LOEVY
          312 North May St., Suite 100
          Chicago, IL 60607
          Telephone: (312) 243-5900
          Facsimile: (312) 243-5902
          E-mail: mike@loevy.com
                  jon@loevy.com
                  sarah@loevy.com

               - and -

          Alan Mills, Esq.
          Nicole Schult, Esq.
          UPTOWN PEOPLE'S LAW CENTER
          4413 North Sheridan Rd.
          Chicago, IL 60640
          Telephone: (773) 769-1410


JANSSEN PHARMA: Risperdal Closings Showcase Lawyer Styles
---------------------------------------------------------
Gina Passarella, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
closing arguments in the second bellwether trial in Philadelphia's
Risperdal mass tort were as much commentary on the lawyers' styles
as they were about whether Janssen Pharmaceuticals failed to
adequately warn doctors that the drug could cause boys to grow
breasts.

During his closing for Janssen, John D. Winter -- jwinter@pbwt.com
-- of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler in New York compared "the
Kline way" versus "the FDA way," with the former a reference to
the plaintiff's counsel, Thomas R. Kline of Kline & Specter.

Winter put up a PowerPoint slide with an image of four scribbled
notes Mr. Kline had created during the trial to show the jury how
to calculate the risk of Risperdal causing gynecomastia, the
growth of breast tissue in males.

"Which would you rather have?" Mr. Winter asked the jury.  "The
Kline way or the way the FDA tells you to do it."

Janssen argued its warning labels were drafted at the direction of
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and pointed out that all of
plaintiff William Cirba's doctors said they knew of the risk but
prescribed the drug anyway.

"However Billy looks today, it has nothing to do with Risperdal,"
Mr. Winter said, noting Cirba stopped taking the drug seven years
ago.

Before he sat down, Mr. Winter said he wouldn't comment on why the
jury in Cirba v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals had been there for a
month, a seeming dig at the plaintiffs' presentation of the case.
Throughout his closing, Winter was holding tennis balls -- an
apparent theme of the trial ever since Cirba's plastic-surgeon
expert witness estimated Cirba's breasts were the size of tennis
balls.  The defense latched onto that concept too and soon both
sides had tennis balls in the courtroom during trial, Mr. Kline
had said after arguments.

"I feel as though I was neglectful because I didn't give my
closing with my tennis balls in my hand," Mr. Kline said on
rebuttal.

At which point he repeated the tennis ball reference several
times.  Repetition was a theme of Mr. Kline's rebuttal.

"If you say something enough times over and over again and put it
in a PowerPoint it will be believed," Mr. Kline said of Janssen's
approach to the trial.

He then attacked Mr. Winter's reference to "the Kline way."

"Blame the lawyers for trying to get to the truth," Mr. Kline
said.

Mr. Kline tried to steer the jury away from the "world according
to Janssen."  He said the issue was what the company knew and what
it didn't do.

"I'm not the issue," Mr. Kline said.

He had argued during trial and at closings that Janssen knew the
risk of gynecomastia in boys was not "rare," as the label at issue
suggested, but was "significant" as certain data that Janssen did
not give to the FDA allegedly suggested.

"They want a free pass," Mr. Kline said.  "And I'm sorry, from my
last breath . . . I will beg you not to give them a free pass."

He then said he would say it again, "Winter-style," that the label
did not reflect everything Janssen knew.

Mr. Winter had said during his closing argument that while he
didn't think the jury would reach the question of damages, he
wanted to point out that Cirba was not seeking damages for pain
and suffering, medical expenses, loss of enjoyment of life or
mental anguish.

Mr. Kline responded that the case is about whether Janssen failed
to "adequately" warn Cirba's doctors of Risperdal's risks.  He
said that was why Winter brought up damages, which he said shows
he thinks the jury might reach that issue.  Mr. Kline said Janssen
doesn't want the jury to see disfigurement.

Mr. Kline finished off his closings by minimizing the importance
and credibility of Janssen's experts while lauding his expert,
former FDA Commissioner Dr. David Kessler.  He portrayed
Dr. Kessler as "the man who fought for us against tobacco" and
worked to fast-track HIV medication.

Dr. Kessler didn't actually appear at trial, but Mr. Kline read in
his testimony.  Mr. Kline repeated Dr. Kessler's sentiments in his
rebuttal on March 19, noting Dr. Kessler said an important thing
when dealing with powerful medication is that drug companies tell
the whole truth.

"Billy Cirba has gynecomastia and . . . that's an end product of
not telling the whole story, the whole truth, the good and the
bad," Mr. Kline said.

He then told the jury he wouldn't be there if the case didn't have
merit, at which point Winter objected.

Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Victor DiNubile Jr., who
is presiding over the trial, told Kline to wrap it up as he was
"on the edge there."

Judge DiNubile charged the 12-member jury and sent them to lunch a
little before 1:30 p.m., with deliberations to begin after that.

On Feb. 25, a jury awarded $2.5 million to the plaintiff in the
first of roughly 1,250 Risperdal mass-tort cases in the city's
courts, Pledger v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals.  That case, which
included live testimony from Kessler, was also a month long.  The
jurors deliberated for about a day-and-a-half before reaching
their verdict.


JANSSEN PHARMA: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Risperdal Case
----------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for Law.com, reports that the jury in the
second Risperdal mass-tort case in Philadelphia, while finding
that Janssen Pharmaceuticals failed to warn about the risk of male
breast growth from the drug, determined that the drug did not
cause the plaintiff's gynecomastia.

On March 20, the 12-member jury returned its verdict in favor of
Janssen in Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Victor
DiNubile Jr.'s courtroom.  Ten out of the 12 agreed that Janssen
failed to warn about the risks of gynecomastia in off-label
pediatric use while 11 of the 12 determined the antipsychotic
Risperdal did not cause plaintiff William Cirba's breast growth.
The jurors deliberated for roughly a day after a month of trial.

A spokeswoman for Janssen said in an email to The Legal, "Dealing
with child psychiatric disorders can be incredibly difficult for
families, and we sympathize with the plaintiff, William Cirba, and
his family.  We are pleased that the jury found that the
plaintiff's physical condition was not caused by using Risperdal.
We will continue to defend ourselves and will try cases as
appropriate."

Lead plaintiffs attorney Thomas R. Kline of Kline & Specter said
he considered the outcome a victory despite the lack of recovery
for his client.  He said, with the $2.5 million plaintiffs verdict
in the first Risperdal trial in mind, 21 jurors out of 24 have
found Janssen negligent in failing to warn patients.

"A second jury in a row determined that Janssen failed to warn of
off-label use in adolescents and children," Mr. Kline said,
adding, "Janssen cannot defend its abhorrent conduct."

Mr. Kline minimized the favorable outcome for the defendant on the
issue of causation as a "consolation prize," given that the jury
found Janssen was negligent.

As for the lack of compensation for Cirba, Mr. Kline said, "Any
time there is not an award for the plaintiff it's disappointing.
However, this case must be viewed in the larger picture," in that
both juries determined that Janssen failed to warn.

An appeal is already under way in the mass tort contesting
Supervising Judge Arnold New's order barring punitive damages in
the cases, in accordance with New Jersey law. Johnson & Johnson,
Janssen's parent company, is a New Jersey entity.

Mr. Kline said he will examine appealing Cirba's case on the basis
that Cirba may be entitled to punitive damages under Pennsylvania
law since Cirba, unlike the plaintiff in the first case, is a
Pennsylvanian, and Janssen is a Pennsylvania company.

During closing arguments March 19, attorneys offered commentary on
each other's courtroom styles in addition to summarizing the case.
In his closing for Janssen, John D. Winter of Patterson Belknap
Webb & Tyler in New York compared "the Kline way" versus "the FDA
way," with the former a reference to the plaintiff's counsel.

Janssen argued its warning labels were drafted at the direction of
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and pointed out that all of
Cirba's doctors said they knew of the risk but prescribed the drug
anyway.

"However Billy looks today, it has nothing to do with Risperdal,"
Winter had said, noting Cirba stopped taking the drug seven years
ago.

Throughout his closing, Winter was holding tennis balls -- an
apparent theme of the trial ever since Cirba's plastic-surgeon
expert witness estimated Cirba's breasts were the size of tennis
balls.

"I feel as though I was neglectful because I didn't give my
closing with my tennis balls in my hand," Mr. Kline said on
rebuttal.

Additionally, during his rebuttal Mr. Kline tried to steer the
jury away from the "world according to Janssen."  He had said the
issue was what the company knew and what it didn't do.

"I'm not the issue," Mr. Kline said.

He argued during trial and at closings that Janssen knew the risk
of gynecomastia in boys was not "rare," as the label at issue
suggested, but was "significant" as certain data that Janssen did
not give to the FDA allegedly suggested.

"They want a free pass," Mr. Kline said.  "And I'm sorry, from my
last breath . . . I will beg you not to give them a free pass."

Cirba took Risperdal to treat oppositional defiant disorder at a
time when the drug was not approved by the FDA for use in
children, but was widely prescribed to them, the plaintiff
alleged.  Similar claims were made in the first case, Pledger v.
Janssen Pharmaceuticals.

On Feb. 25, a jury awarded $2.5 million to plaintiff Austin
Pledger.  That case, which included live testimony from former FDA
Commissioner Dr. David Kessler, was also a month long.  The jurors
deliberated for about a day-and-a-half before reaching their
verdict.

As of press time, there were 1,291 total cases in the Risperdal
mass-tort list.


JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: Shareholder Lawsuit Has Been Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Jazz Pharmaceuticals Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that the entire shareholder lawsuit has been dismissed with
prejudice by the court.

"In January 2014, we became aware of a purported class action
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York in connection with our acquisition pursuant to a
tender offer of a majority of the voting securities of Gentium
S.p.A., or Gentium, which we refer to as the Gentium Acquisition,"
the Company said.  "The lawsuit named Gentium, each of the
Gentium's directors, us and our Italian subsidiary as defendants.
The lawsuit alleged, among other things, that Gentium's directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Gentium's shareholders in
connection with the Gentium tender offer agreement that Gentium
entered into with us and our Italian subsidiary valuing Gentium
ordinary shares and American Depositary Shares, or ADSs, at $57.00
per share, and that we and our Italian subsidiary violated
Sections 14(e) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, or the Exchange Act, by allegedly overseeing Gentium's
preparation of an allegedly false and misleading Section 14D-9
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement. On November 19, 2014, the
plaintiff dismissed us and our Italian subsidiary from the
lawsuit. On January 22, 2015, the entire lawsuit was dismissed
with prejudice by the court."


JJ AND M MACHINE: Faces "Ruiz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Servando Ruiz, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216 (b) v. JJ and M Machine, Inc. and Gerald Childers, Case No.
3:15-cv-00837 (N.D. Tex., March 16, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime and minimum wages for work
performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Defendants specialized in supplying metal-working machinery &
tools from China.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jamie Harrison Zidell, Esq.
      Joshua Aaron Petersen, Esq.
      Robert Lee Manteuffel, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL PC
      6310 LBJ Freeway, Suite 112
      Dallas, TX 75240
      Telephone: (972) 233-2264
      Facsimile: (972) 386-7610
      E-mail: zabogado@aol.com
              josh.a.petersen@gmail.com
              rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Supreme Court Denies Appeal in Motrin Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Passarella, writing for Law.com, reports that the state
Supreme Court has denied an appeal by the maker of Children's
Motrin in a case that resulted in a $10 million verdict for a
family of a 3-year-old severely injured after taking several doses
of the medicine.

The ruling on March 18 denying allocatur in Maya v. Johnson &
Johnson followed a July 2014 decision by the Superior Court
upholding the damages for injuries the child suffered that
included being left blind in one eye, damage to her reproductive
system and permanent disfigurement of much of her skin.

The $10 million in compensatory damages was awarded by a
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas jury against Johnson & Johnson
subsidiary McNeil on the claim that the drugmaker failed to
adequately warn of the risks of taking over-the-counter Children's
Motrin.  The jury did not award punitive damages nor did it find
that Children's Motrin was negligently designed.

On appeal to the Superior Court, McNeil argued it was entitled to
judgment as a matter of law because its warning label was drafted
by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.  The pharmaceutical
company argued it couldn't have been found negligent for not
including in its list of symptoms "skin reddening," "rash" and
"blisters" when it wasn't required to do so by the FDA.

But Superior Court Judge Kate Ford Elliott said in her 37-page
opinion that the company was mistaken, citing to the court's 2011
ruling in Daniel v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, in which the court
rejected a federal pre-emption argument and found it was the
manufacturer that bears responsibility for providing an adequate
label.

McNeil further argued on appeal that Brianna Maya failed to show
her use of Children's Motrin was the cause of her symptoms, Ford
Elliott said.  The company argued Maya's mother testified she
would have relied on the doctor's advice to administer the drug
regardless of what the warning said.

But Ford Elliott said the mother testified she would not have
given the drug had the warning label contained the word "blisters"
or warned of skin rashes.

"Therefore, there was testimony that an adequate warning would
have prevented Brianna from receiving the last four or five doses
of Children's Motrin," Ford Elliott said.  "Moreover, two of
[Maya's] expert witnesses testified that stopping the Children's
Motrin sooner would have substantially improved Brianna's
prognosis."

Ford Elliott went on in her opinion to reject some claims by
McNeil related to the jury instructions given at trial.  She did
find in favor of the drug company on one such argument, however,
but ultimately determined the trial court's error didn't warrant a
new trial.

McNeil argued the trial court mistakenly told the jury that it
could consider the conduct of other pharmaceutical manufacturers
whose drugs were taken off the market when the court should have
said the jury could "not" consider such evidence.

"Ultimately, however, the issue does not compel a new trial
because McNeil was not prejudiced by the trial court's alleged
mistake," Ford Elliott said.  "As [the Mayas] point out, the
instruction really only pertains to their claims for negligent
design defect and punitive damages, both of which the jury
resolved in favor of McNeil."

Alfred W. Putnam Jr. -- Alfred.Putnam@dbr.com -- of Drinker Biddle
& Reath represented McNeil during the appeals process.  He
declined to comment on the Supreme Court's decision.

Howard Bashman -- hjb@hjbashman.com -- of Willow Grove argued the
case on appeal for the Mayas and Keith Jensen of Jensen &
Associates in Fort Worth, Texas, represented them at trial.  Mr.
Bashman said he was pleased the court denied review given it
wasn't a case for which he felt review was warranted.

Jensen had said at the time of the Superior Court ruling that Maya
was the first verdict holding McNeil liable for failure to warn
consumers of the symptoms of deadly skin diseases allegedly caused
by Motrin.

Maya, now a teenager, was given doses of Children's Motrin when
she was 3 years old in alternation with over-the-counter
Children's Tylenol because she had a fever over the course of two-
and-a-half days, according to the trial court's opinion.

On the morning of the third day, Maya was taken to a local
hospital in Martin, Tennessee, because of a rapidly spreading rash
over her entire body, including blisters on her mouth, chest and
vaginal area, according to the opinion. She underwent several
forceful debridements of her skin, followed by skin grafts of pig
skin or skin from cadavers, because of the risk of infection from
so many open wounds and blisters.

Two days after being taken to the hospital, Maya was transferred
to Shriners Burns Hospital in Texas, according to the opinion.  At
that point, 84.5 percent of Maya's body was estimated to be
covered with open wounds.

Maya's injuries were not from burns, however, but from Stevens-
Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis, which is part of the
same disease process in which the human body attacks its own skin
and mucous membranes, according to the opinion.

The medical staff at Shriners determined that Maya's use of
pediatric ibuprofen, or Children's Motrin, was the cause of her
disease, according to the opinion.

Maya has undergone 16 eye surgeries, and she required surgery to
stop her menses from backing up in her abdomen, according to the
opinion.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Removes "DiResta" Suit to New York District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled DiResta v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Case No.
151155/2015, was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, County of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (Foley Square).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-02069-NRB to the proceeding.

The Complaint purports to assert, among other things, a cause of
action for violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
arising from Chase's alleged misconduct in the course of modifying
the Plaintiff's loan.

The Plaintiff represented himself in the case:

          Timothy DiResta, Esq.
          DIRESTALAW GROUP, PC
          30 W. Park Ave., Suite 301
          Long Beach, NY 11561
          Tel: 516.432.0102
          Fax: 516.345.1678
          Email: timothydiresta@optimum.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          John Michael Falzone, III, Esq.
          PARKER IBRAHIM & BERG LLC
          270 Davidson Avenue
          Somerest, NJ 08873
          Telephone: (908) 333-6218
          Facsimile: (908) 333-6230
          E-mail: john.falzone@piblaw.com


K&H RESTAURANT: "Mendez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Denisse Mendez, Kamila Hatamova, Antonina Vasilyeva, Elshan Abilov
Tengiz Iliaev and Marko Kostic v. K&H Restaurant Inc., d/b/a
Raffles Bistro, Adel Kellel and Rajesh Minocha, Case No. 1:15-cv-
01947 (S.D.N.Y., March 16, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate Raffles Bistro restaurant located
at 511 Lexington Avenue, in the County, City and State of New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jon Louis Norinsberg, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JON L. NORINSBERG
      225 Broadway , Suite 2700
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 791-5396
      Facsimile: (212) 406-6890
      E-mail: norinsberg@aol.com


LENOVO US: Taps Dykema Gossett to Defend Superfish Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that Chinese laptop
maker Lenovo has tapped Dykema Gossett to defend it from the spate
of lawsuits filed in the wake of revelations that the company sold
computers preloaded with adware that could track their online
activity and leave them vulnerable to hackers.

Los Angeles partner Daniel Stephenson -- dstephenson@dykema.com --
the leader of Dykema's national trial team, submitted a filing on
March 16 on behalf of Lenovo's U.S. subsidiary asking roughly a
dozen cases pending in the Northern District of California be
related before U.S. District Judge Ronald Whyte in San Jose.

Superfish Inc., the Palo Alto-based maker of the "Visual
Discovery" adware installed on a variety of Lenovo's consumer
laptops, has brought on Rodger Cole -- rcole@fenwick.com -- the
head of litigation at Fenwick & West.  Meanwhile, lawyers at
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, which sued Lenovo in February in the
Eastern District of North Carolina, have asked the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate the litigation in
North Carolina, the location of Lenovo's U.S. headquarters.  The
Robbins Geller lawyers argue that the Eastern District is "under-
utilized" since it has zero pending MDL cases as opposed to seven
in the Southern District of California and 17 in the Northern
District.

Both Lenovo and Superfish filed papers with the MDL panel asking
that the cases -- 22 total nationwide as of March 18 according to
Lenovo -- be consolidated before Whyte given the location of
relevant witness about the use and installation of Superfish's
software. Lenovo points out that Whyte has presided over seven
prior MDLs but isn't currently handling an active MDL docket.


LONDONBOY STATION: Fails to Pay Required Minimum Wage, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Winston Rojas and Yudelsi Roque v. Londonboy Station Inc. and
Ahmed Kahlil, Case No. 1:15-cv-02072-KPF (S.D.N.Y., March 19,
2015) alleges that throughout the Plaintiff's employment with the
Defendants, they have failed to pay him the legally required
minimum wage.

Londonboy Station, Inc. is a New York domestic business
corporation headquartered in Bronx, New York.  Ahmed Kahlil is the
Chief Executive Officer of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mathew William Beckwith, Esq.
          Luigi Brandimarte, Esq.
          SACCO & FILLAS, LLP
          141-07 20th Avenue, Suite 506
          Whitestone, NY 11357
          Telephone: (718) 746-3440
          vFacsimile: (718) 746-4117
          E-mail: mbeckwith@saccofillas.com
                  lbrandimarte@saccofillas.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Petho" Suit Over Chinese Flooring
------------------------------------------------------------
Beth Petho, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., a Delaware corporation;
Lumber Liquidators Leasing, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
corporation; Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., a Delaware
corporation; and Lumber Liquidators Services, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-02008-ES-MAH
(D.N.J., March 19, 2015) arises from the Plaintiff's purchase and
installation of Lumber Liquidators' Chinese wood flooring
material.

According to the complaint, the class action arises out of Lumber
Liquidators' scheme to import into the United States, and to
falsely warrant, advertise, and sell Chinese Flooring that fails
to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde standards, as
well as its breaches of express and implied warranties with
respect to these products.

Lumber Liquidators, headquartered in Toano, Virginia, is one of
the largest specialty retailers of hardwood flooring in the United
States, with over 300 retail stores in 46 states, including 13
stores in New Jersey.

Lumber Liquidators, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in.  Lumber Liquidators Leasing, LLC,
is a Delaware Limited Liability Corporation.  Lumber Liquidators
Holding, Inc., is a Delaware corporation.  Lumber Liquidators
Services, LLC, is a Delaware Limited Liability Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Alan George, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          550 Broad Street; Suite 920
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 639-9100
          Facsimile: (973) 639-9393
          E-mail: sgeorge@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

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


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Doss" Suit in Cal. Over Toxic Flooring
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lin Doss, Deborah Sampson, Douglas Sampson, Susan Mcnutt, Derek
Banka, Tabitha McHugh, and Geneva Ware, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et
al., Case No. 4:15-cv-01225 (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2015), alleges
that the Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese
Flooring that fails to comply with relevant and applicable
formaldehyde standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses
excessive levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known
human carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program
and the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
      Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
      Adam E. Polk, Esq.
      Steve A. Lopez, Esq.
      GIRARD GIBBS LLP
      601 California Street, 14th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94108
      Telephone: (415) 981-4800
      Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
      E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com
              ehg@girardgibbs.com
              aep@girardgibbs.com
              sal@girardgibbs.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

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

         - and -

      John Fiske, Esq.
      GOMEZ TRIAL ATTORNEYS
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1700
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 237-3490
      Facsimile: (619) 237-3496
      E-mail: jfiske@gomeztrialattorneys.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Irving" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
-----------------------------------------------------------
Patty Irving, an individual, and Stacy Hahlen, an individual, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Lumber
Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-01235 (N.D. Cal., March 16,
2015), alleges that the Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold
Chinese Flooring that fails to comply with relevant and applicable
formaldehyde standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses
excessive levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known
human carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program
and the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David S. Casey Jr., Esq.
      Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
      Jeremy Robinson, Esq.
      Wendy M. Behan, Esq.
      Jason C. Evans, Esq.
      CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD LLP
      110 Laurel Street
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 238-1811
      Facsimile: (619) 544-9232
      E-mail: dcasey@cglaw.com
              gmb@cglaw.com
              jrobinson@cglaw.com
              wbehan@cglaw.com
              jevans@cglaw.com


MCDONALD'S INC: Faces Complaints Over Workplace Safety Conditions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Mintzer, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that fast-
food restaurants have been under a lot of scrutiny recently, with
much of the pressure coming from their own employees.  And
McDonald's Inc. is no exception.  The golden arches have been the
target of employee suits related to wage-and-hour laws, and have
been the subject of widespread protests to raise the minimum wage
for fast-food workers.  Now, McDonald's has another item to add to
its menu of employment headaches: allegations of serious workplace
safety violations.

Some 28 McDonald's workers from 19 U.S. cities have filed
complaints this month with the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, claiming that their employer has failed to take
proper measures to keep them safe on the job.  The workers, who
detailed these alleged dangers on their own website, say that
McDonald's creates dangerous conditions by combining understaffing
with pressure to work too quickly.  Specific allegations include a
lack of basic first-aid kits and protective gear in the workplace,
and reports that supervisors tell workers to treat burns in the
kitchen with condiments.

"My managers kept pushing me to work faster, and while trying to
meet their demands I slipped on a wet floor, catching my arm on a
hot grill," Brittney Berry, a Chicago McDonald's worker, said in
press release.  "The managers told me to put mustard on it, but I
ended up having to get rushed to the hospital in an ambulance.
This is exactly why workers at McDonald's need union rights, so we
have a voice to make the company take responsibility for the
dangers it creates in its stores."

The workers filing complaints are supported by the minimum wage
activist group Fight for $15, which in turn is backed by the
Service Employees International Union, a group that has been
jockeying to organize fast-food workers for several years.  It
appears that the OSHA complaints -- regardless of the level of
truth in the allegations -- are part of a larger movement by
unions across the country to access the untapped potential for
union membership at fast-food restaurants.

It's not so unusual for unions that want to organize in a
workplace to use safety violation accusations as a way of making
the company look like it mistreats its workers, explained
Thomas Wassel -- twassel@cullenanddykman.com -- a partner at
Cullen and Dykman.  "It's not unlike the inflatable rat you see at
certain sites when there are employment disputes," Mr. Wassel told
CorpCounsel.com. In this case, OSHA could slap McDonald's with
fines as well.

According to Howard Mavity -- hmavity@laborlawyers.com -- a
partner at Fisher & Phillips and co-chairman of the firm's
workplace safety and catastrophe management practice group, unions
have had to find creative ways to organize fast-food workers
because these jobs tend to be somewhat transient and have high
turnover rates.  "The current popular message with a lot of the
more aggressive unions is to make lives miserable for the employer
in hopes that they will eventually, in essence, voluntarily
recognize them," he told CorpCounsel.com.

McDonald's might not be miserable yet, but it did feel compelled
to address the complaints.  "McDonald's and its independent
franchisees are committed to providing safe working conditions for
employees in the 14,000 McDonald's brand U.S. restaurants," the
company said in a statement to Bloomberg.  "We will review these
allegations.  It is important to note that these complaints are
part of a larger strategy orchestrated by activists targeting our
brand and designed to generate media coverage."

Out of the 28 OSHA claims, nine are directed at restaurants owned
by McDonald's corporate, and the rest at franchisees.  However, it
looks as though the claims could be another attempt to make
McDonald's the franchisor responsible for its franchisee behavior
as well.  This wall between the two has traditionally been
difficult to break, but cracks have started to show.  The general
counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, Richard Griffin
Jr., announced last year that in his view, McDonald's corporate
holds enough control over its franchisees' employment and labor
practices so that it may be deemed a "joint employer" with
franchisees.

Though it remains to be seen how far the legal system will stretch
franchisor-franchisee relationships, and how valid the workers'
claims against McDonald's actually are, the filings can serve as a
reminder about the importance of workplace safety compliance.
Mr. Mavity explained that sometimes managers at fast-food
establishments are directed to place their focus on keeping the
food itself safe, at the expense of other kinds of safety.  "It's
not that they don't care about workplace safety, it's just that
they are driven so vigorously by food security and safety," he
said.

In a recent blog post about the McDonald's complaints, he pointed
to some of the most common violations that an OSHA inspector might
find in a restaurant, such as trip hazards and water accumulation
on floors, as well as blocked exits, fire extinguishers and
electric panels, and lack of adequate protective gear and training
for employees handling kitchen chemicals.

However, Mr. Mavity emphasized that true worker safety doesn't
just begin and end with OSHA.  He advises that employers ensure
OSHA compliance, but also look beyond that to other potential
hazards that OSHA rules might not cover.  "You can have perfect
OSHA compliance and an unsafe workplace, and you can have a very
safe workplace and bad OSHA compliance -- they aren't mutually
exclusive," he noted.

And the benefits of a consistently safe workplace aren't just
about staying out of legal trouble.  They often include a happier
and more productive workforce.  "It's better for employees' morale
if they know the employer is doing right by them," Mr. Wassel
said.


MOURAD RESTAURANTS: Accused of Not Having Accessible Facilities
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Miles, Individually v. Mourad Restaurants Inc., a Michigan
Corporation, Case No. 3:15-cv-11042-JCO-RSW (E.D. Mich., March 19,
2015) alleges that the Defendant has discriminated, and is
continuing to discriminate, the Plaintiff in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to have accessible
facilities.

Mr. Miles is paraplegic and uses a wheelchair for mobility.

The Defendant owns, leases, leases to, or operates a place of
public accommodation known as Big Boy Restaurant, which is located
in Fort Gratiot Township, Michigan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Owen B. Dunn, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF OWEN B. DUNN, JR.
          The Ottawa Hills Shopping Center
          4334 W. Central Ave., Suite 222
          Toledo, OH 43615
          Telephone: (419) 241-9661
          Facsimile: (419) 241-9737
          E-mail: dunnlawoffice@sbcglobal.net


NAV-EX LLC: Faces "Cisneros" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marleny Sugey Portillo Cisneros, on behalf of herself and  all
others similarly situated v. NAV-EX, LLC, et al., Case No. 8:15-
cv-00717 (D. Md., March 16, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in
excess of 40 per week.

NAV-EX, LLC is a cleaning services company with its principal
place of business in Gaithersburg, Maryland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mary Craine Lombardo, Esq.
      STEIN SPERLING BENNETT DE JONG DRISCOLL AND GREENFEIG PC
      25 W Middle Ln
      Rockville, MD 20850
      Telephone: (301) 340-2020
      Facsimile: (301) 354-8126
      E-mail: mlombardo@steinsperling.com


NEW YORK KIMCHI: "Burgos" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Burgos, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class v. New York Kimchi Catering, Corp.,
Gum Gang Inc. and Sandra Yoo, Case No. 1:15-cv-01971 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 16, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid
overtime, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 16 West
48th Street, New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq.
      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1124
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com
              cklee@leelitigation.com


NORTHLAND GROUP: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Normarily Cruz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Northland Group, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case No.
2:15-cv-02000-WHW-CLW (D.N.J., March 19, 2015) accuses the
Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NU LIFE: Faces "Madison" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Madison, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Nu Life Med, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00775 (N.D. Ga.,
March 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Nu Life Med, LLC is a New Hampshire limited liability company that
manufacture and distributes home medical equipment and supplies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amanda A. Farahany, Esq.
      Benjamin F. Barrett Jr., Esq.
      Victor Severin Roberts, Esq.
      BARRETT & FARAHANY, LLP
      1100 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 500
      Atlanta, GA 30309
      Telephone: (404) 214-0120
      Facsimile: (404) 214-0125
      E-mail: amanda@bf-llp.com
              ben@bf-llp.com
              vsroberts@bf-llp.com


OLIPHANT FINANCIAL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Greco, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Oliphant Financial and John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:15-
cv-02003-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., March 19, 2015) alleges violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PACIRA PHARMACEUTICALS: To File Motion to Dismiss "Lovallo" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Inc. intends to file a motion to dismiss
the case a purported class action lawsuit, Nicholas R. Lovallo v.
Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., the Company said in its Form
10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

On October 3, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the
Company and three of its current officers, Nicholas R. Lovallo v.
Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-06172-WHW-
CLW. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is premised
on allegedly false and/or misleading statements, and non-
disclosure of material facts, regarding the Company's business,
operations, prospects and performance during the proposed class
period of April 9, 2012 to September 24, 2014.

"We intend to vigorously defend all claims asserted, including by
filing a motion to dismiss," the Company said.


PORTAGE METROPOLITAN: Faces "Bosley" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Bosley, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Portage Metropolitan Housing Authority, Case No. 5:15-
cv-00504 (N.D. Ohio, March 16, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

Portage Metropolitan Housing Authority is a metropolitan housing
authority formed under the laws of the State of Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
      Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
      NILGES DRAHER
      Ste. 201, 4580 Stephen Circle, NW
      Canton, OH 44718
      Telephone: (330) 470-4429
      Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
      E-mail: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
              hans@ohlaborlaw.com


PRO-FAB SHEET: Faces "Sanchez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fernando Jose Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated persons, known and unknown v. Pro-Fab Sheet
Metal, Inc. and Marwan Wahid, Case No. 1:15-cv-02257 (N.D. Ill.,
March 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Pro-Fab Sheet Metal, Inc. is an Illinois corporation engaged in
the business of sheet metal fabrication.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexis D. Martin, Esq.
      Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
      CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES Ltd.
      224 S Michigan, Suite 300
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Telephone: (312) 763-6880
      E-mail: amartin@caffarelli.com
              acaffarelli@caffarelli.com


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Consumer Can Seek Injunction in Wipes Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for Law.com, reports that a plaintiff who
has stopped using the product that prompted his lawsuit may still
pursue an injunction to stop alleged false advertising under state
consumer protection statutes, a federal judge has ruled.

Addressing an apparently unanswered question in the courts of the
Second Circuit, Eastern District Judge Jack Weinstein allowed a
Great Neck man to pursue a putative class action over "flushable
wipes" against Procter & Gamble.

Consumer Anthony Belfiore said the company's "Charmin Freshmates,"
were advertised as "flushable" and "septic safe," but turned out
to be anything but, and he had to pay a plumber $526.83 to repair
his clogged plumbing.

Mr. Belfiore sued under New York General Business Law Sec. 349
seeking money damages and a permanent injunction to block the
company from representing Freshmates as "flushable."

Judge Weinstein said the issue before him was whether a consumer
dissatisfied with a defective product can pursue an injunction
under New York law "even though it is improbable that he will ever
purchase that product again."

Procter & Gamble argued that Mr. Belfiore lacked standing to sue
under Article III of the Constitution because he could not show
that injunctive relief would "redress a real and immediate threat
of injury to him."

But Judge Weinstein said that both public policy and precedent
support finding standing under Article III to seek injunctive
relief.

"To hold otherwise would denigrate the New York consumer
protection statute, designed as a major support of consumers who
claim to have been cheated," he said.  "The only way a consumer
could enjoin deceptive conduct would be if he were aware of the
situation by suffering injury.  But once the consumer learned of
the deception, he would voluntarily abstain from buying and
therefore could no longer seek an injunction."

Moreover, Judge Weinstein said, "An injunction in connection with
a class action is designed to afford protection of future
consumers from the same fraud.  It does this by permitting the
plaintiff to sue on their behalf."

Procter & Gamble also moved to dismiss on what it said was
Mr. Belfiore's failure to adequately plead causation under Sec.
349, claiming he failed to show the allegedly inadequate or false
disclosures caused his injury.

Judge Weinstein, however, said Mr. Belfiore pleaded that he would
not have purchased the wipes had he known they are not flushable,
he specified when and where he bought them, and he was specific on
the amount of his economic injury.

"According to defendant, plaintiff's pleadings fail because he
does not state that when he looked at the package prior to
purchase, he read the misrepresentation," the judge said.  "This
detail is not decisive."

It was a "reasonable inference," the judge said, that he saw the
misleading statements and, because of those statements, decided to
buy the product.

Belfiore v. The Procter & Gamble Co., 14-CV-4090, is not the only
case in which consumers and their attorneys are targeting
flushable wipes and seeking damages for plumbing and sewer
problems as well as false advertising.

A second class action, Kurtz v. Kimberly-Clark Corp. 14-CV-01142,
is also pending before Weinstein.

Mr. Belfiore is represented by Wolf Popper partners Lester Levy --
llevy@wolfpopper.com -- and Michele Fried Raphael and associates
Matthew Insley-Pruitt and Robert Scott Plosky.

"I think it's a wise decision because, if you know about the
problems with the product, the chances are you're not going to buy
it again, but if you don't know about a problem, you can't get an
injunction," Mr. Levy said on March 23.  "So it's a real Catch-22.
According to Procter & Gamble, nobody can ever get an injunction."

Procter & Gamble is represented by Covington & Burling partners
Emily Henn -- ehenn@cov.com -- and Sonya Winner; Andrew Schau, of
counsel, and associates Cortlin Lannin and Claire Catalano Dean.


QEP RESOURCES: La. Supreme Court Dismissed Claim in "Gatti" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
QEP Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Louisiana Supreme
Court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim without prejudice in the
case Gatti et al v. State of Louisiana et al.

Gatti et al v. State of Louisiana et al, 589,350, 19th JDC, Parish
of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana. In this putative class action
arising out of the unitization practices and orders of the
Louisiana Commissioner of Conservation (Commissioner), plaintiffs
seek to represent a class of all Haynesville Shale mineral owners
(alleged to be over 50,000 in number) against the Commissioner and
all Haynesville Shale unit operators. Plaintiffs filed their
complaint on April 8, 2010, and claim that the Commissioner
exceeded his statutory authority in creating and perpetuating
units larger than the area that can be efficiently and
economically drained by a single well. They seek declaratory
relief that would nullify all such improper orders, along with an
unspecified amount of monetary damages from the unit operators
sufficient to compensate the putative class members for the
alleged dilution of their true interest in unit production as a
result of "oversized" units and the "cloud on title" caused by
having excessive and improperly sized units purport to hold their
mineral leases via unit operations. All defendants filed
exceptions to the plaintiffs' petition on the primary ground that
plaintiffs had failed to comply with the exclusive statutory
judicial review procedure (Louisiana Revised Statutes 30:12),
which the trial court granted, dismissing the action in its
entirety. On January 15, 2014, the Louisiana First Circuit Court
of Appeal reversed and reinstated plaintiffs' claims. Defendants
asked for review by the Louisiana Supreme Court and on August 25,
2014, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and
dismissed the plaintiffs' claim without prejudice as originally
ordered by the District Court.


QEP RESOURCES: Class Certification Pending in "Gagne" Case
----------------------------------------------------------
QEP Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a court order regarding
class certification is pending in the case, Yannick Gagne and
others similarly situated v. QEP Resources, Inc.

Yannick Gagne and others similarly situated v. QEP Resources,
Inc., No. 480-06-1-132, Superior Court, Province of Quebec,
Canada. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons who
sustained damages as a result of the July 6, 2013 train derailment
in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, which resulted in substantial loss of
life and property. The fourth amended motion to authorize the
bringing of a class action was filed on February 19, 2014, and
names numerous defendants. The plaintiffs contend that QEP, and
other producer defendants, sold Bakken crude oil to third-party
purchasers in North Dakota, who resold the oil and transported it
on the derailed train. Plaintiffs alleged that QEP and the
producer defendants, among other things, failed to ensure that the
oil was adequately processed to remove volatile gases and vapors,
knowingly added volatile light end petroleum liquids and/or vapors
or blended the crude with condensate, failed to conduct adequate
well site testing to determine the proper hazard classification of
the oil, failed to properly classify the shipping requirements for
the oil, failed to take reasonable care to ensure that the oil was
properly labeled and shipped, failed to identify the risk of the
train derailment and take action to prevent it, and failed to
adopt, implement and enforce rules and procedures pertaining to
the safe shipment of the oil. The plaintiffs seek damages, but
specific monetary damages are not asserted. Class certification
hearings took place in June 2014, and a court order regarding
class certification is pending.


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Insurers to Cover Settlement in Celera Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the settlement
in the Celera Corp. Securities Litigation is expected to be fully
covered by insurance.

In 2010, a purported class action entitled In re Celera Corp.
Securities Litigation was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against Celera
Corporation and certain of its directors and current and former
officers. An amended complaint filed in October 2010 alleges that
from April 2008 through July 22, 2009, the defendants made false
and misleading statements regarding Celera's business and
financial results with an intent to defraud investors. The
complaint was further amended in 2011 to add allegations regarding
a financial restatement. The amended complaint seeks unspecified
damages on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of Celera's
stock during the period in which the alleged misrepresentations
were made. The Company's motion to dismiss the complaint was
denied. Celera and the director and officer defendants have
reached an agreement to settle this action, which is subject to
court approval. The settlement is expected to be fully covered by
insurance.


SOLARCITY CORPORATION: To Defend Against Stockholder Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SolarCity Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a purported stockholder
class action lawsuit was filed on March 28, 2014, in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
against the Company and two of its officers.

"The complaint alleges claims for violations of the federal
securities laws, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and
other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our
securities from March 6, 2013 to March 18, 2014. We have filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint.  We believe that the claims
against us are without merit and intend to defend the litigation
vigorously. We have not recognized any liability as a result of
this matter," the Company said.


SUN DRILLING: Faces "Defoor" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
William Defoor, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Sun Drilling Products Corp., Case No. 4:15-cv-00701
(S.D. Tex., March 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Sun Drilling Products Corp. provides proprietary and patented
oilfield products, equipment and services worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TARGET CORP: Settles Data Breach Suits for $10 Million
------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that Target Corp.'s $10 million settlement of a nationwide class
action over its massive 2013 data breach comes as the lead
plaintiffs attorney in the case said he faced major hurdles ahead.

U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson in Minnesota heard arguments
over the settlement at a hearing on March 19 but hadn't yet
approved the deal.

The settlement, which resolves most of the 140 lawsuits filed over
the breach, does not include financial institutions such as banks
and credit unions that also sued Target.  The breach compromised
the credit and debit cards and personal information of 110 million
customers.

Under the settlement, disclosed in a motion for preliminary
approval filed on March 18, class members are eligible for up to
$10,000 each but must submit documentation, such as a credit card
statement or invoice, "showing their losses more likely than not
arose from the Target data breach."  Class members with no
documentation can also submit a claim for whatever funds remain.

Lead plaintiffs attorney Vincent Esades said the amount of the
settlement fund, when compared with the 110 million customers
affected, indicates the significantly fewer number of people who
were actually injured by the breach.

"If you can't point to a financial impact to you, you won't
qualify to make a claim," said Mr. Esades, an equity member at
Minneapolis-based Heins Mills & Olson.

Mr. Esades said that he's already been inundated with calls from
potential claimants and that he anticipates a website with claim
information to be up and running next month.

Target spokeswoman Molly Snyder wrote in an email: "We are pleased
to see the process moving forward and look forward to its
resolution."

The settlement fund includes awards of $500 to $1,000 to class
representatives but excludes attorney fees, which are anticipated
to be at least $6.75 million, according to the motion.  Target
also has agreed to appoint a chief information security officer,
train employees and maintain a data breach program.

The settlement comes as both sides were gearing up for a battle
over class certification, with the first motion due July 1. Esades
said that he faced a challenge.  "These are inherently difficult
cases to prove on certification," he said.

Judges have been reluctant to find that the facts in data breach
cases predominate among all class members "because of the
presumably great variance in what could happen to individual
plaintiffs," said Nicolas Terry, executive director of the William
S. and Christine S. Hall Center for Law and Health at Indiana
University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. Some might have had a
card stolen, he said, while others suffered unauthorized charges,
for example.

But Target also failed to dismiss the litigation on Dec. 18.
In most cases, companies have successfully argued that data breach
class actions should be dismissed because plaintiffs weren't
actually injured by the hack and lacked standing to sue.  Target's
inability to do that, Mr. Terry said, means "that position is
becoming less credible.  Plaintiffs are managing to find ways to
move the ball down the field in these cases, thus increasing their
settlement value."


TEXAS A&M: Sued in S.D. Florida Over Alleged Contract Dispute
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Doe, FL, individually and for all others similarly situated
v. Texas A&M University 12th Man Foundation aka The 12 Man, Case
No. 0:15-cv-60581-WPD (S.D. Fla., March 19, 2015) is brought over
alleged contract dispute.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John Gravante, III, Esq.
          Peter Prieto, Esq.
          PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
          25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 358-2800
          Facsimile: (305) 358-2382
          E-mail: jgravante@podhurst.com
                  pprieto@podhurst.com


TORNIER N.V.: Amended Complaint Filed in Anthony Marks Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tornier N.V. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a class action complaint
was filed on November 25, 2014, in the Chancery Court of Shelby
County Tennessee, for the Thirtieth Judicial District, at Memphis
(the Tennessee Chancery Court), by a purported shareholder of
Wright under the caption Anthony Marks as Trustee for Marks Clan
Super v. Wright Medical Group, Inc., Gary D. Blackford, Martin J.
Emerson, Lawrence W. Hamilton, Ronald K. Labrum, John L. Miclot,
Robert J. Palmisano, Amy S. Paul, Robert J. Quillinan, David D.
Stevens, Douglas G. Watson, Tornier N.V., Trooper Holdings Inc.,
and Trooper Merger Sub Inc., No. CH-14-1721-1, followed by an
amended complaint filed on January 7, 2015 with the same caption.
The complaint names as defendants Wright, Tornier, Trooper
Holdings Inc., ("Holdco"), Trooper Merger Sub ("Merger Sub") and
the members of the Wright board of directors. The complaint
asserts various causes of action, including, among other things,
that the members of the Wright board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties owed to the Wright shareholders in connection
with entering into the merger agreement and approving the merger
and causing Wright to issue a preliminary Form S-4 registration
statement that purportedly fails to disclose allegedly material
information about the merger. The complaint further alleges that
Wright, Tornier, Holdco and Merger Sub aided and abetted the
breaches of fiduciary duties by the Wright board of directors. The
plaintiff is seeking, among other things, injunctive relief
enjoining or rescinding the merger and an award of attorneys' fees
and costs.


TORNIER N.V.: Faces Paul Parshall Class Action
----------------------------------------------
Tornier N.V. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on November 25, 2014, a
second class action complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery
of the state of Delaware (the Delaware Court) by a purported
shareholder of Wright under the caption Paul Parshall v. Wright
Medical Group, Inc., Gary D. Blackford, Martin J. Emerson,
Lawrence W. Hamilton, Ronald K. Labrum, John L. Miclot, Robert J.
Palmisano, Amy S. Paul, Robert J. Quillinan, David D. Stevens,
Douglas G. Watson, Tornier N.V., Trooper Holdings Inc., and
Trooper Merger Sub Inc., No. 10400-CB, followed by an amended
complaint filed on January 5, 2015 with the same caption. The
complaint names as defendants Wright, Tornier, Holdco, Merger Sub
and the members of the Wright board of directors. The complaint
asserts various causes of action, including, among other things,
that the members of the Wright board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties owed to the Wright shareholders in connection
with entering into the merger agreement and approving the merger
and causing Wright to issue a preliminary Form S-4 registration
statement that purportedly fails to disclose allegedly material
information about the merger. The complaint further alleges that
Wright, Tornier, Holdco and Merger Sub aided and abetted the
breaches of fiduciary duties by the Wright board of directors. The
plaintiff is seeking, among other things, injunctive relief
enjoining or rescinding the merger and an award of attorneys' fees
and costs.


TORNIER N.V.: Amended Complaint Filed in Warwick Retirement Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tornier N.V. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on November 26, 2014, a
third class action complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of
Tennessee, for the Thirtieth Judicial District, at Memphis (the
Tennessee Circuit Court), by a purported shareholder of Wright
under the caption City of Warwick Retirement System v. Gary D.
Blackford, Martin J. Emerson, Lawrence W. Hamilton, Ronald K.
Labrum, John L. Miclot, Robert J. Palmisano, Amy S. Paul, Robert
J. Quillinan, David D. Stevens, Douglas G. Watson, Wright Medical
Group, Tornier N.V., Trooper Holdings Inc., and Trooper Merger Sub
Inc., No. CT-005015-14, followed by an amended complaint filed on
January 5, 2015 with the same caption. The complaint names as
defendants Wright, Tornier, Holdco, Merger Sub and the members of
the Wright board of directors. The complaint asserts various
causes of action, including, among other things, that the members
of the Wright board of directors breached their fiduciary duties
owed to the Wright shareholders in connection with entering into
the merger agreement and approving the merger and causing Wright
to issue a preliminary Form S-4 registration statement that
purportedly fails to disclose allegedly material information about
the merger. The complaint further alleges that Tornier, Holdco and
Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties by the Wright board of directors. The plaintiff is seeking,
among other things, injunctive relief enjoining or rescinding the
merger and an award of attorneys' fees and costs.


TORNIER N.V.: Amended Complaint Filed in Paulette Jacques Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tornier N.V. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on December 2, 2014, a
fourth class action complaint was filed in the Tennessee Chancery
Court by a purported shareholder of Wright under the caption
Paulette Jacques v. Wright Medical Group, Inc., Tornier N.V.,
Trooper Holdings Inc., Trooper Merger Sub Inc., David D. Stevens,
Gary D. Blackford, Martin J. Emerson, Lawrence W. Hamilton, Ronald
K. Labrum, John L. Miclot, Robert J. Palmisano, Amy S. Paul,
Robert J. Quillinan, and Douglas G. Watson, No. CH-14-1736-1,
followed by an amended complaint filed on January 27, 2015, which
added Warburg Pincus LLC (Warburg) as a defendant. Besides
Warburg, the complaint also names as defendants Wright, Tornier,
Holdco, Merger Sub and the members of the Wright board of
directors. The complaint asserts various causes of action,
including, among other things, that the members of the Wright
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to the
Wright shareholders in connection with entering into the merger
agreement approving the merger and causing Wright to issue a
preliminary Form S-4 registration statement that purportedly fails
to disclose allegedly material information about the merger. The
complaint further alleges that Wright, Tornier, Holdco, Merger Sub
and Warburg aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties by the Wright board of directors. The plaintiff is seeking,
among other things, injunctive relief enjoining or rescinding the
merger and an award of attorneys' fees and costs.


TOST CAFE: "Garcia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rodrigo Garcia, on behalf of himself FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class v. Tost Cafe Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01348
(E.D.N.Y., March 16, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages,
unpaid overtime, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Tost Cafe Inc. owns and operates 6 cafes in various locations in
New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Car-Hacking Threats
---------------------------------------------------------
Anna Eby, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that as cars are
powered by ever-increasing numbers of computers and software
programs, and as automakers promote connectivity (from traffic-
monitoring apps to mobile phone synchronization and collision
avoidance systems), alarms have been raised about the possibility
of hackers obtaining access to a car's computers.  One
particularly bleak scenario involves hackers wreaking havoc on
self-driving cars, whose hapless passengers won't even have time
to grab the steering wheel before their four-wheeled mobile
devices engage rampage mode.

While nothing like this has happened in real life, researchers
(including two individuals funded by DARPA for a 2013 study) have
been able to access a vehicle's computer systems using a laptop
and, reportedly, obtain control of the vehicle's steering, brakes,
engine, and other components.  While conducted in a controlled
environment, these experiments caught the attention of Washington,
D.C. and the media.  A report released last month by U.S. Senator
Ed Markey's office, "Tracking & Hacking: Security & Privacy Gaps
Put American Drivers at Risk," mentions those experiments and
concludes that no major auto manufacturer is properly prepared to
handle the hacking and data privacy risks posed by existing and
forthcoming automotive technology.  Yet the report also noted that
none of the automakers questioned by Markey had received any
indications of hacking or attempted hacking in the real world. Is
car hacking the next great security threat, or much ado about
nothing?

Dallas attorney Marc Stanley takes the position that car hacking
is a threat.  On March 10, Stanley's law firm filed a putative
class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against Toyota, Ford, and General Motors,
alleging that those automakers' vehicles are susceptible to
hacking, thus breaching the manufacturers' warranties and various
state and federal consumer protection laws.  The 343-page
complaint requests injunctive relief (in the form of a recall or
free replacement program), disgorgement, and other damages.  As of
this writing, the automakers had not responded to the complaint.
This lawsuit raises interesting questions.  Since a real-world car
hacking incident has never been reported, are the plaintiffs'
claims ripe? The complaint argues that the alleged ability of
hackers to access vehicle computers renders false the
manufacturers' representations of their vehicles' safety.
Further, say the plaintiffs, since Toyota, Ford, and GM have
refused to either repair the vehicles or replace them at no cost,
the manufacturers have breached both express and implied
warranties.

The argument that the vehicles at issue are not safe because they
could be hacked is a creative attempt to circumvent the ripeness
issue.  But it seems likely that ripeness will present a large
initial hurdle for the plaintiffs in this case.  That a few
researchers were able to access a vehicle's computer system in a
controlled setting is not necessarily evidence that the vehicles
could be compromised by a malevolent third party, nor that such a
hypothetical situation renders the vehicles unsafe to drive.

The plaintiffs have requested their money back from the
manufacturers, yet they admit in the complaint that they are still
driving their vehicles and make no assertions that the vehicles
are otherwise unfit for their intended purpose.  At this point in
time, the plaintiffs' allegations appear speculative at best.
This is not to say that automakers should not take the hacking
threat seriously.  The Markey report raises important questions
about consumer safety that automakers would be well advised to
attempt to answer.  As cars increasingly become mobility devices,
in which occupants can surf the Internet, download music and apps,
monitor traffic and road conditions and the like, the
proliferation of computer systems creates added risks, including
hacking.  That a vehicle has not been maliciously hacked does not
mean that it could not happen or that it would not in the future.
Should that happen, immediate media, political, and legal scrutiny
will descend on the automaker at issue, who will be asked what it
knew, what it should have known, and what safeguards it should
have developed.  All automakers have a common interest in
preventing that day from ever happening.

To what extent will automakers remain responsible for the computer
systems in their vehicles? Will those systems someday come with a
separate warranty that is longer (or shorter) than existing
bumper-to-bumper warranties? Will the consumer become responsible
for updating firewalls, virus protection, etc.? If a vehicle is
hacked and it is discovered that the owner had not brought the car
in for service to have a software update performed, should the
owner share the liability? Right now, these questions are being
asked in the abstract.  Sooner than we think, the answers will
have real-world impact.

One issue raised by the Markey report but not included in
Stanley's class action is that of privacy.  Vehicles record
copious amounts of data, such as vehicle performance and
geographic location.  As drivers increasingly use their vehicles
as an extension of their mobile devices, the proliferation of data
stored in or transmitted through the computer systems will no
doubt prove tempting to hackers.  Indeed, it seems plausible that,
in the future, a hacker might be more likely to attempt to steal
your identity through your car's computer than to try to disable
your brakes or steering.

Interestingly, the Markey report expresses more concern with
automakers' use of vehicle data than with hackers.  Given
Washington's interest in demonizing manufacturers since the
General Motors ignition switch debacle, this is not surprising.
Yet, it seems to paint only half the picture -- the less
concerning, though no doubt more politically convenient, half.
Yes, automakers do record and store vehicle data, and may share
some of that data with third parties.  But Google and Facebook do
the same thing, on a mind-boggling scale.  To the extent vehicles
record and store personal information, should Washington be
protecting drivers from the automakers or from hackers? The
hacking risk may be speculative at this point, while automakers'
collection of data is actually happening, yet the potential harm
from hacking would likely be greater than any harm caused by
automakers doing what all the major technology companies do.


TREX COMPANY: Distributed Cash Payments and Rebate Certificates
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trex Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company has
distributed all cash payments and rebate certificates under the
settlement in the class action lawsuit brought on behalf of Dean
Mahan.

On December 16, 2013, the United States District Court, Northern
District of California Court granted final approval of the
settlement with the law firm of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
relating to the previously reported class action lawsuit brought
on behalf of Dean Mahan, and other named and similarly situated
plaintiffs generally which alleged certain defects in the
Company's products relating to mold growth, color fading and color
variation. As of the date of this report, the Company has
distributed all cash payments and rebate certificates under the
settlement. Claimants who were denied relief could appeal Trex's
decision, and the deadline for appeals has now passed. The Company
believes that payments to consumers for all relief under the
settlement will not exceed approximately $1.0 million. In addition
to such amount, the Company previously paid $1.8 million related
to this litigation, representing payment of attorneys' fees to
class counsel and named plaintiff awards in the nationwide
settlement and the settlement of corollary cases brought in
Indiana, Kentucky, New Jersey and Michigan, all as previously
disclosed.


UBER TECH: Ride-Sharing Companies Face Liability Questions
----------------------------------------------------------
John L. Ewald, Esq. -- jewald@orrick.com -- and David Fuad, Esq.
-- dfuad@orrick.com -- of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, in an
article for Law.com, report that the emergence of ride-sharing
companies like Uber, Lyft and Sidecar represent a new kind of
business model that delivers on-demand services to consumers
through mobile applications.  Ride-sharing companies are unlike
traditional transportation companies -- they do not own any
vehicles or directly employ drivers.  Instead, they have developed
mobile applications that connect drivers with passengers and
provide payment processing services for trips arranged on the
application.

This business model is rapidly spreading into other service
industries while fundamental legal questions remain unanswered as
courts struggle to fit these new "connector" companies into
existing laws and regulations.  Courts are currently wrestling
with questions as basic as whether a ride-sharing driver is a
customer, employee or independent contractor of the ride-sharing
company.  The answer to that and related questions will have far-
reaching consequences for the ride-sharing companies and other
connector companies as they face an increasing number of tort
claims, consumer class actions, and wage-and-hour class actions.

Who Is at Fault?

A key threshold question remains largely unanswered for ride-
sharing companies: Who is responsible when something goes wrong?
In late 2013, a driver using the Uber application struck and
killed a six-year-old girl in a San Francisco crosswalk.  The
family filed a wrongful death suit against Uber and the driver,
alleging various theories of liability, including that Uber is
negligent in its hiring, training, and supervision of it drivers,
and that the Uber application is a defective product.  In its
answer, Uber denied liability and asserted that its drivers are
independent contractors.  Uber explained that its drivers license
the Uber application from a wholly-owned subsidiary of Uber under
an agreement in which they acknowledge that they are independent
contractors and "not an employee, agent, joint venturer or partner
of [Uber] for any purpose."  Thus, Uber's position is that the
driver was not providing transportation services on the Uber
system during the time of the accident because he was not carrying
a passenger, on his way to pick up a passenger, or receiving a
request through the Uber application.  The case remains pending in
the early stages of discovery.

Last year, a judge in the Western District of Oklahoma dismissed a
passenger's tort claims against Uber, ruling that Uber was not
responsible for its driver's actions.  The case appears to be an
outlier based on its facts.  In granting Uber's motion to dismiss,
the court sidestepped the issue of whether the driver was an
independent contractor or employee.  The court ruled that even if
the driver was an employee, Uber could not be liable under a
theory of respondeat superior because the driver left the vehicle
to assault the passenger and therefore did not act to protect or
further the interests of his employer.  The court also held that
the plaintiff had not plead sufficient facts to support a claim
for negligent hiring, supervision, or retention because there were
no allegations demonstrating that Uber had knowledge of the
driver's violent tendencies.

If courts decline to hold ride-sharing companies liable for their
drivers' actions, it is not certain that the injured party will be
able to rely on insurance to cover the liability.  Many drivers'
personal insurance policies do not cover accidents that occur
while the insured is engaged in a commercial activity.  Uber
provides $1 million of commercial insurance coverage; however,
this coverage only applies after a passenger has accepted a ride.
This leaves a coverage "gap" where a driver has the Uber
application turned on, but is not currently driving with, or to, a
passenger.

Certain states have tried to fill this gap.  The California
legislature recently promulgated new regulations for
"transportation network companies" (TNCs) like Uber, Lyft, and
Sidecar.  These rules require that TNCs must provide insurance not
only when a driver is carrying passengers, but also "from the
moment" a driver logs on to the TNC's application.

New York, by contrast, has folded ride-sharing companies into its
existing regulations for licensed commercial drivers.  Whereas
UberX6 and Lyft drivers outside New York use their personally
owned vehicles and standard drivers' licenses, New York requires
that all ride-sharing drivers be commercially licensed and
register their vehicles with the Taxi and Limousine Commission.
Lyft initially resisted this requirement, causing the Taxi and
Limousine Commission to issue a press release in July 2014
declaring Lyft unauthorized to operate in New York City and
warning TLC-licensed drivers working for Lyft that they risked
losing their TLC licenses.  Eventually, Lyft capitulated to the
TLC's regulatory scheme in order to compete with Uber in New York.

Who Is the Customer?

Uber and Lyft are currently facing multiple class action lawsuits
from drivers that turn on the question of whether the drivers are
employees of the companies.  Plaintiffs are alleging that the
companies misclassify them as independent contractors, thereby
violating wage and hour laws by improperly skimming tips, failing
to pay overtime or provide breaks, and not reimbursing business
expenses.

The primary factor in determining whether a worker is an employee
or an independent contractor is the level of control exerted over
the work performed.  Other factors include whether the individual
provides his or her own equipment, how he or she is paid, and
whether taxes are withheld from payments.  Consistent with other
states, New York law generally provides that an employer is not
liable for the torts or negligent conduct of their independent
contractor.  The many exceptions to this rule include the
employer's negligence in hiring or training the contractor,
"inherently dangerous" work, and specific non-delegable duties.

In response to these employment class action suits, ride-sharing
companies contend that their drivers do not actually provide a
service to the companies.  Instead, companies like Uber and Lyft
license their mobile applications to drivers to allow them to find
passengers.  In a recent filing in a Northern District of
California class action case against Uber, Uber argued that it
provides "lead generation and payment processing services" via its
application to its drivers for a fee.  Thus, Uber argues, because
drivers pay Uber to use its application, they are neither
independent contractors nor employees of Uber -- they are
customers, just like its passengers.

In the alternative, Uber argued that even if its drivers do
provide a service to Uber, they do so as independent contractors.
Emphasizing its lack of control, Uber noted that its drivers are
unsupervised, supply their own cars, and that either the driver or
Uber can cancel the working relationship at any time.  Uber cannot
tell its drivers whether, when, or where to work.  In fact,
because a ride-sharing driver can work for Uber and Lyft at
exactly the same time by running both applications simultaneously,
if drivers were held to be employees, it is not clear who would be
required to provide the required overtime pay or meal breaks.

Plaintiffs, on the other hand, argue that Uber and Lyft have all
the hallmarks of an employer: They screen, hire, and train their
drivers and provide comprehensive "guidelines" for their
appearance and conduct.  They set and collect the fares imposed,
and then pay a percentage of those funds back to their drivers
(without deducting income taxes).  In addition, Uber and Lyft
exert control over the quality of the services rendered by
compiling numerous statistics on their drivers, and can terminate
drivers for falling below certain standards, such as low customer
ratings, failing to arrive on time, and cancelling rides.

In a similar class action against Lyft, also pending in the
Northern District of California, Lyft advanced many of the same
arguments as Uber, including that its drivers could use multiple
ride-sharing platforms simultaneously, and can choose when and
where to work.  One distinction between Lyft and Uber is that Lyft
has a system for drivers to "reserve" hours ahead of time.  While
drivers can theoretically turn on the application whenever they
would like to work, if the supply of drivers at a particular time
outstrips demand, Lyft can prevent drivers from using the system
if they have not reserved their hours ahead of time.  Lyft also
gives priority during popular times to its highest-rated drivers.
Thus, at least part of the time, Lyft arguably imposes a schedule
on its drivers.

Both courts issued their rulings on the same day earlier this
month, denying summary judgment in both cases and holding that the
question of whether the drivers are employees or independent
contractors must be resolved by a jury.  Neither court was
persuaded by the threshold argument that the drivers do not
provide any services for the companies.  The court in Lyft called
the argument "obviously wrong," while the court in Uber noted that
Yellow Cab is not a "technology company" merely because it uses CB
radios instead of smartphones to dispatch its cars.  Turning to
the question of whether or not the drivers are independent
contractors, both courts concluded that the most important factor
-- the right of control -- probably pointed in favor of an
employee relationship.  In particular, the court in Lyft
emphasized the ability of Lyft to terminate its drivers at any
time, for any reason.  Additionally, while Lyft and Uber emphasize
the freedom afforded their drivers, both courts expressed deep
skepticism at the companies' argument that the lengthy list of
instructions given to their drivers are not requirements, but mere
"suggestions."  Both courts, however, also found that many other
factors cut in favor of Uber and Lyft, including that the drivers
signed contracts agreeing that they were independent contractors,
enjoy greater scheduling flexibility than typical employees, and
provide their own vehicles.  Ultimately, the Lyft court found that
the factors "provide[d] nothing remotely close to a clear answer."

The courts also commented on the inaptness of the existing tests
for determining whether a ridesharing driver is an employee or
independent contractor, with the court in Lyft lamenting that "the
jury in this case will be handed a square peg and asked to choose
between two round holes."  But both courts recognized that their
hands were tied, and that "absent legislative intervention, [the]
outmoded test for classifying workers will apply in cases like
this."

How Much Control Is Enough?

Within the last two months, Uber has been hit with a number of
consumer class action lawsuits alleging that Uber has made
misrepresentations related to the safety of their drivers.  While
the wage-and-hour class actions emphasize the level of control the
ride-sharing companies exert over the drivers, these consumer
class actions seek to hold Uber liable for its alleged lack of
control over the drivers.  These cases contend that Uber has made
false claims regarding the rigorousness, efficacy, and "industry-
leading" nature of its background checks.  The complaints allege
that while Uber markets itself as having the "safest ride on the
road," there are no measures taken to confirm the identity of the
applicant, such as an in-person meeting or a fingerprint
requirement.

Regardless of the merits of these cases, they highlight the need
for companies in similar situations to strike an appropriate
balance between advertising their safety policies and
unintentionally binding themselves to an impossible standard.  The
cases also illustrate a significant tension. Before getting into a
stranger's car, consumers want to know that the ride will be a
safe one.  The most effective way for ride-sharing companies to
ensure the rider's safety is to exercise more control over the
selection and training of its drivers.  But the more control that
Uber, Lyft and others exert (or appear to exert) over their
drivers, the more likely it is they will be found to be employers
of the drivers.

Conclusion

Ride-sharing companies are just now learning how courts will rule
on a number of issues that should have a large impact on their
potential liability.  Courts that have been presented with the
employee/independent contractor issue are skeptical of the
arguments made by the ride-sharing companies and concluded that
the issue could not be resolved as a matter of law.

The court rulings on this issue will not just affect ride-sharing
companies.  A recent article estimated that venture capitalists in
2013 invested over $1.5 billion in on-demand companies.  The
profitability of these new companies will likely be significantly
impacted by whether the individuals providing the on-demand
services are considered to be employees or independent contractors
of the companies.  The answer will likely not be the same for
every company or every service industry.  A key consideration for
each company is how to strike a balance between exerting control
over the individuals providing the services while maintaining
enough of a distance to establish an independent contractor
relationship. Of course, if the skepticism expressed so far by
certain courts of the independent contractor argument is
indicative of what turns out to be the prevailing view, companies
may end up with the worst of both worlds and find themselves with
employees over whom they exert little control.  If experience
shows that courts will likely conclude that a service provider is
an employee, on-demand companies may be better off focusing their
efforts on exerting more control over the service providers to
minimize liability in that fashion.  Legal rulings on these issues
over the next few years should be very important in shaping the
future of these "connector" companies.


UNITED STATES STEEL: Court Entered Final Settlement Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the court
entered final approval of the settlement agreement in the lawsuit
by individual direct or indirect buyers of steel products.

In a series of lawsuits filed in federal court in the Northern
District of Illinois beginning September 12, 2008, individual
direct or indirect buyers of steel products asserted that eight
steel manufacturers, including U. S. Steel, conspired in violation
of antitrust laws to restrict the domestic production of raw steel
and thereby to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the price of
steel products in the United States. The cases were filed as class
actions and claimed damages related to steel product purchases
during the time period of April 1, 2005 to December 31, 2007. A
hearing on class certification was completed in April of 2014.
Preliminary approval of U. S. Steel's $58 million settlement
agreement was granted by the court and paid by the Company during
July 2014. By order dated October 21, 2014, the court entered
final approval of the settlement agreement.


VERISK ANALYTICS: April 3 Fairness Hearing in Interthinx Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado granted Preliminary
Approval of the Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release on
November 21, 2014 and scheduled the Final Fairness Hearing for
April 3, 2015, in the Interthinx, Inc. Litigation.

"On May 13, 2013, we were served with a putative class action
titled Celeste Shaw v. Interthinx, Inc., Verisk Analytics, Inc.
and Jeffrey Moyer. The plaintiff is a current employee of our
former subsidiary Interthinx, Inc. based in Colorado, who filed
the class action in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado on behalf of all fraud detection employees
who have worked for Interthinx for the last three years nationwide
and who were classified as exempt employees. The class complaint
claims that the fraud detection employees were misclassified as
exempt employees and, as a result, were denied certain wages and
benefits that would have been received if they were properly
classified as non-exempt employees. It pleads three causes of
action against defendants: (1) Collective Action under section
216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime
(nationwide class); (2) A Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class action under
the Colorado Wage Act and Wage Order for unpaid overtime and (3) A
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class action under Colorado Wage Act for unpaid
commissions/nondiscretionary bonuses (Colorado class). The
complaint seeks compensatory damages, penalties that are
associated with the various statutes, declaratory and injunctive
relief interest, costs and attorneys' fees," the Company said.

"On July 2, 2013, we were served with a putative class action
titled Shabnam Shelia Dehdashtian v. Interthinx, Inc. and Verisk
Analytics, Inc. in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California. The plaintiff, Shabnam Shelia
Dehdashtian, a former mortgage auditor at our former subsidiary
Interthinx, Inc. in California, filed the class action on behalf
of all persons who have been employed by Interthinx as auditors,
mortgage compliance underwriters and mortgage auditors nationwide
at any time (i) within 3 years prior to the filing of this action
until trial for the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) class and (ii)
within 4 years prior to the filing of the initial complaint until
trial for the California collective action. The class complaint
claims that the defendants failed to pay overtime compensation, to
provide rest and meal periods, waiting time penalties and to
provide accurate wage statements to the plaintiffs as required by
federal and California law. It pleads seven causes of action
against defendants: (1) Failure to pay overtime compensation in
violation of the FLSA for unpaid overtime (nationwide class); (2)
Failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of Cal. Lab.
Code sections 510, 1194 and 1198 and IWC Wage Order No. 4; (3)
Failure to pay waiting time penalties in violation of Cal. Lab.
Code sections 201-203; (4) Failure to provide itemized wage
statements in violation of Cal. Lab. Code section 226 and IWC
Order No. 4; (5) Failure to provide and or authorize meal and rest
periods in violation of Cal. Lab. Code section 226.7 and IWC Order
No. 4; (6) Violation of California Business and Professions Code
sections 17200 et seq; and (7) a Labor Code Private Attorney
General Act (PAGA) Public enforcement claim, Cal. Lab. Code
section 2699 (California class). The complaint seeks compensatory
damages, penalties that are associated with the various statutes,
equitable and injunctive relief, interest, costs and attorneys'
fees.

"On October 14, 2013, we received notice of a claim titled Dejan
Nagl v. Interthinx Services, Inc. filed in the California Labor
and Workforce Development Agency. The claimant, Dejan Nagl, a
former mortgage auditor at our former subsidiary Interthinx, Inc.
in California, filed the claim on behalf of himself and all
current and former individuals employed in California as auditors
by Interthinx, Inc. for violations of the California Labor Code
and Wage Order. The claimant alleges on behalf of himself and
other auditors the following causes of action: (1) Failure to
provide rest breaks and meal periods in violation of Cal. Lab.
Code sections 226.7, 514 and 1198; (2) Failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of Cal. Lab. Code sections 510 and 1194; (3)
Failure to provide accurate wage statements in violation of Cal.
Lab. Code section 226; (4) Failure to timely pay wages in
violation of Cal. Lab. Code section 204; and (5) Failures to
timely pay wages for violations of Cal. Lab. Code sections 201-
203. The claim seeks compensatory damages and penalties that are
associated with the various statutes, costs and attorneys' fees.

"On March 11, 2014, we sold 100 percent of the stock of
Interthinx. Pursuant to the terms of the sale agreement, we are
responsible for the resolution of these matters. In October 2014,
the parties agreed to a Joint Stipulation of Settlement and
Release resolving the Shaw, Dehdashtian and Nagl matters which
provides for a payment of $6.0 million, the majority of which is
to be paid by insurance. The United States District Court for the
District of Colorado granted Preliminary Approval of the Joint
Stipulation of Settlement and Release on November 21, 2014 and
scheduled the Final Fairness Hearing for April 3, 2015."


VERISK ANALYTICS: Briefing in ISO Litigation Now Complete
---------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that all briefing of the
appeal in the Insurance Services Office, Inc. Litigation is
complete.

"In October 2013, we were served with a summons and complaint
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York in an action titled Laurence J. Skelly and
Ellen Burke v. Insurance Services Office, Inc. and the Pension
Plan for Insurance Organizations. The plaintiffs, former employees
of our subsidiary Insurance Services Office, Inc., or ISO, bring
the action on their own behalf as participants in the Pension Plan
for Insurance Organizations and on the behalf of similarly
situated participants of the pension plan and ask the court to
declare that a certain amendment to the pension plan as of
December 31, 2001, which terminated their right to calculate and
define the value of their retirement benefit under the pension
plan based on their compensation levels as of immediately prior to
their "retirement", or the Unlawful Amendment, violated the anti-
cutback provisions and equitable principles of ERISA," the Company
said.  "The First Amended Class Action Complaint, or the Amended
Complaint, alleges that (1) the Unlawful Amendment of the pension
plan violated Section 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA as well as the anti-
cutback rules of ERISA Section 204(g) and Section 411(d)(6) of the
Internal Revenue Code; (2) ISO's failure to provide an ERISA
204(h) notice in a manner calculated to be understood by the
average pension plan participant was a violation of Sections
204(h) and 102(a) of ERISA; and (3) the Living Pension Right was a
contract right under ERISA common law and that by terminating that
right through the Unlawful Amendment ISO violated plaintiffs'
common law contract rights under ERISA. The Amended Complaint
seeks declaratory, equitable and injunctive relief enjoining the
enforcement of the Unlawful Amendment and ordering the pension
plan and ISO retroactive to the date of the Unlawful Amendment to
recalculate the accrued benefits of all class members,
indemnification from ISO to the pension plan for costs and
contribution requirements related to voiding the Unlawful
Amendment, bonuses to the class representatives, costs and
attorney's fees."

"On September 12, 2014, the District Court granted ISO's motion to
dismiss the Amended Complaint finding that ISO provided ample,
clear and sufficient notice of the 2002 Amendment to the Plan and
that plaintiffs' claims were time barred. Plaintiffs filed their
Notice of Appeal on October 14, 2014 and all briefing of the
appeal is complete.

At this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate
resolution of, or estimate the liability related to, this matter,
the Company said.


VERISK ANALYTICS: "Snyder" Plaintiffs File 2nd Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the plaintiffs in the
case Snyder, et. al. v. ACORD Corp., et al. have filed their
Second Amended Complaint.

"On August 1, 2014 we were served with an Amended Complaint filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado
titled Snyder, et. al. v. ACORD Corp., et al.," the Company said.
"The action is brought by nineteen individual plaintiffs, on their
own behalf and on behalf of a putative class, against more than
120 defendants, including us and our subsidiary, Insurance
Services Office, Inc. or ISO. Except for us, ISO and the defendant
Acord Corporation, which provides standard forms to assist in
insurance transactions, most of the other defendants are property
and casualty insurance companies that plaintiffs claim conspired
to underpay property damage claims. Plaintiffs claim that we and
ISO, along with all of the other defendants, violated state and
federal antitrust and racketeering laws as well as state common
law. On September 8, 2014, the Court entered an Order striking the
Amended Complaint and granting leave to the plaintiffs to file a
new complaint. On October 13, 2014, plaintiffs filed their Second
Amended Complaint that continues to allege that the defendants
conspired to underpay property damage claims, but does not
specifically allege what role we or ISO played in the alleged
conspiracy. The Second Amended Complaint similarly alleges that we
and ISO, along with all of the other defendants, violated state
and federal antitrust and racketeering laws as well as state
common law, and seeks all available relief including, injunctive,
statutory, actual and punitive damages as well as attorneys'
fees," the Company said.

At this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate
resolution of, or estimate the liability related to this matter,
the Company said.


WARNER/CHAPPELL MUSIC: Judge to Hear Birthday Song Copyright Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that in a court battle involving perhaps the only song more
popular than "Blurred Lines," a federal judge is set to decide
whether a Los Angeles-based music publisher has unlawfully been
collecting licensing fees for the copyright to "Happy Birthday to
You."

U.S. District Judge George King of the Central District of
California heard more than two hours of arguments on March 23 on
whether to declare Warner/Chappell Music Inc.'s copyright invalid
and find that "Happy Birthday to You" should be in the public
domain.

At stake are potentially millions of dollars in licensing fees to
what the complaint calls the "world's most popular song."
The case was brought in 2013 by two New York music producers, a
California musician and a film producer who each paid between $455
and $3,000 in licensing fees to Warner/Chappell Music, the music-
publishing arm of Warner Music Group Corp., to perform the song.
The class action, filed on behalf of anyone who was forced to pay
similar fees starting on June 18, 2009, sought a declaratory
relief and the return of "millions of dollars of unlawful
licensing fees."

U.S. District Judge George King of the Central District of
California bifurcated the case so that the declaratory-judgment
action would proceed ahead of other claims, including those for
licensing fees and damages under California's unfair-business-
practices and false-advertising laws.

Judge King heard arguments on summary-judgment motions on
March 23.  When he will rule on those motions is not certain.
It's not the first time the song's copyright has been litigated,
with most of the lawsuits filed in the 1930s and 1940s.  But none
resolved the issue of who owns the copyright to the ubiquitous
version of "Happy Birthday to You."

"Nobody's ever decided who owns the copyright to 'Happy Birthday
to You,' " said Mark Rifkin, a partner at New York's Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, who represents the plaintiffs in
the case.

Warner Music Group spokesman James Steven and its attorney,
Kelly Klaus -- Kelly.Klaus@mto.com -- a partner at Los Angeles-
based Munger, Tolles & Olson, declined to comment.

The song's copyright has engendered debate in recent years,
particularly after Robert Brauneis, co-director of the
Intellectual Property Law Program at George Washington University
Law School, cast doubt in a 2009 law review article that "Happy
Birthday to You" was copyrightable.

In the current case, both sides agree that sisters Mildred and
Patty Hill composed and wrote the melody to the song "Happy
Birthday to You" -- then called "Good Morning to All" -- in 1889
or 1890.  The sisters later sold the copyright to Clayton Summy,
who published a songbook called "Song Stories for the
Kindergarten."

But they disagree on most everything else about the song's
history, according to a Nov. 25 court document outlining their
opposing motions for summary judgment.

Warner/Chappell is relying on a 1935 copyright obtained by Summy's
company, Clayton F. Summy Co., which it claims included the now
familiar "text," or lyrics, to "Happy Birthday to You."
Warner/Chappell acquired Summy's successor, Birch Tree Ltd., in
1988.

Plaintiffs allege those copyrights were for piano arrangements and
that "Happy Birthday to You" by then had reached widespread
popularity, putting it in the public domain.

"Our argument has been all along that the copyright in 1935 only
covered that particular piano arrangement," Mr. Rifkin said.
"There's no evidence they ever acquired rights to the song 'Happy
Birthday to You' from anyone before 1935 when they registered the
copyright."

Mr. Brauneis, who has consulted with the plaintiffs but is not a
paid consultant, agreed.  "In my view, that was not a mistake, but
occurred because everyone thought at the time that the song was
old, and that the only thing that was new were the arrangements,"
he wrote in an email.  "Later, it became convenient to construct a
theory under which the basic song first gained copyright in 1935,
even though we know that it had been composed and was well known
before 1900."


WILLIS GROUP: Defendants Answered 3rd Amended "Troice" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that the defendants answered the Third Amended Class Action
Complaint filed in the case Troice, et al. v. Willis of Colorado,
Inc., et al.

The Company has been named as a defendant in 13 similar lawsuits
relating to the collapse of The Stanford Financial Group
('Stanford'), for which Willis of Colorado, Inc. acted as broker
of record on certain lines of insurance. The complaints in these
actions generally allege that the defendants actively and
materially aided Stanford's alleged fraud by providing Stanford
with certain letters regarding coverage that they knew would be
used to help retain or attract actual or prospective Stanford
client investors. The complaints further allege that these
letters, which contain statements about Stanford and the insurance
policies that the defendants placed for Stanford, contained
untruths and omitted material facts and were drafted in this
manner to help Stanford promote and sell its allegedly fraudulent
certificates of deposit.

Troice, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:9-
CV-1274-N, was filed on July 2, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings
plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and a Willis associate, among
others. On April 1, 2011, plaintiffs filed the operative Third
Amended Class Action Complaint individually and on behalf of a
putative, worldwide class of Stanford investors, adding Willis
Limited as a defendant and alleging claims under Texas statutory
and common law and seeking damages in excess of $1 billion,
punitive damages and costs. On May 2, 2011, the defendants filed
motions to dismiss the Third Amended Class Action Complaint,
arguing, inter alia, that the plaintiffs' claims are precluded by
the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ('SLUSA').
On May 10, 2011, the court presiding over the Stanford-related
actions in the Northern District of Texas entered an order
providing that it would consider the applicability of SLUSA to the
Stanford-related actions based on the decision in a separate
Stanford action not involving a Willis entity, Roland v. Green,
Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-0224-N. On August 31, 2011, the court
issued its decision in Roland, dismissing that action with
prejudice under SLUSA.

On October 27, 2011, the court in Troice entered an order (i)
dismissing with prejudice those claims asserted in the Third
Amended Class Action Complaint on a class basis on the grounds set
forth in the Roland decision discussed above and (ii) dismissing
without prejudice those claims asserted in the Third Amended Class
Action Complaint on an individual basis. Also on October 27, 2011,
the court entered a final judgment in the action.

On October 28, 2011, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a notice of
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Subsequently, Troice, Roland and a third action captioned Troice,
et al. v. Proskauer Rose LLP, Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-01600-N,
which also was dismissed on the grounds set forth in the Roland
decision discussed above and on appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, were consolidated for purposes of
briefing and oral argument. Following the completion of briefing
and oral argument, on March 19, 2012, the Fifth Circuit reversed
and remanded the actions. On April 2, 2012, the defendants-
appellees filed petitions for rehearing en banc. On April 19,
2012, the petitions for rehearing en banc were denied. On July 18,
2012, defendants-appellees filed a petition for writ of certiorari
with the United States Supreme Court regarding the Fifth Circuit's
reversal in Troice.

On January 18, 2013, the Supreme Court granted the Company's
petition. Opening briefs were filed on May 3, 2013 and the Supreme
Court heard oral argument on October 7, 2013. On February 26,
2014, the Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's decision.
On March 19, 2014, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a Motion to
Defer Resolution of Motions to Dismiss, to Compel Rule 26(f)
Conference and For Entry of Scheduling Order. That motion has now
been fully briefed by the parties and awaits disposition by the
court.

On March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and the Janvey, et al. v.
Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al. action stipulated to the
consolidation of the two actions for pre-trial purposes under Rule
42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March 28, 2014,
the Court "so ordered" that stipulation and, thus, consolidated
Troice and Janvey for pre-trial purposes under Rule 42(a).
On September 16, 2014, the court (a) denied the plaintiffs'
request to defer resolution of the defendants' motions to dismiss,
but granted the plaintiffs' request to enter a scheduling order;
(b) requested the submission of supplemental briefing by all
parties on the defendants' motions to dismiss, which the parties
submitted on September 30, 2014; and (c) entered an order setting
a schedule for briefing and discovery regarding plaintiffs' motion
for class certification, which schedule, among other things,
provides for the submission of the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification (following the completion of briefing and discovery)
on April 20, 2015.

On December 15, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motions to dismiss. On January 30, 2015, the
defendants answered the Third Amended Class Action Complaint.


WILLIS GROUP: "Ranni" Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismissed Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that the plaintiff in the case Ranni v. Willis of Colorado, Inc.,
et al., filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action
without prejudice.

The Company has been named as a defendant in 13 similar lawsuits
relating to the collapse of The Stanford Financial Group
('Stanford'), for which Willis of Colorado, Inc. acted as broker
of record on certain lines of insurance. The complaints in these
actions generally allege that the defendants actively and
materially aided Stanford's alleged fraud by providing Stanford
with certain letters regarding coverage that they knew would be
used to help retain or attract actual or prospective Stanford
client investors. The complaints further allege that these
letters, which contain statements about Stanford and the insurance
policies that the defendants placed for Stanford, contained
untruths and omitted material facts and were drafted in this
manner to help Stanford promote and sell its allegedly fraudulent
certificates of deposit.

Ranni v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9-22085, was
filed on July 17, 2009 against Willis Group Holdings plc and
Willis of Colorado, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida. The complaint was filed on behalf of
a putative class of Venezuelan and other South American Stanford
investors and alleges claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule 10b-5 thereunder) and Florida
statutory and common law and seeks damages in an amount to be
determined at trial. On October 6, 2009, Ranni was transferred,
for consolidation or coordination with other Stanford-related
actions (including Troice), to the Northern District of Texas by
the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the 'JPML').
The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Ranni.
On August 26, 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal of the action without prejudice.


WILLIS GROUP: Defendants Have Yet to Respond to "Rupert" Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that the defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in the
case Rupert, et al. v. Winter, et al.

The Company has been named as a defendant in 13 similar lawsuits
relating to the collapse of The Stanford Financial Group
('Stanford'), for which Willis of Colorado, Inc. acted as broker
of record on certain lines of insurance. The complaints in these
actions generally allege that the defendants actively and
materially aided Stanford's alleged fraud by providing Stanford
with certain letters regarding coverage that they knew would be
used to help retain or attract actual or prospective Stanford
client investors. The complaints further allege that these
letters, which contain statements about Stanford and the insurance
policies that the defendants placed for Stanford, contained
untruths and omitted material facts and were drafted in this
manner to help Stanford promote and sell its allegedly fraudulent
certificates of deposit.

Rupert, et al. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2009C115137, was filed
on September 14, 2009 on behalf of 97 Stanford investors against
Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same
Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court (Bexar
County). The complaint alleges claims under the Securities Act of
1933, Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and
seeks special, consequential and treble damages of more than $300
million, attorneys' fees and costs. On October 20, 2009, certain
defendants, including Willis of Colorado, Inc., (i) removed Rupert
to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, (ii)
notified the JPML of the pendency of this related action and (iii)
moved to stay the action pending a determination by the JPML as to
whether it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas
for consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related
actions. On April 1, 2010, the JPML issued a final transfer order
for the transfer of Rupert to the Northern District of Texas. On
January 24, 2012, the court remanded Rupert to Texas state court
(Bexar County), but stayed the action until further order of the
court. On August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to lift
the stay, which motion was denied by the court on September 16,
2014. On October 10, 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the court's
denial of their motion to lift the stay to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On January 5, 2015, the Fifth
Circuit consolidated the appeal with the appeal in the Rishmague,
et ano. v. Winter, et al. action, and the consolidated appeal is
currently pending. The defendants have not yet responded to the
complaint in Rupert.


WILLIS GROUP: Defendants Have Yet to Respond to "Casanova" Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that the defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in the
case Casanova, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al.

The Company has been named as a defendant in 13 similar lawsuits
relating to the collapse of The Stanford Financial Group
('Stanford'), for which Willis of Colorado, Inc. acted as broker
of record on certain lines of insurance. The complaints in these
actions generally allege that the defendants actively and
materially aided Stanford's alleged fraud by providing Stanford
with certain letters regarding coverage that they knew would be
used to help retain or attract actual or prospective Stanford
client investors. The complaints further allege that these
letters, which contain statements about Stanford and the insurance
policies that the defendants placed for Stanford, contained
untruths and omitted material facts and were drafted in this
manner to help Stanford promote and sell its allegedly fraudulent
certificates of deposit.

Casanova, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
3:10-CV-1862-O, was filed on September 16, 2010 on behalf of seven
Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis
Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate,
among others, also in the Northern District of Texas. The
complaint alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law and
seeks actual damages in excess of $5 million, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs. The defendants have not yet responded
to the complaint in Casanova.


WILLIS GROUP: Defendants Have Yet to Respond to "Rishmague" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that the defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in the
case Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et al.

The Company has been named as a defendant in 13 similar lawsuits
relating to the collapse of The Stanford Financial Group
('Stanford'), for which Willis of Colorado, Inc. acted as broker
of record on certain lines of insurance. The complaints in these
actions generally allege that the defendants actively and
materially aided Stanford's alleged fraud by providing Stanford
with certain letters regarding coverage that they knew would be
used to help retain or attract actual or prospective Stanford
client investors. The complaints further allege that these
letters, which contain statements about Stanford and the insurance
policies that the defendants placed for Stanford, contained
untruths and omitted material facts and were drafted in this
manner to help Stanford promote and sell its allegedly fraudulent
certificates of deposit.

Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2011CI2585, was
filed on March 11, 2011 on behalf of two Stanford investors,
individually and as representatives of certain trusts, against
Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of
Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas
state court (Bexar County). The complaint alleges claims under
Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks
special, consequential and treble damages of more than $37 million
and attorneys' fees and costs. On April 11, 2011, certain
defendants, including Willis of Colorado, Inc., (i) removed
Rishmague to the Western District of Texas, (ii) notified the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the 'JPML') of the
pendency of this related action and (iii) moved to stay the action
pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be
transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or
coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On August 8,
2011, the JPML issued a final transfer order for the transfer of
Rishmague to the Northern District of Texas, where it is currently
pending. On August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs joined with the
plaintiffs in the Rupert action in their motion to lift the
court's stay of the Rupert action. On September 9, 2014, the court
remanded Rishmague to Texas state court (Bexar County), but stayed
the action until further order of the court and denied the
plaintiffs' motion to lift the stay. On October 10, 2014, the
plaintiffs appealed the court's denial of their motion to lift the
stay to the Fifth Circuit. On January 5, 2015, the Fifth Circuit
consolidated the appeal with the appeal in the Rupert action, and
the consolidated appeal is currently pending. The defendants have
not yet responded to the complaint in Rishmague.


WILLIS GROUP: Defendants Have Yet to Respond to "MacArthur" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that the defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in the
case MacArthur v. Winter, et al.

The Company has been named as a defendant in 13 similar lawsuits
relating to the collapse of The Stanford Financial Group
('Stanford'), for which Willis of Colorado, Inc. acted as broker
of record on certain lines of insurance. The complaints in these
actions generally allege that the defendants actively and
materially aided Stanford's alleged fraud by providing Stanford
with certain letters regarding coverage that they knew would be
used to help retain or attract actual or prospective Stanford
client investors. The complaints further allege that these
letters, which contain statements about Stanford and the insurance
policies that the defendants placed for Stanford, contained
untruths and omitted material facts and were drafted in this
manner to help Stanford promote and sell its allegedly fraudulent
certificates of deposit.

MacArthur v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2013-07840, was filed on
February 8, 2013 on behalf of two Stanford investors against
Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of
Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas
state court (Harris County). The complaint alleges claims under
Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks
actual, special, consequential and treble damages of approximately
$4 million and attorneys' fees and costs. On March 29, 2013,
Willis of Colorado, Inc. and Willis of Texas, Inc. (i) removed
MacArthur to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas and (ii) notified the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation (the 'JPML') of the pendency of this related action. On
April 2, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and Willis of Texas, Inc.
filed a motion in the Southern District of Texas to stay the
action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should
be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation
or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. Also on
April 2, 2013, the court presiding over MacArthur in the Southern
District of Texas transferred the action to the Northern District
of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other
Stanford-related actions. On September 29, 2014, the parties
stipulated to the remand (to Texas state court (Harris County))
and stay of MacArthur until further order of the court (in
accordance with the court's September 9, 2014 decision in
Rishmague (discussed above)), which stipulation was "so ordered"
by the court on October 14, 2014. The defendants have not yet
responded to the complaint in MacArthur.


WILLIS GROUP: Defendants Have Yet to Respond to Florida Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that the defendants have not yet responded to the complaints filed
in Florida.

The Company has been named as a defendant in 13 similar lawsuits
relating to the collapse of The Stanford Financial Group
('Stanford'), for which Willis of Colorado, Inc. acted as broker
of record on certain lines of insurance. The complaints in these
actions generally allege that the defendants actively and
materially aided Stanford's alleged fraud by providing Stanford
with certain letters regarding coverage that they knew would be
used to help retain or attract actual or prospective Stanford
client investors. The complaints further allege that these
letters, which contain statements about Stanford and the insurance
policies that the defendants placed for Stanford, contained
untruths and omitted material facts and were drafted in this
manner to help Stanford promote and sell its allegedly fraudulent
certificates of deposit.

On February 14, 2013, five lawsuits were filed against Willis
Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited and Willis of Colorado, Inc. in
Florida state court (Miami-Dade County) alleging violations of
Florida common law. The five suits are: (1) Barbar, et al. v.
Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-
05666CA27, filed on behalf of 35 Stanford investors seeking
compensatory damages in excess of $30 million; (2) de Gadala-
Maria, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et
al., Case No. 13-05669CA30, filed on behalf of 64 Stanford
investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $83.5 million;
(3) Ranni, et ano. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited
Company, et al., Case No. 13-05673CA06, filed on behalf of two
Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $3
million; (4) Tisminesky, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public
Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05676CA09, filed on behalf of
11 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of
$6.5 million; and (5) Zacarias, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings
Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05678CA11, filed on
behalf of 10 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in
excess of $12.5 million. On June 3, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc.
removed all five cases to the Southern District of Florida and, on
June 4, 2013, notified the JPML of the pendency of these related
actions. On June 10, 2013, the court in Tisminesky issued an order
sua sponte staying and administratively closing that action
pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be
transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation
and coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On June
11, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. moved to stay the other four
actions pending the JPML's transfer decision. On June 20, 2013,
the JPML issued a conditional transfer order for the transfer of
the five actions to the Northern District of Texas, the
transmittal of which was stayed for seven days to allow for any
opposition to be filed. On June 28, 2013, with no opposition
having been filed, the JPML lifted the stay, enabling the transfer
to go forward. On September 30, 2014, the court denied the
plaintiffs' motion to remand in Zacarias, and, on October 3, 2014,
the court denied the plaintiffs' motions to remand in Tisminesky
and de Gadala Maria. The defendants have not yet responded to the
complaints in these actions.


WILLIS GROUP: Court Denied Motion to Amend December 5 Order
-----------------------------------------------------------
Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that the court denied Willis's motion to amend the court's
December 5 order to certify an interlocutory appeal to the Fifth
Circuit in the case Janvey, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc.

The Company has been named as a defendant in 13 similar lawsuits
relating to the collapse of The Stanford Financial Group
('Stanford'), for which Willis of Colorado, Inc. acted as broker
of record on certain lines of insurance. The complaints in these
actions generally allege that the defendants actively and
materially aided Stanford's alleged fraud by providing Stanford
with certain letters regarding coverage that they knew would be
used to help retain or attract actual or prospective Stanford
client investors. The complaints further allege that these
letters, which contain statements about Stanford and the insurance
policies that the defendants placed for Stanford, contained
untruths and omitted material facts and were drafted in this
manner to help Stanford promote and sell its allegedly fraudulent
certificates of deposit.

Janvey, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-
CV-03980-D, was filed on October 1, 2013 also in the Northern
District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis
Limited, Willis North America Inc., Willis of Colorado, Inc. and
the same Willis associate. The complaint was filed (i) by Ralph S.
Janvey, in his capacity as Court-Appointed Receiver for the
Stanford Receivership Estate, and the Official Stanford Investors
Committee (the 'OSIC') against all defendants and (ii) on behalf
of a putative, worldwide class of Stanford investors against
Willis North America Inc. Plaintiffs Janvey and the OSIC allege
claims under Texas common law and the court's Amended Order
Appointing Receiver, and the putative class plaintiffs allege
claims under Texas statutory and common law. Plaintiffs seek
actual damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages and
costs. On November 15, 2013, plaintiffs filed the operative First
Amended Complaint, which added certain defendants unaffiliated
with Willis. On February 28, 2014, the defendants filed motions to
dismiss the First Amended Complaint, which motions were granted in
part and denied in part by the court on December 5, 2014. On
December 22, 2014, Willis filed a motion to amend the court's
December 5 order to certify an interlocutory appeal to the Fifth
Circuit, and, on December 23, 2014, Willis filed a motion to amend
and, to the extent necessary, reconsider the court's December 5
order. On January 16, 2015, the defendants answered the First
Amended Complaint. On January 28, 2015, the court denied Willis's
motion to amend the court's December 5 order to certify an
interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit. Willis's motion to
amend and, to the extent necessary, reconsider the December 5
order remains pending.


XEROX CORP: Deadline to File Petition in Securities Case Expired
----------------------------------------------------------------
Xerox Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the deadline for
plaintiffs in the Xerox Corporation Securities Litigation to file
a petition for certiorari before the United States Supreme Court
expired and no petition was filed.

In re Xerox Corporation Securities Litigation: A consolidated
securities law action (consisting of 17 cases) was pending in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (the
"Court"). Defendants were the Company, Barry Romeril, Paul Allaire
and G. Richard Thoman. The consolidated action was a class action
on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased Xerox
Corporation common stock during the period October 22, 1998
through October 7, 1999 inclusive ("Class Period") and who
suffered a loss as a result of misrepresentations or omissions by
Defendants as alleged by Plaintiffs (the "Class"). The Class
alleged that in violation of Section 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (1934 Act), and SEC
Rule 10b-5 thereunder, each of the defendants was liable as a
participant in a fraudulent scheme and course of business that
operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of the Company's
common stock during the Class Period by disseminating materially
false and misleading statements and/or concealing material facts
relating to the defendants' alleged failure to disclose the
material negative impact that the April 1998 restructuring had on
the Company's operations and revenues.

The complaint further alleged that the alleged scheme: (i)
deceived the investing public regarding the economic capabilities,
sales proficiencies, growth, operations and the intrinsic value of
the Company's common stock; (ii) allowed several corporate
insiders, such as the named individual defendants, to sell shares
of privately held common stock of the Company while in possession
of materially adverse, non-public information; and (iii) caused
the individual plaintiffs and the other members of the purported
class to purchase common stock of the Company at inflated prices.
The complaint sought unspecified compensatory damages in favor of
the plaintiffs and the other members of the purported class
against all defendants, jointly and severally, for all damages
sustained as a result of defendants' alleged wrongdoing, including
interest thereon, together with reasonable costs and expenses
incurred in the action, including counsel fees and expert fees. In
2001, the Court denied the defendants' motion for dismissal of the
complaint. The plaintiffs' motion for class certification was
denied by the Court in 2006, without prejudice to refiling. In
February 2007, the Court granted the motion of the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Welfare Fund of Local Union No.
164, Robert W. Roten, Robert Agius ("Agius") and Georgia Stanley
to appoint them as additional lead plaintiffs.

In July 2007, the Court denied plaintiffs' renewed motion for
class certification, without prejudice to renewal after a pre-
filing conference to identify factual disputes the Court would be
required to resolve in ruling on the motion. After that conference
and Agius's withdrawal as lead plaintiff and proposed class
representative, in February 2008 plaintiffs filed a second renewed
motion for class certification.

In April 2008, defendants filed their response and motion to
disqualify Milberg LLP as a lead counsel. On September 30, 2008,
the Court entered an order certifying the class and denying the
appointment of Milberg LLP as class counsel.

Subsequently, on April 9, 2009, the Court denied defendants'
motion to disqualify Milberg LLP. On November 6, 2008, the
defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.

On March 29, 2013, the Court granted defendants' motion for
summary judgment in its entirety. On April 26, 2013, plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit. On September 8, 2014, the Second Circuit
affirmed the District Court's decision dismissing the action. The
deadline for plaintiffs to file a petition for certiorari before
the United States Supreme Court expired on December 8, 2014; no
petition was filed. This matter is now closed.


XPRESSPA AT TERM: Faces "Chen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Xiao Ling Chen, Zeng Biao Teng, Xuan Bin Fang and Hui Ling Chen,
on behalf of themselves, FLSA and Class members v. Xpresspa At
Term 4 JFK, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01347 (E.D.N.Y., March
16, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a chain of spas located in airports
throughout the United States and also in foreign countries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq.
      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1124
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com
              cklee@leelitigation.com


ZYNGA INC: Court Vacated Hearing in Securities Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------
Zynga Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that the court issued an order vacating a
previously scheduled hearing and taking the motion under
submission in the case, Zynga Inc. Securities Litigation.

"On July 30, 2012, a purported securities class action captioned
DeStefano v. Zynga Inc. et al., Case No. 3:12-cv-04007-JSW, was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company, and certain of our
current and former directors, officers, and executives," the
Company said.

Additional purported securities class actions containing similar
allegations were filed in the Northern District. On September 26,
2012, the court consolidated various of the class actions as In re
Zynga Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 12-cv-04007-JSW.
On January 23, 2013, the court entered an order appointing a lead
plaintiff and approving lead plaintiff's selection of lead
counsel. On April 3, 2013, the lead plaintiff and another named
plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint. On February 25, 2014,
the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint and provided plaintiffs leave to file an
amended complaint.

The lead plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on March 31,
2014. The First Amended Complaint alleges that the defendants
violated the federal securities laws by issuing false or
misleading statements regarding the Company's business and
financial projections. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
securities between February 14, 2012 and July 25, 2012. The First
Amended Complaint asserts claims for unspecified damages, and an
award of costs and expenses to the putative class, including
attorneys' fees. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the First
Amended Complaint on May 2, 2014, and briefing on the motion was
completed in June 2014. On September 15, 2014, the court issued an
order vacating the previously scheduled hearing and taking the
motion under submission.


ZYNGA INC: Plaintiff's Bid for Voluntary Case Dismissal Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zynga Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that the court granted plaintiff's
request for voluntary dismissal of the action with prejudice as to
the named plaintiff's claims and without prejudice as to the
claims of any other members of the proposed class.

A purported securities class action captioned Reyes v. Zynga Inc.,
et al. was filed on August 1, 2012, in San Francisco County
Superior Court. The action was removed to federal court, and was
later remanded to San Francisco County Superior Court. The
complaint alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing false or misleading statements in
connection with an April 2012 secondary offering of Class A common
stock. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons who
acquired the Company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the
secondary offering. On June 10, 2013, the defendants filed a
motion to stay the action and a demurrer arguing that the
complaint should be dismissed because the court lacks jurisdiction
over the claims. On August 26, 2013, the court issued orders
overruling the demurrer and granting the motion to stay all
deadlines in the action pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss
in the federal securities class action.

On September 29, 2014, the court issued orders denying a motion to
continue the stay of the action and overruling a demurrer arguing
that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. On October
15, 2014, the defendants filed a petition in the California Court
of Appeal seeking review of the denial of the motion to stay and
of the trial court's ruling that it had jurisdiction to hear the
claims.

On January 29, 2015, the Court of Appeal denied defendants'
petition. On February 11, 2015, the court granted plaintiff's
request for voluntary dismissal of the action with prejudice as to
the named plaintiff's claims and without prejudice as to the
claims of any other members of the proposed class.


ZYNGA INC: Court Denied Company & Directors' Motion to Dismiss
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zynga Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that the court denied the motion to
dismiss brought by Zynga and the directors and granted the motion
to dismiss brought by the underwriters who had been named as
defendants in the case Lee v. Pincus, et al.

"On April 4, 2013, a purported class action captioned Lee v.
Pincus, et al. was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware against the Company, and certain of our current and
former directors, officers, and executives," the Company said. The
complaint alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary duties in
connection with the release of certain lock-up agreements entered
into in connection with the Company's initial public offering. The
plaintiff seeks to represent a class of certain of the Company's
shareholders who were subject to the lock-up agreements and who
were not permitted to sell shares in an April 2012 secondary
offering. On January 17, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended
complaint. On March 6, 2014, the defendants filed motions to
dismiss the amended complaint and a motion to stay discovery while
the motions to dismiss were pending. On November 14, 2014, the
court denied the motion to dismiss brought by Zynga and the
directors and granted the motion to dismiss brought by the
underwriters who had been named as defendants," the Company said.


* "High Risk" Class Actions Triple to 16.4%, Survey Shows
---------------------------------------------------------
Marlisse Silver Sweeney, writing for Law.com reports that the
"2015 Carlton Fields Jorden Burt Class Action Survey" found that
just three years ago, only 4.5 percent of class actions qualified
as "bet the company" or "high risk."  That number has more than
tripled to 16.4 percent on March 18.

"The data provided by this year's Class Action Survey certainly
underscores the dramatically intensified challenges that companies
now face," said Chris Coutroulis, co-chairman of Carlton Fields'
class action practice.  According to the report, class actions are
the fourth-largest segment of the $20 billion market for
litigation services in the U.S., coming just behind commercial,
employment and intellectual property litigation.  Companies spent
$2 billion on class action lawsuits in 2014.

To meet the new demands, the report found companies are delegating
their class action lawsuit strategies to a single individual,
using early case management strategies and bringing in outside
counsel from the very beginning.  "These are the best practices
that have been shown to benefit companies greatly in multiple
industries," says Carlton Fields shareholder Jim Jorden.

The survey also found that 35 percent of companies interviewed
were managing one or more class actions, and one in three
companies report managing multiple class actions on a regular
basis.   Additionally, the use of alternative fee arrangements and
arbitration clauses has doubled since 2011.


* SC Called to Review Consumer Contract Arbitration Terms
---------------------------------------------------------
Mary Pat Gallagher, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports
that the U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to review a New Jersey
Supreme Court holding that arbitration clauses in consumer
contracts are not enforceable unless they explicitly waive the
right to go to court.

The petition for certiorari was filed by U.S. Legal Services
Group, a San Francisco-based law firm that provides debt relief
services to clients around the country through contracts with
local attorneys.

U.S. Legal framed the question for the court as, "Whether the
Federal Arbitration Act pre-empts a state-law rule holding that an
arbitration agreement is unenforceable unless it affirmatively
explains that the contracting party is waiving the right to sue in
court."

It contends that the New Jersey Supreme Court's unanimous decision
in U.S. Legal Services Group v. Atalese is contrary to the plain
language of the Federal Arbitration Act and conflicts with
numerous holdings by other courts, both state and federal,
including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

The petition refers to the New Jersey holding as a "radical
departure from innumerable contracting parties' settled
expectations," which, if left uncorrected, will invalidate
numerous other arbitration agreements and lead to forum-shopping.

"The New Jersey Supreme Court's decision reflects judicial
hostility toward arbitration that the court has been fighting for
decades," U.S. Legal argued.

Half-a-dozen amici curiae have lined up alongside U.S. Legal in
briefs filed with the court Feb. 23.  They include the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, a Washington, D.C., federation of businesses
and business associations; the Cato Institute, a libertarian think
tank also in Washington; and the Pacific Legal Foundation, based
in Sacramento, California, which advocates for free enterprise
positions.

The arbitration clause U.S. Legal seeks to enforce states "any
claim or dispute . . . shall be submitted to binding arbitration
upon the request of either party upon the service of that request
on the other party" and that any "decision of the arbitrator shall
be final and may be entered into any judgment in any court of
competent jurisdiction."

It appeared in an agreement for debt adjustment services signed by
Patricia Atalese with U.S. Legal in July 2011, according to court
documents.

Ms. Atalese claims she paid about $5,000 in fees but the firm
settled only one debt, though it told her it was negotiating with
other creditors to resolve other debts, court documents said.

The firm also allegedly informed her that it had numerous
attorneys working on her file when the only work done by an
attorney was the preparation of a one-page answer for her to file
pro se, according to court documents.

Ms. Atalese sued under New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act and Truth-
in-Consumer Contract Warranty and Notice Act, claiming that U.S.
Legal was not authorized to provide debt relief services in New
Jersey and that it made misrepresentations about that, the work it
was doing and the fees it collected.

The trial and appeals courts found Ms. Atalese had waived her
right to go to court.

Reversing on Sept. 23, 2014, the New Jersey Supreme Court cited
the importance of the "time-honored right to sue" and the need for
courts to "take particular care in assuring the knowing assent of
both parties to arbitrate, and a clear mutual understanding of the
ramifications of that assent."

Arbitration, by its very nature, involves a waiver of the right to
sue, Justice Barry Albin acknowledged in the court's opinion.
"But an average member of the public may not know -- without some
explanatory comment -- that arbitration is a substitute for the
right to have one's claim adjudicated in a court of law," he said.

The clause in question did not tell Ms. Atalese she was waiving
her right to sue in court or explain what arbitration is or how it
differs from a lawsuit, Justice Albin said.

An arbitration clause must, "at least in some general and
sufficiently broad way . . . explain that the plaintiff is giving
up her right to bring her claims in court or have a jury resolve
the dispute," Justice Albin said.

No particular wording is necessary but New Jersey law mandates
that consumer contracts be written in a "simple, clear,
understandable and easily readable way," Justice Albin said.

Justice Albin emphasized that the court was not imposing tougher
standards on arbitration clauses, which would violate the Federal
Arbitration Act's requirement that they be placed "on an equal
footing with other contracts."

According to amici, however, that is exactly what the court did.
"In my view, the New Jersey Supreme Court decision clearly
conflicts with U.S. Supreme Court precedent that forbids states
from imposing special notice requirements for arbitration that are
not generally applicable to all other contracts," said Archis
Parasharami -- aparasharami@mayerbrown.com -- of Mayer Brown in
Washington, D.C., who represents the U.S. Chamber and fellow
amicus, the New Jersey Civil Justice Institute.

His brief urged summary reversal of the New Jersey court.
Deborah La Fetra, lawyer for the Pacific Legal Foundation, said
the New Jersey opinion "seems to require that the parties include
legal advice in the actual text of their arbitration contracts."

The Cato Institute and the National Federation of Independent
Business argued in a joint brief that U.S. Supreme Court review is
particularly important to small and medium-sized businesses, which
rely on arbitration to limit litigation costs, especially in
dealing with out-of-state customers or suppliers that would
otherwise be able to sue them in distant jurisdictions.

Such businesses might lack the resources to monitor changes in
arbitration law in the various states where they do business and
thus be "unable to adapt their contracts to New Jersey's anomalous
and ill-defined rule," said the brief, filed by Derek Ho --
dho@khhte.com -- of Washington, D.C.'s Kellogg, Huber, Hansen,
Todd, Evans & Figel.

In an interview, Mr. Ho referred to a "tug of war" between state
courts and the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the scope of the
Federal Arbitration Act, which requires the court "to step in with
some frequency to enforce what the FAA demands."

U.S. Legal's lawyer, Matthew Hellman -- mhellman@jenner.com -- of
Jenner & Block in Washington, D.C., said, "We think this is an
important case because the New Jersey Supreme Court has imposed
barriers to enforcing arbitration agreements that the federal law
and the federal courts do not allow."

Manahawkin solo William Wright, who represents Ms. Atalese, said
the New Jersey court "did a very good job of making it clear that
this was about New Jersey state law" and "they relied on and
followed the Federal Arbitration Act and all the federal
precedent."

His client's brief is due April 24.

The Supreme Court typically grants fewer than 4 percent of the
appeals requested in private civil matters.

It already has one arbitrability case on next year's docket,
DirecTV v. Imburgia.  The appeal, granted March 23, challenges a
California state-court decision regarding class action waiver.
During the 2013-14 term, the U.S. Supreme Court decided two
arbitrability cases, one of which, Oxford Health Plans v. Sutter,
originated in federal court in New Jersey.

The high court's ruling in Oxford upheld a Third Circuit decision
allowing an arbitrator to decide that the agreement allowed class
arbitration, even though it was silent on the issue.

Eric Katz of Roseland's Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman, who
represents the Sutter class, noted that on March 9, certiorari was
denied in another New Jersey case, Opalinski v. Robert Half
International, which also concerned classwide arbitration.


                             *********

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  * * *