CAR_Public/150409.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, April 9, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 71


                             Headlines

ABILITY HOUSE: Faces "Kamara" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ACE FOAM: Supreme Court Won't Review Class Action Ruling
ALABAMA: AG Attempts to Stall Strawser Marriage Equality Case
ALCON LABORATORIES: Scott+Scott Files Antitrust Class Action
ALIBABA GROUP: Faces "O'Silva" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports

ANGIE'S LIST: Faces Class Action Over Review Manipulation
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Keeton" Suit in Mo. Over Alleged Data Breach
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Ames" Class Suit in Indiana District Court
AT&T MOBILITY: Faces "Kelsey" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
AUTONATION INC: Faces "Wiley" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

BALL STATE: Confirms 80 Victims of ID Thefts
BASIC ENERGY: Moves "Kimbrell" Suit to New Mexico District Court
BASIC ENERGY: Removes "Marlar" Suit to New Mexico District Court
BAYER AG: Judge Tosses Some Claims in One-A-Day Labeling Suit
BP PLC: Removes "Gortney" Class Suit to Florida District Court

BRINKS INC: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug Files Overtime Class Action
BURBERRY LTD: Removes "Manner" Suit to California District Court
CENTRAL STATES LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay OT, "McCulley" Suit Says
CHINA HOUSE: Faces "Barrientos" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CLEVELAND, OH: Appeals Traffic Camera Class Action Ruling

COLUMBIA LABS: Appeals Court Affirms Class Action Dismissal
COOPER VISION: Faces "Moy" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing
COWABUNGA INC: Faces "Hines" Suit Over Reimbursement Policies
DELOITTE: Faces C$384MM Document Reviewer Class Action
EASTERN ACCOUNT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Specht" Suit Claims

EQUIFAX INC: Sued in D.N.J. Over Inaccurate Consumer Reports
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Children's Online Purchases
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Candy Crush App
FANCY HANDS: Faces "Callier" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
FIDELITY BROKERAGE: Violates Disabilities Act, Class Suit Claims

FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
FOXBORO, MA: Class Action Over Stadium Protective Custody Narrows
GLATFELTE: Faces Class Action Over Noxious Odors
GLOBAL SPECTRUM: Faces "Hudgon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
HEIDTMAN STEEL: Faces "McClain" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

HHGREGG INC: Faces "Mielo" Suit Over Disabilities Act Violations
HISHMEH ENTERPRISES: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Reimbursement Policy
HORIZON GROUP: To Sell Assets to Fund Class Action Settlement
IMG WORLDWIDE: Faces "Davis" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
INDIANA: BMV Class Actions Seek Audit of Fee Structures

JAMES WARREN: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
JP MORGAN: Faces Class Action Over Power Market Manipulation
JUDICIAL ALTERNATIVES: Accused of Civil Rights Violation in Ga.
KIND LLC: Judge Tosses Refined Sugar Labeling Class Action
KRAFT FOODS: Court Cuts Attorneys' Fees in Failed Class Action

L&L ENERGY: June 26 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
LANDRY'S INC: "Ahmed" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
LISBOA HABANA: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Cross" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Neuhaus" Suit Over Toxic Flooring

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Schneider" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Laminate Class Action in Pennsylvania
MARION COUNTY, IN: Memo Reveals 72hr Practice for Jail Releases
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Robertson & Associates Files Class Action
MIDWAY REMARKETING: Faces "Rojas" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

MOBILE AUTO: Faces "Zolotoff" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MRS BPO: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, "Lefkowitz" Suit Says
NATIONAL GRID: Faces TCPA Class Action in New York
NESTLE PURINA: Finleyville Consumer Says Beneful Killed Pet Dog
NEW YORK & CO: Removes "Pietrantonio" Suit to D. Massachusetts

NEWARK WATERSHED: Plaintiffs' Attorney Wants Stay on Suit Lifted
NEWFRESCO TORTILLAS: Faces "Chen" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
NVIDIA CORPORATION: Falsely Marketed GTX 970 Units, Suit Claims
OFFICE DEPOT: Sued Over Breach of Americans with Disabilities Act
OLIVER EXTERMINATING: Removes "Tenai" Class Suit to S.D. Florida

OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS: Barrack, Rodos & Bacine Files Class Action
OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Suit
PELICAN BAY, CA: Solitary Confinement Suit May Proceed
PH BEAUTY: Removes "Marshall" Suit to California District Court
PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Guenser" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach

PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Hoirup" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
PROGRESSIVE FINANCIAL: Accused of Violating FDCPA in New York
REEVE TRUCKING: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
SEASIDE ROOFING: Faces "Mercado" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
SPEEDY STOP: NASM Files Amicus Curiae in Swipe-Fee Class Action

SUMMERLIN HOSPITAL: Suit Over Tuberculosis Outbreak May Proceed
TAXI TOURS: "Balderramo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
TELEXFREE LLC: Judge Halts Class Action Evidence Gathering
TINDER: Responds to Class Action Over New Fees
TONG SHEN: "Miranda" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

TWEEN BRANDS: Shoppers to Get Refunds Via Class-Action Settlement
UBER TECH: Faces Class Action Drivers' Info Breach
UBER TECH: Drivers' Class Actions to Go to Jury Trial
UBS AG: Among Defendants in Silver Price-Fixing Class Action
US BANK: Faces Mortgage Insurance Class Action in Minnesota

VIACOM INC: Settles Intern Minimum Wage Class Action for $7.2MM
WAL-MART STORES: Faces Vision Payment Class Action in Arkansas
WELLS FARGO: Settles TCPA Class Action in California
WESTCHESTER SUPER: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
WINE GROUP: Faces "Marvin" Suit Over Use of Inorganic Arsenic

XOOM CORP: Removes "Barrett" Class Suit to N.D. California
XOOM CORP: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
ZUFFA LLC: Faces "Kingburry" Suit Over MMA Promotion Monopoly

* CFPB Issues Report on Mandatory Consumer Arbitration Clauses
* Few Consumers Understand Arbitration Clauses in Fin'l Products


                            *********


ABILITY HOUSE: Faces "Kamara" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Samba Kamara, Wanda Fouch, Pamela Henry, David C. Burtch, & Kori
Adkins, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v.  Ability House, Ltd., George Hudson, Rose Hudson, & Travis
Hudson, Case No. 5:15-cv-00224 (W.D. Tex., March 24, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Ability House, Ltd. provides day rehabilitation services,
counseling, and care management in the San Antonio and Corpus
Christi areas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Allison Sarah Hartry, Esq.
      THE MORALES FIRM, P.C.
      115 E. Travis St., Suite 1530
      San Antonio, TX 78205
      Telephone: (210) 225-0811
      Facsimile: (210) 225-0821
      E-mail: ahartry@themoralesfirm.com


ACE FOAM: Supreme Court Won't Review Class Action Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the
U.S. Supreme Court will not review a federal appeals court ruling
allowing a class action lawsuit that potentially includes hundreds
of millions of members and seeks more than $9 billion in damages
to proceed against a group of flexible foam manufacturers.

The nation's high court denied a writ of certiorari filed by
Carpenter Co., Woodbridge Foam Corp. and others in a 14-page order
list.  Justices did not provide a reason for their decision.  The
companies filed their petition with the court in November.

The case, Carpenter Co. Et Al v. Ace Foam Inc. Et Al and Greg
Beastrom Et Al, involves allegations of decades-long price-fixing
among numerous polyurethane foam manufacturers.

Polyurethane foam is a material used in mattresses, pillows and
upholstered furniture, among other things.  The companies claim
there isn't enough in common between various purchasers of the
foam products to allow the class action to proceed.

"This gargantuan class action -- which is likely the largest ever
certified and upheld by a federal court of appeals -- sweeps
together dissimilar purchasers of a vast number of distinct
products sold by disparate groups of Defendants at varying prices
in a variety of markets over more than a decade," lawyers for the
companies wrote in their petition to the Supreme Court.  "They
cover a kaleidoscope of different purchasers and products, ranging
from furniture manufacturers purchasing seat padding, to
individuals buying foam pillows and hotel chains acquiring new
mattresses.  The only common thread is some connection to
polyurethane foam, a truly ubiquitous product that is found in
virtually every home, office and vehicle in America.

"Given the tremendous breadth of this class action, it is
impossible to even ascertain whether a given purchase is traceable
to any Defendant, let alone which purchasers suffered any injury
or are entitled to any measure of damages, without resorting to
fact-intensive individualized inquiries."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected the
company's argument, upholding a district court's certification of
two classes.


ALABAMA: AG Attempts to Stall Strawser Marriage Equality Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scottie Thomaston, writing for Equality On Trial, reports that
there's been a development about the National Center For Lesbian
Rights' (NCLR) proposed class-action amendment to the Strawser
marriage equality case.

Alabama's attorney general is attempting to stall the case until
after the US Supreme Court issues its decision in late June.
Mobile County Probate Judge is currently the only other defendant
in the case (unless and until new parties are added when the
class-action motions are taken up) and he has yet to file a
response.

On March 12, Judge Granade ordered his response to be submitted by
March 17.  The court wanted him to address the possibility of the
addition of new parties, plaintiffs and defendants including all
same-sex couples who want to marry in Alabama and all county
probate judges, whether those groups should be certified as a
class, and whether a preliminary injunction should be granted
requiring all county probate judges to issue marriage licenses to
same-sex couples.

The process of certification may take a couple of weeks.


ALCON LABORATORIES: Scott+Scott Files Antitrust Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP on March 11 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of
disposable contact lenses alleging that certain manufacturers of
contact lenses, including Defendants Alcon Laboratories, Inc.
("Alcon") (a division of Novartis International AG ("Novartis"));
Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. ("J&J") (which operates in the
United States under the "Vistakon" trade name); Bausch + Lomb
("B&L"), owned by Valeant Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Valeant"); and
Cooper Vision, Inc. ("Cooper") (collectively, "Manufacturer
Defendants"), conspired with each other and with Defendant ABB
Optical Group ("ABB") to impose minimum resale prices on certain
contact lens lines by subjecting them to a so-called "Unilateral
Pricing Policy" ("UPP") and thereby eliminate price competition on
those products.

The Complaint alleges that the Manufacturer Defendants conspired
with each other and with Defendant ABB, a wholesaler, as well as
independent eye care professionals ("ECP") represented by ABB and
their trade association, the American Optometric Association, to
impose UPPs and thereby eliminate price competition on those
products by "big box" stores (e.g., those owned by Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc. ("Wal-Mart") and Meijer, Inc. ("Meijer")), buying
clubs (e.g., those run by Costco), and internet-based retailers
(e.g., 1-800-Contacts and LensDiscounters.com) by substantially
preventing them from discounting those products.  As ECPs
themselves have acknowledged, this new pricing scheme represents a
"fundamental shift" in how contact lenses are sold to consumers.

A copy of the complaint is available at:

    https://www.scott-scott.com/cases/Alcon Labs Complaint.pdf

The class includes all persons and entities who purchased
disposable contact lenses manufactured by Alcon, J&J, B&L, or
Cooper from June 1, 2013 to the present (the "Class Period"),
where the prices for such contact lenses were set pursuant to a
UPP.  The lines of disposable lenses alleged to be impacted by the
anticompetitive conduct are: Alcon - Dailies Total1, Dailies
AquaComfort Plus Multifocal, Dailies AquaComfort Plus Toric, and
Air Optix Colors; B+L - Ultra; J&J - 1-Day Acuvue Maoist, 1-Day
Acuvue Moist for Astigmatism, 1-Day Acuvue TruEye, Acuvue Oasys
with Hydraclear, Acuvue Oasys for Astigmatism, and Acuvue Oasys
for Presbyopia; and CV - Clariti.

If you wish to discuss this action or have questions concerning
this notice or your rights, please contact Scott+Scott
(scottlaw@scott-scott.com (800) 404-7770, (212) 223-6444, or visit
the Scott+Scott website, http://www.scott-scott.com)for more
information.  There is no cost or fee to you.

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major class
actions throughout the United States.  The firm represents
individuals, pension funds, foundations, and other entities
worldwide.


ALIBABA GROUP: Faces "O'Silva" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Placidius O'Silva, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Alibaba Group Holding Limited, Jack Yun Ma,
Joseph C. Tsai, Jonathan Zhaoxi Lu, and Maggie Wei Wu, Case No.
3:15-cv-01360 (N.D. Cal., March 24, 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.

Alibaba Group Holding Limited is a China-based online and mobile
commerce company in retail and wholesale trade, as well as cloud
computing and other services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amber L. Eck, Esq.
      ZELDES HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP
      625 Broadway, Suite 1000
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 342-8000
      Facsimile: (619) 342-7878
      E-mail: ambere@zhlaw.com

         - and -

      Alfred G. Yates Jr., Esq.
      Gerald L. Rutledge
      LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR., P.C.
      429 Forbes Avenue
      Pittsburgh, PA 15234
      Telephone: (412) 391-5164
      Facsimile: (412) 471-1033
      E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com


ANGIE'S LIST: Faces Class Action Over Review Manipulation
---------------------------------------------------------
Alex Wolf and Cara Salvatore, writing for Law360, report that
Angie's List Inc. was hit with a class action on March 11 in
Pennsylvania federal court that contends the online-review site
lures consumers of local service providers to pay for access to
purportedly unfiltered reviews, ratings and search rankings when
it actually profits from secretly manipulating those features.

Janelle Moore, a Pennsylvania resident claiming to be a paying
Angie's List member since 2012, says she has been misled more than
once by the website's service provider rankings.  She contends
that manipulating reviews and rankings violates Federal Trade
Commission guidelines and Pennsylvania consumer protection laws by
breaching consumer trust with false promises.

"By wrongfully manipulating consumer-generated reviews and
ratings, as well as search result rankings, Angie's List deceives,
defrauds, and misleads its existing and potential member base,"
the complaint says.  "Angie's List does not help members find the
'best' service provider, but rather the one who paid the most
money to Angie's List."

The suit alleges that although Angie's List purports to be a
"passive conduit" for sharing reviews, ratings and search rankings
based solely on "actual firsthand experiences of other users" in
its membership agreements, it actually conceals that service
providers influence rankings, ratings and reviews in three ways in
exchange for substantial fees.

According to the complaint, which is based on Ms. Moore's
experiences and reports from news outlets, Angie's List secretly
changes the order in which service providers are listed in search
results by ranking some of them higher based on how much they pay
in "advertising" fees.

Ms. Moore cites a 2013 report by Forbes Magazine that said an NBC
TV affiliate in Richmond, Virginia, discovered that the best-
reviewed heating and air company in that area was ranked below 11
others that had inferior ratings or just a handful of reviews
because it had not paid the $12,000 to $15,000 required to move up
the list.  The suit also alleges that Angie's List will suppress
negative reviews so they don't appear in search results and remove
negative reviews through its internal "complaint resolution
process."  Lastly, Ms. Moore claims that Angie's List extorts fees
from service providers by threatening to suppress positive reviews
unless they pay up.

"This distorts the integrity of search results because a consumer
can never be sure whether her search has located the service
providers with the most positive reviews or not," the complaint
says.  "Angie's List's secret, pervasive, and self-serving actions
violate consumer expectations, the company's advertisements and
other public statements and representations, and the membership
agreement."

The suit aims to certify a class of paying Angie's List members in
Pennsylvania to sue under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices
and Consumer Protection Law.  It also aims to certify a class of
paying subscribers throughout the U.S. to claim the company
breached consumer agreements, fraudulently induced membership by
falsely promising what the service offers and was unjustly
enriched.

The complaint asks that the judge issue declarative relief voiding
Angie's List membership for all class members and order the
company to pay restitution for membership fees and be disgorged of
all of the profits from the purported misconduct.  Ms. Moore also
asks that the judge enjoin the company from engaging in the
illegal practices and require punitive and exemplary damages.

This action comes on the heels of a similar suit filed in October
in Delaware Chancery Court by an investor, suing the company and
its co-founders, William Oesterle and Angela Hicks Bowman, and a
bevy of other executives, saying they sold ratings to businesses
and moved away from a consumer-driven model.

According to that complaint, Angie's List has more than 3 million
paying members.  The company, which has existed in some capacity
since 1995, went public in November 2011 and has grown every year
since, most recently reporting $315 million in revenue for fiscal
year 2014, the complaint says.

Ms. Moore is represented by Richard M. Golomb, Ruben Honik,
Kenneth J. Grunfeld and David J. Stanoch of Golomb & Honik PC.

The case is Moore et al. v. Angie's List Inc., case number 2:15-
cv-01243, in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Keeton" Suit in Mo. Over Alleged Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Keeton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-00513 (E.D.
Mo., March 23, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to provide adequate security and protection for its computer
systems containing patient's personally identifiable information
and personal health information.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John S. Steward, Esq.
      STEWARD LAW FIRM, LLC
      1717 Park Avenue
      St. Louis, MO 63104
      Telephone: (314) 571-7134
      Facsimile: (314) 594-5950
      E-mail: glaw123@aol.com

         - and -

      Joseph V. Neill, Esq.
      ATTORNEY AT LAW
      5201 Hampton Avenue
      St. Louis, MO 63109
      Telephone: (314) 353-1001
      Facsimile: (314) 353-0181
      E-mail: Neill5300@aol.com

         - and -

      Ben Barnow, Esq.
      BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      1 North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 621-2000
      Facsimile: (312) 641-5504
      E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Ames" Class Suit in Indiana District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Ames and Barbara Bader, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Anthem Inc. d/b/a Anthem Health Inc.,
Anthem Inc., Anthem Companies Inc. d/b/a Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Wisconsin, Anthem Companies Inc., Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield
of New Jersey, Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey, Blue
Cross Blue Shield of Arizona Inc., and Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Arizona Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00465-SEB-TAB (S.D. Ind., March 20,
2015) asserts claims for breach of contract.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
          Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
          Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
          Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq.
          Vess Allen Miller, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636-6481
          Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
          E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com
                  ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
                  rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
                  sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com
                  vmiller@cohenandmalad.com


AT&T MOBILITY: Faces "Kelsey" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Erika M. Kelsey, individually and on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. AT&T Mobility Services LLC, et al.,
Case No. 3:15-cv-01352 (N.D. Cal., March 24, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

AT&T Mobility Services LLC is the largest mobile phone company in
the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Katherine J. Odenbreit, Esq.,
      ODENBREIT LAW, APC
      16835 Algonquin Street, Suite 221
      Huntington Beach, CA 92649
      Telephone: (888) 490-3510
      Facsimile: (714) 908-7628
      E-mail: kodenbreit@kjolaw.com

         - and -
       Briana Kim, Esq.,
       BRIANA KIM, PC
       249 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 814
       Long Beach, CA 90802
       Telephone: (714)842-6301
       Facsimile: (714)482-6302
       E-mail: Briana@brianakim.com


AUTONATION INC: Faces "Wiley" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trena Wiley, on behalf of herself and others similarly-situated v.
Autonation, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00916 (N.D. Tex., March 24,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime compensation for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

Autonation, Inc. is an auto retailer that maintains its principal
office located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Corinna Pia Chandler, Esq.
      Charles W. Branham III, Esq.
      DEAN OMAR & BRANHAM, LLP
      3900 Elm Street
      Dallas, TX 75226
      Telephone: (214) 722-5990
      Facsimile: (972) 692-5220
      E-mail: cchandler@dobllp.com
              tbranham@dobllp.com


BALL STATE: Confirms 80 Victims of ID Thefts
--------------------------------------------
Seth Slabaugh, writing The Star Press, reports that Ball State
University announced it has created an identity theft information
line and learned that 80 of its employees are victims of tax
return fraud.

Reports filed with city and county police show the victims include
an associate vice president, a dean, assistant deans, assistant
department chairs, directors and other senior officials in
information technology, human resources, the controller's office,
the student center, the health center, the athletics department,
the career center, the university foundation, the library, the
human performance lab and counseling.

Numerous faculty also have filed police reports, but so far no
clerical/maintenance/union/non-professional staff have done so
other than a couple of office coordinators.

"They don't have enough money," said Delaware County police Lt.
Greg Ellison.

Meanwhile, two local physicians, one employed at IU Health Ball
Memorial Hospital, and a local senior home health specialist,
Gary Brossart, also filed police reports recently of stolen Social
Security numbers and fake tax returns being filed on their behalf.

"I would imagine all of this stuff goes back to Anthem," the
health care company that was the target of a cyber attack weeks
ago, Mr. Brossart told The Star Press.  Like BSU employees,
Mr. Brossart is a member of Anthem.

While police know how many BSU victims have filed crime reports
locally (around 80), they have less information on how much money
has been stolen.

One BSU economics faculty member told police he received a tax
refund in the mail of $8,395.10 on a pre-paid T-Mobile Visa card.
When the professor and his wife called T-Mobile, they learned
$8.10 remained on the card. The card was cashed in at Walmarts in
several California cities.

When an associate dean received a refund in the mail of about
$8,400 on a pre-paid Green Dot card, he found out only $3 was left
on the card.

In some cases, the children of BSU employees also have had their
Social Security numbers stolen, Ellison said.  "They got the whole
family," he said of one case involving a couple and their three
children.

An assistant dean who has not yet filed his tax return received a
letter from the Treasury Department indicating he had received a
refund of $8,739, of which $3,840 was intercepted and paid to a
creditor, leaving a refund of $4,899. The assistant dean said he
was not entitled to any refund.

Michele Chiuini, a professor of architecture, told police he
received a fraudulent tax refund of $8,117, and that another
architecture professor's name mysteriously appeared on his tax
return.

" . . . clearly whoever filed the tax return does not know me or
my wife personally," Mr. Chiuini told The Star Press.  "Based on
the spelling of my name, they must have believed I was a woman and
added a male name as the spouse. It is also interesting that this
other person is in my same department . . ."

Professors of architecture, actuarial science, communications/
journalism, athletic training, economics, physics, art, geography,
voice, math, higher education, natural resources, counseling
psychology, political science and history have filed police
reports.

One of the faculty victims was Amy Harden, the chairperson of
University Senate.  When The Star Press asked her recently if she
knew of any faculty victims, she responded, "I have not talked to
anyone who has been victimized . . . but today found out that I am
one of those people."

There are likely more than 80 victims, according to Scott
Sherwood, an officer in the records division at the Muncie Police
Department.  He cited a state law requiring the law enforcement
agency where identity theft victims reside to take a crime report.

Many BSU faculty and professional staff live outside of Delaware
County, including a large number in the
Fishers/Carmel/Noblesville/Zionsville/Indianapolis zip codes.

Anthem and Ball State officials, along with cyber security experts
at Indiana and Purdue universities, have told The Star Press there
is no evidence that the Anthem security breach is related to fraud
schemes at Ball State or anywhere else.

The university's news center quoted stolen identity victim Dan
Byrnes, director of BSU sports facilities, as saying: "As one
agent of the credit bureaus stated, your Social Security number is
out there forever, so the journey of protecting our family's
identity looks like it will be a lifelong pursuit.  That's scary.
It is frustrating to have one incident that is not your fault
cause so much stress and inconvenience, particularly when you
think you have done all the right things in protecting your
identity and financial health."

Ball State on March 9 launched an identity theft information line
for employees at 765-285-4883 and at IDtheft@bsu.edu
In addition, the university has created a web page at
bsu.edu/idtheft

The news center quoted Frank Groom, a BSU information/
communication sciences professor, as saying: "This has been going
on for years, but in isolated clusters, so the news stays local.
For example, there is not much national news about the Ball State
and Western Kentucky tax fraud.  However, Hagens, Berman, Sobol,
and Shapiro LLP of Seattle have filed a class action lawsuit
against Anthem for the lack of security of customer identity
information.  There must be some activity there in Seattle.
Furthermore, Bloomberg Business and the Insurance Journal have
stated that the FBI has tentatively identified Chinese state-
sponsored hackers as the Anthem thieves."

Ball State's confirmation of at least 80 victims comes from
employees "who chose to tell us they were victimized," spokeswoman
Joan Todd said. " . . . we don't know who might have been
victimized and hasn't reported it.  And some might not even know
at this point, since the filing deadline is more than a month
away."


BASIC ENERGY: Moves "Kimbrell" Suit to New Mexico District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Kimbrell v. Basic Energy Services,
Inc., Case No. D-504-CV-2015-00061, was removed from the Fifth
Judicial District Court, Chaves County, New Mexico, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Mexico (Albuquerque).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-00238-SMV-KBM to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiff has asserted a cause of action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, alleging that the Defendant failed to properly
compensate the Plaintiff under federal law.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremi K. Young, Esq.
          THE YOUNG LAW FIRM, P.C.
          1001 S. Harrison, Suite 200
          Amarillo, TX 79101
          Telephone: (806) 331-1800
          Facsimile: (806) 398-9095
          E-mail: jyoung@youngfirm.com

               - and -

          Richard L. Kraft, Esq.
          KRAFT AND HUNTER, LLP
          P.O. Box 850
          Roswell, NM 88202
          Telephone: (575) 625-2000
          Facsimile: (575) 625-2010
          E-mail: rkraft@kraftandhunter.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Marc D. Katz, Esq.
          Jason R. Regas, Esq.
          ANDREWS KURTH LLP
          1717 Main Street, Suite 3700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 659-4400
          Facsimile: (214) 659-4401
          E-mail: marckatz@andrewskurth.com
                  jasonregas@andrewskurth.com


BASIC ENERGY: Removes "Marlar" Suit to New Mexico District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Marlar, et al. v. Basic Energy
Services, Inc., Case No. D-504-CV-201500062, was removed from the
Fifth Judicial District Court of New Mexico to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Mexico (Las Cruces).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-00241-GBW-SMV to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiffs allege violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard L. Kraft, Esq.
          KRAFT & HUNTER, LLP
          111 W. Third Street
          Roswell, NM 88201
          Telephone: (505) 625-2000
          Facsimile: (575) 625-2010
          E-mail: rkraft@kraftandhunter.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jason R. Regas, Esq.
          ANDREWS KURTH LLP
          1717 Main Street, Suite 3700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 659-4645
          Facsimile: (214) 659-4401
          E-mail: jasonregas@andrewskurth.com


BAYER AG: Judge Tosses Some Claims in One-A-Day Labeling Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kat Greene, writing for Law360, reports that a California federal
judge on March 10 rejected some claims by a putative class that
Bayer AG's labeling on its One-A-Day vitamins lies to customers
about the product's benefits, killing the class's claims about
heart and immune health but keeping alive claims about physical
energy.

U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick sided with Bayer on two
claims, finding that the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
preempted the plaintiffs' claims about heart health and the immune
system, but left the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their
claims.

The plaintiffs haven't shown that Bayer has made claims about
effects on diseases -- breaking the FDCA's labeling requirements
-- with the statements about heart health and the immune system on
the One-A-Day packaging, Judge Orrick said.

"Plaintiffs have pointed to no specific language on the packaging,
websites, or advertisements of the supplements that would take the
'supports heart health' language and move it towards a disease
claim," Judge Orrick wrote.

Plaintiff Colleen Gallagher filed suit in October, alleging on
behalf of a class of One-A-Day buyers that the company overstepped
its bounds with promises that the vitamins would benefit anyone
who takes them by boosting heart health, immunity and physical
energy, among other claims, according to court records.  The
vitamins only benefit people who are vitamin-deficient, a rare
condition that most average consumers wouldn't have, the plaintiff
alleges.

Bayer sought to throw out the suit in December, contending that
its statements were protected under the FDCA because they were
about structure and function, rather than disease.  And the
company contended that the plaintiff didn't have standing to bring
claims about all the One-A-Day products, saying Gallagher
purchased only the One-A-Day Women's vitamins.

Judge Orrick rejected this standing argument, and he found that
Gallagher had adequately shown the company's statements about
heart health and immunity to be false and left those claims open
for amendment.

And the claims about physical energy were allowed to stand because
the plaintiffs had sufficiently shown that Bayer states that all
who take the vitamins will get an energy boost, not just
nutritionally deficient people, according to the order.

Ms. Gallagher is represented by Laurence D. King --
lking@kaplanfox.com -- Lauren I. Dubick -- ldubick@kaplanfox.com
-- Linda M. Fong and Robert N. Kaplan of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer
LLP, Amanda Marie Howell of the Center for Science in the Public
Interest and Stephen Henry Gardner of Stanley Law Group.

Bayer is represented by Ryan M. Sandrock -- rsandrock@sidley.com
-- Cara Rafaela Viglucci Lopez, Eugene A. Schoon, Jonathan
Frederick Cohn and Paul Joseph Ray -- paul.ray@sidley.com -- of
Sidley Austin LLP.

The case is Colleen Gallagher et al. v. Bayer AG et al., case
number 3:14-cv-04601, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


BP PLC: Removes "Gortney" Class Suit to Florida District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Gortney v. BP PLC, et al., Case No. 15-
000055-CA, was removed from the Circuit Court of the First
Judicial Circuit in and for Walton County, Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-00118-MCR-CJK
to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from the April 20, 2010 Deepwater Horizon
explosion.  The Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the
Defendants failed to properly maintain and operate the Deepwater
Horizon.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen Herre Echsner, Esq.
          AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
          17 E Main St., Suite 200
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Telephone: (850) 202-1010
          Facsimile: (850) 916-7449
          E-mail: sechsner@awkolaw.com

Defendants BP America Inc. and BP Products North America Inc. are
represented by:

          James Andrew Langan, Esq.
          Wendy L. Bloom, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          300 N LaSalle
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 862-2064
          Facsimile: (312) 862-2200
          E-mail: andrew.langan@kirkland.com
                  wendy.bloom@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Thomas Andrew Range, Esq.
          J. Riley Davis, Esq.
          AKERMAN LLP
          106 E College Ave., Suite 1200
          Tallahassee, FL 32301
          Telephone: (850) 224-9634
          Facsimile: (850) 325-2585
          E-mail: tom.range@akerman.com
                  riley.davis@akerman.com

The Transocean Defendants are represented by:

          Kyle A. Diamantas, Esq.
          BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ P.C.
          200 S Orange Ave., Suite 2900
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 422-6600
          Facsimile: (407) 841-0325
          E-mail: kdiamantas@bakerdonelson.com

The Halliburton Defendant is represented by:

          Donald Everett Godwin, Esq.
          GODWIN RONQUILLO PC
          1201 Elm St., Suite 1700
          Dallas, TX 75270
          Telephone: (214) 939-4412
          Facsimile: (214) 760-7332
          E-mail: Don.Godwin@GodwinLewis.com

               - and -

          Mark Monroe Barber, Esq.
          BROAD & CASSEL
          100 N Tampa St., Suite 3500
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 225-3020
          Facsimile: (813) 225-3039
          E-mail: Mbarber@broadandcassel.com


BRINKS INC: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug Files Overtime Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug, & Bhowmikis on March 12 disclosed that
Brinks Incorporated, a provider of secure logistics and security
solutions, is the target of a proposed class action Lawsuit filed
by one of their California employees who alleges various
California Labor Code violations.

The proposed class action lawsuit was filed by the Los Angeles
labor law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrhaug & Bhowmik.  The
Complaint, filed on November 19, 2014, alleges that Brinks
Incorporated did not pay their employees the correct overtime
wages for all overtime hours worked and failed to provide the
legally required thirty minute uninterrupted meal periods.  The
lawsuit also claims that the Company allegedly failed to provide
their employees with complete and accurate wage statements which
fail to show, among other things, the correct overtime wages for
all overtime worked.  The lawsuit, Case No. BC564369 is currently
pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

The pending class action lawsuit filed against Brinks Incorporated
claims that the company did not have a uniform policy and practice
to pay their employees the correct overtime wages for all overtime
worked in accordance with applicable law.  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.  The Complaint also alleges that Brinks
Incorporated did not provide their employees with accurate
itemized wage statements in writing showing, among other things,
gross wages earned and all applicable hourly rates in effect
during the pay period and the corresponding amount of time worked
at each hourly rate.

In addition, the Complaint alleges that the employees working at
Brinks Incorporated were not always able to take their thirty
minute uninterrupted meal breaks before their fifth hour of work
due to their rigorous work schedules.  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.

For more information about the class action lawsuit filed against
Brinks Incorporated, please call (866) 771-7099 to speak to one of
the attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug, & Bhowmikis a Los Angeles labor law firm
that dedicates its practice to helping employees, fight back
against unfair business practices, including violations of the
California Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act.


BURBERRY LTD: Removes "Manner" Suit to California District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Manner v. Burberry Limited, et
al., Case No. 37-2015-00005895-CU-MC-CTL, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Diego, Central Division, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California (San Diego).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-00635-BTM-KSC to the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts consumer credit claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          CARPENTER LAW GROUP
          402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-6994
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6990
          E-mail: todd@carpenterlawyers.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Dylan John Price, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, 16th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 228-3700
          Facsimile: (310) 228-3701
          E-mail: dprice@sheppardmullin.com


CENTRAL STATES LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay OT, "McCulley" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Exzavior McCulley, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons v. Central States Logistics, Inc., and Western Logistics,
Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00587 (D. Colo., March 23, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are Texas corporations that provide delivery
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian David Gonzales, Esq.
      BRIAN D. GONZALES, THE LAW OFFICES OF
      123 North College Avenue, #200
      Fort Collins, CO 80524
      Telephone: (970) 212-4665
      Facsimile: (303) 539-9812
      E-mail: bgonzales@coloradotriallaw.com


CHINA HOUSE: Faces "Barrientos" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Enrique Gomez Barrientos, on behalf of himself and all other
Plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v. China House of
McHenry Inc. d/b/a Grand Buffet, and Yi Lin, Case No. 1:15-cv-
02503 (N.D. Ill., March 24, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Timothy Michael Nolan, Esq.
      Nicholas Paul Cholis, Esq.
      NOLAN LAW OFFICE
      53 West Jackson Boulevard, #1137
      Chicago, IL 60604-3207
      Telephone: (312) 322-1100
      E-mail: tmnolanlaw@sbcglobal.net
              n.cholis.nolanlaw@sbcglobal.net


CLEVELAND, OH: Appeals Traffic Camera Class Action Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
Robert Higgs, writing for Cleveland.com, reports that The city of
Cleveland on March 11 argued to the Ohio Supreme Court that people
who paid traffic camera fines, even though they were cited
improperly because they leased their vehicles, should not be able
to sue for reimbursement from the city.

The city is fighting a lower court ruling that certified the suit
as a class action case for people who leased their vehicles -- and
thus were not owners as city law then required -- and were cited
for traffic camera violations.

Cleveland argues that since the plaintiffs involved paid their
fines, they waived their right to appeal and the lawsuit should
not have been allowed.

"Once you pay and knowingly admit . . . you waive your right,"
Cleveland's attorney, Gary Singletary, told the justices.  "One
admits when they pay."

Not recognizing that concept would potentially open the city up to
thousands of cases of litigation, he said.

The plaintiffs in the case all were cited by Cleveland between
July 2005, when the city enacted its traffic camera program, and
March 2009, when the city modified its ordinance.  All of them
leased their vehicles.

The original ordinance said that the owner of a vehicle would be
liable for fines issued for traffic camera violations.

In 2009, a court ruled that the wording did not extend to people
who leased their automobiles.  The city acknowledged to Chief
Justice Maureen O'Connor that it did not reimburse people who
drove leased vehicles and had paid tickets.

What it did do was update its ordinance.  After March 11, 2009,
people who leased vehicles were also covered.

The case argued on March 11 began as a lawsuit filed by one woman,
Janine Lycan of Cleveland, who paid the $100 fine for the camera
ticket she got in 2006.

By 2013, her complaint had grown into a class action suit and a
Cuyahoga County common pleas judge ruled in favor of the
plaintiffs.  The city appealed to the Ohio Eighth District Court
of Appeals, and then to the Ohio Supreme Court when the appellate
court also ruled against Cleveland.

During arguments on March 11, Mr. Singletary told the justices the
proper forum for plaintiffs to have contested their tickets was
through the administrative hearing process set up by the city to
handle complaints about traffic camera tickets.  After that, they
could have taken their cases to common pleas court.

"Everything could have been litigated," Mr. Singletary said.

Wouldn't that have been the proper avenue for fighting the ticket?
Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor asked the plaintiffs' lawyer, Paul
Flowers.

"If you feel you are wronged you have the ability to hire an
attorney," she said.

Mr. Flowers argued that the process was not practical.

The ticket charge of $100 would escalate with late fees.  Filing
the case would have cost another $100 in fees.  And there would be
the cost of the attorney.

And all of this cost and action would be to contest a traffic
ticket that the city improperly issued based on what its ordinance
said at the time.

"This case really boils down to responsible government,"
Mr. Flowers said.

The case was one of seven the Supreme Court heard.  It will be
several weeks, or even months, before the court's ruling is
issued.


COLUMBIA LABS: Appeals Court Affirms Class Action Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Columbia Laboratories, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company
focused on the development of pharmaceuticals for women's health,
announced today that the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit affirmed the prior decision of the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissing the
securities class action lawsuit, entitled In re Columbia
Laboratories, Inc., Securities Litigation, (D.C. No. 2-12-cv-
00614) filed against Columbia, Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc
("Watson"), and various Columbia and Watson executives.

                   About Columbia Laboratories

Columbia Laboratories, Inc -- http://www.columbialabs.com--
has a successful heritage in developing women's health focused
pharmaceutical products, including CRINONE(R) 8% (progesterone
gel), that is marketed by Actavis, Inc. in the U.S. and by Merck
Serono S.A. in over 60 additional countries worldwide.  Columbia
is leveraging its pharmaceutical development, clinical trial
manufacturing, and advanced analytical and consulting services to
advance an internal pipeline while generating revenue from
pharmaceutical industry customers.


COOPER VISION: Faces "Moy" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Moy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Cooper Vision, Inc., Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Bausch & Lomb
Incorporated, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., and ABB/Concise
Optical Group LLC (a/k/a ABB Optical Group), Case No. 3:15-cv-
01340 (N.D. Cal., March 23, 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:

      Terry Gross, Esq.
      Adam C. Belsky, Esq.
      Monique Alonso, Esq.
      GROSS BELSKY ALONSO LLP
      One Sansome Street, Suite 3670
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 544-0200
      Facsimile: (415) 544-0201
      E-mail: terry@gba-law.com
              adam@gba-law.com
              monique@gba-law.com


COWABUNGA INC: Faces "Hines" Suit Over Reimbursement Policies
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chadwick Hines, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. Cowabunga, Inc., Cowabunga Three, Inc. and Cowabunga
Four, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00828 (N.D. Ga., March 23, 2015),
alleges that the Defendants used a flawed method to determine
reimbursement rates that provides lower that the reasonable
approximation costs of the business use of their delivery driver's
vehicles.

The Defendants own and operate approximately 100 Domino's
franchise stores in Georgia, Alabama and South Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard M. Paul III, Esq.
      Jack D. McInnes, Esq.
      PAUL McINNES LLP
      601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
      Kansas City, MO 64106
      Telephone: (816) 984-8100
      Facsimile: (816) 984-8101
      E-mail: paul@paulmcinnes.com
              mcinnes@paulmcinnes.com

         - and -

      Mark A. Potashnick, Esq.
      WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
      11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
      St. Louis, MO 63141
      Telephone: (314) 997-9150
      Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
      E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com

         - and -

      Andrew Weiner, Esq.
      THE WEINER LAW FIRM
      3525 Piedmont Road
      7 Piedmont Center, 3rd Floor
      Atlanta, GA 30305
      Telephone: (404) 254-0842
      Facsimile: (866) 800-1482
      E-mail: aw@atlantaemployeelawyer.com


DELOITTE: Faces C$384MM Document Reviewer Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Neasa MacErlean, writing for The Global Legal Post, reports that
Deloitte and a document review company it acquired a year ago are
alleged to have saved millions of dollars by treating hundreds of
document reviewers as contractors when they were, in reality,
employees based in their offices.

Deloitte acquired ATD Legal Services in January 2014.
Representative plaintiff Shireen Sondhi, a lawyer based in
Toronto, claims that she and hundreds of fellow document reviewers
were mis-categorized as independent workers -- with the result
that the businesses saved large sums in payroll deductions and in
not having to offer labor protections, holidays and overtime.

Counsel for the plaintiff, Andrew Monkhouse, said in a statement:
"These workers were supervised in Deloitte's offices, they didn't
provide their own tools, or control their own schedules."  The
statement from Mr. Monkhouse continued: "For many young lawyers,
saddled with staggering student debt and desperate not to leave
the field of law, document review is a last resort.  Deloitte is
one of only a few document review companies in Ontario, and for
many Class Members, represents their sole source of income."


EASTERN ACCOUNT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Specht" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Specht, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Eastern Account System of Connecticut, Inc.,
Joseph P. Courtney Jr., and John and Jane Does Numbers 1
Through 25, Case No. 1:15-cv-02159 (S.D.N.Y., March 23, 2015),
arise out of the Defendants' illegal practices in connection with
their attempts to collect an alleged debt.

The Defendants own and operate a debt collection company located
at 75 Glen Road, Suite 110, Village of Sandy Hook, Fairfield
County, Connecticut.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abraham Kleinman, Esq.
      KLEINMAN LLC
      626 RXR Plaza
      Uniondale, NY 11556-0626
      Telephone: (516) 552-2621
      Facsimile: (888) 522-1692
      E-mail: akleinman@kleinmanllc.com


EQUIFAX INC: Sued in D.N.J. Over Inaccurate Consumer Reports
------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Francis Martinez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Equifax Inc. and Equifax Information
Services LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-02100 (D.N.J., March 24, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to follow reasonable
procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information
in its consumer reports in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.

The Defendants own and operate consumer reporting agencies that
compile credit information on consumers and then provide reports
that businesses and employers use to judge.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Todd S. Garber
      D. Greg Blankinship
      FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
      1311 Mamaroneck Avenue, Suite 220
      White Plains, New York 10605
      Telephone: (844) 431-0695
      E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com
              gblankinship@fbfglaw.com

         - and -

      Kim E. Richman, Esq.
      THE RICHMAN LAW GROUP
      195 Plymouth Street
      Brooklyn, NY 11201
      Telephone: (212) 687-8291
      Facsimile: (212) 687-8292
      E-mail: krichman@richmanlawgroup.com


FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Children's Online Purchases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal
judge said Facebook Inc must face a nationwide class-action
lawsuit seeking to force the social media company to provide
refunds when children spend their parents' money on its website
without permission.

U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman in San Jose, California on
March 10 said a class of plaintiffs estimated in the hundreds of
thousands may press their claim that Facebook should change how it
handles online transactions by minors.

The judge also said the plaintiffs could not pursue refunds as a
group under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, because any refunds
would vary from case to case, but could still seek individual
refunds.  She set an Oct. 19 trial date.

Facebook said it believes the lawsuit lacks merit, and said it
will defend itself vigorously.

The April 2012 lawsuit said Facebook let children use their
parents' credit and debit cards to buy the virtual currency
Facebook Credits, and violated California law by refusing refunds
under its "all sales are final" policy when the parents
complained.

In opposing class certification, Facebook said the plaintiffs'
claims were too disparate, and an injunction would not address
them.

But Freeman said state law protects parents and their children
when those children "occasionally use their lack of judgment" and
buy things they should not.

"Though some minors undoubtedly may wish to continue making
purchases through credit or debit cards they do not have
permission to use, such a desire cannot prevent the named
plaintiffs from bringing suit to demand that Facebook's policies
comply with the law," she wrote.

Facebook Credits were discontinued in 2013 and replaced with
Facebook Payments.

The lawsuit was brought by two children and their parents.  One
child said his mother let him spend $20 on her credit card toward
the game "Ninja Saga," but was later charged several hundred
dollars for purchases he thought he made with "virtual, in-game
currency."  The other said he took a debit card from his parents
without permission and spent $1,059.

People who sign up for Facebook must be at least 13 years old,
according to the Menlo Park, California-based company.

"We're very pleased with the decision," J.R. Parker, a lawyer for
the plaintiffs, said in a phone interview.   "The difference
between Facebook and other businesses is that the company is on
actual notice of a user's age, but treats children the same as
adult users when it comes to taking their money."

The case is I.B. et al v. Facebook Inc, U.S. District Court,
Northern District of California, No. 12-01894.


FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Candy Crush App
-----------------------------------------------------
Steve Buja, writing for Game & Guide, reports that a new class
action lawsuit initiated earlier in March in Illinois is alleging
that the mobile giant is denying lives to players who use the
Candy Crush Facebook app.

The suit alleges that players who logged out of the game after
receiving these donated lives would log back in and discover said
lives mysteriously gone.  Not wishing to wait or bother people
again, they would then purchase more lives via the in-game store.

Given that lives in Candy Crush now have a real world valuation -
roughly 20 cents a life -- this is tantamount to digital theft,
they state. "  "As a consequence of King's conduct, players bought
replacement lives through In-App Purchases as substitutes for the
lives improperly removed by King, thus enriching King," the
complaint states.  "This case challenges such intentional
profiteering at the expense of consumers."

What's 20 cents, you might ask? Well, it can add up quickly.
According to Business Insider, "If King's practices injured at
least 25 million people, as the complaint alleges, the total
damages would total above $5 million, the amount necessary to
elevate a class action lawsuit to the federal level."

Five million is but a drop in the bucket for King.  Candy Crush
Saga alones makes a little over one million dollars per day
There is, of course, some schadenfreude to be had.  King has been
notorious in attempts to protect its brands, going so far as to
trademark the word 'candy' for use in video games, as well as
attempting to trademark 'saga', which forced a confrontation
between them and Stoic, the makers of The Banner Saga (a game you
all should own). King eventually backed down.  Also, the company
went after the game that their own game copied.


FANCY HANDS: Faces "Callier" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Harriet Callier, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Fancy Hands, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02232
(S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay minimum wages as required by the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Fancy Hands, Inc. is a virtual assistant service company that
offers virtual assistants to perform their clients' tasks for a
monthly membership fee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brent Edward Pelton, Esq.
      Taylor Bell Graham, Esq.
      PELTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      111 Broadway, Suite 1503
      New York, NY 10000
      Telephone: (212) 385-9700
      Facsimile: (212) 385-0800
      E-mail: pelton@peltonlaw.com
              graham@peltonlaw.com


FIDELITY BROKERAGE: Violates Disabilities Act, Class Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Mitchiner v. Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC d/b/a Fidelity
Investments, FMR LLC d/b/a Fidelity Investments, National
Financial Services LLC d/b/a Fidelity Investments, Case No. 1:15-
cv-00410 (D.D.C., March 20, 2015) accuses the Defendants of
violating The Americans with Disabilities Act.

Mr. Mitchiner, an individual, who is deaf and a customer of the
Defendants, brings the action against the Defendants alleging
discrimination based on disability.

Boston-based FMR LLC is the parent company of various Fidelity
entities, including Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC and National
Financial Services LLC.  The Defendants provide banking,
investment management, and administration expertise to individual
investors and comprise one of the largest mutual fund and
financial services groups in the world.  The Defendants also
provide bank wire services where account holders can transfer
money into and out of banking, brokerage, mutual fund, or
retirement accounts via bank wire.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mary C. Vargas, Esq.
          STEIN & VARGAS, LLP
          5100 Buckeystown Pike, Suite 250
          Frederick, MD 21704
          Telephone: (240) 793-3185
          Facsimile: (888) 778-4620
          E-mail: mary.vargas@steinvargas.com


FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Beverly Goldman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Financial Recovery Services Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-01469-MKB-RLM (E.D.N.Y., March 20, 2015) accuses the
Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Palace, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID PALACE
          383 Kingston Avenue, #113
          Brooklyn, NY 11213
          Telephone: (347) 651-1077
          Facsimile: (347) 464-0012
          E-mail: davidpalace@gmail.com


FOXBORO, MA: Class Action Over Stadium Protective Custody Narrows
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Mortimer, writing for Sun Chronicle, reports that what had
been planned as a class action lawsuit targeting the town and
Police Chief Edward O'Leary by Gillette Stadium concert-goers
claiming civil rights violations when they were placed in
protective custody apparently has fizzled.

The more than two-year-old lawsuit challenging protective custody
practices at the stadium involving patrons who police consider to
be intoxicated has been steered for a jury trial in September --
but with just three plaintiffs, attorneys for both sides said.
That's good news for the town.

The plaintiffs are still seeking monetary damages, but the town's
lawyer said on March 11 that any potential award would be far less
than the town once had reason to fear under the threat there could
be hundreds of plaintiffs.

"The court has indicated that it is not going to end up being a
class action suit," said Douglas Louison, the lawyer representing
the town.

Mr. Louison stressed that the plaintiffs have not formally sought
class action certification in the matter, "and as such the court
is scheduling a trial."

The suit originally was filed by Timothy Dutton and Paul Weldner,
both Maine residents who travelled to Foxboro.  It followed the
Aug. 18, 2012, Bruce Springsteen concert they were planning to
attend at Gillette Stadium.  They alleged that their
constitutional rights were violated when police took them into
protective custody before entering the stadium.

Foxboro's special insurance attorney said more than a year ago
that the pending action, known as the Weldner-Dutton case, could
grow to 2,700 plaintiffs from several other past stadium events.

Town officials feared that could have meant a multi-million dollar
cash loss to the town because of how its insurance deductibles
were structured.

Under Massachusetts law, people can be intoxicated in public, so
long as they are not driving or "incapacitated."

The law defines incapacitated as unconscious, needing medical
attention, likely to cause physical harm or damage property, or
disorderly.

David Milton, the attorney for three plaintiffs who sued the town
and the police chief in 2012, at the time wrote in the court
complaint that it is a "class action for money damages."

Mr. Milton said that U.S. District Judge Douglas Woodlock in
Boston decided on Jan. 26 that facts in the case remain in
dispute.

The judge denied motions from each side, and sent the case on for
a jury trial.


GLATFELTE: Faces Class Action Over Noxious Odors
------------------------------------------------
Matthew Kent, writing for Chillicothe Gazette, reports that
residents in Chillicothe have started receiving letters from a
Columbus-based law firm that is considering bringing legal action
against Glatfelter in connection with complaints of odors from the
plant.

Meanwhile, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency notified the
company in February that compounds emitted during October and
January equipment malfunctions were at levels that had the
potential to create temporary health issues in some people.

The law firm says in the letter seeking residents interested in
joining the possible class action lawsuit that odors "which
interfere with the use of enjoyment of your home may constitute a
nuisance that may entitle you to compensation."  The letter does
not address any specific incidents.

"Any litigation filed by our offices would also have the objective
of preventing any future emission of noxious odors," according to
the letter.

System problems resulted in a chemical discharge at the paper-
making plant on Halloween, the smell of which was reported as far
away as Columbus.  An investigation by the Ohio EPA concluded the
company failed to report the discharge to local or emergency
management authorities within the threshold of public notification
requirements.

In that situation, the company acknowledged there had been a
failure in the venting system about 1:30 a.m. that was repaired by
7:45 a.m. and that a backup system did not activate properly.  At
the time, Glatfelter officials said they had notified the EPA of
the situation, but an EPA spokeswoman said the company had not
provided the necessary details with the notification.

The state agency also received several odor complaints naming the
Glatfelter plant nearly two months ago.  Mitzi Anderson, a
spokeswoman for Glatfelter, said following that incident that the
plant had not experienced any system upsets that would have caused
unusual odors.

In its letter, the firm offers a free consultation and includes
several questions about residents' experience with the facility.

Ms. Anderson said in a statement that plant officials are aware
that "out-of-town and out-of-state law firms have sent unsolicited
mailings to some of our neighbors, threatening legal action
against us."

"We are not willing to comment on this speculative legal action,"
Ms. Anderson said.  "Glatfelter is, and will continue to be, a
good community partner.  As one of the largest employers in Ross
County, Glatfelter has had a positive influence on the local
economy."

In a Feb. 4 letter from the Ohio EPA to Glatfelter, the agency
stated it had received several odor- and health-based complaints
from residents pointing at the paper mill as the source.

"Some of the complaints correspond to periods of time in which the
facility reported malfunctions and released pollutants in greater
amounts," the EPA letter says.  "Many of the complainants describe
health effects associated with the odors such as nausea and
irritation of the eyes, throat and nose.  The types of pollutants
emitted by Glatfelter can cause health effects similar to those
described by the complainants."

The state agency also said data provided by Glatfelter indicating
the compounds emitted during the Oct. 31 and Jan. 7 and 8
malfunctions "exceeded health-based action levels and could
potentially have endangered the health of the public."  The EPA
concluded the emissions from the facility were the source of the
odors and found that Glatfelter "caused a public nuisance."

The EPA required Glatfelter to submit a plan to return to
compliance within 30 days of receipt of the letter.


GLOBAL SPECTRUM: Faces "Hudgon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marlene Hudgon, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
v. Global Spectrum, L.P., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-02060 (D.N.J.,
March 23, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Global Spectrum, L.P. manages public assembly venues in the United
States, Canada, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard Steven Swartz, Esq.
      SWARTZ LEGAL LLC
      1101 Kings Highway North, Suite 402
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
      Telephone: (856) 685-7420
      Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
      E-mail: rswartz@swartz-legal.com


HEIDTMAN STEEL: Faces "McClain" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hodges McClain, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Heidtman Steel Products, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00565
(N.D. Ohio, March 23, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Heidtman Steel Products, Inc. is an Ohio corporation that operates
steel manufacturing facilities that process, package and
distribute flat rolled steel products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
      LAZZARO LAW FIRM
      920 Rockefeller Bldg.
      614 Superior Avenue, W
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 696-5000
      Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
      E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com


HHGREGG INC: Faces "Mielo" Suit Over Disabilities Act Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Mielo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. HHGREGG, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00392-CRE
(W.D. Pa., March 20, 2015) alleges violations of The Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HISHMEH ENTERPRISES: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Reimbursement Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Derek Gibbins, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
employees v. Hishmeh Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-02175
(C.D. Cal., March 24, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's
delivery driver reimbursement policy that is much less than the
reasonable approximation of its drivers' automobile expenses.

Hishmeh Enterprises, Inc. owns and operates Domino's franchise
stores in California and Arizona.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan L. Thompson, Esq.
      WATTS GUERRA LLP
      5250 Prue Road Suite 525
      San Antonio, TX 78240
      Telephone: (210) 448-0500
      Facsimile: (210) 448-0501
      E-mail: rthompson@wattsguerra.com


HORIZON GROUP: To Sell Assets to Fund Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alby Gallun, writing for Chicago Real Estate Daily, reports that
almost four months after filing for bankruptcy protection, a North
Side apartment landlord wants to sell its assets to a company
executive while facing allegations that it defrauded creditors by
pulling money out of the business.

Horizon Group Management has asked a judge to approve the sale of
its assets to Jeffrey Michael, its chief operating officer, for
$75,000, well below the $833,455 it owes two Chicago law firms,
its two biggest creditors. Horizon owes the money after settling a
bitter class-action suit with the firms over unpaid interest on
tenant security deposits.

Saying it doesn't have the money to pay them, Horizon filed for
Chapter 11 protection last November.  But the law firms --
Edward T. Joyce & Associates and the Law Offices of Jeffrey S.
Sobek -- contend the company had plenty of cash, charging that it
transferred $555,000 to company owners and members of the Michael
family before the filing, putting the money beyond the reach of
creditors.

The firms "believed that Horizon, and the Michael family in
particular, had engaged in a deliberate course of conduct designed
to defraud creditors of Horizon," according to motion they filed
in January in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Chicago.

DISPUTE DATES TO 2009

The dispute goes back to June 2009, when a Horizon tenant filed a
class-action suit accusing the company of underpaying interest on
her security deposit and failing to provide disclosures about
porch safety, both violations of the city's Residential Landlord
and Tenant Ordinance.  About a month later, Horizon sued the
tenant for libel over a disparaging comment she posted on Twitter.

A judge threw out the libel suit. Horizon settled the class-action
suit and wound up being on the hook for $833,455 in legal fees to
Messrs. Joyce and Sobek.  But Horizon, which manages, but doesn't
own, about 1,500 apartments, says it doesn't have many assets
beyond two pickup trucks and some office furniture and equipment
worth about $61,000 combined, according to a recent filing.

"There's no money in the company," said Horizon owner Daniel
Michael, Jeffrey Michael's father.  "The company is broke."

Horizon filed a motion in February saying the proposed $75,000
asset sale to the younger Michael is the best deal it's going to
get.  Its property management contracts "do not have much, if any,
value because they are terminable on 60 days notice by either
party, without cause," the motion says.

"The only other viable alternative (to the proposed sale) appears
be a piecemeal liquidation of the assets to one or more third
parties at a substantial discount," the motion says.

The Michael family owns many of the buildings Horizon manages.

SALES TO INSIDERS

Yet creditors in bankruptcy cases have reason to be circumspect
about sales to company insiders, said bankruptcy lawyer
Ronald Peterson, a partner at Jenner & Block in Chicago.

"When there's a sale to an insider, there should be special
scrutiny," he said.  "The whole object of this exercise it to
maximize value, and sometimes insiders have a conflict of
interest.  They don't always want to pay the most money they can."

Edward Joyce and Jeffrey Sobek did not return calls.  In their
January filing, they accuse Horizon and the Michaels of acting in
bad faith, using the $555,000 in transfers and other payments to
family members to pull money out of the company.

Horizon paid $145,000 in Daniel Michael's credit card bills and
covered $37,500 in his country club dues between November 2013 and
November 2014, according to the motion.  The firm also made
monthly payments of $6,000 to Michael's wife, who is not a Horizon
employee, and paid Jeffrey Michael an annual salary of $350,000,
the motion says.

"They have the money, they should pay," said the law firms'
attorney Paul Bauch, founding principal of Chicago-based Bauch &
Michaels.

In January, Judge Timothy Barnes approved the motion, allowing the
law firms to subpoena records of the Michaels, Horizon, its
affiliates and Northern Trust, the family's bank. Judge Barnes is
scheduled to consider the asset sale at a March 18 hearing.


IMG WORLDWIDE: Faces "Davis" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Davis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. IMG Worldwide, LLC, IMG Worldwide, Inc., IMG Models,
LLC, and William Morris Endeavor Entertainment, LLC, Case No.
1:15-cv-02157 (S.D.N.Y., March 23, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

IMG Worldwide, LLC, IMG Worldwide, Inc., and IMG Models, LLC are
global leaders in sports, fashion and media, operating in more
than 25 countries around the world.

William Morris Endeavor Entertainment, LLC is an American talent-
management company with its principal place of business is located
1325 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10019.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
      SHULMAN KESSLER, LLP
      510 Broadhollow Road
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 499-9100
      Facsimile: (631) 499-9120
      E-mail: tk@shulmankessler.com


INDIANA: BMV Class Actions Seek Audit of Fee Structures
-------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Metz, writing for Indiana Daily Student, reports that the
Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles is alleged to have mistakenly
overcharged Hoosiers tens of millions of dollars in the past few
years.

In 2013, two class action lawsuits were filed against the BMV by
Indianapolis-based law firm Cohen & Malad, LLP.  The first lawsuit
alleged the BMV overcharged Hoosier drivers under the age of 75 by
as much as $29 million from at least 2007 until 2013 in mistaken
fees and miscalculations in motor vehicle excise taxes.

The first lawsuit was settled in 2013 in the amount of $30 million
and the BMV is repaying overcharged customers through refunds and
credits with incurred interest.  The second lawsuit alleges the
BMV overcharged as much as $38 million more, dating as far back as
2002.  The combined total of alleged overcharges is an estimated
$60 million.

Irwin Levin, the recipient of the 2013 Consumer Advocate of the
Year award from the Indiana Trial Lawyers Association, is the
attorney from Cohen & Malad, LLP who is working with the lawsuit
on behalf of Indiana residents that were overcharged.

"Hoosiers' ability to drive their cars cannot be held hostage to
arbitrary fees imposed by the BMV," Levin said in a press release.
"The BMV does not have the authority to charge fees at its
discretion . . .  The BMV needs to be held accountable, and
Indiana residents deserve restitution."

In addition to the refund of overcharged fees, the pending lawsuit
requests a full audit of all previous fees and costs be done and
for access to public records to find out how long the BMV has
known about the alleged overcharges.  The second case was set for
a bench trial before Marion Superior Judge James Osborn on June 1,
but that date was vacated when a notice of mediation was filed.

Charles Geyh, professor of law at the IU Maurer School of Law,
suggested a notice of mediation doesn't necessarily mean a
settlement will be reached in a class action lawsuit such as this
one.

"A joint notice of mediation indicates that both sides are
prepared to sit down with a third-party mediator who will try to
help the parties settle the case," Mr. Geyh said.  "Settlement is
not assured. If the state has a bottom line dollar amount
settlement figure . . . that is below the plaintiff's bottom line
dollar amount, below which they won't go, settlement may not be
possible."

Amid the chaos at the BMV, Gov. Mike Pence announced in February
that new internal auditors were to be assigned to the agency in
order to reassess its fee structures.  This announcement was made
around the same time another $2 million in overcharging fees from
the last six years was discovered to have occurred.

Additionally, Pence has moved the BMV's previous commissioner,
Don Snemis, to a position as special counsel for program integrity
at the Family and Social Services Administration in order to
oversee the implementation of Pence's new Healthy Indiana Plan.

Kent Abernathy became the new BMV commissioner Feb. 12.
Previously, he was the chief of staff at the Indiana Department of
Environmental Management.


JAMES WARREN: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Chadwick, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. James Warren and Associates Inc., et al,
Case No. 7:15-cv-00040 (M.D. Ga., March 24, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, declaratory
relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs under the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

James Warren and Associates Inc. is engaged in the business of
utility construction with its principal place of business in
Lowndes County, Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JP MORGAN: Faces Class Action Over Power Market Manipulation
------------------------------------------------------------
Ayesha Rascoe, writing for Reuters, reports that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against J.P. Morgan Chase & Co, the largest
U.S. bank by assets, alleging it engaged in racketeering and
manipulation of California's electricity market.

The lawsuit, filed in California federal court on March 9, accuses
the firm of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO) when it sold power from several gas
plants in the state between 2010 and 2012.

"(J.P. Morgan) resorted to illegal market manipulation to turn the
inefficient, money-losing generators into cash cows," said the
lawsuit, which was brought by three California ratepayers on the
behalf of retail power consumers in the state.

The plaintiffs seek damages for California residents who paid
higher electricity prices because of J.P. Morgan's alleged
actions.

J.P. Morgan did not immediately respond to a request for comment
on the case.

The lawsuit follows J.P. Morgan's settlement of similar
allegations by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in 2013.
The company agreed to pay a $285 million civil penalty and to pay
back $124 million to California power consumers.

In the FERC settlement agreement, J.P. Morgan did not admit to
violating the law.

The class action lawsuit said FERC had limited authority to seek
funds for California residents affected by the alleged
manipulation. The damages suffered by California ratepayers from
the "illegal market manipulation," the complaint added, were
substantially higher than the amount recouped by FERC.

The case is Woolsey et al v. J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy
Corporation et al, U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California, No. 15-cv-00530.


JUDICIAL ALTERNATIVES: Accused of Civil Rights Violation in Ga.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Keen, Jr., and all other persons similarly situated v.
Judicial Alternatives of Georgia, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00030-
DHB-BKE (S.D. Ga., March 20, 2015) is brought over alleged civil
rights violation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C. Mitchell Warnock, Jr., Esq.
          MITCHELL WARNOCK, LLC
          1104 Bellevue Avenue
          Dublin, GA 31021
          Telephone: (478) 275-8119
          Facsimile: (478) 275-7901
          E-mail: warnocklaw@bellsouth.net

               - and -

          John C. Bell, Jr., Esq.
          BELL & BRIGHAM
          457 Greene Street
          Augusta, GA 30901
          Telephone: (706) 722-2014
          Facsimile: (706) 722-7552
          E-mail: john@bellbrigham.com

               - and -

          John B. Long, Esq.
          Thomas W. Tucker, Esq.
          TUCKER, LONG, PC
          P.O. Box 2426
          Augusta, GA 30903
          Telephone: (706) 722-0771
          Facsimile: (706) 722-7028
          E-mail: jlong@tuckerlong.com
                  ttucker@tuckerlong.com

               - and -

          John Ryd Bush Long, Esq.
          JOHN R.B. LONG, PC
          P.O. Box 3928
          Augusta, GA 30914
          Telephone: (706) 868-8011
          Facsimile: (706) 868-8041
          E-mail: jlongattorney@aol.com


KIND LLC: Judge Tosses Refined Sugar Labeling Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lipkin, Juan Carlos Rodriguez, Kat Greene and Greg Ryan,
writing for Law360, report that an Illinois federal judge on
March 12 threw out for the second time a proposed class action
alleging Kind LLC misled consumers by saying its snack bars didn't
contain any refined sugars, ruling it was implausible to believe
the snacks had sugar in its purest form.

U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis dismissed the suit with prejudice,
after previously tossing the complaint for failing to properly
allege plaintiff Rochelle Ibarrola had been deceived.  While
Ms. Ibarrola claimed Kind improperly listed evaporated cane juice
as an ingredient instead of sugar, Judge Ellis ruled in July she
had not explained what she believed evaporated cane juice to be,
if not a form of sugar.

In an amended complaint, Ms. Ibarrola said the evaporated cane
juice and molasses in Kind's Vanilla Berry Clusters and other
snacks were refined sugars with minimal nutritional value,
contrary to the box's assertion that there were "no refined
sugars."  But Ms. Ibarrola's claim that she originally thought the
sugars in the snack weren't refined at all was highly unlikely
given that evaporated cane juice's comes from the bamboo-like
sugar cane plant, according to the ruling.

"Given this reality, no reasonable consumer would think -- as
Ms. Ibarrola alleges she did -- that the sugar contained in Kind's
Healthy Grains products was still in its natural, completely
unrefined state," Judge Ellis wrote.  "Reasonable consumers do not
believe that they are eating straight sugar cane in Vanilla
Blueberry Clusters or any other food product because sugar cane in
its natural, unprocessed state is indigestible."

A reasonable consumer would know that sugar cane needs to be at
least partially refined in order to be edible, the judge held.
Kind's use of "no refined sugars" was meant to be a term of art to
distinguish between partially refined products like molasses and
completely refined table sugar.

Judge Ellis further found a logical inconsistency in the
complaint's theory, writing that if Ms. Ibarrola saw the
individual ingredients on the label and also knew molasses and
evaporated cane juice were at least somewhat refined, it was
unclear exactly how she was deceived.

"That is not to say that food producers have carte blanche to make
false assertions so long as the nutritional and ingredient
information is accurate," the judge wrote.  "Rather, the court
finds that to arrive at a reasonable understanding of the claim
'no refined sugars,' Ms. Ibarrola should have considered the other
information she encountered on the product's packaging."

Ms. Ibarrola's express warranty claim also failed because she
never notified Kind of the alleged breach of warranty before
filing her amended complaint, according to the ruling.

Consumers have sued Chobani Inc., Nestle USA Inc. and other
companies in the past two years over their use of evaporated cane
juice, claiming the term suggests the products are healthier than
they actually are because the ingredient is essentially the same
as sugar.  The suits have met with mixed success, and many judges
have postponed ruling until a hearing from the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration on the matter.

The FDA said last March that it was seeking additional input on
its recommendation against companies' use of the term evaporated
cane juice on food labels.

The FDA is reopening the comment period on its 2009 draft guidance
that advised companies against using the term to describe
sweeteners derived from sugar cane syrup, since it "falsely
suggests that the sweeteners are juice."

Kind is represented by Dale J. Giali -- dgiali@mayerbrown.com --
and Matthew D. Provance -- mprovance@mayerbrown.com -- of Mayer
Brown LLP.

Ms. Ibarrola is represented by Edward A. Wallace --
eaw@wexlerwallace.com -- of Wexler Wallace LLP, Nick Suciu III of
Barbat Mansour & Suciu PLLC, Jordan L. Chaikin of Parker Waichman
LLP, and Eric D. Holland and R. Seth Crompton --
scrompton@allfela.com -- of Holland Groves Schneller & Stolze LLC.

The case is Rochelle Ibarrola v. Kind LLC, number 3:13-cv-50377,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.


KRAFT FOODS: Court Cuts Attorneys' Fees in Failed Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher M. Cascino, Esq., and Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq., of
Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that in
Montgomery v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., No. 1:12-CV-00149 (W.D.
Mich. March 2, 2015), Judge Gordon J. Quist of the U.S. District
Court For The Western District of Michigan cut the attorneys' fee
award of the plaintiff's counsel from a requested $183,168.50 to
$6,417 in a decertified class action in which the plaintiff
recovered only individual damages.  While not a workplace class
action, this case provides employers with a tool to dramatically
reduce their liability for attorneys' fees when they defeat class
or collective action certification.  It also serves as a reminder
of the importance of seeking to bifurcate class discovery from
merits discovery, as this can eliminate exposure for the fee
request of plaintiff's counsel incurred in discovery if a class is
not certified.

Case Background

Pamela Montgomery filed a putative class action complaint against
Kraft Foods and Starbucks for alleged violations of the Michigan
Consumer Protection Act.  Ms. Montgomery, 1:12-CV-00149, at 1.
Montgomery alleged that she purchased a Kraft single-serving
coffee maker for the purpose of brewing Starbucks coffee. Id.  She
alleged that Kraft and Starbucks misled consumers like her by
convincing them that Starbucks would continue to produce the
single-serving component of the Kraft single-serving brewing
system "for a reasonable amount of time into the future, although
Defendants knew that their business relationship would soon be at
an end." Id. at 1-2.

After class discovery, the Court denied Ms. Montgomery's motion
for class certification. Id. at 2.  As a result, the only
remaining claim in the case was Montgomery's individual claim that
had a maximum recovery of $250 in statutory damages. Id. at 3.
Because continued litigation would result in attorneys' fees that
would far exceed any potential recovery, the Court ordered
Defendants to show cause as to why the Court should not order
Defendants to submit an offer of judgment to Ms. Montgomery for
$250 plus costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. Id.   The
Defendants then submitted the proposed offer of judgment, which
Montgomery accepted. Id.

Because attorneys' fees and costs are awarded to successful
plaintiffs in Michigan Consumer Protection Act litigation,
Ms. Montgomery moved for an award of $174,786 in attorneys' fees,
plus costs, which she later supplemented with an additional
request for $8,382.50 in fees for work performed after the offer
of judgment was accepted. Id. at 8.  After Defendants objected,
Montgomery asked the Court to compel Defendants to produce their
own billing records "to measure the legitimacy of Defendants'
objections," and for a hearing on her fee request. Id. at 4.

The Court's Opinion

The Court began by addressing Ms. Montgomery's request for
discovery of Defendants' billing records.  The Court found that
Defendants' billing records would not be relevant to Defendants'
objections to the fee award because Defendants' objections were
based on the sufficiency and accuracy of the billing records of
Montgomery's counsel, Ms. Montgomery's request for fees related to
Montgomery's failed attempt at class certification, and the
proposed billing rate of $350 per hour for an attorney who was in
his first year of practice. Id. at *6.  The Court thus denied
Montgomery's request for Defendants' billing records. Id.

The Court also denied Ms. Montgomery's request for an evidentiary
hearing. Id at 8. Applying Michigan law, the Court found that only
a party opposing a fee award has the right to an evidentiary
hearing, and that it could decide the reasonableness of the fee
award based on the parties' submissions alone. Id. at 7-8.

The Court also addressed Montgomery's fee request.  It began by
finding that Montgomery's proposed $350 hourly rate was excessive,
concluding that a $155 hourly rate was appropriate because it was
the mean rate for first year attorneys in Michigan.  Id. at 11.

The Court then turned to the most significant part of its decision
-- Montgomery's request for fees for 523.34 hours of work.  Id.
The Court first deducted all 330.83 hours Montgomery's counsel
billed for discovery.  Id. at 12.  While Plaintiff's counsel
claimed that this work was "exclusive of work related to
Plaintiffs' Request for Class Certification," the Court found that
this was "not true." Id.  The Court pointed out that the case,
being worth only $250 if a class was not certified, was "largely,
if not exclusively, driven by Ms. Montgomery's request for class
certification," and that therefore discovery was, as a practical
matter, solely about class certification. Id.  The Court then went
on to point out that if Montgomery's counsel engaged in merits
discovery, he would have done so in violation of the Court's order
limiting initial discovery to class certification issues, and thus
could not recover any fees for discovery even if he engaged in
discovery about Plaintiff's individual claim. Id. at 12 n.7.

The Court went on to deduct hours Ms. Montgomery's counsel spend
on other tasks to reflect Montgomery's lack of success on her
class claims.  The Court cut the time Montgomery's counsel spent
on pre-complaint research from 9.9 hours to 4 hours and the time
spent on drafting the complaint from 38.1 hours to 10 hours.  Id.
at 13.  The Court went on to remove all but one of the 59.8 hours
Montgomery's counsel spent on the case after the denial of class
certification because after the denial of class certification "it
should have been immediately apparent to Montgomery and [her
counsel] that continuing the litigation on Montgomery's individual
claim made no sense." Id. at 14.  Finally, the Court denied
Montgomery's request for fees for time spent litigating the fee
petition, finding that a plaintiff's counsel is not entitled to
any fees incurred after a plaintiff accepts an offer of judgment.
Id. at 14-15.

After cutting the hourly rate and hours purportedly spent
litigating Ms. Montgomery's claim, the Court awarded
Ms. Montgomery's counsel $6,417 instead of the requested
$183,168.50. Id. at 16.


L&L ENERGY: June 26 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. and Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP on March 11
disclosed that the United States District Court Southern District
of New York has approved the following announcement of a proposed
class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of common
stock of L&L Energy, Inc.:

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED COMMON STOCK OF L&L ENERGY, INC.
DURING THE PERIOD FROM AUGUST 13, 2009 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 18, 2013,
INCLUSIVE.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York in the
above-captioned action (the "Litigation"), that a hearing will be
held on June 26, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. in courtroom 1506 before the
Honorable Ronnie Abrams, United States District Judge of the
Southern District of New York, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York
10007 (the "Settlement Hearing") for the purpose of determining:
(1) whether the proposed Settlement between Lead Plaintiffs and
Defendants L&L Energy, Inc. ("L&L"), Dickson V. Lee, Ian G.
Robinson, and Clayton Fong (collectively, "Defendants") consisting
of the sum of $3,500,000, should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to
distribute the settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable and
adequate; (3) whether the application for an award of attorneys'
fees of one third of the Settlement Amount, reimbursement of
expenses of not more than $95,000, and awards to Lead Plaintiff
not to exceed a total of $7,500 should be approved; and (4)
whether the Litigation should be dismissed with prejudice.

If you purchased common stock of L&L during the period between
August 13, 2009 and September 18, 2013, inclusive, your rights may
be affected by the Settlement of this action.  If you have not
received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Settlement of Class
Action (the "Settlement Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim
and Release, you may obtain copies by writing to L&L Energy, Inc.
Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, 600 North
Jackson Street, Suite 3, Media, PA 19063.  If you are a member of
the Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release no
later than May 20, 2015, establishing that you are entitled to
recovery.  Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will
be bound by any judgment rendered in the Litigation whether or not
you make a claim.  To exclude yourself from the Class, you must
mail a request for exclusion to the Claims Administrator in the
manner detailed in the Settlement Notice, and must be received no
later than June 5, 2015.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or the Lead
Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses and awards to Lead Plaintiffs must be
received by the addresses indicated in the Settlement Notice and
below by no later than June 5, 2015.

Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
Southern District New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007

Phillip Kim
The Rosen Law Firm
275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor
New York, New York 10016
Lead Counsel for Class

Rich Gonnello
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP
369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
New York, New York 10017
Lead Counsel for Class

Douglas Greene
Lane Powell PC
1420 Fifth Ave, Suite 4200
Seattle WA, 98101
Counsel for L&L, Ian G.
Robinson, and Clayton Fong

Aric Wu
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10166
Counsel for Dickson V. Lee

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Lead Counsel identified above.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS SETTLEMENT NOTICE.

DATED: FEBRUARY 13, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


LANDRY'S INC: "Ahmed" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Helal Ahmed, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Landry's, Inc., Landry's Seafood House-Arlington,
Inc., and McCormick & Schmick Restaurant Corp., Case No. 1:15-cv-
02186 (S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate restaurants in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian Scott Schaffer, Esq.
      Eric Joshua Gitig, Esq.
      FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
      475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 300-0375
      Facsimile: (212) 481-1333
      E-mail: bschaffer@fslawfirm.com
              egitig@fslawfirm.com


LISBOA HABANA: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oilse Gonzalez, and others similarly-situated v. Lisboa Habana
LLC, and Armando Areias, Case No. 1:15-cv-21154 (S.D. Fla., March
24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Miami-Dade County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edilberto O. Marban, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF EDDY O. MARBAN
      1600 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 902
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Telephone: (305) 448-9292
      Facsimile: (305) 448-9477
      E-mail: marbanlaw@gmail.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Cross" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
----------------------------------------------------------
David Cross and Shela Cross v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00228 (W.D. Ky., March 24, 2015), alleges that
the Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring
that fails to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde
standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive
levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human
carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and
the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      W. Lewis Garrison Jr., Esq.
      William L. Bross, Esq.
      Taylor C. Bartlett, Esq.
      Mark R. Ekonen, Esq.
      HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
      2224 1st Avenue North
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 326-3336
      E-mail: wlgarrison@hgdlawfirm.com
              william@hgdlawfirm.com
              mark@hgdlawfirm.com

         - and -

      John E. Spainhour, Esq.
      GIVHAN & SPAINHOUR, PSC
      Professional Building, Suite One
      200 S. Buckman Street
      Shepherdsville, KY 40165
      Telephone: (502) 543-2218
      Facsimile: (502) 955-7000
      E-mail: john@gsatty.net


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Neuhaus" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
------------------------------------------------------------
Donia and Scott Neuhaus, a married couple, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00203 (S.D. Ohio, March 24, 2015), alleges that
the Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese flooring
that fails to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde
standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive
levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human
carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and
the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
      Michael J. Boyle Jr., Esq.
      MEYER WILSON Co., LPA
      1320 Dublin Road, Suite 100
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 2224-6000
      Facsimile: (614) 224-6066
      E-mail: mwilson@meyerwilson.com
              mboyle@meyerwilson.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Schneider" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gavin Schneider, Jeffrey Gonzalez, David Bortnick, Michael Oddo,
Camil Sader, Tatiana Leechee-Sader, Linda J. Arons, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lumber
Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No. 0:15-cv-60592 (S.D. Fla.,
March 23, 2015), alleges that the Defendants manufactured, labeled
and sold Chinese Flooring that fails to comply with relevant and
applicable formaldehyde standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and
off-gasses excessive levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized
as a known human carcinogen by the United States National
Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on
Cancer.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew S. Sarelson, Esq.
      MATTHEW SETH SARELSON, P.A.
      1000 Brickell Avenue, Suite 920
      Miami, FL 33141
      Telephone: (305) 773-1952
      E-mail: msarelson@sarelson.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Laminate Class Action in Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Boyle, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reports that one
of the world's top flooring distributors continues to reel from
reports lumberalleging the company used unsafe chemicals in the
manufacture of its products.

A class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against Lumber
Liquidators, one of dozens of actions lodged against the laminate
flooring company for allegedly selling flooring tainted with
hazardous levels of formaldehyde.

The lead plaintiffs sought a product that would be easier for
their asthma symptoms exhibited by their seven-year-old daughter,
according to the complaint.

The 28-page lawsuit filed on March 9 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.

According to the complaint, on March 17, plaintiffs Andrew and
Carinne Karlick purchased several hundred square feet of Dream
Home Kensington Manor Warm Springs Chestnut Laminate Flooring at a
Lumber Liquidators store in Wilkes Barre.

Carinne suffers from asthma, and their daughter has begun
exhibiting asthmatic symptoms, the claim says.

According to the complaint, the Karlicks were aware of risks that
building products could contain formaldehyde and other dangerous
chemicals and specifically tried to ensure that the composite
flooring they purchased was safe.

"Soon after the Lumber Liquidators composite flooring was
installed in their home, Mrs. Karlick and the Karlick's daughter
experienced worse asthma symptoms than they normally experienced,"
the complaint states.

"In October, the Karlick's daughter experienced a severe attack
that required her to be treated with a nebulizer and to receive
oxygen treatment -- which she had never needed before. Her
symptoms then complicated and developed into pneumonia."

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.
The suit seeks injunctive and declarative relief on five counts,
including breach of warranty, violations of Pennsylvania's unfair
trade practices and consumer protection law, and fraudulent
concealment.

The class also seeks damages in excess of $5 million for
restitution from purchasing the product, plus compensatory
damages.  The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.


MARION COUNTY, IN: Memo Reveals 72hr Practice for Jail Releases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Russ McQuaid, writing for FOX59, reports that for months, people
held inside the Marion County jail have told FOX59 News their
court ordered releases were delayed because corrections officers
told them the sheriff had 72 hours to discharge an offender after
a judge's ruling.  Four people who filed federal class action
lawsuit last month claim jailers told them the same thing.

Now, an internal jail memo written by Sheriff John Layton, and
obtained by FOX59 News, confirms that the 72-hour excuse has been
a standard but unapproved practice of jailers who give the delayed
timetable excuse when offenders ask why they aren't being released
as a judge so ordered.

"To all staff," begins the email written by Layton at 10:36 a.m.
on March 9, "It has come to my attention that there is a rumor
that jail inmates can be held up to 72 hours after the date that
they have been ordered to be released to the street.  That rumor
is false. Inmates must be processed for release in a timely
manner, and the sheriff's office does not have 72 hours to process
inmates for release.  It is not, nor has it ever been, a policy of
the Sheriff's Office to process inmates within a 72-hour window."

The lawyer who filed the lawsuit on behalf of the former offenders
was unimpressed.

"I think that was written by the sheriff's lawyer to stop their
liability for such a policy because it's clearly unconstitutional
so they'd like to stop their people telling our clients that,"
said attorney Rich Waples.  "As a matter of fact, that's what
they've been telling people for months and months and months and
that's what they've been following for a matter of practice so I
think the sheriff has some real liability issues here."

Mr. Waples said the practice is too wide spread within the
department to be the work of a couple misinformed deputies.

"The common thread is the sheriff's department doesn't have a
handle on what they need to do to get people out on time.  They've
been pretty consistently telling people, 'Well, we have 48 hours
to 72 hours to release people.' That's not the law.  That's what
our people have been consistently told, and they don't even adhere
to that because we've had people held four and five days after
they've been ordered to be released."

Sherman Duncan is one of those people.

Mr. Duncan was held for six days on a battery charge in December
before he says he saw a judge and the charges were dropped.  He
was then held another 80 hours, missed work and a job interview
and was housed with killers and other high secruity inmates inside
the jail before he was finally released.

"They told me basically, 'Sit back and relax.  We have up to 72
hours to release you,' and I'm like, 'I don't understand that. If
I'm released, then release me,' but that's what they told me, 'We
have up to 72 hours.'

"I was free.  I was supposed to be let go and it's like I did
three and a half days for nothing."

After Mr. Duncan read Sheriff Layton's email telling his staff to
quit leaning on the rumored 72-hour rule as an excuse for release
delays, the former detainee was exasperated.

"It seems like they're doing that to cover theirself, or he's
doing that to cover hisself," said Duncan, "because clearly
everybody around there speaks the same language.  It's not just
one guard that says that.  All of them say that and even when I
call my public defender to check, she said they told her that."

Apparently the overdetention problems, and excuses, are not
restricted to the main jail.

Several blocks away on East Washington Street, at Jail II,
operated by Corrections Corporation of America, the false
detention claims are the same and the rationale is even more
cynical.

"Now I'm asking the CO, 'What's going on? I should've been home. I
don't get this,'" said Kevin Thomas who told FOX59 News he was
held for 52 additional hours after a judge ordered him released in
December pending trial.  Mr. Thomas said the corrections officer's
response was similar to that of the sheriff's deputies.  "'Oh it
takes 72 hours,'" Mr. Thomas said he was told.  "We're not County
One. We are a privately owned company.  We got 72 hours to release
you . . . Our computers are down.  Our computers are down.  We
don't know your status."

"I'm like, 'Y'all are violating my rights,' and they're like,
'Naw.  We're private.'"

Mr. Thomas said he was told specifically it would do no good to
report his complaints to the news media.

"They private. Can't nobody come in there," he said.  "Ain't no
way that y'all would ever be able to step a foot in CCA, so I
could just leave that alone.  Ain't no way y'all going to get up
in there.  'We not run by the state.  We just a private jail
company.'"

As a privately run jail, CCA is paid with public funds to house
Marion County inmates.

Thomas said that's why he was told his released was being delayed
and, when it came, it occurred at two a.m., more than two days
after a judge ordered him free, so that CCA could charge the
county for an additional day of incarceration.

"I see a CO I know from the streets," said Mr. Thomas.  "A guy my
age. I said,'What's going on, man?' He says, 'You all just paying
rent.  After three days they let you go.  Every 12 o'clock you
just paying rent basically.'

"'This is just how they run this,' Mr. Thomas quoted the private
jailer as telling him.  "'After 12 midnight, you pay our rent.'
That's all he said.  'You paying our rent.  We get money for y'all
being here.  You know that.'"

Mr. Thomas was also dismayed when he read Sheriff Layton's memo.

"They know they in trouble," he said.  "They know they did
something wrong.  It's in the Constitution.  Due Process. 4th
amendment. 8th amendment. 14th amendment.  All them been violated.
If the judge ordered something, it should be done.  Period.  Point
blank."

Mr. Waples and FOX59 News have both received phone calls from
dozens of former offenders telling the same story about
overdetentions, delayed releases and excuses.

"We've had hundreds of people contact us about it, complaining
they've been held over for days and days after they've been
ordered to be released," said Mr. Waples.  "Every other county
around Marion County does this within 30 minutes.  Marion County
can do it within a couple of hours."

Those complaints began last summer when the jail installed a new
Offender Management System to track inmates and the Marion
Superior Court began using the new Odyssey system to track
criminal cases.

An outside expert and MCSO personnel told FOX59 News that the two
systems have struggled to share information.

The attorney expects to represent hundreds of plaintiffs in the
federal class action lawsuit that could result in settlements for
thousands of ex-offenders and invite U.S. District Court oversight
of the jail.

"We want to get the system fixed," said Mr. Waples.  "This is not
only costing people their liberty, being held days longer than
they should, but it's costing all Marion County taxpayers money
keeping people in prison longer than they should.  We're paying
for that."

When asked for a comment, Sheriff John Layton's staff reported,
"The Marion County Sheriff's Office does not try lawsuits in the
media."

A spokesman for CCA told FOX59 News, "While we take these alleged
comments by CCA staff members seriously, they do not reflect the
reality of the offender release procedures at Marion County Jail
II.  All CCA facilities operate in accordance with the policies
and procedures that are laid out by our government partner.

"Upon receiving a release order for an offender housed at Marion
County Jail II, staff typically process and complete the release
within a matter of hours, and no incentive exists-financial or
otherwise-for CCA to house offenders past their ordered date of
release. Finally, Marion County jail II is frequently audited and
operates transparently with oversight from our government
partner."

Other former detainees have told FOX59 News their jail II
experiences were similar to those experienced by ex-offenders
housed at the main jail and their releases were also delayed for
several days.

An information management specialist was brought in by Sheriff
Layton last September to analyze the systems and suggest solutions
which were undertaken in October.

Most of the recent complaints fielded by Mr. Waples and FOX59 News
are from offenders who were housed in the jail since last
November.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Robertson & Associates Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
On March 11, 2015 Robertson & Associates, LLP., filed a class
action lawsuit in United Stated District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of plaintiffs from Los Angeles,
Orange, Fresno, Riverside, and San Luis Obispo counties, who seek
to represent all similarly situated consumers in California,
against Lumber Liquidators, Inc. for allegedly violating
California's False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law by
selling laminate wood flooring which contains a known carcinogen,
formaldehyde, in levels which far exceed California's Airborne
Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) adopted by the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) in April 2007.

Lumber Liquidators, which reportedly had estimated annual sales of
$1.1 Billion in 2014, is one of the largest specialty retailers of
hardwood and laminate flooring in the United States, with over 340
stores in 46 states, including 36 stores in California.

On March 12, 2015, Robertson & Associates, LLP., filed a similar
class action lawsuit in United States District Court for the
District of Nevada on behalf of two Las Vegas plaintiffs, who
filed the lawsuit on behalf of all similarly situated Nevada
consumers who purchased allegedly toxic laminate flooring from
Lumber Liquidators.  Lumber Liquidators has a total of 3 stores in
Nevada, one each in Las Vegas, Henderson and Reno.

Recently published tests conducted by two independent labs for CBS
News "60 Minutes" have shown that certain laminate flooring
manufactured in China and sold by Lumber Liquidators contains
unsafe emissions of formaldehyde gas, which emissions far exceeded
the legal limit under California law.  Lumber Liquidators' labels
on its packaging and its website represent that its flooring
complies with California's regulations of formaldehyde even for
flooring sold outside of California.

According to a March 1, 2015 CBS News "60 Minutes" report, Lumber
Liquidators has sold laminate wood flooring with hazardous levels
of formaldehyde which exceed the standards established in 2007 by
the California Air Resources Board (CARB).  The EPA has classified
formaldehyde as a "probable human carcinogen."  National Cancer
Institute researchers have concluded that, based on data from
studies in people and from lab research, exposure to formaldehyde
may cause leukemia, particularly myeloid leukemia, in humans.

Formaldehyde also causes burning eyes, nose and throat irritation,
coughing, headaches, dizziness, joint pain and nausea.
Formaldehyde has also been linked to the exacerbation of asthma in
sensitive individuals.

If you or someone you know purchased Chinese-made laminate
flooring from Lumber Liquidators, you may have been exposed to
formaldehyde. If you would like free information about your legal
rights and remedies, call Alex "Trey" Robertson, IV, Esq. of
Robertson & Associates, LLP. at (818) 851-3850 or go to
www.classactionlumberliquidators.com

Alex "Trey" Robertson, IV, Esq. is an experienced trial lawyer who
holds an AV-Preeminent rating from Martindale-Hubbell, the highest
peer-review rating given only to those lawyers who demonstrate the
highest level of ethical standards and legal ability.  Alex also
has been named a "Super Lawyer" for Southern California from 2011-
2015.  In 2014, he received "The Litigator Award" from the Trial
Lawyers Board of Regents, a distinction given to only 1% of all
attorneys, based upon verified settlement and verdict amounts.
Alex is admitted to practice in California, Nevada, Colorado and
Texas.

As one of the country's top litigators of toxic mold cases, Alex
has handled thousands of indoor air quality cases involving
airborne toxins into his client's homes. Alex has handled numerous
high profile toxic cases, including those for celebrities Ed
McMahon, Erin Brockovich, Ted Nugent, Vin Scully (L.A. Dodger's
announcer) and other celebrities, professional athletes and public
figures. Many of his cases have been featured in local and
national media, including CBS News "48 Hours" (twice), CBS News
"The Early Show", ABC News "Prime Time Live", NBC News "Today
Show", New York Times Sunday Magazine, The Wall Street Journal,
ABA Journal, Forbes Magazine and CNN's "Lou Dobbs" show.

With over 30 years of experience as a trial lawyer, Mr. Robertson
has recovered more than $300,000,000 for consumers in construction
defect and consumer class actions.

Contact:

Alex "Trey" Robertson, IV, Esq.
Telephone: (818) 851-3850
E-mail: arobertson@arobertsonlaw.com
Web site: http://www.classactionlumberliquidators.com


MIDWAY REMARKETING: Faces "Rojas" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Rojas v. Midway Remarketing, Inc., and Martin Shapiro, Case
No. 2:15-cv-02064 (D.N.J., March 23, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Midway Remarketing, Inc. is a car detailing company in Hillside
New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
     JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP PA
     Lawrence Office Park
     Building 2, Suite 220
     168 Franklin Corner Road
     Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
     Telephone: (201) 687-9977
     Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
     E-mail: aglenn@jaffeglenn.com


MOBILE AUTO: Faces "Zolotoff" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffry Zolotoff and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(B) v. Mobile Auto Repair, Inc., and Raymond Torres, Case No.
1:15-cv-21161 (S.D. Fla., March 24, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in
excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Defendants own and auto repair shop that regularly transacts
business within Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Telephone: (305) 865-6766
      Facsimile: 865-7167
      E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


MRS BPO: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, "Lefkowitz" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Lefkowitz, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. MRS BPO, L.L.C., Case No. 1:15-cv-01477-PKC-
VMS (E.D.N.Y., March 20, 2015) is brought over alleged violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NATIONAL GRID: Faces TCPA Class Action in New York
--------------------------------------------------
Patrick Lunsford, writing for insideARM.com, reports that a
lawsuit filed in federal court in New York is seeking class action
status under the TCPA.  Named in the case is a major utility and
nearly all of its subsidiaries and parent companies, including
global holding firms, even though the alleged violation was
committed by a third party debt collection agency.  It is a
continuation of a trend that sees plaintiffs skipping collectors
and going straight after the big money.

The case in question, Jenkins v. National Grid USA, was filed by a
recently-prolific pro se plaintiff that targets the ARM industry.
But for this particular action, Jenkins retained an attorney to
push for class action status.  The suit alleges that a third party
collection agency, NCO Financial Systems, contracted by National
Grid used an autodialer to make collection calls and send pre-
recorded messages to the plaintiff's -- and other members of a
potential class -- cell phone without prior express consent to do
so. The plaintiff was a utility customer of National Grid.

All of the actions named in the lawsuit were taken by NCO, not by
National Grid.  Mr. Jenkins claims that the company is "directly
liable and/or vicariously liable" for NCO's actions, however. NCO
is not named as a defendant in the action.

But a host of entities associated with National Grid are named,
including many of the largest utility providers in the Northeast
and New England.

Mr. Jenkins has a fairly lengthy record of recent pro se actions
against major ARM firms, principally for violations of the FDCPA
or FCRA.  Many of the cases have been dismissed.  But one still
open action appears to have led directly to this lawsuit.

In July 2014, Mr. Jenkins sued NCO under the FCRA for pulling his
credit report.  Mr. Jenkins claimed that NCO had not permissible
purpose to access his credit file.  NCO responded that it did, in
fact, have a permissible purpose to obtain the credit report: it
was collecting a debt on behalf of National Grid.  NCO has filed a
motion to dismiss, but the case is still ongoing.

Using some other information from discovery, Mr. Jenkins fashioned
a TCPA claim based on NCO's actions.  But he skipped NCO as a
defendant and went straight to their client.  It's a move that is
becoming increasingly common.

Just in February, American Express lost a motion to dismiss a TCPA
lawsuit that made very similar allegations.  The credit card giant
was the target of a class action suit claiming direct liability
under the TCPA for the actions of a contracted debt collection
agency.  "With respect to the debt collection phone calls, whether
American Express itself actually placed the calls at issue is
irrelevant," the judge in the case wrote.

It makes sense that collection agency clients would be target of
TCPA class actions. There have been some massive settlements of
such cases recently.

In late February, a federal judge in Illinois granted final
approval to a $40 million TCPA class action settlement between
plaintiffs and credit card issuer HSBC.  That was the third-
largest TCPA settlement recorded.  The largest TCPA settlement
went final only weeks before, in front of the same judge.  That
action saw Capital One pay $75 million in a collection call-
related TCPA class action settlement.

The past several years have seen an explosion of TCPA lawsuits
aimed at the ARM industry.  Plaintiffs' attorneys are now
realizing that the real money is with collection clients rather
than ARM companies.  Everyone in the debt collection industry
should take note of these recent trends.


NESTLE PURINA: Finleyville Consumer Says Beneful Killed Pet Dog
---------------------------------------------------------------
KDKA reports that like many, Jim Ball of Finleyville bought what
Purina's Beneful brand was selling.  As the Purina commercial
goes, "Beneful -- live the full life."

But now Mr. Ball believes the dog food killed his Siberian husky,
Billy, as he told KDKA money editor Jon Delano on March 11.

"I read the bag and it seemed like it had some pretty good
ingredients from the outside," Mr. Ball said.

Mr. Delano: "And this is the actual dog food you fed your dog when
he died?"

Mr. Ball said: "This was it."

Mr. Ball hopes the dog food will be tested, perhaps as part of a
class action lawsuit that claims 3,000 dogs have been killed or
injured by eight brands of Beneful dog food.

Purina denies any liability, saying, "We believe the lawsuit is
baseless, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves and our
brand."

Mr. Ball owned two Siberian huskies, Billy and Midnight, until
Billy died in January after he switched to Beneful.

"We were out and when we came home, that's when he was laying on
the floor," says Mr. Ball.  "There was vomit all over the
basement, and I could tell that something just wasn't right.  And
right away I took him into the Castle Shannon Animal Hospital."

Mr. Ball says the veterinarian asked if his dog had been poisoned.
Never suspecting dog food, Mr. Ball said no way.

Nobody from Castle Shannon Veterinary Hospital was available to
talk to KDKA on camera, but Ball says that when his dog got sick
he took the dog there, met with the vet who told him it was
probably the change in diet that was affecting his animal.

The vet prescribed a special diet to use instead.

Mr. Ball says Billy bounced back on the special diet, but when
Beneful was blended in, as instructed, Billy took a turn.

"Sadly, he didn't make it," Mr. Ball said.

Ball has contacted lawyers but won't sue yet -- if Purina takes
Beneful off the shelves.

"I thought since my case was fairly new that maybe what they need
to take it off the shelves and that's really all I was trying to
do -- to keep this from happening to anybody else," Mr. Ball said.


NEW YORK & CO: Removes "Pietrantonio" Suit to D. Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Pietrantonio, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. New York & Company,
Inc., Case No. 15-231, was removed from the Superior Court of
Massachusetts for the County of Middlesex from the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, Superior Court, County of Middlesex, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Eastern
Division.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-
11036 to the proceeding.

The Complaint alleges that NY&Co improperly wrote personal
identification information of the Plaintiff and the putative class
members on a credit card transaction form, in violation of the
Massachusetts Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Siprut, Esq.
          Brandon M. Cavanaugh, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          17 North State Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236-0000
          Facsimile: (312) 948-9196
          E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
                  bcavanaugh@siprut.com

               - and -

          Alexander Shapoval, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          84 Winnisimmet Street
          Chelsea, MA 02150
          Telephone: (617) 889-5800
          Facsimile: (617) 409-9994
          E-mail: ashapoval@siprut.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Donna L. Wilson, Esq.
          Brandon P. Reilly, Esq.
          MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
          11355 West Olympic Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90064-1614
          Telephone: (310) 312-4000
          Facsimile: (310) 312-4224
          E-mail: dlwilson@manatt.com
                  breilly@manatt.com

               - and -

          Meredith M. Lasna, Esq.
          MORRISON MAHONEY LLP
          250 Summer Street
          Boston, MA 02210
          Telephone: (617) 439-7500
          E-mail: mlasna@morrisonmahoney.com


NEWARK WATERSHED: Plaintiffs' Attorney Wants Stay on Suit Lifted
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Wichert, writing for NJ.com, reports that two former
employees of the Newark Watershed Conservation and Development
Corp. filed a class-action lawsuit last year to recover money
allegedly stolen from the now-defunct agency.  But after the
agency's trustees filed for bankruptcy in January, that lawsuit
was put on hold.

Now the former employees' attorney is asking a federal bankruptcy
judge to partially lift the stay on the lawsuit and allow certain
claims to proceed on behalf of Newark residents.

"I want to go forward with the lawsuit," said David Hoffman, the
attorney representing the former employees.  "I'm in limbo."

But Daniel Stolz, an attorney representing the corporation in the
bankruptcy case, argued the stay must remain in place, because the
agency should be the one to pursue such litigation, not
Mr. Hoffman.

"The appropriate thing is for the watershed to bring those claims
and we've always intended to bring those claims," said Mr. Stolz,
adding that the corporation should serve that role "because the
agency is the one that was directly injured."

The litigation pursued by the agency would include negligence
claims against law firms that had represented the agency and
claims against people who wrongfully took money from the
corporation, according to Mr. Stolz.

A hearing on Hoffman's motion to partially vacate the stay was
scheduled for March 31 before U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Vincent F.
Papalia.

For several years, the corporation -- which had treated and
delivered water for 500,000 customers in northern New Jersey until
its watershed operations were transferred to city control in 2013
-- has been steeped in controversy.

One of the greatest blows came in February 2014 with the release
of a scathing report by the New Jersey Comptroller's Office,
alleging rampant mismanagement, corruption and abusive spending
practices at the agency.

At the center of those allegations is the agency's former
executive director, Linda Watkins-Brashear, who received more than
$600,000 in severance packages, and wrote more than $200,000 in
unauthorized checks to herself, the investigation found.

The report also asserts that Ms. Watkins-Brashear awarded millions
of dollars' worth of no-bid contracts to her ex-husband, close
personal associates and agency employees.

One of the agency employees who allegedly received those no-bid
contracts -- Donald Bernard Sr. -- and a contractor, Giacomo
"Jack" DeRosa, are now facing federal criminal charges for
allegedly participating in a kickback scheme at the agency.
Mr. Bernard is accused of accepting at least $730,000 in kickbacks
from Mr. DeRosa and other contractors, authorities said.
Another former contractor, James Porter, pleaded guilty in January
to his role in the scheme.

Ms. Watkins-Brashear and Mr. Bernard are among the various
defendants being sued in the class-action lawsuit from the former
employees.  The lawsuit was initially filed on July 9 in New
Jersey Superior Court in Essex County.

Mr. Hoffman said the lawsuit involves two main components -- a
claim on behalf of Newark residents to recover the allegedly
stolen funds, and a claim on behalf of former agency employees to
receive their benefits, including money for their pensions,
severance pay and unused sick and vacation time.

While the employees' claim would remain part of the bankruptcy
case, Hoffman said he is looking to remove the stay in regard to
the residents' claim and move forward with that part of the
lawsuit.

"It has nothing to do with the bankruptcy," said Mr. Hoffman,
referring to the residents' claim.

Mr. Stolz noted the "automatic stay" of the lawsuit fits with the
standard operating procedures in bankruptcy cases.  Referring to
the agency's trustees, Mr. Stolz argued "it would be duplicative
of the claims that we're going to be bringing" for Hoffman to
pursue the lawsuit.


NEWFRESCO TORTILLAS: Faces "Chen" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zhen Ming Chen, individually and on behalfof allotheremployees
similarly situated v. Newfresco Tortillas Taco LLC d/b/a "the
Original Fres'co Tortillas Taco", "John" Chen, John Doe and
JaneDoe # 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-02158 (S.D.N.Y., March 23, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 100 West
83rd Street, New York, New York 10024.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NVIDIA CORPORATION: Falsely Marketed GTX 970 Units, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick E. Parker, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Nvidia Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-00062
(M.D. Ga., March 23, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's false
and misleading representations of its GeForce GTX 970 graphics
processing unit that it operates with a 4 gigabyte (GB) pool of
video random access memory (VRAM), 64 Raster Operations Pipelines
(ROP), and 2048 kilobytes (KB) of L2 cache capacity. When in fact,
the VRAM in the GTX 970 is divided into two separate pools of
memory, with one high performance pool of 3.5GB VRAM, and a second
nearly unusable pool of 0.5GB VRAM, the GTX 970 contains only 56
ROP and only has 1792KB of L2 cache capacity.

Nvidia Corporation is a visual computing company and is engaged in
the business of designing, manufacturing, selling, and
distributing computing equipment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Coomes, Esq.
      MCCONNELL & SNEED, LLC
      990 Hammond Drive, Suite 840
      Atlanta, GA 30328
      Telephone: (404) 220-9994
      Facsimile: (404) 665-3476
      E-mail: ajc@mcconnellsneed.com

         - and -

     Gary E. Mason, Esq.
     Esfand Y. Nafisi, Esq.
     Benjamin S. Branda, Esq.
     WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
     1625 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Suite 605
     Washington, DC 20036
     Telephone: (202) 429-2290
     Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
     E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com
             enafisi@wbmllp.com
             bbranda@wbmllp.com


OFFICE DEPOT: Sued Over Breach of Americans with Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Kennedy and Robert Cohen v. Office Depot, Inc., Case No.
0:15-cv-60587 (S.D. Fla., March 20, 2015), alleges that the
Defendant's facility fails to adhere to a policy and procedure to
afford goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or
accommodations to individuals with disabilities in violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Office Depot, Inc. is an office supply retailing company
headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Philip Michael Cullen III, Esq.
      THOMAS B. BACON, P.A.
      621 S Federal Highway
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-3146
      Telephone: (954) 462-0600
      Facsimile: 462-1717
      E-mail: CULLENIII@aol.com


OLIVER EXTERMINATING: Removes "Tenai" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Tenai v. Oliver Exterminating
Corporation, Case No. 15-000419-CC-24, was removed from the 11th
Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-21142-DPG to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Francisco Zacarias, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER F. ZACARIAS, P.A.
          5757 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 230
          Miami, FL 33126
          Telephone: (305) 403-2000
          Facsimile: (305) 459-3964
          E-mail: czacarias@zacariaslaw.com

               - and -

          Isaac Jackie Mamane, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ISAAC MAMANE
          1150 Kane Concourse, Floor 2
          Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
          Telephone: (305) 448-9292
          Facsimile: (305) 448-9477
          E-mail: Mamane@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Teri Guttman Valdes, Esq.
          TERI GUTTMAN VALDES, LLC
          1501 Venera Avenue, Suite 300
          Coral Gables, FL 33146
          Telephone: (305) 740-9600
          Facsimile: (305) 740-9202
          E-mail: tgvaldes@aol.com


OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS: Barrack, Rodos & Bacine Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barrack, Rodos & Bacine on March 12 disclosed that it commenced a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California on behalf of purchasers of
Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc. common stock during the period between
March 3, 2015 and March 5, 2015, inclusive.  The Case is No. 15-
cv-557-CAB-MDD.  The complaint alleges that Orexigen and certain
of its executives violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchases of
Orexigen common stock during the Class Period.

Orexigen is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development
of pharmaceutical product candidates for the treatment of obesity,
including Contrave, which it claims "regulates appetite and energy
expenditure through [central nervous system] activity."  Orexigen
is headquartered in La Jolla, California, just north of Barrack,
Rodos & Bacine's office in San Diego, California.

The Barrack complaint alleges that as part of the FDA post-
marketing approval process for Contrave, Orexigen was required to
conduct a new, randomize-blind, placebo-controlled study to
evaluate the effects of long-term treatment with Contrave on the
incidents of major adverse cardiac events, or "MACE," in
overweight and obese subjects with cardiovascular disease or
multiple cardiovascular risk factors, referred to as a "LIGHT
study."

On March 3, 2015, Orexigen disclosed detailed interim results of
its LIGHT study.  However, according to media reports, Orexigen
had been warned by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration ("FDA")
about inappropriately releasing interim study data in the past
and, thus, knew that it would not be appropriate to release
interim LIGHT study results on March 3, 2015.  With the company's
March 3, 2015 disclosures, the price of Orexigen common stock
increased by more than 30%, from a closing price of $5.79 on March
2 to a closing price of $7.64 on March 3, 2015.  The stock closed
at even higher prices the next two days -- closing at $8.49 per
share on March 4 and at $8.01 per share on March 5, 2015.  Over
the three days, more than 150 million shares of stock were traded.

However, after the close of trading on March 5, 2015, Forbes
published an article entitled "Top FDA official Says Orexigen
Study Result 'Unreliable', "Misleading."  As alleged in the
Barrack complaint, the Forbes report contained comments from an
FDA official charged with overseeing the Contrave post-marketing
clinical trial program, who reportedly stated, among other things,
that the interim data from the study was probably "unreliable,"
"misleading," and "likely false."  The Forbes article commented
that "[i]f Orexigen cannot find a way to set things right, it
could face fines, civil penalties, or even the withdrawal of
Contrave from the market."

After issuance of the Forbes article, the price of Orexigen stock
fell significantly as trading resumed on March 6, 2015, falling to
a low of $6.76 per share and resting at $7.10 per share by the
close of the day.

If you purchased Orexigen common stock during the period from
March 3, 2015 through March 5, 2015, you may be eligible to serve
as a lead plaintiff and thereby participate in the direction of
this litigation on behalf of the class members.  If you wish to
serve as a lead plaintiff, you are required to file a motion with
the court no later than 60 days from March 10, 2015.  If you would
like to discuss this case or have any questions or information
concerning this notice or your rights and interests as a purchaser
of Orexigen stock, we encourage you to contact Stephen R. Basser
or Samuel M. Ward of Barrack at (619) 230-0800, (215) 963-0600, or
(212) 688-0782, or via email at sbasser@barrack.com or
sward@barrack.com

You may view a copy of the complaint as filed at www.barrack.com

Barrack, Rodos & Bacine -- http://www.barrack.com-- concentrates
its practice in prosecuting investor class actions.


OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on March 11 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc. and certain of
its officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Southern District of California, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Orexigen
securities between March 3, 2015 and March 5, 2015, inclusive.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Orexigen securities during
the Class Period, you have until May 11, 2015 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Orexigen is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on the
development of pharmaceutical product candidates for the treatment
of obesity.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
prospects and performance.  Specifically, during the Class Period,
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (i) study results released by Orexigen, showing
that its obesity drug Contrave reduced the risk of heart attacks
and cardiovascular death, were unreliable and misleading; (ii) as
such, Orexigen faced potential fines, civil penalties, and the
possible removal of Contrave from the market; and (iii) as a
result of the above, the Company's financial statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On March 3, 2015, the Company filed a Form 8-K with the SEC,
announcing a patent application with the United States Patent and
Trademark Office.  In the patent application, the Company
disclosed positive interim results of an ongoing clinical trial of
its weight loss drug Contrave.  As a result of this news, the
Company's shares increased $1.85 or almost 32%, to close at $7.64
on March 3, 2015.  The next day, shares rose $0.85 or over 11%, to
close at $8.49 on March 4, 2015.  The total increase over two days
was $2.70, or over 46%.  However, the interim data published by
the Company was particularly unreliable, as noted in numerous
articles published in the days after the patent application was
filed.

Takeda, which has an agreement with Orexigen to market Contrave in
the United States, released a statement on March 5, 2015, stating
that it did not support the release of the interim data.

On the news, shares in Orexigen fell $0.48 or almost 6%, to close
at $8.01 on March 5, 2015.

After the close of trading on March 5, 2015, in a report published
on Forbes.com, a top FDA official criticized Orexigen and its
decision to release interim trial data.  In the report, Dr. John
Jenkins, the FDA's director of the Office of New Drugs criticized
the released data as "unreliable," "misleading," and "likely
false."  He also said that the results must be kept confidential
to avoid compromising the trial's integrity so researchers can get
a clear sense of any cardiovascular risk related to the drug.

On this news, shares in Orexigen fell as much as $1.25, or almost
16%, to as low as $6.76 in intraday trading on March 6, 2015.

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


PELICAN BAY, CA: Solitary Confinement Suit May Proceed
------------------------------------------------------
Mohamed Shehk, writing for San Francisco Bay View, reports that
Pelican Bay prisoners named as plaintiffs in a class action
lawsuit against the use of solitary confinement in California
gained an important victory on March 9 as U.S. District Judge
Claudia Wilken ruled in favor of a motion filed by the plaintiffs'
counsel.  The motion allows prisoners who have been in solitary
confinement for more than 10 years, but have been transferred out
of Pelican Bay State Prison since the lawsuit was first filed, to
remain eligible as class members in the case.

"Our success with this motion should be a strong message to the
prison administration that its attempts to evade court review of
its unconstitutional practices," says Carol Strickman, co-counsel
for the plaintiffs and staff attorney at Legal Services for
Prisoners with Children.  "Our goal in this case is to support the
demand of prisoners to end the inhumane use of indefinite
solitary, and no amount of legal shell games is going to stop us
from achieving that goal."

The case was filed in June 2014 on behalf of prisoners held in
Pelican Bay's notorious Security Housing Units (SHU) for more than
10 years.  Since then, the California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation (CDCR) has attempted to weaken the case and
repress political organizing by transferring prisoners out of
Pelican Bay, thereby claiming that they are no longer eligible
class members in the lawsuit.

"This is a huge victory against CDCR's attempts to suppress the
resistance and solidarity among prisoners and their loved ones on
the outside," says Dolores Canales of California Families Against
Solitary Confinement.  "It shows us the power of prisoner-led
organizing and efforts on the outside to challenge and block an
oppressive prison system."

The lawsuit against CDCR comes out of a wave of prisoner
organizing and of efforts by their loved ones on the outside to
bring the prisoners' demands to the center of public
consciousness.  The call to end indefinite solitary confinement
was one of five core demands of over 30,000 California prisoners
who went on a historic hunger strike in July of 2013.  Yet CDCR
has responded to the prisoners' action by attempting to break
their collective efforts by moving them around the state and
pushing forward stricter visitation and mailing policies.

"CDCR's attempt at retribution for political organizing has only
galvanized support for prisoners," continued Ms. Canales.  "The
prisoners' win in court on March 9 means that CDCR's main strategy
of repression -- which has been to separate prisoners by
transferring them -- is not working.  We are hopeful and
encouraged by this ruling, and will use this momentum to continue
fighting for the prisoner's demands."

Families, loved ones and advocates of prisoners are continuing to
organize to highlight the lawsuit and to amplify the prisoners'
struggles more broadly.  The Prisoner Hunger Strike Solidarity
Coalition and community members across California will be
mobilizing on March 23 for a day of "Statewide Coordinated Action
to End Solitary Confinement."


PH BEAUTY: Removes "Marshall" Suit to California District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Geri Marshall v. PH Beauty Labs,
Inc., Case No. BC571836, was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Los
Angeles).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-
02101-DDP-AGR to the proceeding.

The complaint alleges violations of the California Unfair
Competition Law, the California False Advertising Law, the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the California
Commercial Code.  The complaint was filed as a nationwide putative
class action and purports to seek relief on behalf of "a class of
persons in the United States who, from May 1, 2009 to the present,
purchased eclos products primarily for personal, family, or
household use, and not for resale."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          Skye Resendes, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON APLC
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
                  skye@consumersadvocates.com

               - and -

          John Joseph Fitzgerald, IV, Esq.
          Tran Hai Thi Nguyen, Esq.
          Trevor M. Flynn, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD PC
          Hillcrest Professional Building
          3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 692-3840
          Facsimile: (619) 362-9555
          E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
                  tran@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
                  trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          J. Craig Crawford, Esq.
          CARR MCCLELLAN PC
          216 Park Road
          Burlingame, CA 94010-0513
          Telephone: (650) 696-2580
          Facsimile: (650) 342-7685
          E-mail: ccrawford@carr-mcclellan.com


PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Guenser" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bradd Guenser, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. Premera Blue Cross, Case No. 2:15-cv-00441
(W.D. Wash., March 20, 2015),  is brought against the Defendant
failure to properly secure and protect its users' sensitive,
personally-identifiable information.

Premera Blue Cross is a Washington nonprofit corporation,
headquartered in Montlake Terrace, Washington. It is one of the
largest health plan provider in the Northwest United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
      Swathi Bojedla, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      1700 K Street, NW Suite 650
      Washington, D.C. 20006
      Telephone: (202) 540-7200
      Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
      E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
              sbojedla@hausfeld.com


PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Hoirup" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
Yolanda Hoirup, Peter Hoirup, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Premera Blue Cross, Case No. 2:15-cv-
00445 (W.D. Wash., March 23, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to protect and safeguard the personal and
financial information of its 11 million insureds.

Premera Blue Cross is a Washington company, headquartered in
Mountlake Terrace, Washington. It is one of the largest health
insurers in the Pacific Northwest.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Darrell L. Cochran, Esq.
      Kevin M. Hastings, Esq.
      PFAU COCHRAN VERTETIS AMALA PLLC
      911 Pacific Ave., Suite 200
      Tacoma, WA 98402
      Telephone: (253) 777-0799
      Facsimile: (253) 627-0654
      E-mail: darrell@pcvalaw.com
              kevin@pcvalaw.com


PROGRESSIVE FINANCIAL: Accused of Violating FDCPA in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Membreno, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Progressive Financial Services, Inc., Case
No. 1:15-cv-01492 (E.D.N.Y., March 22, 2015) accuses the Defendant
of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


REEVE TRUCKING: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Reeve Trucking Company, Inc. on March 11 disclosed that on January
15, 2015, the San Diego employment law attorneys at Blumenthal,
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a class action lawsuit against Reeve
Trucking Company, Inc. alleging that the company's policy and
practice failed to lawfully compensate their employees working as
Truck Drivers for all their missed meal and rest periods.  The
pending class action lawsuit against Reeve Trucking Company, Inc.
for alleged unpaid missed meal and rest periods, is currently
pending in the San Diego County Superior Court, Case No 37-2015-
00001601-CU-OE-CTL.

The class action Complaint filed against Reeve Trucking Company,
Inc. by the San Diego employment attorneys at Blumenthal,
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik alleges that Reeve Trucking Company, Inc. did
not have a policy or practice which provided a full off-duty,
thirty minute uninterrupted meal breaks to the Plaintiff and
California Class Members.  The company's alleged failure to
provide the legally required meal and rest breaks is evidenced by
their business records which contain no evidence of these breaks
the Complaint claims.  As a result, Truck Drivers working for
Reeve Trucking Company, Inc. allegedly forfeited meal and rest
breaks without additional compensation.

For more information about the class action lawsuit against Reeve
Trucking Company, Inc. call (866) 771-7099 to speak to an
experienced San Diego employment attorney today.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug, & Bhowmik is an employment law firm with
law offices located in San Diego County, San Francisco County, and
Los Angeles County.  The firm has a statewide practice of
representing employees on a contingency basis for violations
involving unpaid wages, overtime pay, discrimination, harassment,
wrongful termination and other types of illegal workplace conduct.
Call one of their experienced employment law attorneys today at
(866) 771-7099.


SEASIDE ROOFING: Faces "Mercado" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Margarito Mercado, and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216(B) v. Joseph W. Snyder and d/b/a Seaside Roofing
Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-14101 (S.D. Fla., March 23, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for work in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Seaside Roofing Inc. owns and operates a roofing company that
conducts business in Martin County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Monica Espino, Esq.
      ESPINO LAW
      2100 Coral Way, Suite 300
      Miami, FL 33145
      Telephone: (305) 704-3172
      Facsimile: (305) 722-7378
      E-mail: me@espino-law.com


SPEEDY STOP: NASM Files Amicus Curiae in Swipe-Fee Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
CSP Daily News, citing NASM's Legal Bulletin, reports that in
Texas, the National Association of Shell Marketers (NASM) filed an
amicus curiae (friend-of-the-court) brief in Speedy Stop Food
Stores Inc. et al. v. Visa Inc. et al., Case No. 13-10-75377-A, in
the District Court of Victoria County, Texas.

In the Texas case, four branded petroleum marketers that opted out
of the nationwide Visa-MasterCard class-action settlement in
New York, filed their own, separate lawsuit against Visa and
MasterCard alleging antitrust claims similar to those asserted by
the plaintiff class members in the New York class action.

Visa and MasterCard have asked the Texas court to dismiss the case
based on their contention that branded petroleum retailers have no
standing to assert such antitrust claims because they supposedly
do not pay directly the credit-card interchange fees that are
deducted from the proceeds of credit-card transactions at branded
retail locations.

Visa and MasterCard have made the same argument in the New York
class action that they have raised in the Texas case.
Consequently, the question of whether branded retailers will
ultimately be able to receive any portion of the proceeds that are
to be distributed pursuant to the settlement in the New York Visa-
MasterCard class action is currently unresolved, said NASM.

Because the ruling by the Texas state court could possibly set an
important precedent on this issue, NASM filed its amicus curiae
brief in support of the Texas marketers' position that they do pay
such interchange fees directly and, therefore, have standing to
asset their antitrust claims against Visa and MasterCard
concerning those fees.


SUMMERLIN HOSPITAL: Suit Over Tuberculosis Outbreak May Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carri Beer Thevenot, writing for Las Vegas Review Journal, reports
that a lawsuit that centers on a deadly 2013 tuberculosis outbreak
at Summerlin Hospital Medical Center may proceed as a class
action, a judge ruled, but he has not determined which potential
plaintiffs may join the case.

District Judge Kenneth Cory heard extensive arguments on the
subject March 11 before granting a motion for class certification.
He plans to issue a written order.

Attorney John Cotton, who represents the hospital, argued that
plaintiffs should be required to file separate lawsuits, rather
than one joint case.

"There is no commonality or typicality among any of these people,"
he told the judge.

A class action is a lawsuit brought by one or more plaintiffs on
behalf of a larger group, or "class," of plaintiffs with common
issues.  It is considered a more efficient way of handling cases
involving large numbers of people who have suffered the same or
similar injuries.

Attorneys for plaintiffs in the tuberculosis case say 214 people
already have retained them, but Cotton expressed skepticism about
that number.

"I'm happy to take the risk that there aren't 214 lawsuits that
are going to be filed against my client," he said.

According to FindLaw's website, every person who would be affected
by the court's decision in a class action is entitled to notice
that the action has started.

Mr. Cotton asked Judge Cory to consider the "damage to a fine
institution's reputation" that would be caused by putting out such
a notice in the case against Summerlin Hospital.

The Southern Nevada Health District already notified more than
1,100 people, including 142 infants, that they needed to be
evaluated for possible exposure to TB in connection with the
outbreak.  Judge Cory asked about the possibility of limiting
notice in the class action to that group.

Judge Cory, who noted that the case involves medical professionals
who are trying to make a living by helping other people, also
expressed a desire to narrow the size of the potential class.

"Can we protect such defendants from incurring unnecessary
expenses to defend themselves?" he asked.

The judge said he knows those costs will be passed on to
consumers.

Vanessa White, 25, was admitted to Summerlin Hospital on May 9,
2013, and has been identified as the source of the TB outbreak.
She gave birth to twin daughters on May 11, 2013.

White and both of her infants, who spent time in the hospital's
neonatal intensive care unit, later died. Her husband, Ruben, has
filed a separate medical malpractice lawsuit against Summerlin
Hospital.

The class action lawsuit accuses the hospital of negligence and a
lack of oversight for failing to screen patients, maintain proper
infection controls or adequately respond once officials there were
notified that a former patient had died from TB.

Valley Health System, which runs the hospital, has insisted the
facility did what it should have.

Of the 977 noninfants who were told they needed to be evaluated,
735 tested negative, according to a December 2013 report from the
health district.  Two had an active form of TB, and 59 had a
latent form.  The remainder had incomplete evaluations.

The district indicated in the report that evaluations for many
infants remained incomplete. Seven infants were on preventive
treatment at the time.

Attorneys representing plaintiffs in the class action case said
three infants since have tested positive.

"The NICU babies continue to test positive to this day," Louisiana
attorney Anthony Irpino said.

Mr. Irpino argued that potential plaintiffs in the class action
include those who feared exposure to TB, but Mr. Cotton argued
that only those with active or latent cases have a claim.  He said
he intends to ask the Nevada Supreme Court to rule on that issue
before the case proceeds to trial.

Judge Cory previously ruled that employees are barred under
workers' compensation laws from bringing personal injury claims
against the hospital in connection with the TB outbreak.


TAXI TOURS: "Balderramo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Victor H. Alvarado Balderramo, individually and in behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Taxi Tours Inc. d/b/a Big Taxi
Tours and Christopher Preston, Case No. 1:15-cv-02181 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 23, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate as a tour operator and maintains a
principal place of business at 333 Fifth Avenue, New York, 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


TELEXFREE LLC: Judge Halts Class Action Evidence Gathering
----------------------------------------------------------
Scott O'Connell, writing for the Metrowest Daily News, reports
that a federal judge approved the government's request to halt
evidence gathering in a bundle of class action cases against
TelexFREE, court records show.

The order ties up a key loose end in the sprawling legal battle
involving the company, and paves the way for the criminal case
against TelexFREE's co-owners to proceed without any potential
contamination from the other civil cases.

U.S. authorities claim the Marlborough-based telecommunications
company was a front for a massive worldwide pyramid scheme.  A
government-appointed bankruptcy trustee overseeing the business
through Chapter 11 proceedings has estimated TelexFREE raised $1.8
bill in around two years, and ensnared close to 1.9 million
participants.

The company's co-founders, James Merrill of Ashland and Carlos
Wanzeler of Northborough, have been charged with wire fraud and
conspiracy to commit wire fraud for their role in the alleged
scheme.  To prevent any interference with the case during the
ongoing evidence buildup, the justice department has asked other
courts to halt discovery in the simultaneous complaints against
the company, including the Securities and Exchange Commission's
case.

This past December, the department also sought a stay of discovery
in the multiple class action lawsuits brought against TelexFREE
since the company collapsed last April.  The plaintiffs in those
cases, represented by an interim lead counsel and interim
executive committee, technically opposed, telling the court in
January they wanted to still have access to materials that were
being produced in the bankruptcy case.

On March 12, however, interim lead counsel Robert Bonsignore said
he was ultimately OK with U.S. District Court Judge Timothy S.
Hillman's decision to allow the government's request.

"I think it's a compromise on the part of everyone trying to help
the victims," he said.  "The only alternative would be to have
everyone fight, and that would waste resources, cost victims
money, and defy common sense."

With the discovery cessation in place, the sides in the class
action cases won't be able to officially compile evidence until
the criminal proceedings against Merrill and Wanzeler finish,
which could take more than a year.  But Judge Hillman's order does
allow for a check-in date six months from now, at which point the
court could allow for a modification of the stay order "for good
cause shown."

In the meantime, Mr. Bonsignore said he and the executive
committee would continue to informally gather evidence for their
cases.  He also planned to file a consolidated version of the
various class action suits before the end of March, per a court
order filed by Judge Hillman.

Mr. Bonsignore said he is still "biting at the bit" to move those
cases forward, but acknowledged TelexFREE "is not your average,
run of the mill case."


TINDER: Responds to Class Action Over New Fees
----------------------------------------------
The Hollywood Reporter reports that a class-action lawsuit has
been filed against Tinder over its new pay structure, alleging a
massive scheme to hook users with an addictive experience before
charging them money, but Tinder finds the whole complaint
laughable.

"We normally don't comment on pending litigation," a spokesperson
for Tinder's parent company IAC tells The Hollywood Reporter, "but
on this one we just can't help ourselves: It's downright silly."

Tinder user Billy Warner filed the lawsuit on behalf of all users
on March 6 in California, claiming the fees associated with
Tinder's new incarnation, Tinder Plus, are "unlawful, unfair, and
fraudulent."  Mr. Warner argues that Tinder lured millions of
users with free features, including unlimited swipes, and then
pulled a "bait and switch," suddenly forcing users to pay for the
same privileges.

Mr. Warner claims Tinder's tactics were especially sinister
because they got users "addicted" to the app before deciding to
charge them.

Tinder, however, doesn't see it that way.  Company spokesperson
Rosette Pambakian tells THR, "Lots of products offer
differentiated price tiers by age, like Spotify does for students,
for example.  Tinder is no different; during our testing we've
learned, not surprisingly, that younger users are just as excited
about Tinder Plus, but are more budget-constrained and need a
lower price to pull the trigger.

As for Warner's gripe that the swipe limit is ruining his fun,
Ms. Pambakian says the new limitation isn't meant to be a
buzzkill.  "It's really meant to curb the behavior of the chronic
right-swipers, who are cheating the system by flooding it with
right swipes."

"The validity of the swipe is core to the Tinder experience,"
Ms. Pambakian says.  "Tinder works best when swipes are genuine
reflections of a user's desire to connect. Limitations on right-
swiping give users more incentive to make sure their swipes are
honest."

The lawsuit story was first published by Taryn Hillin at Fusion.


TONG SHEN: "Miranda" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Felipe Miranda, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-
situated v. Tong Shen Trading Inc., and Qin Lin, Case No. 1:15-cv-
01506 (E.D.N.Y., March 23, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Tong Shen Trading Inc. is a New York Corporation that sells meats,
poultry, vegetables, plastic cutlery, plastic dishes and aluminum
ware.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Griffin, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES
      1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: jpg@employmentlawyernewyork.com


TWEEN BRANDS: Shoppers to Get Refunds Via Class-Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sheryl Harris, writing for The Plain Dealer, reports that tweens
who shopped at Justice are about to get some of their (parents')
money back.  The refunds are coming from a class-action settlement
and affect only people who shopped at Justice stores in Ohio.

As any parent of a tween knows, Justice sells clothes to kids who
don't want to look like little kids anymore.  The main clientele
is girls between 10 and 13.

Justice has a lot of sales.  And that got it into trouble with a
Lake County shopper, said plaintiff Marian Perez.

Ms. Perez took the chain's owner, Tween Brands, to court,
challenging Justice sales that claimed shoppers would get "40
percent off."  Her class-action lawsuit claimed that items were
sold at a higher price so fleetingly the 40 percent off price tag
was in fact the regular price.

And that, the suit says, violates Ohio's Consumer Sales Practices
Act.  Ohio law says stores can only advertise a "sale price" on
items if they were sold at a higher, regular price for a run of at
least 28 days in the previous 90 days.

Tween Brands denies it violated Ohio law.  But it has agreed to a
settlement giving refunds to people who bought items at an Ohio
Justice store between July 1, 2012 and Aug. 31, 2014.

Consumers in Tween Brands records are beginning to get notices
about the preliminary settlement now.  The final version of the
settlement still has to be approved by Lake County Common Pleas
Court.

To get refunds, consumers must mail in a claim form by June 8.
Claim forms and more information about the suit are available at
http://ohiosalepricesettlement.com/

People who can document their purchases will be eligible for 20
percent off what they spent at the stores.  Those who can't, may
be eligible for $12 or a 40 percent off coupon.

Tween Brands is providing names of consumers it has in its records
to the settlement administrator.  Some have already received
notices about the settlement.


UBER TECH: Faces Class Action Drivers' Info Breach
--------------------------------------------------
Daniel Siegal, Michael Lipkin and Y. Peter Kang, writing for
Law360, report that Uber Technologies Inc., which in February
revealed that hackers had exposed the personal information of
50,000 current and former drivers, on March 12 was hit with a
putative class action in California federal court accusing the
company of failing to secure its drivers' information.

On Feb. 27, Uber announced that it was contacting drivers affected
by the breach in multiple states, which occurred in March 2014,
and had not yet received any reports of misuse of the information.

The suit, filed on March 12 by former driver Sasha Antman, who
worked for Uber in San Francisco until September 2013, alleges
that the company was negligent in its care of drivers' personal
information and improperly delayed telling drivers about the
breach.

According to the suit, hackers gained access to the Uber database
using a "security key" publicly available on GitHub. a code
database website and app.

"In other words, defendant not only permitted all of the
compromised private information to be accessible via a single
password, but allowed that password to be publicly accessible via
the Internet," the complaint states.

Mr. Antman alleges that due to the data breach, in June 2014 an
unknown person used his private information to apply for a credit
card with Capital One, which now appears on his credit report.
Uber knew of the data breach as early as September 2014, but did
not provide any notice to the drivers for another five months,
according to the complaint.

Mr. Antman seeks to represent all affected drivers -- at least
50,000 in multiple states -- according to the suit and Uber's
press release, in two classes, alleging violation of California
data security law and unfair competition law for California
drivers only, in addition to a nationwide class.

Uber's February announcement said that it changed the access
protocols for the database upon learning of the unauthorized
access.  No information aside from names and driver's license
numbers were in the database, Uber noted.

The company, which said that it would provide affected drivers a
year of free credit monitoring, filed a John Doe lawsuit in
California federal court the same day as its announcement in order
to help the company identify and prosecute the unidentified
perpetrator.

The suit against Uber is just the latest class action to follow in
the wake of a data breach at a major company.

Anthem Inc.'s Feb. 4 announcement that hackers had exposed the
personal information of roughly 80 million customers was followed
less than a day later by putative class actions in California and
Alabama federal courts.

In what may be one of the first suits over the breach, California
plaintiff Samantha Kirby alleges that Anthem didn't have proper
security procedures in place and waited too long to tell customers
about the breach.  Anthem released a statement in February, but it
had detected the breach as early as Jan. 29, according to Kirby's
suit.

Robert Ahdoot of Ahdoot & Wolfson PC, representing Ms. Kirby, told
Law360 that Anthem's breach was more concerning than those
affecting retailers over the past year because it potentially
exposed medical information, in comparing it to the December 2013
Target Corp. hack that stole information on 70 million customers.

Mr. Ahdoot and his firm also represent Mr. Antman is the suit
filed against Uber on March 12.

The plaintiffs are represented by Robert Ahdoot, Tina Wolfson,
Theodore W. Maya and Keith Custis of Ahdoot & Wolfson PC.

The case is Sasha Antman v. Uber Technologies Inc., case number
3:15-cv-01175, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


UBER TECH: Drivers' Class Actions to Go to Jury Trial
-----------------------------------------------------
Dan Levine and Edwin Chan, writing for Reuters, report that ride-
hailing apps Uber and Lyft failed to persuade separate U.S. judges
on March 11 to rule that their drivers are independent contractors
instead of employees, in cases that have wide implications for
Silicon Valley "sharing economy" firms.

U.S. District Judges Edward Chen and Vince Chhabria in San
Francisco federal court said in two rulings that juries would have
to determine the status of each companies' drivers.

Uber and Lyft face separate lawsuits seeking class-action status
in San Francisco, brought on behalf of drivers who contend they
are employees and entitled to reimbursement for expenses,
including gas and vehicle maintenance.  The drivers currently pay
those costs themselves.

An ultimate finding against the two biggest car-ride services
could significantly raise their costs beyond the lawsuits' scope
and force them to pay Social Security, workers' compensation, and
unemployment insurance.

That could, in turn, affect the valuations of not just Lyft and
Uber but also other startups that rely on large networks of
privately contracted individuals to provide rides, clean houses
and the like.

Uber declined to comment and Lyft did not respond to a request for
comment on the decisions.

"We are very excited about both rulings," said Shannon Liss-
Riordan, an attorney for drivers in both cases.

Uber has raised more than $4 billion from prominent venture
capital firms such as Benchmark and Google Ventures, valuing the
company at $40 billion and making it the most valuable U.S.
startup.  Lyft has raised $331 million from Andreessen Horowitz,
Founders Fund and other investors.

In the March 11 ruling, Judge Chen noted that Uber has the right
to terminate its drivers, and that they provide a key service for
the app.  Both factors weigh in favor of the drivers being
considered employees.

"Uber could not be 'Everyone's Private Driver' without the
drivers," Judge Chen wrote.  However, the issue is not
"unambiguous", Judge Chen wrote, so a jury should ultimately
decide.

Similarly, Judge Chhabria acknowledged the difficulty of parsing
the status of Lyft's drivers, who share common characteristics
with both full-time employees and contractors.

"The jury in this case will be handed a square peg and asked to
choose between two round holes," the judge wrote.

"California's outmoded test for classifying workers will apply in
cases like this. And because the test provides nothing remotely
close to a clear answer, it will often be for juries to decide,"
wrote Judge Chhabria.  Representatives from Uber and Lyft declined
to comment on pending litigation.

Ms. Liss-Riordan's next task will be trying to establish class-
action status for both cases, she said.  Both lawsuits have also
been limited in scope to California drivers for now.

"I'm very excited -- this has been a long time coming,"
Ms. Liss-Riordan said.  "We're looking forward to pushing these
cases further and showing that Uber and Lyft are not above the
law."


UBS AG: Among Defendants in Silver Price-Fixing Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Jan Harvey, writing for Reuters, reports that UBS was added in
January to a class action lawsuit in the New York federal court
related to the silver price benchmark known as the silver fix, the
Swiss bank said in its annual report on March 13.

"In January 2015, UBS was added to an ongoing putative class
action against other banks in federal court in New York on behalf
of a putative class of persons that transacted in physical silver
or a silver financial instrument priced, benchmarked, and/or
settled to the London silver fix at any time from January 1, 1999
to an unspecified date," UBS said in the report.

Litigation alleging that Deutsche Bank AG, Bank of Nova Scotia and
HSBC Plc illegally fixed the price of silver was centralized in a
Manhattan federal court late last year.

The silver fix, a London-based benchmark pricing method dating
back to the Victorian era, ceased to operate last year after the
banks administering it said they would no longer take part in the
process.  It was replaced by a new London silver benchmark price
operated by CME Group and Thomson Reuters.


US BANK: Faces Mortgage Insurance Class Action in Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a major bank is being sued over claims
it abused its right to force borrowers to purchase mortgage
insurance.

Mary Jo Muellner and Gregory R. Mullner filed the class action
lawsuit on Jan. 28 against U.S. Bank alleging the bank placed
insurance coverage limits that exceeded the unpaid balance of the
mortgage.  The case was originally filed in state court in
Hennepin County, but the defendants have removed it to U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota.

The lawsuit also claims U.S. Bank purchased backdated policies and
charged borrowers for expired coverage; failed to refund premiums
to borrowers after coverage was canceled; and received kickbacks,
commissions and other compensation connected to the property
insurance coverage.

American Security Insurance Company is also named as a defendant
in the case, and the plaintiffs claim the company participated in
the "scheme" by misrepresenting coverage amounts; failing to check
market values for homes that were being insured; issuing insurance
plans for the bank that were backdated; and offering the bank
kickbacks in return for business.

The lawsuit seeks class status for those that purchased mortgages
from U.S. Ban, and also asks for an unspecified amount of damages
plus court costs.

The plaintiffs are represented by Berk Black, Bryce M. Miller and
Lawrence P. Schaefer -- LSchaefer@SchaeferHalleen.com -- of
Schaefer Halleen, LLC of Minneapolis; Robert K. Shelquist --
rkshelquist@locklaw.com -- Elizabeth Odette --
erodette@locklaw.com -- and Lockridge Grindal Nauen, P.L.L.P. Of
Minneapolis; Richard J. Fuller of Richard J. Fuller Attorney At
Law in Minneapolis; and Charles A. Horowitz of Charles A. Horowitz
Attorney At Law in Minneapolis.

U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota case number
0:15-cv-00596


VIACOM INC: Settles Intern Minimum Wage Class Action for $7.2MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Y. Peter Kang and Ben James, writing for Law360, report that
Viacom Inc. agreed to pay about $7.2 million to resolve a putative
class action brought by two former interns who claimed they were
unlawfully denied minimum wage, the plaintiffs told a New York
federal court on March 11.

Named plaintiffs Casey Ojeda and Karina Reynaga filed a motion for
preliminary approval of a class action deal that would resolve
both federal and state wage claims following nine months of
settlement negotiations, according to court documents.

"Further litigation here would cause additional expense and
delay," the interns said in a memorandum supporting their
preliminary approval bid.  "If the court denied the motions, a
fact-intensive trial would necessarily follow.  A trial would be
lengthy and complex and would consume tremendous time and
resources for the parties and the court . . .  The settlement, on
the other hand, makes monetary relief available to class members
in a prompt and efficient manner."

Under terms of the settlement, each intern in the 12,500-strong
class would be paid $577 while ex-Viacom interns Ojeda and Reynaga
would receive $5,000 each for services rendered on behalf of the
class.  Opt-ins Nicole Rosinsky, a former MTV human resources
intern, and Nikhil Kasbekar, a former Viacom marketing intern,
would receive $2,500 and $1,500 respectively.

Ojeda lodged the lawsuit in 2013, targeting Viacom and MTV
Networks Enterprises Inc. under the Fair Labor Standards Act as
well as New York law.  Ojeda and others were misclassified as
exempt from minimum wage requirements, the complaint alleged.

The plaintiffs sought collective action certification in January
2014, saying Viacom "engaged in an unlawful scheme to require
plaintiffs to provide free labor that undeniably benefited
defendants."  The court granted certification in April 2014.

The proposed settlement follows similar deals forged by other big
companies including NBCUniversal Media Inc. and Conde Nast
Publications.  In 2014, Conde Nast settled for $5.8 million with
an estimated 7,500 former interns, and disbanded its internship
program altogether.  The same year, NBCUniversal settled with a
class of nearly 8,000 former unpaid interns at "Saturday Night
Live" and MSNBC for $6.4 million.

The proper standard for determining whether an individual is an
intern or an employee covered by wage law is currently before the
Second Circuit in appeals involving the Hearst Corp. and Fox
Entertainment Group Inc.

A Viacom spokesman said the company was pleased to end litigation.

"Viacom's popular internship program has helped thousands of
students launch careers in the entertainment business and beyond,"
spokesman Jeremy Zweig said.  "We are proud of our efforts -- not
only do we fully comply with all applicable educational
requirements, but Viacom's interns also take part in a unique, in-
house educational program designed to broaden their experience and
help them learn from senior executives across the company."

The plaintiffs are represented by Lloyd Ambinder, LaDonna Lusher
and Suzanne Klein of Virginia & Ambinder LLP and Jeffrey Brown,
Michael Tompkins and Daniel Markowitz of Leeds Brown Law PC.

Viacom is represented by Lyle Zuckerman and Michael Goettig of
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.

The case is Ojeda v. Viacom et al., case number 1:13-cv-05658, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.


WAL-MART STORES: Faces Vision Payment Class Action in Arkansas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aebra Coe, writing for Law360, reports that an Arkansas couple has
accused Wal-Mart Stores Inc. of flouting consumer protection laws
by overcharging customers in its vision center, then pocketing
payouts from their insurance companies, according to a proposed
class action removed to Arkansas federal court on March 10.

Lead plaintiffs Leslie and William Epps claim Wal-Mart has a
"pattern and practice" of overcharging customers at its Wal-Mart
Vision Centers and Sam's Club Optical stores by demanding payment
from both the customers and their insurers for the same charges.

"When it collects payments from a patient's insurer, defendant is
obligated to charge the patient a reduced amount that reflects the
insurance benefit," the complaint said.  "Otherwise, defendant is
overcharging the insured, collecting double payment for the same
services and pocketing the insured's insurance benefit for itself.
That is exactly what is happening here."

The suit, originally filed in Arkansas state court Feb. 5, accuses
Wal-Mart of conversion, unjust enrichment and violations of the
Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and seeks to certify a
class of all similarly situated customers going back five years.

According to the complaint, Leslie Epps, who is insured through
Delta Dental, walked into a Wal-Mart Vision Center in Arkansas and
bought some eyeglass lenses and related products for $245 before
tax.  After a $25 after-tax discount through her insurance company
was applied, the final purchase came out to $242.05, the complaint
said.  She claims she contacted her insurer to figure out why she
had to pay so much and they explained that Wal-Mart submitted a
claim for the purchase and the insurer sent the retailer $80 in
order to satisfy the claim.

The class action complaint said Epps contacted Wal-Mart to tell
them they owed her $55 because she'd only saved $25 on the
purchase in the store and her insurer provided $80, but she never
heard back about the complaint and was never reimbursed for the
discrepancy.  The Epps allege that Leslie's experience is not an
isolated incident because her husband went into the same store and
had a similar experience.  The retail giant has a "pattern and
practice" of invoicing customers for payment amounts that don't
reflect insurance benefits, then not reimbursing those customers
once it receives a payout from the insurer, the Epps said.

Wal-Mart spokesman Randy Hargrove told Law360 on March 11 that the
company is looking into the allegations and "will respond
appropriately with the court."  The suit seeks recovery of all of
the insurance benefits alleged to have been wrongly withheld and
attorneys' fees.

The Epps are represented by Joseph Henry Bates III, James Allen
Carney Jr. -- acarney@cbplaw.com -- and John Charles Williams --
jwilliams@cbplaw.com -- of Carney Bates & Pulliam PLLC.

Wal-Mart is represented by Jess L. Askew, III, Luke K. Burton,
Jeffrey M. Fletcher and Andrew King of Kutak Rock LLP.

The case is Epps et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., case number 4:15-
cv-00138, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Arkansas.


WELLS FARGO: Settles TCPA Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------
ILYM Group Inc., a neutral third party that has been court
appointed as Claims Administrator for this case, announces that
Class Counsel, Douglas J. Campion, Joshua B. Swigart and Abbas
Kazerounian have reached an agreement to resolve this class action
pending against Wells Fargo Bank in federal court in California.

The lawsuit alleges that Wells Fargo violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act by calling cell phones using an automated
dialer or with a prerecorded voice message related to credit card
accounts.  Under the terms of the settlement, Wells Fargo denies
any liability but agreed to fund a $13,859,103.80 settlement to
fully resolve this matter without the time and expense of a court
proceeding.

The settlement has been preliminarily approved by the U.S.
District Court in the Southern District of California, Franklin v.
Wells Fargo, N.A., case number 14-cv-2349 MMA (BGS) and is subject
to the court's final approval.  The Settlement Class consists of
persons who allegedly received an autodialed call or a prerecorded
voice message from Wells Fargo regarding an effort to collect on a
consumer credit card account from November 1, 2009 to
September 17, 2014.

The settlement fund, less attorneys' fees, litigation expenses,
and costs of notice and claims administration as approved by the
Court, will be distributed to Settlement.  Class members who
submit claims under procedures implemented by the Court overseeing
the settlement.

Most persons included in the Settlement Class can be identified
from Wells Fargo's records and will receive mailed notice of the
settlement.  Individuals who allegedly received such calls but
cannot be identified from Wells Fargo's records will need to
contact the Claims Administrator to determine if they are in the
Settlement Class.

For more information, go to http://www.FranklinWellsfargoTCPA.com

Class Counsel:
Law Offices of Douglas J. Campion APC
Douglas J. Campion: (619) 299-2091
E-mail: franklinwf@djcampion.com

Hyde & Swigart
Joshua B. Swigart: (619) 233-7770
E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

Kazerouni Law Group, APC
Abbas Kazerounian: (800) 400-6808
E-mail: ak@kazlg.com

Wells Fargo:
Name: Natalie Brown
E-mail: Natalie.m.brown@wellsfargo.com


WESTCHESTER SUPER: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Juan Navarro Herrera and Leonardo Sosa Perez, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. Westchester Super Clean
Laundromat LLC, d/b/a Sartorius Cleaners, Hillside Laundromat,
Inc. d/b/a Sartorius Cleaners, Jong Ho Lee, A. Choi and Son Jeong
Park, Case No. 1:15-cv-02223 (S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for work in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a full service Laundromat located
at 1643 York Avenue, New York, New York 10028.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WINE GROUP: Faces "Marvin" Suit Over Use of Inorganic Arsenic
-------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Marvin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Wine Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00176
(M.D. La., March 23, 2015), alleges that the Defendants produce
and market wines that contain dangerously high levels of inorganic
arsenic, that is up to 500% or more than what is considered the
maximum acceptable safe daily limit.

The Wine Group, Inc. sells and distributes wine in Florida and
throughout the United States and maintains its principal place of
business located at 4596 South Tracy Blvd., Tracy, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel E. Becnel Jr., Esq.
      Matthew Moreland, Esq.
      Salvadore Christina Jr., Esq.
      Becnel Law Firm, LLC
      P.O. Drawer H
      Reserve, LA 70084
      Telephone: (985) 536-1186
      Facsimile: (985) 536-6446
      E-mail: dbecnel@becnellaw.com
              mmoreland@becnellaw.com
              schristina@becnellaw.com


XOOM CORP: Removes "Barrett" Class Suit to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Barrett v. Xoom Corporation, et
al., Case No. CGC-15-544655, was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of San Francisco, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-01319-VC to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff brought the lawsuit asserting claims for alleged
violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1933 on behalf of
"thousands" of Xoom shareholders.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, 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: lglancy@glancylaw.com
                  rprongay@glancylaw.com

               - and -

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brian E. Pastuszenski, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          The New York Times Building
          620 Eighth Avenue
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 813-8800
          Facsimile: (212) 355-3333
          E-mail: bpastuszenski@goodwinprocter.com

               - and -

          Teodora E. Manolova, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          601 S. Figueroa St., 41st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 426-2500
          Facsimile: (213) 623-1673
          E-mail: tmanolova@goodwinprocter.com

               - and -

          Nicole L. Chessari, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Reider, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          135 Commonwealth Drive
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Telephone: (650) 752-3100
          Facsimile: (650) 853-1038
          E-mail: nchessari@goodwinprocter.com
                  nreider@goodwinprocter.com


XOOM CORP: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on March 12 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Xoom Corporation and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in Superior Court of the State
of California, for the County of San Francisco, and docketed under
CGC-15-544655, is on behalf of a class of all persons other than
defendants who purchased the common stock of Xoom pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus,
declared effective by the SEC on February 14, 2013, issued in
connection with the Company's Initial Public Offering, including
all those who purchased Xoom stock after February 14, 2013.  This
class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Act of 1933.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Xoom securities during the
Class Period, you have until April 8, 2015 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Xoom provides digital consumer-to-consumer online money transfers
services worldwide.  The company offers money transfer services
over the Internet, through a mobile device on its Website at
xoom.com, and through its mobile application, the Xoom App.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
prospects and performance.  Specifically, the Company failed to
disclose that the registration statement and prospectus contained
inaccurate statements of material fact and/or omitted material
facts because it failed to disclose that Xoom's internal controls
were so seriously deficient that tens of millions of dollars of
Xoom's corporate cash could be fraudulently transferred and stolen
without the Company's knowledge.

On October 28, 2014, the Company announced Ryno Blignaut's
resignation as Chief Financial Officer, effective December 1,
2014.  Matt Hibbard, the Company's current Vice President of
Finance, was named as the Company's new Chief Financial Officer.

On this news, shares of Xoom fell $2.45 per share, or more than
12.60%, to $17.00 per share in after-hours trading on October 28,
2014.

On January 5, 2015, Xoom announced that a criminal fraud had taken
place at the Company, whereby $30.8 million in corporate cash was
illegally transferred to overseas accounts.  Also, on January 5,
2015, Xoom announced that Matt Hibbard, who replaced Mr. Blignaut
as CFO on December 2, 2014, had abruptly resigned from his
position.

On this adverse news, shares of Xoom fell $0.27 per share, or more
than 1.6%, in intraday trading on January 6, 2015.

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


ZUFFA LLC: Faces "Kingburry" Suit Over MMA Promotion Monopoly
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Kingsbury and Darren Uyenoyama, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Zuffa, LLC, d/b/a Ultimate
Fighting Championship and UFC, Case No. 5:15-cv-01324 (N.D. Cal.,
March 20, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's overarching
anticompetitive scheme to maintain and enhance its monopoly power
in the market for promotion of live Elite Professional mixed
martial arts (MMA) bouts and monopsony power in the market for
live Elite Professional MMA Fighter services.

Zuffa, LLC is a sports promotion company specializing in mixed
martial arts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
      Joshua P. Davis, Esq.
      Matthew S. Weiler, Esq.
      JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
      505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 500-6800
      Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
      E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
              jdavis@saverilawfirm.com
              mweiler@saverilawfirm.com

         - and -

      Benjamin D. Brown, Esq.
      Hiba Hafiz, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
      1100 New York Ave., N.W., Suite 500, East Tower
      Washington, DC 20005
      Telephone: (202) 408-4600
      Facsimile: (202) 408 4699
      E-mail: bbrown@cohenmilstein.com
              hhafiz@cohenmilstein.com

         - and -

      Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
      Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      E-mail: ecramer@bm.net
              mdellangelo@bm.net


* CFPB Issues Report on Mandatory Consumer Arbitration Clauses
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas M. Gess, Esq., Elizabeth H. Baird, Esq., Charles M. Horn,
Esq., and Melissa R. H. Hall, Esq., of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, report that on
March 10, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), as
required by section 1028(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform
and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, issued a lengthy study on
mandatory predispute arbitration agreements.  According to an
accompanying statement released by the CFPB, the report supports
five conclusions: (1) over half of checking account deposits and
credit card debt is covered by such agreements; (2) 75% of
consumers do not know whether they are subject to such an
agreement; (3) consumers are reluctant to pursue claims in even
simplified court systems, such as small claims; (4) approximately
32 million U.S. consumers are eligible to participate in class
action settlements annually; and (5) arbitration agreements do not
lead to lower prices for consumers.

What Does This Mean?
In other situations where the CFPB has issued a report or study,
it has used those documents as the legal, policy, and political
justification for subsequent regulatory actions, such as for fair
lending and payday lending.  Based on the new study, Morgan, Lewis
& Bockius anticipates that the CFPB will promulgate rules that
either prohibit or restrict the use of mandatory consumer
arbitration clauses or create a system in which such arbitration
may not be commercially or legally viable.

Moreover, although the CFPB's actions certainly do not bind any
other agency of federal or state government, Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius believes that the CFPB action might lead to what amounts
to "government peer pressure" on other agencies, such as the
Federal Trade Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, and
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, as well as state law
enforcement and financial regulatory authorities, to either
promulgate their own rules if they have the authority or to look
to their own unfair and deceptive trade practices authority to
expand the CFPB mandate beyond the CFPB's authority.

Analysis
The study provides what will likely be represented to be empirical
support for rules that would prohibit or curtail the use of these
agreements with respect to consumer financial products, such as
checking accounts, credit cards, prepaid cards, private student
loans, auto purchase loans, and mobile wireless agreements.

One of the study's underlying premises is that 32 million
consumers benefit from class action settlements annually.  This
amounts to more than 41% of the adult U.S. population.  As the
percentage of deposits and debt covered by such agreements
increases, the study indicates that the number of consumers who
"benefit" from class action settlements will decrease.

Whether the study supports the relative benefits to financial
consumers of class action to the extent that the CFPB has
concluded that it does may be open to question.  First, the
assumption that there is a correlation between deposits/debt
subject to arbitration clauses, and numbers of consumers
benefiting from class action settlements, may be overstated.
Given broad-based criticism of the U.S. consumer class action
settlement system, in which many consumers receive miniscule sums
or even value as in coupons and the like, while class plaintiffs'
lawyers receive the lion's share of such settlements, the 32
million number is relatively meaningless.

Second, even if there is no direct price correlation, the more
fundamental question is whether arbitration is fair.  As long as
the adjudications, whether by arbitration or through class action,
are fairly initiated and conducted, there should be no particular
reason for the CFPB, rather than the marketplace, to dictate the
nature and form of financial consumer remedies.

Third, the analysis suggests that this is an issue with a binary
answer when it is not.  There is a legitimate role both for
arbitration and consumer class action settlements in our system of
financial consumer dispute resolution.   If indeed there are
specific concerns about the fairness of consumer arbitration,
those should be solvable without the need to dispense with, or
limit, the availability of arbitration as a remedy.

Given the study's expressed preference for consumer class action
settlements, however, the CFPB's results and conclusions bear
careful consideration and monitoring. As Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
noted, further regulatory action based on the study would appear
to be quite likely.


* Few Consumers Understand Arbitration Clauses in Fin'l Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonnelle Marte, writing for Washington Post, reports that
companies routinely put language into the fine print of loan
agreements, credit card contracts and other financial products
that drastically reduce the chances that a consumer with a
complaint will get relief, according to a report released on
March 11 by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Most consumers, or more than 75 percent of those surveyed by the
agency, have no idea if they are subject to arbitration clauses --
which restrict their options for seeking retribution from a
financial institution that they think has wronged them, often by
banning class action suits.  Of those consumers subject to
arbitration clauses, fewer than 7 percent are aware that the
clauses prevent them from being able to sue in court, according to
the report.

"Tens of millions of consumers are covered by arbitration clauses,
but few know about them or understand their impact," said
Richard Cordray, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)
director, in a statement.  "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."

The agency was set to hold a field hearing on the topic on March
11 in Newark, N.J., where consumers will get a chance to share
their experiences with arbitration.

By restricting class actions and instead steering people into
arbitration when they take issue with a company, the agreements
often lead to poorer outcomes for consumers, the CFPB noted in the
long-awaited report.  When they are barred from class action
status, few consumers end up taking action either by going through
arbitration or by filing individual lawsuits, the report showed.

Between 2010 and 2012, an average of 600 arbitration disputes were
filed each year with the American Arbitration Association, the
largest administrator of arbitration disputes in the country.  In
contrast, 32 million consumers are eligible to receive relief
through class action settlements.

The agreements are used regularly for credit cards, loans and
other types of consumer products.  More than half of all credit
card debt is subject to arbitration clauses -- affecting up to 80
million consumers.  The clauses are used in enough checking
accounts to make up roughly 44 percent of insured deposits, the
agency found.  They also show up in the majority of prepaid cards,
private student loans and payday loans.

The findings shed light on what type of relief is offered to
consumers who choose to go through arbitration, which is usually
conducted in private.  For the 1,060 cases filed in 2010 and 2011
with the American Arbitration Association, roughly two-thirds
ended without a decision from an arbitrator, resulting in a
settlement or another form of resolution.  Of the cases that were
decided, arbitrators awarded consumers a grand total of less than
$175,000 in damages and less than $190,000 in debt forbearance.
Consumers were also ordered to pay $2.8 million to companies,
mostly for debts that were disputed.

While more than 90 percent of arbitration agreements ban class
action lawsuits, the clauses are rarely invoked to block
individual lawsuits, the agency found.  Still, few consumers
actually file lawsuits on their own, the report showed. Between
2010 and 2012, consumers filed an average of 1,200 individual
lawsuits in federal court per year.  The bureau analyzed most of
the cases and a random sample of the credit card cases and found
that in the few instances where the outcomes were decided by a
judge, consumers were awarded just under $1 million total.


                             *********

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  * * *