CAR_Public/150407.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, April 7, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 69


                             Headlines

1944 FIRST: Faces "Ramirez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ALABAMA: AG Opposes Same-Sex Marriage Class Action-Status Bid
ALGONQUIN POWER: May Face Class Action Over Late Financial Filing
AMERICAN INT'L: 2nd Cir. Revives Franklin Funds Suit
AMERICAN WATER: Briefing Completed in Jan. in Chemical Spill Case

AMN HEALTHCARE: Completed Settlement of Wage and Hour Class Suit
AMY'S: Frozen Entree Products Recalled Due to Listeria
BANK OF AMERICA: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Excessive Interest Rates
BAUER HOCKEY: Recalls Goal Masks and Cages
BED BATH: Recalls Podee(R) Hands Free Baby Bottle System

BIG 5: Objector Filed Notice of Appeal of Class Action Settlement
BIG 5: Did Not Reach Settlement in "Duran" Class Action
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Discriminatory Policies
BP: Jury Can Decide Alabama's Gulf-Oil-Spill Damage Claims
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Parties to Seek Final Approval of Settlement

CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: May 15 Return Date for Class Cert. Motion
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Expert Discovery Proceeding in Consumer Suit
CARRIAGE SERVICES: Group 1 Claimants' Relief to Be Administered
CHARLES SCHWAB: Appeals Court Revives Bond Fund Class Action
CHRYSLER GROUP: Seeks Dismissal of Power Module Class Action

CIMAREX ENERGY: Settlement Administration Ongoing in Hitch Case
COMMUNICATION INFRASTRUCTURE: Fails to Pay Workers OT, Suit Says
COMMUNITY HEALTH: No Trial Date Set in Federal Securities Cases
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Judicial Panel Ordered Transfer of Class Suits
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Oral Argument Held in Appeal in Suit v. HMA

COMMUNITY PHYSICAL: Faces "Girolamo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
COOPER VISION: Faces "Denton" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing
COOPER VISION: Faces "Watson Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing
COOPER VISION: Faces "Dedivanaj" Suit Over Resale Price of Lens
COOPER VISION: Deadline to Respond to Class Actions Continued

CORRECTIONS CORPORATION: Court Certified Class in Suit v. DHS
COSCO HOME: Recalls 3-in-1 Convertible Aluminum Hand Trucks
CVS PHARMACY: "Ceja-Corona" Settlement Hearing Moved to July 22
DAIMLER TRUCKS: Recalls Multiple Western Star Models
DETROIT LIONS: Faces Class Action Over Ticket Reselling Rights

DIRECTV: California Action Related to AT&T Merger Dismissed
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Court Dismissed Collective Action Lawsuit
DOMINICK'S FINER: Former Managers Set to Get Overtime Back Pay
DYNEGY INC: 2nd Cir. Has No Decision Yet on Class Action Appeal
DYNEGY INC: Supreme Court Debate Held in Gas Index Pricing Suit

EUROPEAN FINE: Recalls Barley Soup Products Due to Milk
FCA US: Faces "Hasset" Suit in E.D. Mich. Over Defective TPMS
FERGUSSON, MO: Judge Brockmeyer Steps Down Amid Class Action
FIRST AMERICAN: RESPA Suit Returns to Ninth Circuit
FIRST SOLAR: Merits Discovery Continuing in Smilovits Case

FLAGSHIP FACILITY: Illegally Obtains Consumer Reports, Suit Says
FORD MOTOR: Recalls Lincoln Models Due to Vacuum Pump Defect
FORD MOTOR: Recalls F350, F550 and F450 Models
GLADIATOR ENERGY: Faces "Anderson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
GLAXOSMITHKLINE INC: Recalls Flolan Powder Due to Impurity

HALSTED FINANCIAL: Faces "Martin" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
HAPE INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Bugs Magnetic Mazes
HERBALIFE LTD: Class Action Settlement to Face Resistance
HMSHOST CORPORATION: Faces "Burnip" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
HORIZON DISTRIBUTORS: Recalls Amy's Frozen Entree Products

HORNBECK OFFSHORE: Filed Deepwater Horizon Claim Against BP
INDIANA: DCS Settlement in Adoption Subsidy Suit Not Enough
INOGEN INC: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
INTERLINE BRANDS: Craftwood Case Deal Awaits Final Approval
KARCHER NORTH AMERICA: Recalls Vehicle Wash & Wax Products

KTM NORTH AMERICA: Recalls Children's Onesies and Pajamas
LENOVO (US) INC: Faces "Schultz" Suit Over Harmful Spyware
LILYDALE INC: Recalls Oven Roasted Carved Chicken Breasts
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Carl" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Watson" Suit Over Toxic Flooring

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Hagens Berman Files Laminate Class Action
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Settled Prusak Lawsuit for $705,000
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: To Defend Against "Kiken" Lawsuit
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Accrued $300K as Estimate for Wade Suit Loss
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: To Defend Against Hallandale Police Lawsuit

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: 3 Plaintiffs Added to "Gold' Suit
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Balero" Class Action
MERRILL LYNCH: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Alleged Trust Mismanagement
MICHAELS STORES: Loses Bid to Dismiss Vacation Time Class Action
MICHIGAN: Court Orders Review of Prison Suit Class-Action Status

MICHIGAN: AG Withdraws Subpoenas Over Juvenile Inmate Abuse Suit
MINERVA HOSPITALITY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
MISSISSIPPI: Group Seeks Contempt Order in Foster Care Suit
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: "O'Bannon" Class Action Lawyers Cut Fee Request
NEW ORLEANS: Fired Public School Workers See to Revive Suit

NUVASIVE INC: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Taken Off Calendar
OKLAHOMA: Judge Recommends Denial of 2nd Cotner Bid to Intervene
OMNICELL INC: Faces "Nelson" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
ONEOK INC: Decision in Gas Index Pricing Appeal by Mid-2015
ORGANIC CONNECTIONS: Recalls Various Products with Garlic Powder

PARTY CITY: Faces California Class Action Over Labor Violations
PAUL SAINI: "Baxin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
PERI & SONS: Court Denies Pending Motions in "Rivera" Labor Suit
PORT RICHEY, FL: Faces Class Action Over Red-Light Cameras
POSTMATES INC: Faces "Singer" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

PPG ARCHITECTURAL: "Petruna" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Cushnie" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
PRESTIGE POOL: "Estrada" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
QUICKEN LOANS: Says Overtime Ruling No Impact on Operations
RESONANT INC: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports

RITE AID: Faces "Stephan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
RITE AID: Hearing on Motions to Stay Actions Moved to April 22
RODALE INC: Class Cert. Bid in "Coulter-Owens" Suit Denied
S & E FLAG: "Perkins" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
SAFECO INSURANCE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Damaged Property Cost

SABRE COMPANIES: "Nelson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SILICON IMAGE: Defending Against Complaints Over Lattice Merger
SIMPLE REMEDIES: Recalls Chicken Broth Powder Due to Salmonella
SOUTHERN UNDERGROUND: "Sapp" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
SPECIALIZED CANADA: Recalls Aerobar Bicycle Handlebars

SPECIALIZED LOAN: Accused of Illegal Conduct Over Debt Collection
STEEP HILL: Recalls Organic Garlic Powder Due to Salmonella
SUTTER HEALTH: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Claims
T-BIRD RESTAURANT: Case Conference in "Gehl" Suit Moved to Apr 28
TELEPHONE AND DATA: Consumer Class Actions Filed Against Cellco

THOR INDUSTRIES: Recalls Multiple Motorhome Models
THOR INDUSTRIES: Recalls Crossroad RV Cruiser Models
TRANS UNION: Faces "Niermann" Suit Over Security Freeze Fees
UNITED STATES: Lummi Tribe Joins Land Buyback Program Class Suit
VARIETES PIERRE: Recalls Happy Cabin Toys Due to Choking Hazard

VIP SOAP: Recalls Citrus All Purpose Cleaner Due to Mislabeling
VISA INC: Settles Class Action Over Zipcar Policy
WASHINGTON: Mental Health Bill Passes Amid Class Action
WESTBURY HEALTH: Faces "Robinson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: $32MM Loss Exposure in Contamination Case

WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Supreme Court to Hear Suit Against WPX Energy
YAMAHA: Recalls Viking VI Side-By-Side ATVs

* CFPB Report Criticizes Credit Card Arbitration Clauses


                            *********


1944 FIRST: Faces "Ramirez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Angel Ramirez, Alfredo Valdovinos, Raymundo Carvajal, Nau Aguirre,
and Gabriel Rivas, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. 1944 First A Venue Deli Co LLC d/b/a Dave's
Gourmet and Derhim Nasser, Case No. 1:15-cv-02065 (S.D.N.Y., March
19, 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 Dave's Gourmet, a delicatessen
located at 19441st Avenue, New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALABAMA: AG Opposes Same-Sex Marriage Class Action-Status Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
WSFA 12 News reports that Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange
is opposing efforts by same-sex marriage supporters who want to
update a federal lawsuit to class action status, a move that could
force the state's 68 probate judges to grant marriage licenses to
gay couples.

Strange is asking U.S. District Judge Callie Granade to deny the
motion by plaintiffs in the case of Strawser and Humphrey v.
Strange, saying the judge who struck down Alabama's ban on same-
sex marriage in January should wait because the U.S. Supreme Court
will take up the issue in June.

The Attorney General says unnecessary chaos has been created in
Alabama since Judge Granade's ruling on January 23 found the
state's bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional on the grounds
they violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The attorney general states:

"When this court enjoined Attorney General Strange from enforcing
Alabama's marriage laws to the extent those laws prohibited 'same-
sex marriage,' Attorney General Strange immediately moved for a
stay . . .  Among other grounds, Attorney General Strange argued
that a fundamental redefinition of marriage in Alabama without the
benefit of full appellate review would lead to chaos, confusion,
and additional litigation that could be avoided if the Court's
orders were simply stayed a few months until the United States
Supreme Court resolved the issue."

"Since then, the number and rate of developments has been dizzying
as officials came to different conclusions about their legal
obligations and as parties tried to intervene in the initial cases
and bring other officials under the Court's injunction," the
Attorney General's motion added.

"The Court should not further undermine the relationship between
the state and federal courts by granting Plaintiffs leave to
drastically change the nature of this case at this late date.
Granting the relief the Plaintiffs seek will only add to all the
chaos and confusion in Alabama, and will only increase the tension
between the state and federal courts."

"The only wise and judicious course of action is to deny the
motion to amend and wait until June when the United States Supreme
Court will resolve the constitutionality of same sex marriage in a
way that will be binding on all federal judges and all state
officials."

The Alabama Supreme Court advised probate judges not to follow the
federal ruling shortly after attempts to appeal her stay, set to
expire on February 9, failed at both the 11th Circuit and Supreme
Court levels.  Many of the state's probate judges moved forward
anyway citing beliefs that the federal court ruling trumps the
state.  However, a 7-1 order by the State's high court on March 2
has effectively stopped the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses
in every county.


ALGONQUIN POWER: May Face Class Action Over Late Financial Filing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Keila Szpaller, writing for Missoulian, reports that Algonquin
Power and Utilities Corp. is under investigation by a private law
firm in Canada following the announcement it will be late in
filing its fourth-quarter financial report.

Algonquin is the parent of Liberty Utilities, the company that
wants to buy Mountain Water Co.  The proposed purchase is pending
before the Montana Public Service Commission.

According to a lawyer, a late earnings report does not necessarily
indicate trouble at the company.

However, the news raised alarm among those who are closely
following the separate paths the local water company is taking
through the Public Service Commission and through a condemnation
lawsuit filed by the city of Missoula.

The city wants to force the utility to be under public ownership.

On March 9, Mayor John Engen said he is pleased another party is
looking into the company's practices.  He also said an Algonquin
officer recently was in Missoula trying to buy off the city.

"David Pasieka, Liberty's president and an Algonquin officer, was
in Missoula doing public relations work, asking surrogates to
offer me a few million dollars to give up our effort to own the
water company," Mr. Engen said in an email.

Mr. Pasieka responded in a statement provided by Partners Creative
in Missoula.

"Liberty Utilities has made no cash settlement offer to the city
-- not directly and not through any intermediaries," said
Mr. Pasieka.  "Our company is happy to discuss any option that
more expediently results in Liberty becoming a long-term steward
of Missoula's water system."

Earlier, Algonquin spokeswoman Kelly Castledine did not address
the reason for the delayed report, but she commented on the
investigation.

"The matter is unrelated to Liberty Utilities and its acquisition
of Mountain Water," Ms. Castledine said.

Algonquin announced it would postpone the release of its fourth-
quarter and year-end financial results as well as a related
conference call.  The company rescheduled the release for
Thursday, March 26, and the call for the following day.

Subsequently, Siskinds LLP announced it was investigating the
accounting practices and disclosures of Algonquin.  The Canadian
law firm planned to evaluate a possible class-action lawsuit
pending the review.

On March 9, Siskinds lawyer Michael Robb said he anticipates the
review will take several weeks to a few months.  He said the firm
may take no action pending the review, and it also could commence
litigation.

"In general, what we do are investor class actions for alleged
misrepresentations in companies' securities disclosure documents,"
Robb said.

He could not say how often an investigation by Siskinds led to
litigation.

Algonquin is a Canadian corporation.  The Ontario Securities
Commission declined on March 9 to comment on whether the late
report had prompted a review by the commission or whether the
agency had previously investigated the utilities company.

"The OSC does not generally comment on the existence, status or
nature of any complaint or investigation," Kate Betts-Wilmott,
spokeswoman for the commission, said in an email.


AMERICAN INT'L: 2nd Cir. Revives Franklin Funds Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit vacated on
April 1, 2015, a district court ruling dismissing the case
captioned FRANKLIN U.S. RISING DIVIDENDS FUND; FRANKLIN MANAGED
TRUST-FRANKLIN RISING DIVIDENDS FUND; FRANKLIN VALUE INVESTORS
TRUST-FRANKLIN LARGE CAP VALUE FUND; FRANKLIN TEMPLETON VARIABLE
INSURANCE PRODUCTS TRUST-FRANKLIN RISING DIVIDENDS SECURITIES
FUND; TEMPLETON FUNDS-TEMPLETON WORLD FUND; FRANKLIN TEMPLETON
VARIABLE INSURANCE PRODUCTS TRUST-FRANKLIN LARGE CAP GROWTH
SECURITIES FUND; AND FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INVESTMENT FUNDS-FRANKLIN
US EQUITY FUND, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL
GROUP, INC., Defendant-Appellee, NO. 14-3752.

The Second Circuit concluded that "the district court erred by
dismissing this case without notifying the parties and, in
particular Plaintiffs (who now seek to amend their complaint, to
challenge the transfer from New Jersey, and to demonstrate that
IndyMac does not apply retroactively), of its intentions.
Plaintiffs arrived in the Southern District of New York only after
a transfer from the District of New Jersey. Because of this
procedural posture, Plaintiffs neither drafted their complaint
anticipating litigation in the Southern District of New York, nor
had the opportunity to contest the District of New Jersey's
transfer decision. On both matters, litigation in the district
court is essential. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
15(a)(2), leave to amend a pleading is within the district court's
discretion and "we are accustomed to reviewing a district court's
decision whether to grant or deny leave to amend, rather than
making that decision for ourselves in the first instance."
Similarly, once a case has been transferred to this Circuit, we
typically require the transferred party to make a retransfer
motion "in order to preserve the opportunity for review" of the
transfer. Plaintiffs' decision to first seek a pre-motion
conference on a stay pending the Supreme Court's decision in
IndyMac did not forfeit these other litigating options. Under
these circumstances, waiting for AIG to move for dismissal or
giving Plaintiffs notice of, and an opportunity to respond to, the
district court's intention to dismiss the case as time-barred,
would have "help[ed] the court secure a just determination" by
allowing Plaintiffs "to present their best arguments in
opposition" to dismissal, and would have clarified the issues for
appeal.  We therefore conclude that the district court erred in
dismissing Plaintiffs' claims sua sponte without providing notice
and an opportunity to be heard."

"In vacating and remanding the district court's dismissal, we
need, and do not, decide whether IndyMac applies retroactively to
claims that arose before this Court issued the decision, or
whether the district court should grant a motion to amend the
complaint or re-transfer the case to the District of New Jersey.
These matters should be addressed in the first instance by the
district court," the Second Circuit added in its summary order, a
copy of which is available at http://is.gd/4VqFlRfrom Leagle.com.

SHEILA A. SADIGHI -- ssadighi@lowenstein.com -- (Thomas E.
Redburn, Jr. -- tredburn@lowenstein.com -- on the brief),
Lowenstein Sandler LLP, Roseland, NJ, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

DANIEL J. KRAMER -- dkramer@paulweiss.com -- (Audra J. Soloway --
asoloway@paulweiss.com -- Paul A. Patterson --
ppaterson@paulweiss.com -- on the brief), Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.


AMERICAN WATER: Briefing Completed in Jan. in Chemical Spill Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American Water Works Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that briefing
on motions filed in connection with the West Virginia Elk River
Freedom Industries' Chemical Spill was completed on January 28,
2015.

On January 9, 2014, a chemical storage tank owned by Freedom
Industries, Inc. leaked two substances used for processing coal,
4-methylcyclohexane methanol, or MCHM, and PPH/DiPPH, a mix of
polyglycol ethers, into the Elk River near the West Virginia-
American Water Company ("WVAWC") treatment plant intake in
Charleston, West Virginia. After having been alerted to the leak
of MCHM by the West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection ("DEP"), WVAWC took immediate steps to gather more
information about MCHM, augment its treatment process as a
precaution, and begin consultations with federal, state and local
public health officials. As soon as possible after it was
determined that the augmented treatment process would not fully
remove the MCHM, a joint decision was reached in consultation with
the West Virginia Bureau for Public Health to issue a "Do Not Use"
order for all of its approximately 93,000 customer accounts in
parts of nine West Virginia counties served by the Charleston
treatment plant. The order addressed the use of water for
drinking, cooking, washing and bathing, but did not affect
continued use of water for sanitation and fire protection.

Over the next several days, WVAWC and an interagency team of state
and federal officials engaged in extensive sampling and testing to
determine if levels of MCHM were below one part per million (1
ppm), a level that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention ("CDC") and EPA indicated would be protective of public
health. Beginning on January 13, 2014, based on the results of the
continued testing, the Do Not Use order was lifted in stages to
help ensure the water system was not overwhelmed by excessive
demand, which could have caused additional water quality and
service issues. By January 18, 2014, none of WVAWC's customers
were subject to the Do Not Use order, although CDC guidance
suggesting that pregnant women avoid consuming the water until the
chemicals were at non-detectable levels remained in place. In
addition, based on saved samples taken on or before January 18,
2014, PPH/DiPPH was no longer detected in the water supply as of
January 18, 2014. On February 21, 2014, WVAWC announced that all
points of testing throughout its water distribution system
indicated that levels of MCHM were below 10 parts per billion (10
ppb). The interagency team established 10 ppb as the "non-detect"
level of MCHM in the water distribution system based on the
measurement capabilities of the multiple laboratories used. WVAWC
continued to work with laboratories to test down to below 2 ppb of
MCHM and announced on March 3, 2014, that it had cleared the
system to below this level.

To date, 58 lawsuits have been filed against WVAWC with respect to
this matter in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia or West Virginia Circuit Courts in
Kanawha, Boone and Putnam counties. Fifty-two of the state court
cases naming WVAWC, and one case naming both WVAWC and American
Water Works Service Company, Inc. ("AWWSC," and together with
WVAWC and the Company, the "American Water Defendants") were
removed to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, but are subject to motions to remand
the cases back to the state courts and have been consolidated for
the sole purpose of resolving venue issues. Four of the cases
pending before the federal district court were consolidated for
purposes of discovery, and an amended consolidated complaint for
those cases was filed on December 9, 2014 by several plaintiffs
who allegedly suffered economic losses, loss of use of property
and tap water or other specified adverse consequences as a result
of the Freedom Industries spill, on behalf of a purported class of
all persons and businesses supplied with, using, or exposed to
water contaminated with Crude MCHM and provided by WVAWC in Logan,
Clay, Lincoln, Roane, Jackson, Boone, Putnam, and Kanawha Counties
and the Culloden area of Cabell County, West Virginia as of
January 9, 2014. The consolidated complaint names several
individuals and corporate entities as defendants, including the
American Water Defendants.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages for alleged business or
economic losses; unspecified damages or a mechanism for recovery
to address a variety or alleged costs, loss of use of property,
personal injury and other consequences allegedly suffered by
purported class members; punitive damages and certain additional
relief, including the establishment of a medical monitoring
program to protect the purported class members from an alleged
increased risk of contracting serious latent disease. The American
Water Defendants have each filed an answer to the consolidated
complaint. The Company individually, and AWWSC and WVAWC together,
filed motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint. Briefing on
these motions was completed on January 28, 2015.

Additionally, investigations with respect to the matter have been
initiated by the Chemical Safety Board, the U.S. Attorney's Office
for the Southern District of West Virginia, the West Virginia
Attorney General, and the Public Service Commission of West
Virginia (the "PSC"). As a result of the U.S. Attorney's Office
investigation, on December 17, 2014, four former Freedom
Industries officers (three of whom also were former owners of
Freedom Industries), were indicted for, among other things,
negligent discharge of a pollutant in violation of the federal
Clean Water Act. These executives are also facing additional
federal charges resulting from a 13-count superseding indictment
issued by a grand jury on January 21, 2015. In addition,
information charges were filed against Freedom Industries for,
among other things, negligent discharge of a pollutant in
violation of the Clean Water Act, and against the former plant
manager of Freedom Industries' Elk River facility and one of the
individuals responsible for environmental compliance at Freedom
Industries for violating the Clean Water Act.

On May 21, 2014, the PSC issued an Order initiating a General
Investigation into certain matters relating to WVAWC's response to
the Freedom industries spill. Three parties have intervened in the
proceeding, including the Consumer Advocate Division of the PSC
and two attorney-sponsored groups, including one sponsored by some
of the plaintiffs' counsel involved in the civil litigation
described above. WVAWC has filed testimony regarding its response
to the spill and is subject to discovery from PSC staff and the
intervenors as part of the General Investigation. Several disputes
have arisen between the WVAWC and the intervenors regarding, among
other things, the scope of the discovery and the maintenance of
confidentiality with regard to certain WVAWC emergency planning
documents. In addition, the intervenors and PSC staff filed expert
testimony in support of their assertions that WVAWC did not act
reasonably with respect to the Freedom Industries spill, and WVAWC
has asserted that some of the testimony is outside the scope of
the PSC proceeding. The PSC has deferred setting a revised
procedural schedule and has not set a final hearing date on the
matter.

The Company, WVAWC and the other Company-affiliated entities named
in any of the lawsuits believe that WVAWC has responded
appropriately to, and has no responsibility for, the Freedom
Industries spill and the Company, WVAWC and other Company-
affiliated entities named in any of the lawsuits have valid,
meritorious defenses to the lawsuits. The Company, WVAWC and the
other Company affiliated entities intend to vigorously contest the
lawsuits. Nevertheless, an adverse outcome in one or more of the
lawsuits could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, liquidity
and reputation. Moreover, WVAWC and the Company are unable to
predict the outcome of the ongoing government investigations or
any legislative initiatives that might affect water utility
operations.


AMN HEALTHCARE: Completed Settlement of Wage and Hour Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
AMN Healthcare Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that during the first
quarter of 2014, the Company completed the settlement of a wage
and hour class action (and a related action) for an immaterial
amount. With regards to outstanding loss contingencies as of
December 31, 2014, the Company believes that the amount or
estimable range of reasonably possible loss, will not, either
individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect
on its business, consolidated financial position, results of
operations or cash flows. However, the outcome of litigation is
inherently uncertain, and therefore, if one or more of these legal
matters were resolved against the Company for amounts in excess of
management's expectations, the Company's results of operations and
financial condition, including in a particular reporting period,
could be materially adversely affected.


AMY'S: Frozen Entree Products Recalled Due to Listeria
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 24, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Correction - Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: --
Distribution: Possibly National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail

The food recall warning issued on March 23, 2015 has been amended
to correctly identify the codes for the Amy's brand frozen entree
products. The corrections for these products are marked by an
asterisk (*) below.

Industry is recalling Amy's brand frozen entree products from the
marketplace due to possible Listeria monocytogenes contamination.
Consumers should not consume the recalled products described
below.

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

Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include
vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache
and neck stiffness. Pregnant women, the elderly and people with
weakened immune systems are particularly at risk. Although
infected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-like
symptoms, the infection can lead to premature delivery, infection
of the newborn or even stillbirth. In severe cases of illness,
people may die.

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

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

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

  Brand name   Common name   Size    Code(s)      UPC
  ----------   -----------   ----    on product   ---
                                     ----------
  Amy's        Vegetable     269 g   30-A215      0 42272 90032 9
               Lasagna               *BEST BEFORE
                                     JAN2017
  Amy's        Gluten Free   156 g   30-B025      0 42272 90807 3
               Tofu Scramble         *BEST BEFORE
               Breakfast Wrap        FEB2017

  Amy's        Gluten Free   255 g    30-B045     0 42272 90814 1
               Dairy Free             *BEST BEFORE
               Vegetable              FEB2017
               Lasagna


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


BANK OF AMERICA: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Excessive Interest Rates
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zachary and Socorro Pavlides, individually and on behalf of
persons similarly situated v. Bank of America N.A., Case No. 8:15-
cv-00437 (C.D. Cal., March 18, 2015), arises out of the
Defendant's deceptive method of calculating credit interest rates
that resulted in substantial overcharges.

Bank of America N.A. is a national bank headquartered at 100 North
Tryon St., Charlotte, North Carolina 28202.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zachary Pavlides, Esq.
      PRO SE
      711 W. 17th Street, Unite F12
      Costa Mesa, CA 92627
      Telephone: (949) 887-8703


BAUER HOCKEY: Recalls Goal Masks and Cages
------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 31, 2015
Posting date: March 31, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Sports/Fitness
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Physical Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-52703

This recall involves the following goal masks and cages:

The Concept C1 goal masks have a carbon fiber shell with a foam
liner and sweatband, and a titanium wire cage that attaches to the
mask with two screws on each side of the mask.  The masks are
Senior masks in sizes S/M and M/L.  The masks are available in two
shell colors: black and white.  The model indication "Concept C1"
is marked on the top of the shell.  A sticker inside the shell at
the jaw lists the model and size.  A second sticker on the other
side of the shell at the jaw lists the country of origin (China),
the assembly date and the CE certification.  Certification (CSA,
HECC) and warning stickers are affixed to the backplate of the
mask.

The NME 10 goal masks have a fiberglass/carbon fiber shell with a
foam liner and sweatband, and a titanium wire cage that attaches
to the mask with two screws on each side of the mask.  The masks
are Senior masks in three sizes: Fit 1, Fit 2 and Fit 3.  The
masks are available in two shell colors: black and white.  The
model indication "NME10" is marked on the top of the shell.  A
sticker inside the shell at the jaw lists the model and size.  A
second sticker on the other side of the shell at the jaw lists the
country of origin (China), the assembly date and the CE
certification.  Certification (CSA, HECC) and warning stickers are
affixed to the backplate of the mask.

The RP NME Ti Titanium Cage is a replacement cage intended for the
Concept C1 and NME 10 goal masks.  It has a matte finish. The cage
has two side plates, one on each side of the cage.  One side plate
includes a sticker with the model designation (RP NME Ti Sr) and
the CSA certification.  The other sticker indicates HECC and CE
certification.  On the inside of the side plate is a sticker with
the country of origin (Thailand).

Bauer has determined there may be a quality issue in some of the
titanium wire used in the manufacture of the cages. The metal
wires on the affected cages can break and may not provide adequate
protection in the event of impact from a puck, posing a facial
impact or laceration hazard.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries related to the use of these goal masks and cages.

Bauer Hockey Corp. has received nine reports, eight in Canada and
one in the United States, of the titanium wire cage cracking or
breaking upon impact with a puck, resulting in minor facial
injuries in four of the reports.

Approximately 1,300 units were sold in Canada, and approximately
1,200 units were sold in the United States.

The recalled products were sold from April, 2013 to February,
2015.

Manufactured in Thailand and China.

Manufacturer: Masco Enterprise Co., Ltd.
              Chachoengsao
              THAILAND
Importer: Bauer Hockey Corp.
          Mississauga
          Ontario
          CANADA

Consumers should stop using the recalled goal masks with the
affected wire cages and contact Bauer Hockey Corp for a
replacement cage and complimentary throat protector.

For more information, consumers may contact Bauer's Customer
Service toll-free at 1-844-448-4246, Monday to Friday, from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. EST. Consumers may also contact Bauer's Customer
Service by email or visit Bauer's website.

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

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

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

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


BED BATH: Recalls Podee(R) Hands Free Baby Bottle System
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 30, 2015
Posting date: March 30, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Children's Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Choking Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-52717

This recall involves Podee(R) Hands Free Baby Bottle System.  The
complete, hands-free system includes an 8-ounce clear plastic baby
bottle and all the necessary parts like the nipple and the tubes
system.  The product was sold in a single pack or a twin pack.
The product is designed to allow the baby to self-feed.

The following products are included in this recall:

  Description   UPC          Bed Bath & Beyond SKU
  -----------   ---          ---------------------
  One Pack     98481100241   16523186
  Two Pack     98481100210   16523216

Products that position infant feeding bottles and enable infants
to feed themselves without supervision are prohibited by law in
Canada.  Such products can result in infants choking on or
aspirating the feeding liquid.  Unattended infant feeding
practices are discouraged by Health Canada and Canadian
professional medical associations.

Neither Bed Bath & Beyond Canada L.P. nor Heath Canada has
received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to
the use of this product.

In Canada, approximately 140 units of the recalled baby self-
feeding systems were sold at Bed Bath and Beyond and buybuyBaby
stores and online at www.bedbathandbeyond.ca.

The recalled products were sold in Canada from October 2014 to
March 2015.

Manufactured in the United States.

Manufacturer: Podee Inc.
              San Diego
              California
              UNITED STATES

Importer: Bed Bath & Beyond Canada L.P.
          North Vancouver
          British Columbia
          CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled baby bottle
self-feeding system.

Consumers may return the product to any Bed Bath & Beyond or
buybuy Baby location in Canada for a refund with proof of purchase
or store credit without proof of purchase.

For additional information, consumers may contact Bed Bath &
Beyond at 1-800-462-3966, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week or visit
Bed Bath & Beyond's website.

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

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

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


BIG 5: Objector Filed Notice of Appeal of Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a Notice
of Appeal was filed by an objector to the settlement reached in a
class action.

The Company was served on the following dates with the following
nine complaints, each of which was brought as a purported class
action on behalf of persons who made purchases at the Company's
stores in California using credit cards and were requested or
required to provide personal identification information at the
time of the transaction: (1) on February 22, 2011, a complaint
filed in the California Superior Court in the County of Los
Angeles, entitled Maria Eugenia Saenz Valiente v. Big 5 Sporting
Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. BC455049; (2) on February 22,
2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the
County of Los Angeles, entitled Scott Mossler v. Big 5 Sporting
Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. BC455477; (3) on February 28,
2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the
County of Los Angeles, entitled Yelena Matatova v. Big 5 Sporting
Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. BC455459; (4) on March 8,
2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the
County of Los Angeles, entitled Neal T. Wiener v. Big 5 Sporting
Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. BC456300; (5) on March 22,
2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the
County of San Francisco, entitled Donna Motta v. Big 5 Sporting
Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. CGC-11-509228; (6) on March
30, 2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in
the County of Alameda, entitled Steve Holmes v. Big 5 Sporting
Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. RG11563123; (7) on March 30,
2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the
County of San Francisco, entitled Robin Nelson v. Big 5 Sporting
Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. CGC-11-508829; (8) on April 8,
2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the
County of San Joaquin, entitled Pamela B. Smith v. Big 5 Sporting
Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. 39-2011-00261014-CU-BT-STK;
and (9) on May 31, 2011, a complaint filed in the California
Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles, entitled Deena
Gabriel v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No.
BC462213.

On June 16, 2011, the Judicial Council of California issued an
Order Assigning Coordination Trial Judge designating the
California Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles as having
jurisdiction to coordinate and to hear all nine of the cases as
Case No. JCCP4667.

On October 21, 2011, the plaintiffs collectively filed a
Consolidated Amended Complaint, alleging violations of the
California Civil Code, negligence, invasion of privacy and
unlawful intrusion. The plaintiffs allege, among other things,
that customers making purchases with credit cards at the Company's
stores in California were improperly requested to provide their
zip code at the time of such purchases. The plaintiffs seek, on
behalf of the class members, the following: statutory penalties;
attorneys' fees; expenses; restitution of property; disgorgement
of profits; and injunctive relief.

In an effort to negotiate a settlement of this litigation, the
Company and plaintiffs engaged in Mandatory Settlement Conferences
conducted by the court on February 6, 2013, February 19, 2013,
April 2, 2013, September 12, 2013, and September 20, 2013, and
also engaged in mediation conducted by a third party mediator on
July 15, 2013. As a result of the foregoing, the parties agreed to
settle the lawsuit. On March 23, 2014, the court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement.

On December 5, 2014, the court granted final approval of the
settlement and on January 2, 2015, entered judgment on the
settlement. On February 2, 2015, a Notice of Appeal was filed by
an objector.

Under the terms of the settlement, the Company agreed that class
members who submit valid and timely claim forms will receive
either a $25 gift card (with proof of purchase) or a $10
merchandise voucher (without proof of purchase). Additionally, the
Company agreed to pay plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs
awarded by the court, enhancement payments to the class
representatives and claims administrator's fees. Under the
settlement, if the total amount paid by the Company for the class
payout, class representative enhancement payments and claims
administrator's fees is less than $1.0 million, then the Company
will issue merchandise vouchers to a charity for the balance of
the deficiency in the manner provided in the settlement agreement.

The Company's estimated total cost pursuant to this settlement is
reflected in a legal settlement accrual initially recorded in the
third quarter of fiscal 2013, and subsequently adjusted in fiscal
2014 to reflect the settlement. The Company admitted no liability
or wrongdoing with respect to the claims set forth in the lawsuit.
If the settlement is upheld on appeal, the settlement will
constitute a full and complete settlement and release of all
claims related to the lawsuit. Based on the terms of the
settlement, the Company currently believes that settlement of this
litigation will not have a material negative impact on the
Company's results of operations or financial condition. However,
if the settlement is not upheld on appeal, the Company intends to
defend this litigation vigorously. If the settlement is not upheld
on appeal and this litigation is settled or resolved unfavorably
to the Company, this litigation and the costs of defending it
could have a material negative impact on the Company's results of
operations or financial condition.


BIG 5: Did Not Reach Settlement in "Duran" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the
Company and plaintiff did not reach a settlement of the case,
Pedro Duran v. Big 5 Corp., et al.

On September 10, 2014, a complaint was filed in the California
Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, entitled Pedro Duran
v. Big 5 Corp., et al., Case No. BC557154. On October 7, 2014, an
amended complaint was filed.

As amended, the complaint alleges the Company violated the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code. The complaint was brought as a purported class action on
behalf of certain of the Company's hourly employees who worked as
"warehousemen" in the Company's distribution center in California
for the four years prior to the filing of the complaint. The
plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the Company failed to
pay such employees for all time worked, failed to provide such
employees with compliant meal and rest periods, failed to properly
itemize wage statements, and failed to pay wages within required
time periods during employment and upon termination of employment.
The plaintiff seeks, on behalf of the purported class members, an
award of statutory and civil damages and penalties, including
restitution and recovery of unpaid wages; pre-judgment interest;
an award of attorneys' fees and costs; and injunctive and
declaratory relief.

The Company believes that the complaint is without merit. The
Company has not yet been served with the complaint or the amended
complaint.

In an effort to negotiate a settlement of this litigation, the
Company and plaintiff engaged in mediation on January 28, 2015,
but did not reach a settlement. Following the mediation, the
Company recorded an estimated accrual with regard to this lawsuit
in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2014.

If the Company is unsuccessful in resolving the suit through a
settlement, the Company intends to defend the suit vigorously. If
resolved unfavorably to the Company, this litigation could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, and
costs associated with any judgment, defense of this litigation as
well as any required change in the Company's labor practices,
could have a negative impact on the Company's results of
operations.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Discriminatory Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Denise Fretter and Maria Korsgaard, individually and on behalf of
a class of similarly situated female employees v. Boston
Scientific Neuromodulation Corporation and Does 1-10, Case No.
2:15-cv-01988 (C.D. Cal., March 18, 2015), arises out of the
Defendant's discriminatory policies, practices and procedures in
assignments, account and territory distribution, promotion and
advancement of its female employees.

Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corporation is headquartered in
Valencia, California. It specializes in the sale of devices that
are implanted in patients' spinal columns to treat chronic pain.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Felicia Medina, Esq.
      Xinying Valerian, Esq.
      SANFORD HEISLER KIMPEL, LLP
      555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1206
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 795-2024
      Facsimile: (415) 795-2021
      E-mail: fmedina@sanfordheisler.com
              xvalerian@sanfordheisler.com


BP: Jury Can Decide Alabama's Gulf-Oil-Spill Damage Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a judge says Alabama's Gulf oil-
spill-damage claims under the federal Oil Pollution Act can be
heard by a jury.

BP had moved to block a jury trial for the state, saying that
neither the Oil Pollution Act nor admiralty law provides the right
to a trial by jury.

U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier in New Orleans rejected the oil
giant's arguments in a ruling released late Monday.  Alabama
Attorney General Luther Strange hailed the ruling in a March 31
news release.  The civil cases arising from the 2010 spill have
been consolidated in New Orleans. But Strange hopes that when the
trial starts, as early as the spring of 2016, it will take place
in Alabama.

BP spokesman Geoff Morrell said the company is considering its
legal options.


BROOKDALE SENIOR: Parties to Seek Final Approval of Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brookdale Senior Living Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that parties have
agreed to use their collective best efforts to obtain final
approval of the settlement and the dismissal of the Emeritus Corp.
Shareholder Litigation with prejudice.

"In connection with our acquisition of Emeritus, three purported
class action lawsuits relating to the Agreement and Plan of
Merger, dated as of February 20, 2014 (the "Merger Agreement"), by
and among Brookdale Senior Living Inc., Emeritus and Broadway
Merger Sub Corporation ("Merger Sub"), were filed on behalf of
Emeritus shareholders in the Superior Court of King County,
Washington against Emeritus, members of the Emeritus board of
directors, Brookdale Senior Living Inc. and Merger Sub (the
"Defendants"), which lawsuits were subsequently consolidated into
a single action captioned In re Emeritus Corp. Shareholder
Litigation, No. 14-2-06385-7 SEA (the "Washington Action")," the
Company said.

"The complaints allege that the Emeritus board of directors
breached its fiduciary duties to Emeritus' shareholders by, among
other things, failing to maximize shareholder value in connection
with the merger or to engage in a fair sale process before
approving the merger and by failing to disclose all material
information concerning the merger to Emeritus' shareholders. The
three complaints also allege that Brookdale Senior Living Inc.,
Emeritus and Merger Sub aided and abetted Emeritus' board of
directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaints
seek, among other things, injunctive relief, including rescission
of the merger, and damages, including counsel fees and expenses.

"On June 26, 2014, the Defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "Memorandum of Understanding") with respect to
a proposed settlement of the Washington Action, pursuant to which
the parties agreed, among other things, that Brookdale Senior
Living Inc. and Emeritus would make certain supplemental
disclosures related to the proposed merger, which supplemental
disclosures were made by Brookdale Senior Living Inc. in a Current
Report on Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 27, 2014 and incorporated by reference into
Brookdale Senior Living Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4
and the joint proxy statement/prospectus of Brookdale Senior
Living Inc. and Emeritus included therein. The parties have agreed
to use their collective best efforts to obtain final approval of
the settlement and the dismissal of the Washington Action with
prejudice. The parties have finalized a stipulation of settlement,
which is subject to customary conditions, including final court
approval following notice to Emeritus' shareholders.

"As explained in the Memorandum of Understanding, if the
settlement is finally approved by the Washington court, the
parties anticipate that it will resolve and release all claims in
all actions pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to former
Emeritus shareholders prior to final approval of the settlement.
In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties
contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel in the Washington Action will
file a petition in the Washington court for an award of attorneys'
fees and expenses to be paid by Brookdale Senior Living Inc.
Brookdale Senior Living Inc. will pay or cause to be paid any
attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the Washington court.
There can be no assurance that the Washington court will approve
the settlement. In such event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the Memorandum of Understanding may be
terminated."


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: May 15 Return Date for Class Cert. Motion
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC said in
their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 25, 2015, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014, that the return date for the motion for class
certification is May 15, 2015 in the case, Marchese, et al. v.
Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC.

The Company is a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey by several present and former
Cablevision subscribers, purportedly on behalf of a class of iO
video subscribers in New Jersey, Connecticut and New York.  After
three versions of the complaint were dismissed without prejudice
by the District Court, plaintiffs filed their third amended
complaint on August 22, 2011, alleging that the Company violated
Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by allegedly tying the sale
of interactive services offered as part of iO television packages
to the rental and use of set-top boxes distributed by Cablevision,
and violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by allegedly
seeking to monopolize the distribution of Cablevision compatible
set-top boxes. Plaintiffs seek unspecified treble monetary
damages, attorney's fees, as well as injunctive and declaratory
relief.

On September 23, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
third amended complaint. On January 10, 2012, the District Court
issued a decision dismissing with prejudice the Section 2
monopolization claim, but allowing the Section 1 tying claim and
related state common law claims to proceed. Cablevision's answer
to the third amended complaint was filed on February 13, 2012.
Discovery is proceeding. On January 9, 2015, plaintiffs filed a
motion for class certification. The return date for the motion is
May 15, 2015.

The Company believes that these claims are without merit and
intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously, but is unable to
predict the outcome of the lawsuit or reasonably estimate a range
of possible loss.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Expert Discovery Proceeding in Consumer Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC said in
their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 25, 2015, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014, that expert discovery is proceeding in the case
In re Cablevision Consumer Litigation.

Following expiration of the affiliation agreements for carriage of
certain Fox broadcast stations and cable networks on October 16,
2010, News Corporation terminated delivery of the programming
feeds to the Company, and as a result, those stations and networks
were unavailable on the Company's cable television systems. On
October 30, 2010, the Company and Fox reached an agreement on new
affiliation agreements for these stations and networks, and
carriage was restored. Several purported class action lawsuits
were subsequently filed on behalf of the Company's customers
seeking recovery for the lack of Fox programming. Those lawsuits
were consolidated in an action before the U. S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York, and a consolidated complaint was
filed in that court on February 22, 2011. Plaintiffs asserted
claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and consumer
fraud, seeking unspecified compensatory damages, punitive damages
and attorneys' fees.

On March 28, 2012, the Court ruled on the Company's motion to
dismiss, denying the motion with regard to plaintiffs' breach of
contract claim, but granting it with regard to the remaining
claims, which were dismissed. On April 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed
a second consolidated amended complaint, which asserts a claim
only for breach of contract. The Company's answer was filed on May
2, 2012. On October 10, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification and on December 13, 2012, a motion for partial
summary judgment.

On March 31, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, and denied without prejudice plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment. On May 5, 2014, the Court directed that expert
discovery commence. Expert discovery is proceeding.

On May 30, 2014, the Court approved the form of class notice, and
on October 7, 2014, approved the class notice distribution plan.
The class notice distribution has been completed, and the opt-out
period expired on February 27, 2015.

The Company believes that this claim is without merit and intends
to defend these lawsuits vigorously, but is unable to predict the
outcome of these lawsuits or reasonably estimate a range of
possible loss.


CARRIAGE SERVICES: Group 1 Claimants' Relief to Be Administered
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carriage Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in the case,
Leathermon, et al. v. Grandview Memorial Gardens, Inc., et al.,
United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Case
No. 4:07-cv-137, Group 1 claimants have been identified by the
Court and all relief to which they are eligible will be
administered in the Spring of 2015.

On August 17, 2007, five plaintiffs filed a putative class action
against the current and past owners of Grandview Cemetery in
Madison, Indiana, including our subsidiaries that owned the
cemetery from January 1997 until February 2001, on behalf of all
individuals who purchased cemetery and burial goods and services
at Grandview Cemetery. Plaintiffs sought monetary damages and
claim that the cemetery owners performed burials negligently,
breached Plaintiffs' contracts and made misrepresentations
regarding the cemetery. The Plaintiffs also allege that the claims
occurred prior, during and after we owned the cemetery. On October
15, 2007, the case was removed from Jefferson County Circuit
Court, Indiana to the Southern District of Indiana.

On April 24, 2009, shortly before the Defendants had been
scheduled to file their briefs in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification, Plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint
to add new class representatives and claims, while also seeking to
abandon other claims. We, as well as several other Defendants,
opposed Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint and add
parties. In April 2009, two Defendants moved to disqualify
Plaintiffs' counsel from further representing Plaintiffs in this
action.

On June 30, 2010, the court granted Defendants' motion to
disqualify Plaintiffs' counsel. On May 6, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a
petition for writ of mandamus with the Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals seeking relief from the trial court's order of
disqualification of counsel. On May 19, 2010, the Defendants
responded to the petition of mandamus. On July 8, 2010, the
Seventh Circuit denied Plaintiffs' petition for writ of mandamus.
Thus, pursuant to the trial court's order, Plaintiffs were given
60 days from July 8, 2010 in which to retain new counsel to
prosecute this action on their behalf. Plaintiffs retained new
counsel and Plaintiffs' counsel moved for leave to amend both the
class representatives and the allegations stated within the
complaint.

Defendants filed oppositions to such amendments. The court issued
an order permitting the Plaintiffs to proceed with amending the
class representatives and a portion of their claims; however,
certain of Plaintiffs' claims have been dismissed.

The parties reached a proposed class settlement, and the court
granted its preliminary approval of such settlement by order dated
March 19, 2014. Notice of the class settlement was provided
pursuant to the Preliminary Order Approving Class Action
Settlement, and no settlement class members opted out of the class
nor objected to the terms of the settlement. The court issued its
final approval of the settlement on June 23, 2014. On or about
November 20, 2014, Group 1 claimants have been identified by the
Court and all relief to which they are eligible will be
administered in the Spring of 2015. Additionally, the parties are
administering the settlement in accordance with its terms.


CHARLES SCHWAB: Appeals Court Revives Bond Fund Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a U.S. appeals
court on March 9 revived a class-action lawsuit accusing a unit of
Charles Schwab Corp of mismanaging a bond index mutual fund.

By a 2-1 vote, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated
breach of contract and other claims by plaintiffs led by Northstar
Financial Advisors Inc.  Plaintiffs alleged that managers of the
Schwab Total Bond Market Fund failed to follow the fund's
fundamental investment objectives of trying to track a particular
index and not concentrating investments too heavily in one
industry.


CHRYSLER GROUP: Seeks Dismissal of Power Module Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
John Kennedy, writing for Law360, reports that lawyers for the
former Chrysler Group have asked a New York federal judge to
dismiss a proposed class action alleging the carmaker knew its
vehicles' power module was prone to failure within warranty
periods, arguing that no proof of these claims has been presented.

Twelve plaintiffs from 11 states contend FCA US LLC concealed
information, broke consumer protection laws and breached express
and implied warranties by building and selling vehicles with the
defective part, which powers all vehicle electrical systems.  The
plaintiffs claim the problem affects more than 20 models over the
2007-2014 model years.

In a memorandum filed on March 6, FCA's lawyers said the most
recent amended complaint suffers from a host of problems and
should be dismissed.

"While plaintiffs offer bare-bones recitations of the basic
elements of their claims, the amended complaint is completely
devoid of any allegations of fact to support them," the memorandum
says.  The complaint also doesn't say when or where any
misrepresentations were made, what was said, who said them, or how
they were conveyed, according to the motion.

FCA says none of the plaintiffs can explain how the power modules
are defective, but claim that they are "prone to sudden failure."
Despite their failure to describe the cause of a variety of
issues, the plaintiffs say vehicles owned by a nationwide class
"share a common defect."

The memorandum says that when the vehicles were originally sold,
they were covered by an express limited warranty that covers
defects in "material, workmanship or factory preparation" of
almost all parts for three years or 36,000 miles, whichever comes
first.

Of the seven plaintiffs who say they bought their vehicles used,
five don't specify the mileage at the time of purchase, so it's
unclear if they even received a warranty.  Another says her
vehicle had been driven about 90,000 miles when she bought it.
None claims a power module repair was made within the limits of
the warranty, FCA says.

Courts have uniformly rejected attempts to use a manufacturer's
knowledge of when a part will fail to support breach of warranty
claims for repairs made outside the warranty period, FCA argues.
Manufacturers typically know the effective life of their parts and
can usually be said to know many will fail after the warranty has
expired, the memorandum says.

Because eight plaintiffs bought used vehicles, it's not reasonable
to assume FCA even knew they were buying the cars, much less had
any duty to disclose any part that might fail, the memorandum
says.

The original complaint was filed in November and FCA moved to have
it dismissed in January.  The motion was denied and the first
amended complaint was filed on Feb. 13. The most recent amended
complaint was filed on Feb. 20.

FCA is represented by Carl J. Schaerf -- cschaerf@schnader.com --
of Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP and Kathy A. Wisniewski --
kwisniewski@thompsoncoburn.com -- John W. Rogers and Stephen A.
D'Aunoy -- sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com -- of Thompson Coburn LLP.

The plaintiffs are represented by Curt D. Marshall, Robin L.
Greenwald and Christopher B. Dalbey of Weitz & Luxenberg PC, and
Roland Tellis and David Fernandes of Baron & Budd PC.

The case is Garcia et al. v. Chrysler Group LLC, case number 1:14-
cv-08926, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.


CIMAREX ENERGY: Settlement Administration Ongoing in Hitch Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cimarex Energy Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that administration of the
settlement is ongoing in the case, Hitch Enterprises, Inc. et al.
v. Cimarex Energy Co.

On December 11, 2012, Cimarex entered into a preliminary
resolution of the Hitch Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. Cimarex
Energy Co., et al.  (Hitch) litigation matter for $16.4 million.
Hitch is a statewide royalty class action pending in the Federal
District Court in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The settlement was
reached at a mediation, which occurred after the parties began to
exchange information, including damage analyses, on November 16,
2012. On July 2, 2013, the Court entered a judgment approving the
parties' settlement. The judgment became final and unappealable on
August 2, 2013. Cimarex distributed the settlement proceeds
pursuant to the Court's order in September 2013 and the
administration of the settlement is ongoing.

"In the fourth quarter of 2012, we accrued $16.4 million for this
matter," the Company said.


COMMUNICATION INFRASTRUCTURE: Fails to Pay Workers OT, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Manno, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees
v. Communication Infrastructure Corp., Case No. 2:15-cv-00363
(W.D. Pa., March 18, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Communication Infrastructure Corp. provides infrastructure
engineering and development services to wireless operators,
utilities, internet service providers, governments, and other
clients throughout North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph H. Chivers, Esq.
      EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS GROUP
      100 First Avenue, Suite 1010
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Telephone: (412) 227-0763
      E-mail: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com

         - and -

      John R. Linkosky, Esq.
      JOHN LINKOSKY & ASSOCIATES
      715 Washington Avenue
      Carnegie, PA 15106
      Telephone: (412) 278-1280
      Facsimile: (412) 278-1282
      E-mail: linklaw@comcast.net


COMMUNITY HEALTH: No Trial Date Set in Federal Securities Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that no trial date
has been set in the shareholder federal securities cases.

Three purported class action cases have been filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee;
namely, Norfolk County Retirement System v. Community Health
Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 9, 2011; De Zheng v. Community
Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 12, 2011; and Minneapolis
Firefighters Relief Association v. Community Health Systems, Inc.,
et al., filed June 21, 2011.

"All three seek class certification on behalf of purchasers of our
common stock between July 27, 2006 and April 11, 2011 and allege
that misleading statements resulted in artificially inflated
prices for our common stock," the Company said.

In December 2011, the cases were consolidated for pretrial
purposes and NYC Funds and its counsel were selected as lead
plaintiffs/lead plaintiffs' counsel.

"Our motion to dismiss this case has been fully briefed and
remains pending before the court. An initial case management order
was entered January 30, 2015, but no trial date has been set. We
believe this consolidated matter is without merit and will
vigorously defend this case," the Company said.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Judicial Panel Ordered Transfer of Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the
transfer of purported class actions pending outside of the
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama to the
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

"Our computer network was the target of an external, criminal
cyber attack that we believe occurred in April and June, 2014,"
the Company said. "We and Mandiant (a FireEye Company), the
forensic expert engaged by us in connection with this matter,
believe the attacker was a foreign "Advanced Persistent Threat"
group who used highly sophisticated malware and technology to
attack our systems. The attacker was able to bypass our security
measures and successfully copy and transfer outside the Company
certain non-medical patient identification data (such as patient
names, addresses, birthdates, telephone numbers and social
security numbers), but not including patient credit card, medical
or clinical information. We continue to work closely with federal
law enforcement authorities in connection with their investigation
and possible prosecution of those determined to be responsible for
this attack. Mandiant has conducted a thorough investigation of
this incident and continues to advise the Company regarding
remediation efforts. We are providing appropriate notification to
affected patients and regulatory agencies as required by federal
and state law. We are offering identity theft protection services
to individuals affected by this attack."

"We have incurred certain expenses to remediate and investigate
this matter, and expect to continue to incur expenses of this
nature in the foreseeable future. In addition, multiple purported
class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company (Denise
B. Alverson, v. Community Health Systems, Inc., Community Health
Systems Professional Services Corporation, Riverview Regional
Medical Center, LLC, Gadsden Regional Medical Center, LLC, Foley
Hospital Corporation and Anniston HMA, LLC, (USDC, N.D., AL); Mary
Martin Glah and Charles William Stonestreet, et al. v. Community
Health Systems, Inc., Community Health Systems Professional
Services Corporation, et al., (USDC, S.D. WV); Roman v. Community
Health Systems, Inc. and Community Health Systems Professional
Services Corporation, (USDC, M.D. PA); Braquelle Lawson, et al. v.
Community Health Systems, Inc., Community Health Systems
Professional Services Corporation, River Oaks Hospital, LLC,
Vicksburg Healthcare, LLC D/B/A River Region Health System,
Brandon HMA, LLC D/B/A Crossgates River Oaks Hospital, LLC,
Madison HMA, LLC D/B/A Madison River Oaks Hospital, Central
Mississippi Medical Center, and Natchez Community Hospital, LLC,
(USDC, S.D. MS); Briana Brito v. Community Health Systems, Inc.,
Community Health Systems Professional Services Corporation, Alta
Vista Regional Hospital, Carlsbad Medical Center, Eastern NM Med
Center, Mimbres Memorial Hospital, Mountainview Regional Medical
Center, Lea Regional Medical Center, (NM State Court, 4th Jud.
Dist. San Miguel County NM); Lisa Maes v. Community Health Systems
Professional Services Corporation, et al. (USDC, D. NM); Ashley
Veclana v. Community Health Systems, Inc. et al. (USDC, M.D. FL);
Jeremy L. Murphy v. Community Health Systems, Inc. et al. (USDC,
M.D. TN); William Lutz v. Community Health Systems, Inc. (USDC,
E.D. PA); Patricia McNutt, et al v. Community Health Systems,
Inc., et al. No. 4:15-CV-00221 (N.D. AL);Sterling C. Barr, et al.
v. Community Health Systems, Inc., et al. No. 2:15-cv-00215 (N.D.
AL)).

These lawsuits allege that sensitive information was unprotected
and inadequately encrypted by the Company. The plaintiffs claim
breach of contract and other theories of recovery, and are seeking
damages, as well as restitution for any identity theft.

On February 4, 2015, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ordered the transfer of the purported
class actions pending outside of the District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama to the District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings.

"At this time, we are unable to predict the outcome of this
litigation or determine the potential impact, if any, that could
result from this litigation, but we intend to vigorously defend
these lawsuits. This matter may subject the Company to additional
litigation, potential governmental inquiries, potential
reputational damage, and additional remediation, operating and
other expenses," the Company said.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Oral Argument Held in Appeal in Suit v. HMA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that oral argument
was heard on February 6, 2015, in the appeal by plaintiffs in the
class action against Health Management Associates, Inc.

On April 30, 2012, two class action lawsuits that were brought
against Health Management Associates, Inc., or HMA, and certain of
its then executive officers, one of whom was at that time also a
director, were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida under the caption In Re: Health
Management Associates, Inc., et al. and three pension fund
plaintiffs were appointed as lead plaintiffs. On July 30, 2012,
the lead plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint
purportedly on behalf of stockholders who purchased HMA's common
stock during the period from July 27, 2009, through January 9,
2012.

The amended consolidated complaint (i) alleges that HMA made false
and misleading statements in certain public disclosures regarding
its business and financial results and (ii) asserts claims for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended. Among other things, the plaintiffs claim
that HMA inflated its earnings by engaging in fraudulent Medicare
billing practices that entailed admitting patients to observation
status when they should not have been admitted at all and to
inpatient status when they should have been admitted to
observation status. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary
damages.

On October 22, 2012, the defendants moved to dismiss the
plaintiffs' amended consolidated complaint for failure to state a
claim or plead facts required by the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act. The plaintiffs filed an unopposed stipulation and
proposed order to suspend briefing on the defendants' motion to
dismiss because they intended to seek leave of court to file a
proposed second amended consolidated complaint.

On December 15, 2012, the court entered an order approving the
stipulation and providing a schedule for briefing with respect to
the proposed amended pleadings. On February 25, 2013, the
plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint, which
asserted substantially the same claims as the amended consolidated
complaint.

As of August 15, 2013, the defendants' motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint for failure to state a claim and plead
facts required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act was
fully briefed and awaiting the Court's decision. On May 22, 2014,
the court granted the motion to dismiss and on June 20, 2014 the
plaintiffs appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, where oral argument
was heard on February 6, 2015.

"We intend to vigorously defend against the allegations in this
lawsuit. We are unable to predict the outcome or determine the
potential impact, if any, that could result from its final
resolution," the Company said.


COMMUNITY PHYSICAL: Faces "Girolamo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Girolamo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Community Physical Therapy & Associates, Ltd. and
Robert Tripicchio, Case No. 1:15-cv-02361 (N.D. Ill., March 18,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for all time worked in excess of 40 hours in a
week.

Community Physical Therapy & Associates, Ltd. is an Illinois
Corporation that provides physical, occupational, speech and
respiratory therapy in the skilled nursing, home health and
outpatient settings.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sarmistha Banerjee, Esq.
      David J. Fish, Esq.
      THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
      200 E 5th Ave Suite 123
      Naperville, IL 60563
      Telephone: (630) 355-7590
      E-mail: buri@fishlawfirm.com
              dfish@fishlawfirm.com


COOPER VISION: Faces "Denton" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Debra Denton, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Cooper Vision, Inc., Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Bausch
+ Lomb, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., ABB Optical Group,
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Costco Wholesale Corporation, 1-800-
Contacts.Com, Lensdiscounters.Com, Case No. 3:15-cv-00117 (E.D.
Tenn., March 19, 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:

      Chris T. Cain, Esq.
      SCOTT & CAIN
      550 West Main Street, Suite 601
      Knoxville, TN 37902
      Telephone: (865) 525-2150
      Facsimile: (865) 525-2120
      E-mail: cain@scottandcain.com

         - and -

      W. Allen McDonald, Esq.
      LACY, PRICE & WAGNER, P.C.
      249 North Peters Road, Suite 101
      Knoxville, TN 37923
      Telephone: (865) 246-0800
      Facsimile: (865) 690-8199
      E-mail: amcdonald@lpwpc.com


COOPER VISION: Faces "Watson Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brett Watson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Cooper Vision, Inc., Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Bausch
+ Lomb, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., and ABB Optical
Group, Case No. 3:15-cv-01276 (N.D. Cal., March 18, 2015), alleges
that the Defendants entered into a conspiracy to impose minimum
resale prices on certain contact lens lines by subjecting them to
so called Unilateral Pricing Policies (UPPs) and eliminate price
competition on those products by big box stores, buying clubs, and
internet-based retailers that prevent them from discounting those
products.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
      Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
      Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      44 Montgomery St., Suite 3400
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 217-6810
      Facsimile: (415) 217-6813
      E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com
              bsweeney@hausfeldllp.com
              clebsock@hausfeldllp.com

         - and -

      Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq.
      LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
      1521 Locust Street - 7th Floor
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Telephone: 267-519-8306
      Facsimile: 215-569-0958
      E-mail: sgreenfogel@litedepalma.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


COOPER VISION: Faces "Dedivanaj" Suit Over Resale Price of Lens
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marilyn Marlene Dedivanaj, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Cooper Vision Inc., Alcon Laboratories,
Inc., Bausch + Lomb, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., and ABB
Optical Group, Case No. 3:15-cv-01281 (N.D. Cal., March 19, 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:

      David E. Azar, Esq.
      MILBERG LLP
      One 300 South Grand, Suite 3900
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 617-1200
      Facsimile: (213) 617-1975
      E-mail: dazar@milberg.com

         - and -

      Paul F. Novak, Esq.
      Diana Gjonaj, Esq.
      MILBERG LLP
      One Kennedy Square
      777 Woodward Ave., Ste. 890
      Detroit, MI 48226
      Telephone: (313) 309-1760
      E-mail: pnovak@milberg.com
              dgjonaj@milberg.com

         - and -

      Peggy Wedgworth, Esq.
      MILBERG LLP
      One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
      New York, NY 10119
      Telephone: (212) 594-5300
      E-mail: pwedgworth@milberg.com


COOPER VISION: Deadline to Respond to Class Actions Continued
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pending before the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation
(JPML) in In re: Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litigation, MDL
No. 2626 are motions to transfer these class actions, along with
other related actions filed in other districts, to a single
district for coordination or consolidation: JOHN MACHIKAWA, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. COOPER VISION, INC., et al., Defendants.
RACHEL MILLER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ALCON LABORATORIES, INC., et
al., Defendants. SUNEETA D. FERNANDES, Plaintiff, v. ALCON
LABORATORIES, INC., et al., Defendants. STEPHEN MANGUM, Plaintiff,
v. COOPERVISION, INC., et al., Defendants. KIMBERLY MARTIN,
Plaintiff, v. ALCON LABORATORIES, INC., et al., Defendants. SUSAN
G. GORDON, Plaintiff, v. COOPER VISION, INC., et al., Defendants.
MATTHEW J. CARDAMONE, Plaintiff, v. ALCON LABORATORIES, INC., et
al., Defendants. GLORIA GOLDBLATT, Plaintiff, v. ALCON
LABORATORIES, INC., et al., Defendants. SERGE PENTSAK, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. ALCON LABORATORIES, INC., et al., Defendants.
JULIANA BRODSKY, Plaintiff, v. COOPER VISION, INC., et al.,
Defendants. DUSTY PRICE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ALCON
LABORATORIES, INC., et al., Defendants. BENJAMIN W. HEWITT, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. ALCON LABORATORIES, INC., et al., Defendants,
CASE NOS. 15-CV-01001-HSG, 15-CV-01028-HSG, 15-CV-01045-HSG, 15-
CV-01064-HSG, 15-CV-01090-HSG, 15-CV-01092-HSG, 15-CV-01093-HSG,
15-CV-01095-HSG, 15-CV-01097-HSG, 15-CV-01123-HSG, 15-CV-01124-
HSG, 15-CV-01196-HSG, (N.D. Cal.).

According to District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., in his order
entered March 31, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/zoStcAfrom Leagle.com, the deadlines for Defendants
to answer or otherwise respond to the complaints filed in these
class actions are continued pending resolution of MDL No. 2626.
Discovery will also be stayed pending resolution of MDL No. 2626.
However, if Defendants are required to answer or otherwise respond
to another complaint in a related class action before then,
Defendants will answer or otherwise respond to the complaints in
the above-captioned class actions at the same time. Furthermore,
if any Defendant responds to any discovery requests or makes any
initial disclosures in a related class action, that Defendant will
simultaneously provide the same responses and/or disclosures to
any Plaintiff in any one of the class actions involving that
Defendant.

Benjamin W. Hewitt, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Cheryl
Pritzker -- ecp@pritzker-law.com -- Pritzker Levine LLP, Bethany
Caracuzzo -- bc@pritzkerlevine.com -- Pritzker Levine LLP,
Elizabeth Tran, Cotchett --etran@cpmlegal.com -- Pitre and
McCarthy, Jonathan Krasne Levine -- jkl@pritzkerlevine.com --
PRITZKER LEVINE LLP, Joseph W. Cotchett --jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
-- Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP, Joyce Chang --
jchang@cpmlegal.com -- Cotchett Pitre McCarthy LLP, Shiho Yamamoto
-- sy@pritzkerlevine.com -- Pritzker Levine LLP & Steven Noel
Williams -- swilliams@cpmlegal.com  -- Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy
LLP.

Gabrielle Pavelko, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Cheryl
Pritzker, Pritzker Levine LLP, Bethany Caracuzzo, Pritzker Levine
LLP, Elizabeth Tran, Cotchett, Pitre and McCarthy, Jonathan Krasne
Levine, PRITZKER LEVINE LLP, Joseph W. Cotchett, Cotchett Pitre &
McCarthy LLP, Joyce Chang, Cotchett Pitre McCarthy LLP, Shiho
Yamamoto, Pritzker Levine LLP & Steven Noel Williams, Cotchett
Pitre & McCarthy LLP.

John Weissman, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Cheryl Pritzker,
Pritzker Levine LLP, Bethany Caracuzzo, Pritzker Levine LLP,
Elizabeth Tran, Cotchett, Pitre and McCarthy, Jonathan Krasne
Levine, PRITZKER LEVINE LLP, Joseph W. Cotchett, Cotchett Pitre &
McCarthy LLP, Joyce Chang, Cotchett Pitre McCarthy LLP, Shiho
Yamamoto, Pritzker Levine LLP & Steven Noel Williams, Cotchett
Pitre & McCarthy LLP.


CORRECTIONS CORPORATION: Court Certified Class in Suit v. DHS
-------------------------------------------------------------
Corrections Corporation of America said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in January
2015, a class action lawsuit was filed in federal district court
for the District of Columbia against the Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") and certain U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE officials. The
complaint sought to certify a class of plaintiffs, consisting of
Central American mothers and children who (i) have been or will be
detained in ICE family detention facilities since June 2014, (ii)
have been or will be determined to have a credible fear of
persecution in their home country under federal asylum laws and
(iii) are eligible for release on bond pursuant to certain federal
statutes but have been or will be denied such release after being
subject to an ICE custody determination that took deterrence of
mass migration into account.

In February 2015, the court certified the class and granted the
plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining DHS
from detaining class members for the purpose of deterring future
immigration to the United States and from considering deterrence
of such immigration as a factor in such custody determinations
until a final determination has been reached on the merits of the
action.

CCA has not received any instruction from ICE on what action they
intend to take in response to the court order, or how and whether
it will affect CCA's contract at the South Texas Family
Residential Center. Any adverse decision with regard to this
contract could materially affect CCA's financial condition and
results of operations.


COSCO HOME: Recalls 3-in-1 Convertible Aluminum Hand Trucks
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 31, 2015
Posting date: March 31, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Miscellaneous
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-52689

This recall involves Cosco Home & Office Products 3-in-1
convertible aluminum hand trucks that convert into a cart, two-
wheeled dolly and 45 degree assisted position. The handles can be
moved to allow the hand truck to be used in a vertical or
horizontal position.

Recalled hand trucks have model number 0212301ABL1C and were
manufactured from April 1, 2010 to September 30, 2011. The model
number and manufacturing date are on the Cosco label on the rear
side of the bottom cross member.

When the tires are overinflated, they can cause the wheel hub to
separate or break, ejecting pieces of the hub. This poses a risk
of injury to consumers.

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

Cosco has received 10 reports of incidents in the United States of
wheel hubs separating or breaking and ejecting pieces including
four reports of bruises and lacerations.

Approximately 24,100 of the recalled products were sold in Canada.

The recalled hand trucks were sold from April 1, 2010 to September
30, 2011 at Canadian Tire stores.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Ntico (New-Tec)
              Xiamen
              CHINA

Distributor: Cosco Home & Office Products
             Columbus
             Indiana
             UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled hand trucks
and contact Cosco for a free repair kit.

For more information, consumers can contact Cosco Home & Office
Products toll-free at 1-888-250-9299 between 8:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. EST Monday through Friday, email or visit Cosco's website and
click on Safety Notice on the right side of the page for more
information.

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

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/yZ0fd1


CVS PHARMACY: "Ceja-Corona" Settlement Hearing Moved to July 22
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone has ruled that the hearing on
the motion for final approval of the class action settlement in
the lawsuit LETICIA CEJA-CORONA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CVS
PHARMACY, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 1:12-CV-01868-AWI-SAB
(E.D. Cal.), is continued from May 6, 2015, to July 22, 2015 at
10:00 a.m.

The motion for final approval of the class action settlement
should be filed on or before June 22, 2015, the judge further
ordered.

The judge entered the order upon the stipulation of the parties.

A copy of Judge Boone's Order dated March 23, 2015 is available at
http://is.gd/0IYiHvfrom Leagle.com.

As reported in the March 11, 2015 edition of the Class Action
Reporter, Plaintiffs Leticia Ceja-Corona and Margarita Rubio
Armenta, employees of CVS Pharmacy, Inc., raised six causes of
action in their complaint: (1) for failure to pay minimum wages
and overtime, (2) for failure to provide reporting time pay, (3)
for failing to provide accurate earnings statements, (4) for
failure to timely pay wages upon termination, (5) for unfair
competition under California Business & Professions Code Section
17200, and (6) for failure to pay wages and overtime for off-the-
clock work, and (7) for penalties under California's Private
Attorney's General Act, California Labor Code Section 2699.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Defendant agrees to
pay $900,000 in cash to resolve the claims of any class members
who do not timely and validly opt out. The parties seek to approve
two classes for purposes of settlement. The first class, is the
California Claims Class and the second class, is the PAGA Claims
Class. The parties report that the California Claims Class
consists of 2,270 people and the PAGA Claims Class consists of
1,759 people.

DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. DAVID H. YEREMIAN, HUGO E.
GAMEZ, Glendale, California Attorneys for Plaintiffs LETICIA CEJA-
CORONA, and MARGARITA RUBIO ARMENTA on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated.

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., Jody Landry, Attorneys for Defendant CVS
Pharmacy, Inc.


DAIMLER TRUCKS: Recalls Multiple Western Star Models
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 25, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Accessories
Units affected: 1403
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015133TC
ID number: 2015133
Manufacturer recall number: FL-680

On certain vehicles, the handheld Kidde plastic valve disposable
fire extinguisher may not function as designed. In certain
instances, the extinguisher may fail to fully discharge when the
lever is pressed multiple times. In case of fire, failure of the
extinguisher to function could result in injury and/or property
damage. Correction: A replacement extinguisher will be provided by
dealers or Kidde directly.

   Make           Model      Model year(s) affected
   ----           -----      ----------------------
   WESTERN STAR   4900       2014, 2015, 2014, 2015
   WESTERN STAR   6900       2014, 2015
   WESTERN STAR   4700       2014, 2015


DETROIT LIONS: Faces Class Action Over Ticket Reselling Rights
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tresa Baldas, writing for Detroit Free Press, reports that some
disgruntled Lions fans are headed to federal court -- though their
beef doesn't involve Ndamukong Suh's departure or the team's
trying track record.

It's about ticket resellers getting fined for hustling their
tickets on the street, even though the practice is legal.

In a class action filed in U.S. District Court on March 9, five
Detroit Lions ticket holders allege that Detroit police are
unlawfully ticketing resellers, even though a federal judge struck
down the city's so-called anti-scalping law in 2006.

Under state law, it's still illegal to resell tickets for over
face value -- which is known as scalping.  But it's not illegal
for people to hustle sporting event tickets in Detroit for less
than face value, under a 2006 court ruling.

Among the plaintiffs is Southfield attorney Neal Brand, who argues
Detroit police are ignoring the court ruling and forcing unwitting
ticket sellers who aren't familiar with the law into paying fines
for something that's legal.

"There's this squad of police officers out there trying to harass
people who try to resell tickets," said Brand, who believes his
class action could eventually include up to 150 plaintiffs.
"There are many, many people who have pled guilty to this . . .
It's a shakedown or a cash grab. How hard is it to find two
ticketholders waving tickets in the air?"

The law is clear, Mr. Brand said: "You can't get into trouble for
selling tickets under face value."

City of Detroit spokesperson John Roach said the city's attorneys
are still reviewing the complaint.  At this point, he said, the
city has no comment, but will file an official response to the
lawsuit in court later.

According to the lawsuit, Detroit police are citing Lions ticket
resellers in a roundabout way.  They're using trickery, the
lawsuit states, by issuing citations to ticket resellers for not
having a vendors license.

Mr. Brand, an attorney who has handled other civil rights matters,
said he caught on after he was issued a citation for reselling
Lions tickets last fall.  According to the lawsuit, Mr. Brand was
"abruptly" detained and ticketed by a police officer while he and
a friend were trying to sell extra tickets to a Dec. 14 Lions game
near 36th District Court. The officer took their photos with an
iPad and told them to leave the corner, the lawsuit states.

When Mr. Brand tried telling the officer that they weren't doing
anything illegal and that a court ruling supported them, the
officer replied: "Take it up with a judge or someone else that may
care."

Mr. Brand took it to court, arguing Detroit police are unlawfully
using a law that doesn't apply to ticket resellers, only to
vendors without a license.

"In America, you can't just use any law you want or else you could
arrest anyone for anything and use inapplicable laws," Mr. Brand
said.  "When a federal district judge says that it's lawful to
sell tickets for face value or less, you can't turn around and
(issue a ticket for it), that's a trampling of your rights."

Two other plaintiffs are Thomas Crase and Candice Walters -- a
father and daughter from Utah who had to fly back to Detroit in
January to fight a ticket they had received outside Ford Field
during a Dec. 7 game.

The Utah plaintiffs never sold their game tickets, but were
ticketed because "police unreasonably suspected that they may sell
them," the lawsuit states.  In the end, the father and daughter
ended up paying a $220 fine and a few thousand dollars in travel
costs to resolve the issue, he said.

In 2006, a federal judge declared Detroit's law banning the resale
of tickets at or below face value in front of an event's venue as
unconstitutional. While the city argued the ordinance was
necessary, the judge said the city had "no explanation" for how
the law helped alleviate traffic safety and security issues.

Mr. Brand said it's time the city abide by the ruling.

"The city of Detroit has been issuing these tickets to these
people who don't have the financial means to fight back,"
Mr. Brand said.  "Now they got someone who is going to help them
fight back."


DIRECTV: California Action Related to AT&T Merger Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
DIRECTV said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that the California action related to the
proposed DIRECTV and AT&T merger has been voluntarily dismissed by
plaintiff effective February 9, 2015.

Beginning on May 21, 2014, and following the May 18, 2014
announcement that DIRECTV had entered into a definitive agreement
to combine with AT&T Inc., several shareholder putative class
action lawsuits were filed, six in Delaware Chancery Court, or the
Delaware Actions, and one in California Superior Court, or the
California Action, against DIRECTV, its directors and AT&T Inc.,
alleging breach of fiduciary duties in connection with the
proposed transaction. The complaints generally and collectively
asserted that defendants failed to maximize the value of DIRECTV,
and sought to enjoin the proposed transaction as well as
unspecified damages, costs and fees.

An Order consolidating the Delaware Actions and appointing Lead
Plaintiff and Lead Counsel was entered on July 21, 2014 and
discovery in the Delaware Actions was stayed pending the filing of
a Consolidated Complaint. Subsequently, Lead Counsel in the
Delaware Actions filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the
Delaware Actions against all defendants and that motion was
granted by order entered by the Chancery Court on October 28,
2014. The California Action subsequently has been voluntarily
dismissed by plaintiff effective February 9, 2015.


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Court Dismissed Collective Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discover Financial Services said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court has
found the parties' settlement in a collective action lawsuit was
fair and reasonable, and entered an order dismissing the case with
prejudice.

On September 3, 2014, a collective action lawsuit was filed
against the Company by a former employee in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Pawel Holda, et al.
v. Discover Financial Services). The plaintiff alleges that the
Company misclassified employees as being exempt from the Fair
Labor Standards Act. The plaintiff seeks to recover overtime pay
on behalf of himself and other allegedly similarly situated
employees together with penalties, interest and attorney's fees.
The Company will seek to vigorously defend against the claims
asserted in this matter. On January 6, 2015, the parties entered
into a confidential settlement and release agreement for
resolution of this matter. On January 12, 2015, the court found
that the parties' settlement was fair and reasonable, and entered
an order dismissing the case with prejudice.


DOMINICK'S FINER: Former Managers Set to Get Overtime Back Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Ellen Podmolik, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that a
group of 104 former managers of Dominick's Finer Foods was set
to begin receiving back pay for overtime worked at the closed
grocery chain, as a result of a federal class action lawsuit
settled in February.

Together, the group will receive $1.25 million.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Chicago in February 2014,
alleged that Dominick's, owned by Safeway, violated the federal
Fair Labor Standards Act and Illinois minimum wage laws by failing
to pay managers overtime. Dominick's closed its local stores in
late 2013.

Under the settlement, in addition to back pay, the two former
managers who brought the suit, Janice Balonek and Jana Bready,
will receive $10,000 each as a service award to be paid from the
settlement amount.  Another group of 22 managers will receive
service awards of $1,500 each.  The settlement also includes
$4,500 related to the employees' attorneys fees and related costs.

The $1.7 million settlement was approved Feb. 12 by U.S. District
Judge James Holderman.


DYNEGY INC: 2nd Cir. Has No Decision Yet on Class Action Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dynegy Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that no decision has been issued by the
Second Circuit on the District Court order granting defendants'
motion to dismiss plaintiff's remaining claims by any opt-out
plaintiffs against the non-debtor defendants.

In connection with the prepetition restructuring and corporate
reorganization of the DH Debtor Entities and their non-debtor
affiliates in 2011 (the "2011 Prepetition Restructuring"), and
specifically the transfer of Dynegy Midwest Generation, LLC
("DMG"), a putative class action stockholder lawsuit captioned
Charles Silsby v. Carl C. Icahn, et al., Case No. 12CIV2307 (the
"Securities Litigation"), was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit challenged certain
disclosures made in connection with the transfer of DMG. As a
result of the filing of the voluntary petition for bankruptcy by
Dynegy Inc., this lawsuit was stayed as against Dynegy Inc. and,
as a result of the confirmation of the Joint Chapter 11 Plan (the
"Plan"), the claims against Dynegy Inc. in the Securities
Litigation are permanently enjoined.

On August 24, 2012, the lead plaintiff in the Securities
Litigation filed an objection to the confirmation of the Plan
asserting, among other things, that lead plaintiff should be
permitted to opt-out of the non-debtor releases and injunctions
(the "Non-Debtor Releases") in the Plan on behalf of all putative
class members. We opposed that relief. On October 1, 2012, the
Bankruptcy Court ruled that lead plaintiff did not have standing
to object to the Plan and did not have authority to opt-out of the
Non-Debtor Releases on behalf of any other party-in-interest.
Accordingly, the Securities Litigation may only proceed against
the non-debtor defendants with respect to members of the putative
class who individually opted out of the Non-Debtor Releases. The
lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on October 10, 2012. On
June 4, 2013, the District Court dismissed the appeal. On October
31, 2014, the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's
dismissal based upon the lead plaintiff's lack of standing. The
lead plaintiff did not appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Additionally, on July 19, 2013, the defendants filed a substantive
motion to dismiss the plaintiff's remaining claims by any opt-out
plaintiffs against the non-debtor defendants. On April 30, 2014,
the District Court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed
the action.  Plaintiff is appealing this decision to the Second
Circuit, but no decision has been issued.


DYNEGY INC: Supreme Court Debate Held in Gas Index Pricing Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dynegy Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that U.S. Supreme Court held oral
arguments on January 12, 2015, in the Gas Index Pricing
Litigation.

"We, several of our affiliates, our former joint venture affiliate
and other energy companies were named as defendants in numerous
lawsuits in state and federal court claiming damages resulting
from alleged price manipulation and false reporting of natural gas
prices to various index publications in the 2000-2002 time frame.
Many of the cases have been resolved. All of the remaining cases
contain similar claims that we individually, and in conjunction
with other energy companies, engaged in an illegal scheme to
inflate natural gas prices in four states by providing false
information to natural gas index publications," the Company said.

In July 2011, the court granted defendants' motions for summary
judgment, thereby dismissing all of plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs
appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit which reversed the summary judgment on April 10, 2013.

"On August 26, 2013, we and the other defendants filed a request
for review with the U.S. Supreme Court. On July 1, 2014, the
Supreme Court accepted review and held oral arguments on January
12, 2015," the Company said.


EUROPEAN FINE: Recalls Barley Soup Products Due to Milk
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 26, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type:  Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: European Fine Foods
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9745

  Brand name   Common name   Size    Code(s)      UPC
  ----------   -----------   ----    on product   ---
                                     ----------
  Adamba       Polish Style  2.5 oz  All codes    0 76841 05006 1
               Krupnik               where milk
               Mushroom with         is not
               Barley Soup           declared on
                                     the label


FCA US: Faces "Hasset" Suit in E.D. Mich. Over Defective TPMS
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Hassett and Edward Lennon v. FCA US, LLC and Schrader-
Bridgeport International, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-11030 (E.D.
Mich., March 19, 2015), arises out of the defective tire pressure
monitoring systems (TPMS) in Chrysler's vehicles.

FCA US, LLC is a Delaware limited-liability corporation that
manufactures automobiles and automobile components.

Bridgeport International, Inc. is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Colorado that manufactures automobile components.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Erik L. Walter, Esq.
       Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
       Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq.
       Frank A. Bartela, Esq.
       DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A.
       60 South Park Place
       Painesville, OH 44077
       Telephone: (440) 352-3391
       Facsimile: (440) 352-3469
       E-mail: ewalter@dworkenlaw.com
               pperotti@dworkenlaw.com
               nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com
               fbartela@dworkenlaw.com

          - and -

       Tom Robenhalt, Esq.
       THE ROBENALT LAW FIRM, INC.
       19702 Center Ridge Rd.
       Rocky River, OH 44116
       Telephone: (216) 223-7535
       E-mail: trobenalt@robenaltlaw.com


FERGUSSON, MO: Judge Brockmeyer Steps Down Amid Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Swaine, writing for The Guardian, reports that a judge in
Ferguson, Missouri, who is accused of running a modern-day
debtors' prison while fixing traffic tickets for himself and owing
$170,000 in unpaid taxes, resigned on March 9 as state authorities
seized control of the city's court system.

Ronald J Brockmeyer stepped down as Ferguson's municipal court
judge after Missouri's Supreme Court ordered that all the court's
cases be transferred to the St Louis County circuit court,
according to a source who was not authorized to speak publicly
about the decision.

Under the same ruling, Judge Roy L Richter of the Missouri court
of appeals will be assigned to the county's circuit court, where
he will hear all of Ferguson's municipal court cases "to help
restore public trust and confidence" in the system.

"Judge Richter will bring a fresh, disinterested perspective to
this court's practices and he is able and willing to implement
needed reforms," Missouri's chief justice, Mary R Russell, said in
a statement that described the move as an "extraordinary action"
taken under article five of the Missouri constitution.

A scathing report by the Department of Justice concluded that
Ferguson's police and court system was blighted by racial bias.
Investigators accused Judge Brockmeyer and his court officials of
aggressively using the municipal court to raise revenue for the
city.  The policy is blamed by many for damaging relations between
the city's overwhelmingly white authorities and residents, two-
thirds of whom are African American.

Judge Brockmeyer, 70, was singled out by investigators as a
driving force behind Ferguson's strategy of using its municipal
court to generate revenues aggressively.  Investigators found that
Judge Brockmeyer had boasted of creating a range of new court
fines, "many of which are widely considered abusive and may be
unlawful".

Ferguson is accused in a class-action federal lawsuit, brought by
public defenders and legal non-profits, of imprisoning
impoverished residents in the city jail for being unable to pay
fines of a few hundred dollars for minor offences.  While jailing
residents, Judge Brockmeyer owes more than $172,000 in unpaid
taxes to the US government, the Guardian disclosed.  A staff
member at Judge Brockmeyer's law offices in St Charles County did
not return a call seeking comment.

A press release accompanying Justice Russell's order said that all
pending and future cases that were to be heard by Ferguson's
municipal court would instead be heard by Judge Richter at the
circuit court from March 16 until further notice.  A court
spokeswoman could not confirm how cases would proceed.

The decision was welcomed cautiously by Alec Karakatsanis, the co-
founder of Equal Justice Under Law, one of the legal non-profits
that is suing the city.  "The problems we are dealing with are
endemic to our legal system and not isolated to the small
municipality of Ferguson," said Mr. Karakatsanis. "I hope this
serves as a first small step toward confronting the horrors that
we visit everyday on poor people of colour in the legal system and
not as any kind of attempted solution.

Justice Russell said that staff from the state courts
administrator's office would also be assigned to "review Ferguson
municipal court practices and to assist Richter in making
necessary changes".

The state's chief justice signaled in her statement on March 9
that regional or even statewide reform may be necessary for a
municipal court system that has been sharply criticized as a
failed system that has lost the trust of many residents.
"Although we recognize the local control our statutes give these
uniquely local entities, we must not sacrifice individual rights
and society's collective commitment to justice," said Justice
Russell.

Judge Brockmeyer was also named among a group of white Ferguson
officials found by Justice Department investigators to be writing
off citations for themselves and friends while punishing residents
for similar offences. Another of these officials, court clerk Mary
Ann Twitty, was fired by the city in connection with racist
emails.

The report said Judge Brockmeyer agreed to "take care" of a
speeding ticket for a senior Ferguson police officer in August
2014, and had a red light camera ticket he received himself from
the nearby city of Hazelwood dismissed in October 2013.


FIRST AMERICAN: RESPA Suit Returns to Ninth Circuit
---------------------------------------------------
RESPA News reports that the eight-year-old case of Edwards v. The
First American Corp. has returned to the Ninth Circuit, where the
justices recently heard arguments from the plaintiff, the
defendant and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on whether
First American will face a class action lawsuit.


FIRST SOLAR: Merits Discovery Continuing in Smilovits Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Merits discovery is continuing in the case, titled Smilovits v.
First Solar, Inc., et al., First Solar said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 25, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

On March 15, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit titled
Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-00555-
DGC, was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona against the Company and certain of its current
and former directors and officers. The complaint was filed on
behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's publicly traded securities between April 30, 2008, and
February 28, 2012. The complaint generally alleges that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's financial performance and prospects. The
action includes claims for damages, including interest, and an
award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees to the putative
class. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and will
vigorously defend this action.

On July 23, 2012, the Arizona District Court issued an order
appointing as lead plaintiffs in the class action the Mineworkers'
Pension Scheme and British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme
(collectively "Pension Schemes"). The Pension Schemes filed an
amended complaint on August 17, 2012, which contains similar
allegations and seeks similar relief as the original complaint.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 14, 2012. On
December 17, 2012, the court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss.
On October 8, 2013, the Arizona District Court granted the Pension
Schemes' motion for class certification, and certified a class
comprised of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded securities of the Company between April 30, 2008,
and February 28, 2012 and were damaged thereby, excluding
defendants and certain related parties. The deadline to complete
merits discovery is February 27, 2015. The deadline to file
motion(s) for summary judgment is March 27, 2015.

Merits discovery is continuing.

"We are not in a position to assess whether any loss or adverse
effect on our financial condition is probable or remote or to
estimate the range of potential loss, if any," the Company said.


FLAGSHIP FACILITY: Illegally Obtains Consumer Reports, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Josefa Ceja de Oseguera, individually and on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated v. Flagship Facility Services, Inc., a
California corporation, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. 5:15-cv-01275 (N.D. Cal., March 18, 2015), arises out of the
Defendant's unlawful practice of procuring consumer reports
without the appropriate disclosure and a valid, signed
authorization form prior to obtaining such a report.

Flagship Facility Services is a California corporation
headquartered in San Jose, California. It provides employee
staffing services, primarily for janitorial and facility
maintenance to commercial customers, including, but not limited to
high technology companies, biotech and pharmaceutical companies,
retail businesses, educational facilities, along with local
airports and government institutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael D. Singer, Esq.
      Jennifer L. Connor, Esq.
      COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
      605 C Street, Suite 200
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 595-3001
      Facsimile: (619) 595-3000
      E-mail: msinger@ckslaw.com
              jconnor@ckslaw.com

         - and -

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


FORD MOTOR: Recalls Lincoln Models Due to Vacuum Pump Defect
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 24, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: SUV
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Electrical
Units affected: 132
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015126TC
ID number: 2015126
Manufacturer recall number: 15S10

On certain limousine and hearse prep package vehicles, a vacuum
pump relay internal fault could result in overheating of the
relay. Additionally, the underhood vacuum pump relay connector is
not sealed to prevent water and road contamination. Over time, the
relay internal fault or connector contamination can increase the
potential of a resistive short which could cause the relay to
overheat, potentially resulting in an underhood fire causing
injury and/or property damage. Correction: Dealers will replace
the vacuum pump relay with an electro-mechanical relay.

   Make      Model    Model year(s) affected
   ----      -----    ----------------------
   LINCOLN   MKT      2013, 2014, 2015


FORD MOTOR: Recalls F350, F550 and F450 Models
----------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 24, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Light Truck & Van
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Engine
Units affected: 96
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015125TC
ID number: 2015125
Manufacturer recall number: 15S09

Certain ambulance or fire package vehicles with 6.7L diesel
engines may experience a "stop safety now" warning message and 5
audible chimes if an Exhaust Gas Temperature Sensor (EGT) fault is
detected. Engine torque would be gradually reduced by 70 percent
over a period of 45 seconds to a power-reduced level that is
maintained. During this time, there would be no effect on
steering, braking, lighting, electrical, or restraint systems,
allowing the operator to maneuver the vehicle to a safe location.
Such an occurrence could also result in an engine shut down and
subsequent inability to quickly restart the vehicle. If this
condition were to occur when an ambulance or fire engine vehicle
was transporting a patient or providing medical assistance, it
could delay medical treatment and increase the risk of injury to
the patient. Correction: Dealers will reprogram the Powertrain
Control Module (PCM) with updated software.

   Make     Model     Model year(s) affected
   ----     -----     ----------------------
   FORD     F350      2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015
   FORD     F550      2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015
   FORD     F450      2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015


GLADIATOR ENERGY: Faces "Anderson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Anderson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Gladiator Energy Services, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-00206
(W.D. Tex., March 18, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours in a
week.

Gladiator Energy Services, LLC is an oilfield services company
specializing in providing coil tubing completion services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GLAXOSMITHKLINE INC: Recalls Flolan Powder Due to Impurity
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 20, 2015
Posting date: March 24, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Drugs
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-52679

An out-of-specification result for known impurity during stability
study.

Depth of distribution: Retail

Affected products: Flolan
                   DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
                   DIN 02230848
Dosage form: Powder for solution

Strength: Epoprostenol (Epoprostenol Sodium) 1.5 mg/vial

Lot or serial number: N440

Recalling Firm: GlaxoSmithKline Inc.
                7333 Mississauga Road
                Mississauga
                L5N 6L4
                Ontario
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: GlaxoSmithKline Inc.
                                7333 Mississauga Road
                                Mississauga
                                L5N 6L4
                                Ontario
                                CANADA


HALSTED FINANCIAL: Faces "Martin" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Martin, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated v. Halsted Financial Services, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-
02383 (N.D. Ill., March 19, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Halsted Financial Services, LLC is a global financial services
firm, providing consumer and commercial solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Terrence Buehler, Esq.
      TOUHY, TOUHY & BUEHLER, LLP
      55 West Wacker Drive, 14th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 372-2209
      Facsimile: (312) 456-3838
      E-mail: tbuehler@touhylaw.com


HAPE INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Bugs Magnetic Mazes
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 27, 2015
Posting date: March 27, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Toys
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Physical Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-52687

This recall involves the Hape Best Bugs Magnetic Maze. The maze is
a wood frame with grooves for small magnetic balls to travel, and
covered by a clear Lucite cover.  A small magnetic pen is attached
by a cord to the frame and is used by a child to guide the balls
along their path.  Four bugs are depicted on the frame which
measures 24.5 centimetres x 24.5 centimetres x 2.1 centimetres and
weighs less than one pound.  The model number is E1709.  The Hape
logo can be found printed in brown on the front of the frame.

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determined
that the Lucite cover of the toy can break and produce a small
component, posing a choking hazard to young children. The small
component can also have sharp edges and points, posing a risk of
injury to young children.

Neither Hape nor Health Canada has received any reports of
consumer incidents or injuries in Canada related to the use of
this product.

For some tips to help consumers choose safe toys and to help them
keep children safe when they play with toys, see Health Canada's
General Toy Safety Tips.

Approximately 714 units of the recalled toy were sold through
various retail stores and online in Canada.

The recalled toys were sold from January 2014 to March 2015.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Hape International (Ningbo) Ltd.
              Ningbo
              CHINA

Distributor: Hape
             Sherwood Park
             Alberta
             CANADA

Consumers should immediately take the recalled magnetic maze away
from young children and contact Hape to receive a refund.

Consumers may contact Hape at 1-800-661-4142 from 8:00 a.m. to
4:30 p.m. MST, Monday through Friday.

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

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/9c6UyM


HERBALIFE LTD: Class Action Settlement to Face Resistance
---------------------------------------------------------
Josh Long, writing for Natural Products Insider, reports that
Herbalife Ltd., the multilevel marketer (MLM) of weight-loss and
nutritional products, is expected to face resistance to a $15-
million class-action lawsuit that it agreed to settle.

Douglas Brooks, an attorney in Concord, Massachusetts, plans to
file an objection to the settlement on behalf of more than a dozen
distributors, many of whom he said are Hispanics who have operated
nutrition clubs.  Mr. Brooks also said he is aware of a nonprofit
organization that plans to file an objection to the settlement by
the March 24 deadline.

Last year, Herbalife agreed to settle a lawsuit first brought by
former distributor Dana Bostick, who alleged Herbalife was a
pyramid scheme and that distributors had "little to no
opportunity" to earn a profit.  Herbalife denied any wrongdoing,
arguing Bostick exerted little effort trying to sell the products.

Beverly O'Connell, a U.S. District Judge in the Central District
of California, preliminarily approved the settlement after
determining it is "fair, reasonable and adequate."  A final
approval hearing has been scheduled for May 11 in her Los Angeles
courtroom.

The parties have begun to provide notice to the class of
distributors and process the claims, according to court documents
filed on March 6.  The deadline to file a claim was Feb. 6,
according to Kurtzman Carson Consultants (KCC), the claims
administrator. KCC did not immediately respond on March 9 to a
request for comment on the number of claims that were filed in the
case.

The New York Post first reported in February on Mr. Brooks' plans
to file an objection to the Herbalife class-action settlement.
Distributors covered under the agreement would not be able to
claim all their losses, Mr. Brooks said in recent phone interviews
with Natural Products INSIDER.  Instead, distributors who
purchased at least USD $750 in qualified products during any year
covered under the settlement may qualify for an award that
represents their total loss from the sale of products or half the
price they paid for them, whichever is less, according to court
records.

Mr. Brooks said a distributor who suffered losses on the sale of
products likely incurred other expenses as well, such as
purchasing leads and paying money to attend meetings.  He cited
tax return losses as a better way of calculating damages than
under the Bostick settlement terms.

"This is a very limited way of calculating someone's damage," he
said, referencing the settlement terms.

The Bostick settlement covers around 1.55 million class members
who were Herbalife distributors from April 1, 2009 through Dec. 2,
2014, according to public records.  The class excludes members of
Herbalife President's Team, Founder's Circle, Chairman's Club,
Millionaire Team or GET Team.

Mr. Brooks said he conservatively estimates the class includes
200,000 individuals who reached the level of "supervisor" within
Herbalife's MLM model.  In a previous lawsuit Herbalife settled,
former supervisors claimed average losses of $8,000, Mr. Brooks
said. That case, filed against Herbalife in 2002 by Nancy Jacobs,
involved a promotional program known as "Newest Way of Wealth."

If supervisors in the Bostick lawsuit claimed half the losses
above -- an average of $4,000 -- their claims would total $800
million, Brooks said. One of the named distributors in Bostick's
amended lawsuit, Anita Vasco, alleged she suffered $12,000 in 2013
losses on a nutrition club.

"Even if you knocked it down to 10 percent, that's $80 million.
Why did they settle for $15 million?" Mr. Brooks asked.  "There is
no hint in the settlement papers that Herbalife doesn't have the
ability to pay more than that."

Herbalife, which reported a 2014 profit of $308.7 million on $5
billion in net sales, declined to comment on Brooks' planned
objections.

To the extent Mr. Brooks can show claimants in the previous cases
recovered a greater percentage of their losses, that may trouble
the district court overseeing the Bostick case, said Georgene
Vairo, a professor at law with Loyola Law School in Los Angeles,
in a phone interview.

"These objections may have legs," she said.

In class-action lawsuits, district courts are becoming
increasingly "careful about rubber-stamping deals plaintiffs'
counsel and the defendants' counsel have reached," Ms. Vairo said.
"The courts of appeals are telling the district courts, 'you can't
rubber stamp these things. You have to look carefully.'"

The settlement provides for $15 million in a cash fund and up to
$2.5 million in product returns.  An additional $2.5 million from
the cash fund may be used to pay for additional returns if the
claims exceed the amount available.

Herbalife distributors also can claim a $20 flat award if they
didn't purchase at least $750 in qualified products during a year
covered by the settlement.  The flat-award funds are capped at $3
million.

The plaintiffs' lawyers intend to request attorneys' fees that
comprise no more than 30 percent of the settlement value not to
exceed $5.25 million and costs of $200,000, according to the court
notice.

If monies are left over after all the claims have been paid, the
funds will go to the Consumer Federation of America, an
association of non-profit consumer organizations.

Mr. Brooks is familiar with objections to class-action lawsuits.
In 2004 in the Jacobs litigation, he responded to more than 10
objections that were filed to a settlement he helped negotiate.

Halfway through the claims process in the Jacobs case, 690 claims
were filed representing about $1.9 million against a settlement
fund; and only seven members opted out of the agreement, according
to court documents.

In 2004 court papers, Brooks characterized the relatively small
number of objections and opt-outs as a "ringing endorsement of the
settlement."

Unless Mr. Brooks is joined by scores of other protestors to the
Bostick settlement, Herbalife may raise a similar argument at the
May 11 court hearing.


HMSHOST CORPORATION: Faces "Burnip" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Latira Burnip, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HMSHost Corporation and Host International, Inc., Case
No. 0:15-cv-01543 (D. Minn., March 19, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

HMSHost Corporation is a foreign corporation with its principal
place of business in Bethesda, Maryland. It describes itself as a
leader in creating dining for travel venues, operating in 113
airports around the globe and in 99 travel plazas on motorways
throughout the U.S. and Canada.

Host International, Inc. is a manager of dining venues, with more
than 300 international, regional, and proprietary brands in its
restaurant portfolio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ashley R. Thronson,Esq.
      Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
      80 S 8th St Ste 4600
      Mpls, MN 55402-2242
      Telephone: (612) 256-3200
      Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
      E-mail: athronson@nka.com
              fisher@nka.com


HORIZON DISTRIBUTORS: Recalls Amy's Frozen Entree Products
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 23, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall
Warning Subcategory: Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Horizon Distributors Ltd., PSC Natural Foods Ltd.
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9742

Industry is recalling Amy's brand frozen entree products from the
marketplace due to possible Listeria monocytogenes contamination.
Consumers should not consume the recalled products described
below.

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

Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include
vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache
and neck stiffness. Pregnant women, the elderly and people with
weakened immune systems are particularly at risk. Although
infected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-like
symptoms, the infection can lead to premature delivery, infection
of the newborn or even stillbirth. In severe cases of illness,
people may die.

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

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

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

  Brand name   Common name   Size    Code(s)      UPC
  ----------   -----------   ----    on product   ---
                                     ----------
  Amy's        Vegetable     269 g   Jan-21-2015  0 42272 90032 9
               Lasagna               30-A215
  Amy's        Gluten Free   156 g   Feb-02-2015  0 42272 90807 3
               Tofu Scramble         30-B025
               Breakfast Wrap
  Amy's        Gluten Free   255 g   Feb-04-2015  0 42272 90814 1
               Dairy Free            30-B045
               Vegetable
               Lasagna

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


HORNBECK OFFSHORE: Filed Deepwater Horizon Claim Against BP
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hornbeck Offshore Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the
Company has made presentment of a claim to BP in the class action
lawsuit arising from the Deepwater Horizon tragedy. Doing so has
allowed the Company to preserve claims against BP under OPA 90
assuming the Company has claims that are compensable under the
court-approved settlement reached between BP and class action
plaintiffs.


INDIANA: DCS Settlement in Adoption Subsidy Suit Not Enough
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Chapman, writing for WTHR, reports that families of adopted
special needs children could be running out of time to collect
their part of a $15 million settlement with the state of Indiana.

Kim Reed's adopted child, a baby girl she calls "Pipi," has
cerebral palsy and several other disabilities. When she adopted
Pipi in 2010, the Department of Child Services put Kim on the
Adoption Subsidy waiting list, claiming there was no funding
available to help with Pipi's care.

Last summer, a grandmother from LaPorte County filed a lawsuit
against DCS for failing to keep its promises to families of
adopted special needs children.  DCS claimed it didn't have the
money, but between 2009 and 2014, they returned $240 million to
Indiana's general fund.

At the direction of Governor Mike Pence, the State settled the
case for $15.1 million.  Checks went out December 31 with holiday
greetings, but Kim had no idea she was among the 1,800 families
who would get a check until a few weeks ago.

"Honestly, I cried because I have a daughter who was abandoned in
'08," Ms. Reed said.  "I exhausted everything to take care of her.
It had nothing to do with money."

But Ms. Reed's check never showed up.  It was making circles from
Indianapolis to the company in California issuing the check.

"It went to an old address that I lived at seven years ago," she
explained.  "I ended up telling them three times my new address."

Ms. Reed's check finally arrived last week, but it wasn't quite
what she expected.  Turns out Pipi's share was just 40 percent of
the thousands of dollars the State owed the family.

"I think it's very unfair, because these children came into the
world with their own disability . . . . It will help, but it's
still not enough, not for the things that she needs."

Lynn Toops, the attorney who took on the State in the class action
lawsuit, admits it was a compromise, saying, "These families
hadn't received a penny since 2009.  Their voices fell on the deaf
ears of legislators and no other lawyers would bring suit on their
behalf. There were substantial risks in taking this litigation,
and we have received overwhelming thanks from the families and are
very proud of this accomplishment."

Ms. Reed just has one bit of advice: "Do it for the love of the
children, and don't just think of it as money."

Ms. Reed hopes her speaking out will alert other families unaware
of the settlement to seek answers before the checks are void on
March 30.  Attorneys say while it isn't 100 percent, the
settlement does include assistance through 2015.


INOGEN INC: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roger D. Holford, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Inogen, Inc., Raymond Huggenberger, And
Alison Bauerlein, Case No. 2:15-cv-02026 (C.D. Cal., March 19,
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.

Inogen, Inc. is a medical technology company that develops,
manufactures, and markets portable oxygen concentrators, which
deliver supplemental oxygen therapy to patients suffering from
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and other respiratory
conditions.

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: jlieberman@pomlaw.com

         - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
      E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


INTERLINE BRANDS: Craftwood Case Deal Awaits Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
The settlement in the case Craftwood Lumber Company v. Interline
Brands, Inc., has been preliminarily approved by the Court and is
awaiting final approval, Interline Brands, Inc. said in its Form
10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 25, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 26, 2014.

"In May 2011, we were named as a defendant in the case of
Craftwood Lumber Company v. Interline Brands, Inc. ("Craftwood
Matter"), filed before the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Court of
Lake County, Illinois, and subsequently removed to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ("the
Court"). The complaint alleges that we sent unsolicited fax
advertisements to businesses nationwide in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk
Fax Prevention Act of 2005 ("Junk Fax Act")," the Company said.

"At the time of filing the initial complaint in state court, the
plaintiff also filed a motion asking the Court to certify a class
of plaintiffs comprised of businesses who allegedly received
unsolicited fax advertisements from us during the four-year
statute of limitations period. In its amended complaint filed in
the United States District Court, the plaintiff seeks preliminary
and permanent injunctive relief enjoining the Company from
violating the Junk Fax Act, as well as statutory damages for each
fax transmission found to be in violation of the Junk Fax Act.

"On November 17, 2014, we filed a joint notice of settlement with
the Court advising them of the settlement of the Craftwood Matter.
Under the terms of the settlement agreement we agreed to total
settlement consideration of $40.0 million, representing an after
tax payment of $24.3 million. The settlement has been
preliminarily approved by the Court and is awaiting final
approval.

"As part of this matter, a pre-tax charge of $20.5 million was
recorded in the third quarter of 2013 and an additional $19.5
million pre-tax charge was recorded in the fourth quarter of 2014
and is included in selling, general and administrative expenses in
the statements of operations for the fiscal years ended December
27, 2013 and December 26, 2014, respectively."


KARCHER NORTH AMERICA: Recalls Vehicle Wash & Wax Products
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 27, 2015
Posting date: March 27, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Chemicals
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Labeling and Packaging
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-52677

This recall involves Karcher Vehicle Wash & Wax Formulated for
Pressure Washers sold in a one gallon container with UPC
"036339581217", and a one quart container with UPC "036339581224".
The front label of the both containers indicates "20X".

This consumer product does not meet labeling requirements for
consumer chemical products under Canadian law. It does not have
proper hazard labeling required by the Consumer Chemicals and
Containers Regulations, 2001 under the Canada Consumer Product
Safety Act.

Improper labeling could result in unintentional exposure to these
products and a risk of injury.

Health Canada and Karcher North America have received two consumer
incident reports related to the use of this product.

Approximately 29,031 gallon containers and 16,584 quart containers
of the recalled products were sold at various retail locations in
Canada.

The recalled products (both gallon and quart containers) were sold
in Canada between May 2011 to March 2015.

Manufactured in United States.

Manufacturer: Etowah Chemical Sales and Services, Division of
              H.P.W. Specialities, Inc.
              Gadsden
              Alabama
              UNITED STATES

Distributor: Karcher North America Inc.
             Englewood
             Colorado
             UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled product and
dispose of it according to Municipal Hazardous Waste Guidelines.

For additional information, consumers may contact the distributor
at 1-866-446-2419 or via email.

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

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/e16cC3


KTM NORTH AMERICA: Recalls Children's Onesies and Pajamas
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 31, 2015
Posting date: March 31, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Children's Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Flammability Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-52731

This recall involves children's onesies and two-piece KTM
motocross pyjamas.

The Baby Racing Body onesies are 95% cotton and 5% elastane and
were sold in three prints. One is orange with white sleeves and
the KTM brand logo on the left chest. The second is white and
orange with the KTM brand logo in bold orange printed on the
centre front of the chest and on the left and right hip. The third
onesie is yellow with orange and black detailing and the KTM brand
logo printed on the left chest and left hip. All onesies are long-
sleeved and have snap closures from the neck to the left ankle and
were sold in sizes 18 months to 2T.

The two-piece, long-sleeve and pant pyjama sets are 100% cotton
and were sold in two prints. The Kids Racing Gear pyjama is white
with black, orange and grey detailing on the top and pant with a
black elastic waistband and KTM printed on the left side of the
chest. This set was sold in sizes 2T through 5T. The Kids Gravity
Gear pyjama two-piece set is white with blue, and orange detailing
on the top and pant with an elastic waistband in orange and KTM
printed on the left side of the chest and on the right hand wrist.
This set was sold in sizes XXS through L.

The pyjamas may not the meet flammability requirements for
children's sleepwear under Canadian law, posing a risk of burn
injuries to children.

Neither Health Canada nor KTM North America has received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of
these pyjamas.

For information on what makes safe sleepwear, visit the Healthy
Canadians children's sleepwear page.

Approximately 463 units of the recalled pyjamas were sold through
authorized KTM dealerships in Canada.
The recalled products were sold from August 2012 through March
2015.

Manufactured in China.

Importer:  KTM North America, Inc.
           Amherst
           Ohio
           UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately take the recalled pyjamas away from
children and return them to Authorized KTM Dealerships for a
refund.

For more information, consumers may contact KTM North America,
Inc. at 1-888-985-6090 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. ET, Monday
through Friday.

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

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

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


LENOVO (US) INC: Faces "Schultz" Suit Over Harmful Spyware
----------------------------------------------------------
Susan Webster Schultz, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Lenovo (United States) Inc. and Superfish
Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-01270 (N.D. Cal., March 18, 2015), seeks to
stop the Defendants' practice of selling new computers with
preinstalled harmful and offensive spyware and malware.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Alexander Saveri, Esq.
      Cadio Zirpoli, Esq.
      Carl N. Hammarskjold, Esq.
      Travis L. Manfredi, Esq.
      SAVERI & SAVERI, INC.
      706 Sansome Street
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 217-6810
      Facsimile: (415) 217-6813
      E-mail: rick@saveri.com
              cadio@saveri.com
              carl@saveri.com
              travis@saveri.com

         - and -

      Robert Bonsignore, Esq.
      Ernesto Ganaden, Esq.
      BONSIGNORE TRIAL LAWYERS, PLLC
      2513 Morocco Avenue
      North Las Vegas, NV 89031
      Telephone: (781) 856-7650


LILYDALE INC: Recalls Oven Roasted Carved Chicken Breasts
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 25, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall
Warning Subcategory: Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Lilydale Inc.
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario,
Saskatchewan
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9747

Lilydale Inc. is recalling Lilydale brand Oven Roasted Carved
Chicken Breast from the marketplace due to possible Listeria
monocytogenes contamination. Consumers should not consume the
recalled product described below.

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

Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include
vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache
and neck stiffness. Pregnant women, the elderly and people with
weakened immune systems are particularly at risk. Although
infected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-like
symptoms, the infection can lead to premature delivery, infection
of the newborn or even stillbirth. In severe cases of illness,
people may die.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of this product.

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

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

  Brand name   Common name   Size    Code(s)      UPC
  ----------   -----------   ----    on product   ---
                                     ----------
  Lilydale     Oven Roasted  400 g   Best before  0 65843 83104 4
               Carved Chicken          2015 AL 28
               Breast

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/Q4acnx


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Carl" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
---------------------------------------------------------
Scott Carl, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
01421 (E.D. Pa., March 19, 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:

      Michael D. Donovan, Esq.
      Noah Axler, Esq.
      DONOVAN AXLER, LLC
      1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 732-6067
      E-mail: naxler@donovanaxler.com
              mdonovan@donovanaxler.com

         - and -

      John F. Innelli, Esq.
      JOHN F. INNELLI, LLC
      1818 Market Street, Suite 3740
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (267) 238-9884
      E-mail: jinnelli@innellilaw.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Watson" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brett Watson, Lindsey Watson, Fredrick Wilkins Tania Wilkins, and
Richard O'Connor v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-
01259 (D.S.C., March 18, 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:

      John S. Simmons, Esq.
      Derek A. Shoemake, Esq.
      SIMMONS LAW FIRM, LLC
      1711 Pickens Street
      Columbia, SC 29201
      Telephone: (803) 779-4600
      Facsimile: (803) 254-8874
      E-mail: jsimmons@simmonslawfirm.com
              dshoemake@simmonslawfirm.com

         - and -

      John B. White Jr., Esq.
      Marghretta A. Hagood, Esq.
      HARRISON,WHITE, SMITH &COGGINS, P.C.
      178 West Main Street
      Spartanburg, SC 29306
      Telephone: (864) 585-5100
      E-mail: jwhite@spartanlaw.com
              mhagood@spartanlaw.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Hagens Berman Files Laminate Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer-rights law firm Hagens Berman is representing
Massachusetts consumers in a class-action lawsuit against Lumber
Liquidators Inc., a laminate wood flooring company, for allegedly
selling flooring tainted with hazardous levels of formaldehyde.
Hagens Berman has a strong track record of successfully
representing homeowners in product defect and liability suits,
including an $8.25 million settlement with Trex Company Inc. for
product defects and consumer law violations.

The 30-page lawsuit filed on Mar. 9, 2015 in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts alleges that Lumber
Liquidators sold composite flooring manufactured in China tainted
with hazardous levels of formaldehyde while falsely labeling their
products as meeting or exceeding California Air Resources Board
(CARB) emissions standards.

Concerned consumers who purchased "Dream Home" Lumber Liquidators
flooring may contact Hagens Berman by emailing lumber@hbsslaw.com
or by calling 206-623-7292.  Additional information about the
investigation is available at www.hbsslaw.com/LumberLiquidators

"The irony is that Lumber Liquidators has aggressively touted the
safety of its products, but reports have surfaced showing that
this composite flooring from Lumber Liquidators contains
alarmingly high levels of formaldehyde," said Steve Berman,
managing partner of Hagens Berman and attorney representing
consumers in the case.  "We intend to prove that for nearly two
years, and possibly longer, Lumber Liquidators has known that
flooring products it has manufactured in China emit unsafe levels
of this cancer-causing chemical."

Formaldehyde can cause myeloid leukemia and other cancers at high
levels, as well as respiratory issues and eye, nose and throat
irritation even at low levels.

A report from "60 Minutes" recently stated that all laminate
flooring carried by Lumber Liquidators bears a label indicating
that it is CARB Phase 2-compliant, but that its flooring
manufactured in China that bears this label is in fact not
compliant.  The report revealed that glue and resin used to bond
the pressed wood together can be a significant source of
formaldehyde gas.

"This flooring has been disbursed on a nationwide level, and
consumers are worried for their safety and the impact this could
have on the health of their family," Mr. Berman added.  "We
believe that when consumers are forced to lie awake worrying about
whether the floor their child crawls on is toxic, it's clear that
there's been a significant and very blatant violation of consumer
laws."

Lumber Liquidators has reportedly failed to alert consumers about
the allegedly high levels of formaldehyde in its laminate wood
flooring.

If you purchased Lumber Liquidators "Dream Home" composite
flooring, contact Hagens Berman to find out about your rights by
emailing lumber@hbsslaw.com or by calling 206-623-7292.  Find out
more about the class-action lawsuit against Lumber Liquidators.

                     About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a
consumer-rights class-action law firm with offices in nine cities.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Settled Prusak Lawsuit for $705,000
-------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. has agreed to a settlement of
the claims in the Prusak lawsuit for approximately $705,000,
Lumber Liquidators said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

"On August 30, 2012, Jaroslaw Prusak, a purported customer
("Prusak"), filed a putative class action lawsuit, which was
subsequently amended, against us in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "Prusak
Lawsuit"). Prusak alleged that we willfully violated the Fair and
Accurate Credit Transactions Act amendments to the Fair Credit
Reporting Act in connection with electronically printed credit
card receipts provided to certain of its customers. In the
operative complaint, Prusak, for himself and the putative class,
sought statutory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs,
and other relief. Although we believed we had valid defenses to
the claims asserted, we agreed to a settlement of the claims in
the lawsuit for approximately $705,000, which was previously
accrued. At December 31, 2014, we had a remaining accrual of
$468,000, which was subsequently paid in January 2015," the
Company said.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: To Defend Against "Kiken" Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. intends to defend itself against
the securities class action lawsuit filed by Gregg Kiken, Lumber
Liquidators said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014.

"On or about November 26, 2013, Gregg Kiken ("Kiken") filed a
securities class action lawsuit, which was subsequently amended,
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia against us, our founder, our Chief Executive Officer and
President, our Chief Financial Officer and our Chief Merchandising
Officer (collectively, the "Kiken Defendants"). In the amended
complaint, Kiken and an additional plaintiff, Keith Foster
(together with Kiken, the "Plaintiffs"), allege that the Kiken
Defendants made material false and/or misleading statements and
failed to disclose material adverse facts about our business,
operations and prospects," the Company said.

"In particular, the Plaintiffs allege that the Kiken Defendants
made material misstatements or omissions related to our compliance
with the federal Lacey Act and the chemical content of certain of
its wood products. In addition to attorneys' fees and costs, the
Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of themselves and
other persons who purchased or otherwise acquired our stock during
the putative class period at allegedly inflated prices and
purportedly suffered financial harm as a result.

"We dispute the Plaintiffs' claims and intend to defend the matter
vigorously. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary
stage of the case, insurance coverage issues and the legal
standards that must be met for, among other things, class
certification and success on the merits, we cannot estimate the
reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from
this action."


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Accrued $300K as Estimate for Wade Suit Loss
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. has accrued $300,000, including
$25,000 in the fourth quarter of 2014, as its best estimate of the
probable loss that may result from the lawsuit filed by Richard
Wade Architects, P.C., Lumber Liquidators said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 25, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

"On or about March 4, 2014, Richard Wade Architects, P.C. ("RWA")
filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (the "RWA Lawsuit"), which was
subsequently amended, alleging that we violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act
and the common law by sending an unsolicited facsimile
advertisement to RWA," the Company said. "RWA seeks recourse on
its own behalf as well as other similarly situated parties that
received unsolicited facsimile advertisements from us. The TCPA
provides for recovery of actual damages or five hundred dollars
for each violation, whichever is greater. If it is determined that
a defendant acted willfully or knowingly in violating the TCPA,
the amount of the award may be increased by up to three times the
amount provided above. Although we believe we have valid defenses
to the claims asserted, based upon the proceedings to date, at
December 31, 2014, we have accrued $300,000, including $25,000 in
the fourth quarter of 2014, as our best estimate of the probable
loss that may result from this action."


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: To Defend Against Hallandale Police Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. intends to defend itself against
the securities class action lawsuit filed by the City of
Hallandale Beach Police Officers' and Firefighters' Personnel
Retirement Trust, Lumber Liquidators said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

"On or about September 17, 2014, the City of Hallandale Beach
Police Officers' and Firefighters' Personnel Retirement Trust
("Hallandale") filed a securities class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
against us, our Chief Executive Officer and President and our
Chief Financial Officer (collectively, the "Hallandale
Defendants")," the Company said.  "In the complaint, Hallandale
alleges that the Hallandale Defendants made material false and/or
misleading statements that caused losses to investors. In
particular, Hallandale alleges that the Hallandale Defendants made
material misstatements or omissions regarding our supply chain and
inventory position."

"In addition to attorneys' fees and costs, Hallandale seeks to
recover damages on behalf of itself and other persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired our stock during the putative
class period at allegedly inflated prices and purportedly suffered
financial harm as a result. We dispute Hallandale's claims and
intend to defend the matter vigorously. Given the uncertainty of
litigation, the preliminary stage of the case, insurance coverage
issues and the legal standards that must be met for, among other
things, class certification and success on the merits, we cannot
estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may
result from this action."


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: 3 Plaintiffs Added to "Gold' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Dana Gold
filed an amended complaint, which added three additional
plaintiffs.

"On or about December 8, 2014, Dana Gold ("Gold") filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California alleging that the Morning
Star bamboo flooring (the "Bamboo Product") that we sell is
defective," the Company said.

On February 13, 2015, Gold filed an amended complaint, which added
three additional plaintiffs (collectively with Gold, "Gold
Plaintiffs").

"Gold Plaintiffs allege that we have engaged in unfair business
practices and unfair competition by falsely representing the
quality and characteristics of the Bamboo Product and by
concealing the Bamboo Product's defective nature. Gold Plaintiffs
seek the certification of two separate classes: (i) individuals in
the United States who own homes or other structures where the
Bamboo Product has been installed or where Bamboo Product has been
removed and replaced; and (ii) the same description but for owners
of California homes or structures only. In addition to attorneys'
fees and costs, Gold Plaintiffs seek (i) a declaration that we are
financially responsible for notifying all purported class members,
(ii) injunctive relief requiring us to replace and/or repair all
of the Bamboo Product installed in structures owned by the
purported class members, and (iii) a declaration that we must
disgorge, for the benefit of the purported classes, all or part of
its profits received from the sale of the defective Bamboo Product
and/or to make full restitution to Gold Plaintiffs and the
purported class members.

"We dispute the Gold Plaintiffs' claims and intend to defend the
matter vigorously. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the
preliminary stage of the case, insurance coverage issues and the
legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class
certification and success on the merits, we cannot estimate the
reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from
this action."


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Balero" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on or
about December 11, 2014, Joseph Michael Balero, Michael Ballerini
and Lisa Miller (collectively, the "Balero Plaintiffs") filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Alameda alleging that the Company
engaged in unlawful and fraudulent business practices by selling
certain products in California that do not comply with
California's Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde
Emissions from Composite Wood Products (the "CARB Standards") and
by falsely advertising and representing that such products meet
the CARB standards.

The Company said, "The purported class consists of all California
consumers that purchased the subject products since 2011. In
addition to attorneys' fees and costs, the Balero Plaintiffs seek
(i) declarations that our policies and practices of labeling,
advertising, distributing and selling certain products it sells in
California violate the CARB standards, (ii) injunctive relief
prohibiting us from continuing to distribute and/or sell laminate
flooring products that violate the CARB standards, (iii)
restitution of all money and/or property that the Balero
Plaintiffs and other purported class members provided to us for
the purchase and installation of certain products sold by us that
allegedly violate the CARB Standards, and (iv) damages, including
actual, compensatory and consequential, incurred by the Balero
Plaintiffs and other purported class members in connection with
our alleged breach of warranty."

"We dispute the claims of the Balero Plaintiffs and intend to
defend the matter vigorously. Given the uncertainty of litigation,
the preliminary stage of the case, insurance coverage issues and
the legal standards that must be met for, among other things,
class certification and success on the merits, we cannot estimate
the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from
this action."


MERRILL LYNCH: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Alleged Trust Mismanagement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Estate of Virginia Venable Rapp, et al. v. Merrill Lynch Trust
Company, FSB and Bank of America Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-
02081 (S.D.N.Y., March 19, 2015), arises out of the Defendants'
mismanagement of trust assets, specifically by making charitable
trust funds more vulnerable to interest rates and stock market
volatility, that resulted in less monthly annuity payments.

Merrill Lynch Trust Company, FSB is a mutual insurance company
that is engaged in the sale and marketing of annuities and other
related financial products through thousands of agents and
numerous sales offices located throughout the United States.

Bank of America Corporation owns and operates a national bank and
maintains its principle place of business in North Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arthur Morrison, Esq.
      MORRISON LAW OFFICES OF WESTCHESTER P.C.
      11 Skyline Drive
      Hawthorne, NY 10532
      Telephone: (914) 980-7244
      Facsimile: (914) 592-3482
      E-mail: am2126@nyu.edu


MICHAELS STORES: Loses Bid to Dismiss Vacation Time Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Siegal, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge on March 9 refused to end a putative class action
alleging Michaels Stores Inc. concealed the amount of vacation
time workers were accruing, trimming fraud and negligent
misrepresentation claims but ruling the plaintiff had provided
documents supporting a classwide breach of contract claim.

During a hearing in Los Angeles, U.S. District Judge George Wu
issued a written tentative ruling partially granting Michaels'
motion to dismiss former employee Ronald Kopstein's putative class
action.

Gregory Knopp -- gknopp@akingump.com -- of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer
& Feld LLP, representing Michaels, urged Judge Wu to reverse his
tentative ruling and dismiss Mr. Kopstein's fraud and negligent
misrepresentation claims without leave to amend, arguing that Mr.
Kopstein had no innate right to receive the proper vacation time
accounting outside the labor code, and thus that loss cannot
sustain the claims.

"The only conceivable loss he's alleged here is he might have
accrued more vacation during his employment and then potentially
been paid out termination," he said.  "That's a labor code
remedy."

Judge Wu, however, said that even this argument allows that there
is a possibility that Mr. Kopstein could recover damages.

Mr. Kopstein filed suit in August 2014, alleging Michaels and
subsidiaries Aaron Brothers Inc. and Artistree Inc. illegally
withheld from employees the actual amount of vacation time they
were accruing -- preventing the employees from using that vacation
time before it was "capped" by the employers and thus depriving
employees of either the vacation time or the wages they would have
been paid in compensation for the vacation time when they left the
companies.

In December, Mr. Kopstein filed his second amended complaint,
after Aaron Brothers and Artistree were dismissed from the suit,
bringing claims of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of
contract and unfair business practices.

Mr. Kopstein sought to represent a class of all current and former
California employees of Michaels, a group that could number more
than 10,000, according to his complaint.

On March 9, Mr. Knopp urged Judge Wu to dismiss Mr. Kopstein's
breach of contract claims, arguing that the plaintiff had not
sufficiently alleged an contract between Michaels and employees
that required the retailer to properly account the vacation time
just because he had attached certain employment documents to the
pleadings.

"It's a mere bare bones conclusion, under Iqbal and Twombly it's
not enough to merely conclude there was a contract," he said.

"I understand your argument but I'm not buying it," Judge Wu
answered, and said he would make his tentative ruling his final
ruling.

Judge Wu then asked if the case should be folded into a group of
wage and hour class actions against the retailer that have been
consolidated into a multidistrict litigation.

Plaintiffs attorney Andrew D. Morrison of Ross & Morrison told
Judge Wu that the issues presented in Kopstein's case are
completely distinct from the issues in the MDL, and Judge Wu said
he would keep the case separate.

Mr. Kopstein is represented by Gary B. Ross and Andrew D. Morrison
of Ross & Morrison.

Michael is represented by Gregory W. Knopp, Gary M. McLaughlin and
Jonathan P. Slowik of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP.

The case is Ronald Kopstein v. Michaels Stores Inc., case number
2:14-cv-06561 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California.


MICHIGAN: Court Orders Review of Prison Suit Class-Action Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ed White, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
Michigan Supreme Court has intervened and put a temporary freeze
on a lawsuit that accuses prison officials of failing to prevent
the sexual assault of male teen inmates.

The Supreme Court ordered the appeals court to consider whether it
can be a class-action case, possibly affecting hundreds of people.
The appeals court had passed on that question in January.

"One sentence -- with no analysis -- answering this monumental
issue.  This decision cannot stand," wrote Assistant Solicitor
General Ann Sherman, representing the Corrections Department.

In a unanimous order on March 6, the Supreme Court told the
appeals court to take the state's appeal.

Inmates, mostly ages 16 or 17, say they were forced to engage in
sex acts with adult prisoners and staff.  The alleged incidents
occurred over a three-year period before all males younger than 18
were assigned to a prison in Lapeer, away from adult inmates, in
August 2013. The department denies allegations that it looked the
other way.

A Washtenaw County judge hearing the case has made several
favorable decisions for inmates, including a class-action
certification last fall, over the objections of the state. Sherman
called it an "overbroad and ill-defined class."  She said there's
a "handful of isolated tort claims attempting to shoehorn
themselves" into civil rights claims.

An attorney for the inmates, Deborah LaBelle, said the Supreme
Court issued an order before hearing the other side. She's asking
the court to reconsider.  Ms. LaBelle is part of the same legal
team that negotiated a $100 million settlement in 2009 for
hundreds of female prisoners who said they were assaulted or
harassed by male guards.


MICHIGAN: AG Withdraws Subpoenas Over Juvenile Inmate Abuse Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Livengood, writing for Detroit News, reports that Attorney
General Bill Schuette's office ordered and then withdrew three
subpoenas of journalists reporting on a juvenile prisoner abuse
lawsuit against the state, including one seeking a reporter's
notes from interviewing inmates inside two state prisons.

The sudden about-face on March 9 came after Mr. Schuette's office
was at the center of a brief firestorm of criticism on social
media following Huffington Post reporter Dana Liebelson's
disclosure of how she was served two subpoenas for handwritten
notes obtained "during a reporting trip on juvenile prison
conditions."

Mr. Schuette's office also withdrew a separate subpoena issued on
March 9 to Michigan Radio that demanded the public radio station
turn over copies of "complete and unedited" audio and video
recordings of a March 3 interview of an Ann Arbor attorney
representing inmates who are suing the state for alleged sexual
and physical abuse sustained as juveniles.

All three subpoenas were related to an ongoing class-action
lawsuit that seven unnamed inmates have brought against the
Michigan Department of Corrections over allegations that state
officials failed to protect male teenage inmates from sexual and
physical abuse by adult prisoners and guards.

The subpoenas to journalists are "quite uncommon" and may draw
more attention to the lawsuit, said Peter Henning, a Wayne State
University law professor.

"I'm a little baffled as to what they hope to get out of it," said
Henning, a former federal prosecutor.

"It's not clear what information the journalist would have that's
not already available through the normal litigation process,
especially if these are plaintiffs," he said.  "They are subject
to being deposed."

Schuette spokeswoman Andrea Bitely said a civil service attorney
with the Attorney General's Office "followed a common legal
procedure of subpoenaing information from individuals entering
Michigan prisons to speak to prisoners who are suing state
taxpayers."

"However, after further review, Attorney General Schuette has
determined that information necessary to defending the state of
Michigan can be obtained in other ways and will direct department
attorneys to withdraw the subpoenas," Ms. Bitely said in a
statement.

Deborah LaBelle, the lead attorney in the prisoner abuse lawsuit,
said the subpoenas of journalists mirror the state's other legal
tactics to derail her year-old lawsuit.

"They've taken scorched-earth tactics on this case," said
Ms. LaBelle, citing more than a dozen appeals by Schuette's
office.  "This seems a little bit beyond the pale and I don't
think it was appropriate."

High court intervenes

The Michigan Supreme Court intervened in the lawsuit, freezing
proceedings until the Court of Appeals determines whether the case
can proceed as a class-action lawsuit, possibly affecting hundreds
of people.

Inmates, mostly ages 16 or 17, say they were forced to engage in
sex acts with adult prisoners and staff.  The alleged incidents
occurred over a three-year period before all males younger than 18
were assigned to a prison in Lapeer, away from adult inmates, in
August 2013.  The department denies allegations that it looked the
other way.

A Washtenaw County judge hearing the case has made several
favorable decisions for the inmates, including a class-action
certification last fall.  A state attorney called the judge's
ruling an "overbroad and ill-defined class."

"One sentence -- with no analysis -- answering this monumental
issue.  This decision cannot stand," wrote Assistant Solicitor
General Ann Sherman, representing the Department of Corrections.

Ms. Sherman said there are a "handful of isolated tort claims
attempting to shoehorn themselves" into civil rights claims.

In a unanimous order on March 6, the Supreme Court told the
appeals court to take the state's appeal.


MINERVA HOSPITALITY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Salvador Lucero, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Minerva Hospitality Group, Ltd. d/b/a Minerva Cafe,
and Matthew Paratore, Case No. 1:15-cv-02074 (S.D.N.Y., March 19,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 304 West
4th Street, New York, New York 10014.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, P.L.L.C.
      708 Third Avenue, 6th Flr
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 209-3933
      Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
      E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com


MISSISSIPPI: Group Seeks Contempt Order in Foster Care Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jimmie E. Gates, writing for The Clarion-Ledger, reports that a
child advocacy group is once again asking that the state of
Mississippi be held in contempt for failure to carry out mandated
reforms in the state's foster care system in the long-running
federal lawsuit.

According to the most recent Monitor's Report, the state is
failing to produce reliable data on many of the key elements of
the settlement agreement, and of those elements on which data is
available it is not meeting the required standards, said lead
attorney Marcia Robinson Lowry, executive director of New York-
based A Better Childhood.

Ms. Lowry was originally with another New York-based organization,
Children's Rights, when the lawsuit was filed in 2004 on behalf of
children in state custody asserting widespread violations of the
constitutional rights of children in the Mississippi foster care
system.

The class action, originally known as Olivia Y. v. Barbour, cited
dangerously high caseloads, untrained caseworkers, a shortage of
foster homes, and a widespread failure to provide basic health
care services.

In 2008, a settlement agreement was reached and approved by the
federal court in 2008.  But in 2010, the plaintiffs asked the
state to be found in contempt for noncompliance.  The court found
that the state was in noncompliance with "virtually all areas
covered by the agreements" but declined to hold the state in
contempt at that time.  Instead, the court directed the parties to
renegotiate the agreement and to "establish realistic timelines."
A Modified Settlement Agreement was approved by the court in July
2012, according to Lowry.

A modified settlement agreement, approved in 2012, contained an
action plan to address the state's consistent failure to meet
court-ordered performance standards.

But Ms. Lowry said on March 9 that the latest report of
independent monitor assigned to the case, shows the state is still
in noncompliance.

"For example, there is virtually no reliable information on hiring
and worker attrition and thus no reliable information on which to
determine worker caseloads, no reliable information about
maltreatment in care, and virtually no information about how the
state addresses problems in the treatment of children," Ms. Lowry
said.  Even in the regions of the state in which a new "Case
Practice Model" has been implemented, performance is well below
the standards set in the Modified Settlement Agreement. "

Ms. Lowry said she was surprised and disappointed with the state's
lack of progress.

"What the state agreed to do isn't that significant; it's either a
lack of capacity or a lack of will to do it," Ms. Lowry said.  "We
felt we had no alternative but to file this action."

During state budget hearings, Mississippi Department of Human
Services Executive Director Rickey Berry said the state needs to
spend an additional $12 million to meet requirements of the
lawsuit.  He also said at that time the state has seen an increase
of 450 children in foster care in the past year, with many of the
children entering foster care because of drug use by their
biological parents.  Also, he said the state had a vacancy of
about 150 social workers.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: "O'Bannon" Class Action Lawyers Cut Fee Request
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Berkowitz, writing for USA TODAY, reports that lawyers for
the plaintiffs in the Ed O'Bannon class-action antitrust lawsuit
against the NCAA on March 9 made a modest reduction in their
request for attorneys' fees and other costs they are seeking in
the case.

However, they vociferously opposed the NCAA's recent bid for a
massive cut in the fees-and-costs award, saying that the
association's effort in that regard "again demonstrates its
preference for scorched-earth litigation."

The plaintiffs' lawyers -- led by Michael Hausfeld's firm,
Hausfeld LLP -- had been asking for nearly $50.9 million, and on
March 9 they lowered that figure to just under $50 million.

In February, however, the NCAA argued that they should receive
less than $10 million.  The association claimed that the
plaintiffs were only partially successful compared to the original
scope of their case, making many of their legal-fee and cost
claims impermissible.  The NCAA also alleged that the plaintiffs'
fees and costs resulted from inefficiency and overstaffing.

This past August, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken ruled that
the NCAA's limits on what major-college football and men's
basketball players can receive for playing sports "unreasonably
restrain trade" in violation of antitrust laws.  She also issued
an injunction that would create a system under which Bowl
Subdivision football and Division I men's basketball players would
be able to receive not only scholarships covering their full cost
of attending school but also what amounts to deferred compensation
in exchange for their participation and the schools' use of their
names, images and likenesses.

The case did not include a financial damages component, but Judge
Wilken also ruled that the plaintiffs "shall recover their costs
from the NCAA."

The NCAA has appealed the ruling and the injunction to the 9th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has scheduled oral argument
for March 17.

In the meantime, the NCAA has argued for a much lower fees-and-
costs award than the one proposed by the plaintiffs.  It claims
the plaintiffs changed their legal approach more than three years
into a case that began in July 2009, and the plaintiffs' lawyers
essentially should not get paid for the work they did during those
early years.  They also said that even after changing legal
theories, the plaintiffs "were only partially successful," that
O'Bannon and the original named plaintiffs are getting no benefit
from the injunction that Judge Wilken issued, and that the
injunction -- even if it survives appeal -- is "only a fraction"
of what had been sought by the plaintiffs.

In addition, the NCAA alleged that the plaintiffs' lawyers'
request for costs and fees included an array of impermissible
charges and, in many instances, reflected unnecessary staffing of
the case for depositions and for the three-week trial last June.

On March 9, the plaintiffs' lawyers responded with a chart and
other details that they say shows 59 depositions "in which defense
counsel's attendance equaled or exceeded attendance by counsel"
for the plaintiffs.

Rejecting the NCAA characterization of the scale of their success
in the case, the plaintiffs' lawyers wrote that Judge Wilken's
ruling in the case "can only be viewed as a stellar result" for
the plaintiffs.  They added that the NCAA now "seeks to re-
litigate" the matter during the costs-and-fees phase -- a tactic
it said should be rejected "particularly given the NCAA's repeated
refusals to produce any information about its own legal
expenditures or time records in this case."


NEW ORLEANS: Fired Public School Workers See to Revive Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
KATC.com reports that a lawyer for an estimated 7,500 former New
Orleans public school employees who lost their jobs after
Hurricane Katrina is going to the U.S. Supreme Court in hopes of
reviving a lawsuit over their firings.

Willie Zanders on March 9 released copies of his application to
have the high court review the case involving teachers, aides,
service workers and others.

Levee failures when Hurricane Katrina struck on Aug. 29, 2005, led
to catastrophic flooding that shut down businesses, school and
other institutions and prompted the evacuation of the city.  The
school employees' litigation began later in the year as an effort
to prevent dismissals.  It progressed as the state moved to take
over most New Orleans school from a board plagued by corruption,
poor financial management and low performance by students.

The lawsuit evolved into a wrongful termination action that took
years to even come to trial.

In 2012, a state district judge ruled in favor of employees who
said they were wrongfully fired, awarding more than $1 million to
seven original plaintiffs and setting the stage for class-action
damages that a lawyer for education officials said could cost the
state and the local school board more than $1 billion.

An appellate court largely upheld that ruling.  But the state
Supreme Court dismissed the suit in October, in part on the
grounds that the issues had been dealt with in a separate
settlement with the New Orleans teachers' union.  The court also
found that employees' due-process rights were not violated.

The employee's application to the U.S. Supreme Court presses the
case that employees' due process rights were violated because,
among other reasons, fired workers were not offered priority
consideration for re-employment as schools reopened.  That, the
employees say, violated local school board policy and state law.

The employees also argue that the settlement in the teacher union
case cited in the October opinion involved compromises to which
the plaintiffs in the class action suit were not a party.

"In fact, a substantial number of petitioners were not members of
any collective bargaining unit, were neither noticed of nor
participated in the collective bargaining arbitration, litigation
or settlement," the employees' petition said.

The state, through its Recovery School District, still oversees
most New Orleans public schools.  All of the RSD schools are
operated by independent charter groups.  The Orleans Parish School
Board oversees fewer than two dozen schools.  Many of the board's
schools are charters as well.

The state takeover and the move to charter schools have been
hailed by education reform advocates around the nation as a grand
experiment that has led to steady, if incremental and uneven
improvements in student performance.  The changes still have
critics in New Orleans who are skeptical of the improvements and
unhappy with the disruption of many neighborhood schools and what
they see as unfair treatment of fired employees.

Some of the fired workers have returned to work in public schools.
Others have retired or found jobs outside of education.


NUVASIVE INC: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Taken Off Calendar
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nuvasive, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in the securities class
action lawsuit was filed by Danny Popov, the Court took the
hearing on NuVasive's motion to dismiss the Third Amended
Complaint off calendar and scheduled a hearing on Plaintiff's
motion to file an amended complaint is pending.

On August 28, 2013, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed by Danny Popov in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California naming NuVasive and certain of its
current and former executive officers for allegedly making false
and materially misleading statements regarding the Company's
business and financial results, specifically relating to the
purported improper submission of false claims to Medicare and
Medicaid. In December 2013, Brad Mauss was appointed lead
plaintiff (Plaintiff).  The complaint asserts a putative class
period stemming from October 22, 2008 to July 30, 2013. The
complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and seeks unspecified monetary relief,
interest, and attorneys' fees.

Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on February 13,
2014.  NuVasive filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on March 28, 2014.  On August 19, 2014, the Court issued
an order granting the Company's motion to dismiss and gave
Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.  On September 8,
2014, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint.  On September
22, 2014, NuVasive filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint.

On December 9, 2014, the court issued an order granting the
Company's motion to dismiss and gave Plaintiff leave to file an
amended complaint.  On December 23, 2014 Plaintiff filed a Third
Amended Complaint.  NuVasive filed a motion to dismiss the Third
Amended Complaint on January 9, 2015.  While NuVasive's motion was
pending, Plaintiff sought leave to file a Fourth Amended
Complaint.  The Court took the hearing on NuVasive's motion to
dismiss the Third Amended Complaint off calendar and scheduled a
hearing on Plaintiff's motion to file an amended complaint is
pending.

At December 31, 2014, the probable outcome of this litigation
cannot be determined, nor can the Company estimate a range of
potential loss.


OKLAHOMA: Judge Recommends Denial of 2nd Cotner Bid to Intervene
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Charles B. Goodwin recommends that Robert E.
Cotner's second motion to intervene in the action John May,
Plaintiff, v. D.O.C. Director Patton et al., Defendants, Case No.
CIV-14-418-M, (W.D. Okla.), be denied.

Mr. Cotner is a state prisoner incarcerated in the same facility
as John May.  John May filed the action against Robert Patton, as
director of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

In his second motion to intervene, Mr. Cotner alleges he has
similar claims as Mr. May.  Mr. Cotner also requests that the
Court declare the case a class action and appoint counsel for the
class.

Judge Goodwin opines that given Mr. Cotner's vague claims and
allegations in the matter, he recommends that the Oklahoma
district court exercise its discretion to deny Mr. Cotner's
request to intervene in the matter.

A copy of the judge's Report and Recommendation dated March 2,
2015 is available at http://is.gd/pyyomnfrom Leagle.com.


OMNICELL INC: Faces "Nelson" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Nelson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Omnicell, Inc., Randall A. Lipps, and Robin G. Seim,
Case No. 3:15-cv-01280 (N.D. Cal., March 19, 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.

Omnicell, Inc. provides automation and business information
solutions enabling healthcare systems to streamline the medication
administration process and manage costly medical supplies for
increased operational efficiency and enhanced patient safety.

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: jlieberman@pomlaw.com

         - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
      E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


ONEOK INC: Decision in Gas Index Pricing Appeal by Mid-2015
-----------------------------------------------------------
ONEOK, Inc. expects a decision by mid-2015 in an appeal in the Gas
Index Pricing Litigation, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

The Company said, "We, ONEOK Energy Services Company, L.P. (OESC)
and one other affiliate are defending, either individually or
together, against the following lawsuits that claim damages
resulting from the alleged market manipulation or false reporting
of prices to gas index publications by us and others: Sinclair Oil
Corporation v. ONEOK Energy Services Corporation, L.P., et al.
(filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Wyoming in September 2005, transferred to MDL-1566 in the United
States District Court for the District of Nevada); Reorganized
FLI, Inc. (formerly J.P. Morgan Trust Company) v. ONEOK, Inc., et
al. (filed in the District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas, in
October 2005, transferred to MDL-1566 in the United States
District Court for the District of Nevada); Learjet, Inc., et al.
v. ONEOK, Inc., et al. (filed in the District Court of Wyandotte,
Kansas, in November 2005, transferred to MDL-1566 in the United
States District Court for the District of Nevada); Arandell
Corporation, et al. v. Xcel Energy, Inc., et al. (filed in the
Circuit Court for Dane County, Wisconsin, in December 2006,
transferred to MDL-1566 in the United States District Court for
the District of Nevada); Heartland Regional Medical Center, et al.
v. ONEOK, Inc., et al. (filed in the Circuit Court of Buchanan
County, Missouri, in March 2007, transferred to MDL-1566 in the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada); NewPage
Wisconsin System v. CMS Energy Resource Management Company, et al.
(filed in the Circuit Court for Wood County, Wisconsin, in March
2009, transferred to MDL-1566 in the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada and now consolidated with the Arandell
case)."

"In each of these lawsuits, the plaintiffs allege that we, OESC
and one other affiliate and approximately ten other energy
companies and their affiliates engaged in an illegal scheme to
inflate natural gas prices by providing false information to gas
price index publications.  All of the complaints arise out of a
CFTC investigation into and reports concerning false gas price
index-reporting or manipulation in the energy marketing industry
during the years from 2000 to 2002.

"On July 18, 2011, the trial court granted judgments in favor of
ONEOK, Inc., OESC and other unaffiliated entities in the following
cases: Reorganized FLI, Learjet, Arandell, Heartland, and NewPage.
The court also granted judgment in favor of OESC on all state law
claims asserted in the Sinclair case. On August 18, 2011, the
trial court entered an order approving a stipulation by the
plaintiffs and our affiliate, Kansas Gas Marketing Company
("KGMC"), for a dismissal without prejudice of the plaintiffs'
claims against KGMC in the Learjet and Heartland cases.

"On April 10, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit reversed the summary judgments that had been granted
in favor of ONEOK, OESC and other unaffiliated defendants in the
following cases: Reorganized FLI, Learjet, Arandell, Heartland and
NewPage. The Ninth Circuit also reversed the summary judgment that
had been granted in favor of OESC on all state law claims asserted
in the Sinclair case. The Ninth Circuit remanded the cases back to
the United States District Court for the District of Nevada for
further proceedings. ONEOK, OESC and the other unaffiliated
defendants filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the United
States Supreme Court on August 26, 2013. The Ninth Circuit has
ordered the cases stayed until final disposition of the Petition
for Writ of Certiorari. On July 1, 2014, the United States Supreme
Court granted the Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Oral arguments
were heard by the United States Supreme Court on January 12, 2015,
and we expect a decision by mid-2015."


ORGANIC CONNECTIONS: Recalls Various Products with Garlic Powder
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 23, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning Subcategory:
Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Organic Connections Ltd.
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9739

The food recall warning issued on March 19, 2015 has been updated
to include additional product information. This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Brand name   Common name   Size    Code(s)      UPC
  ----------   -----------   ----    on product   ---
                                     ----------
  Frontier     Fiesta Black  453 g   4160, 4226,  0 89836 02761 0
               Bean Mix              4307, 4364,
                                     5005
  Simply       Vegetarian    28 g    4208, 4259,  0 89836 18536 5
  Organic      chili                 4282, 4311,
               seasoning             5015, 5047
  Simply       Creamy dill   20 g    4156, 4197,  0 89836 18843 4
  Organic      dip mix               4237, 4279,
                                     4324, 5009,
                                     5035


PARTY CITY: Faces California Class Action Over Labor Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik on March 9 disclosed that on
December 18, 2014 the San Diego labor law attorneys at the law
firm filed a proposed class action Complaint against Party City
Corporation for allegedly failing to provide their California
employees with the legally required thirty minute uninterrupted
meal periods.  The complaint also alleges that Party City altered
time records to avoid paying these employees for all their time
worked, including overtime worked and missed meal breaks.  The
Party City lawsuit, Case No. 37-2014-00042839-CU-OE-CTL, is
currently pending in San Diego County Superior Court.

The lawsuit filed against Party City claims that the company
violated the California Labor Code by altering time records and as
a result allegedly failed to accurately compensate their employees
for overtime hours worked or for missed meal periods.  Under the
California Labor Code, an employee who is classified as non-exempt
and is paid on an hourly basis must be paid overtime wages for
time worked in excess of eight hours in a workday and time worked
over forty hours in a workweek.  Furthermore, the Industrial
Welfare Commission Wage Orders requires companies to pay their
California employees for all time worked, meaning the time during
which an employee is subject to the control of an employer,
including all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to
work.

The Complaint also alleges that the employees working at Party
City Corporation were not always able to take their thirty minute
uninterrupted meal breaks before their fifth hour of work.
California law requires employers to provide their non-exempt
employees paid on an hourly basis with thirty minute meal periods
before the employee works five hours.  The penalty for failing to
provide adequate meal breaks is one hour of pay under the
California Labor Code.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik is a San Diego labor law firm
that concentrates its practice in wage violation lawsuits seeking
overtime wages in California.  The firm dedicates its practice to
helping employees, fight back against unfair business practices,
including violations of the California Labor Code and Fair Labor
Standards Act.


PAUL SAINI: "Baxin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Humberto Martinez Baxin, individually and in behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. Paul Saini Deli Grocery, Inc.,
Harbhajan Singh Sani, Barinder Singh, Prit Paul Singh, jointly and
severally, Case No. 1:15-cv-02059 (S.D.N.Y., March 18, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PERI & SONS: Court Denies Pending Motions in "Rivera" Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The complaint VICTOR RIVERA RIVERA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PERI &
SONS FARMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:11-CV-00118-RCJ-VPC, (D.
Nev.), arose from Defendant's alleged failure to fully and
properly compensate Plaintiffs and proposed class members in
violation of applicable labor and wage laws.

These Motions were pending before the Court: Plaintiffs' Motion to
Certify Class; Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses;
Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Class Action
Complaint; and Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay and Reschedule Deadlines
Pending Mediation.

On March 13, 2015, the parties submitted a Joint Stipulation and
Agreement to Settle Class Action Claims along with a Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class and Collective Action Settlement.
Having granted the Motion for Preliminary Approval, the Nevada
District Court now denies the pending Motions mentioned above
without prejudice.

A copy of Judge Robert Jones' Order dated March 25, 2015 is
available at http://is.gd/qxbTJhfrom Leagle.com.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
          THIERMAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
          7287 Lakeside Drive
          Reno, NV 89511
          Telephone: (775) 284-1500
          E-mail: laborlawyer@pacbell.net

               - and -

          Matthew J. Piers, Esq.
          Jose Jorge Behar, Esq.
          Christopher J. Wilmes, Esq.
          Caryn C. Lederer, Esq.
          HUGHES SOCOL PIERS RESNICK & DYM, LTD.
          70 W. Madison Street, Suite 4000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 580-0100
          E-mail: mpiers@hsplegal.com
                  jbehar@hsplegal.com
                  cwilmes@hsplegal.com
                  clederer@hsplegal.com

Defendant Peri & Sons Farms, Inc. is represented by:

         James E Whitmire, III
         SANTORO WHITMIRE
         10100 West Charleston Blvd. Suite 250
         Las Vegas, NV 89135
         Tel No: 702-948-8771
         Fax No: 702-948-8773
         Email: jwhitmire@santoronevada.com


PORT RICHEY, FL: Faces Class Action Over Red-Light Cameras
----------------------------------------------------------
Carl Orth, writing for Suncoast News, reports that a class-action
lawsuit about red-light cameras has both Port Richey and New Port
Richey among its co-defendants, leaving local officials wondering
how best to proceed.

Filed Feb. 20, the lawsuit challenges the authority of cities
throughout Florida to delegate policing powers to vendors, most
often American Traffic Solutions based in Arizona, according to a
copy of the court document provided by Port Richey City Manager
Tom O'Neill.

The two local municipalities have plenty of company since the
lawsuit lists more than 80 cities in the state.  The automated
devices aim to catch drivers who enter intersections after a
traffic signal turns red, possibly leading to violent collisions.

Oldsmar in Pinellas County also appears on the list of defendants.

Christopher L. Parker heads a list of some 70 plaintiffs suing the
cities.  Twenty counts charge violations of Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act, unjust enrichment, due process
violations, delegation of police powers and other grievances.  The
plaintiffs ask for a jury trial.

New Port Richey City Manager Debbie Manns gave city council
members background information about how the lawsuit evolved after
rulings in the Fourth District Court of Appeal, in West Palm
Beach, against cities of Hollywood and Davie.

Since state lawmakers authorized the devices in 2010, each city
shares $75 of the $158 tickets while the state collects $83.

One issue could be refunds of any fines levied, especially before
state authorization of the red-light cameras in 2010.  Port Richey
first began experimenting with the cameras in 2008. New Port
Richey installed them by 2011.

The devices have been controversial since their debut, at U.S. 19
and Ridge Road.  In April 2011, protesters with strong Libertarian
leanings hoped to stop the spread of red light cameras during a
demonstration at the intersection.

Debate erupted over the length of the timing of yellow signals.
Conflicting studies said red-light cameras might increase rear-end
collisions.  But city law enforcement officials have steadfastly
defended the automated devices to catch red light violators.  They
point to safety studies which indicate side crashes and fatal
accidents decrease.  Police review evidence before tickets are
sent to accused drivers, who can appeal.

Over the years, West Pasco state lawmakers expressed doubts about
the cameras.  During his time in the Florida Senate, Pasco Tax
Collector Mike Fasano often wondered if safety or revenue
generation inspired installation of the red-light cameras.


POSTMATES INC: Faces "Singer" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sherry Singer and Ryan Williams, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Postmates, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-
01284 (N.D. Cal., March 19, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Postmates, Inc. is a delivery service that provides couriers who
can be hailed and dispatched through a mobile phone application to
deliver food and other items to customers at their homes and
businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
      Adelaide Pagano, Esq.
      LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
      729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
      Boston, MA 02116
      Telephone: (617) 994-5800
      Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
      E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
              apagano@llrlaw.com

         - and -

      Matthew Carlson, Esq.
      CARLSON LEGAL SERVICES
      100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 817-1470
      E-mail: mcarlson@carlsonlegalservices.com


PPG ARCHITECTURAL: "Petruna" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Petruna, on behalf of herself and similarly situated
employees v. PPG Architectural Coatings N.A., Case No. 2:15-cv-
00366 (W.D. Pa., March 18, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

PPG Architectural Coatings N.A. develops, manufactures, and sells
paints and stains to homeowners and professionals around the
country.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph H. Chivers, Esq.
      EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS GROUP
      100 First Avenue, Suite 1010
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Telephone: (412) 227-0763
      E-mail: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com

         - and -

      John R. Linkosky, Esq.
      JOHN LINKOSKY & ASSOCIATES
      715 Washington Avenue
      Carnegie, PA 15106
      Telephone: (412) 278-1280
      Facsimile: (412) 278-1282
      E-mail: linklaw@comcast.net


PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Cushnie" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Cushnie, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Premera Blue Cross, Case No. 2:15-cv-00413
(W.D. Wash., March 18, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to adopt and implement data security regulations and
standards that jeopardized its members' confidential sensitive
information.

Premera Blue Cross owns and operates health care insurance company
with its principal place of business located at 7001 220th Street
SW, Building 1, Mountlake Terrace, Washington 98043.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
      Ari J. Scharg, Esq.
      Ben Thomassen, Esq.
      David I. Mindell, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Telephone: (312) 589-6370
      Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
      E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
              ascharg@edelson.com
              bthomassen@edelson.com
              dmindell@edelson.com


PRESTIGE POOL: "Estrada" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Estrada, an individual, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Prestige Pool Care, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:15-cv-
00457 (M.D. Fla., March 19, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and other
relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Prestige Pool Care, Inc. is a Florida Corporation which services
commercial pools in Orange County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rebecca Radosevich, Esq.
      THE TICKTIN LAW GROUP, PA
      Suite 220, 600 W Hillsboro Blvd
      Deerfield Beach, FL 33441
      Telephone: (954) 570-6757
      E-mail: serv529@legalbrains.com


QUICKEN LOANS: Says Overtime Ruling No Impact on Operations
-----------------------------------------------------------
JC Reindl, writing for Detroit Free Press, reports that Quicken
Loans, a major downtown Detroit employer, said on March 9 that a
U.S. Supreme Court ruling backing overtime pay for mortgage-loan
officers should have little impact on operations because it
already offers overtime.

The high court on March 9 unanimously backed a Labor Department
rule from 2010 that said mortgage-loan officers are eligible for
overtime pay.  Quicken, the nation's No. 2 direct-to-consumer
mortgage company, said it has changed its compensation structure
but did not give an exact time frame.

"This ruling will have no effect on how Quicken Loans pays its
mortgage bankers," company spokesman Aaron Emerson said in an
email.

Mr. Emerson added later on March 9 that "Quicken Loans offers its
mortgage banking professionals a salary, overtime and bonus pay."

Quicken reports employing about 10,000 people in downtown.

A mortgage industry trade group sued to block the Labor
Department's 2010 overtime rule, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled
against it on March 9.

During the Bush administration, the Labor Department decided in
2006 that mortgage bankers were exempt from overtime pay
requirements.  But the department reversed itself four years later
under the Obama administration, concluding that mortgage bankers
must indeed be paid overtime.

Work weeks beyond 40 hours are common for loan officers at Quicken
Loans and throughout the mortgage industry.

Quicken has been involved in several lawsuits involving overtime
pay for its mortgage workers, including a class-action federal
suit brought by 400 former employees that the company won in 2011.
In that case, a federal jury ruled that the Quicken employees did
not qualify for overtime pay because the federal rules in effect
during their time at the company didn't require it.

Adam Hansen -- ahansen@nka.com -- an attorney with Minneapolis-
based Nichols Kaster who represented the former Quicken employees,
said there are still three similar and pending overtime cases
against the mortgage company.

The case decided on March 9 was brought by the Mortgage Bankers
Association against the Labor Department. The ruling overturned an
appeals court's decision that had sided with the trade
association, which sought a formal notice-and-comment process for
the 2010 rule change.

The Labor Department has the power to determine which types of
workers are exempt from overtime requirements under the 1938 Fair
Labor Standards Act.


RESONANT INC: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Devouassoux, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Resonant Inc., Terry Lingren, and John
Philpott, Case No. 2:15-cv-02054 (C.D. Cal., March 19, 2015),
alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements
regarding the successful completion of the first duplexer product,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Resonant Inc. creates filter designs for radio frequency (RF)
front-ends for the mobile device industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      Casey E. Sadler, Esq.
      GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com


RITE AID: Faces "Stephan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Stephan, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rite
Aid Corporation, Case No. 5:15-cv-00524 (C.D. Cal., March 18,
2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Rite Aid Corporation is a Delaware Corporation that owns and
operates Rite Aid Drugstores throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sergio A. Rodriguez, Esq.
      SRG LAW GROUP APLC
      8241 White Oak Avenue
      Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
      Telephone: (909) 466-1661
      Facsimile: (909) 466-1662
      E-mail: srodriguez@srglawgroup.com

         - and -

      Mark Bulgarelli, Esq.
      Ilan Chorowsky, Esq.
      PROGRESSIVE LAW GROUP LLC
      140 S. Dearborn Street, Suite 315
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 787-2717
      E-mail: markb@progressivelaw.com
              ilan@progressivelaw.com


RITE AID: Hearing on Motions to Stay Actions Moved to April 22
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John A. Mendez signed on March 30 and 31, 2015,
amended stipulations to continue the hearing on motions to stay
and briefing deadlines in these cases:

CHRIS GONZALEZ, an individual, Plaintiff, v. RITE AID
CORPORATION, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, NO.
2:14-CV-01963 JAM-EFB, RELATED NO. 2:13-CV-02439 JAM-EFB, NO.
2:14-CV-01946 JAM-EFB., 2:14-CV-01957 JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-01960 JAM-
EFB, 2:14-CV-01961 JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-01965 JAM-EFB, 2:15-CV-00429
JAM-EFB, (E.D. Cal.), a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/9OgmzMfrom Leagle.com.

KEITH WELDAY, an individual Plaintiff, v. RITE AID CORPORATION,
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, NO. 2:13-CV-02439
JAM-EFB, RELATED TO NO. 2:14-CV-01957 JAM-EFB, NO. 2:14-CV-01946
JAM-EFB., 2:14-CV-01960 JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-01961 JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-
01963 JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-01965 JAM-EFB, 2:15-CV-00429 JAM-EFB,
(E.D. Cal.), a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/gBHJTvfrom Leagle.com.

RACHEL CHAVEZ, an individual Plaintiff, v. RITE AID CORPORATION,
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, NOS. 2:14-CV-01957
JAM-EFB, 2:13-CV-02439 JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-01946 JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-
01960 JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-01961 JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-01963 JAM-EFB,
2:14-CV-01965 JAM-EFB, 2:15-CV-00429 JAM-EFB, (E.D. Cal.), a copy
of which is available at http://is.gd/jFN4Atfrom Leagle.com.

MARK JAEGER, an individual Plaintiff, v. RITE AID CORPORATION,
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, NO. 2:14-CV-01960
JAM-EFB, RELATED TO NO. 2:13-CV-02439 JAM-EFB, NO. 2:14-CV-01946
JAM-EFB., 2:14-CV-01957 JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-01961 JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-
01963 JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-01965 JAM-EFB, 2:15-CV-00429 JAM-EFB, a
copy of which is available at  http://is.gd/Z6HpCUfrom
Leagle.com.

MARK JAEGER, an individual, Plaintiff, v. RITE AID CORPORATION,
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, NO. 2:14-CV-01960
JAM-EFB, RELATED NO. 2:13-CV-02439 JAM-EFB, NO. 2:14-CV-01946
JAM-EFB., 2:14-CV-01957 JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-01961 JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-
01963 JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-01965 JAM-EFB, 2:15-CV-00429 JAM-EFB,
(E.D. Cal.), a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/9ERJq8
from Leagle.com.

KATHRYN VON KOPP, an individual Plaintiff, v. RITE AID
CORPORATION, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, NOS.
2:14-CV-01965 JAM-EFB, 2:13-CV-02439 JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-01946 JAM-
EFB, 2:14-CV-01957 JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-01960 JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-01961
JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-01963 JAM-EFB, 2:15-CV-00429 JAM-EFB, (E.D.
Cal.), a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/uPOM9S
from Leagle.com.

TOM BAUSER, an individual Plaintiff, v. RITE AID CORPORATION, and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, NOS. 2:14-CV-01946 JAM-
EFB, 2:13-CV-02439 JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-01957 JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-01960
JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-01961 JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-01963 JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-
01965 JAM-EFB, 2:15-CV-00429 JAM-EFB, (E.D. Cal.), a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/ti9FBYfrom Leagle.com.

BRUCE KAUFMAN, an individual Plaintiff, v. RITE AID CORPORATION,
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, NOS. 2:14-CV-01961
JAM-EFB, 2:13-CV-02439 JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-01946 JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-
01957 JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-01960 JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-01963 JAM-EFB,
2:14-CV-01965 JAM-EFB, 2:15-CV-00429 JAM-EFB, (E.D. Cal.), a copy
of which is available at http://is.gd/XFqBLWfrom Leagle.com.

The Plaintiffs in these cases and defendant Rite Aid Corporation
stipulated that:

* On March 4, 2015, Rite Aid moved to stay these actions pending
Romero v. Rite Aid Corp., U.S.D.C., C.D. Cal., No. CV 13-7720-MWF
(JEMx), a putative class action in which the plaintiff alleges
that Rite Aid misclassified salaried Store Managers as exempt from
the overtime pay and related requirements of California law. Rite
Aid contends that, because the plaintiffs and the putative class
in Romero are represented by the same counsel who represent the
plaintiffs in these actions and the plaintiffs are putative class
members in Romero, the Court should stay these proceedings as an
effective case management tool under its inherent discretionary
authority.

* The parties are discussing the scope of the putative class
claims in Romero, which may impact Rite Aid's motion to stay in
these actions. As such, the parties wish to avoid the cost and
expense of litigating the motion to stay pending developments in
Romero.

Accordingly, the hearing on the motions to stay these actions
pending Romero v. Rite Aid Corp., U.S.D.C., C.D. Cal., No. CV 13-
7720-MWF (JEMx), are continued from April 8, 2015, to April 22,
2015.

The deadlines for the opposition to and reply in support of the
motion to stay are reset to 14 and seven days, respectively,
before the continued hearing date.

MATTHEW RIGHETTI -- matt@righettilaw.com -- JOHN GLUGOSKI --
jglugoski@righettilaw.com -- MICHAEL RIGHETTI --
mike@righettilaw.com -- RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C., San Francisco,
California, Attorneys for Plaintiffs Chris Gonzalez, Keith Welday,
Rachel Chavez, Mark Jaeger, Kathryn Von Kopp, Tom Bauser, Bruce
Kaufman

JEFFREY D. WOHL -- jeffwohl@paulhastings.com -- RISHI N. SHARMA --
rishiSharma@paulhastings.com -- PETER A. COOPER --
petercooper@paulhastings.com -- PAUL HASTINGS LLP, San Francisco,
California, Attorneys for Defendant Rite Aid Corporation.


RODALE INC: Class Cert. Bid in "Coulter-Owens" Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
In the complaint COULTER-OWENS v. RODALE INC., CASE NO. 2:14-CV-
12688, (E.D. Mich.), District Judge Robert H. Cleland approved a
stipulation among the parties for the denial with prejudice of
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.

Plaintiff Rose Coulter-Owens filed her class action complaint on
July 9, 2014, along with a motion for class certification
requesting, among other things, that the Court reserve ruling on
the issue of class certification until after the Parties have had
a sufficient opportunity to commence and complete discovery
related to requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 for maintaining the
action as a class action.  Plaintiff filed her motion to protect
against an attempt by Defendant to "buy off" her representative
claims by making a settlement offer before a motion for class
certification was pending before the Court.

The parties further stipulate that from the time the Court enters
an order denying without prejudice Plaintiff's Motion For Class
Certification, Defendant agrees that in the event Defendant
intends to make Plaintiff any individual settlement offer, but
before any such offer is made, Defendant will either (i) seek
Plaintiff's prior consent or (ii) wait until Plaintiff first files
a renewed motion for class certification.

A copy of Judge Cleland's Order dated March 25, 2015 is available
at http://is.gd/tCmMKDfrom Leagle.com.

ROSE COULTER-OWENS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Benjamin S. Thomassen, One of Plaintiff's
attorneys.

Ari J. Scharg, Benjamin S. Thomassen, EDELSON PC, Chicago,
Illinois, Henry M. Scharg, LAW OFFICE OF HENRY M. SCHARG, Detroit,
Michigan, Counsel for Plaintiffs and the putative Class.

Anthony T. Eliseuson, One of Defendant's attorneys Natalie J.
Spears Anthony T. Eliseuson Kristen C. Rodriguez DENTONS US LLP,
Chicago, IL, Peter B. Kupelian, Carol G. Schley, CLARK HILL PLC,
Detroit, MI.


S & E FLAG: "Perkins" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Perkins, Charles Ware, and Elnore Witt, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. S & E Flag Cars,
LLC, Flag Cars R Us, LLC, and Ellen Ishmael, Case No. 2:15-cv-
00975 (S.D. Ohio, March 19, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and other
relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate an auto repair shop located at 2025
Chaney Road, Brooksville, KY 41004.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E DeRose II, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St, 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com


SAFECO INSURANCE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Damaged Property Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bakalekos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Safeco Insurance Company of Indiana, Case No. 4:15-cv-
00160 (E.D. Ark., March 18, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for breached of its duty to indemnify the full cost of
the labor necessary to repair or replace of damaged property.

Safeco Insurance Company of Indiana is a foreign corporation
conducting business in the State of Arkansas as an insurance firm.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tom Thompson, Esq.
      Casey Castleberry, Esq.
      MURPHY, THOMPSON, ARNOLD, SKINNER & CASTLEBERRY
      1141 East Main Street, Suite 300
      Post Office Box 2595
      Batesville, AR 72503-2595
      Telephone: (870) 793-3821
      Facsimile: (870) 793-3815
      E-mail: aftomt2001@yahoo.com
              caseycastleberry2003@yahoo.com

         - and -

      Stephen Engstrom, Esq.
      STEPHEN ENGSTROM LAW OFFICE
      200 River Market A venue, Suite 600
      Post Office Box 71
      Little Rock, AR 72203
      Telephone: (501) 375-6453
      Facsimile: (501) 375-5914
      E-mail: stephen@engstromlaw.com

         - and -

      Jason E. Roselius, Esq.
      Tanner W. Hicks, Esq.
      MATTINGLY & ROSELIUS, PLLC
      13182 N. MacArthur Blvd.
      Oklahoma City, OK 73142
      Telephone: (405) 603-2222
      Facsimile: (405) 603-2250
      E-mail: jason@mroklaw.com
              tanner@mroklaw.com

         - and -

      Richard E. Norman, Esq.
      R. Martin Weber, Esq.
      CROWLEY NORMAN, LLP
      Three Riverway, Suite 1775
      Houston, TX 77056
      Telephone: (713) 651-1771
      Facsimile: (713) 651-1775
      E-mail: rnorman@crowleynorman.com
              mweber@crowleynorman.com

         - and -

      Matthew L. Mustokoff, Esq.
      Richard A. Russo Jr., Esq.
      KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER CHECK, LLP
      280 King of Prussia Road
      Radnor, PA 19087
      Telephone: (610) 667-7706
      Facsimile: (610) 667-7056e
      E-mail: mmustakoff@ktmc.com
               rrusso@ktmc.com


SABRE COMPANIES: "Nelson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kirk Nelson, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Sabre Companies LLC and Sabre Energy
Services LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00314 (N.D.N.Y., March 18, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages under the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a company that provides surface and
subsurface biological control services for the oil and gas
industries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Elmer R. Keach III, Esq.
      Maria K. Dyson, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ELMER ROBERT KEACH, III, P.C.
      One Pine West Plaza-Suite 109
      Albany, NY 12205
      Telephone: (518) 434-1718
      Facsimile: (518) 770-1558
      E-mail: bobkeach@keachlawfirm.com
              mariadyson@keachlawfirm.com


SILICON IMAGE: Defending Against Complaints Over Lattice Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
On January 26, 2015, Silicon Image Inc., Lattice Semiconductor
Corporation ("Lattice") and Cayabyab Merger Company, a wholly
owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"), entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to
which, and on the terms and conditions contained in the Merger
Agreement.

Silicon Image said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on or about January 29,
2015, the Company became aware that the Company, members of the
Board, Parent and the Purchaser were named as defendants in two
complaints filed in Santa Clara Superior Court by alleged
stockholders in connection with the Merger. Both complaints were
dated January 29, 2015 and were captioned respectively Molland v.
George., et al. and Stein v. Silicon Image, Inc. et. al.  Five
additional complaints were subsequently filed on January 30, 2015,
February 4, 2015 and February 9, 2015 in Delaware Chancery Court
by alleged stockholders in connection with the Merger, captioned
respectively Pfeiffer v. Martino et. al.; Lipinski v. Silicon
Image, Inc. et. al.; Feldbaum et. al. v. Silicon Image, Inc. et.
al; Nelson v. Silicon Image, Inc. et. al. and Partansky v. Silicon
Image, Inc. et. al.  The five Delaware matters were subsequently
consolidated into an action captioned In re Silicon Image
Stockholders Litigation by order of the Delaware Chancery Court on
February 11, 2015, and a consolidated amended complaint was filed
in the matter on February 13, 2015.  Two complaints captioned
Tapia v. Silicon Image, Inc. et. al. and Caldwel v. Silicon Image,
Inc. were also filed on February 4, 2015 and February 9, 2015 in
Santa Clara Superior Court by alleged stockholders in connection
with the Merger.  Amended complaints were filed in the Molland and
Stein actions on February 11, 2015.

Each of these lawsuits are purported class actions brought on
behalf of Company stockholders, asserting claims against each
member of the Board for breach of fiduciary duty, and against
various of the Company, Parent, the Purchaser and the Board for
aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. The lawsuits allege
that the Merger does not appropriately value the Company, was the
result of an inadequate process, and includes preclusive deal
devices. The amended complaints also assert that the Company's
disclosures regarding the Merger in its Schedule 14D-9 omitted
material information regarding the Merger.  Each of these
complaints purport to seek unspecified damages and may seek
injunctive relief preventing consummation of the Transactions.
The Company believes that the claims in these complaints are
without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously.
Management believes that the likelihood of any loss with respect
to these claims is not probable, nor is the amount of any such
loss reasonably estimable.

An adverse judgment for monetary damages could have an adverse
effect on the operations of the Company. A preliminary injunction
could delay or jeopardize the completion of the Merger, and an
adverse judgment granting permanent injunctive relief could
indefinitely enjoin completion of the Merger.

The Company intends to defend any such matters vigorously.
However, the outcome of any litigation is inherently uncertain.
Therefore, there can be no guarantee that the outcome of any such
litigation, even litigation where the Company starts out as a
plaintiff, may not have a material adverse effect on the Company
business.


SIMPLE REMEDIES: Recalls Chicken Broth Powder Due to Salmonella
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 25, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall
Warning Subcategory: Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Simple Remedies Herbal Solutions
Distribution: British Columbia
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9752

The food recall warning issued on March 23, 2015 has been updated
to include additional product information. This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

Simple Remedies Herbal Solutions is recalling organic vegetarian
chicken broth powder from the marketplace due to possible
Salmonella contamination. Consumers should not consume the
recalled product described below.

The following product has been sold from a bulk bin at Simple
Remedies Herbal Solutions located at 1111 Fort Street, Victoria,
British Columbia from March 4, 2015 to March 20, 2015.

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

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

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of this product.

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

  Brand name   Common name   Size      Code(s)      UPC
  ----------   -----------   ----      on product   ---
                                       ----------
  None         Organic       Variable  None         None
               vegetarian
               chicken broth
               powder


SOUTHERN UNDERGROUND: "Sapp" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Sapp, on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Southern
Underground Utilities, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-00132 (M.D. Fla.,
March 18, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, attorney's fees and other relief pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Southern Underground Utilities, Inc. is a Florida corporation that
installs underground cables.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew W. Birk, Esq.
      MATTHEW BIRK, ESQ., LAW OFFICE
      309 NE 1st St.
      Gainesville, FL 32601
      Telephone: (352) 244-2069
      Facsimile: (352) 372-3464
      E-mail: mbirk@gainesvilleemploymentlaw.com


SPECIALIZED CANADA: Recalls Aerobar Bicycle Handlebars
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 26, 2015
Posting date: March 26, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Sports/Fitness
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fall Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-52695

This recall involves Aerobar handlebars for racing bicycles,
particularly triathalon bicycles.

The Aerobars were sold individually as well as with model years
2012 through 2015 for Specialized Shiv bicycles and model year
2013 for Specialized Transition Apex bicycles. The carbon Aerobar
was sold in black with a white Specialized logo on the top side of
the handlebar, and the hydro-formed alloy model was sold in black
with no markings.

Models Shiv TT and the frame for the Shiv Pro are not included in
this recall.
Specialized has identified a potential issue where the bolt used
to affix the Aerobars to the bicycle can loosen, posing a fall
hazard to the rider.

Neither Health Canada nor Specialized has received any reports of
consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of the product
in Canada.

Specialized has received four reports of the Aerobar bolts
loosening in the United States. No injuries were reported.

Approximately 738 bicycles and handlebars were sold in Canada and
about 8,300 in the United States by authorized Specialized
dealers.

The recalled products were sold from July 2011 to February 2015.

Manufactured in Taiwan.

Manufacturer: Specialized Bicycle Components
              Morgan Hill
              California
              UNITED STATES

Distributor: Specialized Canada Incorporated
             Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue
             Quebec
             CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using the bicycles and bring
them to an authorized dealer for replacement of the defective
part.

For more information, consumers can contact Specialized at 1-800-
465-8887 between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. EST Monday through
Friday, by email or visit the Specialized website.

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

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

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/2ct2ow


SPECIALIZED LOAN: Accused of Illegal Conduct Over Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moshe Nussenzweig, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, Case No.
1:15-cv-01434 (E.D.N.Y., March 18, 2015), seeks redress for the
Defendants illegal practices of debt collection.

Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC owns and operates a debt
collection firm with its principal place of business is located in
Highlands Ranch, Colorado.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


STEEP HILL: Recalls Organic Garlic Powder Due to Salmonella
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 27, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Steep Hill Food
Co-op Distribution: Saskatchewan
Extent of the product distribution: Retail

The food recall warning issued on March 25, 2015 has been updated
to include additional product information. This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

Steep Hill Food Co-op is recalling organic garlic powder from the
marketplace due to possible Salmonella contamination. Consumers
should not consume the recalled products described below.

The following product has been sold from the Steep Hill Food Co-op
located at 730 Broadway Avenue, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan from
January 5, 2015 to March 20, 2015.

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

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

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of this product.

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

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

  Brand name   Common name     Size      Code(s)       UPC
  ----------   -----------     ----      on product    ---
                                         ----------
  None         Organic garlic  Variable  Variable      None
               Powder


SUTTER HEALTH: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cedric Chan, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Sutter Health Sacramento Sierra Region, Case No. 2:15-
cv-02004 (C.D. Cal., March 18, 2015), seeks to stop the
Defendant's practice of sending unsolicited text messages an using
automatic telephone dialing system.

Sutter Health Sacramento Sierra Region is a medical service
provider headquartered in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      G. Thomas Martin III, Esq.
      Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq.
      MARTIN & BONTRAGER, APC
      6565 W. Sunset Blvd., Ste. 410
      Los Angeles, CA 90028
      Telephone: (323) 940-1700
      Facsimile: (323) 238-8095
      E-mail: Tom@mblawapc.com
              Nick@mblawapc.com

         - and -

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: ak@kazlg.com

         - and -

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


T-BIRD RESTAURANT: Case Conference in "Gehl" Suit Moved to Apr 28
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore has ordered for the
continuation of a case management conference in the class action
complaint filed by Holly Gehl, et al., against T-Bird Restaurant
Group, Inc., et al., to April 28, 2015, at 1:30 p.m.

The case management conference was previously scheduled for March
31, 2015.

The case is HOLLY GEHL; CHRIS ARMENTA; et al. each on behalf of
himself/herself, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. T-BIRD RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., a California
corporation; T-BIRD NEVADA, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability
Company; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO.
4:13-CV-05961-KAW, (N.D. Cal.).  A copy of the judge's Order is
available at http://is.gd/zu8U0cfrom Leagle.com.

DON SPRINGMEYER, BRADLEY S. SCHRAGER (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
JUSTIN JONES, WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO, SCHULMAN & RABKIN, LLP, Las
Vegas, Nevada.

MATTHEW OSTER, ERIC LEVINRAD, JOSHUA A. SHAPIRO, RICARDO ROZEN,
WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO, SCHULMAN & RABKIN, LLP, Los Angeles,
California, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

LATHROP & GAGE, LLP, BETH SCHROEDER, LAUREN KATUNICH, ALLISON
WALLIN, (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Attorneys for T-BIRD RESTAURANT
GROUP, INC. and T-BIRD NEVADA, LLC.


TELEPHONE AND DATA: Consumer Class Actions Filed Against Cellco
---------------------------------------------------------------
Telephone and Data Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that various
consumer class action lawsuits allege that Cellco Partnership
violated certain state consumer protection laws and other statutes
and defrauded customers through misleading billing practices or
statements. These matters may involve indemnification obligations
by third parties and/or affiliated parties covering all or part of
any potential damage awards against Cellco and the Los Angeles
SMSA Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") and/or insurance
coverage. All of the matters are subject to many uncertainties,
and the outcomes are not currently predictable.

The Partnership may be allocated a portion of the damages that may
result upon adjudication of these matters if the claimants prevail
in their actions. In none of the currently pending matters is the
amount of accrual material. An estimate of the reasonably possible
loss or range of loss in excess of the amounts already accrued to
either Cellco or the Partnership with respect to these matters as
of December 31, 2014 cannot be made at this time due to various
factors typical in contested proceedings, including (1) uncertain
damage theories and demands; (2) a less than complete factual
record; (3) uncertainty concerning legal theories and their
resolution by courts or regulators; and (4) the unpredictable
nature of the opposing party and its demands.

"We continuously monitor these proceedings as they develop and
adjust any accrual or disclosure as needed. We do not expect that
the ultimate resolution of any pending regulatory or legal matter
in future periods will have a material effect on the financial
condition of the Partnership, but it could have a material effect
on our results of operations for a given reporting period," the
Company said.


THOR INDUSTRIES: Recalls Multiple Motorhome Models
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 24, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motor home
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Accessories
Units affected:73
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015124TC
ID number: 2015124

On certain motorhomes, the HSM Quad Steps rivets that hold the
steps together may loosen and fail. If the rivets fail the steps
could collapse causing a person to fall resulting in injury.
Correction: Dealers will inspect and replace the rivets with
shoulder bolts.


THOR INDUSTRIES: Recalls Crossroad RV Cruiser Models
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 25, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Travel Trailer
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Accessories
Units affected: 28
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015128TC
ID number: 2015128

On certain travel trailers, the Norco slide room mechanisms may be
defective. The cables slide that controls the inward and outward
motion of the room could be fastened with defective screws. If the
screws were to fail, the slide room could extend while the vehicle
is in motion increasing the risk of crash causing injury and/or
damage to property. Correction: Dealers will replace the defective
screws.

   Make           Model      Model year(s) affected
   ----           -----      ----------------------
   CROSSROADS RV  CRUISER    2016, 2016, 2016, 2016


TRANS UNION: Faces "Niermann" Suit Over Security Freeze Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Niermann individually and on behalf of persons similarly
situated v. Trans Union, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-02366 (N.D. Ill.,
March 18, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's unlawful practice
of charging $10.00 as a pre-condition to placing a security
freeze.

Trans Union, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company that
provides credit information and information management services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Caddell, Esq.
      Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq.
      Amy E. Tabor, Esq.
      CADDELL & CHAPMAN
      1331 Lamar, Suite 1070
      Houston, TX 77010-3027
      Telephone: (713) 751-0400
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0906
      E-mail: mac@caddellchapman.com
              cbc@caddellchapman.com
              aet@caddellchapman.com

         - and -

      Francis R. Greene, Esq.
      EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
      20 South Clark Street
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 739-4200
      Facsimile: (3120 419-0379
      E-mail: fgreene@edcombs.com


UNITED STATES: Lummi Tribe Joins Land Buyback Program Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the federal government says the
Lummi Nation of northwest Washington state has joined a $1.9
billion tribal lands consolidation program.

Deputy Secretary of the Interior Mike Connor announced on March 9
the tribe signed a cooperative agreement with the federal
government to participate in the land buyback program.  The
program is part of a $3.4 billion settlement of a class-action
lawsuit filed by Elouise Cobell of Browning, Montana, who died in
2011.  The lawsuit claimed Interior Department officials
mismanaged trust money held by the government for hundreds of
thousands of Indian landowners.

Lummi Nation Chairman Timothy Ballew says the move will allow the
tribe to place previously unusable fractioned lands into trust for
the tribe.  The program has so far paid nearly $350 million to
Native Americans landowners and restored the equivalent of about
540,000 acres to tribal governments.


VARIETES PIERRE: Recalls Happy Cabin Toys Due to Choking Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:  March 23, 2015
Posting date: March 23, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Toys
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Choking Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-52645

This recall involves a toy containing a small house with
figurines, a swing and other plastic accessories with lights and
sound.

The product can be identified by model number 178969 and by UPC
627997789697. This information appears on a label affixed to the
back of the box. "Imported by VPP" also appears on the label.

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determined
that various components of the toy can break into small pieces,
posing a choking hazard to young children. These pieces can also
have sharp edges, posing a risk of injury to young children.

Neither Health Canada nor Varietes Pierre Prud'homme Inc. has
received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to
the use of this product.

Consumers can find information on how to choose safe toys and
protect their children when they play by visiting the Toy Safety
Tips page on the Healthy Canadians website.

Approximately 147 of the recalled toys were sold in Canada.

The recalled toy was sold from August 26, 2014 to December 16,
2014.

Manufactured in China.

Importer: Varietes Pierre Prud'homme Inc.
          St-Jerome
          Quebec
          CANADA

Consumers should immediately take the recalled toy away from
children and return it to the place of purchase for a full refund.

For more information, consumers may contact Varietes Pierre
Prud'homme Inc. at 1-888-844-4490, extension 291, Monday to
Thursday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Friday from 9:00 a.m. to
4:00 p.m., or by email.

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

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

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


VIP SOAP: Recalls Citrus All Purpose Cleaner Due to Mislabeling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 30, 2015
Posting date: March 30, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Chemicals
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Labeling and Packaging
Audience: General Public
Identification number:  RA-52711

This recall involves Citrus All Purpose Cleaner sold in clear 950
mL containers with bright yellow liquid with UPC 063827060190.

Health Canada's auditing process has revealed that the product
does not meet labeling requirements for consumer chemical products
under Canadian law.

The consumer product does not have proper hazard labeling required
by the Consumer Chemicals and Containers Regulations, 2001 under
the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act.  The improper labeling
could result in unintentional exposure to these products and lead
to serious illness, injury, or death.

Neither Health Canada nor V.I.P. Soap Products Ltd. has received
any reports of consumer incidents related to the use of this
product.

Approximately 16,512 units of the recalled product were sold in
various retail locations in Canada.

The recalled product was sold in Canada between January 2012 and
March 2015.

Manufactured in Canada.

Manufacturer: V.I.P. Soap Products Ltd.
              Mission
              British Columbia
              CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled product and
return it to the place of purchase for a full refund or contact
the manufacturer by email or by telephone at 1-604-820-8665 for
them to have the product picked up by courier and to receive a
full refund.

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

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/dNt2VL


VISA INC: Settles Class Action Over Zipcar Policy
-------------------------------------------------
Joe Van Acker and David McAfee, writing for Law360, report that
Visa Inc. has settled a proposed class action accusing it of
unfairly refusing to provide a promised rental car damage waiver
because it didn't recognize Zipcar Inc. as a rental car company,
according to documents filed in California federal court on
March 6.

Under the terms of the settlement, Visa will pay more than
$160,000 to cardholders whose claims for its auto rental collision
damage waiver were denied due to Visa's internal policy that
identified Zipcar as something other than a rental car company.
The settlement said Visa began accepting Zipcar claims in November
and is required to do so through March 2015.

"Even though plaintiff believes he could establish liability were
the case to go to trial, this settlement represents a 100 percent
recovery for class members and, going forward, the case is hardly
an easy win," the motion for final approval of the settlement
said. "Whether Zipcar qualifies as a rental agency under the terms
of the benefit agreement is a question which has not been
definitively answered or addressed in any case."

After March, Visa can either choose to continue accepting the
claims or change its benefit policy, but if it does change the
benefit agreement, the company has to make the new policy clear to
consumers, the settlement said.

Lead plaintiff Ron Davis will receive a service award of up to
$2,000 and Visa also agreed to cover more than $57,000 in legal
fees he incurred, according to his motion seeking court approval.

The settlement said Visa will cover claims it denied to 266 class
members with cash payments averaging about $650 apiece.

Mr. Davis sued Visa in November 2013, saying he'd used his Visa-
branded Alaska Airlines Signature credit card to rent a Zipcar and
incurred more than $720 in damage to the rental, but was denied
after submitting his claim for the collision damage waiver.

In March 2014, Visa moved to dismiss Mr. Davis' second amended
complaint.  The company denied his fraud allegations and said
Davis had never even read the benefit agreement, so he couldn't
possibly claim that Visa should be held liable for omitting its
Zipcar policy from a document he'd never even seen.

Visa also pointed to information on Zipcar's website that said,
"We're really not a rental car company," and directed customers to
contact their credit card companies to see if damages are covered.

Mr. Davis replied that Zipcar is a rental car company because its
customers don't hold or share title to any of the vehicles in
Zipcar's fleet.  He also argued that even if he hadn't read the
benefit agreement initially, the benefit's "perceived existence"
caused him to file a claim.

Mr. Davis' attorney, Charles David Marshall, told Law360 on
March 9 that he was pleased with the settlement.

"This is one of the best and most efficient settlements for a
class that I've been a part of or seen," Mr. Marshall said.
"Class members are being reimbursed 100 percent of their loss, are
not required to jump through onerous hoops to get paid, and a
fight many [class members] thought was lost has been won."

Visa is represented by Jaclyn Ann Blankenship, Richard Blair Goetz
-- rgoetz@omm.com -- and Matthew David Powers of O'Melveny & Myers
LLP.

Mr. Davis is represented by Charles David Marshall of Marshall Law
Firm.

The case is Ron Davis v. Visa Inc., case number 3:13-cv-05125, in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.


WASHINGTON: Mental Health Bill Passes Amid Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a bill to establish a 14-day
deadline for mental-health evaluations of people charged in crimes
passed the Washington Legislature on March 9 and is headed to Gov.
Jay Inslee for his signature.

A bipartisan group of House members passed the measure 84-14.

Washington is defending a class-action lawsuit over allegations
that some defendants have been forced to stay in jails for weeks
or months while waiting for testing.  Existing policy gives jails
and hospitals a one-week target to evaluate the mental health of
people in custody, but a lack of beds and staff has contributed to
long waitlists.

"This sets a hard timeline of 14 days, which is much quicker than
what we're achieving right now in Washington," said Rep. Laurie
Jinkins, D-Tacoma.

Under Senate Bill 5889, any facility that exceeds 14 days in
completing evaluations must submit a report to the governor and
Legislature describing what action is being taken to improve. A
defendant whose evaluation took longer than 14 days could also
cite that in his defense in court.

Ms. Jinkins said the 14-day deadline is in line with the policy
recommendations for giving defendants mental-health tests that
often cannot be instantly administered.

"We have individuals who come into a jail setting when they may be
affected by some substance-abuse issues, and it's important to let
those things clear before we do mental-health evaluations," she
said.

The bill passed the Senate 48-1 and received little debate on the
House floor.

Rep. Jay Rodne, R-Snoqualmie, was the only critic of the bill who
spoke during the House's rapid March 9 floor vote, and he voted
for it.

"This is, again, a Band-Aid approach to deal with a mental health
system that's broken," Mr. Rodne said, but added that it was still
better than available alternatives the state could choose from.


WESTBURY HEALTH: Faces "Robinson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Robinson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Westbury Health And Rehabilitation Center-Conyers,
Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00798 (N.D. Ga., March 18, 2015), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

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


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: $32MM Loss Exposure in Contamination Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc. currently estimates that its
reasonably possible loss exposure in the Alaska refinery
contamination litigation could range from an insignificant amount
up to $32 million, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

In 2010, James West filed a class action lawsuit in state court in
Fairbanks, Alaska on behalf of individual property owners whose
water contained sulfolane contamination allegedly emanating from
the Flint Hills Oil Refinery in North Pole, Alaska.  "The suit
named our subsidiary, Williams Alaska Petroleum Inc. (WAPI), and
Flint Hills Resources Alaska, LLC (FHRA), a subsidiary of Koch
Industries, Inc., as defendants. We owned and operated the
refinery until 2004 when we sold it to FHRA. We and FHRA have made
claims under the pollution liability insurance policy issued in
connection with the sale of the North Pole refinery to FHRA. We
and FHRA also filed claims against each other seeking, among other
things, contractual indemnification alleging that the other party
caused the sulfolane contamination," the Company said.

"In 2011, we and FHRA settled the James West claim. We and FHRA
subsequently filed motions for summary judgment on the other's
claims. On November 5, 2013, the court ruled that the applicable
statute of limitations bars all FHRA's claims against us and
dismissed those claims with prejudice. FHRA asked the court to
reconsider and clarify its ruling. On July 8, 2014, the court
reaffirmed its dismissal of all FHRA's claims and entered judgment
for us. On August 6, 2014, FHRA appealed the court's decision to
the Alaska Supreme Court.

"We currently estimate that our reasonably possible loss exposure
in this matter could range from an insignificant amount up to $32
million, although uncertainties inherent in the litigation
process, expert evaluations, and jury dynamics might cause our
exposure to exceed that amount."


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Supreme Court to Hear Suit Against WPX Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the U.S. Supreme
Court agreed to hear the class action filed by direct and indirect
purchasers of natural gas against WPX Energy, Inc.

Direct and indirect purchasers of natural gas in various states
filed class actions against WPX Energy, Inc (WPX) and others
alleging the manipulation of published gas price indices and
seeking unspecified amounts of damages. Such actions were
transferred to the Nevada federal district court for consolidation
of discovery and pre-trial issues.

In 2011, the Nevada district court granted WPX's joint motions for
summary judgment to preclude the plaintiffs' state law claims
because the federal Natural Gas Act gives the FERC exclusive
jurisdiction to resolve those issues. The court also denied the
plaintiffs' class certification motion as moot. The plaintiffs
appealed the court's ruling and on April 10, 2013, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court and remanded
the cases to the district court to permit the plaintiffs to pursue
their state antitrust claims for natural gas sales that were not
subject to FERC jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act. On July 1,
2014, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the cases.

"Because of the uncertainty around the remaining pending
unresolved issues, including an insufficient description of the
purported classes and other related matters, we cannot reasonably
estimate a range of potential exposures at this time," the Company
said.  "However, it is reasonably possible that the ultimate
resolution of these items and our related indemnification
obligation could result in future charges that may be material to
our results of operations. In connection with this
indemnification, we have an accrued liability balance associated
with this matter, and as a result, have an indirect exposure to
future developments in this matter."


YAMAHA: Recalls Viking VI Side-By-Side ATVs
-------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 23, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: A.T.V.
Notification type: Safety
MfrSystem: Wheels
Units affected: 199
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015122TC
ID number: 2015122
Manufacturer recall number: SSV15-004

On certain Viking VI side-by-side ATV's equipped with steel
wheels, the rear wheel nuts could potentially loosen over time due
to an incorrect taper specification of the steel rear wheel where
the wheel nuts contact the inner wheel panel. If this were to
occur, the rear wheels could loosen and cause a wobble from the
rear end. This could affect vehicle handling, and in some cases
lead to the rear wheels separating, which could lead to a crash
causing injury and/or property damage. Correction: Dealers will
replace both steel rear wheels with new ones that have the correct
taper specification.

   Make    Model   Model year(s) affected
   ----    -----   ----------------------
   YAMAHA          2015


* CFPB Report Criticizes Credit Card Arbitration Clauses
--------------------------------------------------------
Alan Zibel, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that a
federal consumer regulator on March 10 was set to release a study
criticizing routine fine print that limits credit-card and
checking-account holders from taking disputes to court, signaling
it may attempt to restrict the use of arbitration clauses in
account agreements.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau report, required by the
2010 Dodd-Frank financial law, concluded arbitration clauses in
product agreements are keeping people from getting financial
relief from class-action lawsuits, which pool complaints into
group litigation.

The clauses typically require consumers to resolve disputes over
issues such as checking-account fees and credit-card charges
through industry-organized private arbitration and bars them from
joining group litigation.

"Our study found that these arbitration clauses restrict consumer
relief in disputes with financial companies by limiting class
actions that provide millions of dollars in redress each year,"
CFPB Director Richard Cordray said in a written statement.  "Now
that our study has been completed, we will consider what next
steps are appropriate."

The study said more than half of the nation's credit-card debt and
44% of checking-account deposits are covered by arbitration
clauses.  Student loans offered by financial firms, payday loans
and mobile-phone accounts typically also come with arbitration
restrictions, it said.

The study concluded that consumers stand a better chance of
getting financial compensation from a class-action proceeding than
from arbitration.  It said consumers from 2010 to 2012 filed an
average of 615 arbitration disputes annually with the American
Arbitration Association, the main U.S. arbitration group.  By
comparison, it said about 32 million finance consumers are
eligible for relief from class-action settlements annually, the
CFPB said.

The study also found three out of four consumers didn't know if
their accounts were subject to an arbitration clause and most
didn't understand the clause limited their ability to take a
dispute to court.

The CFPB study is a necessary step before the bureau can propose
rules limiting their use.  It comes as consumer advocates have
pressed for restrictions on arbitration clauses.  Along with other
advocates, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass), who led the CFPB
before its official launch, has criticized the practice.

Susan Weinstock, director of the consumer-banking initiative at
the Pew Charitable Trusts, said the CFPB should write rules to
keep lenders from blocking access to class-action cases.

"If you have a problem with your bank and it's worth a hundred
dollars, how much are you going to pursue it," she said.  "If it's
just you, and you're not allowed to join a class action, then
you're stuck."

The financial-services industry says it uses arbitration as a way
to settle disputes with consumers at a lower cost and argues the
types of disputes that go to arbitration are unlikely to proceed
as a class-action case.  The industry also says it believes
consumers are often better-served through the private arbitration
process.

"Arbitration is an efficient, fair and low-cost method of
resolving disputes in a fraction of the time -- and at a fraction
of the cost -- of expensive litigation," said Nessa Feddis, a
senior vice president at the American Bankers Association.

If the CFPB bars lenders from requiring consumers to waive their
class-action rights, companies will largely abandon arbitration
and consumers will be hurt, said Alan Kaplinsky, a lawyer who
advocates for financial-industry arbitration. "They'll have to go
to court, and they won't do as well," he said.

Carol Brewer, a class-action lawyer in San Francisco, said
consumers who have arbitration clauses can sometimes receive
compensation in class-action settlements but often at a lower
dollar amount than those not covered by the agreements.

In settlements over auto-lending practices, Ms. Brewer said she
was able to negotiate compensation for people subject to the
clauses at about half the level of those without arbitration
clauses in loan contracts.


                             *********

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  * * *