CAR_Public/150414.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, April 14, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 74


                             Headlines

119 FASHION: Faces "Garcia-Deyargas" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
ABCO CONTRACTING: Faces "Naylor" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
ADDISON SUBWAY: Sued in Ill. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES: Dist. Court Denies Motion to Dismiss
ALL TATTOOS: Faces "Bissell" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

ALPHA NATURAL: Received $70K of Insurance Proceeds in Settlement
ALPHA NATURAL: Plaintiffs in Wrongful Death Suits Filed New Case
ALPHA NATURAL: Bid to Dismiss Massey Class Action Remains Pending
ALPHA NATURAL: 2016 Trial Scheduled in NCI Class Action
ALPHA NATURAL: Plaintiffs Did Not Appeal Emerald Case Dismissal

ALPHA NATURAL: Time to Answer Pa. Complaint Extended Until May 7
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces "Jaynes" Suit Over Anti-Steering Rules
AMERICAN PUBLIC EDUCATION: Vickery and Lynn Case Dismissed
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Xides" Suit in Ohio Over Alleged Data Breach
ASIFALI KAROWALIA: "Rios" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

AT&T INC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over CDMA Handsets Sale
AVAIL LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Blotzer" Suit Claims
BACKYARD CREATION: Faces "Parker" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
BANK OF AMERICA: Sued in D. Md. Over Loss Mitigation Policies
BED BATH: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

BLACKROCK INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Suit Over Advisory Fees
BOULDER BRANDS: Sued in Colo. Over Misleading Financial Reports
BOULDER MUFFLER: "Harrison" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
BUMBO INTERNATIONAL: Falsely Marketed Floor Seats, Action Claims
CACH LLC: Court Denies Bid to Compel Arbitration in "Ross" Case

CEPHALON: Judge Denies Class Status in Actiq Marketing Suit
CHEMICAL & MINING: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
CHIKURIN 236: Faces "Shiu" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CHRYLER GROUP: Jury Awards $150MM to Jeep Fire Victim's Family
COMCAST CORP: 2nd Circuit Reverses Class Action Certification

COOPER VISION: Faces "Castillo" Suit Over Lens-Price Fixing
COOPER VISION: Faces "Mah" Sui Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing
COOPER VISION: Faces "Hatridge" Suit Over Lens Resale Price
CORNING INC: Court Narrows Claims in Modern Holdings Suit
CORNING INC: Koninklijke Philips Dropped From Class Suit

DECOSTER EGG: Salmonella Outbreak Caused Widespread Harm
DESERT CHAMPIONS: Illegally Prints Credit Card Numbers, Suit Says
DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA: May Face Wrongful Death Claims in U.S.
DIRECT HEATING: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Gettelman" Suit Says
DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims

DXP ENTERPRISES: Faces "Veloz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
EL GALLEGO: Faces "Colindres" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ENCINO MOTORCARS: "Service Advisers" Entitled to Overtime Pay
EXXON MOBIL: Details of $225MM Settlement With NJ State
FIVE STAR: Faces "Hartwell" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

FLORIDA HOME: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Etienne" Suit Claims
GOGREENRIDE INC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
GOLDMAN SACHS: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Antitrust Claims
HARBINGER CAPITAL: Dist. Court Narrows Claims in Investors Suit
HERBALIFE LTD: May 11 Final Approval Hearing in Bostick Accord

HERBALIFE LTD: Hearing Held on Bid to Dismiss Securities Case
HILLTOP HOLDINGS: Parties Entered Into MOU to Settle Class Action
HTH CORPORATION: Obligated to Pay Plaintiff's Counsel Fees
INDYMAC: Judge Awards $28.5 Mil. in Fees to Plaintiffs Lawyers
INTEGRITY SURVEILLANCE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims

J&F ANALYSTS: Faces "Romero" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
JETRO HOLDINGS: Faces "Macias" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
JF MOORE: Faces "Gingrass" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
JMG RESTAURANT: "Barrera" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
JNH FOOD: "Perez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

KARIKAN DONUT: "Chavez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Ky. Court Narrows Claims in "Cox" Suit
LENOVO (US) INC: Faces "Wong" Suit in Cal. Over Harmful Spyware
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Property Owners Entitled to Flood Insurance
LONG SPRING: Faces "Candia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Duckworth" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Roach" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Fitzgerald" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Matthews" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Toxic Flooring

LYFT INC: Adds Keker & Van Nest to Defense Team
MCDONALD'S CORPORATION: Sued Over Blind Inaccessible Machines
MICHIGAN: DOC Sued Over Failure to Provide Assistance for Deaf
MOLYCORP INC: Colorado Securities Action Dismissed
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Bid to Strike Class Claims in "Durocher" Okayed

NNS TRADING: "Pierre" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
NORTHERN TRUST: Sued Over Misleading Plan Amendment Notice
PACCAR INC: Sued in D.N.J. Over Defective Vehicles Engine & ATS
PATRIOT PAYMENT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
POTOMAC FAMILY: "Grubb" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Forseter" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Cossey" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
PTC SEAMLESS: Sued Over Failure to Provide Termination Notice
RCI HOSPITALITY: "Clark" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
REGENCY ENERGY: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Merger Plans

RESONANT INC: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
RESPONSIVE DATA: Has Sent Spam Ads, "Stewart" Suit Claims
RIDDELL INC: Court Narrows Claims in "Durocher" Class Action
RJ REYNOLDS: Jury Awards $13MM Verdict to Smoker's Widow
SAFE ENVIRONMENT: Faces "Boodhoo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

SNYDER'S-LANCE: Falsely Marketed Food Products, Action Claims
STAIN-AWAY LLC: Illegally Records Telephone Calls, Suit Claims
STEVEN SANN: Pleads Guilty in Phone "Cramming" Scheme Case
SUPERIOR ENERGY: Faces "Valdez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TEKSOLV INC: Faces "Thurston" Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime

TROY MOTORS: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers OT, "Harnden" Suit Says
TRUST SECURITY: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
UNI-PIXEL INC: Filed Answer to SDNY Class Action
UNI-PIXEL INC: Entered Into MOU to Settle Texas Securities Action
UNITED PARCEL: Pregnancy Ruling to Have Implications for Employers

VIA QUADRONNO: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
WBS INC: "Norwood" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
WHITTAKER CLARK: $1.6MM Cosmetic Talc Asbestos Verdict Upheld
YELLOWJACKET OILFIELD: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
YOUKU TUDOU: Faces "Martindale" Suit Over Deceptive Fin'l Reports

ZIJA INTERNATIONAL: Illegally Records Calls, "Irby" Suit Says

* DoL to Issue New Rules on "White-Collar" OT Pay Exemptions
* Malpractice Plaintiffs Can Get New Experts, Supreme Court Rules
* Third-Party Litigation Funding Fuels Canadian Class Suit Abuse


                            *********


119 FASHION: Faces "Garcia-Deyargas" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adolfo Garcia-Deyargas, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Joseph Maino, individually and d/b/a
Handbags 100 King Street, 119 Fashion Wholesalers Ltd., Deborah
Maino and Marisa Maino, Case No. 1:15-cv-02285 (S.D.N.Y., March
26, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate retail stores in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John J. P. Howley,Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JOHN HOWLEY
      350 5th Avenue, 59th Floor
      New York, NY 10118
      Telephone: (212) 601-2728
      Facsimile: (347) 603-1328
      E-mail: jhowley@johnhowleyesq.com


ABCO CONTRACTING: Faces "Naylor" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Micheal Naylor, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons v. Abco Contracting, Inc., a Colorado corporation, and
Albert Hood, Case No. 1:15-cv-00623 (D. Colo., March 26, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company with its
principal place of business located at 180 East 74th Place,
Denver, Colorado 80229.

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


ADDISON SUBWAY: Sued in Ill. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ana Urrutia-Rivero, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Addison Subway, Inc. and Mohammad Iqbal,
Case No. 1:15-cv-02589 (N.D. Ill., March 26, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a sandwich restaurant in Cook
County, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Erik Stevens, Esq.
      Valentin Tito Narvaez I, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 307-0766
      E-mail: Dave@StevensLawLLC.com
              vnarvaez@yourclg.com


ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES: Dist. Court Denies Motion to Dismiss
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California denies the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the
Plaintiffs' securities fraud action in the case docketed as BABAK
HATAMIAN, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., ET
AL., Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV-00226-YGR.

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs have failed to state a
claim in the securities fraud action that they have brought
against the Defendants.

District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, in her Order Denying Motion
to Dismiss executed on March 31, 2015, denied the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss. A copy of the Order Denying Motion to Dismiss
is available at http://is.gd/Lbwt57from Leagle.com.  Judge Rogers
concluded that the Plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged a violation
of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Consequently, she denied the motion to
dismiss.

Joy Ann Kruse -- jkruse@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, Attorney for Plaintiffs Babak Hatamian and Lussu
Dennj Salvatore.

Patrick Edward Gibbs -- patrick.gibbs@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins
LLP & Ming M Zhu -- ming.zhu@lw.com --  Latham and Watkins LLP,
Attorneys for Defendants Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., Rory P.
Read, Thomas J. Seifert, Lisa T. Su, and Richard A. Bergman.

Sharon Maine Lee -- slee@lchb.com --, Lieff Cabraser Heimann
Bernstein, William S. Norton -- bnorton@motleyrice.com -- Motley
Rice LLC, James Michael Hughes -- jhughes@motleyrice.com -- Motley
Rice LLC, Joy Ann Kruse -- jkruse@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP & Jonathan Gardner --
jonathan@cohengardnerlaw.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, Attorneys
for Movant KBC Asset Management NV.

Michael M. Goldberg, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Attorney for
Movant Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System.

Carol C. Villegas, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Jonathan Gardner, Labaton
Sucharow LLP, Paul J Scarlato, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Sharon Maine
Lee, Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein & Nicole Catherine Lavallee,
Berman DeValerio, Attorneys for Movant Arkansas Teacher Retirement
System.


ALL TATTOOS: Faces "Bissell" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Bissell, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. All Tattoos, LLC d/b/a All Tattoos, MTB Properties,
LLC d/b/a Body Revolution, Trathom, LLC d/b/a Body Revolution and
Endeavor LLC d/b/a Body Revolution, Case No. 1:15-cv-00603 (N.D.
Ohio, March 26, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate tattoo and body piercing studios in
Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALPHA NATURAL: Received $70K of Insurance Proceeds in Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company
received approximately $70,000 of insurance proceeds in connection
with the settlement in the securities class action suits.

In 2010, two purported class actions that were subsequently
consolidated into one case were brought against, among others,
Massey Energy Company ("Massey"), now the Company's subsidiary
Alpha Appalachia Holdings, Inc. ("Alpha Appalachia"), in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia (the "Court") in connection with alleged violations of
the federal securities laws. The lead plaintiffs alleged that (i)
Massey and certain former Massey directors and officers violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and that
(ii) Massey's former officers violated Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act by virtue of their control over persons alleged to
have committed violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act.

In 2014, the parties reached agreement on definitive settlement
terms, subject to court approval. In February 2014, the Court
entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement, following
which the Company made an initial payment of $30,000 into an
escrow account. In June 2014, the Company deposited the remaining
$235,000 of the settlement amount into the escrow account. On June
4, 2014, the Court entered an order approving the settlement and
dismissed the class action with prejudice. The Company received
approximately $70,000 of insurance proceeds in connection with the
settlement.


ALPHA NATURAL: Plaintiffs in Wrongful Death Suits Filed New Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that plaintiffs in
wrongful death and personal injury suits filed a new complaint on
November 7, 2014.

Twenty of the twenty-nine families of the deceased miners filed
wrongful death suits against Massey Energy Company ("Massey") and
certain of its subsidiaries in West Virginia, in Boone County
Circuit Court and Wyoming County Circuit Court. In addition, two
seriously injured employees filed personal injury claims against
Massey and certain of its subsidiaries in Boone County Circuit
Court seeking damages for physical injuries and/or alleged
psychiatric injuries, and thirty-nine employees filed lawsuits
against Massey and certain of its subsidiaries in Boone County
Circuit Court and Wyoming County Circuit Court alleging emotional
distress or personal injuries due to their proximity to the
explosion.

Through mediation ordered by the Boone County Circuit Court, the
Company reached agreements to settle with all twenty-nine families
of the deceased miners, the two employees who were seriously
injured and thirty-nine employees who filed lawsuits for emotional
distress or personal injuries. The settlements reached with the
families of the deceased miners were approved by the court, and
the other settlements did not require court approval.

On April 5, 2012, the family of one of the deceased miners filed a
class action suit in Boone County Circuit Court, purportedly on
behalf of the families that settled their claims prior to the
mediation, alleging fraudulent inducement into a contract, naming
as defendants Massey, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries,
the Company's CEO and the Company's Board of Directors.
On June 17, 2013 and August 29, 2013, two complaints were filed in
Boone County Circuit Court alleging personal injury claims
relating to the Upper Big Branch ("UBB") mine explosion. In July
2014, the Circuit Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss in
one of the two cases. The second motion was denied in October
2014.

On July 17, 2013, the administrators for the estates of three
miners who died in the UBB explosion filed an action against Alpha
and Alpha Appalachia in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia claiming they are entitled
"criminal restitution" under the Agreement, which defendants moved
to dismiss. In October 2013, the court granted defendants' motion
to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed
this dismissal order. In September 2014, the Court of Appeals
determined that the plaintiffs had failed to establish that the
District Court had jurisdiction over the case. Accordingly, the
Court of Appeals vacated the District Court's dismissal of the
case and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the case
without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. On October 22, 2014,
the District Court entered an order dismissing the plaintiffs'
complaint without prejudice and terminating all pending motions as
moot.

Plaintiffs filed a new complaint on November 7, 2014. Defendants
subsequently filed a motion to dismiss and plaintiffs filed a
motion for leave to file a surreply memorandum. These motions
remain pending before the District Court.


ALPHA NATURAL: Bid to Dismiss Massey Class Action Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Defendants'
motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the case, Massey Energy
Company Derivative and Class Action Litigation remains pending.

In a case filed on April 23, 2010 in Delaware Chancery Court, In
re Massey Energy Company Derivative and Class Action Litigation
("In re Massey"), a number of purported former Massey stockholders
(the "Delaware Plaintiffs") allege, purportedly on behalf of
Massey, that certain former Massey directors and officers breached
their fiduciary duties by failing to monitor and oversee Massey's
employees, allegedly resulting in fines against Massey and the
explosion at the Upper Big Branch ("UBB") mine, and by wasting
corporate assets by paying allegedly excessive and inflated
amounts to former Massey Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Don
L. Blankenship as part of his retirement package.

The Delaware Plaintiffs also allege, on behalf of a purported
class of former Massey stockholders, that certain former Massey
directors breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to the
Massey Acquisition. The Delaware Plaintiffs allege that defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to secure the best
price possible, by failing to secure any downside protection for
the acquisition consideration, and by purportedly eliminating the
possibility of a superior proposal by agreeing to a "no shop"
provision and a termination fee. In addition, the Delaware
Plaintiffs allege that defendants agreed to the Massey Acquisition
to eliminate the liability that defendants faced on the Delaware
Plaintiffs' derivative claims. Finally, the Delaware Plaintiffs
allege that defendants failed to fully disclose all material
information necessary for Massey stockholders to cast an informed
vote on the Massey Acquisition.

The Delaware Plaintiffs also name the Company and Mountain Merger
Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary
created for purposes of effecting the Massey Acquisition, which,
at the effective time of the Massey Acquisition, was merged with
and into Massey, as defendants. The Delaware Plaintiffs allege
that the Company and Merger Sub aided and abetted the former
Massey directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and agreed to
orchestrate the Massey Acquisition for the purpose of eliminating
the former Massey directors' potential liability on the derivative
claims. Two additional putative class actions were brought against
Massey, certain former Massey directors and officers, the Company
and Merger Sub in the Delaware Court of Chancery following the
announcement of the Massey Acquisition, which were consolidated
for all purposes with In re Massey in February 2011.

The Delaware Plaintiffs seek an award against each defendant for
restitution and/or compensatory damages, plus pre-judgment
interest; an order establishing a litigation trust to preserve the
derivative claims asserted in the complaint; and an award of
costs, disbursements and reasonable allowances for fees incurred
in this action. The Delaware Plaintiffs also sought to enjoin
consummation of the Massey Acquisition. The court denied their
motion for a preliminary injunction in May 2011.

In June 2011, Massey moved to dismiss the Delaware Plaintiffs'
derivative claims on the ground that the Delaware Plaintiffs, as
former Massey stockholders, lacked the legal right to pursue those
claims, and the Company and Alpha Appalachia Merger Sub moved to
dismiss the purported class action claim against them for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In June 2011,
certain former Massey director and officer defendants moved to
dismiss the derivative claims and filed answers to the remaining
direct claims.

In September 2011, the parties submitted a Stipulation Staying
Proceedings, which stayed the matter until March 2012, without
prejudice to the parties' right to seek an extension or a
termination of the stay by application to the court. The court
approved the stipulation and entered the stay that same day. The
court extended the stay several times and the most recent stay
expired on October 31, 2014.

On October 17, 2014, the Delaware Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint which maintains claims against Massey and certain former
Massey directors and officers but no longer asserts claims against
the Company or Mountain Merger Sub, Inc. Defendants moved to
dismiss on December 5, 2014, and the motion remains pending.


ALPHA NATURAL: 2016 Trial Scheduled in NCI Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Circuit
Court has scheduled the trial for April 25-29 and May 2-6, 2016 in
the NCI Litigation.

On February 7, 2013, the Company received notice of a putative
class action lawsuit against Nicewonder Contracting, Inc. ("NCI")
filed in the Circuit Court of Mingo County, West Virginia by a
former NCI employee (the "NCI Employee Litigation"). The plaintiff
in the NCI Employee Litigation is represented by the same attorney
who represented the plaintiff in the Affiliated Construction
Trades Foundation ("ACTF") Litigation, and the complaint's
allegations raise issues similar to those in the ACTF Litigation
and arise from the same Red Jacket Contract that was at issue in
the ACTF Litigation. The Company believes that NCI has meritorious
defenses to the claims asserted in the NCI Employee Litigation.

NCI filed its answer to the complaint in the NCI Employee
Litigation on March 4, 2013. On April 23, 2013, the Circuit Court
of Kanawha County, West Virginia, granted NCI's motion to transfer
and entered an agreed order transferring the NCI Employee
Litigation from the Circuit Court of Mingo County to the Circuit
Court of Kanawha County.

On November 14, 2013, the Circuit Court of Kanawha County granted
NCI's Motion to Certify Questions of Law to the Supreme Court of
Appeals of West Virginia, but on June 17, 2014, the Supreme Court
declined to review the submitted questions in the absence of a
more developed factual record in the lower court. Proceedings in
the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia therefore
resumed. The Circuit Court has scheduled the trial for April 25-29
and May 2-6, 2016.

On October 14, 2014, NCI filed and served a third party complaint
against WVDOH seeking a declaration of rights and obligations of
the parties. Specifically, the complaint seeks a determination as
to whether NCI is entitled to indemnification for any liability it
may incur in the NCI Employee Litigation. The complaint also seeks
a declaration that the Red Jacket Contract obligates WVDOH to
enter into a supplemental agreement with NCI to reimburse NCI for
any additional costs incurred, or to be incurred, as a result of
the changes to the Red Jacket Contract arising from the February
26, 2013 order entered against WVDOH in the ACTF Litigation,
including without limitation any costs and expenses incurred, or
to be incurred, by NCI related to the wage and benefit rates for
work on the project, including to the extent any such additional
costs, damages, statutory penalties, and/or attorney fees are
awarded against NCI in the NCI Employee Litigation. WVDOH moved to
dismiss the third party complaint on grounds of sovereign immunity
and exclusive jurisdiction of the West Virginia Court of Claims.

On February 20, 2015, the Circuit Court of Kanawha County held a
hearing on pending matters, including the WVDOH motion to dismiss
the third party complaint filed against it by NCI. The Circuit
Court ruled from the bench that it would grant WVDOH's motion to
dismiss NCI's third party complaint and thereby dismiss WVDOH from
this action. A formal written dismissal order is expected to be
entered soon. The Company is reviewing this development and
evaluating its options.


ALPHA NATURAL: Plaintiffs Did Not Appeal Emerald Case Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that plaintiffs did
not appeal the dismissal of the Emerald purported securities class
action.

On July 13, 2012, a purported class action brought on behalf of a
putative class of former Massey stockholders was filed in Boone
County, West Virginia Circuit Court. The complaint asserts claims
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, against the Company
and certain of its officers and current and former directors, and
generally asserts that the defendants made false statements about
the Company's Emerald mine in its public filings associated with
the Massey Acquisition. The plaintiff seeks, among other relief,
an award of compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at
trial. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the Boone
County Circuit Court on February 6, 2013. The defendants filed
motions to dismiss the amended complaint on March 22, 2013 and
March 29, 2013. On January 8, 2015, the Boone County Circuit Court
dismissed with prejudice all claims in the plaintiff's amended
complaint. The plaintiffs did not appeal the dismissal.


ALPHA NATURAL: Time to Answer Pa. Complaint Extended Until May 7
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that defendants' time
to answer, move or otherwise respond to the Pennsylvania complaint
was extended until May 7, 2015.

On April 25, 2014, the named plaintiff in the West Virginia
Circuit Court action filed a second complaint in Greene County,
Pennsylvania, Court of Common Pleas, again asserting claims under
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, against the Company and
certain of its officers and current and former directors, and
generally asserts that the defendants made false statements about
the Company's Emerald mine in its public filings associated with
the Massey Acquisition. The plaintiff seeks, among other relief,
an award of compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at
trial. By agreement of the parties, the defendants' time to
answer, move or otherwise respond to the Pennsylvania complaint
was extended until May 7, 2015.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces "Jaynes" Suit Over Anti-Steering Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hillary Jaynes, Anthony Oliver, Bernadette Martin, Bryan Huey on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
American Express Company and American Express Travel Related
Services Company, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01598 (E.D.N.Y., March
26, 2015), arises out of the Anti-Steering Rules or Non-
Discrimination Provisions that the Defendants entered into an
illegal vertical agreements with merchants who accept American
Express credit cards which artificially inflate the retail prices
for goods and services.

The Defendants own and operate a financial services company with
its principal place of business in New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd A. Seaver, Esq.
      BERMAN DEVALERIO
      One California Street, Suite 900
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 433-3200
      Facsimile: (415) 433-6382
      E-mail: jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com
              tseaver@bermandevalerio.com

         - and -

      Gordon Ball, Esq.
      Lance K. Baker, Esq.
      GORDON BALL PLLC
      7001 Old Kent Drive
      Knoxville, TN 37919
      Telephone: (865) 525-7028
      Facsimile: (865) 525-4679
      E-mail: gball@gordonball.com

         - and -

      Marvin A. Miller, Esq.
      MILLER LAW LLC
      115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2910
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 332-3400
      Facsimile: (312) 676-2676
      E-mail: mmiller@millerlawllc.com

         - and -

      Christopher Lovell, Esq.
      LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP
      61 Broadway, Suite 501
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (212) 608-1900
      Facsimile: (212) 719-4775
      E-mail: CLovell@lshllp.com


AMERICAN PUBLIC EDUCATION: Vickery and Lynn Case Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
American Public Education, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the parties to
the class action by Tabatha Vickery and Bryan Lynn filed a
voluntary stipulation with the court dismissing the case with
prejudice.

On or about November 18, 2013, a putative class action styled
Tabatha Vickery, Bryan Lynn, on behalf of themselves and a
similarly situated class v. Hondros College, Inc. and John G.
Hondros, was filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County,
Ohio, as Case No. CV 13 817299.

"National Education Seminars, Inc., which we refer to as Hondros
College of Nursing, or HCON, was not named in the lawsuit, but a
then member of HCON's Board of Directors, John Hondros, was named
in the lawsuit, and the allegations made in the Complaint related
to HCON's operations and not the operations of the entity named in
the lawsuit," the Company said.

The lawsuit asserted claims for fraud and fraudulent inducement,
negligent misrepresentation, breach of implied-in-fact contract,
promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Ohio
Consumer Sales Practices Act, for, among other things, the alleged
provision of false or misleading information to the named
plaintiffs and other putative class members in 2011 and 2012
regarding the status of accreditation by the National League for
Nursing Accrediting Commission of HCON's Associate Degree in
Nursing, or ADN, program offered at its Independence, Ohio campus.
The plaintiffs alleged that the putative class consisted of more
than 60 former students who in the summer or fall quarters of 2011
enrolled in the ADN or the licensed practical nursing, or LPN,
program at the Independence campus with the intention of pursuing
a degree in nursing, but who withdrew from the ADN or LPN program.

On February 11, 2014, the plaintiffs filed their First Amended
Complaint, which removed Hondros College, Inc. as a defendant and
added HCON as a defendant. In order to avoid further litigation
related expenses, HCON and the named plaintiffs entered into a
settlement agreement on November 19, 2014 under which the
plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their First Amended Complaint in
exchange for a de minimis settlement payment. HCON admitted to no
wrongdoing in the settlement agreement. On December 17, 2014, the
parties filed a voluntary stipulation with the court dismissing
the case with prejudice.


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Xides" Suit in Ohio Over Alleged Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marnetta Xides, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Anthem, Inc. et al, Case No. 4:15-cv-00638 (N.D. Ohio,
April 1, 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:

      Michael B. Pasternak, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL B. PASTERNAK
      Park Place II
      Ste. 411, 3681 South Green Road
      Beachwood, OH 44122
      Telephone: (216) 360-8500
      Facsimile: (216) 360-8501
      E-mail: mpasternak1@msn.com


ASIFALI KAROWALIA: "Rios" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Enrique Munoz Rios, and Adan Mauricio Zuniga, on behalf of
themselves and a class of those similarly situated v. Asifali
Karowalia, Nazma, LLC, Afia & Raaia Business LLC, Nabi & Raaia,
LLC, AK & ZM Investments, Inc., & Afia & Wahhab, LLC, Case No.
1:15-cv-00252 (W.D. Tex., April 1, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a food service and grocery store in
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aaron Michael Johnson, Esq.
      Philip Jonathan Moss, Esq.
      EQUAL JUSTICE CENTER
      510 S. Congress Ave., Suite 206
      Austin, TX 78704
      Telephone: (512) 474-0007
      Facsimile: (512) 474-0008
      E-mail: aaron@equaljusticecenter.org
              philip@equaljusticecenter.org


AT&T INC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over CDMA Handsets Sale
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Bond, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AT & T Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00923 (D. Md., March 31,
2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to disclose
material information that Cricket would not continue to support
the CDMA handsets as a result of the AT&T acquisition and that the
CDMA handsets were not compatible with AT&T's GSM cellular
network.

AT & T Inc. is a Delaware corporation that provides wireless
products and services and maintains its corporate headquarters in
Dallas, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Cory L. Zajdel, Esq.
      Z LAW, LLC
      301 Main Street, Ste. 2-D
      Reisterstown, MD 21136
      Telephone: (443) 213-1977
      E-mail: clz@zlawmaryland.com

         - and -

      Oren S. Giskan, Esq.
      Catherine E. Anderson, Esq.
      GISKAN SOLOTAROFF ANDERSON & STEWART, LLP
      11 Broadway, Suite #2150
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 847-8315


AVAIL LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Blotzer" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Casey Blotzer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Avail, LLC, Case No. 8:15-cv-00494 (C.D. Cal., March
31, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of contacting
consumers on their cellular telephone using automatic telephone
dialing system.

Avail, LLC is a provider of local SEO services to promote
businesses online.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr. #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866)633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
              sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com
              abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com


BACKYARD CREATION: Faces "Parker" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathon K. Parker, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated employees v. A Backyard Creation, LLC, Peter Needham, and
William Johnston, Case No. 4:15-cv-01389 (D.S.C., March 26, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages for work more than 40 hours per week.

A Backyard Creation, LLC is a Swimming Pool Contractor doing
business in Horry County, South Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William James Luse, Esq.
      WILLIAM J. LUSE LAW OFFICE
      1601 Oak Street, Suite 201
      Myrtle Beach, SC 29577
      Telephone: (843) 455-6049
      E-mail: lusewilliam@yahoo.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Sued in D. Md. Over Loss Mitigation Policies
-------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Trionfo and Suzanne Trionfo, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Bank Of America, N.A., Case No. 1:15-
cv-00925 (D. Md., March 31, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act,
specifically by, failing to provide the notices required by RESPA,
failing to process loss mitigation applications within the time
frames set forth in the new rules, failing to provide borrowers
with certain information about how their application was
processed, and wrongfully commencing foreclosure proceedings while
borrowers' loss mitigation applications are pending.

Bank of America, N.A. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
office located at 100 N. Tryon Street, Charlotte, Mecklenburg
County, North Carolina. It is one of the country's leading
mortgage servicers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan K. Tycko, Esq.
      Lorenzo B. Cellini, Esq.
      TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
      2000 L Street, N.W., Suite 808
      Washington, D.C. 20036
      Telephone: (202) 973-0900
      Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
      E-mail: jtycko@tzlegal.com
              lcellini@tzlegal.com

         - and -

      Geoffrey G. Bestor
      THE BESTOR LAW FIRM
      2701 Calvert Street, N.W, #1109
      Washington, D.C. 20008
      Telephone: (240) 463-8503
      E-mail: gbesq@bestorlaw.com


BED BATH: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lissette Rodriguez, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02298
(S.D.N.Y., March 26, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. owns and operates retail stores throughout
the United States that sells goods primarily for the bedroom and
bathroom.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian Lee Greben, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN L. GREBEN
      1650 Broadway, Suite 707
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (917) 612-0486
      Facsimile: (516) 829-0008
      E-mail: grebenlaw@gmail.com


BLACKROCK INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Suit Over Advisory Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a federal judge in Trenton has denied the motion of three
subsidiaries of BlackRock Inc. to dismiss a suit claiming that the
company charges excessive investment advisory fees on two of its
mutual funds.

Evidence presented by the shareholders who filed the suit, while
"not overwhelming," is sufficient to present a plausible claim
that the fees charged by the BlackRock Global Allocation Fund and
the BlackRock Equity Dividend Fund are disproportionately large,
U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson of the District of New Jersey
said March 27 when she denied the motion by BlackRock Advisors,
BlackRock Investment Management and BlackRock International
Limited to dismiss the case.

Judge Wolfson denied the motion to dismiss based on the
plaintiffs' allegations that advisory fees charged to the funds
for investment advisory services are as much as 106 percent higher
than the fees it charges for comparable services provided to
certain sub-advised funds; that BlackRock realized economies of
scale as the amount of their assets under management increased but
did not pass on the savings to the funds; and that boards
overseeing the two funds failed to act independently or
conscientiously when they approved Investment Management
Agreements with defendant BlackRock Advisors.

By pleading that a substantial fee disparity exists between the
two funds that are the focus of the suit and other funds for which
the company provides the same services and uses comparable
resources, the plaintiffs have raised a "plausible inference" that
the defendants' fees are excessive, Judge Wolfson said.

Also weighing in plaintiffs' favor are their allegations to
support the inference that the fees are disproportionate and not
the product of arm's length negotiations, Judge Wolfson said.
Regarding the boards' actions, the judge said there are
"sufficient allegations that allow for an inference of rubber-
stamping by the boards."

The ruling does not indicate that the defendants' arguments lack
merit, or that the court finds it likely that the plaintiffs will
meet the "onerous standard for liability under Section 36(b)" of
the Investment Company Act of 1940, but merely that plaintiffs put
forth allegations that raise a reasonable expectation that
discovery will reveal evidence of elements necessary to prove the
claims, Judge Wolfson said.

Judge Wolfson said BlackRock criticized the fee comparison as
"apples to oranges," but she said this argument "misses the mark."
The fee comparison is appropriate, she said, because the claim is
based on plaintiffs' assertion that BlackRock Investment
Management, in its capacity as sub-adviser, provides the same or
substantially the same investment advisory services as all
defendants provide the funds.

"For purposes of this claim, the ultimate weight of this
comparison is not before the court; here, where the court must
take the factual allegations of the consolidated complaint as
true, the fee comparison contributes to plaintiffs' basis for
their claim," Judge Wolfson said.

The plaintiffs are Owen Clancy and Jack Hornstein, both
shareholders of the Global Allocation Fund; Brendan Foot, a
trustee of a trust that holds that fund; and Amy Fox, a
shareholder of the Equity Dividend Fund.

The suit seeks a declaration that BlackRock charged excessive fees
to the funds, in violation of the Investment Company Act's Section
36(b), enjoining it from further violations of the act, and
ordering it to repay all unlawful and excessive investment
advisory fees for a period of one year before the filing of the
suit.

BlackRock Investment Management and BlackRock Advisors are
headquartered in Princeton, while BlackRock International Limited
has its principal office in Edinburgh, Scotland.

Andrew Muscato -- andrew.muscato@skadden.com -- of Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom in New York, representing BlackRock, said he
would consult with his client about whether it wanted to comment
on the ruling, but did not immediately receive a response.
Keith Miller of Robinson Miller in Newark, local counsel for
BlackRock, declined to comment on the ruling.

Andrew Robertson -- arobertson@zsz.com -- of Zwerling, Schachter &
Zwerling in New York, representing the plaintiffs, also declined
to comment.


BOULDER BRANDS: Sued in Colo. Over Misleading Financial Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Lorusso, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Boulder Brands, Inc., Stephen B. Hughes,
James B. Leighton, and Christine Sacco, Case No. 1:15-cv-00679 (D.
Colo., April 1, 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.

Boulder Brands, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that markets and
manufactures a wide array of consumer food products for sale
primarily in the U.S., Canada, and the United Kingdom.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kip B. Shuman, Esq.
      Rusty E. Glenn
      THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM
      885 Arapahoe Avenue
      Boulder, CO 80302
      Telephone: (303) 861-3003
      Facsimile: (303) 484-4886
      E-mail: kip@shumanlawfirm.com
              rusty@shumanlawfirm.com

         - and -

      Jack Reise, Esq.
      Robert J. Robbins, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 750-3000
      Facsimile: (561) 750-3364


BOULDER MUFFLER: "Harrison" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kayla Harrison, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
persons v. Boulder Muffler, Inc., d/b/a Midas Auto Systems, Case
No. 1:15-cv-00672 (D. Colo., March 31, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Boulder Muffler, Inc. owns and operates three Midas automobile
service franchise with its principal place of business located at
6685 Gunpark Drive, Suite 210, Boulder, Colorado 80301.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BUMBO INTERNATIONAL: Falsely Marketed Floor Seats, Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Clark, individually and on behalf of all others similar
situated v. Bumbo International Trust f/k/a Jonibach Management
Trust and Jonibach (Pty) Ltd. f/k/a Bumbo (Pty) Ltd., Case No.
1:15-cv-02725 (N.D. Ill., March 30, 2015), arises out of the
Defendants'  deceptive practices in its marketing and advertising
of the Bumbo floor seat. They claim that the product helps babies
to seat upright and to allow for active practice of the head and
postural trunk control. However, the Bumbo floor seat actually
prevents babies from engaging in natural movements for their
development, for example active trunk and postural control.

Bumbo International Trust

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael S. Agruss, Esq.
      AGRUSS LAW FIRM, LLC
      4619 N. Ravenswood Ave., Suite 303A
      Chicago, IL 60640
      Telephone: (312) 224-4695
      Facsimile: (3120 253-4451
      E-mail: michael@agrusslawfirm.com

         - and -

      Robert R. Duncan, Esq.
      DUNCAN LAW GROUP, LLC
      161 N. Clark, Suite 2550
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 202-3283
      Facsimile: (312) 202-3284
      E-mail: rrd@duncanlawgroup.com


CACH LLC: Court Denies Bid to Compel Arbitration in "Ross" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
rejected on April 1, 2015, a Motion to Compel Arbitration in the
case captioned SINCERRAE ROSS, Plaintiff, v. CACH, LLC; CACH OF
NEW JERSEY, LLC; and ANGELICA MARTINEZ, Defendant, CIV. NO. 2:14-
6321 (WJM).

District Judge William J. Martini, in his Opinion, a copy of which
is available at http://is.gd/NE72lufrom Leagle.com, denied CACH's
Motion to Compel Arbitration and directed the parties to engage in
discovery to determine the existence of an agreement to arbitrate.

Sincerrae Ross, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew R. Wolf --
awolf@ wolflawfirm.net -- The Wolf Law Firm, LLC, Christopher J.
McGinn -- cjmcginn@njconsumerprotection.com -- Law Office of
Christopher J. Mcginn

CACH, LLC, Defendant, represented by Randi A. Wolf --
rwolf@lawsgr.com -- Spector Gadon & Rosen P.C.

CACH of New Jersey, LLC, Defendant, represented by Randi A. Wolf
-- rwolf@lawsgr.com -- Spector Gadon & Rosen P.C.

Angelica Martinez, Defendant, represented by Randi A. Wolf --
rwolf@lawsgr.com -- Spector Gadon & Rosen P.C.


CEPHALON: Judge Denies Class Status in Actiq Marketing Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
Cephalon won't have to face a nationwide class-action suit over
its heavy-duty painkiller for cancer patients, Actiq, since a
federal judge in Philadelphia denied class status in the case.

The chief judge of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Petrese
B. Tucker, departed from some other trial court judges in the
Third Circuit to find that the laws of all 50 states would be
implicated in the case since there are material differences
between those laws.  Courts have split on that threshold question,
weighing whether there are conflicts among various states' unjust
enrichment laws, according to Judge Tucker's opinion.

The sole claim on which the plaintiffs had sought class status was
for Cephalon's alleged unjust enrichment through its off-label
marketing of Actiq.

Cephalon pleaded guilty to off-label marketing for several drugs,
including Actiq, in 2008 following a federal investigation,
according to Tucker's opinion.  This suit was filed a year before
that, in 2007, seeking nearly $700 million in damages from
Cephalon's alleged profits due to the off-label marketing scheme.

Following her conclusion that the law of no single state could
fairly apply to the nationwide case, Judge Tucker held the issues
common to the plaintiffs don't predominate over the issues
affecting each of the plaintiffs individually.  She also found
that handling the case as a class action isn't a superior method
to handling the cases separately.

"The elements of plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim cannot be
succinctly identified because, as discussed, the law of each TPP's
home state will govern," Judge Tucker said in her discussion of
predominance, referring to the third-party payers, like the union
health-care funds that brought the suit.  "For example, some
states require five elements to prove a claim of unjust enrichment
while others require three or four . . . . For the same reasons
why an actual conflict exists among the unjust enrichment laws of
the 50 states, individual issues of law predominate with regard to
a nationwide class."

Differences in the law don't necessarily foreclose the possibility
of a class action if groups of plaintiffs can be created, Judge
Tucker said, citing to Third Circuit law articulated in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit's 2014 opinion in
Grandalski v. Quest Diagnostics.

The plaintiffs in this case offered groupings, bundling together
states with similar laws into four sections.

But, the judge said, the "plaintiffs' notable grouping efforts,
however, still do not account for individual fact issues such that
common issues predominate."

She quoted from the Commonwealth Court's 2006 opinion in Limbach
v. City of Philadelphia, which said, "'The polestar of the unjust
enrichment inquiry is whether the defendant has been unjustly
enriched.'"

"Resolution to this question is, by nature, fact-sensitive,"
Judge Tucker said.

She noted there do exist several facts common to all plaintiffs,
including that Cephalon made money from all of the entities that
paid for Actiq, the requirements from the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration for the sale and distribution of Actiq, and the
company's "inconsistencies" with those requirements related to the
2008 guilty plea.

"Using common proof, plaintiffs can easily establish the facts of
Cephalon's marketing and sales activities for Actiq and whether it
complied with the Actiq RiskMAP," which is the name of the plan
setting out the FDA's additional requirements for the sale and
distribution of particularly dangerous medications, Judge Tucker
said.

"Not as easy is plaintiff's classwide showing of whether
Cephalon's enrichment was unjust," the judge said.

The Actiq RiskMAP required Cephalon to address physicians if off-
label usage for the drug went over 15 percent of its total usage
in a quarter, according to Judge Tucker's opinion.  But, showing
that Cephalon didn't comply with the RiskMAP doesn't necessarily
prove that payments for Actiq beyond 15 percent of the total
quarterly prescriptions for Actiq were unjust, she said,
explaining that if the company had addressed physicians, the
amount of off-label prescriptions for Actiq could still have
remained over 15 percent.

"Further, plaintiffs made their own decisions regarding coverage
for Actiq prescriptions, which must be considered in assessing
equitable circumstances," Judge Tucker said.

The judge later concluded, "Whether TPPs' payments for Actiq
prescriptions resulted in unjust enrichment is a question resolved
by examination into the actions not only of Cephalon, but also of
individual TPPs and prescribing doctors."

As for considering the superiority of a class action suit over
separate, individual suits, Tucker noted the similar cases brought
by other third-party payers that have been lost in other courts.

"The court acknowledges that failure to certify a class may result
in numerous individual suits like these, but an interest in
fairness in adjudicating individual issues outweighs the judicial
burden of such suits," Judge Tucker said.  "This court therefore
concludes that a class action is not a superior method for fair
and efficient adjudication of this case."

J. Gordon Cooney -- jgcooney@morganlewis.com -- of Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius in Philadelphia represented Cephalon, and Joseph Meltzer
-- jmeltzer@ktmc.com -- of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check in Radnor
represented the plaintiffs.  Neither could be reached for comment.


CHEMICAL & MINING: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
---------------------------------------------------------
Chris Kramer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Chemical & Mining Co. Of Chile Inc. a/k/a Sociedad
Quimica Y Minera De Chile S.A., Patricio Contesse, Patricio De
Solminihac, and Ricardo Ramos, Case No. 2:15-cv-02250 (C.D. Cal.,
March 26, 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.

Chemical & Mining Co. of Chile Inc. is a Chilean corporation,
which purports to be the world's largest producer of potassium
nitrate, iodine, and lithium chemicals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 785-2610
      Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
      E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


CHIKURIN 236: Faces "Shiu" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Man Wai Shiu and Dan Feng Lin, individually and on behalf of all
other employees similarly situated v. Chikurin 236 LLC, d/b/a
Chikurin, Wai Hung Chan a/k/a Alex Chan, Nancy Doe, John Does and
Jane Does # 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-01712 (E.D.N.Y., March 31,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 1824 Avenue
X, Brooklyn, New York 11235.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Ave, Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      Facsimile: (918) 353-6288
      E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


CHRYLER GROUP: Jury Awards $150MM to Jeep Fire Victim's Family
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Krisher and Dee-Ann Durbin, writing for The Associated Press,
report that a jury in Georgia has awarded $150 million to the
family of a 4-year-old boy killed when a Jeep Grand Cherokee
exploded into flames three years ago after being rear-ended.  The
jury said Chrysler, the maker of Jeeps, must pay nearly the full
amount.

Jurors in Decatur County ruled April 2 that Chrysler acted with
reckless disregard for human life in selling the family of
Remington "Remi" Walden a 1999 Jeep with a gas tank mounted behind
the rear axle.

Walden, of Bainbridge, Georgia, was killed when the Jeep driven by
his aunt was hit from behind by a pickup truck in March 2012.  The
fuel tank leaked, engulfing the Jeep in flames and killing the
boy.

The verdict comes nearly two years after Chrysler compromised with
a federal safety agency and agreed to a scaled-down recall of some
older-model Jeeps with the rear-mounted tanks.  The tanks have
little structure to protect them if struck from behind, making
them susceptible to punctures and fires.

Federal documents show that at least 75 people have died in post-
crash fires because of the rear-mounted fuel tanks.

The 11-woman, one-man jury ruled after a nine day trial that
Chrysler was 99 percent at fault for the crash and the pickup
driver was 1 percent at fault.  Jurors also determined that
Chrysler failed to warn the family of the hazards of driving the
Jeep.  They ruled that the Waldens should get $30 million for
Remi's pain and suffering and $120 million for the full value of
his life, according to a verdict form.

Mike Palese, spokesman for Chrysler parent company FCA US, said
the company is disappointed with the verdict and would appeal.
Chrysler, he said, was prevented from presenting data submitted to
federal safety regulators showing that the vehicles did not pose
an unreasonable safety risk.

"The vehicles are not defective," Mr. Palese said.

Although the verdict is large, it isn't the largest judgment ever
against an automaker in a personal injury case.  In 1999, for
example, a California jury ordered General Motors Co. to pay $4.9
billion to Patricia Anderson and Jo Tigner after their Chevrolet
Malibu was rear-ended and burst into flames.  In that case, four
children in the back seat were severely injured.  The amount was
reduced on appeal to $1.2 billion.

And in 2004, a woman paralyzed when her Ford Explorer rolled over
won a $369 million verdict from Ford Motor Co.  That was later
reduced to $83 million, which Ford eventually paid after
exhausting its appeals all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond law school,
said it will be difficult for Chrysler to overturn a jury verdict,
but an appeals court might reduce the amount.  He questioned
Chrysler's decision to take the case to trial because of the
horrific nature of the crash.

Mr. Tobias said the Walden verdict is likely to lead others to sue
the company or to speed along cases that are already in the
system.

Chrysler has long contended that the Jeeps were no more dangerous
than comparable SUVs built at the time.  It used that argument to
convince the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in
2013 to allow it to recall 1.56 million Jeeps after the government
agency initially recommended that 2.7 million be repaired.  Under
the recall, Chrysler agreed to install trailer hitches in the rear
as an extra layer of protection.

Safety advocates have called the size of the recall and the fix
inadequate.  On April 2, Clarence Ditlow, the head of the Center
for Auto Safety, called on the government to reopen its
investigation against Chrysler.

NHTSA spokesman Gordon Trowbridge said on April 2 that the agency
monitors legal decisions and "if new information emerges, we take
it into account and act appropriately."

Atlanta attorney Jim Butler argued during the trial that Remi's
death resulted from the fire because of the gas tank's poor
position.  The child was on his way to a tennis lesson when the
SUV was struck from behind.

"Numerous witnesses saw Remi struggling to escape and heard him
screaming for help," the family's lawsuit alleged.

The lawsuit alleged that Chrysler placed the gas tank in a "crush
zone" behind the rear axle and knew the location was dangerous,
and that the company failed to protect the gas tank against
rupturing.

Trial testimony showed that the compromise with safety regulators
over the recall was worked out in a Chicago airport meeting
between Fiat Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne, former Transportation
Secretary Ray LaHood and ex-NHTSA Administrator David Strickland.
Mr. Ditlow noted that Mr. Strickland now works for Venable, a law
firm that has represented Chrysler.


COMCAST CORP: 2nd Circuit Reverses Class Action Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael W. Ross, writing for Law.com, reports that in a pair of
precedential opinions in March -- Roach v. T.L. Cannon1 and Sykes
v. Mel. S. Harris & Assocs. -- the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit interpreted Comcast v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426
(2013), narrowly and ruled that plaintiffs need not present class-
wide proof of damages to certify a class action under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).  In Comcast, the Supreme Court had
reversed certification of a class action where the named
plaintiffs had failed to present proof that their class-wide
damages theory could support their liability claim, thereby
leaving individual damages determinations to overwhelm issues
common to the class. 133 S. Ct. at 1433. The Second Circuit held
in Roach and Sykes that Comcast did not preclude individual
damages determinations in class actions.

In declining to adopt a broader view of the rule in Comcast, the
Second Circuit affirmed its pre-Comcast precedent that the
existence of individual damages determinations is merely one
factor for district courts to consider in deciding whether to
certify a class action.  Further, the same day as these rulings,
the Second Circuit issued an unpublished decision affirming a
lower court ruling that certified an overtime class against
employer Duane Reade for liability purposes, but that bifurcated
the damages phase for individualized determinations. See Jacob v.
Duane Reade, No. 13-3873-cv (2d. Cir. Feb. 10, 2015).

Together, these rulings appear to signal the Second Circuit's
commitment to afford district courts discretion to certify class
actions even in the wake of tightening Supreme Court precedent.

'Comcast'

Comcast involved an antitrust class action in which the plaintiffs
asserted that the defendant Comcast's acquisition of several cable
providers in a geographic cluster violated the antitrust laws.
For support, the putative class of cable customers had pointed to
four specific anti-competitive effects of the challenged
clustering. 133 S. Ct. at 1430-31.  In certifying a class, the
district court accepted only one of those four bases for liability
as viable, but relied on the plaintiffs' proof of class-wide
damages that was premised on the success of all four theories.
That is, the class plaintiffs had no damages theory limited to the
one basis for liability the court had accepted. Id. at 1431.

In affirming the district court's certification, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the mismatch between the
plaintiffs' surviving liability theory and their proof for damages
was not fatal at the class certification stage.  It held that a
class can be certified as long as plaintiffs show that "if they
can prove antitrust impact, the resulting damages are capable of
measurement and will not require labyrinthine individual
calculations." Id. (quoting Comcast, 655 F.3d 182, 206 (3d. Cir.
2011)).   The Court of Appeals ruled that a critique of the
details of the plaintiffs' damages theory was an issue for the
merits, not class certification. Id.

The Supreme Court reversed. Citing its ruling in Wal-Mart v.
Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), the court explained that class
certification requires a "rigorous analysis" that commonly
overlaps with the merits. 133 S. Ct. at 1432.  The class-wide
damages theory propounded by the plaintiffs could not support a
calculation of damages based on the conduct for which the class
was certified.  According to the Supreme Court, this failure of
proof made class certification impermissible because "[w]ithout
presenting another methodology, respondents cannot show Rule
23(b)(3) predominance: Questions of individual damage calculations
will inevitably overwhelm questions common to the class." Id. at
1433.  In short, the plaintiffs' class-wide damages theory failed
because, under the rigorous analysis standard, it would require
determinations of individual damages issues that would overwhelm
issues common to the class.

Second Circuit Decisions
Based on recent Second Circuit precedent, class certification
under Rule 23(b)(3) has not been dramatically cabined in the
circuit following Comcast.  In Roach and Sykes, the Second Circuit
interpreted Comcast narrowly.  In Roach, the Second Circuit held
that Comcast concerned the failure of class-wide proof, but "did
not hold that proponents of class certification must rely upon a
classwide damages model to demonstrate predominance." 2015 U.S.
App. LEXIS 2054, at *14 (emphasis added).  In Sykes, the court
similarly observed that "Comcast did not rewrite the standards
governing individualized damage considerations." 2015 U.S. App.
LEXIS 2057, at *40.

Pursuant to the Second Circuit's analysis in both cases,
therefore, when plaintiffs' claims require individualized damages
determinations, district courts must still engage in an analysis
under Rule 23(b)(3) to determine whether issues common to the
class predominate over the individual issues, including the
individualized considerations likely necessary for determining
damages.

Roach Case. Roach involved a putative class of hourly workers at
the restaurant Applebee's who were allegedly denied certain wages
and other payments wrongfully under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and New York labor law.  The district court, in reviewing a
magistrate judge's recommendation that a damages class be
certified for the state law claims under Rule 23(b)(3),4
determined that certification was not appropriate under the
intervening precedent of Comcast. See Roach v. T.L. Cannon, 3:10-
CV-0591, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45373, at *8, 15 (N.D.N.Y March 29,
2013).

Two claims at issue before the district court are relevant.5
First, the magistrate judge had certified in part a claim that the
defendant had a policy of failing to pay hourly employees an extra
hour for working a 10-hour day, as required under New York law.
The plaintiffs' damages proof for that claim was in the form of
affidavits from employees stating that, during their employment,
"there were a number of occasions when . . . I was not paid an
extra hour for the 10-hour spread." Id. at *8.  According to the
district court, this proof would require individual determinations
of damages for each plaintiff, and contravened Comcast's
requirement of class-wide proof. Id. at *10.

Second, the magistrate judge had declined to certify a claim that
managers of the defendant had a practice of altering time records
to subtract rest breaks that employees had not taken.  The
magistrate judge found that although the commonality requirement
under 23(a) had been met, the named plaintiffs did not adequately
represent the class. The district court declined to certify this
class on a different ground -- specifically, that the plaintiffs
had failed to present class-wide proof of damages. Id. at *13.
The district court concluded that Comcast did not permit class
certification under Rule 23(b)(3) for damages classes where
"Plaintiffs [had] offered no model of damages susceptible of
measurement across the entire putative break period class," and
therefore denied certification. Id. at *15.

On appeal, the Second Circuit disagreed. The court highlighted
that prior to Comcast, it was well-established in the circuit that
the need to ascertain damages on an individual basis was not
sufficient to defeat certification under Rule 23(b)(3), but rather
was one factor to consider in evaluating whether the individual
issues or the issues subject to generalized proof predominated.
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 2054, at *9. Comcast did not overturn this
rule, but rather denied certification where the parties did not
contest the district court's holding that the class should only be
certified if the damages could be measured on a class-wide basis
(and plaintiffs' expert testimony failed to prove they could). Id.
at *12-13.  Thus, the Second Circuit stated that Comcast's holding
was simply that the proposed damages model must be considered at
certification and that such a model must properly measure the
damages resulting from the injuries alleged by the class.6 Id. at
*14-16.  The court thus vacated and remanded the district court's
rejection of certification on that basis. Id. at *18-19.

Sykes Case. Sykes upheld the certification of two classes of
consumer debtors presenting Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA), civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
(RICO) and state law claims, all revolving around the same
fraudulent consumer debt collection scheme involving default
judgments.  The district court certified a class of plaintiffs who
had default judgments entered against them in underlying debt
collection litigation.  In a 2-1 decision affirming certification
of the classes pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2)7 and 23(b)(3), the Second
Circuit further clarified the requirements of these provisions
following the Comcast decision.

As in Roach, the court characterized Comcast's holding with
respect to the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) as
requiring that a damages theory match the plaintiffs' liability
theory. See 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 2057 at *39. In Sykes the
plaintiffs' alleged damages stemmed from the actions set forth in
their complaint, namely an overall pattern of fraudulent conduct
that violated both state and federal law. Id. Damages could
readily be calculated across the class, given the statutory
formula for calculating damages under the FDCPA.8 Id. at *38.
Further, the damages that were individualized related to the
amount of the improperly obtained default judgment due back to
each plaintiff -- amounts that were in the possession of the
defendants. Id.

Regarding the "rigorous analysis" required for class
certification, the court rejected defendants' argument that the
district court had not justified the conclusion that
individualized damages questions would not overwhelm class issues.
The court found that since the district court had identified a
large number of common issues necessary to resolve the case in its
predominance analysis, that analysis was sufficiently rigorous to
meet the requirement. Id. at *40-41.

The court also dismissed defendant's contentions that questions of
timeliness and causation created sufficient individual issues to
overwhelm the class. For instance, with respect to timeliness, the
court stated that while some of the named plaintiffs may not be
representative of the entire class because of timeliness issues,
the practical import of certain of their claims requiring tolling
would be the existence of subclasses, citing Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(c)(5).9 Id. at *44.

In dissent, Judge Jacobs found various deficiencies in the
majority's ruling, but focused principally on the availability of
state procedures for vacating fraudulent judgments as a reason not
to certify a class.  Judge Jacobs reasoned that a federal class
action was not superior to an available state procedure that, in
this case, had already compensated the plaintiffs. Id. at *80.
Regarding predominance, Jacobs indicated that individual statute
of limitations issues demanded closer scrutiny than they had
received; he discounted the import of management tools like
subclasses as a way of accounting for individual issues and
remarked that "[a] better-considered case-management tool is de-
certification." Id. at *82.

Duane Reade Case. On the same day as Sykes and Roach, the Second
Circuit also affirmed a district court's judgment in certifying a
class limited to the liability phase in Jacob v. Duane Reade.
There, the plaintiffs were two former Duane Reade employees who
alleged that the company was violating New York Labor Law because
it did not pay overtime to assistant store managers. See slip. op.
at 2.  The district court had originally certified the 23(b)(3)
class in its entirety, but the defendant subsequently moved for
reconsideration in light of Comcast. Following Comcast, the
district court judge decertified the class with respect to damages
only. Id. at 3.

As explained by the Second Circuit, "in decertifying the class
with respect to damages, the district court concluded that
although the individualized nature of the damages inquiry would
defeat Rule 23(b)(3) predominance in the case as a whole, Rule
23(b)(3) predominance was satisfied with respect to [the] issue of
liability alone . . . .  That conclusion was within the district
court's discretion." Id. at 5.

Although this was a non-precedential opinion, it does serve to
underline that individual issues of damages will not mean a class
will not be certified, and that district courts have tools at
their discretion to help support certification in Rule 23(b)(3) in
appropriate cases, even when those cases involve individual damage
determinations.

Conclusion
These cases thus illustrate the discretion the Second Circuit
appears to be affording district courts to rely on these tools in
certifying a class where individual damages issues exist but
common class issues predominate.  The court's reliance in Sykes on
subclasses, when considered alongside the affirmance of
bifurcating damages in Duane Reade, appears to highlight the tools
available to district courts in certifying cases under Rule
23(b)(3), even where issues of individual damages calculations
exist.  Going forward, as class certification decisions continue
to make their way to the Second Circuit and the Supreme Court, it
will be important for parties to monitor developments that further
illuminate the bounds of that discretion.


COOPER VISION: Faces "Castillo" Suit Over Lens-Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sergio Castillo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Cooper Vision, Inc., Alcon Laboratories,
Inc., Bausch + Lomb, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., and ABB
Optical Group, Case No. 3:15-cv-01408 (N.D. Cal., March 26, 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:

      Alexander M. Schack, Esq.,
      Natasha A. Naraghi, Esq.,
      LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDER M. SCHACK
      16870 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 400
      San Diego, CA 92127
      Telephone: (858) 485-6535
      Facsimile: (858) 485-0608
      E-mail: alexschack@amslawoffice.com
              natashanaraghi@amslawoffice.com

         - and -

      Geoffrey J. Spreter, Esq.,
      SPRETER LEGAL SERVICES, APC
      601 3rd Street
      Coronado, CA 92118
      Telephone: 619-865-7986
      E-mail: spreterlegalservices@gmail.com

         - and -

      E. Elliot Adler, Esq.
      ADLER LAW GROUP, APLC
      402 W. Broadway, Suite 860
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 531-8700
      Facsimile: (619) 342-9600
      E-mail: elliotadler@gmail.com


COOPER VISION: Faces "Mah" Sui Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Mah, Andrew Morales, and Tamara O'Brien, on his own behalf
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ABB Concise
Optical Group, LLC, Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Bausch & Lomb
Incorporated, Cooper Vision, Inc., and Johnson & Johnson Vision
Care, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01406 (N.D. Cal., March 26, 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:

      Jack Wing Lee, Esq.
      Aron K. Liang, Esq.
      Derek G. Howard, Esq.
      Sean Tamio Tamura-Sato, Esq.
      MINAMI TAMAKI LLP
      360 Post Street, 8th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94108
      Telephone: (415) 788-9000
      Facsimile: (415) 398-3887
      E-mail: jlee@MinamiTamaki.com
              aliang@cpmlegal.com
              dhoward@minamitamaki.com
              seant@minamitamaki.com


COOPER VISION: Faces "Hatridge" Suit Over Lens Resale Price
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ginger Hatridge, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Cooper Vision, Inc., Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Bausch
& Lomb Incorporated, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., and
ABB/Con-Cise Optical Group LLC (a/k/a ABB Optical Group), Case No.
0:15-cv-60663 (S.D. Fla., March 31, 2015), alleges that the
Defendants entered into a conspiracy to impose minimum resale
prices on certain contact lens lines by subjecting them to so
called Unilateral Pricing Policies (UPPs) and eliminate price
competition on those products by big box stores, buying clubs, and
internet-based retailers that prevent them from discounting those
products.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael J. Ryan, Esq.
      Kelley B. Stewart, Esq.
      KRUPNICK CAMPBELL MALONE BUSER SLAMA HANCOCK LIBERMAN, P.A.
      12 S.E. 7 Street, Suite 801
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 763-8181
      Facsimile: (954) 763-8292
      E-mail: mryan@krupnicklaw.com
               kstewart@krupnicklaw.com


CORNING INC: Court Narrows Claims in Modern Holdings Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington, ruled on Motions to Dismiss
filed by the Defendants in the case docketed as MODERN HOLDINGS,
LLC, GAY BOWEN, GREENLEAF PLANT FOOD WHOLESALE, INC., and BOBBIE
LEMONS, Plaintiffs, v. CORNING INCORPORATED, KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS,
N.V., and PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION,
Defendants, CIVIL NO. 13-405-GFVT.

District Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove, in his Memorandum Opinion
and Order dated March 31, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/AHzHyAfrom Leagle.com, ordered that the Motions to
Dismiss filed by Corning Incorporated and Philips Electronics
North America Corporation each be granted and denied in part; that
the Motion to Dismiss filed by Philips Electronics be denied as it
is moot; that the claims raised by Plaintiff Gay Bowen against
Philips Electronics be dismissed with prejudice; and that the
Plaintiffs' claims for strict liability, negligent
misrepresentation and medical monitoring be dismissed with
prejudice.

Evan McDonald Rice -- 250 W Main St Ste 1900 Lexington, Kentucky
40507 --  The Getty Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters --
jwinters@gettylawgroup.com -- , and Richard A. Getty --
rgetty@gettylawgroup.com -- , The Getty Law Group, PLLC, Attorneys
for Plaintiffs Modern Holdings, LLC, Gay Bowen, Greenleaf Plant
Food Wholesale, Inc., Bobbie Lemons, Otis Ford, Charles Ford,
Rosetta Ford, and Gary Ford.

Corning Incorporated, Defendant, represented by George L. Seay,
Jr., Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs LLP.

Corning Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Joseph F. Madonia
-- joseph.madonia@btlaw.com -- Barnes & Thornburg.

M. Stephen Pitt -- mspitt@wyattfirm.com -- Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs,
LLP, Mark L. Durbin -- mdurbin@btlaw.com -- Barnes & Thornburg,
Peter N. Moore -- peter.Moore@btlaw.com -- Barnes & Thornburg, and
George J. Miller -- gmiller@wyattfirm.com -- Wyatt, Tarrant &
Combs LLP, Attorneys for Defendant Corning Incorporated

Brian M. Johnson -- BJohnson@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson
Wright PLLC, David Andrew Owen -- DOwen@dickinsonwright.com --,
Dickinson Wright PLLC & Matthew A. Stinnett --
MStinnett@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC, Attorneys
for Defendants Koninklijke Philips N.V.and Philips Electronics
North America Corporation.


CORNING INC: Koninklijke Philips Dropped From Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington, granted the Motion to
Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction in the case captioned MODERN
HOLDINGS, LLC, GAY BOWEN, GREENLEAF PLANT FOOD WHOLESALE, INC.,
and BOBBIE LEMONS, Plaintiffs, v. CORNING INCORPORATED,
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS, N.V., and PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA
CORPORATION, Defendants. ELBERT COX, JR., CECIL WAYNE FRANKLIN,
JOHN SPEARS, WANDA BEASLEY, DONALD KING, LINDSEY PENNINGTON,
TERESA PRESTON, BEVERLY PRESLEY, Personal Representative of the
Estate of Annabell Gordon, Plaintiffs, v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS,
N.V., and PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION,
Defendants, CIVIL NOS. 13-405-GFVT, 13-406-GFVT.

According to District Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove, in his order
entered March 31, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/ewVk5qfrom Leagle.com, the court has no jurisdiction
over Defendant Koninklijke Philips, the Dutch parent company of
Defendant Philips Electronics North America. Consequently, it
granted the Motion to Dismiss filed by Koninklijke Philips for
lack of personal jurisdiction.

Evan McDonald Rice -- 250 W Main St Ste 1900 Lexington, Kentucky
40507 --  The Getty Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters --
jwinters@gettylawgroup.com -- , Mary Ann Getty, and Richard A.
Getty -- rgetty@gettylawgroup.com -- , The Getty Law Group, PLLC,
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Elbert Cox, Jr., Cecil Wayne Franklin,
John Spears, Wanda Beasley, Donald King,Lindsey Pennington, Teresa
Preston, and Beverly Presley.

Adam Clay Reeves -- areeves@bdlegal.com --, Bingham Greenebaum
Doll LLP, Brian M. Johnson -- BJohnson@dickinsonwright.com --
Dickinson Wright PLLC, David Andrew Owen --
DOwen@dickinsonwright.com --, Dickinson Wright PLLC & Matthew A.
Stinnett -- MStinnett@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright
PLLC, Attorneys for Defendants Koninklijke Philips N.V.and Philips
Electronics North America Corporation.


DECOSTER EGG: Salmonella Outbreak Caused Widespread Harm
--------------------------------------------------------
Ryan J. Foley, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
federal prosecutors are asking a judge to consider the "widespread
harm" done by a nationwide salmonella outbreak in sentencing two
egg industry executives whose company was responsible.

In court documents filed on April 6, prosecutors said Austin
"Jack" DeCoster and his son Peter ran a company that for years
"routinely disregarded food safety standards and practices."

Prosecutors didn't ask for a specific term of jail, home
confinement or probation.  The DeCosters face up to a year in
prison when sentenced next week.  Both have pleaded guilty to
introducing adulterated eggs into interstate commerce.

The memo said the Decosters were generally aware that their Iowa
egg facilities were at risk for producing salmonella-tainted eggs
long before the 2010 outbreak, which sickened thousands.

Prosecutors and defense lawyers have already recommended $7
million in fines.


DESERT CHAMPIONS: Illegally Prints Credit Card Numbers, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michele Andrade, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals v. Desert Champions LLC, Case No.
3:15-cv-01394 (N.D. Cal., March 26, 2015), seeks to stop the
Defendant's practice of printing the customer's first digit of
credit or debit card numbers and expiration dates on the sales or
transaction hardcopy receipts.

Desert Champions LLC is a California company that operates the BNP
Paribas Open professional tennis tournament in Indian Wells,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric A. Grover, Esq.
      Robert William Spencer, Esq.
      KELLER GROVER LLP
      1965 Market Street
      San Francisco, CA 94103
      Telephone: (415) 543-7861
      Facsimile: (415) 543-7861
      E-mail: eagrover@kellergrover.com
              rspencer@kellergrover.com


DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA: May Face Wrongful Death Claims in U.S.
----------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Qualters, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
Deutsche Lufthansa A.G. could face wrongful death claims in the
United States by the families of the three Americans reported
killed in the Germanwings jetliner crash in the French Alps on
March 24, according to aviation attorneys tracking developments.

French authorities reported that voice recorder evidence indicates
co-pilot Andreas Lubitz locked the captain out of the cockpit and
deliberately crashed the plane. The disaster killed all 150 people
on board.

The families of the Americans can almost certainly file claims in
U.S. courts under the controlling international air transport
treaty, said Mary Schiavo, a leader of the aviation team at Mount
Pleasant, S.C.-based Motley Rice.  Ms. Schiavo has represented
passengers and crew in major U.S. air crashes.

"They can bring a case in the U.S. and they should.  The U.S. is a
much better forum than France or Germany," Ms. Schiavo said.

She cited the Montreal Convention, an international treaty that
governs air passengers, baggage, cargo and disasters.  The treaty
allows passengers to bring claims in various forums -- where they
bought their tickets, their planned final destination and the
airline's headquarters, Ms. Schiavo said.

Airlines defending cases in different countries following a crash
will often try to get the claims consolidated, and "they're
successful at least half of the time," Ms. Schiavo said.

If claims survive that round, the next question is whether the
crash falls under the Montreal Convention's caps on liability for
accidents.  At least in the United States, the definition of an
accident under the convention has been interpreted "to mean any
unexpected or unusual event," said Justin Green, a New York
partner at Kreindler & Kreindler.  He represented families of
passengers and crew and people inside the World Trade Center
towers during the Sept. 11, 2001, attack.

"In order to enjoy that limit, the airline has to prove that it
was without fault," Mr. Green said.

Ultimately, Lufthansa, which owns Germanwings, would have to show
it was not negligent in hiring or screening Mr. Lubitz or allowing
him to be alone in the cockpit, Mr. Green said.  U.S. airlines,
for example, have rules against leaving one person in a cockpit.
"That leads me to think the airline is not going to meet its
burden of proving that it was without fault," Mr. Green said.

According to news accounts, Mr. Lubitz interrupted his pilot
training because of depression.  If true, that could play into any
court case, Ms. Schiavo said.  "That's going to be an issue that
people are going to want to know the answer to," she said.

The facts, once they're clear, could support wrongful death or
negligence claims but a settlement is the most likely outcome,
said Daniel Suleiman, special counsel to Washington's Covington &
Burling.  Mr. Suleiman was Asiana Airlines Inc.'s lead litigator
in the National Transportation Safety Board's investigation of
that airline's July 2013 crash at San Francisco International
Airport.

Mr. Suleiman said the latest crash is a horrible tragedy for all
involved, including Lufthansa.

"It's hard to imagine what type of claim that could be brought
that the airline would feel the need to defend in court,"
Mr. Suleiman said.


DIRECT HEATING: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Gettelman" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ted Gettelman, individually and on behalf of a class of all
persons and entities similarly situated v. Direct Heating &
Cooling, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-00172 (N.D. Fla., March 26, 2015),
arises out of the Defendant's practice of placing multiple
telemarketing calls to telephone numbers that are registered on
the National Do Not Call Registry.

Direct Heating & Cooling, Inc. arises out of the Defendant's
practice of placing multiple telemarketing calls to telephone
numbers that are registered on the National Do Not Call Registry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillip Timothy Howard, Esq.
      HOWARD & ASSOCIATES PA
      2120 Killarney Way, Ste 125
      Tallahassee, FL 32309
      Telephone: (850) 298-4455
      Facsimile: (850) 216-2537
      E-mail: tim@howardjustice.com


DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Valerie Marie Moore, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Diversified Adjustment Service, Inc., John Does 1-100,
and Any Other Unknown Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-00403 (M.D.
Fla., March 31, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of
placing non-emergency call using an artificial or prerecorded
voice in an attempt to collect a debt.

Diversified Adjustment Service, Inc.is a collection agency
headquartered in Coon Rapids, Minnesota.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Emily C. Komlossy, Esq.
      Ross A. Appel, Esq.
      KOMLOSSY LAW, PA
      2131 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 408
      Hollywood, FL 33020
      Telephone: (954) 842-2021
      Facsimile: (954) 416-6223
      E-mail: ekomlossy@komlossylaw.com
              raa@komlossylaw.com

         - and -

      Jeffrey M. Salas, Esq.
      John C. Wang, Esq.
      SALAS WANG LLC
      155 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 4250
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 803-4963
      Facsimile: (312) 244-3151
      E-mail: jsalas@salaswang.com

         - and -

      Joshua B. Kons, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JOSHUA B. KONS, LLC
      50 Albany Turnpike, Suite 4024
      Canton, CT 06019
      Telephone: (860) 920-5181
      Facsimile: (860) 920-5174
      E-mail: joshuakons@konslaw.com


DXP ENTERPRISES: Faces "Veloz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro A. Veloz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. DXP Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-00794 (S.D.
Tex., March 26, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime compensation for work in excess of 40
hours a week.

DXP Enterprises, Inc. is an oilfield services company with its
principal place of business at 7272 Pinemont Drive, Houston, Texas
77040.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Allen Ryan Vaught, Esq.
      BARON BUDD PC
      3102 Oak Lawn Ave, Ste 1100
      Dallas, TX 75214
      Telephone: (214) 521-3605
      E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com


EL GALLEGO: Faces "Colindres" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Alfredo Colindres Colindres and all others similarly situated
v. El Gallego Spanish Restaurant Inc., El Gallego Spanish Tavern
Restaurant, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-21254 (S.D. Fla., March 31,
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 operate a restaurant in 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


ENCINO MOTORCARS: "Service Advisers" Entitled to Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a federal appeals court has found that "service advisers" --
those people at the car dealership who give repair estimates --
are entitled to overtime pay under federal labor law.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in a March 24
opinion acknowledged that its ruling conflicted with the Fourth
and Fifth circuits.  Instead, the Ninth Circuit panel relied on an
interpretation by the U.S. Department of Labor, which in 2011
refused to adopt proposed amendments to the Fair Labor Standards
Act that would have included service advisers among the car
dealership employees who are exempt from overtime pay.  The FSLA
overtime exemption covers "any salesman, parts man, or mechanic
primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles."

Circuit Judge Susan Graber found that "because plaintiffs do not
fit within any of those definitions, they are not exempt from the
FLSA's overtime wage provisions."  She added, "Service advisors do
none of those things; they sell services for cars.  They do not
sell cars; they do not stock parts; and they do not perform
mechanical work on cars."

The ruling means service advisers at dealers within the
Ninth Circuit are now entitled to overtime pay, said plaintiffs
attorney Keven Steinberg -- ksteinberg@finksteinberg.com -- a
partner at Fink & Steinberg in Los Angeles who filed the suit in
2012 after the department's decision came out.

"The case is the beginning of economic justice for automobile
service advisers across the nation to resolve this ambiguity and
hopefully allow them to be paid properly and fairly from here on
out," he said.

Todd Scherwin -- tscherwin@laborlawyers.com -- managing partner of
the Los Angeles office of Fisher & Phillips, who represented the
dealership, wrote in an email that his client is "exploring its
options," including petitioning an en banc panel of the Ninth
Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court.

"The decision reached by the Ninth Circuit breaks from the ranks
of every other district court, state court and appellate court
that has weighed in on this very same issue," he wrote.
"Moreover, this academic exercise appellants are engaging in
doesn't change the fact that service advisors are still exempt
under both the FLSA and California law as commissioned
salespersons."

The panel reversed U.S. District Judge R. Gary Klausner's
dismissal of a case brought by five service advisers who worked
long hours daily for commissions at Encino Motorcars LLC, which
owns a Mercedes-Benz dealership in Los Angeles.

The panel acknowledged that its holding conflicts with prior
decisions, including those in the Fourth and Fifth circuits -- on
which Judge Klausner relied in dismissing the case -- as well as a
2013 ruling by the Montana Supreme Court in Thompson v. J.C.
Billion Inc.

But many of those decisions predated the "modern framework for
deferring to an agency's interpretation," Judge Graber wrote.  The
panel also disagreed that the agency's interpretation was
unreasonable, as both the Montana Supreme Court and the Fourth
Circuit held in Walton v. Greenbrier Ford, a 2004 decision.  Both
courts found that the FLSA exemption applied to service advisers.


EXXON MOBIL: Details of $225MM Settlement With NJ State
-------------------------------------------------------
Michael Catalini, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
details of New Jersey's proposed $225 million settlement with
Exxon Mobil over pollution around refineries in Linden and Bayonne
were posted online on April 6, starting the clock on a legal
process that will stretch into June and giving vocal opponents an
opportunity to persuade a judge to kill the deal.

Details of the proposed deal struck last month between the
attorney general and the Texas-based oil company were published on
the Department of Environmental Protection's website.

Here's what you need to know about the four-page proposal:

HOW IT WORKS

The Department of Environmental Protection said the public has 60
days to comment and then it will decide whether to approve the
agreement, which it is expected to do.

Then, Judge Michael Hogan will issue a ruling on the offer.  If he
does not sign off, he may decide what the damage award should be,
though it is common with agreements such as the one between the
state and Exxon to be approved by the judge.

Commenting on the settlement gives the commenter standing to
pursue an appeal.

THE DEAL'S DETAILS

In addition to the Linden and Bayonne sites, the proposed
settlement would resolve pollution claims at 16 service station
sites across the state.  It also proposes resolving claims at all
services stations in New Jersey where, the department says in a
news release, there was little or no damage and where there was no
evidence of MTBE, a chemical compound used a gasoline additive.
The department said litigating over these sites would cost
taxpayers more than their expected value.

The $225 million proposal would be the second-largest natural
resource settlement against a corporate defendant in the country's
history and the largest in state history, the department said in a
statement.  Only the Exxon-Valdez payout was larger.

"We have vigorously litigated this case for the good of the
environment and for the people of New Jersey," DEP Commissioner
Bob Martin said in a statement.  "On top of the historic payout
for this natural resources damages settlement, there is no cap on
what ExxonMobil must spend to complete the remediation work.
ExxonMobil is also obligated to remediate all of the other, though
far less contaminated, sites included in the proposed agreement."

POLITICALLY VOLATILE

News of the proposed settlement has become a political lightning
rod because a report in the court documents had estimated that the
state might recover up to $8.9 billion.  Leaks of the deal
appeared in the press before the attorney general discussed the
details, and the Democrat-led Legislature criticized Republican
Gov. Chris Christie's administration for accepting pennies on the
dollar.

New Jersey Sierra Club director Jeff Tittel bashed the proposal.
"It's really the largest sellout in history," he said in an
interview.

Gov. Christie has publicly emphasized that Exxon Mobil must still
clean the site.

"Under this settlement, ExxonMobil's obligation to remediate the
refinery sites - exclusively at its cost, which will be
substantial -- is reaffirmed," acting Attorney General John
Hoffman said in a statement.

It's unclear how much cleanup will cost.  Exxon Mobil will not
speculate on the remediation process, said spokesman Todd Spitler
said in a statement.  Since 1991, the company has spent about $260
million to clean up the Linden and Bayonne sites under DEP
supervision, Mr. Spitler said.

BUDGET BATTLE

If the deal goes forward, the settlement money would not be
available until the start of the fiscal year -- July 1 -- at the
earliest, Hoffman said last month.

How that money is disbursed has also become the subject of a
fierce debate.  Under current law and as Christie proposed in his
2016 budget, the first $50 million of money recovered from natural
resources settlements would go toward site cleanup and the rest
would go toward the general fund.  The Democratic-controlled
Legislature has sent Gov. Christie a bill that would require half
of the money from settlements of more than $50 million to be spent
on cleanup.  Gov. Christie has until May to decide if he'll veto
the bill.


FIVE STAR: Faces "Hartwell" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa M. Hartwell, Alisha C. Settipane, Anthony M. DiCarlo, Barnard
R. Gaul, and Juanita Franqui, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated v. Five Star Resort Marketing, Inc.,
Sascha Morton, and Westgate Resorts, Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-00530
(M.D. Fla., April 1, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Five Star Resort Marketing, Inc. owns and operates a marketing
company that markets Westgate Resorts' timeshares and vacation
packages to the public.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      N. Ryan LaBar, Esq.
      Scott C. Adams, Esq.
      LABAR & ADAMS, PA
      2300 E Concord St
      Orlando, FL 32803
      Telephone: (407) 835-8968
      Facsimile: (407) 835-8969
      E-mail: rlabar@labaradams.com
              sadams@labaradams.com


FLORIDA HOME: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Etienne" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marjorie Etienne, individually and on behalf of a class of all
persons and entities similarly situated v. Florida Home
Improvement LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-00171 (N.D. Fla., March 26,
2015), arises out of the Defendant's practice of placing multiple
telemarketing calls to telephone numbers that are registered on
the National Do Not Call Registry.

Florida Home Improvement LLC is a company headquartered in Fort
Walton Beach, Florida that offers home maintenance and repair
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillip Timothy Howard, Esq.
      HOWARD & ASSOCIATES PA
      2120 Killarney Way, Ste 125
      Tallahassee, FL 32309
      Telephone: (850) 298-4455
      Facsimile: (850) 216-2537
      E-mail: tim@howardjustice.com


GOGREENRIDE INC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Harrison Osondu Iheke, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situate v. GoGreenRide Inc., and Yamandou Alexander,
Case No. 1:15-cv-02483 (S.D.N.Y., April 1, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorney's fees
and other relief under the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are in the business of providing transportation
services to customers in the New York City and Tri-state area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abdul Karim Hassan, Esq.
      ABDUL K. HASSAN LAW GROUP PLLC
      215-28 Hillside Avenue
      Queens Village, NY 11427
      Telephone: (718) 740-1000
      Facsimile: (718) 740-2000
      E-mail: courtpoint@courtpoint.com


GOLDMAN SACHS: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Antitrust Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that
earlier in March, when U.S. District Judge Katherine B. Forrest
dismissed several defendants from antitrust litigation over an
alleged scheme to drive up aluminum prices, the Litigation Daily
and other legal news outlets suggested the case was all-but
finished.  But as the judge's latest ruling grudgingly makes
clear, there's life in the case yet.

Judge Forrest on March 26 trimmed some of the lawsuit -- including
monopoly claims under Section 2 of the federal Sherman Act, and
claims brought under certain state laws.  But she also refused to
dismiss antitrust claims against several defendants, including
Goldman Sachs & Co., JPMorgan Securities plc, mining company
Glencore Ltd., and aluminum warehouse operators Henry Bath LLC and
Pacorini Metals USA LLC (a Glencore subsidiary).

The ruling marks the latest twist in litigation that followed a
2013 New York Times report examining business practices in the
aluminum warehousing industry.  The Times reported that aluminum
warehouses were colluding with the banks to hoard aluminum,
generating rent from metal producers that served to drive up
prices.

Picking up on those allegations, Grant & Eisenhofer, Lovell
Stewart Halebian Jacobson, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd and other
plaintiffs firms filed antitrust claims on behalf of aluminum
purchasers and end-users.  The suit targeted warehousing companies
including Henry Bath (a former JPMorgan subsidiary) and Glencore's
Pacorini Metals USA, and also Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan, which
profited from aluminum trades.

The case has been an uphill battle for the plaintiffs so far, as
the March 26 ruling attests.

"Plaintiffs have spent thousands of pages assembling (or, trying
out) various versions of claims," Judge Forrest wrote.  "Were it
not for the legal standards governing when enough is deemed enough
(which allow for more than what this court might otherwise be
inclined to tolerate), the trees felled in an effort to state a
claim might be leafing even now."

Judge Forrest granted an initial motion to dismiss in August, but
at the time allowed plaintiffs lawyers to amend parts of their
complaint and try again.  Then, in a pair of rulings on March 3
and March 4, she dismissed the plaintiffs' amended claims against
parent companies The Goldman Sachs Group Inc., JPMorgan Chase &
Co. and Pacorini Metals AG.  Judge Forrest found their only
connection to the alleged price-fixing was through their corporate
affiliates.

Those early March rulings, however, didn't consider the
plaintiffs' amended claims against various affiliates of the
parent companies.  The March 26 ruling does, and declines to let
any of them fully off the hook.

Grant & Eisenhofer's Linda Nussbaum -- lnussbaum@gelaw.com -- told
The Litigation Daily she's delighted that Judge Forrest's ruling
will allow the case to move forward.

The defense lineup in the case includes Sullivan & Cromwell (for
Goldman and affiliates), Covington & Burling (for JPMorgan and its
affiliates), Latham & Watkins (for Hong Kong Exchanges and
Clearing Ltd. and London Metal Exchange); Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom (for Pacorini) and Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt &
Mosle (for Glencore).


HARBINGER CAPITAL: Dist. Court Narrows Claims in Investors Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on March 31, 2015, granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
the Sixth Amendment Complaint filed by the Plaintiffs in the case
captioned In re Harbinger Capital Partners Funds Investor
Litigation, NO. 12-CV-1244 (AJN).

District Judge Alison J. Nathan, in her Opinion and Order, a copy
of which is available at http://is.gd/uqVLS2from Leagle.com,
granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, on Counts I, II, III,
IV and IV, because of the Plaintiffs' failure to state a claim on
which relief can be granted. The Court declined to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Counts VI and VII and dismissed
them without prejudice.

Jacob H. Zamansky -- jake@zamansky.com -- Zamansky & Associates
LLC, Steven E. Fineman -- sfineman@lchb.com --  Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Amanda Marjorie Steiner --
as@GirardGibbs.com -- Girard Gibbs LLP, Christina H. C. Sharp,
Girard Gibbs LLP, Daniel Patrick Chiplock, Lieff Cabraser Heimann
& Bernstein, LLP, Daniel Charles Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP, David
A. Straite -- dstraite@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer,
LLP, Edward H. Glenn, Jr., Zamansky & Associates, L.L.C., Jonathan
K. Levine, Girard Gibbs LLP, Kevin Dugald Galbraith -- , The Law
Office of Kevin Galbraith, Nicholas R. Diamand, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP & Samuel Ethan Bonderoff, Paul, Weiss,
Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Attorneys for Plaintiffs Lili
Schad, The Edward M. Armfield Sr. Foundation, Inc., and Randall
Lang.

Steven E. Fineman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Daniel
Patrick Chiplock, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, David
A. Straite, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, Edward H. Glenn, Jr.,
Zamansky & Associates, L.L.C., Jacob H. Zamansky, Zamansky &
Associates LLC, Kevin Dugald Galbraith, The Law Office of Kevin
Galbraith, Nicholas R. Diamand, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP & Samuel Ethan Bonderoff, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison LLP, Attorneys for Plaintiffs Anil Bhardwaj and
Klein Family Partnership L.P.

Daniel J. Leffell -- dleffell@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss,
Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Leslie Gordon Fagen, Paul, Weiss,
Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Leslie Gordon, paul, Weiss,
Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison & Steven Craig Herzog, Paul, Weiss,
Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Attorneys for Defendants
Harbinger Capital Partners LLC, Harbinger Holdings, LLC, Philip A.
Falcone, Harbinger Capital Partners GP, L.L.C., Harbinger Capital
Partners Special Situations GP, L.L.C., Harbinger Capital Partners
Special Situations Offshore GP, L.L.C.

Gregory A. Clarick -- gclarick@cgr-law.com -- Clarick Gueron
Reisbaum LLP, Isaac Berkman Zaur -- izaur@cgr-law.com --  Clarick
Gueron Reisbaum LLP & Nicole L. Gueron -- ngueron@cgr-law.com --
Clarick Gueron Reisbaum LLP, Attorneys for Defendants Harbinger
Capital Partners Fund I, L.P., Harbinger Capital Partners Special
Situation Fund L.P., and Nominal Defendant Harbinger Capital
Partners Special Situations Offshore Fund LP.


HERBALIFE LTD: May 11 Final Approval Hearing in Bostick Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
Herbalife Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that final approval hearing
is set for May 11, 2015, in the settlement in the case, Bostick,
et al., v. Herbalife Int'l of Am., Inc., et al.

On April 8, 2013, Herbalife Ltd. and certain of its subsidiaries
were named as defendants in a suit filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, challenging
Herbalife's marketing practices and business structure under
California laws prohibiting "endless chain schemes," unfair and
deceptive business practices, and false advertising, as well as
federal RICO statutes. On July 7, 2014, the complaint was amended
to add additional plaintiffs. The plaintiffs seek damages in an
unspecified amount. The federal RICO claim was dismissed.

While the Company continues to believe the suit is without merit,
and without in any way admitting liability or wrongdoing, the
Company and the plaintiffs reached a settlement. Under the terms
of the settlement, the Company would (i) pay $15 million into a
fund to be distributed to qualified claimants and (ii) accept up
to a maximum amount of $2.5 million in product returns from
qualified claimants. The court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement on December 2, 2014 and conditionally certified a
class. The final approval hearing is set for May 11, 2015.

As of December 31, 2014, these amounts were adequately reserved
for in the Company's financial statements. The Company has
transferred $15 million to an escrow account which was included in
prepaid expenses and other current assets within its consolidated
balance sheet as of December 31, 2014.


HERBALIFE LTD: Hearing Held on Bid to Dismiss Securities Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Herbalife Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the hearing was set for
March 9, 2015 on the Defendants' motion to dismiss all claims in
the Amended Complaint filed in the case In re Herbalife, Ltd.
Securities Litigation (formerly captioned Awad v. Herbalife Ltd.,
et al.).

On April 14, 2014, Herbalife Ltd. and certain of its officers were
named as defendants in a purported stockholder class action, filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
and asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint alleged that the Company and certain officers made
material misstatements concerning the Company's finances and
business practices, and contended that the Company is operating a
pyramid scheme. The initial complaint sought to represent a class
of investors that had purchased shares of the Company's common
stock between May 4, 2010 and April 11, 2014.

On July 30, 2014, the Court approved the appointment of different
shareholders as lead plaintiffs and approved their selection of
counsel. On September 18, 2014, these lead plaintiffs filed an
Amended Class Action Complaint for Violation of the Federal
Securities Laws against the Company, and certain of its officers.
The Amended Complaint brings claims for unspecified damages under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, alleges that the
defendants made material misstatements that "fundamentally
misrepresented the nature, scope and legality of the Company's
business and operations to consumers and investors alike," and
further alleges that the Company is one of "the most sophisticated
pyramid schemes in history."

The lead plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons or
entities that purchased shares of the Company's common stock
between February 23, 2011 and July 29, 2014. Defendants' motion to
dismiss all claims in the Amended Complaint was filed on November
3, 2014. The hearing was set for March 9, 2015.

The Company intends to vigorously defend this purported class
action suit. The Company has not recognized a loss as it does not
believe a loss is probable. Further, the Company is currently
unable to reasonably estimate a possible loss or range of loss.


HILLTOP HOLDINGS: Parties Entered Into MOU to Settle Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hilltop Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that parties to the
consolidated class action entered into a memorandum of
understanding reflecting the terms of an agreement, subject to
final approval by the Court and certain other conditions, to
settle the Consolidated Action.

Each of Hilltop, Hilltop Securities Holdings LLC ("Hilltop
Securities"), formerly Peruna LLC (wholly owned subsidiary of
Hilltop), SWS Group, Inc. and the individual members of the board
of directors of SWS have been named as defendants in two purported
stockholder class action lawsuits arising out of the merger. Both
lawsuits were filed in Delaware Chancery Court (Joseph Arceri v.
SWS Group, Inc. et al and Chaile Steinberg v. SWS Group, Inc. et
al filed April 8, 2014 and April 11, 2014, respectively). On May
13, 2014, the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated the two actions
(the "Consolidated Action") for all purposes. On June 10, 2014,
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint.

The complaint generally alleges, among other things, that the SWS
board of directors breached its fiduciary duties to stockholders
by failing to take steps to maximize stockholder value or to
engage in a fair sale process before approving the merger, that
the SWS board of directors labored under conflicts of interest,
that certain provisions of the merger agreement unduly restrict
SWS's ability to negotiate with other potential bidders, and that
the other defendants aided and abetted the SWS board of director's
breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint further alleges, among
other things, that the proxy statement/prospectus filed by Hilltop
on May 29, 2014 omits or misstates certain material information.
The complaints seek relief that includes, among other things, an
injunction prohibiting the consummation of the merger, rescission
to the extent the merger terms have already been implemented,
damages for the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, and the
payment of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.

On November 13, 2014, the parties to the Consolidated Action
entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") reflecting
the terms of an agreement, subject to final approval by the Court
and certain other conditions, to settle the Consolidated Action.
Pursuant to the MOU, defendants, without admitting any wrongdoing,
agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures requested by
plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action, as set forth in SWS's
Current Report on Form 8-K dated November 14, 2014.

In addition, Hilltop agreed to forbear from asserting certain
rights under the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of March
31, 2014, by and among Hilltop, Hilltop Securities and SWS. The
MOU further contemplates that, following confirmatory discovery,
the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement, which
will be subject to customary conditions, including court approval
following notice to the former stockholders of SWS.

If the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing
will be scheduled at which the court will consider the fairness,
reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. There can be no
assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement, that the applicable court will approve
any proposed settlement, or that any eventual settlement will be
under the same terms as those contemplated by the MOU.


HTH CORPORATION: Obligated to Pay Plaintiff's Counsel Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Hawai'i, on March 27, 2015, granted
plaintiff's request for award of attorney's fees and costs in the
case docketed as RAYMOND GURROBAT, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Petitioner/Plaintiff-
Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. HTH CORPORATION; PACIFIC BEACH
CORPORATION, Respondents/Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees,
NO. SCAP-12-0000764.

Justice McKenna, in his Opinion of the Court, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/cFwQy3from Leagle.com, awarded Gurrobat
attorney's fees amounting to $84,032.50, and general excise tax in
the amount of $3,959.61. Gurrobat was also awarded costs in the
amount of $435.55.  Justice McKenna ruled that the Defendants were
jointly and severally liable for the payment of Gurrobat's
attorneys' fees and costs.

James J. Bickerton -- bickerton@bsds.com -- and Stephen M.
Tannenbaum -- tannenbaum@bsds.com -- Attorneys for Petitioner
Raymond Gurrobat.

Jeffrey H.K. Sia -- jeffrey.sia@hawadvocate.com -- Diane W. Wong
-- diane.wong@hawadvocate.com -- and Brandon H. Ito --
brandon.ito@hawadvocate.com -- Attorneys for Respondents HTH
Corporation and Pacific Beach Corporation.


INDYMAC: Judge Awards $28.5 Mil. in Fees to Plaintiffs Lawyers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for Law.com, reports that a Manhattan
federal judge on March 24 awarded $28.5 million in fees to
plaintiffs lawyers who negotiated a settlement with underwriters
of IndyMac mortgage-backed securities -- but only after
questioning how long the lawyers worked on the case and cutting a
substantial slice from their "unreasonably high" requested award.

U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan took issue with several aspects
of a $44.9 million fee bid by lawyers at Berman DeValerio, Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein and
other firms who represented IndyMac investors in about 50 MBS
trusts the bank sponsored before its collapse.  Ultimately,
Judge Kaplan's award of $28.5 million amounted to 8.2 percent of
the $346 million settlement fund, rather than the 13 percent the
lawyers sought.

The award comes on the heels of a lackluster year for securities
class settlements, which totaled $1.1 billion in 2014, according
to a study released Tuesday by Cornerstone Research.  That's the
lowest total Cornerstone has recorded in a decade, and far below
the average of $6.6 billion for the years 2005 to 2013.

However, the IndyMac settlement, which won approval in February,
was followed by the final approval of a $970.5 million settlement
in a shareholder class action against American International Group
Inc. related to AIG's subprime mortgage exposure.  The IndyMac and
AIG settlements alone promise to push securities class action
settlement totals in 2015 above the 2014 figures compiled by
Cornerstone.

The two cases also highlight the power that individual judges
wield over settlement economics for the securities plaintiffs bar.
U.S. District Judge Laura Swain, who presided over the AIG case,
approved $116.46 million in fees, or 12 percent of the total
settlement fund, for lead plaintiffs counsel at Barrack, Rodos &
Bacine and The Miller Law Firm.  That's almost exactly the
percentage requested by the plaintiffs firms -- and rejected as
excessive by Judge Kaplan -- in the IndyMac litigation.

Judge Kaplan noted in the March 24 order that court-approved fees
in securities class actions "seem to be getting smaller" --
receding from an average of 22.2 percent of the plaintiffs' total
recovery in large cases settled between 1996 and 2013, according
to one study.  He also questioned the plaintiffs lawyers' claim to
have spent nearly 14 years of combined hours on discovery alone in
the IndyMac litigation.  That total, the judge wrote, "borders on
astounding" in a case where only 15 depositions were taken.
(Berman DeValerio's Joseph Tabacco Jr. --
jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com  -- didn't respond to a request for
comment.)

Judge Kaplan also took aim at the lawyers' references to attorney
fee awards in other securities class action settlements greater
than $100 million, in which the fee awards ranged from 17 to 20
percent.  In many of those cases, the judge suggested, courts
rubber-stamped boilerplate orders written by plaintiffs lawyers
themselves, instead of conducting an independent analysis.

"A nonrandom sample of five fee awards amounts to no more than
looking out over a crowd and picking out one's friends," Judge
Kaplan wrote.


INTEGRITY SURVEILLANCE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Key and Janet Gajewski, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Integrity Surveillance Solutions,
Inc., d/b/a Integ Security Solutions, Case No. 2:15-cv-11235 (E.D.
Mich., March 31, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's unlawful
practice of placing unsolicited telemarketing calls to consumers
nationwide.

Integrity Surveillance Solutions, Inc. is a Michigan corporation
that offers a wide range of security options for home and
business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
      WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
      3900 E Mexico Ave., Suite 300
      Denver, CO 80210
      Telephone: (720) 213-0675
      Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
      E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com


J&F ANALYSTS: Faces "Romero" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Romero, individually and on behalf of all others  similarly
situated v. J&F Analysts, Inc., d/b/a The Breakfast Place, John J.
Irwin, Sr., Debra Lee Irwin, and John Irwin, Jr., Case No. 4:15-
cv-00790 (S.D. Tex., March 26, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Defendants own and operate two restaurants in The Woodlands,
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Starzyk, Esq.
      STARZYK AND ASSOC PC
      10200 Grogans Mill Rd, Suite 300
      The Woodlands, TX 77380
      Telephone: (281) 364-7261
      E-mail: mstarzyk@starzyklaw.com


JETRO HOLDINGS: Faces "Macias" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex A. Macias, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Jetro Holdings LLC, Jetro Cash and Carry Enterprises, LLC, Hyco
Restaurant Supply CO., Restaurant Depot, LLC, Nathan Kirsh,
Richard Kirschner, Stanley Fleishman, and Carl Telesnick, Case No.
1:15-cv-01571 (E.D.N.Y., March 26, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for all hours
worked in excess of 40 per week.

The Defendants own and operate wholesale cash and carry stores, a
chain that sells wholesale groceries to urban store owners around
the United States, and which provides a wide selection of
wholesale restaurant and catering supplies, food preparation
equipment, and take-out containers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Cilenti, Esq.
      Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      708 Third Avenue, 6th Flr.
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 209-3933
      E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com
              pcooper@jcpclaw.com


JF MOORE: Faces "Gingrass" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Shane Gingrass, on his behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. J.F. Moore International, Inc., J.F. Moore, Inc., and
James Moore, Case No. 4:15-cv-00837 (S.D. Tex., April 1, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of providing
engineering services to oil fields drilling companies in Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JMG RESTAURANT: "Barrera" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
German Barrera, Paulino Ortiz, and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated  v. JMG Restaurant Corp. et al, Case No. 1:15-
cv-02373 (S.D.N.Y., March 31, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

JMG Restaurant Corp. owns and operates Cafe Luka and Fratelli
Brick Oven Pizzeria in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      LaDonna Marie Lusher, Esq.
      Leonor Hidalgo Coyle, Esq.
      Lloyd Robert Ambinder, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AINBINDER, LLP
      111 Broadway, Ste. 1403
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080
      Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
      E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com
              lcoyle@vandallp.com
              lambinder@bivas.net


JNH FOOD: "Perez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lukas Perez, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. JNH Food, LLC, BBH Food LLC, and CNH Food, LLC, Case
No. 3:15-cv-01010 (N.D. Tex., April 1, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate approximately 50 Pizza Hut
franchise restaurants in Texas and Arizona.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan L. Thompson, Esq.
      WATTS GUERRA LLP
      4 Dominion Dr, Bldg 3, Ste 100
      San Antonio, TX 78257
      Telephone: (210) 447-0500
      Facsimile: (210) 447-0501
      E-mail: rlt-bulk@wattsguerra.com

         - and -

      Jack D. McInnes, Esq.
      Richard M. Paul, Esq.
      PAUL MCINNES LLP
      601 Walnut, Suite 300
      Kansas City, MO 64106
      Telephone: (816) 984-8104
      Facsimile: (816) 984-8101
      E-mail: mcinnes@paulmcinnes.com
              paul@paulmcinnes.com

         - and -

      Mark A. Postashnick, Esq.
      WEINHAUS & PTASHNICK
      11500 Olive Blvd, Suite 133
      Saint Louis, MO 63141
      Telephone: (314) 997-9150
      Facsimile: (314) 997-9170


KARIKAN DONUT: "Chavez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Omar Chavez and Rene Benito Romero-Garcia, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. Achilles Pol Ygerinos, V
Asilos Lambos, Martin Goldberg, and Karikan Donut Corp. d/b/a
Munch Time Coffee Shop d/b/a Munch Time Pizza Express, Case No.
1:15-cv-02294 (S.D.N.Y., March 26, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Defendants own and operate various restaurants in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Darren Paul Brian Rumack, Esq.
      THE KLEIN LAW GROUP
      11 Broadway, Suite 960
      New York, NY 10117
      Telephone: (212) 344-9022
      Facsimile: (212) 344-0301
      E-mail: darren@thekleinlawgroup.com


KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Ky. Court Narrows Claims in "Cox" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington, partially grants the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint in
the case docketed as ELBERT COX, JR., CECIL WAYNE FRANKLIN, JOHN
SPEARS, WANDA BEASLEY, DONALD KING, LINDSEY PENNINGTON, TERESA
PRESTON, and BEVERLY PRESLEY, Personal Representative of the
Estate of Annabell Gordon, Plaintiffs, v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS,
N.V., and PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION,
Defendants, CIVIL NO. 13-406-GFVT.

The Plaintiffs in this putative class action lawsuit are former
employees of Defendant, Philips Electronics North America. They
claim that the Defendant "knowingly exposed them to hazardous
substances used in the production process and falsely assured them
that their working conditions were safe."

District Judge Gregory Van Tatenhove, in his Memorandum Opinion
and Order executed on March 31, 2015, partially granted and
partially denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. A copy of the
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at http://is.gd/0d8M8k
from Leagle.com.

Judge Tatenhove ordered that (1) the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
be granted; (2) the Plaintiffs' claims be dismissed with
prejudice, except its claims for fraud and fraudulent concealment;
(3) the Plaintiffs' claims for fraud be dismissed without
prejudice; (4) the Defendants' Motion to Strike be denied for
being moot; (5) the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File an
Amended Complaint be partially granted, such that they may amend
their Complaint to "include the additional factual allegations and
request for bifurcation set forth in the tendered amended
complaint", and partially denied such that the Plaintiffs are not
permitted to "amend their First Amended Class Action Complaint to
allege the additional negligence per se claim"; and (6) the
Plaintiffs are to file an amended complaint consistent with the
Memorandum Opinion and Order within fourteen days from the date of
the Order.

Evan McDonald Rice -- 250 W Main St Ste 1900 Lexington, Kentucky
40507 -- The Getty Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters --
jwinters@gettylawgroup.com -- Mary Ann Getty, The Getty Law Group,
PLLC & Richard A. Getty -- rgetty@gettylawgroup.com -- , The Getty
Law Group, PLLC, Attorneys for Plaintiffs Elbert Cox, Jr., Cecil
Wayne Franklin, John Spears, Wanda Beasley, Donald King, Lindsey
Pennington, Teresa Preston, and Beverly Presley.

Adam Clay Reeves -- areeves@bgdlegal.com -- Bingham Greenebaum
Doll LLP, Brian M. Johnson -- BJohnson@dickinsonwright.com --
Dickinson Wright PLLC & Matthew A. Stinnett, Dickinson Wright
PLLC, Attorney for Defendant Philips Electronics North America
Corporation


LENOVO (US) INC: Faces "Wong" Suit in Cal. Over Harmful Spyware
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vincent Wong and Nagasubrahmanyam Kummaragunta, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lenovo (United
States), Inc. and Superfish, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-01478 (N.D.
Cal., March 31, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of
selling new computers with preinstalled harmful and offensive
spyware and malware.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108-3551
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Property Owners Entitled to Flood Insurance
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
owners of a property damaged in Hurricane Sandy aren't entitled to
reimbursement under the federal flood insurance program for
removal of debris from elsewhere that was deposited in their yard,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ruled in a
case of first impression for federal appellate courts.

The appeals court affirmed a ruling by U.S. District Judge Anne
Thompson of the District of New Jersey that found plaintiffs
Michael and Geraldine Torre were not entitled to reimbursement of
$15,520 they paid to remove debris from outside their home in
Mantoloking.  Language in their Liberty Mutual policy under the
Standard Flood Insurance Program, which covers expenses for
removing "nonowned debris that is on or in insured property,"
applies to the house but not the entire parcel of land, the court
ruled.

The Torres' property sustained flood damage and they were
reimbursed $235,751 for repairs, which included costs of removing
storm-generated debris from the house, the Third Circuit's per
curiam opinion said.

The plaintiffs, who were self-represented, argued that "insured
property" included their entire parcel of land, while Liberty
Mutual took the position that "insured property" only applies to
property insured under the flood insurance policy, which does not
include land.

Judges Thomas Ambro, Thomas Vanaskie and Dolores Sloviter said
Liberty Mutual's interpretation is "the only reasonable one when
viewed in light of the Standard Flood Insurance Program as a
whole."

The SFIP states that it covers damage to dwellings and other
specified structures, as well as property associated with those
structures, the court said.  The program states that it does not
cover land, land values, lawns, trees, shrubs, plants, growing
crops, fences, retaining walls, seawalls or bulkheads, nor does it
cover those portions of walks, walkways, decks, driveways, patios
and other surfaces located outside the perimeter walls of the
insured buildings, the court noted.

"The entire parcel of land thus cannot constitute 'insured
property,' because it is not insured by the SFIP at all," the
court said.

The panel rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the term
"property" should be given its ordinary meaning, which includes
land.  The court also rejected the plaintiffs' claim that the term
"insured property" means their property at 1234 Ocean Ave., in its
entirety, because that is the property listed on the declarations
page and thus is the property that is insured. The SFIP expressly
distinguishes between the described location and the insured
property, the panel said.

The plaintiffs also argued that the policy's debris-removal
provision should reimburse them for removing debris from the yard
because, if it only pertained to the house, it would be listed in
the article governing buildings rather than the article governing
"other coverages."  But the panel said the plaintiffs
misunderstood the structure of the SFIP, which is organized by
type of coverage rather than type of insured property.

The court said the ruling, which was designated precedential,
appears to be the first in which a federal court of appeals has
interpreted the term "insured property" as it appears in the
SFIP's debris-removal provision.  The parties identified one other
decision addressing a similar issue, Keating v. State Farm Fire &
Casualty, a U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania case from 2002.

In that case, the court concluded that the terms of contract
clearly provide that nonowned debris removal is covered only if
the debris is in or on the building.  One other decision
addressing the same issue, Dickson v. American Bankers Insurance,
issued in 2013 by the U.S. District Court for District of North
Dakota, concluded that the provision does cover the removal of
nonowned debris from the policyholder's land, but that case is
"not persuasive on this point" because the court in that case did
not address Keating, and provided very little reasoning and no
legal support for its conclusion, the panel said.

The plaintiffs did not return a call seeking comment on the
ruling, nor did the lawyer for Liberty Mutual, Gerald Nielsen of
the Nielsen Law Firm in Metairie, Louisiana.


LONG SPRING: Faces "Candia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Caritino Candia, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Long Spring Garden, Inc. (d/b/a Long Spring Garden) et
al, Case No. 1:15-cv-01710 (E.D.N.Y., March 31, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours in a week.

Long Spring Garden, Inc. owns and operates a Chinese restaurant
located at 62-05 Roosevelt Avenue, Woodside, New York 11377.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Duckworth" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tammy Duckworth, and Jay Duckworth, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 5:15-cv-00042 (W.D.N.C, March 31, 2015), alleges that the
Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that
fails to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde
standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive
levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human
carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and
the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mona L. Wallace, Esq.
      William M. Graham, Esq.
      John Hughes, Esq.
      Cathy A. Williams, Esq.
      WALLACE & GRAHAM, P.A.
      525 N. Main Street
      Salisbury, NC 28144
      Telephone: (704) 633-5244
      E-mail: mwallace@wallacegraham.com
              bgraham@wallacegraham.com
              jhughes@wallacegraham.com
              cwilliams@wallacegraham.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Roach" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
----------------------------------------------------------
Danny R. Roach, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-00185 (E.D.
Ark., April 1, 2015), alleges that the Defendants manufactured,
labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that fails to comply with
relevant and applicable formaldehyde standards. The Chinese
Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive levels of formaldehyde,
which is categorized as a known human carcinogen by the United
States National Toxicology Program and the International Agency
for Research on Cancer.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
     JOHNSON & VINES, PLLC
     2226 Cottondale, Suite 210
     Little Rock, AR 72202
     E-mail: (501) 0372-1300
     Telephone: cjennings@johnsonvines.com

         - and -

     Todd Wooten, Esq.
     WOOTEN LAW FIRM
     2226 Cottondale Lane, Suite 210
     Little Rock, AR 72202
     Telephone: (501) 218-6064
     E-mail: todd@wootenlaw.net


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Fitzgerald" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Fitzgerald and Jennifer Sbarboro v. Lumber Liquidators,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-02583 (N.D. Ill., March 26, 2015),
alleges that the Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese
Flooring that fails to comply with relevant and applicable
formaldehyde standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses
excessive levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known
human carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program
and the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
      Francis Richard Greene, Esq.
      James O. Latturner, Esq.
      Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
      EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN LLC
      20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 739-4200
      E-mail: ccombs@edcombs.com
              fgreene@edcombs.com
              jlatturner@edcombs.com
              courtecl@edcombs.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Matthews" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
-------------------------------------------------------------
Deberah Matthews, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:15-cv-00934 (E.D. La., March 26, 2015), alleges that the
Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that
fails to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde
standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive
levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human
carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and
the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dawn M. Barrios, Esq.
      Bruce S. Kingsdorf, Esq.
      Zachary L. Wool, Esq.
      BARRIOS, KINGSDORF & CASTEIX, L.L.P.
      701 Poydras Street, Suite 3650
      New Orleans, LA 70139-3650
      Telephone: (504) 524-3300
      Facsimile: (504) 524-3313
      E-mail: barrios@bkc-law.com
              bkingsdorf@bkc-law.com
              zwool@bkc-law.com

         - and -

      Gerald E. Meunier, Esq.
      M. Palmer Labert, Esq.
      GAINSBURGH BENJAMIN DAVID MEUNIER & WARSHAUER, LLC
      2800 Energy Centre, 1100 Poydras Street
      New Orleans, LA 70163-2800
      Telephone: 504-522-2304
      Facsimile: 504-2528-9973
      E-mail: gmeunier@gainsben.com
              plambert@gainsben.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kandria Williams, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:15-cv-02260 (C.D. Cal., March 26, 2015), alleges that the
Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that
fails to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde
standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive
levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human
carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and
the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marc M. Seltzer, Esq.
      Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
      SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
      1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950
      Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
      Telephone: (310) 789-3100
      Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
      E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com
              ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com

         - and -

      Matthew R. Berry, Esq.
      SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800
      Seattle, WA 98101-3000
      Telephone: (206) 516-3880
      Facsimile: (206) 516-3883
      E-mail: mberry@susmangodfrey.com


LYFT INC: Adds Keker & Van Nest to Defense Team
-----------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for Law.com, reports that with a federal judge
declaring earlier in March that a jury should decide whether Lyft
Inc. has been misclassifying drivers as contractors under
California state law, the company has beefed up its defense team.

Lawyers at Keker & Van Nest, including partners Rachael Meny --
rmeny@kvn.com -- and R. James Slaughter -- rslaughter@kvn.com --
entered appearances on behalf of Lyft two days after U.S. District
Judge Vince Chhabria of the Northern District of California let a
proposed class action against the ride-hailing service survive a
motion to dismiss.

The Keker lawyers are supplementing Lyft's prior counsel from
labor and employment firm Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &
Stewart.

The employment class action against Lyft, originally filed in
2013, claims the company should provide drivers, currently
classified as independent contractors, with certain benefits and
protections due to employees under the California Labor Code.  The
same day Judge Chhabria issued his decision denying Lyft's motion
to dismiss, his Northern District colleague Edward Chen gave the
green light to a similar suit brought on behalf of drivers for
Lyft's rival Uber Technologies Inc.

Uber is represented in its suit by counsel at Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius.


MCDONALD'S CORPORATION: Sued Over Blind Inaccessible Machines
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Dicarlo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. McDonald's Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-02273
(S.D.N.Y., March 26, 2015), alleges that the Defendant's denied
blind individuals throughout the United States equal access to the
goods and services it provides to non-visually disabled customers
through inaccessible Freestyle machines at thousands of McDonald's
locations in New York State and throughout the United States.

McDonald's Corporation is a national corporation that franchises,
owns, leases and subleases a chain of fast food restaurants to
tenants or franchisees throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MICHIGAN: DOC Sued Over Failure to Provide Assistance for Deaf
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Ann McBride, Brian Stanley Wittman, and Ralph Williams, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Michigan
Department of Corrections, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-11222 (E.D.
Mich., March 31, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to provide effective communication and other necessary
accommodations and assistance to prisoners who are deaf or hard of
hearing that enable them to adequately maintain contact with loved
ones, have access to educational opportunities (including academic
classes, vocational training, and other programs) offered to
prisoners, access necessary medical care, participate in religious
services, or access telephone and television services.

Michigan Department of Corrections owns and operates 33
correctional facilities throughout Michigan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chris E. Davis, Esq.
      MICHIGAN PROTECTION & ADVOCACY SERVICE, INC.
      4905 Legacy Parkway, Suite 500
      Lansing, MI 48911-4264
      Telephone: (517) 487-1755
      E-mail: cdavis@mpas.org

         - and -

      Abraham Singer, Esq.
      KITCH DRUTCHAS WAGNER VALITUTTI & SHERBROOK
      One Woodward Avenue, Suite 2400
      Detroit, MI 48226-5485
      Telephone: (313) 965-7900
      E-mail: abraham.singer@kitch.com

         - and -

      Andrew D. Lazerow, Esq.
      Stephen C. Bartenstein, Esq.
      Matthew J. Hegreness, Esq.
      COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
      One City Center
      850 Tenth Street, NW
      Washington, DC 20001-4956
      Telephone: (202) 662-6000
      Facsimile: (202) 778-6000
      E-mail: alazerow@cov.com
              sbartenstein@cov.com
              mhegreness@cov.com

          - and -

      Deborah M. Golden, Esq.
      Elliot M. Mincberg, Esq.
      WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND URBAN
      AFFAIRS
      11 Dupont Circle, NW Suite 400
      Washington, DC 20036
      Telephone: (202) 319-1000
      Facsimile: (202) 319-1010
      E-mail: Deborah_golden@washlaw.org
              elliot_mincberg@washlaw.org


MOLYCORP INC: Colorado Securities Action Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado
dismissed on March 31, 2015, the case captioned In Re MOLYCORP,
INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Civil Action No. 12-CV-00292-RM-KMT,
an uncertified securities fraud class action.

District Judge Raymond P. Moore, in his Order dated March 31,
2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/3Uc1QSfrom
Leagle.com, granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; dismissed,
without prejudice, Plaintiffs' Consolidated Complaint; and, gave
Plaintiffs leave to file an Amended Complaint within 35 days from
the date the said Order was entered.

Robert Grabowski, Plaintiff, represented by Trig Randall Smith --
trigs@csgrr.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, and Jeffrey
Allen Berens -- contact@dyerberens.com -- Dyer & Berens, LLP.

Marjorine Dowd, Plaintiff, represented by Trig Randall Smith --
trigs@csgrr.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, and Jeffrey
Allen Berens -- contact@dyerberens.com -- Dyer & Berens, LLP.

Jayne McCarthy, Plaintiff, represented by Trig Randall Smith --
trigs@csgrr.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, and Jeffrey
Allen Berens -- contact@dyerberens.com -- Dyer & Berens, LLP.

Kyle Hare, Plaintiff, represented by Trig Randall Smith --
trigs@csgrr.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, and Jeffrey
Allen Berens -- contact@dyerberens.com -- Dyer & Berens, LLP.

Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund, Plaintiff, represented by
Trig Randall Smith -- trigs@csgrr.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd, LLP, and Jeffrey Allen Berens -- contact@dyerberens.com --
Dyer & Berens, LLP.

Eugene R. Salmon, Plaintiff, represented by Trig Randall Smith --
trigs@csgrr.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, and Jeffrey
Allen Berens -- contact@dyerberens.com -- Dyer & Berens, LLP.

Joseph Martiny, Plaintiff, represented by Trig Randall Smith --
trigs@csgrr.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, and Jeffrey
Allen Berens -- contact@dyerberens.com -- Dyer & Berens, LLP.

Robert DeStefano, Plaintiff, represented by Trig Randall Smith --
trigs@csgrr.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, and Jeffrey
Allen Berens -- contact@dyerberens.com -- Dyer & Berens, LLP.

John F. Ashburn, Jr., Defendant, represented by Trig Randall Smith
-- trigs@csgrr.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, and
Jeffrey Allen Berens -- contact@dyerberens.com -- Dyer & Berens,
LLP.

Ross R. Bhappu, Defendant, represented by Gregory J. Kerwin --
gkerwin@gibsondunn.com, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP.

John L. Burba, Defendant, represented by Eric Neil Landau --
elandau@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Kevin Hugh Logan --
klogan@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, and Travis Shenandoah Biffar --
tbiffar@jonesday.com -- Jones Day.

Craig M. Cogut, Defendant, represented by Stephen M. Baldini --
sbaldini@akingump.com -- Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP,
and Brian Thomas Carney -- bcarney@akingump.com -- Akin, Gump,
Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP.

Brian T. Dolan, Defendant, represented by Gregory J. Kerwin --
gkerwin@gibsondunn.com, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP.

Mark Kristoff, Defendant, represented by Gregory J. Kerwin --
gkerwin@gibsondunn.com, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP.

Charles R. Henry, Defendant, represented by Gregory J. Kerwin --
gkerwin@gibsondunn.com, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP.

Jack E. Thompson, Defendant, represented by Gregory J. Kerwin --
gkerwin@gibsondunn.com, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP.

Russell D. Ball, Defendant, represented by Gregory J. Kerwin --
gkerwin@gibsondunn.com, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP.

Alec Machiels, Defendant, represented by Gregory J. Kerwin --
gkerwin@gibsondunn.com, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP.

Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Defendant, represented by Jonathan D.K.
Youngwood -- jyoungwood@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett,
LLP, and Peter George Koclanes -- pkoclanes@shermanhoward.com --
Sherman & Howard, L.L.C..

J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Defendant, represented by Jonathan
D.K. Youngwood -- jyoungwood@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher &
Bartlett, LLP, and Peter George Koclanes --
pkoclanes@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman & Howard, L.L.C..

Pegasus Capital Advisors, L.P., Defendant, represented by Stephen
M. Baldini -- sbaldini@akingump.com -- Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer
& Feld, LLP, and Brian Thomas Carney -- bcarney@akingump.com --
Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP.

RCF Management, LLC, Defendant, represented by Stephen Kirk
Ingebretsen -- kingebretsen@shb.com -- Sander Ingebretsen & Wake,
P.C, and  Daniel F. Wake -- dwake@shb.com -- Sander Ingebretsen &
Wake, P.C..

T-II Holdings, LLC, Defendant, represented by David Adam Berger --
dberger@abv.com -- Allegaert Berger Vogel LLP.

Knight Capital Americas, L.P., Defendant, represented by Jonathan
D.K. Youngwood -- jyoungwood@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher &
Bartlett, LLP, and Peter George Koclanes --
pkoclanes@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman & Howard, L.L.C..

Stifel, Nicolaus & Company Incorporated, Defendant, represented by
Jonathan D.K. Youngwood -- jyoungwood@stblaw.com -- Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett, LLP, and Peter George Koclanes --
pkoclanes@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman & Howard, L.L.C..

BNP Paribas Securities Corp., Defendant, represented by Jonathan
D.K. Youngwood -- jyoungwood@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher &
Bartlett, LLP, and Peter George Koclanes --
pkoclanes@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman & Howard, L.L.C..

CIBC World Markets Corp., Defendant, represented by Jonathan D.K.
Youngwood -- jyoungwood@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett,
LLP, and Peter George Koclanes -- pkoclanes@shermanhoward.com --
Sherman & Howard, L.L.C..

Piper Jaffray & Co., Defendant, represented by Jonathan D.K.
Youngwood -- jyoungwood@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett,
LLP, and Peter George Koclanes -- pkoclanes@shermanhoward.com --
Sherman & Howard, L.L.C..

RBS Securities Inc., Defendant, represented by Jonathan D.K.
Youngwood -- jyoungwood@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett,
LLP, and Peter George Koclanes -- pkoclanes@shermanhoward.com --
Sherman & Howard, L.L.C..

Dahlman Rose & Company, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jonathan
D.K. Youngwood -- jyoungwood@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher &
Bartlett, LLP, and Peter George Koclanes --
pkoclanes@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman & Howard, L.L.C..

Molycorp Shareholder Group, Plaintiff, represented by J Jeffrey
Allen Berens -- contact@dyerberens.com -- Dyer & Berens, LLP.

Angelo Albano, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Allen Berens --
contact@dyerberens.com -- Dyer & Berens, LLP.

Edward Alexander, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey S. Nobel --
jnobel@snliaw.com -- Izard Nobel LLP.

The Allen Group, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Mark Villanueva
-- 1755 Blake St, #225 Denver, CO 80202 -- Jeffrey M. Villanueva,
P.C., and  Nicole Susan Schram -- 1755 Blake St, #225 Denver, CO
80202-- Jeffrey M. Villanueva, P.C..

Molycorp, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gregory J. Kerwin --
gkerwin@gibsondunn.com, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, and Allison
Kaye Kostecka -- akostecka@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher, LLP.

Mark A. Smith, Defendant, represented by Eric Neil Landau --
elandau@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, GGregory J. Kerwin --
gkerwin@gibsondunn.com, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Kevin Hugh
Logan -- klogan@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, and Travis Shenandoah
Biffar -- tbiffar@jonesday.com -- Jones Day.

James S. Allen, Defendant, represented by Eric Neil Landau --
elandau@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, GGregory J. Kerwin --
gkerwin@gibsondunn.com, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Kevin Hugh
Logan -- klogan@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, and Travis Shenandoah
Biffar -- tbiffar@jonesday.com -- Jones Day.

Philip Marner, Movant, represented by Jeffrey Allen Berens --
contact@dyerberens.com -- Dyer & Berens, LLP, Trig Randall Smith
-- trigs@csgrr.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, Benjamin
James Sweet -- bsweet@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch LTD, John
Jay Gross, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Jonah H. Goldstein
-- jonahg@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, Joshua
Angelo Materese -- jmaterese@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP, Meredith Leigh Lambert -- mlambert@ktmc.com -- Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Michael Keith Yarnoff --
myarnoff@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP & Regis C.
Worley, Jr. -- rworley@rgrdlaw.com - Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd,
LLP.

Jerry W. Jewell, individually and as Trustee for the Jerry W.
Jewell Trust, Movant, represented by Jeffrey Allen Berens --
contact@dyerberens.com -- Dyer & Berens, LLP, Trig Randall Smith
-- trigs@csgrr.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, Benjamin
James Sweet -- bsweet@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch LTD, John
Jay Gross, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Jonah H. Goldstein
-- jonahg@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, Joshua
Angelo Materese -- jmaterese@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP, Meredith Leigh Lambert -- mlambert@ktmc.com -- Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Michael Keith Yarnoff --
myarnoff@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP & Regis C.
Worley, Jr. -- rworley@rgrdlaw.com - Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd,
LLP.

Donald McAlpin, Movant, represented by Jeffrey Allen Berens --
contact@dyerberens.com -- Dyer & Berens, LLP, Trig Randall Smith
-- trigs@csgrr.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, Benjamin
James Sweet -- bsweet@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch LTD, John
Jay Gross, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Jonah H. Goldstein
-- jonahg@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, Joshua
Angelo Materese -- jmaterese@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP, Meredith Leigh Lambert -- mlambert@ktmc.com -- Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Michael Keith Yarnoff --
myarnoff@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP & Regis C.
Worley, Jr. -- rworley@rgrdlaw.com - Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd,
LLP.

Randall Duck, Movant, represented by Jeffrey Allen Berens --
contact@dyerberens.com -- Dyer & Berens, LLP, Trig Randall Smith
-- trigs@csgrr.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, Benjamin
James Sweet -- bsweet@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch LTD, John
Jay Gross, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Jonah H. Goldstein
-- jonahg@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, Joshua
Angelo Materese -- jmaterese@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP, Meredith Leigh Lambert -- mlambert@ktmc.com -- Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Michael Keith Yarnoff --
myarnoff@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP & Regis C.
Worley, Jr. -- rworley@rgrdlaw.com - Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd,
LLP.

Sean L. Harrington, Interested Party, represented by Charles
Walter Lilley -- clilley@LilleyLaw.com -- Charles Lilley &
Associates PC.

Gordon Bratter, Interested Party, represented by Kim Elaine Miller
-- kimmiller225@yahoo.com -- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Bid to Strike Class Claims in "Durocher" Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana, Indianapolis Division, on March 31, 2015, granted the
Defendants' Motion to Strike Class Allegations in the case
captioned JOHN DUROCHER individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, DARIN HARRIS individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, ANTHONY MIRANDO, Plaintiffs, v.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION Transferred per the
conditional transfer order to the Northern District of Illinois,
RIDDELL, INC., ALL AMERICAN SPORTS CORPORATION doing business as
RIDDELL/ALL AMERICAN, RIDDELL SPORTS GROUP, INC., EASTON-BELL
SPORTS, INC., EASTON-BELL SPORTS, LLC, EB SPORTS CORPORATION, RBG
HOLDINGS CORPORATION, Defendants, NO. 1:13-CV-01570-SEB-DML.

District Judge Sarah Evans Barker granted the Defendants' Motion
to Strike, stating "defendants set forth a persuasive argument
supported by the facts of the SAC and controlling legal precedent
that Plaintiffs' current class definition should not be certified
and that granting a motion to strike is the appropriate means by
which class action allegations that cannot be certified are
disposed of." Furthermore, she ruled that the Defendants were not
able to definitively establish that a class action cannot be
maintained in any form. She granted the Plaintiffs an "opportunity
to narrow and more specifically define their proposed class in
light of and consistent with the law and facts discussed herein."

A copy of Judge Barker's Order is available at http://is.gd/2bcYK1
from Leagle.com.

David B. Franco -- One Canal Place - Suite 1000, 365 Canal Street,
New Orleans, LA70130 -- THE DUGAN LAW FIRM, APLC, Don Barrett --
info@barrettlawgroup.com -- BARRETT LAW OFFICE PA, Elizabeth J.
Cabraser -- ecabraser@lchb.com -- LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &
BERNSTEIN, Irwin B. Levin -- ilevin@cohenandmalad.com -- COHEN &
MALAD LLP, James Dugan -- One Canal Place - Suite 1000, 365 Canal
Street, New Orleans, LA70130 -- THE DUGAN LAW FIRM, APLC, Lynn A.
Toops -- ltoops@cohenandmalad.com -- COHEN & MALAD LLP, Richard E.
Shevitz -- rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com -- COHEN & MALAD LLP, Scott
D. Gilchrist -- sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com -- COHEN & MALAD LLP,
Vess Allen Miller -- vmiller@cohenandmalad.com -- COHEN & MALAD
LLP & Wendy Ruth Fleishman -- wfleishman@lchb.com -- LIEFF
CABRASHER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP., Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
Johnn Durocher, Darin Harris, Anthony Mirando

Mark S. Mester -- mark.mester@lw.com -- LATHAM & WATKINS LLP,
Attorney for Defendant NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION

Defendant, represented by Cary A. Slobin --
cary.slobin@bowmanandbrooke.com -- BOWMAN & BROOKE, LLP, Paul
Cereghini -- paul.cereghini@bowmanandbrooke.com -- BOWMAN & BROKE
LLP, Randall R. Riggs -- rriggs@fbtlaw.com -- FROST BROWN TODD LLC
& Robert Latane Wise -- rob.wise@bowmanandbrooke.com -- BOWMAN AND
BROOKE LLP, Attorneys for Defendants RIDDELL, INC., ALL AMERICAN
SPORTS CORPORATION, RIDDELL SPORTS GROUP, INC., and EASTON-BELL
SPORTS, INC.


NNS TRADING: "Pierre" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jocelyn Pierre, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. NNS Trading, Inc., Ilan Shimon, and Dani Shimon, Case No. 0:15-
cv-60625 (S.D. Fla., March 26, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, and other relief in violation
of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a security guard service company
that regularly transacts business within Broward County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard Bernard Celler, Esq.
      RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
      7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
      Davie, FL 33314
      Telephone: (954) 243-4295
      Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
      E-mail: richard@floridaovertimelawyer.com


NORTHERN TRUST: Sued Over Misleading Plan Amendment Notice
----------------------------------------------------------
James P. Teufel, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. The Northern Trust Company, The Northern Trust Company
Pension Plan, The Northern Trust Company Employee
Benefit Administrative Committee, and John and Mary Does 1-10,
Case No. 1:15-cv-02822 (N.D. Ill., March 31, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for violation of Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, specifically by providing a deceptive and misleading
notice of the 2012 Amendment notice that falsely assured
participants that benefits earned under the Traditional Benefit
Formula through March 31, 2012, would not be impacted by the 2012
Amendment.

The Defendants own and operate an Illinois banking corporation
with its principal place of business located in Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tracey L. Wolfe, Esq.
      Luke DeGrand, Esq.
      DEGRAND & WOLFE, P.C.
      20 South Clark Street, Suite 2620
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 236-9200
      Facsimile: (312) 236-9201
      E-mail: twolfe@degrandwolfe.com
              ldegrand@degrandwolfe.com


PACCAR INC: Sued in D.N.J. Over Defective Vehicles Engine & ATS
---------------------------------------------------------------
BK Trucking Co. and Santelli Trucking, Inc, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Paccar, Inc.,
Paccar Engine Company, Kenworth Truck Company, and Peterbuilt
Motors Company, Case No. 1:15-cv-02282 (D.N.J., March 31, 2015),
arises out of the Defendants' unfair, deceptive and fraudulent
business practices of selling trucks and other heavy duty vehicles
with defective PACCAR MX-13 diesel engines and After-Treatment
System with integrated systems and their parts and components
(ATS).

The Defendants are international manufacturers and distributors of
heavy-duty commercial vehicles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James C. Shah, Esq.
      Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
      SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
      475 White Horse Pike
      Collingswood, NJ 08107
      Telephone: (856) 858-1770
      Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
      E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com
              nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com

         - and -

      John W. Trimble, Esq.
      TRIMBLE & ARMANO
      900 Route 168 Suites B1-B2
      Turnersville, NJ 08012
      Telephone: (856) 232-9500
      Facsimile: (856) 232-9698
      E-mail: john.trimble@trimbleandarmano.com
        - and -

      Theodore J. Leopold, Esq.
      Leslie M. Kroeger, Esq.
      COHEN, MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
      2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
      Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
      Telephone: (561) 515-1400
      Facsimile: (561) 515-1401
      E-mail: tleopold@cohenmilstein.com
              lkroeger@cohenmilstein.com

         - and -

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


PATRIOT PAYMENT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Goli Ranekouhi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Patriot Payment Group LLC, Case No. 8:15-cv-00492
(C.D. Cal., March 31, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's
practice of placing non-emergency call using an artificial or
prerecorded voice in an attempt to collect a debt.

Patriot Payment Group LLC is engaged in the business of assisting
merchants with credit card processing.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr. #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866)633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
              sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com
              abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com


POTOMAC FAMILY: "Grubb" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Allen Grubb, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Potomac Family Dining Group Operating
Company LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00132 (E.D. Va., March 31, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, costs,
attorney's fees and other relief under the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

Potomac Family Dining Group Operating Company LLC owns and
operates 69 Applebee's franchise restaurants throughout West
Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Allen Schreiber, Esq.
      BURKE HARVEY, LLC
      3535 Grandview Parkway, Suite 100
      Birmingham, AL 35243
      Telephone: (205) 930-9091
      Facsimile: (205) 930-9054
      E-mail: aschreiber@burkeharvey.com

         - and -

      Todd Michael Gaynor, Esq.
      GAYNOR LAW CENTER PC
      440 Monticello Ave, Suite 1800
      Norfolk, VA 23510
      Telephone: (757) 828-3739
      E-mail: tgaynor@gaynorlawcenter.com


PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Forseter" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Forseter and Kayla Joy Sherwood, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Premera Blue Cross, Case No.
2:15-cv-00499 (W.D. Wash., March 31, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to properly secure and protect its users'
sensitive, personally-identifiable information and personal health
information.

Premera Blue Cross is a health plan provider headquartered in
Montlake Terrace, Washington.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dan Drachler, Esq.
      ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP
      1904 Third Avenue, Suite 1030
      Seattle, WA 98101-1170
      Telephone: (206) 223-2053
      Facsimile: (206) 343-9636
      E-mail: ddrachler@zsz.com

         - and -

      Robert S. Schachter, Esq.
      Sona R. Shah, Esq.
      ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP
      41 Madison Avenue, 32nd Floor
      New York, NY 10010
      Telephone: (212) 223-3900
      Facsimile: (212) 371-5969
      E-mail: rschachter@zsz.com
              sshah@zsz.com

         - and -

      Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
      Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
      Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
      COHEN & MALAD, LLP
      One Indiana Square, Ste. 1400
      Indianapolis, IN 46204
      Telephone: (317) 636-6481
      Facsimile: (317) 636-2495
      E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com
              rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
              ltoops@cohenandmalad.com


PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Cossey" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
Tennielle Cossey, Kathleen Connor and Donald Bruce Mountjoy,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Premera Blue Cross, Case No. 2:15-cv-00472 (W.D. Wash., March 26,
2015), is brought against the Defendant failure to properly secure
and protect its users' sensitive, personally-identifiable
information.

Premera Blue Cross is a health insurance provider that offers
comprehensive health, life, vision, dental, stop-loss, disability,
and workforce wellness services. Its corporate headquarters are
located at 7001 220th Street SW, Mountlake Terrace, Washington,
98043.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
      TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC
      936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
      Seattle, WA 98103-8869
      Telephone: (206) 816-6603
      Facsimile: (206) 350-3528
      E-mail: bterrell@tmdwlaw.com

         - and -

      John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN
      201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 223-5505
      Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
      E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com

         - and -

      Robin L. Greenwald, Esq.
      James J. Bilsborrow
      WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
      700 Broadway
      New York, NY 10003
      Telephone: (212) 558-5500
      Facsimile: (646) 293-7937
      E-mail: rgreenwald@weitzlux.com
              jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com

         - and -

      Steven W. Teppler, Esq.
      F. Catfish Abbott
      ABBOTT LAW GROUP P.A.
      2929 Plummer Cove Road
      Jacksonville, FL 32223
      Telephone: (904) 292.1111
      Facsimile: (904) 292-1200
      E-mail: steppler@abbottlawpa.com
              fabbott@abottlawpa.com

         - and -

      Joel R. Rhine, Esq.
      RHINE LAW FIRM, P.C.
      1612 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 300
      Wilmington, NC 28403
      Telephone: (910) 772-9960
      Facsimile: (910) 772-9062
      E-mail: jrr@rhinelawfirm.com


PTC SEAMLESS: Sued Over Failure to Provide Termination Notice
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Eckelkamp, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. PTC Seamless Tube Corp. et al, Case No. 5:15-cv-00073
(W.D. Ky., March 26, 2015), arises out unlawful practice of
terminating employees without cause and failing to provide 60 days
advance written notice of termination.

PTC Seamless Tube Corp. is a Delaware corporation that provides
steel tubing and pipe solutions to multiple industries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
      Rene S. Roupinian, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
      3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 245-1000

         - and -

      Regina A. Jackson, Esq.
      ENGLISH, LUCAS, PRIEST & OWSLEY LLP
      1101 College Street, P.O. Box 770
      Bowling Green, KY 42102-0770
      Telephone: (270) 781-6500
      Facsimile: (270) 782-7782
      E-mail: rjackson@elpolaw.com


RCI HOSPITALITY: "Clark" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Asia O. Clark, Charlene A. Beatty-Bell, Ebony N. Beyah, Princess
N. Fowler, and Nikki J. St. John, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., RCI
Entertainment (North Carolina), Inc., and Top Shelf Entertainment,
LLC, d/b/a Club Onyx Charlotte, Case No. 3:15-cv-00141 (W.D.N.C,
April 1, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate an adult entertainment nightclub
located at 5300 Old Pineville Road, Charlotte, North Carolina
28217.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jule Seibels Northup, Esq.
      NORTHUP MCCONNELL & SIZEMORE, PLLC
      123 Biltmore Avenue
      Asheville, NC 28801
      Telephone: (828) 232-4481
      Facsimile: (828) 232-4482
      E-mail: jsn@northupmcconnell.com


REGENCY ENERGY: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Merger Plans
-------------------------------------------------------------
Leonard Cooperman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Regency Energy Partners LP, et al., Case No.
3:15-cv-00978 (N.D. Tex., March 30, 2015), alleges the proposed
transaction to merge Regency Energy Partners LP with and into
Energy Transfer Partners, GP, L.P. is not focused on the interests
of Regency's unit-holders and its merger consideration severely
undervalues Regency given its recent performance and long term
prospects.

Regency Energy Partners LP is a Delaware limited partnership,
headquartered at 2001 Bryan Street, Suite 3700, Dallas, Texas
75201. It specializes in the gathering and processing, contract
compression, contract treating, transportation, fractionation and
storage of natural gas and natural gas liquids.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      W. Kelly Puls, Esq.
      Mark A. Haney,Esq.
      PULS HANEY, P.L.L.C.
      300 Burnett Street, Suite 160
      Fort Worth, TX 76102
      Telephone: (817) 338-1717
      Facsimile: (817) 332-1333
      E-mail: kelly@pulshaney.com
              mark@pulshaney.com


RESONANT INC: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ramon Arias, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Resonant Inc., Terry Lingren, and John Philpott, Case
No. 2:15-cv-02369 (C.D. Cal., March 31, 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.

Resonant Inc. is a Delaware corporation, which focuses on creating
filter designs for radio frequency ("RF") front-ends in the mobile
device industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


RESPONSIVE DATA: Has Sent Spam Ads, "Stewart" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Stewart, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Responsive Data, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-02383
(C.D. Cal., April 1, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice
of sending spam advertisements and promotional offers via text
messages.

Responsive Data, LLC owns and operates an advertising agency that
conducts business in Los Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr. #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866)633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
              sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com
              abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com


RIDDELL INC: Court Narrows Claims in "Durocher" Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana, Indianapolis Division, on March 31, 2015, partly denied
and partly granted Motions to Dismiss filed by the Defendants in
the case docketed as JOHN DUROCHER individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, DARIN HARRIS individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. RIDDELL,
INC., ALL AMERICAN SPORTS CORPORATION doing business as
RIDDELL/ALL AMERICAN, RIDDELL SPORTS GROUP, INC., EASTON-BELL
SPORTS, INC., EASTON-BELL SPORTS, LLC, EB SPORTS CORPORATION, RBG
HOLDINGS CORPORATION, KRANOS CORPORATION doing business as Schutt
Sports, Defendants, NO. 1:13-CV-01570-SEB-DML.

District Judge Sarah Evans Barker, in her Order entered March 31,
2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/p9gOU8from
Leagle.com, ruled that:

   -- Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claim for Medical
Monitoring is GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE.

   -- Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Common-Law
Negligence Claim is GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE.

   -- Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Products Liability
Claim related to an alleged design defect is DENIED.

   -- Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Products Liability
Claim related to an alleged manufacturing defect is GRANTED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

   -- Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Products Liability
Claim related to an alleged failure to warn is DENIED.

   -- Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Products Liability
Claim based on proximate cause is DENIED.

   -- Defendants' Motion to dismiss Easton-Bell Sports, Inc. is
DENIED.

   -- Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Easton-Bell Sports, LLC; EB
Sports Corp.; and RBG Holdings Corp. is GRANTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

   -- Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' SAC based on the
statute of limitations is DENIED.

David B. Franco -- One Canal Place - Suite 1000, 365 Canal Street,
New Orleans, LA70130 -- THE DUGAN LAW FIRM, APLC, Don Barrett --
info@barrettlawgroup.com -- BARRETT LAW OFFICE PA, Elizabeth J.
Cabraser -- ecabraser@lchb.com -- LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &
BERNSTEIN, Irwin B. Levin -- ilevin@cohenandmalad.com -- COHEN &
MALAD LLP, James Dugan -- One Canal Place - Suite 1000, 365 Canal
Street, New Orleans, LA70130 -- THE DUGAN LAW FIRM, APLC, Lynn A.
Toops -- ltoops@cohenandmalad.com -- COHEN & MALAD LLP, Richard E.
Shevitz -- rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com -- COHEN & MALAD LLP, Scott
D. Gilchrist -- sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com -- COHEN & MALAD LLP,
Vess Allen Miller -- vmiller@cohenandmalad.com -- COHEN & MALAD
LLP & Wendy Ruth Fleishman -- wfleishman@lchb.com -- LIEFF
CABRASHER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP., Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
Johnn Durocher, Darin Harris, Anthony Mirando

Mark S. Mester -- mark.mester@lw.com -- LATHAM & WATKINS LLP,
Attorney for Defendant NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION

Defendant, represented by Cary A. Slobin --
cary.slobin@bowmanandbrooke.com -- BOWMAN & BROOKE, LLP, Paul
Cereghini -- paul.cereghini@bowmanandbrooke.com -- BOWMAN & BROKE
LLP, Randall R. Riggs -- rriggs@fbtlaw.com -- FROST BROWN TODD LLC
& Robert Latane Wise -- rob.wise@bowmanandbrooke.com -- BOWMAN AND
BROOKE LLP, Attorneys for Defendants RIDDELL, INC., ALL AMERICAN
SPORTS CORPORATION, RIDDELL SPORTS GROUP, INC., and EASTON-BELL
SPORTS, INC.


RJ REYNOLDS: Jury Awards $13MM Verdict to Smoker's Widow
--------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Joseph, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that a
Fort Lauderdale jury handed down a $13 million verdict for the
widow of Paul Pollari, an Oakland Park butcher who smoked for
about 50 years and died in 1994 after being diagnosed with lung
cancer.

Jurors awarded $10 million in compensatory damages and $3 million
in punitive damages against cigarette manufacturers R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co. and Philip Morris USA in the trial before Broward
Circuit Judge John Murphy III.

"This is another case involving a man who got addicted to
cigarettes as a teenager when there were no warnings on cigarette
packs and when more than 50 percent of doctors smoked," said
Kelley/Uustal attorney Todd McPharlin, who teamed with colleagues
Eric Rosen and Kim Wald, as well as Alex Alvarez from the Alvarez
Firm in Coral Gables, to represent Mr. Pollari's widow, Rose.

They said Mr. Pollari smoked from his early teens in the 1940s to
August 1993 when he was diagnosed with lung cancer. He started
smoking Camel cigarettes and switched to Kools in 1964 and
Marlboros in 1971. In the 1980s, he switched to Marlboro Lights.

"Paul Pollari tried to quit many times and switched to light
cigarettes, which he mistakenly believed were safer,"
Mr. McPharlin said.  "He never knew all the things tobacco
companies were doing to make cigarettes more addictive."

Mr. Pollari underwent chemotherapy and radiation, but doctors said
nothing could save him.

His widow sued R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris in an Engle progeny
case, the landmark tobacco class action named for the lead
plaintiff, Miami Beach pediatrician Howard Engle.  The Florida
Supreme Court in 2006 struck the $145 billion award and
decertified the Florida smokers' class action verdict against
industry-leading cigarette makers, forcing smokers or their
families to file individual lawsuits.

Attorneys argued Mr. Pollari was addicted to nicotine in
cigarettes, which led to primary lung cancer and death.

Ursula Henninger of King & Spalding in Charlotte, North Carolina,
represented R.J. Reynolds, while Kenneth Reilly  --
kreilly@shb.com -- of Shook, Hardy & Bacon in Miami, handled the
litigation for Philip Morris.  They did not respond to requests
for comment by deadline.

The jury assigned 15 percent of the blame to Mr. Pollari and
divided the remaining 85 percent liability evenly between Reynolds
and Philip Morris.  It awarded $10 million in damages to
Mr. Pollari's widow for the loss of her husband's companionship
and protection and for her mental pain and suffering.  It also
found the two companies concealed or omitted information about
their product's ability to harm users and that Mr. Pollari relied
on that information.  As a result, jurors awarded punitive damages
of $1.5 million each against the two companies.

"Not only does the verdict help Mrs. Pollari find some semblance
of closure, it's another example of jurors seeing big tobacco's
decades-long ruse for what it was -- a lie -- and holding them
accountable," Mr. McPharlin said.

The Pollari case was the second major tobacco victory in as many
months for the South Florida plaintiffs team.

In February, a jury sided with the Kelley/Uustal and the Alvarez
Law Firm in a case that pitted widow Vicki McKeever against Philip
Morris.   It handed down a $17.4 million verdict in that case,
including $11.6 million in punitive damages.


SAFE ENVIRONMENT: Faces "Boodhoo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rohani Boodhoo, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Safe Environment Business Solutions, Inc.,
and Jet Way Security & Investigations, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-01733
(E.D.N.Y., April 1, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of providing security
services to clients across the United Sates.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abdul Karim Hassan, Esq.
      ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
      215-28 Hillside Avenue
      Queens Village, NY 11427
      Telephone: (718) 740-1000
      Facsimile: (718) 740-2000
      E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com


SNYDER'S-LANCE: Falsely Marketed Food Products, Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew McDonough individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Snyder's-Lance, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01751
(E.D.N.Y., April 1, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's false and
misleading product label of Cape Cod; Snyder's of Hanover and
EatSmart brands as All Natural when in fact those products
contained unnatural genetically-modified organisms.

Snyder's-Lance, Inc. is a salty snack maker thatb maintains its
principal place of business at 13024 Ballantyne Corporate Place,
Suite 900, Charlotte, North Carolina 28277.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael R. Reese, Esq.
      George V. Granade, Esq.
      REESE LLP
      875 Avenue of the Americas, 18th Floor
      New York, NY 10001
      Telephone: (212) 646-0500
      E-mail: mreese@reeserichman.com
              ggranade@reeserichman.com

         - and -

      Melissa W. Wolchansky, Esq.
      Dustin Massie, Esq.
      HALUNEN LAW
      1650 IDS Center, 80 South Eighth Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 605-4098
      Facsimile: (612) 605-4099
      E-mail: wolchansky@halunenlaw.com
              massie@halunenlaw.com

         - and -

      Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
      EGGNATZ, LOPATIN & PASCUCCI, LLP.
      54000 S. University Drive, Suite 413
      Davie, Florida 33328
      Telephone: (954) 889-3359
      Facsimile: (954) 889-5913
      E-mail: JEggnatz@ELPLawyers.com


STAIN-AWAY LLC: Illegally Records Telephone Calls, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edgar Velazquez, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Stain-Away, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-02265
(C.D. Cal., March 26, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to disclose its intentional recording of telephone
communications.

Stain-Away, LLC is a New York limited liability company that
offers roof cleaning and pressure washing services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


STEVEN SANN: Pleads Guilty in Phone "Cramming" Scheme Case
----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a Montana man pleaded guilty to
wire fraud and money laundering after prosecutors said his
companies ran up $70 million in unauthorized charges on phone
bills across the nation in a "cramming" scheme.

Cramming involves tricking customers into paying for services they
didn't authorize or receive, prosecutors said.

The U.S. Attorney's Office alleged the case against 59-year-old
Steven Sann of Stevensville involved voicemail accounts and fax
services people may have unwittingly signed up for while answering
questions on websites offering free products or job-search
assistance.

Hundreds of complaints about monthly charges from $9.95 to $24.95
led Mr. Sann's companies to return more than $40 million,
authorities said.  Data collected by the Federal Trade Commission
found many customers didn't know they were being charged.  From
March 2010 to April 2012, less than 1 percent of the people
purportedly with voicemail accounts through the companies actually
accessed them.

The FTC brought civil action against Mr. Sann, his wife, his son,
Nathan, their accountant and nine companies in January 2013,
asking a federal court to shut down the operation.  The agency
said companies run by the Sanns started tacking on unauthorized
phone charges in 2008.

The companies listed were: American eVoice, Ltd.; Emerica Media
Corp.; FoneRight Inc.; Global Voice Mail, Ltd.; HearYou2, Inc.;
Network Assurance, Inc.; SecuratDat, Inc.; Techmax Solutions,
Inc.; and Voice Mail Professionals, Inc.

Nathan Sann has said they stopped charging customers in April
2012.  He reached an agreement with the FTC in November that bans
him from placing charges on consumers' phone bills.  It called for
a $21 million judgment, but that amount would be suspended if Sann
surrendered precious metal coins to the agency.  The value of the
coins was unclear.

Steven Sann was initially charged with 32 counts of wire fraud,
two counts of money laundering and one count of conspiracy.  He
pleaded guilty to one count each of wire fraud and money
laundering on March 27 during a hearing before U.S. District Judge
Dana Christensen.

His attorney, Peter Lacney, said the plea agreement recommends a
two-year prison term when Mr. Sann is sentenced on July 17.

The FTC case against Steven Sann was put on hold pending the
outcome of the criminal case, Mr. Lacney said.  It was not
immediately clear Monday where the FTC case against Sann's wife
stood.  An FTC spokesman did not immediately return a phone
message from The Associated Press.


SUPERIOR ENERGY: Faces "Valdez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adan Valdez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Superior Energy Services, Inc., d/b/a SPC Rentals, and
Warrior Energy Services, Corp., Case No. 2:15-cv-00144 (S.D. Tex.,
March 26, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
week.

The Defendants specialize in providing oilfield services to
various drilling and production companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TEKSOLV INC: Faces "Thurston" Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael L. Thurston and James S. Newell, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Teksolv, Inc., Case No. 5:15-
cv-00592 (N.D. Ohio, March 26, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.

Teksolv, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation that provides professional
service solutions for industrial markets, focusing on safety and
training services, systems integrations and oilfield automation
services, engineering consulting, and environmental and
occupational health services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James J. Collum, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF JAMES J. COLLUM
      Ste. 400, 4774 Munson Street, NW
      Canton, OH 44718
      Telephone: (330) 494-4877
      Facsimile: (330) 433-1313
      E-mail: jcollum@collumlawoffice.com


TROY MOTORS: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers OT, "Harnden" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Harnden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Troy Motors, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-11238
(E.D. Mich., April 1, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay proper overtime wages in violation of the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

Troy Motors, Inc. is a Michigan corporation that operates as a
used luxury car dealer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennifer Lossia McManus, Esq.
      DIB AND FAGAN PC
      25892 Woodward Ave
      Royal Oak, MI 48067
      Telephone: (248) 542-6300
      E-mail: jmcmanus@dibandfagan.com

         - and -

      Megan A. Bonanni, Esq.
      Kevin M. Carlson, Esq.
      PITT MCGEHEE PALMER & RIVERS, P.C.
      117 W. Fourth Street, Suite 200
      Royal Oak, MI 48067
      Telephone: (248) 398-9800
      E-mail: mbonanni@pittlawpc.com


TRUST SECURITY: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alberto Perez, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b) v. Trust Security Services, Inc., Palmetto Ford Truck
Sales, Inc., Jose C. Lugones, Case No. 1:15-cv-21203 (S.D. Fla.,
March 26, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a security guard service company
that regularly transacts business within 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


UNI-PIXEL INC: Filed Answer to SDNY Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Uni-Pixel, Inc. filed an answer to the class action complaint
pending in the Southern District of New York, the Company said in
its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014.

"In June 2013, two purported class action complaints were filed in
the United States District Court, Southern District of New York
and the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas
against the Company and our CEO, CFO, and Chairman," the Company
said.  "The Southern District of New York complaint was
voluntarily dismissed by plaintiff on July 2, 2013.  The surviving
complaint alleges that we and our officers and directors violated
the federal securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by making purportedly
false and misleading statements concerning our licensing
agreements and product development.  The complaint seeks
unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers
of our common stock during the period from December 7, 2012 to May
31, 2013."

"On July 25, 2014, the judge granted in part and denied in part
our motion to dismiss the case, significantly limiting the claims
remaining in the case.  On August 25, 2014, we filed an answer to
the class action complaint.  We will continue to vigorously defend
against this lawsuit.  The Company has directors' and officers'
and corporate liability insurance to cover some of the risks
associated with securities claims filed against the Company or its
directors and officers and has notified its insurers of these
actions."


UNI-PIXEL INC: Entered Into MOU to Settle Texas Securities Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Uni-Pixel, Inc. entered into memorandums of understanding to
settle the securities class action lawsuit and consolidated
shareholder derivative lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, the Company said in its Form
10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

"In November 2014, we entered memorandums of understanding to
settle the following previously disclosed lawsuits: a) the
securities class action lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, captioned Fitzpatrick, Charles
J. v. Uni-Pixel, Inc., et. al. (Cause No. 4:13-cv-01649); and b)
the consolidated shareholder derivative lawsuit pending in the
District Court of Harris County, Texas, captioned In re Uni-Pixel,
Inc., Shareholder Derivative Litigation (Cause No. 2014-08251),"
the Company said.

"If completed, the class action settlement would result in a
payment of $2.35 million in cash to the settlement class,
inclusive of fees and expenses. In addition, Uni-Pixel would issue
$2.15 million in common stock to the settlement class with a range
of shares of common stock between 358,333 shares and 430,000
shares, calculated by using the trailing 5 day average stock price
from the date of court approval of settlement. The proposed
consolidated derivative settlement would result in a payment of
$150,000 in cash, the issuance of $125,000 of Uni-Pixel common
stock with a range of shares of common stock between 20,833 shares
and 25,000 shares, calculated by using the trailing 5 day average
stock price from the date of court approval of settlement, and
certain governance improvements. The common stock portions of both
potential settlements, totaling, $2,275,000 is included in Other
Expense and in current liabilities (Settlement of Class Action and
Derivative Lawsuits) on the accompanying consolidated financial
statements.

"The Company anticipates the Settlement of Class Action and
Derivative Lawsuits liability will be reclassified to Additional
Paid In Capital and Common Stock upon the issuance of common stock
in connection with the final settlement anticipated to be in May
2015.  The Company anticipates that the cash payment portions of
both settlements, totaling $2.5 million, will be paid from
insurance proceeds, and no amounts have been recorded in the
financial statements.  The Company cannot provide any assurance
that the potential settlements will ultimately be finalized or
approved."


UNITED PARCEL: Pregnancy Ruling to Have Implications for Employers
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Mintzer, writing for Law.com, reports that the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled on one of the most significant employment-
related cases of the term.  In Young v. United Parcel Service, the
justices looked at a former UPS driver's claim that her employer
discriminated against her when she became pregnant and was
medically no longer able to lift heavy packages.

The court found something of a middle ground in its ruling, and
did not outright reject UPS's policy (which has since been
revised) on working while pregnant.  However, the ruling does
provide some guidance for employers dealing with potential
liability from pregnancy discrimination claims, as well as those
trying to prevent claims in the first place.

The case stems from a request that Peggy Young made in 2006 for
UPS to give her light duty during her pregnancy, as Ms. Young's
doctor recommended avoiding heavy lifting while pregnant.  UPS
refused her request because at the time it only accommodated
employees injured on the job, those qualified under the Americans
with Disabilities Act, and those who lost their licenses for drunk
driving or other reasons.

Ms. Young sued under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, an
amendment to the Civil Rights Act passed in 1978 that says
discrimination against women on the basis of pregnancy or related
conditions should be treated as discrimination based on sex.
Ms. Young claimed that allowed her the same opportunities for
light duty accommodations as UPS workers impacted by other
conditions.  In a 6-3 ruling, with Justice Stephen Breyer
authoring the majority opinion, the court did not go so far as to
strike down the UPS policy as illegal, or uphold Young's
arguments.

What the ruling did do was put forward a process by which workers
like Young may prove that they experienced discrimination.  It
clarified that employees can prove discrimination using a test
from McDonnell Douglas v. Green, in which plaintiffs have to show
that they belong to a protected class, sought accommodation and
were denied it, but that their employers did accommodate others
similar in their ability or inability to work.

So what's the fallout for employers worried about preventing
pregnancy discrimination claims?

Katherine Kimpel, managing partner at Sanford Heisler Kimpel, told
CorpCounsel.com that this development shouldn't be too onerous for
companies.  "In terms of in-house attorneys, the takeaway is that
they need to be really mindful and really careful when making
decisions about accommodations," she said.  "If they are providing
accommodations to employees in other circumstances, what the
Supreme Court has said is that they are going to have to answer
for that if they then deny accommodations to pregnant women."

In light of the ruling, employers would be best advised to look at
how pregnant women are treated compared to those requesting other
accommodations across their organization.  "We're just telling
people to take a look at any policy that might affect pregnant
employees," Sally Barron, of counsel at Fisher & Phillips, told
CorpCounsel.com.  "Although on their face they [policies] may look
neutral, the court is telling us you can't just look at the face
of it, you have to look at the effects."

According to Tina Syring, a partner at Barnes & Thornburg and a
member of the firm's labor and employment law department, make
sure supervisors communicate effectively with pregnant workers
about requests and what can be done about them.  "It's going to
need to be an interactive process similar to what you'd need to do
with an ADA accommodation," she said.

As for Ms. Young, she will now have the opportunity to bring her
case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Although her case is not over yet, her side sees the high court's
decision as a victory.  "This is a big win for Peggy Young and
other women in the workplace," Ms. Young's attorney, Samuel
Bagenstos, told The National Law Journal.


VIA QUADRONNO: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Angel D. Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Via Quadronno LLC d/b/a Via Quadronno, K.C. Long, and
Paolo Egidio Della Pappa, Case No. 1:15-cv-02481 (S.D.N.Y., April
1, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate an Italian restaurant with a
principal place of business at 25 East 73rd Street, New York, New
York 10021.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WBS INC: "Norwood" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Norwood, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons v. WBS, Inc., a Texas corporation, d/b/a W-B Supply Co.,
Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00622 (D. Colo., March 26, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

WBS, Inc. is an oilfield supply company operating numerous stores
near oil plays in Colorado, Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, North Dakota
and New Mexico.

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


WHITTAKER CLARK: $1.6MM Cosmetic Talc Asbestos Verdict Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Pat Gallagher, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports
that a $1.6 million New Jersey asbestos verdict involving cosmetic
talc that is believed to be the first of its kind has been upheld
on appeal.

On March 27, a three-judge panel in Kaenzig v. Charles B. Chrystal
Co. affirmed the award against South Plainfield-based talc
supplier Whittaker Clark & Daniels.

The company was the primary supplier of raw talc for a plant that
produced Old Spice and Desert Flower talcum powder that was
contaminated with asbestos, the court said in its opinion.

Steven Kaenzig, 47, who was diagnosed with malignant peritoneal
mesothelioma in 2011, claimed that during the first eight years of
his life, from 1967 to 1975, he was exposed to asbestos carried
home on the work clothes of his father, Wilfred Kaenzig, who
worked at the Old Spice plant, owned by Shulton Inc., in Mays'
Landing, according to the opinion.

Wilfred Kaenzig's employment and Steven Kaenzig's claimed exposure
came to an end in 1975, when Shulton relocated its talc
manufacturing to Tennessee, the opinion said.  The court pointed
out that the move was "motivated by complaints from purchasers of
some of Shulton's 'high-priced' products that its product
containers were coated with talc dust."

Whittaker Clark challenged the verdict on multiple grounds,
including the admission or exclusion of certain evidence and the
denial of its repeated motions, made during and after trial, for
judgment in its favor.

Appeals Judges Carmen Alvarez, Alexander Waugh Jr. and Harry
Carroll found that the trial judge, Vincent LeBlon of Middlesex
County Superior Court, decided those issues correctly and affirmed
the $1.4 million in pain and suffering damages awarded to
Steven Kaenzig, plus $200,000 for his wife's loss of consortium.

It was undisputed that during the eight years in question,
Whittaker Clark supplied 99 percent of the raw talc used at the
Cape May plant and that Wilfred Kaenzig regularly worked with what
the court described as "the injury-producing element (the
contaminated friable dust) of that product."

Wilfred Kaenzig testified that before leaving work, he would try
to brush the talc dust off his hair and clothes but some always
remained and that when he arrived home, he would pick up Steven
Kaenzig and as he got older, play with him, before changing or
showering, according to the opinion.  Steven Kaenzig's mother said
she laundered her husband's work clothes in close proximity to her
son, providing another avenue of exposure.

Steven Kaenzig, who lives in Hammonton, could not recall being
exposed to asbestos after 1975, and denied being exposed at his
job installing fiberglass insulation.  By the time he began that
job, the danger was known and asbestos was no longer used to
insulate, and he worked only in residences, never removed
insulation and would not install any in older homes until old
asbestos insulation was taken out, he said, according to the
opinion.  He was diagnosed in October 2011 after months of severe
abdominal pain.

In 2012, Steven Kaenzig's abdominal lining, gallbladder and part
of his colon were removed, along with tumors from throughout his
chest cavity and pelvic area, including nodules from his
diaphragm, liver, right testicular vessels, rectum and bladder,
the opinion said.

The surgery was followed by four months of chemotherapy during
which he lost 40 pounds, was unable to eat solid food while
experiencing nausea and liver abnormalities, the court said.

Though he returned to work right after chemotherapy, he claimed he
was not yet recovered.  He said he went back because, as a sole
proprietor, he needed the income, according to the opinion.

Mr. Kaenzig sued other companies, including Shulton and its
parent, American Cyanamid Co., now Wyeth Holdings Corp., but all
were dismissed, leaving just Whittaker Clark at the October-
November 2013 trial.

On appeal, Whittaker Clark argued that testimony by Mr. Kaenzig
and his wife about their lack of insurance and financial
difficulty in paying his medical bills should have been excluded
because it invited the jury to consider extraneous issues and
reach a verdict based on sympathy for the plaintiffs.

Since no objection was raised at trial, Whittaker Clark had to
show plain error, a burden it did not meet, the appeals court
said.

Mr. Kaenzig's financial circumstances were relevant to explain why
he returned to work so soon and without it, the jury might have
inferred that he had fully recovered at that time, and "discounted
his damages accordingly," the court said, noting that LeBlon
instructed the jury that in awarding damages, "sympathy must play
no role or part in your thinking."

The difficulty obtaining coverage was likewise "relevant as to why
Steven had not undergone any further treatment" and any prejudice
resulting from the refusal to pay for the PET scan was cured by a
cautionary instruction that it should be considered only for that
purpose and not as "proof of the potential terminal nature of his
illness or for the purposes of medical expenses," the appeals
court said.

Whittaker Clark also appealed based on LeBlon's refusal to compel
the plaintiffs to run over test results on "vintage" samples of
Old Spice, produced at the Cape May plant during the 1960s and
mid-1970s, which a paralegal purchased on eBay from an unnamed
seller.

Plaintiffs expert Sean Fitzgerald, a geologist, tested the samples
but was barred from testifying at trial about the results because
a chain of custody could not be shown, according to the opinion.
Whittaker Clark wanted the raw data and reports of another expert
who tested the samples but who was retained for presuit review and
consultation and not as a litigation expert.

The "exceptional circumstances" required to order discovery of the
opinions of an expert not expected to testify at trial were
lacking because the samples remained available for testing and had
been turned over and there was no evidence they were "mishandled,
tampered with or altered," the appeals court said.

In addition, Whittaker Clark could have done its own testing, but
didn't, and it "failed to demonstrate why it could not procure its
own 'vintage' samples for testing, just as plaintiffs did," the
court said.

The court rejected Whittaker Clark's argument that it was
prejudiced by a reference by the plaintiffs' medical expert to a
Shulton employee with mesothelioma.

The appeals court said there was no reversible error because
LeBlon gave a quick curative instruction, with no objection or
motion to strike by defense counsel, "suggesting that counsel
perceived no error in the instruction."

The appeals court also found no prejudice given that defense
counsel elicited testimony from Wilfred Kaenzig that he was aware
of another mesothelioma case at the Shulton plant and commented on
his testimony during closing argument.

Moshe Maimon of Levy Konigsberg in New York, who, along with Leah
Kagan, represents the Kaenzigs, said he was unaware of another
asbestos verdict involving cosmetic-grade talc, adding that the
"harm caused by asbestos-contaminated talc . . . has long been
overshadowed by the industrial disease aspect of asbestos."

Mr. Maimon said he has three other cosmetic talc cases in New
Jersey, one involving a deceased Shulton employee and two by women
who claim asbestos exposure from the use of Desert Flower and
Cashmere Bouquet talcum powders, the latter of which was made by
Colgate-Palmolive.

Defense lawyer Richard Mirra -- rmirra@hoaglandlongo.com -- of
Hoagland, Longo, Moran, Dunst & Doukas in New Brunswick, declined
to comment on the appeals court's ruling.


YELLOWJACKET OILFIELD: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Carrasco and Juan Ovalle, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Yellowjacket Oilfield Services,
L.L.C., Case No. 2:15-cv-00145 (S.D. Tex., March 26, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
compensation for work in excess of 40 hours a week.

Yellowjacket Oilfield Services, L.L.C. is an oilfield services
company providing a variety of services to the oilfield, including
pressure control services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


YOUKU TUDOU: Faces "Martindale" Suit Over Deceptive Fin'l Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Martindale, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Youku Tudou Inc., Victor Wing Cheung Koo,
and Michael Ge Xu, Case No. 2:15-cv-02246 (C.D. Cal., March 26,
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.

Youku Tudou Inc. purports to operate as an Internet television
company in the People's Republic of China.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 785-2610
      Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
      E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


ZIJA INTERNATIONAL: Illegally Records Calls, "Irby" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Irby, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Zija International, Inc. and DOES 1-10,
Inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-02271 (C.D. Cal., March 26, 2015), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to disclose its
intentional recording of telephone communications.

Zija International, Inc. is a Utah corporation that owns and
operates health and wellness network marketing company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


* DoL to Issue New Rules on "White-Collar" OT Pay Exemptions
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael V. Abcarian, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that the
Department of Labor is expected to issue new rules proposing
changes to the "white-collar" overtime pay exemptions under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.  The new rules likely will open the door
for millions of employees to receive overtime pay as a result of a
significant raise in the minimum salary required for employers to
classify them exempt.

In January 2014, the Economic Policy Institute recommended the DOL
raise overtime salary minimums to qualify for white collar
exemptions by 53 percent to $970 per week ($50,440 annually) from
the current minimum salary of $23,660 ($455 per week).  Doing so
is expected to affect five to ten million employees who will
otherwise be converted to non-exempt status.

While many don't typically think of salaried workers as qualifying
for overtime pay, this has never been true, and the new rules will
make this reality all the more important.  For a salary to meet
the FLSA's requirements, it must generally be a fixed and
unvarying amount that is paid each work week, and not subject to
reduction based upon content or quality of work (subject to a few
authorized deductions that are specified in applicable
regulations.)

The new rules will undoubtedly result in greater expenses and
possibly operational changes as employers struggle to deal with an
increasing population of employees who must be provided overtime
pay.  When released, it is a virtual certainty that the proposed
rules will impose a substantially higher minimum salary for valid
application of the FLSA's administrative, executive, and
professional exemptions.  New requirements may also involve more
stringent and detailed duties tests.  If unprepared, employers may
experience more than sticker shock when these changes take effect.
One of the industries expected to take a hard hit is the retail
industry, because it historically employs a substantial number of
lower paid supervisors.  As Texas ranks second for number of
retail employees in the nation, our state is sure to feel the
impact of the upcoming changes.

Current Exemption Requirements

Most employment law attorneys are familiar with current
requirements employers must meet in order to qualify their
employees as overtime pay exempt. However, with changes on the
horizon, in-house counsel and employment attorneys should brush up
on current law by visiting the DOL's website and reviewing fact
sheet #17 A, "Exemption for Executive, Administrative,
Professional, Computer & Outside Sales Employees Under the Fair
Labor Standards Act."

Potential Outcomes

The extent to which these changes may impact our economy as a
whole will not be known until the DOL's final rules are
implemented, and the effects of massive employee reclassifications
(by choice or law) work their way through the system.  For many
employers, these changes could affect their very ability to remain
in business.

Let's consider the following scenario involving the administrative
exemption as but one of a myriad of practical problems that could
arise from the single act of more than doubling the required
minimum salary for an employee to be classified as overtime
exempt.  As background, remember that historically many employees
classified as administrative exempt have not actually qualified
for exemption (according to the DOL) because they do not regularly
and primarily exercise discretion and independent judgment in
matters of significance.  Under current DOL rules, the "matters of
the significance" test is typified by administrative employees
performing tasks such as: formulating, interpreting or
implementing management or operational policies; committing the
employer in significant financial matters; waiving or deviating
from established employer policies and procedures without need for
higher-level approval; involvement in long-range business
planning; investigation and resolution of workplace matters of
significance; and/or handling employee complaints, arbitrating
workplace grievances, or resolving workplace disputes.  Simply
exercising skill in applying employers' well-established
techniques, procedures, or standards does not currently qualify
employees for administrative exemption.

As you might expect, the interpretation of these requirements has
led to many disputes between employers and the DOL regarding the
question of whether (and which) employees should be considered
administratively exempt from the overtime pay requirement under
current rules.  Usually, however, salary has not been at the core
of those disputes, because the current dollar floor is relatively
low.

Now, add to the mix the fact that today's bona fide,
administratively exempt employees may in the near future become
non-exempt simply because they do not earn at least $970 per week.
Employers' conundrum in this calculus is simple, yet profound.
Employers could increase their direct labor costs by giving all
affected administrative employees a sufficient pay raise (not
likely, unless salaries are currently close to the new minimum).
Or, they could reduce the number of administrative employees to
contain costs while ensuring the payment of compliant salaries to
those administrative employees they retain and hire in the future.
But what if employers need to retain all of their current
administrative employees, but simply can't afford them under the
new requirement? They could assess the cost of overtime pay
against the cost of increased guaranteed salaries, and decide
which is less expensive.  Or, employers could consider raising the
price of goods and services to offset increased direct labor
costs. But what if their customers won't pay those prices because
they can procure needed goods and services elsewhere at better
prices?

While these hypotheticals are overly simplistic, they illustrate
fundamental problems that will ripple throughout the economy as
the new white collar exemption rules are implemented.  Because
such a significant change in the minimum salary requirement is
likely to be implemented at a single point in time, rather than
through a gradual increase, it will undoubtedly cause some
employers to experience massive heartburn, while others may have
no choice but to go out of business or substantially reorganize in
order to remain operationally viable and compliant with the law.

The processes through which the proposed rules must go through
before taking effect will take time, and in reality, will not
likely be complete until this fall, at the earliest.  Despite the
fact that these profound changes will not warrant immediate
compliance, employers and their legal counsel should begin
preparing for imminent and significant change to the employment
landscape.  In the time leading up to mandated action, they
should begin auditing current practices and projecting how likely
changes to the white collar exemption rules will affect their
companies' bottom lines.  Failure to take proactive steps now may
leave employers with momentous obstacles when the final rules
become law.


* Malpractice Plaintiffs Can Get New Experts, Supreme Court Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alyson Palmer, writing for Daily Report, reports that a plaintiff
in a malpractice case faced with a challenge to his expert
affidavit can fix the problem by finding a new expert, the Georgia
Supreme Court ruled on March 27.

The unanimous ruling affirmed a Court of Appeals panel that had
disagreed with a Fulton County judge.

Lawyers for doctors being sued in the case had contended that
allowing a plaintiff to file an affidavit by a new expert would
undermine the requirement that a malpractice lawsuit be
accompanied by an expert affidavit.  But the March 27 decision by
Presiding Justice P. Harris Hines said allowing a new expert did
not conflict with the rule's purpose of deterring the filing of
frivolous malpractice lawsuits.

It's unclear how many cases the decision will affect.  But lawyers
uninvolved with the case were watching it: the Georgia Defense
Lawyers Association and Georgia Trial Lawyers Association each
filed an amicus brief.

A Georgia statute says a professional malpractice complaint must
be accompanied by an affidavit from an expert witness backing up
the plaintiff's claim.  That law says a defendant may move to
dismiss the case on the basis that the affidavit is defective in
some way, but the statute also says "the plaintiff may cure the
alleged defect by amendment" within 30 days of being served by the
motion, thereby avoiding dismissal.  Although the statute has been
on the books since the 1980s, it took on greater importance after
the 2005 state tort law overhaul tightened requirements for expert
qualifications.

In the case decided by the high court, the plaintiff claimed to
have suffered serious complications and permanent problems as a
result of a back surgery.  He said the two neurosurgeons he sued
were negligent in giving the wrong diagnosis and performing
unnecessary and suboptimal surgical procedures.

The defendants challenged an affidavit the plaintiff filed with
his initial complaint, saying the doctor who gave the affidavit
wasn't competent to testify concerning the neurological care at
issue.  Rather than argue why his original expert affidavit was
sufficient, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, accompanied
by an affidavit of a different expert.  But the defense contended
that the affidavit of a new expert wasn't a permissible way to
cure the problem with the first affidavit.

Fulton Superior Court Judge Kimberly Esmond Adams agreed with the
defense that the plaintiff could not file the affidavit of a new
expert, and she dismissed the case.  The plaintiff appealed, and a
three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals -- Chief Judge Herbert
Phipps and Judges John Ellington and Elizabeth Branch --
reinstated his lawsuit, saying plaintiffs should be given latitude
to correct an allegedly deficient affidavit. (Branch indicated she
didn't agree with everything Ellington said in his opinion.)

In the March 27 opinion by Justice Hines, the justices concluded
that the Court of Appeals panel was correct.  Nothing in the
statutes at issue says that the only permissible amendment to an
expert affidavit is one that uses the same expert whose affidavit
originally accompanied the complaint.

Justice Hines added that because the expert affidavit requirement
is an exception to the state's generally lenient rules for
bringing a lawsuit, it must be interpreted in a manner consistent
with that general rule, as long as that interpretation doesn't
detract from the affidavit requirement's purpose, which is to
reduce the filing of frivolous malpractice suits.

"Nothing in our reading of the statute detracts from that
purpose," wrote Justice Hines.  "[The plaintiff] has exercised his
right to amend his complaint as a matter of course under O.C.G.A.
Sec. 9-11-15(a), and produced an affidavit of an expert who opines
that professional malpractice occurred."

J. Paul Mitchell -- PMitchell@weathingtonsmith.com -- of
Weathington Smith in Atlanta, who represents the doctors in the
case, said the impact of the decision may be narrow, because
usually if a plaintiff's expert's affidavit is challenged, the
plaintiff comes back with an amended affidavit by the same expert.
"We feel that it's an important decision," said Mr. Mitchell.
"But at the same time we think that the real-world application
will be somewhat limited, because it doesn't change the
qualifications that an expert must meet.  That remains the same,
so at most it gives plaintiffs 30 additional days after an expert
is challenged to find a new one."

Atlanta lawyer Stacey Carroll, who won the appeal along with
Douglas Davis of Belli, Weil, Grozbean & Davis in Atlanta, said
via email that two plaintiffs lawyers had called him recently
about his case because they are fighting similar motions to
dismiss.  "These plaintiffs now have a backstop by bringing in an
additional expert rather than going 'all in' on the initial
expert's qualifications," said Ms. Carroll   He said defendants
now will be less inclined to file a motion to dismiss a
meritorious case based on a challenge to the expert's competency,
knowing the plaintiff can file an affidavit from a new or
additional expert if any question arises about the original
expert's qualifications.

"The court has confirmed that Georgia's expert affidavit
requirement is a threshold procedural hurdle -- not a technical
trap to be exploited for the dismissal of meritorious cases," said
Carroll.

The case is Gala v. Fisher, No. S14G0919.


* Third-Party Litigation Funding Fuels Canadian Class Suit Abuse
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sue Reisinger, writing for Law.com, reports that the growth of
third-party litigation funding is helping to fuel class action
lawsuit abuse in Canada, according to Lisa Rickard, president of
the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, which has released a
new three-year study of Canadian class action suits.

The report, "Painting an Unsettling Landscape: Canadian Class
Actions 2011-2014," is not good news for general counsel up north.
In Canada, there is an "increasingly favorable atmosphere for
class actions," it states.  It specifically cites the increased
use of third-party litigation funding and Canada's "low standards"
for nationwide class certification as key problems for defendant
companies.

In a March 23 statement, ILR's Ms. Rickard called third-party
funding "a sophisticated scheme for gambling on litigation that
rewards those who invest in the lawsuits, or the gamblers, at the
expense of the class members themselves."

A press release from the ILR added that third-party funding
"remains a barrier to a fair civil justice system, in part because
it threatens to undermine the check on frivolous lawsuits imposed
by various 'loser pays' cost regimes in various Canadian
provinces."

The statement warns, "Given the Canadian Supreme Court's embrace
of lax certification standards, Canadian plaintiffs' attorneys
may begin exploiting liberal discovery rules in the United States
in the hopes of mounting parallel class action litigation in
Canadian provinces."

The "rising tide" of class actions in Canada has been most visible
in suits against companies involved in pharmaceuticals, medical
devices, toxic torts, antitrust and securities fraud, according to
the report.

In its own statement, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce called on
the country's judicial system to be "more rigorous and
transparent" when considering an application to form a class.

"Almost all cases are settled when the class is certified by the
court," said Warren Everson, the Canadian Chamber's senior vice
president for policy.

So "the decision to certify is sometimes a guarantee the
plaintiffs will win something," Everson explained.  "That's not a
very fair situation and not what we expect from the courts."

Both Chamber groups noted that the Law Commission of Ontario is
reviewing the class action process and could decide to limit any
"abusive behavior."  And they urged companies, industry
organizations and insurers that have been -- or may become --
defendants in class actions to provide comments to the commission.

Pointing to the United States, Mr. Everson said, "Our neighbors
south of the border provide a clear example of a class action
regime that is in serious trouble."  His words were confirmed by a
recent Carlton Fields Jorden Burt class action survey that found
in the past three years the number of "bet the company" class
actions in the U.S. has more than tripled, from 4.5 percent to
16.4 percent.  Mr. Everson warned that now Canada is "headed down
the same road, and it's critical that we raise the alarm on this
issue.  Let's not follow in their footsteps."


                             *********

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  * * *