CAR_Public/150415.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, April 15, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 75


                             Headlines

AIPC ENERGY: Faces "Regino" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ALABAMA: Supreme Court Allows Ruling Over Gay Marriage Ban
ALTISOURCE RESIDENTIAL: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
ALUK 888 INC: Faces "Shiu" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
AMERICAN FAMILY: Sued Over Failure to Disclose Insurance Terms

AMERICAN HEALTHCARE: N.D. Ill. Judge Won't Allow Transfer of Suit
ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV: Trial in Suit Over Weak Beer Continues
ARUBA NETWORKS: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Proposed HP Merger
AUTOTRAKK LLC: Faces "Watson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BABYLON BEAUTY: Judge Narrows Claims in "Winfield" FLSA Suit

BANK LEUMI: Helped Procure Sham Loans for Clients, Suit Claims
BAYER AG: Court Refuses to Dismiss "One A Day" Multivitamins Suit
BAYOU CLUB: Faces "Sifuentes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Reason" Suit Says
BP PLC: Sued in S.D. Texas Over Misleading Financial Reports

BP PLC: May Face Insolvency if Oil Spill Fine Tops $2.3 Billion
BRADFORD HOUSER: Class Certification Ruling in Amor Case Upheld
BUFFALO, NY: Erie County Court Order in Race Bias Case Revised
BURLINGTON: Court Junks Class Certification Bid in Smart Case
BUSH ROSS: M.D. Fla. Judge Certified Class in "Roundtree" Case

CALIFORNIA: Trial in Solitary Confinement Suit Set for Dec. 7
CALIFORNIA: Dismissal of Unclaimed Property Suit Affirmed
CAROL'S FASHION: Untimely Appeal Results to Dismissal of Case
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Faces Wage and Hour Class Suit in California
CHEF YU: Judge Awards Attorneys' Fees and Costs in FLSA Suit

CHEVRON CORP: Ecuador Persuaded Hague Tribunal in Pollution Suit
COMCAST CORP: Bid to Stay Action and Compel Arbitration Granted
COMMONWEALTH EDISON: Dismissal of "Hawkins" Suit Affirmed
COOPER VISION: Faces "Cunha" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing
COOPER VISION: Faces "Dotel" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing

COOPER VISION: Faces "Pardoll" Suit Over Lens-Price Fixing
COOPER VISION: Faces "Machikawa" Suit Over Lens-Price Fixing
COOPER VISION: Deadlines to Respond to Actions Continued
COPIA NYC: "Patterson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
COUPONS.COM INC: Initial Offering Was a Rush Job, Investors Say

CROWN CASTLE: Faces "Wojcik" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
DAYTON, OHIO: Judge Recommends Habeas Corpus Petition Dismissal
DICKINSON FINANCIAL: Judge Dismissed "Ward" Overdraft Fee Suit
DIGNITY HEALTH: Accused of Retaliation Due to Harassment Report
DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Suit Says

EMPIRE SERVICES: "Foley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
EMULEX CORP: Being Sold for Too Little to Avago Tech, Suit Claims
FACEBOOK INC: Court Certifies Class of Minor Children/Purchasers
GENERAL MILLS: Court Certifies Class of Minneapolis Residents
GENERAL MOTORS: King & Spalding Asked to Hand Over Ignition Docs

GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Summary Judgment Granted in Thalidomide Case
GO NEW YORK: "Balderramo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
GOLDMAN SACHS: Magistrate Urges Denial of Class Certification
GRIFFIN SECURITY: Faces "Brooks" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
HAIR CLUB: Faces "Clemens" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

HARTFORD, IN: ACLU Challenges Loitering Ban Against Sex-Offenders
HEALTH NET: Conn. High Court Keeps Ruling in "Rathbun" Case
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Sues Former Autonomy Execs Over Botched Deal
HULU LLC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Video Privacy Class Action
IOWA HEALTH: Denial of Class Cert. in Health Care Battle Affirmed

JACKSONVILLE, FL: Consent Decree on Hiring of Firemen Dissolved
JANSSEN PHARMA: Defense to Focus on Causation in Risperdal Case
JERSEY BOYS: "Guzman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
JGWPT HOLDINGS: "Sanders" Suit Remanded to State Court
JOSLYN MANUFACTURING: Sanctions Upheld Against Bolton Sisters

KEITH HARING: Court Tosses Consolidated $40-Mil. Antitrust Suit
KMART CORPORATION: Faces "Hautur" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
LA BEAU: Motion for Default Judgment Granted in "Barcey" Case
LAS VEGAS SANDS: Fails to Disclose "Resort Fee" in Ads, Suit Says
LOCAL LIGHTHOUSE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Wick" Suit Claims

LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: 3rd Cir. Affirms Judgment in "Harbison"
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Phelan" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Latta" Suit Over Chinese-Made Flooring
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces 75 Class Suits Over Laminated Flooring
LYFT INC: Accused of Operating in Memphis Without Proper Licenses

LYFT INC: Didn't Pay Many Drivers Promised Bonuses, Suit Claims
MAKO WASH: Faces "Bello" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
MESA MEDICAL: Dismissal of "Berera" Case Affirmed
MIDLAND CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Wegh" Suit Claims
MORTGAGE INVESTORS: D. Ore. Judge Denies Bid for Protective Order

NAVY FEDERAL: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Payment Protection
NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS: 2nd Circuit Decertify "Johnson" Class Suit
NEW YORK CITY, NY: Trial in "Banno" False Arrest Suit Continues
NEW YORK HOSPITAL: S.C. Ruling in "Ackerman" Case Upheld
OCEAN CC: "Alonso" Plaintiff Has Until Today to File Amended Case

OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Gets Prelim OK of $12.5-Mil. Settlement
PACIFIC GATEWAY: Initial Case Mgmt Conference Moved to June 15
PEGLEG PETE'S: "Stone" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
POLYPORE INT'L: Being Sold for Too Little to Asahi, Suit Claims
PRO PLUS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages

PUDA COAL: Faces Investors' Class Action Over Stock Offering
R.J. REYNOLDS: Fla. Court Affirmed Ruling in "Baker" Case
RAMCON LLC: Faces "McLean" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
REED ELSEVIER: Dismissed From "Allen" Infringement Class Suit
ROCART INC: Accused of Misclassifying Teachers for Child Actors

SBTICKETS.COM: Sold Bogus Tickets for 2015 Super Bowl, Suit Says
SCIENTIFIC DRILLING: "Sizemore" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Sued Over Auto-Renewal of Memberships
SOUTH QUEENS: Faces "Ramjattan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SULLIVAN, NY: Sued for Disenfranchising Hasidic Jew Community

SWCC USA: Falsely Marketed Honey Products, "Kong" Suit Claims
TARGET CORP: Boss, Barber, Farrell, De La Torre are Related Cases
TELETECH@HOME INC: Judge Won't Revisit Ruling in "Cox" Suit
TENNESSEE: Voter ID Law Is Unfair, College Students Claim
TEXAS A&M: Sued by Endowed Donors for Not Giving Free Tickets

TINDER INC: Accused of Falsely Advertising Free Online Dating App
TOYOTA MOTOR: Hackers Can Hijack Cars, "Cahen" Class Suit Claims
TRINITY HIGHWAY: April 24 Hearing on Bid to Reopen Turnpike Case
TS EMPLOYMENT: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Swinton" Suit Says
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Two Judges Refuse to Grant Summary Judgment

USAA CASUALTY: Wash. Appeals Court Won't Allow Varying of Claims
VIACOM INC: Ex-Unpaid Interns Seeks OK of $7.2-Mil. Settlement
WACHOVIA CORP: Wells Fargo May Foreclose Pick-a-Payment Loans
WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Lugo" Suit Over Product Misbranding
WAL-MART STORES: Faces Two Wage-and-Hour Lawsuits

WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime
WELLS FARGO: Certification Judgment in "Jones" Upheld
WELLS FARGO: Case Remanded to Determine Reasonable Attorneys Fees
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces Consumer Class Suit Over Defective Ovens

* Mediation Essential in Wage-and-Hour Class Actions


                            *********


AIPC ENERGY: Faces "Regino" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro Regino, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AIPC Energy, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-00240
(W.D. Tex., March 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 in
a single workweek.

AIPC Energy, LLC is a Texas corporation that provides oilfield
services throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALABAMA: Supreme Court Allows Ruling Over Gay Marriage Ban
----------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court refused to let Alabama block a ruling against
its ban on gay marriage, with two conservative justices opposed,
reports Barbara Leonard, writing for Courthouse News Service.

U.S. District Judge Callie V.S. Granade had found Alabama's ban on
same-sex marriage unconstitutional.

Cari Searcy is the lead plaintiff in the case, having required
court intervention because the state refused to let Searcy adopt
her wife's biological son.  Searcy and Kimberly McKeand were
married in California, but Alabama law does not recognize their
union.

Granade had found that Alabama denied Searcy's adoption petition
based on the Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment and the
Alabama Protection Act.

Searcy fought the laws under the equal-protection and due-process
clauses of the 14th Amendment, while Attorney General Luther
Strange cited Alabama's purportedly "legitimate interest in
protecting the ties between children and their biological parents
and other biological kin."

In her opinion, Granade said the attorney general does not
"explain how allowing or recognizing same-sex marriage between two
consenting adults will prevent heterosexual parents or other
biological kin from caring for their biological children."

Granade wrote that the laws are an "irrational way of promoting
biological relationships in Alabama."

After appealing to the 11th Circuit, Alabama applied to the
Supreme Court for a stay of Granade's order.

With the high court having already taken up an appeal of different
state bans on gay marriage this term, it did not intervene as
Granade's ruling was about to take effect last month, and it shot
down Alabama's request for a stay down March 9 as well.

Justice Antonin Scalia has joined Justices Clarence Thomas on
March 9 in a dissent.  They said Alabama deserved deference in its
bid for a stay "because states are required to comply with the
Constitution, and indeed take care to do so when they enact their
laws."

It is thus "a rare case in which a state will be unable to make at
least some showing of a likelihood of success on the merits,"
Thomas wrote.

The irreparable-injury factor also weighs in favor of granting
Alabama a stay, as do "the equities and public interest,"
according to the dissent.

Thomas additionally pointed to stays that the court has granted
"in similar circumstances."

"This application should have been treated no differently," he
wrote.  "That the court more recently denied several stay
applications in this context is of no moment.  Those denials
followed this court's decision in October not to review seven
petitions seeking further review of lower court judgments
invalidating state marriage laws.  Although I disagreed with the
decisions to deny those applications, I acknowledge that there was
at least an argument that the October decision justified an
inference that the court would be less likely to grant a writ of
certiorari to consider subsequent petitions.  That argument is no
longer credible.  The court has now granted a writ of certiorari
to review these important issues and will do so by the end of the
term.  The attorney general of Alabama is thus in an even better
position than the applicant to whom we granted a stay in Herbert
v. Kitchen."

Any trace of hiding contempt for the case's trajectory disappears
when Thomas slams the majority for "look[ing] the other way as yet
another federal district judge casts aside state laws without
making any effort to preserve the status quo pending the court's
resolution of a constitutional question it left open in United
States v. Windsor."

"This acquiescence may well be seen as a signal of the court's
intended resolution of that question," Thomas added.  "This is not
the proper way to discharge our Article III responsibilities.
And, it is indecorous for this court to pretend that it is.

"T[he] decision represents yet another example of this court's
increasingly cavalier attitude toward the States.  Over the past
few months, the court has repeatedly denied stays of lower court
judgments enjoining the enforcement of state laws on questionable
constitutional grounds.  It has similarly declined to grant
certiorari to review such judgments without any regard for the
people who approved those laws in popular referendums or elected
the representatives who voted for them.  In this case, the court
refuses even to grant a temporary stay when it will resolve the
issue at hand in several months."

The Alabama Supreme Court had ordered probate judges across the
state to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.  By a
7-1 vote, the state's highest court ruled that "Alabama law allows
for marriage between only one man and one woman," and that the
state's probate judges have a duty not to issue any licenses to a
couple that doesn't comport to that law.

The court's 148-page opinion then goes on to harshly critique
Granade's January ruling in Searcy, as well as the high court's
Windsor opinion.

As the Searcy class action wages on, the lead plaintiff in that
case is also now suing Mobile County's probate judge as well for
denying her adoption petition.  Searcy had applied to adopt her
wife's child again after Granade's January ruling, but says
Probate Judge Don Davis is "continuing to enforce the remnants of
those now void laws."

The judge allegedly refused to grant the adoption petition pending
final resolution by the U.S. Supreme Court on the crop of state
bans it agreed to review.

The appellate case is Luther Strange, Attorney General of Alabama
v. Cari D. Searcy, et al., Case No. 14A840, in the Supreme Court
of the United States.


ALTISOURCE RESIDENTIAL: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Martin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Altisource Residential Corporation, William C. Erbey,
Ashish Pandey, Kenneth D. Najour, Robin N. Lowe, and Rachel M.
Ridley, Case No. 1:15-cv-00024 (D.V.I., March 27, 2015),  alleges
that the Defendants made false and materially misleading statement
regarding its reliance on Ocwen Financial Corporation and the
risks relating to its relationship with Ocwen including, but not
limited to, that Ocwen was not properly servicing and selling
loans, that Ocwen was under investigation by regulators for
violating state and federal laws regarding servicing of loans, and
Ocwen's system lack of internal controls.

The Defendants operate a real estate investment trust (REIT) that
acquires and manages single-family rental properties throughout
the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin A. Rames, Esq.
      Semaj Johnson, Esq.
      K. A. RAMES, P.C.
      2111 Company Street, Suite 3
      Christiansted, VI 00820
      Telephone: (340) 773-7284
      Facsimile: (340) 773-7282
      E-mail: Kevin.rames@rameslaw.com
              Semaj.johnson@rameslaw.com

         - and -

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      Phillip Kim, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 686-1060
      Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
      E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
              pkim@rosenlegal.com


ALUK 888 INC: Faces "Shiu" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Man Wai Shiu, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated v. Aluk 888 Inc. d/b/a Chinese Musician
Restaurant, Yik Kei Luk, John Doe and Jane Doe # 1-10, Case No.
1:15-cv-01642 (E.D.N.Y., March 27, 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 151
Greenpoint Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11222.

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


AMERICAN FAMILY: Sued Over Failure to Disclose Insurance Terms
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mong-Tuyen Nguyen and Brandi Wallace v. American Family Mutual
Insurance Company and USAA General Indemnity Company, Case No.
1:15-cv-00639 (D. Colo., March 27, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to disclose to their insureds all material
terms of an insurance policy upon issuance, specifically by
concealing that the coverage is subject to a limit as short as one
year.

American Family Mutual Insurance Company is a Wisconsin
corporation that own and operate a mutual insurance company with
its principal place of business in Wisconsin.

USAA General Indemnity Company owns and operates a mutual
insurance company with its principle place of business in Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert B. Carey, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      11 West Jefferson Street, Suite 1000
      Phoenix, AZ 85003
      Telephone: (602) 840-5900
      Facsimile: (602) 840-3012
      E-mail: rob@hbsslaw.com

         - and -

      John Lee, Esq.
      FUICELLI AND LEE, P.C.
      1731 Gilpin Street
      Denver, CO 80218
      Telephone: (602) 840-5900
      Facsimile: (602) 840-3012

         - and -

      David A. Klibaner, Esq.
      KLIBANER LAW FIRM, P.C.
      899 Logan Street, Ste. 200
      Denver, CO 80203
      Telephone: (303) 863-1445
      E-mail: david@dklawfirm.com

         - and -

      Lori J. Tucker, Esq.
      TUCKER LAW OFFICE
      899 Logan Street, Ste 200
      Denver, CO 80203
      E-mail: lori@ljtuckerlaw.com


AMERICAN HEALTHCARE: N.D. Ill. Judge Won't Allow Transfer of Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer of the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, denied defendants' motion in the case
AL and PO CORPORATION, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN HEALTHCARE CAPITAL,
INC., a California corporation, and JACK ESKENAZI, an individual,
Defendants, NO. 14 C 1905 (N.D. Ill.)

AL & PO Corporation is an Illinois corporation with its principal
place of business in Cook County, Illinois. The defendant American
Healthcare Capital, Inc. (AHC) is a California Corporation that
offers mergers and acquisitions advisory products, with its
principal place of business in Los Angeles County, California. Co-
defendant Jack Eskenazi, is the founder and senior vice president
of AHC, and is domiciled in Los Angeles County, California.

Plaintiff received two unsolicited faxes, each advertising a free
valuation to be performed by AHC. Plaintiff alleges that because
the faxes were unsolicited and plaintiff never consented to
receive them, the faxes violated the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (TCPA).

Defendants contend that the Central District of California is a
more convenient forum for the resolution of the case because all
of defendants' documents and witnesses are located in Los Angeles.
They want to transfer the case to the United States District Court
for the Central District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1404(a).

Judge Pallmeyer denied defendants' motion to transfer the case to
the Central District of California, saying defendants have not
demonstrated that transfer is appropriate.

A copy of Judge Pallmeyer'a memorandum opinion and order dated
February 19, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/ahZPbFfrom
Leagle.com.

AL and PO Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph J Siprut
-- jsiprut@siprut.com -- Gregg Michael Barbakoff --
gbarbakoff@siprut.com -- Ismael Tariq Salam -- isalam@siprut.com
-- at Siprut PC

American Healthcare Capital and Jack Eskenazi, an individual,
Defendants, represented by Ari Nicholas Rothman --
anrothman@Venable.com -- at Venable LLP


ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV: Trial in Suit Over Weak Beer Continues
------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Kevin Koeninger reports that
allegations that Anheuser-Busch InBev intentionally weakens its
brew failed to stir much emotion from the 6th Circuit on March 10.

"[Consumers are getting] the same buzz from 21 beers but should be
getting it from 20 beers," Judge Danny Julian Boggs said, casually
boiling down the class's arguments,

Joshua Boxer, an attorney for the consumers whose class actions
were consolidated in Cleveland, told the court that the world's
largest brewer treats the federal tolerance regulation for alcohol
by volume (ABV) "as a piggy bank, not as a cushion."

Federal regulations set forth by the Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
(TTB) allow for a 0.3 percent variation between the ABV listed on
a product and the actual ABV of the beverage.

The consumers claim Anheuser-Busch takes advantage of the statute
by intentionally watering down its Budweiser and various other
malt beverages to end up at 0.3 percent ABV lower than what the
labels say.

Boxer admitted that one would expect some kind of variance in the
ABV, but said a brewer should "shoot for what is on the label"
when producing the beer.

A federal judge tossed the complaint last year, saying the proper
sounding board for the consumers is the regulatory body they can
lobby for tighter controls.

Ed Crane, attorney for Anheuser-Busch, praised the dismissal at
the hearing.

"The lower court gave the statute its plain meaning," and "nothing
in the record support[s] the definition of the word 'tolerance'
put forth by the plaintiffs," Crane said.

Noting that the TTB statute sets forth a "purely quantitative
tolerance," Crane insisted that any beer produced within 0.3
percent of the ABV listed on the label is compliant.

The attorney also cited links on the TTB website that display
yearly, randomized tests of beer, liquor and wine ABV used to
ensure statutory compliance.

Boxer countered these studies in his rebuttal by pointing out that
manufacturers are kept anonymous in the results, and that the TTB
merely institutes a "pass/fail" system that "does not deter
Anheuser-Busch" from watering down its beers.  He cited the recent
Supreme Court case POM Wonderful v. Coca-Cola to persuade the
judges that the case deserves another shot.

In POM, the Supreme Court voted 8-0 to revive deceptive-trade-
practice claims against Coke regarding the latter's "pomegranate
blueberry" drink, which contains only 0.3 percent pomegranate
juice.

Crane dismissed the connection, saying that the two federal
statutes discussed in that case are irrelevant to the case against
his macrobrewery client.

Also on the appellate panel March 10 were Judges Damon Keith --
who was notably silent throughout the entire proceeding -- and
Gilbert Merritt Jr.

No timetable has been set for a decision by the panel.


ARUBA NETWORKS: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Proposed HP Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that plaintiffs
lawyers with Robbins Arroyo have attacked a proposed $3 billion
deal that would merge Aruba Networks Inc. and Hewlett-Packard Co.

A suit filed on April 1 in the Northern District of California
alleges that Aruba executives are selling shareholders short by
agreeing to the merger.  The lawyers also claim Aruba unfairly
favored HP by locking out competing bidders.

"The proposed acquisition is the product of a hopelessly flawed
process that was designed to ensure the merger of Aruba with HP on
terms preferential to HP and defendants, and detrimental to
plaintiff and Aruba's shareholders," the lawyers wrote.

Representatives from Aruba did not respond to emails seeking
comment on April 2.  In announcing the deal on its website, the
Sunnyvale networking company said "together, HP and Aruba will
deliver converged wired and wireless solutions, leveraging the
strong Aruba brand."

Plaintiffs lawyers claim Aruba stockholders will receive $24.67
for each company share, while the board and management will walk
away with more than $144 million from special payments not
available to ordinary shareholders.  In addition, the agreement
forbids Aruba from communicating with potential competing bidders
except in limited circumstances, requires Aruba to notify HP if it
provides a competing bidder with company information, and requires
Aruba to pay HP $90 million if the proposed deal is dropped in
favor of a better offer.

Such lawsuits have become almost the inevitable result of any
high-dollar deal.  More than 94 percent of mergers and
acquisitions valued at more than $100 million in 2013 triggered
shareholder litigation, according to a report from Cornerstone
Research.


AUTOTRAKK LLC: Faces "Watson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Watson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AutoTrakk, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-00616 (M.D. Pa.,
March 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

AutoTrakk, LLC is a Pennsylvania based automobile leasing
corporation located at 1500 Sycamore Road, Suite 200,
Montoursville, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Derrek W. Cummings, Esq.
      Larry A. Weisberg, Esq.
      MCCARTHY WEISBERG CUMMINGS, P.C.
      2041 Herr Street
      Harrisburg, PA 17103-1624
      Telephone: (717) 238-5707
      E-mail: dcummings@mwcfirm.com
              lweisberg@mwcfirm.com


BABYLON BEAUTY: Judge Narrows Claims in "Winfield" FLSA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Arthur D. Spatt of the Eastern District of New York
granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion in the case
DANNINE WINFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, ALEXANDRA ALLEN, and ERALDA CARCANI,
Plaintiffs, v. BABYLON BEAUTY SCHOOL OF SMITHTOWN INC., doing
business as Long Island Beauty School and Hair Design Institute,
LONG ISLAND BEAUTY SCHOOL, INC., ANTHONY CIVITANO, SALVATORE D.
PAPPACODA, and JOHN DOE ENTITIES, Fictitious name and number
unknown, all conducting business as Long Island Beauty School
and/or Hair Design Institute, Defendants, NO. 13-CV-6289 (ADS)
(SIL) (E.D.N.Y.)

The plaintiff Dannine Winfield is a resident of Suffolk County,
while plaintiffs Alexandra Allen and Eralda Carcani are Florida
residents.

The defendants Babylon Beauty School and Long Island Beauty School
are New York corporations with principal places of business
located in Suffolk County. They are for-profit educational
services businesses that offer students training in cosmetology.
The individual defendants Anthony Civitano and Salvatore D.
Pappacoda are the owners, officers, and directors of the Babylon
Beauty School and the Long Island Beauty School, as well as other
unspecified entities that provide cosmetology training in six
different locations in Florida and New York.

The plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, commenced an action against the defendants and John Doe
Entities conducting business as Long Island Beauty School and/or
Hair Design Institute. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et
seq. (FLSA), Article X, Section 24 of the Florida Constitution and
Section 652 of the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). They also seek to
certify a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and a
collective action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA of
individuals who from 2011 to 2014 were "uncompensated employees of
the Defendants in their profit making personal service
businesses."

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure ("Fed. R. Civ. P") 12(b)(6). In response, on April
28, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended
complaint alleges that the defendants violated (1) FLSA Sections
206, 207; (2) NYLL Sections 198, 652; and (3) Article X, Section
24 of the Florida Constitution. On May 12, 2014, the defendants
filed a motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the amended
complaint.

Judge Spatt granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion
to dismiss. The defendants' first motion to dismiss the complaint
is denied as moot and the second motion to dismiss the amended
complaint is denied with respect to the plaintiffs' claims under
the FLSA and the NYLL, and the plaintiffs' claim under Article X,
Section 24 of the Florida Constitution is dismissed for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.

A copy of Judge Spatt's memorandum of decision and order dated
March 7, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/ozdeOc from
Leagle.com

Attorney for the Plaintiffs:

Leon Greenberg, Esq., P.C.
LEON GRENNBERG, Attorney at Law
2965 S. Jones Boulevard #E3
Las Vegas, NV 89146
Telephone: 702-383-6369

     - and -

LAW OFFICES OF LAUREN GOLDBERG, PLLC
204 West 84th Street
New York, NY 10024
Telephone: 646-452-8380
Facsimile: 646-452-8663
Email: lg@goldberg.com

William P. McLane, Esq. -- wmclane@littler.com -- Lauren J.
Marcus, Esq. -- lmarcus@littler.com -- at LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.,
Attorneys for the Defendants


BANK LEUMI: Helped Procure Sham Loans for Clients, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Fry at Courthouse News Service reports that Israel's largest
bank helped procure sham loans for clients and advised them to
dodge taxes in other ways, a shareholder class action says.

Michael Porat, a citizen of Israel, filed the 57-page complaint
against Bank Leumi and various international subsidiaries in New
York County Supreme Court.  Sixty-one individuals allegedly
associated with those entities are also named as defendants.

The March 3 complaint comes just months after Bank Leumi paid the
U.S. government $270 million in fines under a nonprosecution
agreement.

Uncle Sam had charged the bank with "conspiring to aid and assist
in filing false tax returns and other documents with the IRS," in
a scheme that the government claimed went on for over 10 years at
the bank's branches in Switzerland, Luxembourg and the United
States.

Porat's case fleshes out how this conduct allegedly occurred
between 2000 and 2011.

The "illegal cross-border banking business" in question willfully
aided and assisted U.S. clients "in opening and maintaining
undeclared accounts in a foreign country, concealing their
offshore assets and income from the Internal Revenue Service and
other governmental authorities, and filing false tax returns and
other documents with such authorities," according to the
complaint.

Approximately 2,450 U.S. accounts received a "hold mail" service
from Leumi, "whereby every statement of account, notice, or other
document associated with the account would be held abroad at the
foreign bank and would not be sent to the customer's address in
the United States," Porat says.

Leumi also had a practice of "referring U.S. clients to outside
lawyers and consultants who would establish and maintain offshore
corporations in jurisdictions like the British Virgin Islands,
Panama, and Belize, to nominally hold the undeclared accounts and
hide their true tax status from U.S. authorities," the complaint
states.

Sham-loan transactions allegedly served to facilitate the illicit
banking practices as well, letting U.S. taxpayers access "their
funds while simultaneously concealing their assets and evading
their U.S. tax obligations."

Porat says Leumi always routed its so-called participation loans
trough one of its international outfits, usually in Switzerland or
Luxembourg.  Leumi eventually evolved these participation loans
into "standby letter-of-credit loans" after an executive at their
bank called them "cleaner" in a memo and said that the loans "did
not require Bank Leumi USA and the foreign affiliate to correspond
regarding the profits generated from the loan or to transfer money
to the foreign affiliate to compensate it for participating in the
loan," the complaint states.

Two Leumi executives allegedly touched upon in the conversion
effort in an e-mail.  Porat says one executive justified the
switch by writing that "the authorities could claim that in a
participation sale we cooperate with the client in 'hiding'
loans," but with SBLC loans the bank remains "clean."

"Private bankers and managers at Bank Leumi USA and Bank Leumi
were aware that the SBLC Loans allowed the U.S. taxpayers receive
the economic benefits of the funds in the undeclared accounts
without directly repatriating the funds or creating a paper trail
that could potentially disclose the existence of the undeclared
accounts to U.S. authorities," the class alleges.

Leumi continued issuing these shame loans despite the FDIC
crackdown in 2008 targeting UBS and Mizrahi Bank, Porat says.
After Leumi received a cease-and-desist order for these types of
loans, Bank Leumi USA took steps to require applicants full names
and addresses on the loans, according to the complaint.

An adviser to Bank Leumi-Luxembourg allegedly argued against the
policy change, however, stating that "[c]ustomers do not want
their names to appear on official documents, such as an SBLC" and
the change "will have a major impact on our business."

In trying to obtain customers formerly with UBS and Mizrahi, Leumi
circulated an e-mail about a "golden opportunity to contact
customers who you know have accounts in banks in Europe," Porat
says.

The e-mail also allegedly suggested that Leumi "urge the private
bankers to 'suggest that [clients] transfer their accounts' to
Bank Leumi for 'understood' reasons."

Porat says that one of the bank's longtime private banker "wrote
to a supervisor in 2011 that 'nearly every client who has an
account with us has used the bank as a tax haven, and is aware
that by not declaring his account in the US is committing an
offense, [and] we have by virtue of the services we provided
assisted the clients with what they wished to achieve.'"

Insisting that Bank Leumi USA and its executives "facilitated and
played a central role in the illegal tax evasion scheme," Porat
says the evidence "conclusively" demonstrates a continuation or
expansion of such practices "despite receiving knowledge of
improper and deceptive practices involving the cross-border tax
evasion scheme."

The class seeks damages for breach of fiduciary duty.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard A. Speirs, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 838-7797
          Facsimile: (212) 838-7745
          E-mail: rspeirs@cohenmilstein.com


BAYER AG: Court Refuses to Dismiss "One A Day" Multivitamins Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge March 10 dismissed with leave to amend part of a
class action accusing Bayer of misrepresenting the health benefits
of its One A Day multivitamins, reports Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiff Colleen Gallagher challenged three statements Bayer
made about each of 20 vitamin and mineral supplements at issue:
"that the supplements promote or support (i) 'heart health'; (ii)
'immunity'; and (iii) 'physical energy,'" U.S. District Judge
William Orrick wrote in a 16-page ruling.

Orrick found that the claims on heart health and immunity are pre-
empted as "structure/function claims," which are expressly
approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.  He granted
Bayer's motion to dismiss those claims, with leave to amend, but
denied the rest of its motion.

Orrick gave the class 20 days to amend its first two claims.

The case is Colleen Gallagher, et al. v. Bayer AG, et al., Case
No. 3:14-cv-04601-WHO, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


BAYOU CLUB: Faces "Sifuentes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Sifuentes v. Bayou Club of Houston, Case No. 4:15-cv-00812
(S.D. Tex., March 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a single workweek.

Bayou Club of Houston owns and operates a recreation center and
club at 8550 Memorial Drive, Houston, Texas 77024.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy Daniel Saenz, Esq.
      WAGNER SAENZ DORITY
      1010 Lamar Street, Ste 425
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 554-8450
      E-mail: jsaenz@wsdllp.com


BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Reason" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kim Reason v. Bluecross Blueshield of Tennessee, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-00071 (E.D. Tenn., March 27, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Bluecross Blueshield of Tennessee, Inc. is in the business of
selling medical insurance which provides coverage to persons
within and outside of the State of Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Frank P. Pinchak, Esq.
      BURNETTE, DOBSON & PINCHAK
      711 Cherry Street
      Chattanooga, TN 37402
      Telephone: (423) 266-2121
      Facsimile: (423) 266-3324
      E-mail: fpinchak@bdplawfirm.com


BP PLC: Sued in S.D. Texas Over Misleading Financial Reports
------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Kaynes, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. BP, PLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-00809 (S.D. Tex., March 27,
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.

BP PLC is a United Kingdom corporation with its principal
executive offices located in London, England. It is engaged in the
business of exploration and development of mineral properties.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bruce W. Steckler, Esq.
      Mazin A. Sbaiti, Esq.
      STECKLER, LLP
      12720 Hillcrest Road - Suite 1045
      Dallas, TX 75230
      Telephone: (972) 387-4040
      Facsimile: (972) 387-4041
      E-mail: mazin@stecklerlaw.com
              bruce@stecklerlaw.com

         - and -

      Andrew Morganti, Esq.
      Matthew Stroh, Esq.0
      MORGANTI LEGAL, P.C.
      535 Griswold Street, Suite 111-181
      Detroit, MI 48226
      Telephone: (248) 787-6078
      E-mail: amorganti@morgantilegal.com


BP PLC: May Face Insolvency if Oil Spill Fine Tops $2.3 Billion
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that BP PLC for the first time has identified in court papers the
amount its subsidiary should pay in civil fines for its role in
the Deepwater Horizon spill, claiming that anything more than $2.3
billion could result in insolvency.

The oil giant in court papers filed on March 27 specified the
dollar amount in arguing what BP Exploration & Production Inc. is
liable for under the Clean Water Act for its negligence in causing
the 2010 spill.  The U.S. Department of Justice, in its own
filings on March 27, continued to push for the maximum penalty of
$13.7 billion -- or, at the very least, more than $12 billion.

BP Exploration & Production, which already spent $35.7 billion in
claims payments and a massive cleanup of the Gulf of Mexico
following the spill, said imposing too high a fine under the Clean
Water Act would discourage other companies from doing the same.

"Imposing a penalty on BPXP anywhere near the amount suggested by
the United States would dis-incentivize future operators from
engaging in a robust and sustained response like that mounted by
BPXP," wrote BP spokesman Geoff Morrell in an emailed statement,
referring to BP Exploration & Production.  "Furthermore, a [Clean
Water Act] penalty above the low end of the statutory range would
threaten BPXP's solvency and have a significant negative impact on
BPXP's expenditures in the Gulf region."

The Justice Department also is seeking more than $1 billion
against Anadarko Petroleum Corp., which co-owned the well where
the rig exploded.  "Given the unprecedented seriousness of the
violation, the defendants should justify why they should not pay
the maximum penalty available," wrote Steven O'Rourke, senior
attorney at the Justice Department's environmental enforcement
section.

The filings were made following the final phase of trial in
New Orleans to determine how much BP and Anadarko should end up
paying in Clean Water Act penalties.  Reply briefs are due
April 24.

U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier of the Eastern District of
Louisiana already has found that BP's subsidiary was grossly
negligent and 67 percent responsible for the Deepwater Horizon
rig's explosion and spill, which killed 11 people.  He also ruled
that any Clean Water Act fines against BP should be based on
$4,300 per barrel but that the spill left 3.19 million gallons of
oil, not an estimated 4.19 million, in the Gulf of Mexico.
In its brief, BP urged Judge Barbier to consider its massive
cleanup effort

"BPXP's spending since the incident has exhausted its own
resources," wrote R. Keith Jarrett -- rkjarrett@liskow.com --
managing partner of New Orleans-based Liskow & Lewis.  "Indeed,
since 2010, BPXP has needed to rely on capital infusions from its
parent companies to remain solvent."

Both sides disagreed as to whether Judge Barbier should consider
the assets of BP PLC, its London-based parent corporation, which
reported $32.8 billion in annual operating cash flow on Feb. 3.
Justice Department spokesman Wyn Hornbuckle declined to comment.


BRADFORD HOUSER: Class Certification Ruling in Amor Case Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------------
River Ridge Place, LLC, Houser Enterprises, Inc., and Bradford
Houser appealed an order by the district court granting a motion
by tenants Philip and Brittany Amor to certify a class action
under Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure 1.261, 1.262, and 1.263. The
Amors point out that the Court of Appeals of Iowa rejected a very
similar challenge in Staley v. Barkalow, No. 12-1031, 2013 WL
2368825, at *8 (Iowa Ct. App. May 30, 2013) (holding tenants may
show harm from a landlord's willful and knowing inclusion of
illegal lease provisions even without enforcement by the
landlord).

According to the Iowa Appeals Court, it found that the district
court correctly certified the class based on its analysis in
Staley, and therefore, affirm without opinion under Iowa Rule of
Appellate Procedure 6.1203(a) and (d).

A copy of the Appeals Court's April 8, 2015 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/ig1NnXfrom Leagle.com.

The case is PHILIP AMOR and BRITTANY AMOR, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v. BRADFORD HOUSER, RIVER RIDGE PLACE, LLC and HOUSER ENTERPRISES,
INC., Defendants-Appellants, NO. 14-0866.

Richard L. Fehseke III -- dick@fehsekelaw.co -- of Fehseke & Gray
Law Offices, Fort Madison, for appellants.

Christopher S. Warnock and Christine Boyer --
christine.boyer@mchsi.com -- of Iowa Tenants' Project, Iowa City,
for appellees.


BUFFALO, NY: Erie County Court Order in Race Bias Case Revised
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman of the Court of Appeals on New York
modified the order of the Supreme Court of Erie County in the case
EUGENE MARGERUM, ET AL., Appellants-Respondents, v. CITY OF
BUFFALO, ET AL., Respondents-Appellants, NO. 7 2015 NY Slip Op
01378 (N.Y. App. Div.)

In 1998, Men of Color Helping All (MOCHA), a not-for-profit
organization of African American firefighters, brought a putative
class action against the City of Buffalo in the Western District
of New York, alleging racially discriminatory practices by the
Buffalo Fire Department in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 (42 USC Section 2000 et seq.) and the New York
Human Rights Law (MOCHA I). MOCHA filed a second putative class
action in 2003, alleging that the 2002 administration of the exam
had the same discriminatory disparate impact as the 1998 exam
(MOCHA II). About two years after the MOCHA II commencement, the
City's then Human Resources Commissioner, Leonard Matarese,
decided to allow the promotion eligibility lists to expire between
September 2005 and February 2006, before the four-year maximum
duration had elapsed.

While MOCHA I & II were still pending, an action was commenced by
12 white firefighter, the plaintiffs, who alleged that the City
engaged in reverse, disparate treatment racial discrimination by
permitting the promotion eligibility lists to expire before their
maximum legal duration, thereby violating the Human Rights Law,
the Civil Service Law, and the New York State Constitution.
Plaintiffs allege that had the lists been extended to their
maximum duration of four years, in accordance with historical
practice, they would have received promotions.

Prior to answering, the city moved to dismiss the complaint
pursuant to CPLR 3211, raising, among other grounds, plaintiffs'
undisputed failure to file a General Municipal Law Section 50-i
notice of claim. The city argued that the statutory provision
required the plaintiffs, as a precondition to commencing suit, to
provide prior notice of their claims in order to permit timely
investigation and opportunity for early resolution. Plaintiffs
cross-moved for partial summary judgment on liability. Supreme
Court denied the city's motion to dismiss and granted plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment on liability. The litigation was then
stayed pending resolution of the MOCHA I litigation.

The federal district court then issued an order dismissing the
Title VII claims to the extent the MOCHA plaintiffs sought relief
based on the City's 1998 administration of the exam. A year later,
the district court dismissed the MOCHA II litigation as well,
finding that the MOCHA plaintiffs were collaterally estopped from
challenging the 2002 administration of the exam because there was
a substantial identity of dispositive issues and proof regarding
the validity of the Lieutenant's Exams litigated in MOCHA I and
MOCHA II.

In June 2009, the Appellate Division affirmed Supreme Court's
denial of the city's motion to dismiss, holding that dismissal was
not warranted based on plaintiffs' failure to file a notice of
claim under the General Municipal Law. Three weeks later, the
United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Ricci v
DeStefano. At the direction of the Appellate Division, both sides
renewed their arguments at the Supreme Court and cross-moved for
summary judgment. Supreme Court granted plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment on the issue of liability. The court concluded
that the city had failed to meet the strong basis in evidence
standard set forth in Ricci. With liability established, the trial
court proceeded with a bench trial on damages culminating in a
judgment awarding plaintiffs $2,610,170 in economic damages and
$255,000 in emotional distress damages. The Appellate Division
reduced the economic damages, yielding a final judgment of
$1,621,007. The court granted leave to appeal to both plaintiffs
and the city.

Chief Judge Lippman modified the order of the appellate division
and remitted the case to the Supreme Court for further
proceedings.  A copy of Chief Judge Lippman's opinion dated
February 17, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/qXQifQfrom
Leagle.com.

For appellants-respondents:

Andrew P. Fleming, Esq.
CHIACCHIA & FLEMING
5113 South Park Avenue
Hamburg, NY 14075
Telephone: 716-648-3030
Facsimile: 716-648-0810

For respondents-appellants:

Jason E. Markel -- jmarkel@hodgsonruss.com -- at Hodgson Russ LLP

National Association of Hispanic Firefighters; Buffalo
Professional Firefighters Association et al.; National Association
for the Advancement of Colored People; International Municipal
Lawyers Association et al.; Pacific Legal Foundation et al., amici
curiae.


BURLINGTON: Court Junks Class Certification Bid in Smart Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
In SALAHUDDIN F. SMART, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF BURLINGTON, et
al., Defendants, CIV. NO. 13-0354 (RBK) (JS), (D. N.J.), the
Plaintiff was previously detained at the Burlington County
Detention Center. He is proceeding pro se with a second amended
civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis was
previously granted. Upon screening the complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Sections 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court has determined that the
complaint shall be permitted to proceed against the named
defendants in the second amended complaint.

The Plaintiff has requested that the Court certify this matter as
a class action but District Judge Robert B. Kugler pointed out
that the Plaintiff has not made any arguments in support of their
motion for class certification. This is plainly insufficient to
certify a class action. Moreover, pro se litigants are generally
not appropriate as class representatives. Thus, the request for
class certification will be denied without prejudice.

The Plaintiff has also requested the appointment of counsel.
Indigent persons raising civil rights claims have no absolute
right to counsel, Judge Kugler added.  Thus, plaintiff's request
for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice, he said.

A copy of the Court's April 7, 2015 memorandum and order is
available at http://is.gd/2FEA1Wfrom Leagle.com.

SALAHUDDIN F. SMART, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


BUSH ROSS: M.D. Fla. Judge Certified Class in "Roundtree" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James D. Whittemore of the Middle District of
Florida ruled on the case of LINDA ROUNDTREE, Plaintiff, v. BUSH
ROSS, P.A., Defendant, CASE NO. 8:14-CV-357-T27 AEP (M.D. Fla.)

Linda Roundtree owned and occupied a unit in the North Bay Village
Condominium Association. Defendant Bush Ross, P.A. sent Roundtree
a letter on February 12, 2013, alleging she was delinquent in her
account with the condo association and threatening to file a claim
of lien and foreclose on the lien. On August 20, 2013, the
Association filed a lawsuit in state court, signed by members of
Bush Ross, to foreclose on Roundtree's unit.

Roundtree brought a purported class action, alleging the February
12, 2013 letter violated the FDCPA by causing the least
sophisticated customer to waive his Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act (FDCPA) rights and overshadowing the required FDCPA notice.
Roundtree also contended the letter inflated the debt owed by
including Bush Ross's fees and that the foreclosure threat was
unfair. Finally, Roundtree alleged the August 20, 2013 notice
included false and misleading representations, among which the
process for responding to a lawsuit was, and was misleading her as
to customers' FDCPA rights.

Plaintiff filed a Renewed Motion for Class Certification and
Appointment of Class Counsel, which Defendant opposed. Plaintiff
was granted leave to file a reply. United States Magistrate Judge
Anthony E. Porcelli issued a report and recommendation,
recommending that plaintiff's motion be granted. Bush Ross objects
to the certification of all three classes, while Roundtree argues
certification is proper.

Judge Whittemore overruled defendant's objections to the report
and recommendation, and adopted the report and recommendation as
the opinion of the court, except to the extent stated in this
order, for all purposes, including for appellate review.

Judge Whittmere certified the following class:

     a. The Overshadowing Class: All persons located in the State
of Florida to whom, between February 7, 2013 and February 6, 2014,
Bush Ross, P.A. sent an initial written communication, which was
not returned as undeliverable, in connection with an attempt to
collect any alleged debt incurred for personal, family, or
household purposes, in which the initial written communication
stated as follows: Unless the entire sum is paid within 30 days of
your receipt of this letter, we shall proceed with appropriate
actions to protect the Association's interests, including, but not
limited to the filing of a claim of lien and foreclosure thereon.
This is the only communication regarding this matter that you will
receive prior to the filing of a claim of lien.  Any further
communication regarding this matter shall be in writing for your
own protection.

     b. The Fee Class: All persons located in the State of Florida
to whom, between February 7, 2013 and February 6, 2014, Bush Ross,
P.A. sent a demand for payment for Bush Ross, P.A.'s fees and
expenses incurred in connection with its attempts to collect a
debt incurred for personal, family, or household purposes form
such person.

     c. The Lawsuit Class: All persons located in the State of
Florida to whom, between February 7, 2013 and February 6, 2014,
Bush Ross, P.A. sent a "Notice Required by the Fair Debt
Collections Practices Act" as part of a lawsuit filed by Bush
Ross, P.A. to collect a debt incurred for personal, family, or
household purposes against such person. (Dkt. 58 at 21-22).

A copy of Judge Whittmore's order dated February 17, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/6BCjtUfrom Leagle.com.

Linda Roundtree, Plaintiff, represented by James L. Davidson --
jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com -- Michael L. Greenwald --
mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com -- at Greenwald Davidson, PLLC

Bush Ross, P.A., Defendant, represented by Benjamin W. Raslavich
-- braslavich@gsgfirm.com -- Dale Thomas Golden --
dgolden@gsgfirm.com - at Golden Scaz Gagain, PLLC


CALIFORNIA: Trial in Solitary Confinement Suit Set for Dec. 7
-------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Proctor, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that a federal judge allowed the Center for Constitutional Rights
to file a supplemental complaint to a class action on behalf of
hundreds of prisoners held in solitary confinement for more than a
decade at California's Pelican Bay prison.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken tentatively granted the motion
at a hearing in February.

The May 2012 lawsuit claims that prolonged solitary confinement --
defined by the CCR as lasting more than 10 years -- in state
prisons Security Housing Units violates Eighth Amendment
prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment.  In reaction to
the prisoners' class certification, the California Department of
Corrections began transferring many of the class members from
Pelican Bay to the state prison at Tehachapi, where their solitary
confinement continued, the CCR said.

The supplemental complaint will add the transferred prisoners to
the original class action, claiming that "the cruel and unusual
treatment they experienced in over ten years of isolation, and its
debilitating effects, have not abated, but continue under a
different name in a different prison."

The prison argued that the supplemental pleading was only
tangentially related to the original claim, but Wilken ruled on
March 9 that "prolonged stays in SHU -- no matter which SHU -- may
violate the Eighth Amendment."  She found that the CCR
convincingly alleged that the transferred prisoners "will continue
to experience the physical and mental health effects of being
housed in solitary confinement for more than a decade."

Wilken said the supplemental complaint would be the more
judicially efficient route, as opposed to filing a separate
complaint for the transferred prisoners.  She also ruled that the
appointed class representatives who were at Pelican Bay at the
time of the original suit may continue to represent the class,
even though they were transferred elsewhere, since "it would be
inconvenient to have to find a new named plaintiff every time
defendants move a named Plaintiff out of Pelican Bay's SHU."

The case will go to trial on Dec. 7.

The class is represented by the CCR's president:

          Jules Lobel, Esq.
          CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
          666 Broadway, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10012
          Telephone: (212) 614-6464
          Facsimile: (212) 614-6499

The case is Todd Ashker, et al. v. Governor of the State of
California, et al., Case No. 4:09-cv-05796-CW, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.


CALIFORNIA: Dismissal of Unclaimed Property Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------
California's state controller need not face claims of transferring
unclaimed property to the state prematurely, reports Katherine
Proctor at Courthouse News Service, citing a 9th Circuit ruling
entered March 11.

Chris Taylor led the would-be class action, which accused
controller Betty Yeeof unconstitutionally applying California's
Unclaimed Property Law, which provides for the conditional
transfer to the state of unclaimed property such as savings
accounts or shares of stock.

Taylor and the other plaintiffs with assets in California claimed
that Yee violates due-process rights by not providing adequate
notice to the potential owners of certain property before
transferring it to the state.

The case has been bouncing around the courts since 2001, and the
9th Circuit noted March 11 that it already produced amendments to
the law's notice procedures.  One key change was that potential
owners are now notified before the state transfers the unclaimed
property, not after, according to the ruling.

California now mails a notice to potential owners' homes and
publishes another notice in a generally circulated newspaper
deemed most likely to reach the owners, the court said.  Those
newspaper notices direct potential owners to a searchable website
where they can perform a search to determine whether they may own
any unclaimed property.

Taylor and the others still claimed, however, that the controller
could take additional steps to locate the owners prior to
transfer.  They wanted the court to have the controller "consult
'all' publicly available databases," pointing to a section of the
Unclaimed Property Law mandating that "the Controller shall
establish and conduct a notification program designed to inform
owners about the possible existence of unclaimed property received
pursuant to [the law]."

The trial court shot Taylor down, however, and the 9th Circuit
affirmed March 11.

Writing for a three-judge panel, Judge Paul Huck noted simply that
the class's "interpretation is incorrect."

The section in question does not apply to notification procedures
that precede the property's transfer, since the additional
information available under that section is not available until
after the controller receives the property, according to the 24-
page opinion.

California's current pre-transfer procedures are sufficient
measures to locate potential owners, the court found.

"Appellants' suggested requirement that the Controller utilize
additional governmental databases may, of course, lead to more
claims being filed, but it exceeds the minimum due process
requirements," Huck wrote.

The panel also affirmed dismissal of the claims that "related
companies" have failed to carry out the law's notice procedures.

Affirming dismissal of the action for failure to state a claim,
the appellate panel deciding that the matter at hand is "not
ripe."

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          William W. Palmer, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM W. PALMER
          2443 Fair Oaks Blvd., # 545
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Telephone: (976) 972-0761
          Facsimile: (916) 972-0877
          E-mail: wpalmer@palmercorp.com

               - and -

          C. Brooks Cutter, Esq.
          John R. Parker, Jr., Esq.
          KERSHAW, CUTTER & RATINOFF, LLP
          401 Watt Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95864
          Telephone: (916) 448-9800
          Facsimile: (916) 669-4499
          E-mail: bcutter@kcrlegal.com

               - and -

          Robert A. Buccola, Esq.
          Steven M. Campora, Esq.
          James J. Ison, Esq.
          DREYER BABICH BUCCOLA WOOD CAMPORA, LLP
          20 Bicentennial Circle
          Sacramento, CA 95826
          Telephone: (916) 379-3500
          Facsimile: (916) 379-3599
          E-mail: rbuccola@dbbwc.com
                  scampora@dbbwc.com
                  jison@cholakian.net

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          Robin B. Johansen, Esq.
          Margaret R. Prinzing, Esq.
          REMCHO, JOHANSEN & PURCELL, LLP
          201 Dolores Ave.
          San Leandro, CA  94577
          Telephone: (510) 346-6200
          Facsimile: (510) 346-6201
          E-mail: rjohansen@rjp.com
                  mprinzing@rjp.com

The appellate case is Chris Lusby Taylor, et al., Plaintiffs-
Appellants v. Betty Yee, individually and in her official capacity
as State Controller of the State of California; Richard Chivaro,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 12-17828, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The District Court case is Chris Lusby Taylor, et al. v. Betty
Yee, et al., Case No. 2:01-cv-02407-JAM-GGH, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California.


CAROL'S FASHION: Untimely Appeal Results to Dismissal of Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Laurie D. Zelon of the Court of Appeals of California,
Second District, Division Seven, ruled on the defendant's appeal
in the case JAE SOON YOO, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TIMOTHY
JINHO SONG, et al., Defendants and Appellants, NO. B256220 (Cal.
Ct. App.)

Plaintiff and respondent Jae Soon Yoo sued defendants and
appellants Timothy Jinho Song, Carol's Fashion, Inc. and Carol's
Apparel, Inc., asserting claims for unpaid overtime, statutory
penalties under Labor Code section 203, and Labor Code section
226, pay for meal and rest periods under Labor Code section 226.7,
and unfair business practices. Yoo alleged she had been employed
by defendants and required to work overtime, for which she was
paid only her regular hourly salary; she also alleged that Song
failed to provide her with paystubs, as required by law. Song
filed general denials to the complaint.

The court entered its judgment on December 11, 2013, awarding Yoo
statutory penalties of $4,000.00 pursuant to Labor Code section
226(a) along with interests, costs, and attorney's fees.  On
February 4, 2014, Yoo served and filed a motion for attorney's
fees. Song opposed the motion. The court heard and granted the
motion on March 6, 2014. The court awarded Yoo $41,500 in fees and
directed the preparation of an amended judgment. The amended
judgment was entered on March 14, 2014. Song appealed both the
judgment and the order of attorney's fees.

Justice Zelon held that the appeal to the judgment was untimely,
and appellants demonstrated no abuse of discretion with respect to
the award of attorney's fees. The appeal from the judgment is
dismissed, and the award of attorney's fees is affirmed.

A copy of Justice Zelon's unpublished opinion dated February 27,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/53E0qVfrom Leagle.com.

Barry G. Florence -- bgf@bgflawoffices.com  -- at Law Offices of
Barry G. Florence; Thomas M. Lee -- leethomas.esq@gmail.com -- at
-- Law Offices of Lee Law, for Plaintiff and Respondent

For Defendants and Appellants:

David Marh, Esq.
Simon H. Langer, Esq.
MARH & ASSOCIATES
3325 Wilshire Blvd. #1350
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: 213-487-9190
Facsimile: 213-487-9484

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


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Faces Wage and Hour Class Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory stiffs workers for overtime and violates
other labor laws, a class action claims in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Orange.


CHEF YU: Judge Awards Attorneys' Fees and Costs in FLSA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox of the Southern District of
New York granted plaintiff's motion in the case WEI YAN YAN,
Plaintiff, v. 520 ASIAN RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a CHEF YU, and TEO SU
JIN, Defendants, NO. 13-CV-2417 (KMF) (S.D.N.Y.)

The plaintiff Wei Yan Yan obtained a favorable judgment against
the defendants based on violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201-219 (FLSA) and New York Labor Law
(NYLL). The plaintiff seeks $99,025 in attorneys' fees and
$6,490.25 in costs. According to the plaintiff, his fee
application includes compensation for the hours spent preparing
the fee application.

The defendants opposed, arguing that the hours and rates billed
are excessive, and the plaintiff's attorneys' weighted average
billing rate is too high due to the overstaffing of a simple case.

Magistrate Fox granted plaintiff's motion and awarded $18,000 as
his reasonable attorneys' fees and $6,490.25, as to his costs.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Fox's order dated March 9, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/cZ8Vd5 from Leagle.com

Wei Yan Yan, Plaintiff, represented by:

Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
Douglas Weiner, Esq.
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP
233 Broadway, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10279
Telephone: 212-688-5640
Facsimile: 212-688-2548

520 Asian Restaurant Corp., and Teo Su Jin, Defendants,
represented by Jenny Jing-Yi Shen -- jshen@jshenlaw.com -- at Law
Offices of Jenny Shen & W. Lawrence Joachim, Sole Practitioner


CHEVRON CORP: Ecuador Persuaded Hague Tribunal in Pollution Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that Ecuador
persuaded an arbitration tribunal in The Hague on March 12 that
its settlement with Chevron did not necessarily preclude
rainforest residents from suing over the same pollution that
decades of oil drilling wrought in the rainforest city of Lago
Agrio.

In a 60-page ruling, the tribunal sidelined what had been
Chevron's longstanding contention: that the environmental lawsuit
responsible for a $9.8 billion judgment against it should never
have been heard in Ecuador in the first place.

Calling the decision an "important step in the right direction,"
Ecuador's attorney general Diego Garcia Carrion said in a
statement that the decision "appropriately vindicates this
office's longstanding position" that its judiciary provided "the
appropriate forum" for the case.

For a time, Chevron put its faith in the Ecuadorean court system,
too.

The lawsuit against Chevron began as a 1993 federal class action
against Texaco, the company responsible for the drilling, in
Manhattan.  When Chevron acquired Texaco in 2001, the San Ramon-
based oil giant convinced the 2nd Circuit to dismiss the New York
lawsuit because Ecuador's courts provided a more convenient forum.

Once in Lago Agrio, named after Texaco's former headquarters of
Sour Lake, Texas, Chevron reversed course.  Though the oil giant
argued that a settlement agreement Ecuador signed with Texaco in
1995 made the new case redundant, a provincial court for the
rainforest city found that the settlement resolved only claims by
the Ecuadorean government.

The court allowed Ecuador's citizens to prosecute their case
separately in 2003.

Shortly before the Lago Agrio court handed down its Feb. 14, 2011,
multibillion verdict against Chevron, the oil giant returned to
New York to accuse lawyers for the Ecuadoreans of perpetrating a
"shake down" against the company.

Chevron sued the Ecuadorean government separately for alleged
violations of a bilateral investment treaty at The Hague.  The
first track of Chevron's claims attacked the origins of the
lawsuit under the settlement agreement, and the second contended
that a "denial of justice" took place in Ecuador.

March 12's decision at The Hague rejects key claims within the
first track of Chevron's action.

The second track revisits the allegations of the New York case,
where a federal judge ruled last year that the verdict against
Chevron had been "procured by corrupt means."

Chevron's spokesman Morgan Crinklaw highlighted that decision in a
statement.

"The Ecuadorean judgment against Chevron has been found by a U.S.
federal court to be the product of fraud, corruption and bribery,"
Crinklaw said.  "Today's interim decision by the tribunal does not
change that fact. It merely defers the question of whether in
issuing that judgment Ecuador also breached its contractual
agreements with Texaco."

Meanwhile, The Hague proceeding continues to heat up as Chevron
and the Ecuadorean government examine the hard drive of the judge
who signed the 2011 ruling against Chevron.

As Courthouse News exclusively reported, Ecuador believes that a
still-confidential forensic analysis of Judge Nicolas Zambrano's
computer proves the legitimacy of verdict against Chevron, based
on evidence that never made it into the New York trial.

The Ecuadorean government's final brief was to be submitted to the
tribunal on March 16.

Chevron and Ecuador will then meet at The Hague again for a
hearing on April 20.  That same day, the 2nd Circuit will hear the
appeal of the ruling in Chevron's favor.


COMCAST CORP: Bid to Stay Action and Compel Arbitration Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Proctor, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that a federal judge stayed a class action that claims Comcast
saddled its residential customers with the cost of using their
wireless routers to set up a secondary public wi-fi network.

Lead plaintiff Toyer Grear claimed that Comcast saw its millions
of residential customers as a chance to compete with major
cellular carriers such as AT&T and Verizon.  Comcast does not have
cellular towers, but its customers' households "could be used as
infrastructure for a national wi-fi network," the Dec. 14, 2014
complaint stated.

Grear claimed that Comcast supplied residential customers with new
wireless routers equipped to broadcast their home wi-fi signals
and additional wi-fi signals for the public, selectively
activating the routers to broadcast the secondary public network
across the country, with the goal of enabling 8 million hotspots
by the end of 2014.  He claimed that Comcast did it without its
customers' authorization.

Comcast moved to stay the case because its residential services
agreement contains an arbitration provision.

Comcast permits customers to opt out of the provision, U.S.
District Judge Jeffrey White wrote in the unpublished March 3
ruling, but "it is undisputed that plaintiffs have not opted out."

Grear claimed that none of his claims fall within the scope of the
arbitration provision because his claims relate to unauthorized
"use."

Comcast contends that the plaintiffs' claims regard the
unauthorized use of equipment, rather than of service.  It claims
that the residential services agreement "clearly distinguishes the
term equipment from the term service" and that the plaintiffs'
claims therefore fall within the scope of the arbitration
provision.

White granted Comcast's motion to stay the action and to compel
arbitration.  He gave Grear and Comcast 120 days to file a joint
status report.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gillian Leigh Wade, Esq.
          MILSTEIN ADELMAN, LLP
          2800 Donald Douglas Loop N
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: (310) 396-9600
          Facsimile: (310) 396-9635
          E-mail: gwade@milsteinadelman.com

Comcast is represented by:

          Michael James Stortz, Esq.
          DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
          50 Fremont St., 20FL
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2235
          Telephone: (415) 591-7500
          Facsimile: (415) 591-7510
          E-mail: Michael.Stortz@dbr.com

The case is Toyer Grear and Jocelyn Harris v. Comcast Corporation,
Case No. 4:14-cv-05333-JSW, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.


COMMONWEALTH EDISON: Dismissal of "Hawkins" Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------
Justice Sheldon A. Harris of the Appellate Court of Illinois,
First District, First Division, affirmed the trial court's
judgment in the appealed case entitled ROBIN HAWKINS, Both
Individually and d/b/a Robin's Nest, a sole proprietorship, ROBERT
DILLON, an individual, and GOT IT MAID, INC., an Illinois Business
Corporation, on Behalf of Themselves, and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY,
an Illinois Corporation, Defendant-Appellee, NO. 1-13-3678 (Ill.
Ct. App.)

In 2011 the General Assembly enacted the Illinois Energy
Infrastructure Modernization Act (EIMA) in order to revitalize and
improve the state's energy infrastructure, create jobs, and
promote economic growth. Participation in the investment plans is
voluntary, however the statute provides an incentive by allowing
participating utilities to recover their expenditures made under
the infrastructure investment program through the ratemaking
process.

Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) elected to participate and
agreed to invest approximately $1.3 billion to modernize its
transmission and distribution infrastructure, including the
installation of smart meter technology. Pursuant to the statute,
ComEd filed its smart meter deployment plan with the Commission.
The Commission approved the plan with modifications on June 22,
2012, and ordered that ComEd's smart meter deployment begin in
September 2012. On July 6, 2012, ComEd petitioned for a rehearing
and to stay the Commission's June 2012 order, arguing that ComEd
would experience a $100 million annual revenue shortfall under the
deployment schedule. The Commission granted the rehearing, but did
not issue a stay of the June 2012 order, which remained
enforceable.

The plaintiffs Robin Hawkins, Robert Dillon, and Got It Maid,
Inc., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
filed their class-action complaint alleging that ComEd's
noncompliance with the Commission's June 2012 order was a
violation of the Illinois Public Utilities Act (Act), 220 ILCS
5/1-101 et seq. (West 2012). They further alleged that as a
result, ComEd's smart meter deployment will be delayed more than
two years. Plaintiffs also contended that ComEd's violation of the
June 2012 order was willful and sought punitive damages.

ComEd filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint pursuant to
section 2-619.1 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (Code)
(735 ILCS 5/2-619.1 (West 2012)). In its motion, ComEd argued four
grounds for dismissal: (1) the trial court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction because the Commission has exclusive jurisdiction
over matters involving rates and infrastructure; (2) recently
passed legislation eliminates any basis for the complaint; (3)
plaintiffs lack standing because they failed to allege a direct
personal interest in the matter; and (4) the damages sought by
plaintiffs are too speculative.

The trial court granted dismissal, finding that the Commission has
exclusive jurisdiction over the action. It reasoned that
plaintiffs' complaint concerns a delay in infrastructure that
clearly impacts rates and therefore it must defer to the
Commission's expertise to determine the extent to which the delay
in smart grid infrastructure will adversely impact ComEd's
customers' rates and future service, and what remedy, if any,
should be employed. Plaintiffs filed a timely appeal.

Justice Harris affirmed the circuit court's judgment.

A copy of Justice Harris's opinion dated February 17, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/JsDjDPfrom Leagle.com.

The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, First Division
panel consists of Presiding Justice Mathias W. Delort and Justices
Sheldon A. Harris and Joy V. Cunningham.


COOPER VISION: Faces "Cunha" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Cunha, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Bausch + Lomb, Johnson &
Johnson Vision Care, Inc., Cooper Vision, Inc., and ABB Optical
Group, Case No. 3:15-cv-01413 (N.D. Cal., March 27, 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:

      Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
      Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
      BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
      600 West Broadway, Suite 900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 230-0800
      Facsimile: (619) 230-1874
      E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com
              sward@barrack.com

         - and -

      Gerald J. Rodos, Esq.
      Jeffrey B. Gittleman
      Beth T. Seltzer
      BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
      Two Commerce Square
      2001 Market Street, Suite 3300
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 963-0600
      Facsimile: (215) 963-0838
      E-mail: grodos@barrack.com
              jgittleman@barrack.com
              bseltzer@barrack.com

         - and -

      Ari Y. Basser, Esq.
      BASSER LAW
      1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 788-8660
      Facsimile: (866) 478-3454
      E-mail: abasser@basserlaw.com


COOPER VISION: Faces "Dotel" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseline Dotel, 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-60647 (S.D. Fla., March 27, 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:

      John D. Zaremba, Esq.
      ZAREMBA BROWNELL AND BROWN PLLC
      40 Wall Street, 27th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 380-6700
      Facsimile: (212) 871-6395
      E-mail: jzaremba@zbblaw.com

         - and -

      Brian Douglas Penny, Esq.
      GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY
      101 East Lancaster Avenue
      Wayne, Pennsylvania 19087
      Telephone: (484) 342-0700
      E-mail: bpenny@lawgsp.com


COOPER VISION: Faces "Pardoll" Suit Over Lens-Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Pardoll and Dana Travis, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Cooper vision, Inc., Alcon
Laboratories, Inc., Bausch + Lomb, Johnson & Johnson Vision
Care, Inc., and ABB Optical Group, Case No. 1:15-cv-21205 (S.D.
Fla., March 27, 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:

      Robert C. Gilbert, Esq.
      ROBERT C. GILBERT, P.A.
      2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1150
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Telephone: (305) 442-8666
      E-mail: rcg@grossmanroth.com

         - and -

      Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
      Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
      Christopher L. Lebsock
      HAUSFELD LLP
      44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: 415-633-1908
      Facsimile: 415-217-6813
      E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com
              bsweeney@hausfeldllp.com
              clebsock@hausfeldllp.com

         - and -

      Manfred P. Muecke, Esq.
      BONNETT, FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
      600 West Broadway, Suite 900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 756-7748
      Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
      E-mail: mmuecke@bffb.com

         - and -

      Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
      Francis J. Balint Jr., Esq.
      BONNETT, FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
      2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300
      Phoenix, AZ 85016
      Telephone: (602) 274-1100
      Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
      E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com
              fbalint@bffb.com


COOPER VISION: Faces "Machikawa" Suit Over Lens-Price Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------
William Dotinga, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
disposable contact lens makers and eye doctors conspired to set
minimum resale prices to stifle competition from the Internet and
big-box stores, users claim in a federal antitrust class action.

Named plaintiffs John Machikawa, Bernadette Goodfellow and
Georgina Lepe sued contact lens manufacturers Cooper Vision, Inc.,
Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Bausch + Lomb, Johnson & Johnson Vision
Care, Inc. and wholesaler ABB Optical Group in San Francisco
Federal Court on March 3.  The putative class action -- for
violations of state and federal antitrust laws -- claims that the
manufacturers conspired with each other, ABB Optical and
optometrists and ophthalmologists who sell disposable contact
lenses to eliminate competition from big-box retailers and the
Internet.

According to the complaint, the defendants did this by imposing
minimum resale prices on the lenses -- which makes it nearly
impossible for discount retailers like Wal-Mart and Costco to
lower prices.  The move stemmed from the defendants' terror over
how the rise of discount retailers and the Internet have changed
the way Americans buy their contact lenses -- and how they have
affected profits, the plaintiffs say.

"The manufacturer defendants, ABB and the eye-care professionals
all share an interest in increasing the retail price of contact
lenses and limiting competition from big box stores, buying clubs
and Internet-based retailers," the complaint states.  "The
manufacturer defendants have also expressed concern about the deep
discounts offered by online retailers, because they saw price-
bargaining power shifting away from manufacturers towards big
buyers.

"These concerns were reportedly exacerbated after Luxottica, the
world's largest glasses and sunglasses manufacturer, agreed to
purchase 1-800 Contacts in 2014.  ABB, which is the largest
distributor of contact lenses in the United States and which
services more than two-thirds of eye-care professionals, shares
the manufacturer defendants' goal of increasing retail prices.
Eye-care professionals, which have traditionally sold contact
lenses at prices much higher than those offered by big box stores,
buying clubs and Internet-based retailers, similarly sought to
limit such price competition," the plaintiffs add.

Competition in the contact lens business has long been distorted
by eye doctors who -- unlike doctors who only prescribe drugs but
don't sell them -- both prescribe and sell lenses.  When an eye-
care professional writes a prescription for disposable lenses, he
also locks the patient into a particular brand for the length of
the prescription, the plaintiffs say.

"The power to prescribe makes eye-care professionals the
gatekeepers of the disposable contact lens market," the complaint
states.  "Eye-care professionals have the power and the economic
incentive to prescribe lenses that provide them the largest profit
margins.  Contact lens manufacturers understand these incentives
all too well.  Eye-care professionals will refuse to prescribe a
manufacturer's lenses if their profit margins are undercut by more
efficient retailers such as mail order and internet companies, or
big box stores.

"As a result, contact lens manufacturers have always done what
they can to insulate eye-care professionals from price
competition.  The economic purpose of the unilateral pricing
policies is to insulate eye-care professionals from price
competition from more efficient distributors," the plaintiffs add.

Before the unilateral pricing policies took effect in 2013,
retailers were free to set their own prices for contacts.  The
manufacturers now prohibit retailers from selling certain product
lines below the prices they mandate, according to the plaintiffs.

"This draconian change in the pricing model would not have
occurred in the absence of a conspiracy among the defendants," the
complaint states.  "Contact lenses are the only prescription
medical device sold in the United States pursuant to a unilateral
pricing policy."

Alcon was the first manufacturer to roll out a minimum pricing
structure, eventually expanding it to four contact lens lines.
Bauch + Lomb followed suit with one line last year, while Johnson
& Johnson fixed minimum prices on eight of its lines in mid-2014.

At a hearing on the scheme before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on
Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights in July 2014,
witnesses estimated that the agreements encompass 40 percent of
the domestic contact lens market -- a figure that will rise to 80
percent by the end of 2015, the plaintiffs say.

For its part, Johnson & Johnson testified that the pricing
agreements will actually help consumers: it said it lowered its
prices after the scheme halted discounts.

"By instituting uniform pricing, lowering our prices and making
the process by which we make those prices available, we believe we
can better compete in contact lens market," Millicent Knight, an
official with Johnson & Johnson testified.

The company controls 47.1 percent of the contact lens market,
which is dominated by its Acuvue brand.

According to the plaintiffs, the pricing scheme is history
repeated.  More than 20 years ago, the manufacturers and eye
doctors conspired to stifle the supply of contact lenses to mail-
order houses.  That move led to antitrust lawsuits from 32 states
and consumer groups, which were eventually settled and the
practice ended, the complaint states.

More recently, both Germany and China have fined manufacturers for
minimum-price fixing.  CIBA -- Alcon's predecessor -- paid the
German government $12 million to settle cartel claims, while
Johnson & Johnson and Bausch + Lomb paid a combined $1.17 for
violating China's anti-monopoly laws, the plaintiffs claim.

"Minimum resale price management policies represent merely the
latest effort by the manufacturer defendants and independent eye-
care professionals to ensure that discounting of contact lenses
does not occur.  The victims, as in 1996, are the tens of millions
of consumers who use contact lenses," the plaintiffs say.

They are suing for violations of the federal Sherman Antitrust
Act, California's Cartwright Act and unfair competition laws, and
Maryland antitrust and consumer-protection laws.  In addition to
class certification, the plaintiffs seek damages and restitution
and a ban on the price-fixing policies.

Alcon is a division of Novartis International AG, headquartered in
Switzerland.  Bausch + Lomb is owned by Canada-based Valeant
Pharmaceuticals.  Neither parent company is named as a defendant
in the suit.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
          Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
          Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 633-1908
          Facsimile: (415) 217-6813
          E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com
                  bsweeney@hausfeldllp.com
                  clebsock@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
          James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
          Nathaniel C. Giddings, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K St. NW, Suite 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
          E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com
                  jpizzirusso@hausfeldllp.com
                  ngiddings@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Dennis Stewart, Esq.
          HULETT HARPER STEWART LLP
          225 Broadway, Suite 1350
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338-1133
          Facsimile: (619) 338-1139
          E-mail: dennis@hulettharper.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          TYCO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          200 L St. NW, Suite 808
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: jkaliel@tzlegal.com


               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Ostrow, Esq.
          Scott A. Edelsberg, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A.
          200 S.W. 1st Avenue, 12th Floor
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
          E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                  edelsberg@kolawyers.com

               - and -

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          Paula M. Roach, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
          701 B Street, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338-1100
          Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
                  proach@bholaw.com

John Machikawa, Bernadette Goodfellow, and Georgina Lepe, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Cooper
Vision, Inc.; Alcon Laboratories, Inc.; Bausch + Lomb; Johnson &
Johnson Vision Care, Inc.; and ABB Optical Group, Case No. 3:15-
cv-01001, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (San Francisco Division).


COOPER VISION: Deadlines to Respond to Actions Continued
--------------------------------------------------------
Motions to transfer these class actions, along with other related
actions filed in other districts, to a single district for
coordination or consolidation are currently pending before the
Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) in In re:
Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2626.:
JOANNE BUCKLEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COOPER VISION, INC., et
al., Defendants. BRETT WATSON, Plaintiff, v. COOPER VISION, INC.,
et al., Defendants. MARILYN MARLENE DEDIVANAJ, Plaintiff, v.
COOPER VISION, INC., et al., Defendants. BEN HAWKINS, Plaintiff,
v. ALCON LABORATORIES, INC., et al., Defendants. LANA OHMES, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. ALCON LABORATORIES, INC., et al., Defendants.
KEVIN MOY, Plaintiff, v. COOPERVISION, INC., et al., Defendants.
GORDON MAH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ABB CONCISE OPTICAL GROUP, LLC,
et al., Defendants. SERGIO CASTILLO, Plaintiff, v. COOPER VISION,
INC., et al., Defendants. AMANDA CUNHA, Plaintiff, v. ALCON
LABORATORIES, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NOS. 15-CV-01212-HSG,
15-CV-01276-HSG, 15-CV-01281-HSG, 15-CV-01297-HSG, 15-CV-01301-
HSG, 15-CV-01340-HSG, 15-CV-01406-HSG, 15-CV-01408-HSG, 15-CV-
01413-HSG, (N.D. Cal.).

In his order entered April 7, 2015, a copy of which is available
at http://is.gd/XWNEZffrom Leagle.com, District Judge Haywood S.
Gilliam, Jr., ruled that the deadlines for Defendants to answer or
otherwise respond to the complaints filed in the class actions are
continued pending resolution of MDL No. 2626. Discovery will also
be stayed pending resolution of MDL No. 2626. However, if
Defendants are required to answer or otherwise respond to another
complaint in a related class action before then, Defendants will
answer or otherwise respond to the complaints in the class actions
at the same time. Furthermore, if any Defendant responds to any
discovery requests or makes any initial disclosures in a related
class action, that Defendant will simultaneously provide the same
responses and/or disclosures to any Plaintiff in any one of the
above-captioned class actions involving that Defendant.

Joanne Buckley, Plaintiff, represented by Lesley Elizabeth Weaver
-- LWeaver@InitiativeLegal.com -- Block & Leviton LLP.

Nick Kehaya, Plaintiff, represented by Lesley Elizabeth Weaver,
Block & Leviton LLP.

Stephanie Kirkland, Plaintiff, represented by Lesley Elizabeth
Weaver, Block & Leviton LLP.

Lynne Lagarde, Plaintiff, represented by Lesley Elizabeth Weaver,
Block & Leviton LLP.

Tyler Lambert, Plaintiff, represented by Lesley Elizabeth Weaver,
Block & Leviton LLP.

Christian Miller, Plaintiff, represented by Lesley Elizabeth
Weaver, Block & Leviton LLP.

Courtney Riley, Plaintiff, represented by Lesley Elizabeth Weaver,
Block & Leviton LLP.

Jim Ronecker, individually and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Lesley Elizabeth Weaver, Block & Leviton
LLP.


COPIA NYC: "Patterson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Patterson, individually and in behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. Copia NYC LLC d/b/a Privilege NYC, Vincent
Cotona, and Christopher Falesto, Case No. 1:15-cv-02327 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 27, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a full-service restaurant located
at 307 East 53rd Street, New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COUPONS.COM INC: Initial Offering Was a Rush Job, Investors Say
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Tartre at Courthouse News Service reports that worried about
its technology's security vulnerabilities, Coupons.com rushed an
initial public offering last year, a class of investors claims in
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
San Francisco.

Though the 14-page complaint lead plaintiff Andrew Nguyen filed
March 11 in superior court does not provide any examples of
security breaches at Coupons.com, it says that the company was
eager to go public because big-data breaches at Adobe Systems and
Target spooked the company about its future.

Coupons.com makes money when consumers print or activate coupons,
even if they never use the coupons to make purchases, Nguyen says.
The company also makes money if the consumer redeems the coupon
during a purchase.

One important revenue stream for Coupons.com is directed
advertising, Nguyen says, noting that this platform takes
advantage of the grocery lists consumers create and save on the
Coupons.com mobile application platform, Grocery iQ.

"Through these apps, Coupons.com claims to obtain valuable insight
into users' preferences that can be sold to [packaged-goods
companies] and retailers to make their digital advertising more
relevant and thus more likely to result in a sale," the complaint
states.

Nguyen says Coupons.com was "building upon the Grocery iQ concept"
in recent years when it began designing a new platform that would
enable a retailer's point-of-sale, or POS, system to interface
with Coupons.com's platform.

Before Coupons.com's IPO in March 2014, the website was
preliminarily rolling out a Retailer iQ platform that "included
digital coupons and e-receipts via SMS and email, personalized
recommendations and offers, integrated shipping lists" and other
analytics, the complaint states.

Coupons.com emphasized in its Oct. 25, 2013, registration
statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission that early
adopters of Retailer iQ included "four leading retailers operating
over 20,000 store locations in North America," according to the
complaint.

Nguyen says, however, that "a growing onslaught of retail data
breaches since 2007 threatened that roll-out, as it made selling
Retailer iQ difficult because retailers had to integrate Retailer
iQ's platform into their POS systems."

"Security defects in retailer's POS systems and the electronic
payment systems they interface with are typically faulted" when a
customer's personal information is stolen in a data breach.

Against the backdrop of massive breaches to the records of Adobe
and Target in late 2013, Coupons.com went forward with its IPO,
"seeking to take the company public before a large-scale roll-out
of Retailer iQ was doomed to fail, or expensive data security
workarounds had to be made," according to the complaint.

Nguyen also alleges that Coupons.com goosed its revenue numbers
leading up to the IPO by misrepresenting the impact of digital
print coupon campaigns with a few large packaged-goods companies
during the 2013 holiday season.

"The 2013 Holiday Campaigns were outside of the annual budgeting
process and, therefore, subject to the heightened risk that they
would not be repeated," the complaint states.

Nguyen says "the Registration Statement should have disclosed the
disproportionate impact that the 2013 Holiday Campaigns had on
Coupon.com's financial results and the likely impact should the
[packaged-goods companies] not repeat the campaigns."

Coupons.com sold more than 12 million shares at $16 on March 6,
2014, tipping the company's scales at more than $179 million.

Though the company's stock continued running up the next day,
closing at $30 per share, Nguyen notes that shares were "trading
below $10 per share, a 38% decline from the IPO price" at the time
of the action's filing.

The stock closed on the day the lawsuit was filed at $10.

Nguyen names Goldman Sachs and other IPO underwriters as
defendants to the action.

Together with Allen & Co., Merrill Lynch and RBC Capital Markets,
these underwriters collected $13.5 million in connection to the
false and misleading statements that the SEC registration
statement contained, according to the complaint.

Alleging violations of the federal Securities Act, the class seeks
compensatory and rescission damages.

The class is represented by:

          Shawn Williams, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          Post Montgomery Center
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545
                     (800) 449-4900
          Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
          E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com


CROWN CASTLE: Faces "Wojcik" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Teresa Wojcik, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Crown Castle USA, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02612 (N.D.
Ill., March 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a single workweek.

Crown Castle USA, Inc. is a Pennsylvania Corporation that provides
owns wireless infrastructure throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nicholas C. Syregelas, Esq.
      NICHOLAS C. SYREGELAS & ASSOCIATES
      19 North Green Street, First Floor
      Chicago, IL 60607
      Telephone: (312) 243-0900
      E-mail: kkasmarick@syregelaslaw.com


DAYTON, OHIO: Judge Recommends Habeas Corpus Petition Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
MELODY WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. WANDA JACKSON, Warden, Dayton
Correctional Institution, Respondent, CASE NO. 3:15-CV-113, (S.D.
Ohio) is a habeas corpus case brought pro se by Petitioner Melody
Williams to challenge her confinement in Respondent's custody on a
conviction in the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas for
aggravated murder, aggravated arson, aggravated burglary, and two
counts of tampering with evidence with a consequent sentence of
fifty-nine years to life imprisonment.  The case is before the
Court for initial review pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases which provides in pertinent part: "[i]f it
plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that
the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court,
the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify
the petitioner." The case has been referred to Magistrate Judge
Michael R. Merz pursuant to the Dayton location of Court General
Order of Assignment and Reference.

Ms. Williams purports to file this action on behalf of herself and
many other women confined at Dayton Correctional Institution. The
body of the actual habeas corpus petition contains no actual
claims for relief in habeas corpus. Instead, Ms. Williams has
attached an Affidavit in which she asserts on behalf of herself
and "all parties involved." Later in the same filing she defines
"all parties involved" as including "all indigent prisoners in the
State of Ohio who were represented by the State of Ohio's indigent
defense system." Just above her signature on PageID 28, Ms.
Williams demands trial by jury, injunctive relief, damages in
excess of $100,000, and immediate release. Beginning at PageID 37
there is attached to the Petition what appears to be intended to
be a complaint under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 about prison
conditions at Dayton Correctional Institution. Then beginning at
PageID 49 there is another complaint about excessive fines and
fees, again purporting to state a class action. Commencing at
PageID 64 is another complaint about the "three tier system of
Administrative Rule 5120-9-31." Finally, commencing at PageID 67
is another complaint, also seeking class certification, about
infringement of the rights to access to the courts.

In his report and recommendations dated April 7, 2015, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/NpQ5Tbfrom Leagle.com,
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz pointed out that, "As it relates
to Ms. Williams individually, the Petition does not state a claim
upon which habeas corpus relief can be granted. Federal habeas
corpus is available only to correct federal constitutional
violations."

"Because the Petition fails to state a claim upon which habeas
corpus relief can be granted, it should be dismissed without
prejudice to Ms. Williams' filing a new habeas corpus petition
which challenges only her own conviction and includes the
information required by the standard Sec. 2254 form," wrote Mag.
Judge Merz.  "Based on her proof of indigency, the Court is
prepared to grant her in forma pauperis status for such a case.
The Court is advised, however, that Ms. Williams presently has a
pending habeas corpus case in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio, Case No. 3:14-cv-2472. She is
advised that she may not file a "second or successive" habeas
corpus petition without permission in advance from the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit."

According to Mag. Judge Merz, the Petition should also be
dismissed without prejudice as to the conditions of confinement
claims purportedly made under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. A complaint
under Section 1983, which potentially can be certified as a class
action, must be filed separately from any habeas corpus petition.
If Ms. Williams desires to re-file such a case, the Clerk will
furnish her on request with the appropriate forms. She is
cautioned, however, that under the Prison Litigation Reform Act,
she will be required to pay the full filing fee, although she may
be permitted to pay it in installments, he added.

Accordingly, "it is respectfully recommended that the Petition
herein be dismissed without prejudice. Because reasonable jurists
would not disagree with this conclusion, Petitioner should be
denied a certificate of appealability and the Court should certify
to the Sixth Circuit that any appeal would be objectively
frivolous and therefore should not be permitted to proceed in
forma pauperis," Mag. Judge Merz concluded.

Melody Williams, Petitioner, Pro Se.


DICKINSON FINANCIAL: Judge Dismissed "Ward" Overdraft Fee Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Hugh Lawson of the Middle District of
Georgia, Valdosta Division granted defendants' motion in the case
LEE WARD, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. DICKINSON FINANCIAL CORP. II, INC., DICKINSON
FINANCIAL CORP., BANK MIDWEST, N.A., ARMED FORCES BANK, N.A.,
ACADEMY BANK, N.A., ARMED FORCES BANK OF CALIFORNIA, N.A.,
SOUTHERN COMMERCE BANK, N.A., SUNBANK, N.A., and FISERV, INC.,
Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:14-CV-8 (HL) (M.D. Ga.)

Plaintiff Lee Ward had a personal checking account with SunBank,
N.A. Plaintiff alleges that during the life of this account,
SunBank assessed numerous overdraft fees without proper notice to
him and in violation of the Account Terms and Conditions governing
the account. He claims that while he knew that the bank would
charge an overdraft fee when his account did not contain
sufficient funds to cover a check, he was unaware that the same
fees applied when he made transactions through use of his debit
card either at an ATM machine or a point of sale without adequate
funds to cover the purchases or withdrawals. He states that the
bank knowingly approved these electronic transactions even though
his account balance was deficient. Plaintiff additionally alleges
that SunBank charged overdraft fees on his deposits.

Ward, as representative of a putative class, now asserts state law
claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, unconscionability, unjust enrichment, and
conversion for alleged violations of his Account Agreement with
SunBank against not only SunBank, but also against Dickinson
Financial Corporation, a holding company for the other named bank
defendants, Armed Forces Bank, N.A., Armed Forces Bank of
California, N.A., Academy Bank, N.A., and Southern Commerce Bank,
N.A., and Dickinson Financial Corporation II, Inc., a registered
multi-bank holding company that owns and controls DFC. Ward also
contends that the banking defendants collectively conspired with
defendant Fiserv, Inc., a banking consultant, to maximize the
accumulation of overdraft fee income by assessing improper fees
against customers in violation of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt
Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 1962(c) and (d).

The defendants Dickinson Financial Corporation II, Inc., Dickinson
Financial Corporation, Armed Forces Bank, N.A., Armed Forces Bank
of California, N.A., Academy Bank, N.A., and Southern Commerce
Bank, N.A., Defendant SunBank, N.A. and Fiserv, Inc., filed
motions to dismiss the complaint initiated by Ward.

Senior District Judge Lawson granted defendants' motions to
dismiss the complaint.

A copy of Senior District Judge Lawson's order dated March 9,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/piNjR6- from Leagle.com.

LEE WARD, Plaintiff, represented by:

Edward A Webb, Esq.
G Franklin Lemond, Jr. , Esq.
Matthew C Klase, Esq.
WEBB KLASE & LEMOND LLC
1900 The Exchange, S.E.
Suite 480
Atlanta, GA 30339
Telephone: 770-444-9325
Facsimile: 770-444-0271
Email: Contact@WebbLLC.com

Defendants, represented by CHRISTOPHER A RILEY --
chris.riley@alston.com -- BOWEN REICHERT SHOEMAKER --
bowen.shoemaker@alston.com -- STEVEN M COLLINS --
steve.collins@alston.com -- at ALSTON & BIRD


DIGNITY HEALTH: Accused of Retaliation Due to Harassment Report
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Dignity Health-operated Mercy
Hospital of Folsom retaliated against a woman who reported her
supervisor's sexual harassment, she claims in Sacramento County
Superior Court.


DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Barnett, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Dyncorp International LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-00233
(N.D. Tex., March 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendant
failure to pay overtime and other premium compensation rates in
accordance with the Labour Law.

Dyncorp International LLC is a private sector contractor that
provides logistics support services to the U.S. Army.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sean F. Rommel,Esq.
      James C. Wyly, Esq.
      WYLY-ROMMEL, PLLC
      4004 Texas Boulevard
      Texarkana, TX 75503
      Telephone: (903) 334-8646
      Facsimile: (903) 334-8645
      E-mail: srommel@wylyrommel.com
              jwyly@wylyrommel.com

         - and -

      David W. Crowe, Esq.
      John Arnold, Esq.
      BAILEY CROWE KUGLER AND ARNOLD, L.L.P.
      6550 Bank of America Plaza, 901 Main Street
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Telephone: (214) 231-0555
      Facsimile: (214) 231-0556
      E-mail: dcrowe@bcklaw.com
              jarnold@bcklaw.com

         - and -

      F. Jerome Tapley, Esq.
      Hirlye R. "Ryan" Lutz III, Esq.
      Adam W. Pittman, Esq.
      W. Ryan Myers, Esq.
      CORY WATSON, P.C.
      2131 Magnolia Avenue
      Birmingham, AL 35205
      Telephone: (205) 328-2200
      Facsimile: (205) 324-7896
      E-mail: jtapley@corywatson.com
              rlutz@corywatson.com
              apittman@corywatson.com
            rmyers@corywatson.com


EMPIRE SERVICES: "Foley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Melvin Foley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Empire Services and Rentals, LLC, Case No. 6:15-cv-
00014 (S.D. Tex., March 27, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Empire Services and Rentals, LLC is a Texas limited liability
company that provides oilfield services to drilling and production
sites as well as plants and other industrial sites throughout the
State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Clifton Alexander, Esq.
      SICO WHITE HOELSCHER & BRAUGH LLP
      900 Frost Bank Plaza
      802 N Carancahua Ste 900
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Telephone: (361) 653-3300
      Facsimile: (361) 653-3333
      E-mail: calexander@swhhb.com


EMULEX CORP: Being Sold for Too Little to Avago Tech, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling Emulex
Corp. (tech products) too cheaply through an unfair process to
Avago Technologies, for $8 a share or $606 million, shareholders
claim in Delaware Chancery Court.


FACEBOOK INC: Court Certifies Class of Minor Children/Purchasers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Proctor, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that a federal judge certified a class of children who want to
void purchases they made on Facebook using their parents' credit
cards, but denied the minors' claims for restitution.

Lead plaintiff I.B. and his respective mother, claim that
Facebook's policy of finalizing all purchases made through its
website violates the California Family Code, which voids a
contract if the minor "make[s] a contract relating to any personal
property not in the immediate control of the minor," and permits a
minor to disaffirm any contract "before majority or within a
reasonable time afterwards."

After using his mother's credit card to buy Facebook credits for
an online game, I.B. says, he did not know the site would store
the credit-card information.  He claims he thought his subsequent
several hundred dollars' worth of game purchases were being made
with "virtual currency."

Co-plaintiff J.W. took his parents' debit card without permission
and used it to buy more than $1,000 worth of Facebook credits.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken ruled in December 2013 that the
minors, but not their parents, could fight Facebook for refunds.

According to U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman's March 10
ruling to certify the class, the plaintiffs claim that Facebook
"routinely refuses requests by children and their parents and
legal guardians to provide refunds for transactions that are
subject to disaffirmance under California law."

Freeman ruled that the plaintiffs have standing to seek
declaratory and injunctive relief, and certified a class defined
as "all Facebook users who are or were minor children according to
Facebook's own records for the four years preceding the date on
which the original complaint was filed through the date on which a
class is certified."

She also certified "a subclass of minors from whose Facebook
accounts Facebook credits were purchased."

But the judge sided with Facebook on the plaintiffs' claims for
restitution and monetary relief, since "the amount of monetary
damages due each class member, if any, would be dependent on the
individual circumstances of each class member, and thus cannot be
determined formulaically."

The class seeks declaratory relief that Facebook's practices are
unlawful and an injunction requiring it to change its practices on
transactions with minors.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John Parker, Esq.
          KERSHAW, CUTTER & RATINOFF, LLP
          401 Watt Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95864
          Telephone: (916) 448-9800
          Facsimile: (916) 669-4499
          E-mail: jparker@kcrlegal.com

Facebook is represented by:

          Whitty Somvichian, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          101 California Street, 5th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-5800
          Telephone: (415) 693-2061
          Facsimile: (415) 693-2222
          E-mail: wsomvichian@cooley.com

The case is I.B., by and through his guardian ad litem Glynnis
Bohannon, et al. v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 5:12-cv-01894-BLF, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
San Jose Division.


GENERAL MILLS: Court Certifies Class of Minneapolis Residents
-------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge certified a class of Minneapolis residents who say
General Mills polluted air and groundwater with 15,000 gallons of
carcinogenic solvents that have seeped into homes, reports Rose
Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service.

Karl Ebert, Carol Krauze, and Jackie Milbrandt sued General Mills
Inc. in Federal Court, alleging it released trichloroethylene -- a
chemical historically used to extract vegetable oils from plant
materials -- into the area around its former facility in
Minneapolis.

The plaintiffs say the carcinogenic chemical vapors threaten home
and business owners in the city's Como neighborhood, a
historically industrial, but now primarily residential, area.

As outlined by U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank, the plaintiffs
allege General Mills disposed of about 15,000 gallons of certain
solvents into groundwater near its facility from 1947 to 1962,
basing their assessment on an engineering map of the contaminated
area, as well as several state agency documents.

Scientific data shows that General Mills' disposal of "large
quantities of toxic chemicals, including [trichloroethylene] TCE,
at the facility, has resulted in widespread soil vapor
contamination," according to the plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Lorne
Everett.

But General Mills argues that the groundwater and air
contamination came from several other nearby facilities' likely
use of hazardous solvents, as well as household products.

Years after General Mills investigated the soil and groundwater
around its facility, it agreed in 1984 to remediate the
groundwater, via such methods as a pump-and-treat system.  That
system was shut down in 2010, however, and three years later,
trichloroethylene vapors were still found in the area surrounding
the facility.

General Mills then installed vapor mitigation systems in 118 homes
-- including those of the plaintiffs -- near which
trichloroethylene soil vapors are above 12 micrograms per cubic
meter.

The firm says soil vapor testing shows that 327 homes in Como lack
detectable trichloroethylene concentrations, and the mitigation
systems are "highly protective" for residents.

But the plaintiffs claim that vapors still permeate their
neighborhood.  Their complaint asserts violations of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability
Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; common law
negligence; private nuisance; and willful and wanton misconduct.

The plaintiffs also asked to certify a class of at least 200
property-owners, and determine whether injunctive relief is
warranted to compel comprehensive remediation.

In the last week of February, Judge Frank did just that. In doing
so, Frank also denied the defendant's motions to exclude expert
testimony.  The judge tossed aside General Mills' claim that the
plaintiffs' proposed geographical boundaries for class members
fail to consider upgradient sources of trichloroethylene.

"The issues flagged by defendant are issues to be determined after
the class is certified," Frank wrote.  "First, the questions of
whether upgradient sources contributed to the presence of
[trichloroethylene] TCE, and in what amount, do not impact class
certification.  Plaintiffs present sufficient preliminary evidence
that [General Mills Inc.] GMI was at least a cause of the TCE
groundwater plume as identified, if not a substantial cause."

The judge later added: "Plaintiffs present preliminary evidence in
the form of expert testimony and a number of other documents
reflecting the basis for the proposed geographic boundaries.  The
boundaries create a list of specific and identifiable potential
class members.  Thus, defendant's concerns really relate to how
many class members have valid claims and not the class's
ascertainability; the number of class members with valid claims is
an issue to be determined after the class is certified."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edward J. Manzke, Esq.
          Shawn M. Collins, Esq.
          THE COLLINS LAW FIRM, P.C.
          1770 Park Street, Suite 200
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Telephone: (630) 687-9838
          Toll Free: (866) 480-8223
          Facsimile: (630) 527-1193

               - and -

          Michael D. Hayes, Esq.
          Norman B. Berger, Esq.
          VARGA BERGER LEDSKY HAYES & CASEY
          125 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 341-9830
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0225
          E-mail: mhayes@vblhc.com
                  nberger@vblhc.com

               - and -

          Anne T. Regan, Esq.
          J. Gordon Rudd, Jr., Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP
          1100 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 341-0400
          Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
          E-mail: anne.regan@zimmreed.com
                  gordon.rudd@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Mark H. Thieroff, Esq.
          SIEGEL BRILL, P.A.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1300
          Minneapolis, MN  55401
          Telephone: (612) 337-6100
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6591
          E-mail: markthieroff@siegelbrill.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Benjamin W. Hulse, Esq.
          Corey Lee Gordon, Esq.
          Emily A. Ambrose, Esq.
          Jerry W. Blackwell, Esq.
          BLACKWELL BURKE PA
          431 South Seventh Street, Suite 2500
          Minneapolis, MN 55415
          Telephone: (612) 343-3200
          Facsimile: (612) 343-3205
          E-mail: bhulse@blackwellburke.com
                  cgordon@blackwellburke.com
                  eambrose@blackwellburke.com
                  blackwell@blackwellburke.com

               - and -


          Jeffrey Fowler, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          400 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 430-6404
          Facsimile: (213) 430-6407
          E-mail: jfowler@omm.com

               - and -

          Mark J. Carpenter, Esq.
          CARPENTER LAW FIRM PLLC
          5200 Willson Road, Suite 150
          Edina, MN 55424
          Telephone: (952) 921-7340
          E-mail: mark@carpenter-law-firm.com

The case is Karl Ebert, et al. v. General Mills, Inc., Case No.
0:13-cv-03341-DWF-JJK, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota.


GENERAL MOTORS: King & Spalding Asked to Hand Over Ignition Docs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katheryn Hayes Tucker, writing for Daily Report, reports that King
& Spalding is facing a second demand to hand over its confidential
internal communications about client General Motors so plaintiffs
counsel can see what the firm's lawyers knew about an alleged
cover-up of a deadly ignition switch defect.

A March 17 hearing on the same issue before Cobb County State
Court Judge Kathryn Tanksley was canceled when, four days earlier,
GM settled the underlying suit brought by Ken and Beth Melton over
the car crash death of their daughter, Brooke.

"Simply because they settled it doesn't mean they get to cover up
the fraud," said Texas plaintiffs lawyer Robert Hilliard in a
phone interview on March 31.  "We are taking up the baton."

Mr. Hilliard issued a subpoena to King & Spalding to produce all
documents related to the Melton case and other suits over the same
defect grouped in multidistrict litigation before U.S. District
Court Judge Jesse Furman of the Southern District of New York.

Mr. Hilliard, a partner with Hilliard Munoz Gonzales in Corpus
Christi, is one of three co-leaders of an attorney steering
committee for the GM litigation.  He said his firm is plaintiffs
counsel in about 1,000 of 1,100 cases before Judge Furman.

King & Spalding was prepared to fight the first subpoena in Cobb.
King & Spalding's counsel in the Melton matter-- a team of three
lawyers at McKenna Long & Aldridge led by Buddy Darden --
bdarden@mckennalong.com -- had briefed the matter.  They argued
that communication among the firm's lawyers was confidential work
product and that the firm had no knowledge of any cover-up and had
done nothing wrong.

Mr. Darden said he couldn't comment on the new subpoena, as did
Robert Thornton of King & Spalding.

The new subpoena backs up a prediction made by Marietta plaintiffs
lawyer Lance Cooper when he announced his clients, the Meltons,
would withdraw their lawsuit for a confidential payment from GM.
He said he expected other lawsuits to continue pursuing the facts
behind the case.  Mr. Cooper has other cases pending against GM
over the same defective ignition switch that the company has now
acknowledged caused the death of the Meltons' daughter.
Mr. Cooper serves on Hilliard's steering committee for the
multidistrict litigation.

Mr. Hilliard called the Melton settlement "the second time GM
blinked," referring to a $5 million settlement the company paid
the Meltons in 2013.  The Meltons had attempted to rescind their
deal and filed a new lawsuit against GM last year, saying
executives lied about knowledge of the defect.

Mr. Hilliard suggested the timing of the second settlement --
presumably at least $6 million, as GM refused to take back the
initial $5 million payment, and a special mediator for GM was
allowed to go beyond a $1 million settlement limit -- was
influenced by GM's desire to avoid the King & Spalding
communications being made public.

"GM hid the ignition defect for a decade.  If it used its counsel
to actively advance the cover-up and by so doing more deaths and
injuries resulted, then there may be fraud at many levels,"
Mr. Hilliard said.  "Could the GM lawyers have helped save some of
these young lives by speaking up? If so, what is the consequence
of their prolonging by years this senseless national tragedy?"


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Summary Judgment Granted in Thalidomide Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Passarella, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a federal judge threw out what could potentially be one of just a
handful of remaining thalidomide cases against GlaxoSmithKline in
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, finding the statute of
limitations expired decades ago.

In granting GSK's motion for summary judgment in Johnson v.
SmithKline Beecham, U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond drew closer
to a possible end GSK's involvement in the litigation that began
in 2011 with 52 cases alleging thalidomide taken by women while
pregnant caused their children's birth defects.

Plaintiff Debra Johnson's case was one of 29 remaining against GSK
that were being led by plaintiffs firm Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro.  Hagens Berman agreed to dismiss all but Johnson's case
against GSK in exchange for GSK agreeing to set aside its quest
for sanctions against Hagens Berman for prosecuting three cases
that a special master and Diamond found had no merit.

But Judge Diamond is still awaiting a report from special master
William Hangley -- whangley@hangley.com -- of Hangley Aronchick
Segal Pudlin & Schiller as to whether he will allow the 28 cases
to be dismissed or if Hagens Berman is conflicted by the fact that
it would get the benefit of no sanctions while its clients' cases
would see no recovery.

If the 28 cases are dismissed, GSK would still face six other
cases in which Hagens Berman has sought to withdraw as counsel for
the plaintiffs.  Four of those plaintiffs have not responded to
Diamond's inquiries as to whether they would hire new counsel, one
sought more time and one intends to proceed pro se.

The April 1 decision granting GSK summary judgment would not end
the thalidomide cases for other defendants, however, but it could
have implications for the remaining cases.

GSK was the only defendant to the Johnson case that was dismissed
on April 1.  But the 28 other cases included in the Hagens Berman
dismissal motion were also filed against additional defendants
Sanofi-Aventis and/or Grnenthal GmbH.  And there are other cases
from the initial 52 still pending against those defendants as
well.  Hagens Berman has signaled its intention to continue to
prosecute the 28 cases against Sanofi and/or Grnenthal, according
to court papers in the case.

There are some similar summary judgment motions pending by those
defendants in other of the thalidomide cases.

Michael T. Scott -- mscott@reedsmith.com -- of Reed Smith
represents GSK and declined to comment.  So too did counsel for
Sanofi and Grnenthal, Albert Bixler -- abixler@eckertseamans.com
-- of Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott.

Nick Styant-Browne -- nick@hbsslaw.com -- of counsel at Hagens
Berman, said in a statement that the firm plans to appeal the
ruling in Johnson's case, which applied Louisiana law and found
Johnson's mother's knowledge of a possible link between
thalidomide and the birth injuries was imputed to Johnson.

"The court's principal reason for granting summary judgment is
that under Louisiana law, a parent's knowledge is automatically
imputed to her child," Mr. Styant-Browne said in the statement.
"This analysis deprives every wrongfully injured child subject to
Louisiana law any right to pursue her claim where her parent knows
of it, but conceals it from the child, and takes no action on her
behalf."

Mr. Styant-Browne said the firm didn't believe such a "sweeping
denial" of children's rights in Louisiana was warranted by law.
The ruling in Johnson's case was the second summary judgment
motion Diamond issued, ruling similarly in October 2014 that
plaintiff Edmund Andre filed his suit long after the statute of
limitations had passed.

In both cases, depending on which state's statute of limitations
applied, Judge Diamond ruled that the statute began to run within
one or two years of the plaintiffs being born in the 1950s.

While Johnson, born in 1959, argued her mother never discussed
with her the potential cause of Ms. Johnson's birth defects,
Diamond imputed her mother's knowledge to Ms. Johnson, noting the
mother could have researched her suspicions that thalidomide
caused her daughter's injuries.  Even if he didn't impute that
knowledge to Ms. Johnson, Judge Diamond said, her claims are still
time-barred.

Ms. Johnson retrieved in the 1970s her medical records from the
Air Force base where she grew up, but never looked through them
until 2012.  Had she done so, Judge Diamond said, she would have
learned her injuries were congenital and bilateral, conditions
Ms. Johnson's expert said were long associated with thalidomide
exposure.  "Moreover, she did not even attempt to learn the cause
of her injuries: She did not speak with family members, friends,
doctors, nurses, lawyers or anyone else about her condition."

Judge Diamond said. "She testified that as a mother herself, she
knew birth defects could result from a mother's ingestion of drugs
during pregnancy, yet she never investigated whether this might
have caused her injuries."

Judge Diamond further rejected Ms. Johnson's argument that GSK
fraudulently concealed the extent of thalidomide's distribution in
the United States and its dangerousness.  Ms. Johnson argued that
"detrimental reliance" tolled the statute of limitations.

Judge Diamond cited Ms. Johnson's testimony that she did not feel
as though GSK misled her and that she never knew of GSK's
purported misrepresentations until 2012.

"Because plaintiff's failure to proceed for over five decades had
nothing to do with the GSK defendants' purported
misrepresentations, the fraudulent concealment doctrine does not
toll the limitations clock," Judge Diamond said.

Judge Diamond also took issue with Hagens Berman's decision to
move forward with the fraudulent concealment claim in light of Ms.
Johnson's testimony.  He said Hagens Berman had "vigorously
denied" GSK's suggestion during a sanctions hearing that the firm
did not speak with its clients before filing suit on their behalf.

"If Hagens Berman spoke with plaintiff before initiating the
instant suit, however, I am at a loss to understand how,
consistent with the Code of Professional Conduct, the firm could
have included allegations of fraudulent concealment in her
complaint," Judge Diamond said.

As is the case in other summary judgment motions filed in the
thalidomide cases, the defendants also argued there was at times
no evidence the plaintiffs' mothers took thalidomide.  But Judge
Diamond said he did not have to address the causation issue given
his ruling on the statute of limitations.


GO NEW YORK: "Balderramo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Victor H. Alvarado Balderramo, individually and in behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Go New York Tours Inc. and
Asen Kostadinov, Case No. 1:15-cv-02326 (S.D.N.Y., March 27,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a tour bus with its principal place
of business located at 348 57th Street, New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GOLDMAN SACHS: Magistrate Urges Denial of Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that while
calling it a "close case," a federal magistrate recommended that a
district judge deny class action certification to a lawsuit
accusing Goldman Sachs of operating as a "boy's club."

H. Cristina Chen-Oster, who spent eight years as a Goldman vice
president, led a class action in 2010, alleging that one of her
male colleagues "pinned her up against a wall, kissed and groped
her" without her consent.  Her co-plaintiff Shanna Orlich spent
roughly two years at the bank, where, she said, her manager hired
female escorts "wearing short black skirts, strapless tops, and
Santa hats" for a holiday party.

Citing an estimate by their statistical expert, they claimed that
their experiences reflected those of more than 1,700 women at the
company facing discrimination in the form of wage gaps, glass
ceilings and a chauvinistic corporate culture.

In a 46-page report on March 10, U.S. Magistrate Judge James
Francis IV did not clear Goldman of these bias accusations, but he
argued that proving the allegations would take case-by-case
analysis inappropriate for a class action.

"Take a hypothetical business unit with four vice presidents, all
women, who, according to the plaintiffs' statistical analysis, are
each paid less than similarly situated male vice presidents," his
report states.  "This could reflect their manager's adherence to
discriminatory performance measures.  But quite plausibly, the
budget for this business unit might simply be constrained as a
result of the unit's poor financial performance in the prior year;
the women would appear to be victims of discrimination even in the
absence of any biased decision making."

The plaintiffs' statistician, Princeton University Professor Henry
Farber, believed that these discrepancies could been blamed on
discriminatory evaluations known as "360 reviews" and "manager
quartiling," which allegedly skewed against women.

But Francis favored the analysis of Goldman's expert, Howard
Baptist University professor Michael Ward, who suggested that "any
causal relationship between those policies and apparent gender
discrepancies is a complex issue, subject to individualized
proof," according to the report.

The magistrate remained neutral on the subject of Goldman's
corporate culture.

"Of course, in any large organization, there will be some, perhaps
many, instances of discriminatory conduct, whether by supervisors
or by co-workers, and Goldman Sachs has presented evidence that it
takes steps to counteract instances of gender bias," he wrote.
"But this is not the stage at which to decide whether there is in
fact a pattern of pervasive discrimination at Goldman Sachs.  It
is enough for purposes of assessing commonality that the
plaintiffs have submitted significant evidence in support of their
claims."

The magistrate's recommendation will now head to U.S. District
Judge Analisa Torres, who will conduct her own review.

Goldman's spokesman Michael DuVally said in a statement: "We are
pleased that the court concluded that this case is not appropriate
for class action treatment."

Chen-Oster's lawyer did not immediately respond to a request for
comment.

The case is H. Cristina Chen-Oster, et al. v. Goldman, Sachs &
Co., et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-06950-AT-JCF, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.


GRIFFIN SECURITY: Faces "Brooks" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Rusebio Brooks, Carlita Thomas, James Malloy, Sabrina Locus and
Lynden Tyrone Flowers, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. The Griffin Security Agency, Inc.
and Michael E. Smith, Case No. 1:15-cv-02303 (S.D.N.Y., March 27,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Griffin Security Agency, Inc. is a New York Corporation, with
a principal place of business at 80 Maiden Lane, New York, New
York 10038. It provides protective services with the same storied
intelligence and vigilance.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
      BRONSON LIPSKY LLP
      630 Third Avenue, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 392-4772
      Facsimile: (212) 444-1030
      E-mail: dlipsky@bronsonlipsky.com


HAIR CLUB: Faces "Clemens" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Teresa Clemens, Jordan Simensen, and Adria Despres, on behalf of
themselves, and all other similarly situated v. Hair Club for Men,
LLC, a Delaware corporation, and Does 1 through 100 inclusive,
Case No. 3:15-cv-01431 (N.D. Cal., March 27, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Hair Club for Men, LLC owns and operates a Hair Restoration and
Replacement Company with its principal place of business at 1515
S. Federal Hwy, Suite 401, Boca Raton, Florida 33432.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Michael Bickford, Esq.
      R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM
      43364 10th Street West
      Lancaster, CA 93534
      Telephone: (661) 949-2595
      Facsimile: (661) 949-7524
      E-mail: jbickford@rrexparris.com


HARTFORD, IN: ACLU Challenges Loitering Ban Against Sex-Offenders
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The American Civil Liberties Union wants a federal judge to strike
down a loitering ban that applies to sex offenders near parks,
schools and other places children frequent in Hartford, Ind.,
reports Chris Randolph at Courthouse News Service.

"Child Safety Zones," as designated by Hartford, also include
libraries, bowling alleys, child care facilities and youth
centers.  For the last seven years, Hartford ordinance 2008-01
denies entry to such child-safety zones by any Indiana person
registered as sex offender because of crimes involving children.

The same law also bars such offenders from loitering within 300
feet of designated zones.

In its March 6 federal class action challenging the
constitutionality of this law, the ACLU represents registered sex
offender Brian Valenti.

The complaint says Valenti was a California court convicted
Valenti in 1993 of lewd and lascivious acts with a child under 14
years of age.

Valenti moved to Hartford, Ind., in 2014 to be near family.  The
ACLU notes that Valenti, who registered as a sex offender under
Indiana law, is now married and has a minor child.

Claiming that Hartford's rules regarding child-safety zones are
unconstitutional, he notes that he needs to enter places like
schools and parks to care for his daughter.

The law prohibits Valenti, for example, from going to the Hartford
City Public Library, although he and his child are "both voracious
readers," the complaint states.  He is also unable to enter any
school, even as a participant in his daughter's education, go
bowling with his family or attend church, a place Valenti says he
"like(s) to and needs to attend."

A local YMCA is also off limits to Valenti if he wishes to sign
his child up for activities, the complaint states.

Noting that his child has learning disabilities, and that his wife
is also disabled and does not drive, Valenti says it is crucial
for him to attend schools himself to address the girl's
educational needs.

A Hartford police officer cited Valenti for violating the
ordinance this past January.

Valenti says his brother had driven to the school to pick up
Valenti's daughter, and that Valenti was a passenger in the car
across the street.

"He does not believe that he was in the vehicle "idly," although,
admittedly, he does not know what the word means," the complaint
states.

Valenti says the nature of the ordinance curtails a class of
similarly situated sex offenders from traveling freely in the
city, while also punishing them for past offenses, in violation of
the First and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

The class seeks an injunction, plus damages.

The class is represented by:

          Kenneth Falk, Esq.
          Kelly Eskew, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF INDIANA
          1031 East Washington Street
          Indianapolis, IN 46202-3952
          Telephone: (317) 635-4059
          Facsimile: (317) 635-4105
          E-mail: keskew@aclu-in.org
                  kfalk@aclu-in.org


HEALTH NET: Conn. High Court Keeps Ruling in "Rathbun" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Amy Rathbun and the daughter of the plaintiff Tanequa
Brayboy were injured in separate motor vehicle accidents. The
defendant, Health Net of the Northeast, Inc. (Health Net) paid
$2,982.93 for medical treatment rendered in connection with
Rathbun's injuries and paid $13,541.45 for medical treatment
rendered in connection with Anah Brayboy's injuries from the
accident. Plaintiffs brought suits against their tortfeasors

The defendant, which administered the Medicaid program for the
state of Connecticut and was the designated assignee of the
department's rights under Section 17b-265, acting through its
agent, The Rawlings Company, LLC (Rawlings), sought to recover
from the plaintiffs amounts that the plaintiffs had recovered from
the respective tortfeasors as reimbursement for the payments made
by Health Net for the medical care provided to Brayboy's daughter
and Rathbun.

The plaintiffs brought a putative class action against Health Net
on November 26, 2008. The plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint, dated May 7, 2009, which included four counts, a
putative class action, breach of the duty of good faith and fair
dealing, conversion and a declaratory judgment.

Plaintiffs and Health Net filed motions for summary judgment on
the declaratory judgment count. On August 21, 2009, the court
granted Health Net's motion for summary judgment and denied the
plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.

The plaintiffs then appealed to the Appellate Court, claiming that
Health Net was prohibited by General Statutes Section 52-225c, the
anti-subrogation statute, from recovering from the plaintiffs the
costs of medical care that the plaintiffs had recovered from
responsible third parties. The Appellate Court affirmed the
judgment of the trial court. Plaintiff appealed.

Justice Richard N. Palmer of the Supreme Court of Connecticut
upheld the appellate court's affirmation of the district court's
judgment.  A copy of Justice Palmer's opinion dated March 10,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/0Eoz9Ifrom Leagle.com.

The case is AMY RATHBUN ET AL., v. HEALTH NET OF THE NORTHEAST,
INC., (SC 18928) (Conn.)

Eric P. Smith -- esmith@faxonlawgroup.com -- Joel T. Faxon --
jfaxon@faxonlawgroup.com -- at Faxon Law Group; John P. D'Ambrosio
-- jdambrosio@cowderymurphy.com -- at Law Offices of Cowdery &
Murphy LLC, for appellants-plaintiffs

Linda L. Morkan -- lmorkan@rc.com -- Theodore J. Tucci --
ttucci@rc.com - at Robinson+Cole, for the appellee-defendant.

The Supreme Court of Connecticut panel consists of Justices
Richard N. Palmer, Peter T. Zarella, Andrew J. McDonald, Carmen E.
Espinosa and Christine S. Vertefruille.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Sues Former Autonomy Execs Over Botched Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that making good
on a long-standing threat, Hewlett-Packard Co. on March 27
initiated litigation against two former Autonomy Corp. executives.

HP says it is seeking about $5.1 billion from the British software
firm's former CEO, Michael Lynch, and former chief financial
officer, Sushovan Hussain.  In response, a spokesman for Mr. Lynch
announced on March 31 that Mr. Lynch intends to file a countersuit
against HP for more than $148 million.

The battle, stemming from HP's ill-fated 2011 acquisition of
Autonomy, will play out in the United Kingdom, where HP filed a
"claim form" against Messrs. Lynch and Hussain in London's
Chancery Division High Court.  HP hasn't yet filed its
"particulars of claim," which would be the U.K. version of a
complaint.

The claim form, which was filed under seal and had not been served
to the defendants on March 31, alleges Messrs. Lynch and Hussain
"engaged in fraudulent activities while executives at Autonomy," a
HP spokeswoman wrote in an emailed statement.

Mr. Lynch's representative announced via email that Autonomy's
former management will file claims against HP "for loss and damage
caused by false and negligent statements made against them by HP
on 20 November 2012 and in HP's subsequent smear campaign."

Mr. Hussain is represented by John Keker --
jkeker@kvn.com -- of Keker & Van Nest.  HP is represented by
Travers Smith, a European firm with offices in London and Paris,
while Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz represents HP in related U.S.
litigation.  The Brunswick Group, which is handling Mr. Lynch's
publicity, did not disclose who will represent the former chief
executive officer in the impending litigation.

HP has long had its sights set on Messrs. Lynch and Hussain.  The
company acquired Autonomy for $11 billion, but the deal quickly
soured and had to be written down by $8.8 billion.  Shareholders
sued HP and its officers, accusing them of ignoring red flags in
Autonomy's accounting and hiding early signs of trouble.  HP
consistently blamed Autonomy, claiming the executives engaged in
accounting fraud that was uncovered by HP after the purchase.

Last summer HP tried to settle a shareholder derivative suit by
agreeing to team up with plaintiffs lawyers at Cotchett, Pitre &
McCarthy and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd and go after the former
Autonomy executives.  But U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer of
the Northern District of California rejected that provision, along
with the retainer that promised plaintiffs lawyers at least $18
million.

Judge Breyer finally granted preliminary approval to a revised
settlement in March.


HULU LLC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Video Privacy Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that Hulu LLC and its
lawyers at O'Melveny & Myers and Covington & Burling knocked out a
long-running privacy suit on March 31.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of the Northern District of
California granted Hulu's motion for summary judgment and
dismissed with prejudice a 2011 lawsuit filed under the Video
Privacy Protection Act.

Chadwick Ho, Hulu's senior vice president and general counsel,
wrote in an email that the company is committed to protecting
users' personal information and was gratified by the court's
ruling.

"This decision validates our willingness, as a matter of
principle, to prove the integrity of our business practices, even
if it means spending nearly four years in litigation," Mr. Ho
wrote.

Plaintiffs led by Scott Kamber of KamberLaw sued Hulu under the
Video Privacy Protection Act, a 1988 law which made it illegal for
video service providers to disclose users' viewing choices and
provides statutory damages of $2,500 per violation.  The suit
claimed Hulu violated users' privacy rights by sharing their
identities and the videos that they watched.

At a summary judgment hearing in February, Mr. Kamber argued that
by placing Facebook's "Like" button on its video viewing pages,
Hulu was transmitting users' viewing history and identities to
Facebook via browser cookies.  Judge Beeler, however, found that
the plaintiffs failed to show that Hulu actually knew that
Facebook might combine information identifying users with data
showing which video they watched.  "There is consequently no proof
that Hulu knowingly disclosed any user 'as having requested or
obtained specific video materials or services,' " as described in
the statute, Mr. Beeler wrote.

Mr. Kamber said in a phone interview on April 1 that plaintiffs
plan to appeal.  "We think the order of the lower court would
undermine fundamental statutory privacy rights if allowed to
stand," Mr. Kamber said.

Judge Beeler had previously trimmed the suit.  Last April, she
dismissed plaintiffs' claims related to Hulu's sharing of
anonymized data with a metrics firm.  In June she denied
plaintiffs' first bid for class certification finding that their
claims weren't easily verified and "at $2,500 per class member,
they are not small."


IOWA HEALTH: Denial of Class Cert. in Health Care Battle Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A group of uninsured individuals from Iowa failed to have an
appeals court revive their class action taking aim at faults in
American health care system, reports Lacey Louwagie at Courthouse
News Service.

The four lead plaintiffs behind the suit, led by Porschia Butts,
represented a range of medical issues, including injuries from car
collisions and a surgery for an appendectomy.  They claimed that
Iowa Health System and Central Iowa Hospital Corp., two entities
that operate a combined 13 hospitals in Iowa, charge uninsured
individuals like themselves face unreasonable rates for medical
care when compared to insured individuals.

Polk County District Judge Robert Hutchison refused to certify a
class, however, and later granted the defendants summary judgment.

A three-judge panel for the Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed March
11, noting that the case has met the same end as the "many similar
cases across the country asserting the same claim."

The 19-page opinion concludes with a somber passage from the 3rd
Circuit's 2008 decision in DiCarlo v. St. Mary Hospital.

"This case, and other similar cases being brought throughout the
country, arise out of the anomalies which exist in the American
system of providing health care," that DiCarlo opinion states.  "A
court could not possibly determine what a 'reasonable charge' for
hospital services would be without wading into the entire
structure of providing hospital care and the means of dealing with
hospital solvency.  These are subjects with which state and
federal executives, legislatures, and regulatory agencies are
wrestling and which are governed by numerous legislative acts and
regulatory bodies.  For a court to presume to address these
problems would be rushing in where angels fear to tread.  What
plaintiff is asking the court to do here is, put simply, to solve
the problems of the American health care system, problems that the
political branches of both the federal and state governments and
the efforts of the private sector have, thus far, been unable to
resolve.  Like other similar suits filed in other federal courts,
this action seeks judicial intervention in a political morass."

In the case at hand, Butts and the other uninsured Iowa plaintiffs
pointed to contract language holding patients liable for paying a
hospital's "regular rates" for services.

Claiming that the open-price term made the contract ambiguous, the
plaintiffs said a court would have to certify a class to determine
a single reasonable rate.

The appellate court rejected this claim, however, by pointing to
the general rule that, "where there is an agreement to pay for
medical services in accord with the hospital's regular rates and
terms, the contract is not indefinite."

A prospective class is furthermore too diverse to certify, the
court found.

"Numerous patients falling within the putative class would not be
appropriate class members, including those who discharged their
obligations through bankruptcy, those whose charges already had
been adjucated reasonable, and those who received financial
assistance," Judge Christopher McDonald wrote for the panel.

The ruling notes as well that each of the hospital systems'
facilities maintain their own databases of prices for services.

Although patients may end up paying different amounts because of
government assistance, insurance coverage or charitable
contributions, the hospitals contend that all patients are billed
using the same standard.

Emphasizing the difficulty of determining reasonable rates for
services, McDonald said "there is no logical or fair way to
determine the reasonableness of the rate charged without holding
an individualized hearing on the same."

Each "charge will necessarily depend on the individual facts and
circumstances regarding each plaintiff's condition," the ruling
states.

The Appellants are represented by:

          Jeffrey M. Lipman, Esq.
          LIPMAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
          8450 Hickman Road, Suite 16,
          Des Moines, IA 50325
          Telephone: (515) 276-3411
          Facsimile: (515) 276-3736
          E-mail: lipmanlawfirm@aol.com

               - and -

          Marc Harding, Esq.
          HARDING LAW FIRM
          1217 S.W. Army Post Road
          Des Moines, IA 50315
          Telephone: (515) 287-1454
          E-mail: marc@iowalawattorneys.com

               - and -

          Don M. Downing, Esq.
          Kaitlin A. Bridges, Esq.
          GRAY, RITTER & GRAHAM, P.C.
          701 Market Street, Suite 800
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Toll Free: (888) 743-4054
          Telephone: (314) 732-0728
          Facsimile: (314) 241-4140

The Appellees are represented by:

          Stacie M. Codr, Esq.
          Steven Scharnberg, Esq.
          FINLEY, ALT, SMITH, SCHARNBERG, CRAIG, HILMES
          & GAFFNEY, P.C.
          699 Walnut Street, Suite 1900
          Des Moines, IA  50309
          Telephone: (515) 288-0145
          Facsimile: (515) 288-2724
          E-mail: scodr@finleylaw.com
                  sscharnberg@finleylaw.com

The case is Porschia Butts, Cristina Trevino, Stacey Ramsey,
Marshelle Wiliams, and the Class of Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Iowa Health System and Central Iowa
Hospital Corp., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 13-1034, in the
Court of Appeals of Iowa.


JACKSONVILLE, FL: Consent Decree on Hiring of Firemen Dissolved
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Timothy J. Corrigan of the Middle District of
Florida, Jacksonville Division, ruled on the parties' motions in
the case OLIVETTE COFFEY, JR., et al., Plaintiffs, v. DWIGHT
BRADDY, etc., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 3:71-CV-44-J-32PDB
(M.D. Fla.)

In January 1971, Nancy Brackett, a resident of a predominantly
black neighborhood in Jacksonville, and Olivette Coffey and Harry
Johnson, two young black men with firefighting experience in the
military whose applications to join Jacksonville's fire department
had been rejected, filed a class action lawsuit claiming the
department's hiring practices for new firefighters violated their
civil rights. Seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under the
due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth
Amendment, and under the Florida Constitution and Florida law,
plaintiffs sought to represent a class of the black residents of
the City of Jacksonville who desired to have their homes and
neighborhoods protected by a fire department whose members
reflected the diversity of Jacksonville's ethnic and minority
populations, as well as a class of black fire private applicants
and potential applicants whose applications had been or would be
denied because of the fire department's discriminatory hiring
process.


Within months, the parties had agreed to a plan that would resolve
the issues and on August 12, 1971, United States District Judge
Charles Scott, now deceased, issued a consent decree adopting
their agreement. The consent decree contained a provision
requiring the City to hire an equal number of blacks and whites
until the ratio of black fire fighters to white fire fighters
reflects the ratio of black citizens to white citizens in the City
of Jacksonville.

The City complied until 1992 when it unilaterally, without notice
and without the court's approval, simply stopped following the
court's decree. Immediately thereafter the rate of hiring of black
firefighters plummeted. However, it was not until 2007, some
fifteen years later, that plaintiffs sought to hold the city to
account for its action. Plaintiffs properly challenged the city's
compliance with the 1982 consent decree by moving for an order to
show cause as to why the city should not be held in contempt.
However, the city has raised the defense of laches, contending
that plaintiffs' 15-year delay in raising the issue has prejudiced
the city's ability to defend itself and that plaintiffs are
therefore barred from raising a claim of non-compliance. The city
then filed a motion to dissolve the decree and to dismiss the
case.

Judge Corrigan denied plaintiff's motion to hold the City of
Jacksonville in contempt and granted the City's motion to dissolve
the decree and dismissed the case. The parties' July 2, 1981
stipulation and agreement to amend the 1971 consent decree,
adopted by the court in its November 24, 1982 Order, is dissolved.

A copy of Judge Corrigan's order dated February 16, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/EFFPHyfrom Leagle.com.

Olivette Coffey, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Bruce B. Elfvin,
Elfvin & Besser, Co., LPA, Christy B. Bishop, Thompson & Bishop,
Dennis R. Thompson, Thompson & Bishop, Heather Moore Collins,
Henrichsen Siegel, PLLC, Helen Heim Albee, Henrichsen Siegel,
PLLC, Neil L. Henrichsen, Henrichsen Siegel, PLLC & Shands M.
Wulbern, The Law Office of Shands M. Wulbern, PA

Harry J. Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce B. Elfvin,
Elfvin & Besser, Co., LPA, Christy B. Bishop, Thompson & Bishop,
Dennis R. Thompson, Thompson & Bishop, Heather Moore Collins,
Henrichsen Siegel, PLLC, Helen Heim Albee, Henrichsen Siegel,
PLLC, Neil L. Henrichsen, Henrichsen Siegel, PLLC & Shands M.
Wulbern, The Law Office of Shands M. Wulbern, PA

Nancy J. Brackett, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce B. Elfvin,
Elfvin & Besser, Co., LPA, Christy B. Bishop, Thompson & Bishop,
Dennis R. Thompson, Thompson & Bishop, Heather Moore Collins,
Henrichsen Siegel, PLLC, Helen Heim Albee, Henrichsen Siegel,
PLLC, Neil L. Henrichsen, Henrichsen Siegel, PLLC & Shands M.
Wulbern, The Law Office of Shands M. Wulbern, PA

Jacksonville Brotherhood of Firefighters, Plaintiff, represented
by Bruce B. Elfvin, Elfvin & Besser, Co., LPA, Christy B. Bishop,
Thompson & Bishop, Dennis R. Thompson, Thompson & Bishop, Heather
Moore Collins, Henrichsen Siegel, PLLC, Helen Heim Albee,
Henrichsen Siegel, PLLC, Neil L. Henrichsen, Henrichsen Siegel,
PLLC, Shands M. Wulbern, The Law Office of Shands M. Wulbern, PA &
William J. Sheppard, Sheppard, White & Kachergus, PA

Dwight Braddy, Defendant, represented by Cindy A. Laquidara,
Akerman LLP & Mary W. Jarrett, City of Jacksonville

J. C. Dekle, Defendant, represented by Cindy A. Laquidara, Akerman
LLP & Mary W. Jarrett, City of Jacksonville

William Hallowes, Defendant, represented by Cindy A. Laquidara,
Akerman LLP & Mary W. Jarrett, City of Jacksonville

Warren E. Thomas, Defendant, represented by Cindy A. Laquidara,
Akerman LLP & Mary W. Jarrett, City of Jacksonville

Boyd Jolly, Defendant, represented by Cindy A. Laquidara, Akerman
LLP & Mary W. Jarrett, City of Jacksonville

Frank Carlucci, Defendant, represented by Cindy A. Laquidara,
Akerman LLP & Mary W. Jarrett, City of Jacksonville

Roger West, Defendant, represented by Cindy A. Laquidara, Akerman
LLP & Mary W. Jarrett, City of Jacksonville

W. E. Smith, Defendant, represented by Cindy A. Laquidara, Akerman
LLP & Mary W. Jarrett, City of Jacksonville

Norman R. Shapless, Jr., Defendant, represented by Cindy A.
Laquidara, Akerman LLP & Mary W. Jarrett, City of Jacksonville

City of Jacksonville/Duval County, Defendant, represented by Adina
Teodorescu, Office of General Counsel, Carol Mirando, City of
Jacksonville, Cindy A. Laquidara, Akerman LLP, Craig D. Feiser,
City of Jacksonville & Gabriella Young, Office of General Counsel

International Association of Firefighters Local 122, Interested
Party, represented by Paul Andrew Donnelly, Donnelly & Gross, PA

Sabrina Potter, Movant, represented by Christy B. Bishop, Thompson
& Bishop & Dennis R. Thompson, Thompson & Bishop
Kyor Sanders, Movant, represented by Christy B. Bishop, Thompson &
Bishop & Dennis R. Thompson, Thompson & Bishop

Adrian Johnson, Movant, represented by Christy B. Bishop, Thompson
& Bishop & Dennis R. Thompson, Thompson & Bishop


JANSSEN PHARMA: Defense to Focus on Causation in Risperdal Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for Law.com, reports that while the
second Risperdal trial resulted in a verdict favoring drugmaker
Janssen Pharmaceuticals, the company was still found negligent in
failing to warn -- as it was in the first trial -- leading some
attorneys to speculate that Janssen will focus less on failure to
warn defenses and more on the individual facts of each case.

Additionally, observers said that given the different results of
each case, and the fact that only two have been tried, it's still
too early to definitively predict the direction of the litigation.

The first Risperdal case in Philadelphia concluded with a $2.5
million verdict for the plaintiff, Austin Pledger.  In the second
trial, the case of plaintiff William Cirba, the jury found that
Risperdal was not the cause of the plaintiff's breast growth.

Howard D. Scher -- howard.scher@bipc.com -- a defense litigator at
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, said since Janssen was found to have
failed to warn about the potential risk of Risperdal to cause
enlarged breast growth in males, or gynecomastia, in both cases,
it should drop a failing argument.

"It seems to me that the warnings were not adequate; I would
abandon the losing argument," Mr. Scher said.  "I would focus on
the other issues available to me, that should be the lesson
learned."

Despite that, Mr. Scher said the win for Janssen was still
significant.

"The defense may not be high-fiving," Mr. Scher said, "but it
proves the defense can win in a Risperdal case."

However, he added, "it also proves that juries believe the
labeling was wrong."

Products liability attorney Alan Klein -- AKlein@duanemorris.com
-- of Duane Morris said the future is still cloudy regarding
emerging trends in the mass tort.

"I don't think you can read the tea leaves at this point,"
Mr. Klein said.  "I still think it's early in terms of mass torts.
It will take a few more trials to determine if there's any kind of
pattern."

As far as the immediate future is concerned, the individual facts
relating to causation will matter the most in the upcoming cases.

Factors such as the plaintiff's condition before and during use of
the drug, the prescribing doctor's knowledge of the drug's side-
effects, and the admissibility of certain evidence will be
important variables, according to Mr. Klein.

But if "failure to warn" arguments are to ensue again, Mr. Klein
said the outcome will depend largely on which lawyer is more
convincing to the jury.

"It's a question of who is most persuasive in front of the jury in
terms of explaining the science.  That's a big variable," Mr.
Klein said, in addition the jury's intelligence and the complexity
of the science.

James H. Heller -- jimheller@cozen.com -- chairman of Cozen
O'Connor's products liability department, said the first two
Risperdal cases would influence the strategies of attorneys on
both sides.

Janssen has two defenses, according to Mr. Heller: one for failure
to warn and one for causation.

"One that hasn't yet worked is that they appropriately warned,"
Mr. Heller said.

However, Mr. Heller said that Janssen benefited in both cases
because neither jury appeared to be angry at the company.

"If the jury was angry, you'd find out in the verdict. $2.5
million is not a particularly high verdict," Mr. Heller said,
referencing the first Risperdal case.

As for whether Janssen should drop its failure to warn defenses
entirely, Mr. Heller said, "I abandon defenses when the jury gets
angry at the evidence  . . . here I don't think that either jury
has gotten angry.  But I clearly would focus my defense on
causation."

An attorney familiar with the litigation said the fact that
Janssen was found negligent in failing to warn in both trials
strengthens the rest of the plaintiffs' cases.

The attorney added, "The plaintiffs may look at the second case as
not strong factually and as an aberration, on the other hand, the
defendants may say many of these cases are going to follow the
factual scenario of the first case and that may embolden them to
want to try more cases going forward."

Stephen A. Sheller of Sheller P.C., whose firm tries Risperdal
cases for the plaintiffs along with Kline & Specter, said the
central issue in the cases is the purported lack of warning about
the drug's risks.

In terms of the individual facts, Mr. Sheller said that it is
difficult to prove whether a plaintiff has experienced
gynecomastia if that person is already overweight, part of the
problem in the second Risperdal case.

"We questioned the jurors" from the second trial, Mr. Sheller
said, "and found that . . . they weren't convinced that he had
gynecomastia."

In the future, Mr. Sheller said, the plaintiffs' attorneys will
focus on a plaintiff's early years with pictures taken before
Risperdal use.

Thomas R. Kline of Kline & Specter said the course of the mass
tort will in part be affected by the parallel appellate cases,
such as an appeal contesting Supervising Judge Arnold New's order
barring punitive damages in the cases, in accordance with New
Jersey law. Johnson & Johnson, Janssen's parent company, is a New
Jersey entity.

In terms of the trials to come, Mr. Kline said, "I don't see the
failure to warn case getting any better for Janssen.  The facts
are well established on their failure to provide crucial
information to the [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] and their
failure to provide information to the prescribing physicians while
this drug was being used off-label."

Furthermore, Mr. Kline said, "A continuing battleground in these
cases will be in individual case causation, which was a focus on
the defense in the Cirba case.  The defense will continue to offer
defenses that gynecomastia occurred as a result of puberty or
weight gain."

Mr. Kline said that individual cases vary, with each plaintiff
suffering from different ailments as well as how informed specific
doctors were to the risks of the drug.

"But the common denominator from which Janssen cannot run or hide
is the failure-to-warn double verdict," Mr. Kline said.

As of press time, no settlement discussions between the remaining
plaintiffs in the more-than 1,250 Philadelphia Risperdal cases and
Janssen had taken place, according to Kline.

A spokesperson for Janssen said in an email to The Legal,
"Importantly, the jury in the Cirba trial found that the
plaintiff's physical condition was not caused by using Risperdal.
We will continue to present evidence showing that Risperdal's FDA-
approved label properly warned of potential side effects and that
physicians were aware of those side effects.  And we will defend
ourselves and will try cases where appropriate."


JERSEY BOYS: "Guzman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Celso Hilario Guzman, individually and in behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. Jersey Boys LLC d/b/a Tre and Luigi
Piscopo, Case No. 1:15-cv-02324 (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2015), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Defendants own and operate a full-service restaurant located
at 173 Ludlow Street, New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JGWPT HOLDINGS: "Sanders" Suit Remanded to State Court
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sara L. Ellis of the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division remanded the case of VALERIO SANDERS, JANEKA
HICKS, KENNETH JENNINGS, and KEVIN RINCK, Plaintiffs, v. JGWPT
HOLDINGS, INC., JGWPT HOLDINGS, LLC, J.G. WENTWORTH LLC, PEACHHI,
LLC, PEACH HOLDINGS, INC., PEACHTREE FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, LLC,
PEACHTREE SETTLEMENT FUNDING LLC, SETTLEMENT FUNDING, LLC d/b/a
PEACHTREE SETTLEMENT FUNDING, BRIAN P. MACK, and THE MACK LAW
GROUP, P.C., Defendants, NO. 14 C 9188 (N.D. Ill.)

Valerio Sanders, Janeka Hicks, Kenneth Jennings, and Kevin Rinck
are beneficiaries of structured settlement agreements that contain
non-assignment provisions.

The defendants engaged in the business of purchasing deferred
payment annuities (structured settlements) and their attorneys.
Defendants directly solicited plaintiffs or marketed themselves to
plaintiffs via television, radio, print advertising and the
internet. Defendants' aim was to induce plaintiffs to sell their
structured settlement payments in exchange for a deeply discounted
lump sum payment.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants and their lawyers conspired to
defraud plaintiffs and the Illinois courts by pushing through
transfer orders when they knew the anti-assignment clauses in
plaintiffs' settlement agreements made those payments non-
transferable. Defendants assured plaintiffs that they would
explain the court-approval process to the plaintiffs and shepherd
them through the courts to obtain the transfer orders.

Plaintiffs bring claims against defendants, the solicitors and
purchasers of the structured settlements, and the attorney and his
law firm involved in presenting the transactions to the Illinois
state courts for approval. Plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary
duty (Count I), tortious interference with contract (Count II),
unjust enrichment (Count III), violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. Section
1961(c) (Count IV) and Section 1961(d) (Count V), civil conspiracy
(Count VI), joint enterprise (Count VII), and conversion (Count
VIII).

Plaintiffs initially filed suit in the Circuit Court of St. Clair
County, Illinois, Twentieth Judicial District. Defendants then
removed the case to the Southern District of Illinois. Plaintiffs
filed a motion to remand, which was withdrawn. The JGWPT
defendants requested and were granted a motion to transfer venue
to this district, while Settlement Funding simultaneously filed,
in this district, a separate motion to compel arbitration against
Plaintiffs Sanders, Jennings, and Rinck based on the structured
settlements and to enjoin the federal proceedings.  Plaintiffs
have pleaded jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 and
the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d).

Defendants Brian P. Mack and The Mack Law Group, P.C. move to
dismiss all claims against them in the Second Amended Complaint
Defendants JGWPT Holdings, Inc., JGWPT Holdings, LLC, J.G.
Wentworth, LLC, PeachHI, LLC, Peach Holdings, Inc., Peachtree
Financial Solutions, LLC, and Peachtree Settlement Funding LLC
similarly move to dismiss all claims. Defendant Settlement
Funding, LLC d/b/a Peachtree Settlement Funding moves to dismiss
the claims of plaintiffs Janeka Hicks and Ramon Rosario on behalf
of Tony Cook, deceased, or to transfer their claims to the
Northern District of Illinois.

Judge Ellis remanded the case to the Circuit Court of St. Clair
County, Illinois, since the court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction.

A copy of Judge Ellis's opinion and order dated March 5, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/rMQH8dfrom Leagle.com.

Valerio Sanders, Plaintiff, represented by Eric D. Holland,
Holland, Groves & Schneller, LLC, Randall Seth Crompton, Holland,
Groves, Schneller & Stolze, L.l.c., Ryan James Mahoney, Cates
Mahoney, LLC, Brad Lee Badgley, Brad L. Badgley, P.c. & David
Cates, Cates Mahoney, LLC

Janeka Hicks, Plaintiff, represented by David Cates, Cates
Mahoney, LLC, Eric D. Holland, Holland, Groves & Schneller, LLC,
Randall Seth Crompton, Holland, Groves, Schneller & Stolze,
L.L.C., Brad Lee Badgley, Brad L. Badgley, P.c. & Ryan James
Mahoney, Cates Mahoney, LLC

Kenneth Jennings, Plaintiff, represented by David Cates, Cates
Mahoney, LLC, Eric D. Holland, Holland, Groves & Schneller, LLC,
Randall Seth Crompton, Holland, Groves, Schneller & Stolze,
L.l.c., Brad Lee Badgley, Brad L. Badgley, P.c. & Ryan James
Mahoney, Cates Mahoney, LLC

Kevin Rinck, Plaintiff, represented by David Cates, Cates Mahoney,
LLC, Eric D. Holland, Holland, Groves & Schneller, LLC, Randall
Seth Crompton, Holland, Groves, Schneller & Stolze, L.l.c., Brad
Lee Badgley, Brad L. Badgley, P.c. & Ryan James Mahoney, Cates
Mahoney, LLC

JGWPT Holdings, Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy Charles
Sansone, Sandberg Phoenix & Von Gontard P.c., A. Courtney Cox,
Sandberg, Phoenix et al., Anthony L. Martin, Sandberg, Phoenix et
al., David Ackland Maas, Reed Smith Llp, Diane Green-Kelly, Reed
Smith LLP, Margaret Grignon, Reed Smith, Maria Teresa Pellegrini,
Reed Smith Llp, Mark S. Melodia, Reed Smith LLP & Michael David
Richman, Reed Smith LLP

JGWPT Holdings, LLC, Defendant, represented by Timothy Charles
Sansone, Sandberg Phoenix & Von Gontard P.c., A. Courtney Cox,
Sandberg, Phoenix et al., Anthony L. Martin, Sandberg, Phoenix et
al., David Ackland Maas, Reed Smith Llp, Diane Green-Kelly, Reed
Smith LLP, Margaret Grignon, Reed Smith, Maria Teresa Pellegrini,
Reed Smith Llp, Mark S. Melodia, Reed Smith LLP & Michael David
Richman, Reed Smith LLP

J.G. Wentworth, LLC, Defendant, represented by Timothy Charles
Sansone, Sandberg Phoenix & Von Gontard P.c., A. Courtney Cox,
Sandberg, Phoenix et al., Anthony L. Martin, Sandberg, Phoenix et
al.,David Ackland Maas, Reed Smith Llp, Diane Green-Kelly, Reed
Smith LLP, Margaret Grignon, Reed Smith, Maria Teresa Pellegrini,
Reed Smith Llp, Mark S. Melodia, Reed Smith LLP & Michael David
Richman, Reed Smith LLP

Peachhi, LLC, Defendant, represented by Timothy Charles Sansone,
Sandberg Phoenix & Von Gontard P.c., A. Courtney Cox, Sandberg,
Phoenix et al., Anthony L. Martin, Sandberg, Phoenix et al., David
Ackland Maas, Reed Smith Llp, Diane Green-Kelly, Reed Smith LLP,
Margaret Grignon, Reed Smith,Maria Teresa Pellegrini, Reed Smith
Llp, Mark S. Melodia, Reed Smith LLP & Michael David Richman, Reed
Smith LLP

Peach Holdings, Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy Charles
Sansone, Sandberg Phoenix & Von Gontard P.c., A. Courtney Cox,
Sandberg, Phoenix et al., Anthony L. Martin, Sandberg, Phoenix et
al., David Ackland Maas, Reed Smith Llp, Diane Green-Kelly, Reed
Smith LLP, Margaret Grignon, Reed Smith, Maria Teresa Pellegrini,
Reed Smith Llp, Mark S. Melodia, Reed Smith LLP & Michael David
Richman, Reed Smith LLP

Peachtree Financial Solutions, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Timothy Charles Sansone, Sandberg Phoenix & Von Gontard P.c., A.
Courtney Cox, Sandberg, Phoenix et al., Anthony L. Martin,
Sandberg, Phoenix et al., David Ackland Maas, Reed Smith Llp,
Diane Green-Kelly, Reed Smith LLP, Margaret Grignon, Reed Smith,
Maria Teresa Pellegrini, Reed Smith Llp, Mark S. Melodia, Reed
Smith LLP & Michael David Richman, Reed Smith LLP

Peachtree Settlement Funding LLC, Defendant, represented by
Timothy Charles Sansone, Sandberg Phoenix & Von Gontard P.c., A.
Courtney Cox, Sandberg, Phoenix et al., Anthony L. Martin,
Sandberg, Phoenix et al., David Ackland Maas, Reed Smith Llp,
Diane Green-Kelly, Reed Smith LLP, Margaret Grignon, Reed Smith,
Maria Teresa Pellegrini, Reed Smith Llp, Mark S. Melodia, Reed
Smith LLP & Michael David Richman, Reed Smith LLP

Settlement Funding LLC, Defendant, represented by Timothy Charles
Sansone, Sandberg Phoenix & Von Gontard P.c., A. Courtney Cox,
Sandberg, Phoenix et al., Anthony L. Martin, Sandberg, Phoenix et
al., David Ackland Maas, Reed Smith Llp, Diane Green-Kelly, Reed
Smith LLP, Margaret Grignon, Reed Smith, Maria Teresa Pellegrini,
Reed Smith Llp, Mark S. Melodia, Reed Smith LLP & Michael David
Richman, Reed Smith LLP

Brian P. Mack, Defendant, represented by John Francis Grady, Grady
Bell LLP & Lauren F. Catlin, Grady Bell LLP

Mack Law Group, PC, Defendant, represented by John Francis Grady,
Grady Bell LLP & Lauren F. Catlin, Grady Bell LLP


JOSLYN MANUFACTURING: Sanctions Upheld Against Bolton Sisters
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shirley A. Bolton, Linda C. Bolton, and Vickie E. Neal (the Bolton
sisters) grew up in Richton, Mississippi, near a wood processing
facility where wood chips were treated with toxic chemicals.
Attorney Dana G. Kirk and the Kirk Law Firm of Houston, Texas
(Kirk) filed a mass tort action in Mississippi against the Joslyn
Manufacturing Company (Joslyn) and the Powe Timber Company in
December 2001. The Bolton sisters were included in the lawsuit
with approximately 1300 other claimants. Unbeknownst to the Bolton
sisters, Kirk brought in other law firms from Dallas, Texas to
assist with the representation, including Collen A. Clark and the
Schmidt & Clark Law Firm. Eventually, in January 2007, Mr. Clark
negotiated a Memorandum of00 Understanding (MOU) with attorneys
who represented Joslyn. The MOU created an $11 million settlement
fund and divided claimants into two classes, one consisting of
those generally on tracks to be considered for a settlement award,
and the other composed of those whose claims were placed on a
dismissal track. The Bolton sisters were placed in the second
class of claimants.

Joslyn filed summary judgment motions against the Bolton sisters
and others in mid-March 2007. Before the end of March 2007, the
Bolton sisters and other claimants terminated Kirk's
representation. Appellants hired other lawyers to negotiate a
settlement on their behalf, but they did not oppose Joslyn's
summary judgment motion. After they signed a settlement and
release, gross settlement funds of approximately $70,000 for each
of the Bolton sisters were deposited in the Circuit Court of
Jasper, Mississippi.

The Bolton sisters filed a pro se arbitration claim in the
District of Columbia on January 28, 2008, against Kirk and other
attorneys and law firms that handled the Mississippi toxic tort
litigation. The claim was handled by the appellees Crowley, Hoge &
Fein, P.C. (CHF).

The arbitrators issued a modified order finding that the Bolton
sisters cannot meet the proximate cause requirement imposed by
Mississippi law in proving legal malpractice, that is, they cannot
demonstrate that, but for the alleged breach of duty allegedly
committed by Kirk and others by entering into the MOU, appellants
would not have suffered the economic injuries they claim. CHF
filed an attorneys' lien in the Jasper, Mississippi Circuit Court
against the Bolton sisters' settlement funds, claiming unpaid
attorneys' fees. CHF's Jasper County lien for unpaid attorneys'
fees was held to be invalid.

CHF filed its Superior Court complaint for unpaid legal fees, in
the amount of $137,046.45, on March 25, 2010. The Bolton sisters
lodged an amended counterclaim on August 8, 2010, alleging five
counts, breach of contract, professional negligence/malpractice,
abuse of process, conversion, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty
of loyalty.

The Honorable Brook Hedge dismissed the fraud count on the ground
that appellants failed to plead it with specificity. She also
dismissed the abuse of process, conversion and fraud claims
because she did not think that on its face the complaint states a
claim with respect to those three causes of action. The dismissal
was without prejudice.

During the discovery and deposition phase of the trial court
litigation, CHF filed a motion for sanctions and/or to compel
depositions due to the failure of Shirley Bolton and Vickie Neal
to appear for scheduled depositions. Judge Rankin granted the
motion on January 26, 2012, and imposed a $7,338.58 monetary
sanction against appellants. After CHF filed its motion for
summary judgment and appellants opposed it, Judge Rankin granted
summary judgment, on March 6, 2012, in favor of CHF on all of the
Bolton sisters' remaining counterclaim counts, except for the
breach of contract count, and he reiterated the dismissal of the
fraud, conversion, and abuse of process counterclaims because no
amendment was undertaken after Judge Hedge dismissed these
counterclaim counts without prejudice.

The breach of contract claim proceeded to trial and resulted in a
September 20, 2012, jury verdict against the Bolton sisters for
unpaid attorneys' fees in the amount of $153,973.00 with interest
and costs. The trial court denied their post-verdict motion for a
new trial on November 2, 2012, and they noticed an appeal.

Senior Judge Inez Smith Reid of the District of Columbia Court of
Appeals, affirmed the trial court's sanctions award but reversed
the trial court's grant of summary judgment on appellants' breach
of the fiduciary duty of loyalty counterclaim and remanded that
counterclaim for further proceedings. Senior Judge Reid also
affirmed the jury's liability finding on the breach of contract
claim, but instructed the trial court to hold the jury's monetary
award of attorneys' fees in abeyance until after the resolution of
the breach of fiduciary duty counterclaim.

A copy of Senior Judge Reid's unpublished opinion dated February
19, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/nJVMe9from Leagle.com

The appellate case is, SHIRLEY BOLTON, et al., Appellants, v.
CROWLEY, HOGE & FEIN, P.C., Appellees, NO. 12-CV-1749 (D.C.)

Linda Bolton, pro se, with whom Shirley A. Bolton and Vickie E.
Neal, pro se, for appellants

Laura M.K. Hassler and Christopher G. Hoge, with whom Aaron L.
Handleman -- handleman@ewdc.com -- Elena Inga, for appellees

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals panel consists of Senior
Judge Inez Smith Reid and Associate Judges Anna Blackburne-Rigsby
and Phyllis D. Thompson


KEITH HARING: Court Tosses Consolidated $40-Mil. Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Keith Haring Foundation's refusal to authenticate about 80
works cannot be spun into an antitrust conspiracy to control the
market on paintings belonging to the iconic pop artist, reports
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court
ruling.

Before dying in 1990 at the age of 31, Haring blazed a trail
through the art world with paintings inspired by graffiti, social
activism and a pop aesthetic.  His 1986 "Crack is Wack" mural
greeted commuters on the Harlem River Drive as one of New York
City's most visible public art landmarks.

The mural is also emblematic of his social activism on issues such
as drug addiction and AIDS.

Nine collectors led by Elizabeth Bilinski sued his foundation last
year for describing their purported Haring works as "fakes,"
allegedly wrecking the collective $40 million value of the pieces.

The lawsuit alleged that the foundation, dealers and auction
houses ignored evidence of the works' authenticity in order to
control the market on Haring paintings.

But U.S. District Judge Denise Cote refused to allow such "broad
allegations" to make it past the pleading stage.

The collectors' theory of the case would posit that "any refusal
by an auction house, dealer, or gallery to sell a Haring without
authentication by the foundation could be a conspiratorial act,"
she wrote in a 35-page opinion.

"Furthermore, the complaint's allegations regarding the refusals
of auction houses and others to accept plaintiffs' works can be
explained by unilateral decisions motivated by entirely lawful
goals," the opinion states.  "The decision by any individual
entity not to sell artwork that may not be authentic is an act
consistent with lawful, independent action."

The allegations against the Haring Foundation mirrored a former
lawsuit against the Andy Warhol Foundation.

In that case, filmmaker Joe Simon-Whelan led a class action
claiming the Warhol Foundation's now-defunct authentication board
conspired to artificially inflate prices of the pop artist's
works.

In 2009, a federal judge's decision to allow the lawsuit against
the Warhol Foundation to move into the discovery phase rippled
across the art world by exposing organizations that authenticated
artwork to civil liability.

Although Simon-Whelan ultimately retracted his conspiracy claims,
the Warhol authentication board was dissolved three years later.

The same year, the Haring Foundation also got out of the
authentication business, according to the opinion.

"No catalogue raisonne exists for Haring's works, and the
[collectors] here do not premise their claim on an agreement
between the foundation and the committee, but on an agreement
between the foundation and art dealers, auction houses, and
galleries," the opinion notes.  "As significantly, the defendants
here ceased their authentication activities in 2012 and could not
be plausibly alleged to control authentication of Haring's work."

Cote dismissed all claims on March 6.

An attorney for the collectors declined to comment on the record
by press time, and the foundation's lawyer did not immediately
respond to a request for comment.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian C. Kerr, Esq.
          BROWER PIVEN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          488 Madison Avenue, Eighth Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 501-9000
          Facsimile: (212) 501-0300
          E-mail: kerr@browerpiven.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Margaret Antinori Dale, Esq.
          Qian Jennifer Yang, Esq.
          Sarah Schrank Gold, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP (NY)
          11 Times Square
          Eighth Avenue & 41st Street
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 969-3000
          Facsimile: (212) 969-2900
          E-mail: mdale@proskauer.com
                  jyang@proskauer.com
                  sgold@proskauer.com

The consolidated case is Elizabeth Bilinski, et al. v. The Keith
Haring Foundation, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-01085-DLC, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.


KMART CORPORATION: Faces "Hautur" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Hautur & Carol Gurnish, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. KMart Corporation, Case No.
1:15-cv-00267 (W.D.N.Y., March 27, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked above
40 in a workweek.

KMart Corporation is a Delaware corporation headquartered at 3333
Beverly Road, Hoffman Estates, Illinois 60179, which owns and
operates retail stores throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Seth Richard Lesser, Esq.
      KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
      Two International Drive
      Suite 350
      Rye Brook, NY 10573
      Telephone: (914) 934-9200
      Facsimile: (914) 934-9220
      E-mail: slesser@klafterolsen.com


LA BEAU: Motion for Default Judgment Granted in "Barcey" Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Terrence G. Berg of the Eastern District of
Michigan granted plaintiff's motion for default judgment in the
case TODD BARCEY, Plaintiff, v. LA BEAU, INC., Defendant, CIV. NO.
14-10249 (E.D. Mich.)

Defendant La Beau, Inc. d/b/a Luigi's Restaurant/El Toro Pub is a
pizzeria located in Flint, Michigan.  Todd Barcey is apparently
quite fond of Luigi's pizza. He visited Luigi's at least 20 times
between December 18, 2012 and January 25, 2013, purchasing food or
beverages each time, and generating a receipt. Plaintiff used his
visa debit card to pay for his purchases, and received printed
receipts from Luigi's. All of the receipts given by defendant
displayed plaintiff's entire visa debit card number, as well as
the card's expiration date.

Plaintiff sued defendant on January 19, 2014 for violation of the
Fair Accurate Credit Transaction Act (FACTA). The Summons and
Complaint were personally served upon defendant on March 3, 2014.
Defendant never filed a responsive pleading, thus plaintiff
requested a clerk's entry of default on May 20, 2014. The Clerk
then entered a default against defendant on September 11, 2014.
Plaintiff then moved for the entry of a default judgment.

Judge Berg granted plaintiff's motion for entry of default
judgment and awarded the plaintiff $300 in statutory damages, and
$425 in costs in the total amount of $725.

A copy of Judge Berg's opinion and order dated February 17, 2015
is available at http://is.gd/GqKSH5from Leagle.com.

Todd Barcey, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew L. Campbell --
andrew.campbell@FaegreBD.com -- at The Law Firm of Faegre Baker
Daniels


LAS VEGAS SANDS: Fails to Disclose "Resort Fee" in Ads, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that The Palazzo, The Venetian
Resort Hotel Casino, and Las Vegas Sands fail to disclose a
"resort fee" in their online ads, a class action claims in
California Federal Court.


LOCAL LIGHTHOUSE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Wick" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Wick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Local Lighthouse Corp., Case No. 2:15-cv-00482 (W.D.
Wash., March 27, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of
making automated telephone calls to consumers' cellular phones
from an automatic telephone dialing system.

Local Lighthouse Corp. is a California corporation that provides
internet marketing and search engine optimization to companies
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chase C. Alvord, Esq.
      Jessica T. Stevenson, Esq.
      Jason T. Dennett, Esq.
      Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
      1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 682-5600
      Facsimile: (206) 682-2992
      E-mail: calvord@tousley.com
              jstevenson@tousley.com
              jdennett@tousley.com
              kstephens@tousley.com


LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: 3rd Cir. Affirms Judgment in "Harbison"
----------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge D. Michael Fisher of the United States Court of
Appeals, Third Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in
the appealed case, WILLIAM HARBISON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Appellant, v. LOUISIANA-PACIFIC
CORPORATION, NO. 14-1863 (3rd Cir.)

In 2003, plaintiff William Harbison hired contractors and
subcontractors to install trim on his garage. His contractor
purchased TrimBoard, made by Louisiana-Pacific Corporation. The
TrimBoard came with a ten-year warranty in which, Louisiana-
Pacific Corp., agreed to compensate the owner for repair and
replacement up to twice the original purchase price of the
affected trim. In 2010, the TrimBoard failed. Harbison made a
claim to Louisiana-Pacific under the warranty. In 2011, an
inspector for Louisiana-Pacific inspected the TrimBoard.
Louisiana-Pacific offered Harbison $2,780.08. Harbison declined
the offer. Harbison sued Louisiana-Pacific, claiming that
Louisiana-Pacific breached the warranty and that the damages
limitation was unconscionable.

Defendant moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The district
court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. The
district court found that Harbison could claim the benefit of the
express warranty under the Pennsylvania Commercial Code but that
Harbison could not claim that the damages limitation was
unconscionable. Accordingly, the district court denied Harbison's
claims to the extent he requested the court strike the allegedly
unconscionable damages limitation from the warranty. Harbison
moved for leave to file a second amended complaint to reiterate
his claim that the damages limitation was unconscionable. The
district court denied the motion because the amendments would be
futile. Louisiana-Pacific then moved for summary judgment on the
basis that it had complied with the express warranty and its
damages limitation. The district court granted Louisiana-Pacific's
motion and terminated the case. Harbison filed a timely appeal.

Judge Fisher affirmed the district court's judgment in an opinion
dated February 18, 2015, available at http://is.gd/kYdWZdfrom
Leagle.com.

The Third Circuit panel consists of Judges D. Michael Fisher, Kent
A. Jordan and Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Phelan" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
-----------------------------------------------------------
Thomas P. Phelan, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-02318 (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 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.  The Company is a retailer of hardwood flooring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Domenick Zaremba, Esq.
      ZAREMBA BROWNELL & BROWN, PLLC
      40 Wall Street, 28th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 400-7223
      Facsimile: (212) 400-7224
      E-mail: jzaremba@zbblaw.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Latta" Suit Over Chinese-Made Flooring
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Lumber Liquidators faces a
slew of class actions across the country accusing it of falsely
advertising Chinese-made flooring that emits illegal levels of
carcinogenic formaldehyde.

Eleven class actions in March, from California to Florida, claim
Lumber Liquidators falsely advertises that its Chinese-made
laminate flooring complies with state and federal formaldehyde
limits.  But the products exceed state and federal standards by as
much as 1,300 percent, according to a March 6 federal complaint in
Sacramento, from which quotes for this article are taken.

This is not the first wave of class actions involving toxic wood
products from China, though it is the first aimed specifically at
Lumber Liquidators.  Dozens or hundreds of similar lawsuits were
filed after Hurricane Katrina devastated the South in 2005.  The
Federal Emergency Management Agency spent $2 billion to house
hurricane refugees in trailers, only to find that the Chinese-made
wood laminates emitted illegal levels of formaldehyde.  Many
people became sick, and the prevalence of the toxic chemical
complicated FEMA's enormous relief effort.

In the March 6 lawsuit in Sacramento, lead plaintiff Sara Latta
claims that Lumber Liquidators "prominently advertises" that its
Chinese flooring complies with "California's strict formaldehyde
emission standards promulgated by the California Air Resources
Board," or CARB standards.

Latta claims that Lumber Liquidators advertises its Chinese wood
products across the United States as compliant with California
CARB standards.

The standards are codified in California's Airborne Toxic Control
Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood
Products (CARB regulations).

California's standards have been adopted as the national standard
by the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite-Wood Products Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 2697, according to the complaint.

But Lumber Liquidators knew or should have known that Chinese wood
products are unsafe, Latta says in the 34-page lawsuit.  The
Hardwood Plywood and Veneer Association Environmental
International acknowledges it, Latta claims.

China puts so much formaldehyde in wood that "more than 65 percent
of the Chinese formaldehyde output is used to produce resins
mainly found in wood products," the complaint states, citing a
2010 report in the journal Environmental Science.

The complaint extensively cites a March 1 story on "60 Minutes"
that Lumber Liquidators' advertising claims.  "Sixty Minutes"
reported that two environmental groups bought more than 150 boxes
of Lumber Liquidators laminate flooring at stores throughout
California and had them tested by certified labs.

"The results showed that 'every single sample of Chinese-made
laminate flooring from Lumber Liquidators failed to meet
California formaldehyde emissions standards.  Many by a large
margin,'" according to the complaint.

"Sixty Minutes" sent its own team to buy Chinese laminates from
Lumber Liquidators stores in Virginia, Florida, Texas and New
York, and sent them for testing to two certified labs.

"'It turns out of the 31 samples of Chinese-made laminate
flooring, only one was compliant with formaldehyde emissions
standards. Some were more than 13x over the California limit.'
Both of the labs told '60 Minutes' that they had never seen
formaldehyde levels that high," the complaint states, citing the
"60 Minutes" report.

Latta seeks class certification, damages and punitive damages for
breach of warranty, negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation,
negligent misrepresentation, violation of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act, fraudulent omission/concealment, false advertising,
unfair competition and consumer law violations.

A Lumber Liquidators spokesman told the Richmond (Calif.) Times-
Dispatch on March 6: "It appears that many of the claims mimic
contentions raised in a separate suit that was filed by a law firm
that also represents a short-seller, which looks to benefit from
decreases in our stock price, in another action against us. We
believe in the safety of our products and intend to defend this
suit vigorously."  It also said that "60 Minutes" used "an
improper test method."

Similar class actions have been filed this month in federal courts
in Oklahoma, New Jersey, Florida, Illinois and North Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          1016 Palm Avenue
          West Hollywood, CA 90069
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces 75 Class Suits Over Laminated Flooring
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that more than 75 class actions have been filed against Lumber
Liquidators Inc. claiming that it mislabeled laminated wood
flooring that emits dangerously high levels of formaldehyde gas.

Nearly all the lawsuits were filed following a March 1 episode of
"60 Minutes," that featured employees at three Chinese mills who
admitted that their Lumber Liquidators products didn't comply with
California emissions standards, among the strictest in the nation.
Shares of Lumber Liquidators have plummeted 40 percent since the
report.

On March 25, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announced
that it would investigate the company's products.

"Thousands of people -- tens of thousands at this point -- are
pretty concerned about the flooring in their house, and whether
it's having any physical repercussions," said Eric Gibbs --
ehg@GirardGibbs.com -- a partner at San Francisco's Girard Gibbs
who is a panelist at a plaintiffs bar conference next month on the
Lumber Liquidators litigation.  "A lot of people are telling us
had they known it was in question, they would never have bought
the flooring in the first place."

Toano, Virginia-based Lumber Liquidators, which has stores in 46
states, has denied the allegations and insists that its Chinese
mills have complied with California standards.

"Lumber Liquidators is committed to providing our customers with
safe, high-quality products," wrote William Stern --
wstern@mofo.com -- a San Francisco partner at Morrison & Foerster,
in an email.  He represents Lumber Liquidators in the litigation.
"We intend to defend ourselves vigorously against claims asserted
in the suits that have been filed relating to the quality of
certain laminated products that we sell."

High levels of formaldehyde, a carcinogen, can irritate the eyes,
nose and throat and, in some cases, cause respiratory problems or
cancer, particularly in children.  Since 2009, the California Air
Resources Board has prohibited the sale of laminated flooring that
emits more than 0.13 parts per million of formaldehyde, which is
used to bind wood composite in the manufacturing process.

As part of an undercover investigation, "60 Minutes" tested 31
samples of flooring purchased at stores across the country, only
one of which was compliant with California's emissions standards
. . . Some were 13 times over the limit.

Lumber Liquidators has attacked the report, questioning the tests
used and the motives of certain hedge-fund short sellers featured
in the episode.

Congress passed the U.S. Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood
Products Act in 2010, which established emission limits that
mirrored California's standards.  Many of the suits, filed in more
than 20 states, have been brought on behalf of nationwide classes
of consumers who are seeking damages under various state consumer
laws.

Lawyers also are investigating whether people may be able to sue
over injuries suffered due to formaldehyde exposure, said Gibbs,
whose firm has filed three consumer class actions.

"We have been contacted by a lot of people -- who have asthma or
things like that -- who are concerned that their physical injuries
could be related to the flooring," he said.

In court, plaintiffs attorneys are pushing for the litigation to
be coordinated for pretrial purposes in Florida, Louisiana, Ohio
and South Carolina, but most have pushed for California.   Lumber
Liquidators wants the cases moved to the Eastern District of
Virginia, the company's home state, according to a court filing
made on March 31.


LYFT INC: Accused of Operating in Memphis Without Proper Licenses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Uber and Lyft are operating in Memphis without mandatory licenses
and other requisites, a class claims in Tennessee Federal Court,
reports Kevin Lessmiller, writing for Courthouse News Service.

Southern Transportation Inc. and driver George Abraham sued Lyft
Inc., Uber Technologies Inc., Rasier LLC and Lyft driver Johnny
Neal individually and on behalf of other Shelby County, Tenn. taxi
and transportation services.

Rasier is a subsidiary of Uber, according to the company's Web
site.  A similar lawsuit was filed a month ago in Miami Federal
Court.

Southern Transportation and Abraham say that the app-based
transportation services are running in the Memphis area without
proper licensing and other requirements.

"The plaintiffs would also show to the court that defendants have
been engaged unlawful[ly] in the taxi/limousine/transportation
'for hire' industry since approximately April 2014, and have
consistently refused to abide by the codes, ordinances and
regulations that have been enforced in Memphis and Shelby County
since the defendants have begun their unlawful operation," the
lawsuit states.

"Defendants are operating 'for hire' yet are doing so without
obtaining licenses, without paying license fees, without proper
insurance, without charging regulated rates and without following
other obligations imposed on 'for hire' vehicle operations,
including, but not limited to, undergoing a physical examination
and criminal background check," it continues.

Members of the class pay license fees and other expenses that
companies like Uber and Lyft do not pay, according to the
complaint.

"These illegal actions by the defendants result in the realization
of illicit profits to the detriment of the plaintiffs, while at
the same time depriving the plaintiffs of profits they would
otherwise obtain but for the actions of the defendants," the
lawsuit states.

The Memphis class seeks a declaration that Uber and Lyft violate
state and city codes.  They also want $3 million for each
plaintiff.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Nicholas E. Bragorgos, Esq.
          MCNABB, BRAGORGOS & BURGESS , PLLC
          81 Monroe Avenue, 6th floor
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 624-0640
          Facsimile: (901) 624-0650
          E-mail: nbragorgos@mbb-law.com


LYFT INC: Didn't Pay Many Drivers Promised Bonuses, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arvin Temkar, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
Lyft campaign promising $1,000 bonuses for new drivers was too
good to be true, according to a class action that claims Lyft
didn't pay many drivers the bonuses.

Lead plaintiffs Casey Loewen and Jonathan Wright claim Lyft
breached contract and defrauded recruits by failing to pay the
$1,000 bonuses.

Lyft launched a pair of campaigns in February, to attract new
drivers in several major cities, including San Francisco, Los
Angeles and New York, according to the March 11 lawsuit.  One
promotion offered $1,000 to current Lyft drivers and to drivers
whom they referred, according to the complaint.  The other
promotion allowed new drivers to sign up for the $1,000 deal
without being referred.

To qualify for the bonuses, drivers had to apply on or after
midnight Feb. 25 and complete their first ride before March 5.
The promos resulted in a huge wave of applicants -- " the biggest
wave of applicants in Lyft history," according to a Lyft email
cited in the lawsuit.

But Lyft did not provide timely background checks for new drivers,
making it impossible for them to give their first ride by the
deadline, the plaintiffs say.

One day before the March 5 deadline, the drivers say, Lyft sent an
email stating: "As we're processing the applications, it's
important that we continue to fulfill our safety obligations.
Some of these steps, including DMV and background checks, are
outside our control and can vary in length for different
applicants.  It is possible that you won't qualify for the
promotion if all steps aren't completed by the March 5 deadline,
along with the ride requirement."

When applicants did not get their background checks back in time,
there was "outrage throughout the Lyft community," plaintiffs say.

"Many drivers took to the Internet to voice their frustrations,
accompanied by the hashtag #lyftgate," the complaint states.

The plaintiffs claim they "substantially performed" their end of
the contract, but could not complete the March 5 ride requirement
"through no fault of their own because Lyft did not approve their
background checks or finalize their applications" by the deadline.

They seek punitive damages for breach of contract, fraud and
intentional misrepresentation, fraud by concealment, and negligent
misrepresentation.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          R. Rex Parris, Esq.
          R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM
          43364 10th Street West
          Lancaster, CA 93534
          Toll free: (877) 773-9669
          Telephone: (661) 429-3399
          Facsimile: (661) 949-7524


MAKO WASH: Faces "Bello" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Norma Carachure Bello and Hector Velazquez Sant Ana, on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mako
Wash, Inc., and Samir Mako, Case No. 8:15-cv-00743 (M.D. Fla.,
March 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for faiure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate car wash businesses in Tampa,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Donna V. Smith, Esq.
      WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
      Suite 300, 1110 N Florida Ave
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 223-0431
      Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
      E-mail: dsmith@wfclaw.com


MESA MEDICAL: Dismissal of "Berera" Case Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Damon J. Keith of the United States Court of Appeals
Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment with
modifications in the appealed case of TAMMY BERERA, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-
Appellant, v. MESA MEDICAL GROUP, PLLC, Defendant-Appellee, NO.
14-5054 (6th Cir.)

Mesa Medical Group, PLLC (Mesa) is a health care organization.
Tammy Berera worked at Mesa as a nurse practitioner from July 2011
to February 2013. After Berera's employment ended, she allegedly
discovered that the wages on her W-2 did not reflect the amount of
wages that Mesa owed her.

Berera filed a class-action complaint against Mesa in Kentucky
state court. Berera asserted: (1) an unpaid wages claim under
section 337.385 of the Kentucky Revised Statutes; and (2) a
negligence claim under Kentucky law. Berera twice amended her
complaint, adding (1) a claim for conversion under Kentucky law
and (2) Katisha Kabalen as a class member.

Mesa removed the case to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Kentucky, asserting that it removed the case
within thirty days of receiving other papers under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1446(b)(3) that first demonstrated the presence of federal
question jurisdiction under the Federal Insurance Contribution Act
(FICA) and the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Berera filed a
motion to remand, arguing; (1) that her claims were state-law
claims for unpaid wages and, hence, there was no basis on which to
remove the case to federal court; (2) that Mesa's notice of
removal was untimely because Mesa filed it more than 30 days after
receiving notice of the supposed federal nature of her claims and;
(3) that there was no basis on which to remove the case under
CAFA.

The district court issued an opinion and order denying Berera's
motion to remand and ordering her to show cause why it should not
dismiss her claims for failure to state a claim. The district
court held that Berera's purported state-law claims amounted to a
federal tax refund suit. The district court reasoned that the
record clearly showed that Berera was attempting to recover FICA
taxes that Mesa wrongfully withheld from her paycheck. Further,
the district court concluded that, even if Mesa did not remit the
withheld wages to the IRS, the suit was still a tax refund suit
because Mesa collected the wages as a tax. Given its determination
that Berera asserted a FICA claim and that federal question
jurisdiction existed, the district court declined to consider
Mesa's alternative argument that jurisdiction was proper under
CAFA. After concluding that Berera truly asserted FICA claims, the
district court held that taxpayers seeking a refund of FICA taxes
must file an administrative claim with the IRS before bringing an
action in federal court. On December 19, 2013, Berera responded to
the show cause order. Unconvinced by the response, the district
court dismissed Berera's complaint, with prejudice. Berera
appealed.

Circuit Judge Keith affirmed the district court's judgment and
stated that the district court did not err in denying Berera's
motion to remand and dismissing the case.

A copy of Judge Keith's opinion dated February 19, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/yTaJE8from Leagle.com

For Appellant:

J. Dale Golden, Esq.
Justin S. Peterson, Esq.
GOLDEN & WALTERS, PLLC
Corporate Plaza 771 Corporate Drive, Suite 905
Lexington, KY 40503
Telephone: 859-219-9090
Facsimile: 859-219-9292

Daniel E. Danford -- ddanford@stites.com -- at STITES & HARBISON,
PLLC, for Appellee

The Sixth Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges Damon J. Keith,
Karen Nelson Moore and Jane Branstetter Stranch


MIDLAND CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Wegh" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Wegh, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Midland
Funding, LLC, and Encore Capital Group, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
01648 (E.D.N.Y., March 27, 2015), arises out of the deceptive and
misleading Validation Rights Notice sent to the consumers in an
attempt to collect on an alleged debt.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of collecting or
attempting to collect debts with its principal place of business
located in San Diego, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MORTGAGE INVESTORS: D. Ore. Judge Denies Bid for Protective Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart of the District of Oregon,
Portland Division, ruled on the parties' motions in the case KELLY
OTT; NANCY LUEBBEN; and BENJAMIN GESLER, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MORTGAGE
INVESTORS CORPORATION OF OHIO, INC., an Ohio corporation also
doing business as MORTGAGE INVESTORS CORPORATION, AMERIGROUP
MORTGAGE CORPORATION, VETERANS INFORMATION DEPARTMENT and VETERANS
HOME LOANS; WILLIAM EDWARDS, individually; JEFFREY CRILLEY,
individually; JAMES SHATZ, individually; and JOHN WESLEY BAILEY
III, individually, Defendants, CASE NO. 3:14-CV-00645-ST (D. Ore.)

The plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against the defendants
including Mortgage Investors Corporation (MIC), alleging that
defendants placed millions of telemarking calls to veterans of the
United States military, or people MIC believed to be veterans, for
the purpose of selling them mortgage products. On December 16,
2014, plaintiffs served 15 separately numbered interrogatories,
one of which was later withdrawn on MIC designed to elicit
information regarding the calls. MIC asserts that plaintiffs
served at least 42 interrogatories, responded only to
Interrogatories Nos. 1-7, and refused to respond further on the
basis that it had, at that point, answered 25 interrogatories.
MIC has filed a Motion for Protective Order asking the court to
determine that plaintiffs have impermissibly propounded more than
25 interrogatories and that MIC need not respond to any additional
interrogatories after Interrogatory No. 7 or, in the alternative,
determine the number of interrogatories already propounded by
plaintiffs and establish a total per-side interrogatory limit that
allows plaintiffs no more than five additional interrogatories. On
the other hand the plaintiffs seek an award of their attorney fees
incurred to respond to MIC's motions.

Magistrate Judge Stewart denied MIC's motion for protective order
and ordered MIC to respond to plaintiffs' remaining
interrogatories Nos. 8-12 and 14-15. Plaintiffs' request for an
award of attorney fees is denied.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Stewart's opinion and order dated
February 17, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/7Yk3QQ from
Leagle.com.

Kelly Ott, Plaintiff, represented by Michael D. Daudt --
mdaudt@tmdwlaw.com -- Beth E. Terrell -- bterrell@tmdwlaw.com --
Jennifer Rust Murray -- jmurray@tmdwlaw.com -- at Terrell Marshall
Daudt & Willie PLLC; Roblin J. Williamson -- lawoffice@2wlaw.com
-- at Williamson and Williams; Michael J. Estok --
mestok@lindsayhart.com -- at Lindsay Hart, LLP

Nancy Luebben and Benjamin Gesler, Plaintiffs, represented by
Michael D. Daudt-- mdaudt@tmdwlaw.com -- Beth E. Terrell --
bterrell@tmdwlaw.com -- Jennifer Rust Murray --
jmurray@tmdwlaw.com -- at Terrell Marshall Daudt & Willie PLLC;
Michael J. Estok -- mestok@lindsayhart.com -- at Lindsay Hart,
LLP; Whitney B. Stark
-- at Mechanic Law Office

Defendants, represented by John Huh -- john.huh@dlapiper.com --
Lesli C. Esposito -- lesli.esposito@dlapiper.com -- Nicole M.
Tadano -- nicole.tadano@dlapiper.com -- Stellman Keehnel --
stellman.keehnel@dlapiper.com -- at DLA Piper LLP


NAVY FEDERAL: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Payment Protection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gerardo Docena, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Navy Federal Credit Union, Case No. 3:15-cv-00184 (D.
Nev., March 27, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's practice of
charging consumers for Payment Protection that virtually provides
no benefits to its subscribers.

Navy Federal Credit Union is the largest credit union in the
United States that serves a clientele of military personnel,
Department of Defense, Department of Defense contractors, and
their families.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter C. Wetherall, Esq.
      WETHERALL GROUP, Ltd.
      9345 W. Sunset Road, Suite 100
      Las Vegas, NV 89148
      Telephone: (702) 838-8500
      Facsimile: (702) 837-5081
      E-mail: pwetherall@wetherallgroup.com


NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS: 2nd Circuit Decertify "Johnson" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hailing from 27 different states, Nextel's workers cannot join in
a class action accusing the company of hiring their lawyers to
court a conflict-of-interest in an employment dispute, reports
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service, citing a 2nd Circuit
ruling entered on March 4.

The case puts a spotlight on what the appellate court dubbed New
York-based law firm Leeds, Morelli & Brown's "novel approach to
aggregate litigation that continues to provoke debate among
experts in legal ethics."

Nearly four years ago, the 2nd Circuit ridiculed the settlement
Leeds Morelli reached for Nextel's workers as an "employment
contract" with their bosses.

Stipulating that 587 employees would split $2 million to waive all
claims, the contract provided the firm with $3.5 million in fees
and an additional $2 million to keep working as a consultant for
Nextel.

Reviving breach of contract, fraud and other claims, the 2nd
Circuit's earlier decision found that the settlement, "on its face
alone," seemed to create an "enormous conflict of interest."

U.S. District Judge George Daniels certified the lawsuit as a
class action when it returned to him on remand.

The appeal on this decision fell before a mostly different panel
of judges, who appeared more neutral to the question of the firm's
ethics.

"Both [Leeds, Morelli & Brown] and Nextel obtained opinion letters
from experts in legal ethics who concluded that the fee
arrangement and dispute resolution process proposed in the
[settlement] were ethical, so long as [the firm] provided
disclosure to, and obtained consent from, the individual clients,"
Judge Gerard Lynch wrote for the panel March 4.

Judges Richard Wesley and Peter Hall, the sole remaining member
from the original panel, joined the new opinion.

Without reaching the substance of the allegations, the court on
March 4 found the workers' situations too diverse to come together
in a single class action.

"The possibility that different state laws will apply is
especially relevant in this case, because we know of at least one
significant conflict that would affect liability for a sizable
portion of the class," the opinion states.

Lynch added: "The application of the different jurisdictions' laws
therefore renders individual issues predominant and undercuts the
superiority of trying the common issues on a classwide basis."

Lawyers for Nextel and the workers have not returned requests for
comment.

The Leeds Morelli law firm, though a defendant in the case, was
not listed as a party to this appeal.

The Plaintiffs-Appellees are represented by:

          Jennifer F. Connolly, Esq.
          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Kenneth S. Thyne, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP
          1701 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 300
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Telephone: (202) 248-5403
          Facsimile: (202) 580-6559
          E-mail: jenniferc@hbsslaw.com
                  steve@hbsslaw.com

Nextel Communications, Inc. is represented by:

          Mark D. Harris, Esq.
          Lawrence R. Sandack, Esq.
          John E. Roberts, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          Eleven Times Square
          Eighth Avenue & 41st Street
          New York, NY 10036-8299
          Telephone: (212) 969-3000
          Facsimile: (212) 969-2900
          E-mail: mharris@proskauer.com
                  lsandak@proskauer.com
                  jroberts@proskauer.com

The appellate case is Michael S. Johnson, et al. v. Nextel
Communications Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 14-454, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.


NEW YORK CITY, NY: Trial in "Banno" False Arrest Suit Continues
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
jury may soon feel the flames of a papier-mache dragon torched
during the 2004 Republican National Convention.

The push to trial comes in Yusuke Joshua Banno's challenge of his
arrest over the enormous dragon float that was ignited near
Madison Square Garden on Aug. 9, 2004.  At 10 feet high and 10
feet wide, the dragon also featured a 20-to-30-foot-long tail as
it flew down Seventh Avenue, court records show.

Identified by an undercover officer as one of the protesters who
lit the dragon on fire, Banno, then a college student in Arizona,
was held on $250,000 bail for arson and riot charges.  Manhattan
prosecutors were forced to drop all charges, however, when
photographic evidence placed Banno away from where the fire first
ignited.

The city ultimately faced a class action by the roughly 1,800
protesters arrested during the convention.  In Banno's case, he
claimed that the undercover officer who fingered him as the
arsonist helped light the dragon himself, in a bid to burnish his
credibility with the anarchist collective that he infiltrated.

The other demonstrators alleged that the NYPD indiscriminately
roped in protesters, reporters, legal observers and bystanders,
using mesh netting and barricades, and tossed them in chemical-
strewn, makeshift cells on Pier 57, along the Hudson River.

The now-shuttered pier came to be nicknamed "Guantanamo-on-the-
Hudson."

As the city reached an $18 million settlement with the class,
Banno chose to pursue his lawsuit separately.

U.S. District Judge Richard Sullivan gave some of Banno's claims
the green light in the last week of February, finding that "a jury
could reasonably find that defendants had no probable cause to
arrest him."  Banno's refusal to unseal his grand jury indictment
proved "fatal," however, to his malicious prosecution claim,
Sullivan found.

Without those grand jury minutes, there is "nothing in the record
indicating what evidence was presented to the grand jury, let
alone that any of it was fraudulent, fabricated or otherwise the
product of bad faith conduct," the 11-page opinion states, quoting
precedent.

The court quoted a claim by Banno's attorney Jeffrey Fogel that he
could show the jury "undisputed evidence that ranking officials in
the New York City Police Department knew who was going to torch
the dragon and when and where it would happen."

Though Sullivan declined to credit this "bald, unsupported
assertion," attorney Fogel said in a phone interview that a
bystander at the protest gave unrebutted testimony that proves the
city's knowledge.

A Long Island businessman testified in a deposition that he
overheard a police captain say, "That's the guy who's going to
start the fire," Fogel said.

Fogel revealed that he would urge the judge to reconsider the
dismissal in light of recent 2nd Circuit and Supreme Court
precedent on the use of grand jury testimony in malicious
prosecution cases.

On Jan. 13 this year, the 2nd Circuit issued a ruling in the case
of Coggins v. Buonora that contradicts Sullivan's finding on the
use of such testimony, Fogel said.

Both the state court and magistrate judge refused to unseal the
grand jury testimony, and the city opposed it, Fogel added.  Fogel
said he is "very happy," however, that the false-arrest claim will
proceed.  "We have enough evidence to get this before a jury to
show that these two officers were not telling the truth," the
attorney said.

Sullivan set a final pretrial conference on April 24.

The New York City Law Department said it is reviewing the
decision.

The case is Yusuke Banno v. City of New York, et al., Case No.
1:06-cv-02270-RJS-JCF, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.


NEW YORK HOSPITAL: S.C. Ruling in "Ackerman" Case Upheld
--------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action captioned ROBERT ACKERMAN, ETC.,
Respondent, v. NEW YORK HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER OF QUEENS,
Appellant, 2014-05671, INDEX NO. 702965/13. 2015 NY Slip Op 02920,
which seeks to recover damages pursuant to Labor Law article 6,
the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme
Court, Queens County (Sampson, J.), entered April 17, 2014, as
denied those branches of its motion which were pursuant to CPLR
3211(a)(7) to dismiss the first and third causes of action and the
class action allegations of the complaint for failure to state a
cause of action.

The plaintiff was a paramedic employed by the defendant New York
Hospital Medical Center of Queens. The plaintiff commenced this
putative class action on behalf of himself and a proposed class
composed of other employees of the Hospital. The complaint alleged
that the Hospital determined the plaintiff's wages on the basis of
time, and that the timekeeping system utilized by the Hospital
rounded down to the nearest quarter-hour when employees worked
past their scheduled shift. The complaint further alleged that the
Hospital's system never rounded up, only down, and that, pursuant
to this policy, the Hospital, in violation of Labor Law article 6,
had withheld wages and overtime that the plaintiff had earned.

The Hospital moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss, inter
alia, the first and third causes of action, and the class action
allegations of the complaint for failure to state a cause of
action. In an order dated April 17, 2014, the Supreme Court, among
other things, denied those branches of the Hospital's motion. The
Hospital appealed.

In its decision & order entered April 8, 2015, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/m9G8O3from Leagle.com, the Appellate
Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department ruled
that the "order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs."

The Appellate Division held that "To the extent that the Hospital
contends that the class action allegations should be dismissed
pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) on the ground that the plaintiff
failed to actually demonstrate the prerequisites for class
certification enumerated under CPLR 901(a), that contention is
without merit (see Bernstein v Kelso & Co., 231 AD2d at 323)
.  . . . Here, the Hospital's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7)
was made prior to the service of the answer and, thus, the issue
of whether class certification should or should not be granted is
not properly raised in the context of such a motion (see Negrin v
Norwest Mtge., Inc., 293 A.D.2d 726, 727; Bernstein v Kelso & Co.,
231 AD2d at 323)."

Nixon Peabody, LLP, Jericho, N.Y. (Stephen J. Jones --
sjones@nixonpeabody.com -- Tara E. Daub -- tdaub@nixonpeabody.com
-- and Todd R. Shinaman -- tshinaman@nixonpeabody.com -- of
counsel), for appellant.

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Adam Gonnelli --
agonnelli@faruqilaw.com -- of counsel), for respondent.


OCEAN CC: "Alonso" Plaintiff Has Until Today to File Amended Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action captioned MARCO ALONSO, Plaintiff, v. OCEAN CC,
LLC, and DAVIDE GULGLIELMINI, Defendants, CASE NO. 14-23869-CIV-
MORENO, (S.D. Fla.) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Florida Constitution. The Plaintiff alleges that from
December 2013 to April 2014, Defendants did not pay him for
overtime work in excess of 40 hours per week and the minimum wage;
that Defendants took the Plaintiff's tip-credit and impermissibly
retained a portion of all the servers' tips; and that Defendants
paid a portion of the servers' tips to non-tipped employees.
Defendants have moved to dismiss arguing the complaint fails to
state a cause of action for overtime violations and improper tip
pooling. Defendants have also moved to dismiss the state law claim
citing the Plaintiffs failure to comply with the statutory notice
requirement.

"This Court agrees with Defendants' arguments and dismisses the
case without prejudice," ruled District Judge Federico A. Moreno
in his order entered April 6, 2015, a copy of which is available
at http://is.gd/IAuryffrom Leagle.com.  "Because the Court finds
the complaint's defects are curable, the Court grants Plaintiff
leave to amend the complaint by April 15, 2015," he added.

Failure to do so will result in the Court closing the case.

Marco Alonso, in his own behalf and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Richard Bernard Celler --
richard@floridaovertimelawyer.com -- Richard Celler Legal, P.A.

John Neilan, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Bernard Celler,
Richard Celler Legal, P.A..

Luis Garcia, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Bernard Celler,
Richard Celler Legal, P.A..

Nelson Salazar, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Bernard Celler,
Richard Celler Legal, P.A..

Alexei Pomonari, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Bernard Celler,
Richard Celler Legal, P.A..

Raul Ayala, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Bernard Celler,
Richard Celler Legal, P.A..

Maria Lazar, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Bernard Celler,
Richard Celler Legal, P.A..

Ocean CC, LLC., a Florida limited liability company, Defendant,
represented by Patrick Edward Gonya, Jr. --
PGonya@CareyRodriguez.com -- Carey Rodriguez Greenberg O'Keefe,
LLP & Frank S. Hedin -- FHedin@CareyRodriguez.com -- Carey
Rodriguez O'keefe Milian Gonya LLP.

Davide Gulglielmini, individually, Defendant, represented by
Patrick Edward Gonya, Jr., Carey Rodriguez Greenberg O'Keefe, LLP
& Frank S. Hedin, Carey Rodriguez O'keefe Milian Gonya LLP.


OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Gets Prelim OK of $12.5-Mil. Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warmerdam, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that a federal judge granted preliminary approval to a $12.5
million class settlement that claims OmniVision Technologies
misled shareholders into believing it had an exclusive contract
related to the Apple iPhone.

U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Whyte on March 4 preliminarily
approved the settlement for those who purchased or acquired shares
of OmniVision's stock from April 27, 2010 through Nov. 6, 2011.

Lead plaintiffs Oakland County Employees' Retirement System,
Laborers' District Council and Contractors' Pension Fund of Ohio,
and Woburn Retirement System claimed that when the truth emerged
about OmniVision's contract with Apple, OmniVision's stock priced
dropped from $34.67 to $14.26.

Shareholders claimed that the company made false and misleading
statements about the technological advantages of its CMOS image
sensor versus its competitors', and its competitive position with
customers such as Apple.

These misrepresentations deceived the market into believing that
OmniVision was maintaining its exclusive position as the supplier
of the CMOS image sensors to Apple's new smartphone, causing the
tech company's stock to be artificially inflated, according to the
lawsuit.

The stock plummeted when it was disclosed that OmniVision had lost
its supply position with Apple regarding the iPhone 4 to
competitor Sony.

In March 2013, Whyte declined to dismiss the action after finding
that misleading statements allegedly made by CFO Anson Chan
regarding OmniVision's competitive lead and the company's
relationship with its customers were actionable.

The shareholders agreed to release their claims as part of the
proposed settlement.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
          Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          600 West Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230-0800
          Facsimile: (619) 230-1874
          E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com
                  sward@barrack.com

               - and -

          J. Gerard Stranch, IV
          James G. Stranch, III
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
          227 Second Avenue North, Fourth Floor
          Nashville, TN 37201-1631
          Telephone: (615) 254-8801
          Facsimile: (615) 250-3937
          E-mail: gstranch@branstetterlaw.com
                  jstranch@branstetterlaw.com

The case is In re Omnivision Technologies, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 5:11-cv-05235-RMW, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division.


PACIFIC GATEWAY: Initial Case Mgmt Conference Moved to June 15
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thelton E. Henderson signed on April 6, 2015, a
stipulation and order continuing the initial case management
conference in the case RACHEL HOCHSTETLER, CIRENA TORRES,
Plaintiffs, v. PACIFIC GATEWAY CONCESSIONS LLC, et al.,
Defendants. PACIFIC GATEWAY CONCESSIONS LLC, et al., Cross-
Claimant, v. POINT SOLUTIONS, LLC, Cross-Defendant, CASE NO. 3:14-
CV-04748-THE, (N.D. Cal.).

The Initial Case Management Conference in this action was
originally scheduled for February 2, 2015, then continued until
April 13, 2015 since Point Solutions had not yet appeared in the
action.

On April 1, 2015, the parties participated in a mediation before
court-appointed mediator David Bluhm. As a result of the
mediation, Plaintiffs and Pacific Gateway reached a tentative
settlement of the class action by agreeing to a settlement fund
for putative class members. Plaintiffs and Pacific Gateway are
presently discussing payment of attorney fees and costs to
Plaintiffs' counsel if counsel is appointed class counsel and
payment of an incentive award to the Plaintiffs if they are
appointed class representatives. If Plaintiffs and Pacific Gateway
are able to reach agreement on all settlement terms, they intend
to seek preliminary approval of the class settlement from the
Court. PGC and PS also engaged in settlement negotiations during
the mediation, which are still ongoing.

In the interest of efficient case management and minimizing the
burden of the action on the Court's resources, the parties agree
that the Initial Case Management Conference should be continued
from April 13, 2015 for 60 days in order to permit settlement
discussions to conclude.

Against this backdrop, the parties stipulate that the Initial Case
Management Conference will occur on June 15, 2015, at 1:30 pm in
Courtroom 12 on the 19th floor, United States District Courthouse,
450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102. Not less than
seven days prior, counsel must submit a joint case management
conference statement, and all other deadlines are continued
according to the new date of the Initial Case Management
Conference.

A copy of the court-approved stipulation is available at
http://is.gd/WvT9htfrom Leagle.com.

MARA E. ROSALES -- mara@rosaleslawpartners.com -- ROBERT D.
SANFORD -- dusty@rosaleslawpartners.com -- ROSALES LAW PARTNERS
LLP, San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Defendant PACIFIC GATEWAY
CONCESSIONS LLC.

CHANT & COMPANY -- chant@chant.mobi -- A Professional Law
Corporation CHANT YEDALIAN, Attorneys for Plaintiffs RACHEL
HOCHSTETLER and CIRENA TORRES

HUDDLESTON & SIPOS LAW GROUP LLP ROBERT A. HUDDLESTON --
rhuddleston@hslawllp.com -- Attorney for Cross-Defendant POINT
SOLUTIONS, LLC


PEGLEG PETE'S: "Stone" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel J. Stone, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
employees v. Pegleg Pete's, Inc., Scott Amberson, and Kris
Amberson, Case No. 3:15-cv-00139 (N.D. Fla., March 27, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 1010 Ft.
Pickens Rd., Pensacola Beach, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dale James Morgado, Esq.
      FELDMAN FOX & MORGADO PA
      100 N Biscayne Blvd, Ste 2902
      Miami, FL 33132
      Telephone: (305) 222-7850
      Facsimile: (305) 384-4676
      E-mail: djm@morgado.us


POLYPORE INT'L: Being Sold for Too Little to Asahi, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling
Polypore International (high-tech components) too cheaply through
an unfair process to Asahi Kasei Corp., for $60.50 a share or $1
billion, shareholders claim in Delaware Chancery Court.


PRO PLUS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
---------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Arnold and Randy Burton, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Pro Plus, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-
00800 (S.D. Tex., March 27, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Pro Plus, Inc. is a Texas corporation that offers a variety of
services to the energy industry, including but not limited to
inspection and project management services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Clifton Alexander, Esq.
      SICO WHITE HOELSCHER & BRAUGH LLP
      900 Frost Bank Plaza
      802 N Carancahua Ste 900
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Telephone: (361) 653-3300
      Facsimile: (361) 653-3333
      E-mail: calexander@swhhb.com


PUDA COAL: Faces Investors' Class Action Over Stock Offering
------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for Law.com, reports that the defunct,
fraud-addled Chinese company Puda Coal Inc. was disaster for its
investors, and remains a major litigation headache for its
bankers.  Now Macquarie Group Ltd., which is in hot water for
underwriting a fraudulent U.S. stock offering for Puda more than
four years ago, wants the lawyers to share the blame.

Macquarie sued its former lawyers at Morrison & Foerster on
March 26 in New York state court, accusing the firm of "egregious
negligence" and legal malpractice for failing to sound the alarm
about Puda.  Lawyers in Morrison & Foerster's capital markets
group counseled Macquarie in its role as lead underwriter for
Puda's $108 million public offering in December 2010, with neither
MoFo nor Macquarie noticing that Puda had virtually no assets at
the time.  A Pennsylvania short-seller first uncovered apparent
fraud involing Puda's finances in 2011, sparking charges from U.S.
regulators the following year.

The legal malpractice claims against Morrison & Foerster were
first reported by The Wall Street Journal on March 27 -- the same
day the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced a $15
million settlement with Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc. over the Puda
Coal offering.  Macquarie is also facing a private securities
class action over its role as Puda's underwriter in Manhattan
federal court.

A judge refused to dismiss the investor case last July.  It was
certified as a class action in January.

The claims against Macquarie revolve around Puda Coal's statements
to investors in 2010 that it owned a 90 percent stake in a Chinese
mining company called Shanxi Coal.  According to charges later
filed by the SEC, Puda chairman Ming Zhao had by then transferred
ownership in the coal company to himself and sold nearly half his
stake to China's largest state-owned investment bank, CITIC Group.
Macquarie is accused of ignoring a due diligence report from
corporate investigation firm Kroll Inc. that revealed the
ownership discrepancies.

A Macquarie banker, William Fang, allegedly passed the Kroll
report along to others on his team, reporting in an email, "No red
flags were identified."  Ultimately, the SEC claims, Macquarie
ended up repeating Puda Coal's statements to investors and making
$4.17 million as the offering's lead underwriter.

In the malpractice suit against Morrison & Foerster, Macquarie
points out that Fang forwarded his email about the Kroll report to
a MoFo associate, putting it on the firm's radar.  Macquarie
alleges that, by failing to act on Kroll's findings or otherwise
uncover the truth about Puda's holdings, Morrison & Foerster
neglected its basic duties as underwriting counsel.

The suit seeks to force Morrison & Foerster to cover the costs
Macquarie has racked up in the securities class action, where
Greg Danilow -- greg.danilow@weil.com -- of Weil, Gotshal & Manges
leads the bank's defense. Macquarie also wants to recoup from the
firm any settlement costs or damages that arise from the
securities case.

Morrison & Foerster disputes the claims.  In a statement on
March 30, a spokeswoman said the firm is confident that it lived
up to its obligations.

"With respect to the Kroll investigatory report, which is alleged
to have identified the potential fraud, U.S. securities counsel do
not typically review or give legal advice regarding the work of
private investigators," the MoFo statement continued.

The law firm also pointed to a section of the SEC's complaint
against Macquarie, which discusses Morrison & Foerster's role as
outside counsel.  The SEC wrote that, aside from sending the email
to the MoFo associate, no one at Macquarie actively sought any
follow-up guidance or legal advice from MoFo about Kroll's
findings.


R.J. REYNOLDS: Fla. Court Affirmed Ruling in "Baker" Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mark W. Klingensmith of the District Court of Appeal of
Florida, Fourth District, affirmed the lower court ruling in the
appealed case entitled SHIRLEY B. BAKER, Personal Representative
of the ESTATE OF ELMER P. BAKER, Appellant, v. R.J. REYNOLDS
TOBACCO COMPANY, Appellee, NO. 4D13-570 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.)

Shirley Baker sued the defendant R.J. Reynolds Tobacco. Co., for
the death of her husband Elmer Baker that was allegedly caused by
smoking. Plaintiff asserted claims for negligence, strict
liability, concealment, and conspiracy.

At trial, both parties submitted proposed jury instructions and
verdict forms to the court for approval and submission to the
jury. Plaintiff was successful in getting the court to agree to
her requested separate instructions regarding both class
membership and legal causation. As to class membership, the
plaintiff's instructions asked the jury to determine whether Mr.
Baker was addicted to cigarettes containing nicotine and if so,
whether his addiction was a legal cause of his lung cancer and
death. As to legal cause, plaintiff agreed to jury instructions
requiring the jury to find for the defendant if they made a
specific finding that the negligence of the defendant or the
defective and unreasonably dangerous cigarettes placed on the
market by the defendant were not a legal cause of Mr. Baker's lung
cancer and death.

After the jury found defendant's actions were not the legal cause
of her husband's death, plaintiff argued to the trial court for
the first time that the jury's class-membership finding was
inconsistent with their other findings that neither negligence nor
a product defect legally caused Mr. Baker's injuries. The trial
court ultimately denied Plaintiff's request for a new trial and
entered judgment for defendant on all of plaintiff's claims.
Plaintiff appealed.

Judge Klingensmith affirmed the trial court's denial of
plaintiff's motion for new trial.

A copy of Judge Klingensmith's corrected opinion dated February
18, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/R6lmqdfrom Leagle.com.

For appellant/cross-appellee:

David J. Sales, Esq.
David J. Sales, P.A.
1001 North U.S. Highway One, Suite 200
Jupiter, FL 33477
Telephone: 561-744-0888
Facsimile: 561-744-0880

For appellee/cross-appellant:

Robert C. Weill -- robert.weill@sedgwicklaw.com -- Eric L. Lundt
-- eric.lundt@sedgwicklaw.com -- Gordon James, III --
gordon.james@sedgwicklaw.com -- Lenor C. Smith -- at Sedgwick LLP;

Donald Ayer - dbayer@jonesday.com -- Gregory G. Katsas -
ggkatsas@jonesday.com -- Charles R.A. Morse -
cramorse@jonesday.com -- at Jones Day

The panel for the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth
District consists of Judges Mark W. Klingensmith, W. Matthew
Stevenson and Melanie G. May


RAMCON LLC: Faces "McLean" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin McLean, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Ramcon, LLC and Roger D. Burdine, Case No. 8:15-cv-
00742 (M.D. Fla., March 27, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Ramcon, LLC is a full-service roofing contractor headquartered in
Tampa, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
      Matthew K. Fenton, Esq.
      WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
      Suite 300, 1110 N Florida Ave
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 224-0431
      Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
      E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
              mfenton@wfclaw.com


REED ELSEVIER: Dismissed From "Allen" Infringement Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reed Elsevier cannot be sued for allegedly diverting law firm Web
site visitors to competing, lead-buying attorney Web sites through
malware, reports David Lee at Courthouse News Service, citing a
federal court ruling.

U.S. District Judge James Payne on March 2 dismissed the company
from a class action brought by four law firms in June 2014.

Lead plaintiff Anthony L. Allen, with Allen & Wisner of, Muskogee,
sued Reed Elsevier and Plano-based Internet marketing firm IM
Solutions, alleging trademark infringement, tortious interference
and civil conspiracy.

Allen claimed the defendants' pop-up advertisements can be
displayed even if pop-up blocking software is in place, because of
a hidden browser plug-in.

"The pop-up does not disclose that it originates elsewhere, and it
invites a prospect to enter contact details and 'get legal
advice,'" the complaint stated.  "When a prospective client
submits information using the pop-up, IM Solutions immediately
routs the prospect's information to defendant Reed Elsevier. Reed
Elsevier promptly contacts the prospect to say that the prospect
has been matched with the 'firm' of IM Solutions, which is not a
law firm at all.  Meanwhile, IM Solutions forwards the prospect's
contact details to a lead-buying lawyer."

But on March 2, Payne ruled that the plaintiffs failed to allege
sufficient facts to show Reed Elsevier "made any misrepresentation
to consumers that would cause a likelihood of confusion" regarding
their trademark claim.

"Plaintiffs assert that Reed made misrepresentations to consumers
because 'Reed told the prospect 'we have matched you with the
following firm' that Reed claimed had been randomly selected; when
in fact, Reed essentially referred the prospect back to IMS," the
opinion states.  "These statements, however, are irrelevant to the
Lanham Act claim because they have no bearing on whether the
customer was confused about the origin of the pop-up
advertisement."

In dismissing the tortious interference claim, Payne disagreed
with the plaintiffs' argument that the "mere fact" that consumers
sought out their Web sites sufficiently created a prospective
relationship.

"Consumers' visits to their websites create nothing more than a
mere hope that the consumers will ultimately contract with
plaintiffs for legal services," the opinion states.  "The law is
clear that such a hope or wish is not sufficient to allege a
prospective business relationship. A plaintiff must show a
likelihood or probability that a contract would have resulted.
Plaintiffs have not alleged facts which would allow the Court to
make the inference that a contract with the visiting consumers is
likely or probable."

Payne concluded that the plaintiffs failed to allege a civil
conspiracy.  He was not persuaded by alleged contractual
arrangements between Reed and IMS to drum up business.

"(N)owhere do plaintiffs allege that Reed had any knowledge of the
pop-ups or how the leads were being generated," the opinion
states.  "Such an ordinary business relationship, without more,
does not constitute a conspiracy. Plaintiffs must plead that Reed
had a specific intent to commit the unlawful or illegal act.  To
the contrary, plaintiffs' complaint makes clear that Reed had no
knowledge of the alleged underlying unlawful activities."

Reed Elsevier did not respond to a request for comment on March 4.

The case is Anthony L. Allen, et al. v. IM Solutions, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 6:14-cv-00213-JHP, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Oklahoma.


ROCART INC: Accused of Misclassifying Teachers for Child Actors
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims Rocart
and On Location Education West misclassify teachers they hire for
child actors on (nonparty) Nickelodeon shows, to cheat them of
overtime, in California Superior Court.


SBTICKETS.COM: Sold Bogus Tickets for 2015 Super Bowl, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
SBTickets.com, of Melville, N.Y., sold bogus tickets to the 2015
Super Bowl for up to $2,000 apiece, a class action claims in
Maricopa County Court.


SCIENTIFIC DRILLING: "Sizemore" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Sizemore, Tyler Beyer, Kory Gausen and John Monica,
individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v.
Scientific Drilling International, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00426
(W.D. Pa., March 27, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Scientific Drilling International, Inc. owns and operates a
drilling and wellbore navigation, surveying and logging Service
Company in Houston, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-4656
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      E-mail: scarson@bm.net


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Sued Over Auto-Renewal of Memberships
-------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service reports that SeaWorld
defrauds customers by automatically renewing their memberships
without making them aware that they signed up for continuous
service, a woman hoping to represent a class claims in court.

Lead plaintiff Shery Gargir says the failure by SeaWorld Parks &
Entertainment to conspicuously disclose its automatic-renewal
agreements means that all services rendered to consumers like her
in the last four years "are deemed to be an unconditional gift."

The specifics of how and when Gargir made her subscription are not
apparent in the 24-page complaint she filed March 10 in San Diego,
which says only that the Los Angeles woman purchased a two-year
membership from SeaWorld in California within the last four years.

"At the end of the two-year period, the membership automatically
renewed on a month-to-month basis," the complaint states.
"Plaintiff's payment method was charged, and continues to be
charged, every month on a recurring basis."

Gargir says SeaWorld generated about $693 million in revenue from
subscription fees during the first three quarters of 2014, and
that "approximately 30% of [its] admission ticket purchases are
made online."

A basic two-year membership to SeaWorld San Diego costs $155,
before tax, according to its Web site.  These memberships cost the
same for adults and children.

Instead of selecting the $155 pass for this membership, customers
on SeaWorld's Web site can choose the EZpay option for $24.82.
Once they add the EZpay pass to their cart, the cart preview
displays a red box with a white exclamation point alongside that
$24.82 charge.  Clicking that exclamation point opens a window
that says "plus 23 additional monthly payments of $5.66 (with
tax)."

Gargir says that once customers confirm their purchases, SeaWorld
charges their cards.

"Defendant thus made, and continues to make, an automatic renewal
or continuous service offer to consumers," the complaint states.

"But defendant failed, and continues to fail, to present the
automatic renewal offer terms, or continuous service offer terms,
in a clear and conspicuous manner and in visual proximity to the
request for consent to the offer before the subscription or
purchasing agreement was and is fulfilled," Gargir added.

Claiming that SeaWorld must first obtain affirmative consent to
its automatic-renewal agreement, Gargir says the park has violated
various aspects of California law.  She says SeaWorld furthermore
"failed to provide an acknowledgment that includes the automatic
renewal or continuous service offer terms, cancellation policy,
and information regarding how to cancel in a manner that is
capable of being retained by the consumer."

Gargir wants to represent a class of similarly situated California
consumers who bought automatically renewing, one- or two-year
memberships from SeaWorld within the last four years.

SeaWorld has 11 marine-themed parks in the United States, several
of which exist at its hubs in Orland and San Diego.

"As of December 2013, defendant purportedly served approximately
23 million consumers," the complaint states.

Gargir says SeaWorld earns approximately 20% of its revenue in
California.

The class seeks damages and restitution for unfair competition and
other claims.

The class is represented by:

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


SOUTH QUEENS: Faces "Ramjattan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tinelle Ramjattan v. South Queens Medical Group PLLC, and, Jamil
Abraham, Irwin Abraham, and Marie Garriques, Case No. 1:15-cv-
01650 (E.D.N.Y., March 27, 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 medical treatment facility in
South Ozone Park, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Fausto E. Zapata Jr., Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF FAUSTO E. ZAPATA, JR., P.C.
      277 Broadway, Suite 206
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 766-9870
      Facsimile: (212) 766-9869
      E-mail: fz@fzapatalaw.com


SULLIVAN, NY: Sued for Disenfranchising Hasidic Jew Community
-------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Marlene Kennedy reports that
Hasidic Jews living in the once-popular Borscht Belt of the
Catskills want a federal judge to block county officials from
allegedly disenfranchising them.

Moshe Smilowitz is the lead plaintiff in the class action, which
cites "an unyielding discriminatory campaign" of aggression by the
Sullivan County Board of Elections against a Hasidic community in
the village of Bloomingburg and neighboring town of Mamakating.

The 66-page complaint filed March 9 alleges due-process and First
Amendment breaches, as well as violation of the federal Voting
Rights Act of 1965.  It contends that Sullivan wants to deny
Hasidic Jews a vote in village elections to curtail progress on
housing, school and other projects that would support their
religious community.

"Defendants' actions were not motivated by and did not serve any
legitimate, rational or compelling government interest, but were
motivated by and resulted in discrimination against plaintiffs
because they are Hasidic Jews," the complaint states.

Bloomingburg and Mamakating, rural communities located 25 miles
west of Newburgh in the foothills of the Catskill Mountains, were
among the summer Borscht Belt vacation spots frequented in the
1940s, '50s and '60s by New York City Jews and popularized by the
movie "Dirty Dancing."

On March 12, though, residents calling themselves the Rural
Community Coalition "have taken control of municipal governments
and have sought to use governmental power to intimidate, slow and
roll back Hasidic migration to the area," Smilowitz says.

"The anti-Semitic animus in Bloomingburg is unmistakable,"
according to the complaint.

Smilowitz and the other plaintiffs tie the animosity to a
townhouse project first proposed in 2006 and later rumored to have
drawn huge interest among Hasidic Jews.

Soon thereafter, the Rural Community Coalition formed to oppose
the 396-unit development.  Since then, "the RCC and its allies
have tried in a number of ways to block developments in
Bloomingburg that they believe are affiliated with Orthodox Jews,"
Smilowitz claims.

Those actions are the focus of an earlier federal complaint that
accused the village and town of "pervasive, government-sponsored
religious discrimination" to stop the growth of the Hasidic
community.

The new complaint meanwhile takes aim at a plan the rural
coalition and town and village officials allegedly hatched last
summer to hold a referendum on dissolving the village with an eye
toward the town taking over and blocking the townhouse project.

"At a minimum, dissolution would dilute the vote of the Hasidic
Jewish population and ensure that the current public officials
remain in power," Smilowitz says.  He notes that the special
election was scheduled Sept. 30, during the Jewish High Holy Days.

Days before the election, supporters of the rural coalition
challenged 194 voter registrations in a petition filed with the
county Board of Elections.  The challenge focused on residency;
most of the challenged voters were Hasidic Jews.

The same group also secured a state-court ruling to sequester the
challenged votes.  That court ordered those challenged to vote by
affidavit ballot, which typically is used when a would-be voter's
name does not appear on the election roll at a polling place.

On the day of the special election, 69 of the 194 challenged
voters, including the 27 named plaintiffs, voted.

While those votes were sequestered, Smilowitz says, the Board of
Elections had the Sullivan County Sheriff's Office visit the
challenged voters at their homes to attest to whether they really
lived at the given address.

The board subsequently annulled the votes of 63 of the 69
challenged voters who went to the polls, according to the
complaint.

In December, though, Sullivan County Supreme Court reversed the
board, saying it "had acted unlawfully in seeking to cancel the
votes from the special election," Smilowitz says.

That decision tipped the vote in the special election against
dissolving the village.

"Undeterred," though, the Board of Elections now is trying to keep
Hasidic Jews from voting in the March 15 village election,
Smilowitz claims.

In January, the board issued notices of registration cancelation
to some 184 voters, 160 of whom are Hasidic Jews.  Last month, the
board upheld all but 28 of the cancelations, according to the
complaint.

"To target a hand-selected group of voters and to impose on them
the burden and expense of proving their right to vote is itself
improper," Smilowitz contends.  "But what makes the action even
more egregious here is that the Board of Elections has sought to
cancel the votes of virtually every Hasidic Jewish resident of
Bloomingburg.  The board plainly singled out these voters for
challenge based entirely upon religion."

Smilowitz predicts future voter challenges, "unless or until
stopped by this court."

The complaint seeks class certification, punitive damages and an
order barring county election officials from enforcing voting laws
in a discriminatory manner or from blocking them from voting.

On March 11, the Sullivan County Attorney's Office told the Times
Herald-Record in nearby Middletown that it had just received the
complaint and could not comment before reviewing the document.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steven A. Engel, Esq.
          DECHERT LLP
          1095 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036-6797
          Telephone: (212) 698-3500
          Facsimile: (212) 698-3599
          E-mail: steven.engel@dechert.com


SWCC USA: Falsely Marketed Honey Products, "Kong" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lingxi Kong, Lynn Moore, Jing Ye, John Doe (Illinois), John Doe
(Texas), John Doe (Florida), John Doe (Michigan), John Doe (New
Jersey), John Doe (Pennsylvania) and John Doe 1-100, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. SWCC USA 1234, LLC
(formerly known as Wedderspoon Organic USA, LLC) and Wedderspoon
Organic, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01635 (E.D.N.Y., March 27, 2015),
arises out of the Defendants' deceptive practices in the
marketing, advertising, labeling and promotion of their manuka
honey Products that they have either Active 16+ or 12+ manuka
ratings. When in fact, they are not licensed providers of the
Unique Manuka Factor(R) (UMR(R) honeys and their products do not
have the antibacterial potency level equivalent to UMF(R) 16+ or
12+ honeys.

SWCC USA 1234, LLC is the United States subsidiary of the Canadian
corporation, Wedderspoon Organic, Inc., which develops,
manufactures, markets and sells honey products all over Canada and
the United States.

Wedderspoon Organic, Inc. is a Canadian business corporation with
amailing address at P.O. Box 493, Duncan, BC V9L 3X8, Canada.

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


TARGET CORP: Boss, Barber, Farrell, De La Torre are Related Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward J. Davila issued an order on April 7, 2015,
holding that the putative class actions entitled Boss v. Target
Corp., et al., Case Number 4:15-cv-00855-YGR, Barber v. Target
Corp., Case Number 4:15-cv-00568-JSW, and Farrell v. Target Corp.,
Case Number 3:15-cv-00635-MMC are related to De La Torre, et al.
v. Target Corp., et al., Case Number 5:15-cv-00559-EJD.

Plaintiff Linda Boss filed the Administrative Motion to Consider
Whether Cases Should Be Related, which no party opposed and which
Plaintiffs Linda Boss, Melanie Barber, and Mary Farrell supported.

Judge Davila ordered the Clerk to reassign all cases to him.

A copy of the Court's ruling is available at http://is.gd/c4SNce
from Leagle.com.

The cases are LINDA BOSS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TARGET CORPORATION and TARGET
BRANDS, INC., Defendants. PAUL DE LA TORRE and JOSHUA OGDEN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. TARGET CORPORATION and TARGET BRANDS, INC.,
Defendants. MELANIE BARBER, on behalf of herself, all others
similarly situated and the general public, Plaintiff, v. TARGET
CORPORATION, a Minnesota Corporation, Defendant. MARY FARRELL, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant, CASE NOS. 4:15-CV-00855-YGR, 5:15-
CV-00559-EJD, 4:15-CV-00568-JSW, 3:15-CV-00635-MMC, (N.D. Cal.)

Daniel C. Girard -- dcg@girardgibbs.com -- Eric H. Gibbs --
ehg@girardgibbs.com -- Adam E. Polk -- aep@girardgibbs.com --
GIRARD GIBBS LLP, San Francisco, California, Attorneys for
Individual and Representative Plaintiff Linda Boss.


TELETECH@HOME INC: Judge Won't Revisit Ruling in "Cox" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James S. Gwin of the Northern District of Ohio
denied plaintiff's motion for reconsideration in the case ANTHONY
R. COX, JR. Plaintiff, v. TELETECH@HOME, INC. Defendant, CASE NO.
1:14-CV-00993 (N.D. Ohio)

Plaintiff Anthony Cox brings this action against defendant
TeleTech@Home, Inc. (TeleTech) for alleged willful violations of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Cox says TeleTech failed to
provide him a copy of a consumer report and a summary of his
rights before rescinding a job offer because of information in
that consumer report.

On February 5, 2015, the Court issued an opinion and order denying
Cox's motion for class certification. One week later, on February
12, 2015, Cox moved for reconsideration of that decision. Cox
challenges the court's determination that Cox has not satisfied
the typicality and adequacy requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a),
and thus cannot act as the class representative. Cox argues that
the court made two errors in its decision denying class
certification. First, he says the court incorrectly reasoned that
Cox's decision to seek only statutory, rather than actual, damages
indicates that he is not an adequate representative. Second, Cox
says the unique factual circumstances of his case do not make his
claims atypical of the class.

Judge Gwin denied plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.

A copy of Judge Gwin's opinion and order dated February 17, 2015,
is available at http://is.gd/vyDWedfrom Leagle.com.

Anthony R. Cox, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by:

Anthony R. Pecora, Esq.
Matthew A. Dooley, Esq.
O'TOOLE MCLAUGHLIN DOOLEY & PECORA
5455 Detroit Road (Route 254)
Sheffield Village, OH 44054
Telephone: 440-930-4001
Facsimile: 440-934-7205

TeleTech@Home, Inc., Defendant, represented by Arthur J. Rooney --
ajrooney@seyfarth.com -- John W. Drury -- jdrury@seyfarth.com --
at Seyfarth Shaw; Joel R. Hlavaty -- jhlavaty@frantzward.com -- at
Frantz Ward


TENNESSEE: Voter ID Law Is Unfair, College Students Claim
---------------------------------------------------------
A group of out-of-state college students sued Tennessee election
officials in Federal Court, claiming the state's voter ID law
discriminates against them, reports Kevin Lessmiller, writing for
Courthouse News Service.

The class action was filed by the Nashville Student Organizing
Committee and nine students against Tennessee Secretary of State
Tre Hargett and Elections Coordinator Mark Goins.  All nine
student-plaintiffs have ID cards from other states.

The students say the Volunteer State's voter ID law "intentionally
discriminates against out-of-state college and university
students, and has the purpose and effect of denying and abridging
the right to vote on account of age" because it excludes student
IDs and out-of-state IDs at the polls.  Public library cards are
also not accepted.

"At every step of the voter ID law's evolution, Tennessee state
legislators have purposely fenced out college and university
students, especially targeting out-of-state students, rejecting
multiple bills that would have added student ID cards to the voter
ID list," the complaint states.  "State legislators are on record
suggesting that out-of-state students cannot vote in Tennessee,
which is contrary to the Supreme Court's precedent in Symm and
Tennessee state law."

The referenced decision is Symm vs. United States, 1979 U.S.
Supreme Court decision affirming that residency questionnaires
unconstitutionally denied Waller County, Texas students the right
to vote.

Like Symm, the class alleges the Tennessee voter ID law violates
the Twenty-Sixth Amendment's right to vote on account of age and
equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

"Out-of-state students with other states' driver's licenses or ID
cards cannot readily comply with the voter ID law and must either
forego voting, vote absentee in their prior state, or undergo the
arduous process of applying for an identification license at a
driver service center," the lawsuit states.  "The voter ID law
clearly favors in-state student voters over out-of-state student
voters."

The state's voter ID law passed in 2011, according to the
complaint.  The state senate initially allowed some student IDs as
accepted forms of voter ID, but the state house amended the bill
to exclude them.  Attempts to add student IDs to the voter ID list
failed in 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014, the students say.

The class action also claims that absentee voting is only
available to in-state students, not out-of-state.

The Nashville Student Organizing Committee is a non-profit,
student-run group fighting against Tennessee's voter ID law,
according to the complaint.

The class seeks a declaration that Tennessee's voter ID law
violates the Fourteenth and Twenty-Sixth Amendments and an
injunction accepting student IDs as voter ID.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Douglas Johnston, Jr., Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
          Bank of America Plaza
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244-2202
          Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
          E-mail: djohnston@barrettjohnston.com


TEXAS A&M: Sued by Endowed Donors for Not Giving Free Tickets
-------------------------------------------------------------
Permanently endowed donors filed a federal class action against
the Texas A&M University 12th Man Foundation, claiming it revoked
a promise to give them free or face value tickets to all games, so
it could sell the tickets for more money, according to Courthouse
News Service.


TINDER INC: Accused of Falsely Advertising Free Online Dating App
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Tinder advertised itself as a
free online dating app but started charging $2.99 a month on
March 2, customers claim in a California federal class action for
false advertising.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Hackers Can Hijack Cars, "Cahen" Class Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hackers can hijack Toyota, Ford and General Motors cars by
wirelessly accessing the cars' computers, a class action claims in
California Federal Court, reports Arvin Temkar, writing for
Courthouse News Service.

What's more, lead plaintiff Helene Cahen claims, the companies
have known of the vulnerabilities in their cars for years.  Cahen
sued the companies for breach of warranty, breach of contract and
violation of consumer protection laws, on March 10.  She claims
that the defendants' vehicles containing controller area networks,
or CAN bus networks, can be hacked.

If a hacker sends digital messages to the CAN bus, "the hacker
could take control of such basic functions of the vehicle as
braking, steering, and accelerate -- and the driver would not be
able to regain control," Cahen says in the complaint.

The 343-page lawsuit cites a 2013 study funded by the U.S. Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency: "Drivers and passengers are
strictly at the mercy of the code running in their automobiles,
and, unlike when their web browser crashes or is compromised, the
threat to their physical well-being is real."

Researchers discovered that cars can be hacked in 2011, and that
wireless communications allows a hacker to take control of a car
remotely, according to the lawsuit.

Cahen claims that researchers told Toyota and Ford about the
vulnerabilities, but the companies did not address the problem.
She filed the 238-count lawsuit on behalf of current and former
owners or lessees of Toyota, Ford and GM vehicles equipped with
CAN buses.  The enormous number of charges is primarily due to
claims made under the laws of every state.  Cahen seeks class
certification, costs, restitution, damages, including punitive
damages, and disgorgement.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Zevin, Esq.
          STANLEY LAW GROUP
          225 Broadway, Suite 1350
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 235-5306
          Facsimile: (815) 377-8419
          E-mail: mzevin@aol.com


TRINITY HIGHWAY: April 24 Hearing on Bid to Reopen Turnpike Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Pat Gallagher, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports
that a company hit with a $175 million whistleblower verdict in
Texas last fall over allegedly defective guardrails now faces a
motion in New Jersey state court seeking to reopen a suit over a
fatal accident on the New Jersey Turnpike.

The plaintiffs contend in their motion that Trinity Highway
Industries got the New Jersey suit dismissed based on the same
allegedly fraudulent concealment of information concerning the
design and safety of its products that was at the heart of the
Texas verdict.

There, the jury found that the Dallas-based company defrauded the
U.S. government, in violation of the False Claims Act, by failing
to inform the Federal Highway Administration of changes it made to
the guardrails in 2005, according to court papers and media
reports.  The plaintiffs claimed those changes involved narrowing
the end caps, which allegedly increased the possibility that the
rails would impale vehicles that hit them, along with their
occupants.

Trinity has denied any wrongdoing in the Texas case.

The New Jersey case, Sweeney v. Air Brook Limousine, was brought
by the family of Patrick Sweeney, a 34-year-old computer salesman
from Pearl River, New York.

On Aug. 15, 2006, he was a passenger in a Lincoln Town Car being
driven to Newark International Airport when the driver, Jose
Lordello, lost control and veered into a guardrail on the Turnpike
near Teaneck, according to court papers.  The guardrail entered
the limousine, striking Mr. Sweeney, who died about 20 minutes
later of blunt-force trauma, the plaintiffs claimed.

The ensuing lawsuit, filed one month later in Bergen County
Superior Court by Mr. Sweeney's family, alleged that Mr. Lordello
was negligent, and claims were later added alleging the guardrail
had a design defect and had been installed too close to the
roadway.

The plaintiffs claimed in court papers that discovery revealed the
rail was eight feet closer to the road than required by the plan.

The defense contended that underground power lines and a light
tower prevented placing the rail at the originally intended spot.
The defense also claimed driver error.

Air Brook settled for $2.9 million, according to court documents.
Three other defendants paid a combined $6.85 million.

J. Fletcher Creamer & Son of Hackensack, which installed the
guardrail, paid $4 million on its own behalf and on behalf the
New Jersey Turnpike Authority, which accepted the rail even though
it was not built according to the design plans, according to court
documents.  Another $2.25 million came from Maitra Consultants of
Somerset, the engineering firm hired by the state to oversee the
project, which signed off on it when it was completed. The final
$600,000 portion was from DMJM Harris Engineering, which prepared
the plans for a project that replaced the guardrail end caps in
the area with Trinity's ET-2000 Plus not long before the accident,
according to court documents.

With an October 2009 trial date approaching, Trinity was let out
on summary judgment in Sept. 23, 2009, according to court
documents.

Judge Robert Polifroni rejected the Sweeneys' expert report as a
net opinion that failed to establish a prima facie claim for a
design defect under the New Jersey Product Liability Act.

The report "failed to demonstrate a prima facie showing that a
practicable and feasible design alternative would have prevented
or reduced the harm under the circumstances of this particular
case," Judge Polifroni said.

A "critical element" of the decision was that the Sweeneys' other
liability experts "clearly and unequivocally blame the incorrect
and negligent placement of the guardrail system," Judge Polifroni
said.

"Although alternative theories are permitted in pleadings, a party
may not present one expert whose theories directly contradict that
party's other experts, particularly when the contradictory theory
has an inadequate factual scientific basis," Judge Polifroni said.

The motion to reopen the case was filed March 18 in Bergen County
by the Sweeneys' lawyers at Nagel Rice in Roseland.

The motion says the "end cap" or "end treatment" on the guardrail
was supposed to "transfer the kinetic energy of an errant car into
deformation energy" and slowly bring the car to a safe stop, but
instead "acted like a bayonet" because of material design changes.
Those changes, which the motion alleges were made to save money,
reduced the width of the steel channel behind the rail head.  The
result of that change was that instead of the steel channel
sliding along the rail and helping it to curl out of the way as it
collapsed when hit by a vehicle, it can become jammed, piercing a
vehicle and anyone in its way, according to the motion.

In the motion, the plaintiffs accuse Trinity of perpetrating a
"massive fraud" on the federal government and the various states
that used the guardrails for not disclosing the changes, which the
plaintiffs say came to light as a result of the $175 million
verdict in Texas.

Similarly, the changes were fraudulently concealed from the New
Jersey court and the Sweeneys, the motion alleges.

The Sweeneys are seeking to have Trinity's dismissal vacated.
They are also seeking an opportunity to conduct discovery and file
new expert reports, and then go to trial. In addition, they are
asking for sanctions against Trinity and for an award of fees and
costs.  If the plaintiffs succeed, not only would they get the
chance to recover from Trinity, but the four defendants who paid
millions to settle could seek to recoup some or all of those sums
on claims of contribution or indemnification against Trinity,
according to Bruce Nagel, who, along with Andrew O'Connor,
represents the Sweeneys.

Nagel said at least one defendant, which he declined to name,
planned to join the motion for that purpose, and he expects the
others will, too.

Gary Potters of Potters & Della Pietra in Fairfield, representing
DMJM, declined to comment on the March 18 motion, as did Susan
Lawless -- slawless@pmohlaw.com -- of Purcell, Mulcahy, Hawkins,
Flanagan & Lawless in Bedminster, who represents Maitra.

Trinity's lawyer, Marc Groves -- grovesm@gtlaw.com -- of Greenberg
Traurig in Florham Park, did not return a call seeking comment,
nor did a representative for the company.

Marc Pakrul of Newark's Tompkins, McGuire, Wachenfeld & Barry,
representing Air Brook, also did not return a call for comment.
Thomas Licata of Malapero, Prisco, Klauber & Licata in Paramus,
who represents J. Fletcher Creamer, declined to comment on the
motion.

The motion is scheduled to be heard April 24.


TS EMPLOYMENT: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Swinton" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyrone Swinton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TS Employment, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02322 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours in a week.

TS Employment, Inc. owns and operates an employment agency at
160Broadway, 15th Floor, New York, NY 10038.

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


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Two Judges Refuse to Grant Summary Judgment
--------------------------------------------------------------
Uber and Lyft must face trials on class action claims that they
deprive their drivers of employee protections, two federal judges
ruled March 11, reports Katherine Proctor at Courthouse News
Service.

At issue is the ride-sharing services' classifying their drivers
as independent contractors rather than as employees.  Drivers in
both cases argued that they should have employee status and
protections, such as minimum wage and reimbursement for expenses.

Uber argued that "it is not a 'transportation company,' but
instead is a pure 'technology company' that merely generates
'leads' for its transportation providers through its software,"
U.S. District Judge Edward Chen wrote.  He found that Uber tried
to pass itself off as "merely a technological intermediary between
potential riders and potential drivers."

However, "This argument is fatally flawed in numerous respects,"
Chen wrote.  "Uber does not simply sell software; it sells rides.

"Uber is no more a 'technology company' than Yellow Cab is a
'technology company' because it uses CB radios to dispatch taxi
cabs, John Deere is a 'technology company' because it uses
computers and robots to manufacture lawn mowers, or Domino Sugar
is a 'technology company' because it uses modern irrigation
techniques to grow its sugar cane."

Chen also dismissed Uber's argument that its drivers do not
provide the company a service and are therefore not employees.

"It is obvious drivers perform a service for Uber because Uber
simply would not be a viable business entity without its drivers,"
Chen wrote.

Judge Vince Chhabria struck down similar arguments from Lyft,
whose claim that it operates as "an uninterested bystander of
sorts, merely furnishing a platform that allows drivers and riders
to connect" he called "obviously wrong."

"Lyft concerns itself with far more than simply connecting random
users on its platform," Chhabria wrote.  "It markets itself to
customers as an on-demand ride service, and it actively seeks out
those customers."

Both judges cited other evidence characterizing the relationship
between the services and their drivers as employer-employee
relationships: for example, the companies exercise control over
fares, and furnish their drivers with documents similar to
employee handbooks, for violations of which drivers have been
fired.

Neither judge thought the argument would be resolved until the
case went before a jury.

"Rarely does any one factor dictate the determination of whether a
relationship is one of employment or independent contract," Chen
wrote.

"Here, numerous factors point in opposing directions."

Chhabria said that the jury "will be handed a square peg and asked
to choose between two round holes."

"The test the California courts have developed over the 20th
century for classifying workers isn't very helpful in addressing
this 21st century problem," Chhabria wrote.

The case is Douglas O'Connor, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-03826-EMC, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.


USAA CASUALTY: Wash. Appeals Court Won't Allow Varying of Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Stephen J. Dwyer of the Court of Appeals of Washington,
Division One, affirmed the trial court's judgment in the case
LINDSAY HAYES and MATT ROSSTON, husband and wife; JAMES W. BEASLEY
II; and all others similarly situated, Appellants, v. USAA
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign insurance company doing
business in the State of Washington; UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE
ASSOCIATION, a foreign intra-insurance exchange doing business in
the State of Washington; USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, a foreign
insurance company doing business in the State of Washington;
GARRISON PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign
insurance company doing business in the State of Washington; JOHN
DOES I-XX, Respondents, NO. 70735-3-1 (Wash. Ct. App.)

The insureds Lindsay Hayes, Matt Rosston, and James Beasley II
filed a suit in King County Superior Court on behalf of themselves
and on behalf of all persons similarly situated within the State
of Washington. Named as defendants were United Services Automobile
Association, USAA Casualty Insurance Company, USAA General
Indemnity Company, and Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance.

The insureds pleaded: (1) unjust enrichment, (2) breach of
contract, (3) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
(4) injunctive and declaratory relief, (5) violation of the
Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA), and (6) violation of the
Insurance Fair Conduct Act (IFCA) as their causes of action.

The Companies removed the case to federal court on the basis of
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), which requires, in
pertinent part, an amount in controversy that exceeds $5 million.
28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2). The insureds moved to remand the
case back to King County Superior Court. They argued that the
companies had failed to meet their burden of proving that CAFA's
amount in controversy requirement was satisfied. Judge Robart
granted the Insureds' motion to remand. Although he granted the
insureds' motion to remand, Judge Robart stated that, in the event
that the Insureds adopted a contrary position in state court to
that which they took in their motion to remand, the Companies
could avail themselves of the equitable defense of judicial
estoppel.

After the case was remanded to King County Superior Court, the
Companies moved to dismiss all of the insureds' claims pursuant to
CR 12(b)(6). The insureds moved to strike the motion to dismiss
and asked King County Superior Court Judge Mary Yu to impose CR 11
sanctions. Judge Yu denied the insureds' motion to strike, and
granted the companies' motion and dismissed all of the insureds
claims.

The insureds moved for clarification and/or reconsideration of
court's order granting defendants' motion to dismiss and also
filed a motion for reconsideration of court's order granting
defendants' motion to dismiss claims against defendants with whom
plaintiffs have no contract.

Judge Yu clarified that the insureds' claims of fraud and unjust
enrichment, which had previously been dismissed, remained
dismissed.

On June 17, the insureds filed another motion for reconsideration,
in which they sought an order that: (1) Reinstates their CPA
claims against USAA and USAA Casualty; (2) Clarifies that their
individual and class claims against USAA and USAA Casualty for
breach of contract, breach of good faith, declaratory and
injunctive relief and violation of the Insurance Fair Conduct Act
are not dismissed; and (3) clarifies that their class claims
against USAA General and Garrison will be determined on their
motion for class certification. On August 6, the insureds sought
discretionary review in this court of the trial court's adverse
rulings.

Judge Dwyer affirmed the trial court's decision expressing that
the latter court did not err. Appellants were not entitled to vary
their claims according to the exigencies of the moment.

A copy of Judge Dwyer's unpublished opinion dated February 17,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/j8qjfBfrom Leagle.com.

Stephen Joel Crane, Crane Dunham PLLC, 2121 5th Ave, Seattle, WA,
98121-2510, David Elliot Breskin, Breskin Johnson & Townsend PLLC,
1000 Second Avenue Suite 3670, Seattle, WA, 98104, Counsel for
Petitioners

Hugh Handeyside, Attorney at Law, 125 Broad St Fl 17, New York,
NY, 10004-2458, Marci A. Eisenstein, Schiff Hardin LLP, 233 S.
Wacker Drive Suite 6600, Chicago, IL, 60606, Jay Williams, Schiff
Hardin LLP, 233 S. Wacker Drive Suite 6600, Chicago, IL, 60606,
Aphrodite Kokolis, Schiff Hardin LLP, 233 S. Wacker Drive Suite
6600, Chicago, IL, 60606, David C. Scott, Schiff Hardin LLP, 233
S. Wacker Drive, #6600, Chicago, IL, 60606, Michael A Moore, Corr
Cronin Michelson Baumgardner & Pree, 1001 4th Ave Ste 3900,
Seattle, WA, 98154-1051, David Benjamin Edwards, Corr Cronin
Michelson Baumgardner Preece, 1001 4th Ave Ste 3900, Seattle, WA,
98154-1051, Counsel for Respondents

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One panel consists of
judges Stephen J. Dwyer, Marlin J. Appelwick and Ronald E.Cox.


VIACOM INC: Ex-Unpaid Interns Seeks OK of $7.2-Mil. Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that former unpaid interns for
Viacom and Black Entertainment Television asked a federal judge on
March 11 to sign off on a $7.2 million settlement of their class
action.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
          LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com
                  llusher@vandallp.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Daniel H. Markowitz, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873-9550
          E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com

The case is Casey Ojeda and Karina Reynaga, individually and on
behalf of other persons similarly situated v. Viacom Inc., Viacom
International Inc., and Black Entertainment Television, LLC, Case
No. 1:13-cv-05658-GWG, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.


WACHOVIA CORP: Wells Fargo May Foreclose Pick-a-Payment Loans
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo cannot be stopped from foreclosing on troubled, Pick-
a-Payment mortgage loans despite class allegations of breach of
settlement, reports Jonny Bonner at Courthouse News Service,
citing a federal court ruling.

Jennifer Murphy and 30 other named plaintiffs sued Wells Fargo,
Wachovia, World Savings Bank and Golden West Financial in 2012.

The class claimed Wells Fargo et al. approved fewer than 3 percent
of loan modifications after acquiring "troubled" mortgage loans
effectively "for nothing."  They claim that the bank's "greed
seems to have no bounds."

Murphy's federal claims were echoed by Richard D'Alessio and Paul
McDermed, who separately cited the alleged breach, In re: Wachovia
Corp. "Pick-A-Payment" Mortgage Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, approved by U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel in 2010.

The multidistrict litigation represented a consolidation of
assorted Pick-a-Payment class actions around the country,
including the first-filed action in Northern California,
Mandrigues v. World Savings, Inc., et al.

Murphy, D'Alessio and McDermed claimed Wells Fargo breached the
settlement by applying an inaccurate definition of "imminent
default" in denying loan modification applications (Murphy
action); inflating home values, causing unwarranted loan
modification denials (D'Alessio action); and improperly denying
access to additional loan modifications (McDermed action).

Wells Fargo purchased Wachovia and its Pick-a-Payment loan
portfolio for $15.1 billion, on the heels of IRS Notice 2008-83,
issued Sept. 30, 2008.

"In a typical merger transaction, the acquiring company cannot use
the acquired company's entire operating loss to offset its own
profits, but instead, is limited to using $1 billion of those
losses per year.  The restriction exists to discourage companies
from buying failing companies solely to avoid taxes and shelter
their own profits," U.S. District Judge Susan Illston ruled in
2013.  "IRS Notice 2008-83 removed that restriction for
transactions involving financial institutions, thereby permitting
an acquiring bank to take advantage of the acquired bank's losses
in full at any time."

Wells Fargo bought Wachovia on Oct. 3, 2008.

"While Wachovia had substantial liabilities, and Wells Fargo knew
that it would need to substantially write down Wachovia's Pick-a-
Payment portfolio, the key to the deal for Wells Fargo was that it
could use Wachovia's substantial losses to avoid paying taxes on
its own profits, which could potentially save it $40 billion in
taxes," Illston added, in dismissing Murphy, D'Alessio and
McDermed's overlapping claims.

During the merger, a class sued Wachovia over the Pick-a-Payment
portfolio, which allegedly left "hundreds of thousands of
homeowners . . . suffering the effects of undisclosed negative
amortization."

Judge Fogel, in response, approved the unspecified settlement and
created a new loan modification program -- Mortgage Assistance
Program (2MAP2R).

The program required Wells Fargo to provide principal forgiveness,
"eliminating virtually all of the accrued negative amortization,
by reducing a borrower's principal balance to the market value of
the home in circumstances where the loan's principal balance
exceeded the home's market value."

But the bank and program did little to provide relief to
"struggling" homeowners, the plaintiffs said.

"According to Wells Fargo's records, for the period from April 1,
2011 to Sept. 30, 2012, there were 52,252 loan modification
requests made by settlement class B members (borrowers who became
in imminent threat of default after the parties agreed to the
settlement).  Of those requests, defendants have completed only
1,055 MAP2R modification (approximately 2 percent)," Murphy's
complaint states.  "In that same period, settlement class C
members (borrowers who were in default at the time the parties
agreed to the settlement) made 14,419 loan modification requests,
but defendants completed on 691 MAP2R modifications (less than 5
percent)."

On March 4, U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg rejected the
plaintiff's latest request to halt Wells Fargo from "commencing or
continuing" with foreclosures, pending an injunction hearing over
the alleged settlement breach.

"While plaintiffs assert defendant has now initiated such
proceedings, or provided notice of its intent to do so, against
'most' of the moving parties, they have not shown that
foreclosures or evictions are so imminent that irreparable harm is
likely to be suffered prior to the time a preliminary injunction
could be heard," the single-paragraph ruling states.
"Accordingly, the request for a temporary restraining order is
denied."

The multidistrict litigation is known as In re Wachovia
Corporation "Pick-A-Pay" Mortgage Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, MDL No. 3:09-md-02015-RS, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.


WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Lugo" Suit Over Product Misbranding
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosalynd Lugo, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and Doe Defendants 1-10, Case No. 1:15-
cv-21214 (S.D. Fla., March 27, 2015), arises out of the
Defendant's false and misleading advertisements of its Spring
Valley(TM) brand herbal supplements, including gingko biloba, St.
John's wort, ginseng, garlic, echinacea, and saw palmetto that
they contain predominantly ingredients listed in the product
label. When in fact, the products contain little or none of the
substance indicated on the label but rather contaminated with
various filler ingredients that were not listed on the label
including ingredients that are dangerous to some consumers, such
as wheat or gluten.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in Bentonville, Arkansas.  It is the world's
largest retailer, and operates more than 4,100 retail stores in
the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian T. Ku, Esq.
      Louis Mussman, Esq.
      M. Ryan Casey, Esq.
      6001 NW 153rd St., Suite # 100
      Miami Lakes, FL 33014
      Telephone: (305) 891-1322
      Facsimile: (305) 891-4512
      E-mail: brian@kumussman.com
              louis@kumussman.com
              ryan@kumussman.com

         - and -

      Conlee Whiteley, Esq.
      John R. Davis, Esq.
      KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC
      701 Camp Street
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Telephone: (504) 524-5777
      Facsimile: (504) 524-5763
      E-mail: c.whiteley@kanner-law.com
              j.davis@kanner-law.com


WAL-MART STORES: Faces Two Wage-and-Hour Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for Law.com, reports that two wage-
and-hour lawsuits, one brought as a class action and the other as
a collective action, are proceeding against Wal-Mart.

The company had moved to dismiss both suits, which allege that
assistant store managers weren't paid for their overtime hours,
but a federal judge in Pittsburgh denied the motions and allowed
the suits to proceed.

U.S. District Judge Mark R. Hornak of the Western District of
Pennsylvania declined to combine the cases, as had been requested
by the plaintiffs.

"In each of these cases, former assistant store managers of the
defendant Wal-Mart Stores Inc. sue to recover allegedly unpaid
overtime pay," Judge Hornak said, outlining the basis of the
suits, one of which was brought under the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act and the other under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage
Act.

Andrew Swank brought the case under the state law.

"The principal thrusts of the defendant's efforts to dismiss Swank
are the assertions that plaintiffs have failed to plead that
assistant managers across Pennsylvania work more than 40 hours in
a work week, and that under no set of circumstances could the
Swank case ever be certified as a class action pursuant to
Rule 23," Judge Hornak said, referring to the Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure that governs class action lawsuits.

Wal-Mart had argued the case should be dismissed.

"But courts grant motions to dismiss class allegations before
class discovery only in 'the rare few [cases] where the complaint
itself demonstrates that the requirements for maintaining a class
action cannot be met,'" Judge Hornak said, quoting from the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania's 2012 opinion in Goode v.
LexisNexis Risk & Information Analytics Group.

If discovery could show there is a viable class, then a motion to
strike that class is to be denied, the judge said.

The complaint in Swank goes beyond pleading a simply plausible
claim that managers across Pennsylvania were in the same position,
being denied overtime compensation, Judge Hornak said.

"The defendant argues, with great fervor, that these plaintiffs
could not possibly know about the working situations of the more
than 1,000 other assistant managers across Pennsylvania, but that
is not what the SAC says," Judge Hornak said, referring to the
second amended complaint.  "The SAC pleads that the plaintiffs
attended a number of training and other business meetings of and
for Wal-Mart assistant managers (including them), and it appeared
plain as day (to them) that there was a highly integrated,
systemic approach to store operations as it affected the work of
assistant managers, such that it was not only plausible, but
likely, that a single system of work assignments to them and their
peers was in force."

At a later point, "perhaps, when the issue arrives at the decision
point as to whether these cases can proceed to disposition as
class or collective actions, or on the merits of the plaintiffs'
claims and the defendant's defenses, the defendant will prevail,"
Judge Hornak said, responding to Wal-Mart's argument that the
named plaintiffs couldn't have sufficient knowledge about how
assistant managers across Pennsylvania have been treated with
regard to pay structure. "At this point, however, that is not the
question to be addressed."

"Now, the issue is whether the allegations of the second amended
complaint in Swank, if true, are enough to get to the next step,
and past a motion to dismiss. In the court's estimation, they
are," the judge said.

He applied the same reasoning to the case brought by James
Paolicelli, denying Wal-Mart's motion to dismiss and allowing
discovery to proceed.

At the end of his opinion, Judge Hornak said, "One more thing."
He then addressed an apparently novel argument made by Wal-Mart
that the company's lawyers should be treated as the lawyers who
represent all of the assistant managers in Pennsylvania; there are
about 1,600 of them across the more than 140 Wal-Mart stores in
the state, according to court documents.

In January, following a hearing, the judge had ordered that
communications between lawyers in the case and potential class
members were to be limited.  That ruling was prompted by an
emergency motion from Wal-Mart alleging the plaintiffs' lawyer had
violated ethics rules by contacting assistant managers not
involved in the case.

"At that time, in support of the defendant's motion to so limit
such communications, lead counsel for the defendant took the
position that she and her law firm had to be treated as being 'the
lawyers' for all assistant managers in Pennsylvania (that is those
that might become class members or collective action participants)
by virtue of the defendant's belief that all such assistant
managers had sufficient internal responsibilities, and ability to
bind the defendant, such that they each should be treated as 'a
client' of her and her law firm, in the same fashion as the
corporate defendant," Judge Hornak said.

"If so, it would appear to the court that this could raise the
specter of the disqualification of all counsel for the defendant
in these actions.  That would be a very drastic step, and not one
that the court would take up lightly," the judge said.

He put off any final ruling on that issue for another day.

Kathryn Quesenberry -- kathy.quesenberry@dinsmore.com -- of
Dinsmore & Shohl in Louisville, Kentucky, represented Wal-Mart and
couldn't be reached for comment.

Joseph Chivers, who has an employment law practice in Pittsburgh
and represented the plaintiffs in both suits, said simply of the
judge's denial of the motions to dismiss, "Game on."


WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Carpenter, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Weatherford International, LLC, Case No.
4:15-cv-00813 (S.D. Tex., March 27, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek.

Weatherford International, LLC owns and operates an oilfield
services company doing business in Texas.

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


WELLS FARGO: Certification Judgment in "Jones" Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------
Justice Fred Woods of the Court of Appeals of California, Second
District, Division Seven, affirmed the trial court's judgment in
the appealed case entitled OPAL JONES, et al., Plaintiffs and
Respondents, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. etc., et al., Defendants
and Appellants, NO. B237282 (Cal. Ct. App.)

The plaintiffs Opal Jones, Claudia A. Caldwell, Kalina Iovcheva,
Vincent Jones and C. Renae Walker Jones filed a lawsuit against
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo Home Mortgage.  The
plaintiffs were all customers of a Los Angeles area branch office
of WF who obtained loans to purchase homes. They claimed that
during the application process, Wells Fargo denied them access to
a computer program for obtaining favorable rates on those loans
based on the ethnic makeup of the neighborhood of the branch
office. They alleged causes of action for violation of the Unruh
Act (Civ. Code, Section 51), the Fair Employment and Housing Act
(FEHA, Gov. Code, Section 12900 et seq.), the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act (CLRA, Civ. Code, Section 1750 et seq.), the Unfair
Competition Law (UCL, Bus. & Prof. Code, Section 17200) and breach
of contract.

The trial court certified a class on the Unruh Act cause of action
in August 2009. Shortly before trial, Wells Fargo moved to
decertify the class and the trial court denied the motion on
November 8, 2010. A jury trial on the class action on the Unruh
Act cause of action commenced in November 2010. In March 2011, the
jury returned a verdict finding Wells Fargo liable to the class on
the Unruh Act cause of action, and awarded statutory damages of
$3.52 million.

Wells Fargo made another motion to decertify the class on June 29,
2011, which the court denied. The judgment was entered on
September 12, 2011, in the amount of $3.52 million plus interest
on behalf of the entire class. Wells Fargo appealed, contending
the trial court should not have certified the class and then erred
in denying the subsequent motions to decertify the class.
In November 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for attorney fees,
seeking an award of $15,753,101. Subsequently the trial court held
a hearing on the motion and awarded plaintiffs $4,988,330.
Plaintiffs appealed that ruling in a separate case, No. B243333.
On June 18, 2012, the trial court stayed execution of the judgment
until all appeals became final.

On appeal, Wells Fargo contends that the superior court wrongly
assumed that there was no need to prove actual damages in order to
have an Unruh Act statutory penalty imposed, and thus the motion
to certify the class should have been denied. Wells Fargo then
makes the related contention that the price discrimination theory
of liability required plaintiffs to show that each class member
overpaid for his or her loan in order to establish injury and thus
class certification was not appropriate.

Next it contends that the court erred in denying the subsequent
motions to decertify because it allowed the plaintiffs to prove
their injury with averages rather than direct evidence of
overpayment, and thus abridged wells Fargo's due process rights by
permitting a class containing non-claimants to go to trial.
Finally it contends that the court erred in denying Well Fargo's
motion for a special verdict form that would have aided the jury
in identifying which loans proved harm and causation.

Justice Woods affirmed the trial court's judgment finding that the
trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion
for class certification and later denying the two motions for
decertification.

A copy of Justice Woods's unpublished opinion dated February 17,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/w1XnO6from Leagle.com

Harriet S. Posner -- harriet.posner@skadden.com -- Carl Alan Roth
-- carl.roth@skadden.com -- Kevin J. Minnick --
kminnick@skadden.com -- Allison B. Holcombe --
allison.holcombe@skadden.com -- Eric Waxman --
eric.waxman@skadden.com -- at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
Flom, for Defendants and Appellants

A. Barry Cappello -- abc@cappellonoel.com -- Leila J. Noel --
lnoel@cappellonoel.com -- Wendy D. Welkom --
wwelkom@cappellonoel.com -- at Cappello & Noel; Norman Pinefor --
at Pine & Pine, for Plaintiffs and Respondents

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


WELLS FARGO: Case Remanded to Determine Reasonable Attorneys Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Fred Woods of the Court of Appeals of California, Second
District, Division Seven, remanded the case, OPAL JONES, et al.,
Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. etc., et al.,
Defendants and Appellants, NO. B243333 (Cal. Ct. App.)

Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
alleging, inter alia, that Wells Fargo violated the Unruh Act when
it refused to allow home loan officers at its minority
neighborhood branches to use a computer program that was designed
to help borrowers obtain lower prices on mortgages. Although
several causes of action were alleged, a class was certified only
on the Unruh Act cause of action. The jury returned a verdict
finding that Wells Fargo had violated the Unruh Act on 880 out of
7,348 loans and awarded statutory damages of $4,000 for each loan,
resulting in a $3.52 million verdict.

Thereafter, plaintiffs filed a motion requesting attorneys' fees
in the amount of $15,753,101. The court awarded them $4,983,330.
Wells Fargo appealed the judgment and plaintiffs appealed the
order granting attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs contend the trial court
erred in finding limited success on their claims discounting their
fees. Plaintiffs did not appeal the underlying judgment nor the
propriety of the jury verdict form.  Wells Fargo filed a cross-
appeal, contending that if the court reverses the class
certification rulings in case No. B237282, the fee order should be
remanded for recalculation.

Judge Woods reversed the award of attorneys' fees and remanded the
case to the trial court. As to the cross-appeal of the defendants,
the same is dismissed as moot.

A copy of Judge Woods's unpublished opinion dated February 27,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/Q36eoYfrom Leagle.com

A. Barry Cappello -- abc@cappellonoel.com -- Leila J. Noel --
lnoel@cappellonoel.com -- Wendy D. Welkom --
wwelkom@cappellonoel.com -- at Cappello & Noel; Norman Pinefor --
at Pine & Pine, for Plaintiffs and Appellants

Harriet S. Posner -- harriet.posner@skadden.com -- Carl Alan Roth
-- carl.roth@skadden.com -- Kevin J. Minnick --
kminnick@skadden.com -- Allison B. Holcombe --
allison.holcombe@skadden.com -- at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
Flom, for Defendants and Appellants

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


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces Consumer Class Suit Over Defective Ovens
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Whirlpool Corp.'s Jenn-Air
model JJW3830ES ovens have a dangerously defective rack that can
dump hot food on users, a class action claims in Alameda County
Court.


* Mediation Essential in Wage-and-Hour Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------
Ruth D. Raisfeld, writing for The Recorder, reports that class
actions against employers alleging illegal pay practices under the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and under state labor laws
have been increasing in both federal and state courts throughout
the country and particularly in the New York metropolitan area. As
a federal district judge recently observed: "Recent years have
witnessed an explosion in FLSA litigation."  In 2014, FLSA cases
constituted "nearly 9 percent of the civil cases filed in the
Southern District of New York. And this district is no outlier.
Nationwide, annual FLSA filings are up over 400 percent from
2001."

Large multistate companies like Wal-Mart, Starbucks, and JP
Morgan, but also smaller local businesses like restaurants, stock
brokers, construction companies, mortgage brokers, car washes, and
insurance companies have been sued in collective or class actions
by present and former employees who alleged that they have not
been paid all wages due or that they have been misclassified as
employees exempt from overtime.

Amendments to the New York Labor Law as well as New York
Department of Labor regulations have only contributed more
uncertainty to the application of these rules to the workplace,
many of which originated during the New Deal and since then have
not been amended.

The many legal issues raised in these disputes have generated
lower court and U.S. Supreme Court decisions that alter the
workplace status quo on almost a daily basis.  A panoply of
remedies afforded to employees awaits the employer who is found to
have engaged in wage-and-hour violations including back pay,
liquidated damages, pre-judgment interest, shifting attorney fees,
and other potential penalties and damages under both federal and
state labor law (which in New York carries a six-year statute of
limitations), making the defense of these claims an expensive and
possibly perilous proposition.

The discovery process for these cases also imposes significant
burdens on plaintiffs' firms as well as on the employers.
Witnesses may be hard to find and are afraid to risk retaliation
by coming forward to join the suit or testify.  In addition, the
procedural steps of maintaining class and collective actions are
daunting: conditional class certification, distribution of notice
to the class, document production, depositions, motions, etc.
contribute expenses and delay for both sides.

Further, when the plaintiffs do settle the case, they must seek
approval of a class settlement and demonstrate to the trial court
that the proposed settlement "is procedurally and substantively
fair, reasonable and adequate."  Reviewing courts must determine
whether the proposed settlement is the result of "vigorous, arm's-
length negotiations . . . untainted by collusion . . ." Where "the
settlement is a by-product of a mediation before an experienced
employment law mediator, there is a presumption of fairness and
arm's-length negotiations."

Thus, given the high stakes of class wage-and-hour disputes, the
complexity of the litigation, and the criteria for court approval
of wage-and-hour class settlements, many of these claims are
submitted to mediation as a way to facilitate complicated
negotiations and help to insure the fairness of the negotiations.

Counsel on both sides of these disputes support the utility of
mediation to resolve class disputes.  According to plaintiffs'-
side lawyer Brian Schaffer of Fitapelli & Schaffer, "early
settlement discussions benefit both sides and should take place in
virtually every wage-and-hour case.  A mediator can be effective
in facilitating that process." Carolyn Richmond of Fox Rothschild,
a defense lawyer active in the hospitality industry, states:
"Attorneys' fees and other statutory penalties can be so
crippling, that it behooves an employer to 'reality test' any
factual disputes in mediation before running up substantial fees
and expenses that will impede settlement negotiations later on."

Guiding Principles

Considering the vote of confidence that both sides give to
mediation for resolution of class disputes, counsel who will
participate in mediation of such cases, should consider the
following principles to guide their preparation and strategic
calculus.

First, the mediation must be scheduled with sufficient time for
the parties to exchange pertinent information in advance: Who are
the workers? What were they paid? Are there records? What do the
records show? While full-blown discovery is not always necessary,
sophisticated counsel in wage-and-hour lawsuits, either with or
without court order, provide a sample of payroll records, job
descriptions, employee handbooks, time records and other
documentary evidence of the way in which employees were paid and
their time was recorded or calculated.  If the parties stumble in
providing such documentation, the mediator is available to help
facilitate what will be produced and how much time will be needed
to review it prior to the mediation.

Second, once the foregoing exchange has taken place, both sides
should prepare damages calculations.  Generally, plaintiffs'
counsel interviews putative class members, analyzes the available
data and calculates damages based on whatever potential statutory
and regulatory violations they discover for which they project
back pay, liquidated damages, interest, applicable penalties and
potential attorney fees.  Defendants are also well advised to do
their own analysis of best case and worst case scenarios
sufficiently in advance of the mediation -- so that both sides
(and the mediator) are prepared to make a realistic assessment of
the value of the case and the potential settlement zone.

Mediations may fail where the parties had neglected the damages
calculation step altogether, or undertook the analysis too close
to the mediation, and consequently had significantly conflicting
assessments of the potential damages and settlement values.
Particularly for the employer, failure to prepare for this
"reality testing" may result in "sticker shock," and an inability
to determine how to finance the settlement. Inadequate preparation
may doom the mediation and result in unnecessary litigation and
expense, only to settle later on.

Third, the right representatives should be at the table.  For the
employer, the representative attending the mediation must be
someone with knowledge of the facts and authority to settle.
Along with the principal decision makers in the business, an
accountant or bookkeeper is helpful.  Where there are others with
a significant financial interest in the business, it is helpful
either to have them at the mediation or available by phone. As is
the case in mediation generally, when the people with the real
settlement authority are not in attendance, it may be difficult to
bring them up to speed on the ups and downs of the negotiation and
thus, the greater the possibility that a mediation will fail.

On the employees' side, whether the class representatives attend
the mediation, depends on their availability, their willingness to
sit opposite the employer, any language barriers, and their
knowledge of the facts and understanding of the issues.  However,
it is imperative for plaintiffs' counsel to consider having class
representatives or opt-ins attend the mediation so that they
understand the settlement process and can help advocate in favor
of the fairness of the settlement which will be submitted for
court approval.

Fourth, the negotiators of a class settlement must have adequate
technical support at the mediation to be able to calculate offers
and counter-offers during the give-and-take over factual and legal
arguments.  A lawyer, legal assistant, bookkeeper or accountant
with math and Excel skills is critical.  Attorneys should not
attend a class action mediation without bringing a laptop loaded
with the payroll data and damage calculations: Communicating with
someone back at the employer's premises or at the attorneys'
offices is cumbersome and inefficient.  Projecting damage
calculation Excel spreadsheets on large screens in the conference
room where the mediation is taking place also helps both sides
focus on potential damages and settlement possibilities.

Fifth, consider the negotiators' mind-set. Very often both sides
to a wage-and-hour dispute cast their adversaries as ideological
villains.  The employees may feel that the employer is benefitting
from the sweat of their brows; the employers may feel that the
employees are ungrateful and that the class action will put the
employers out of business and eliminate jobs.  Defense counsel may
object to plaintiffs' attorney fee demands while plaintiffs'
counsel claim that defense counsel are dragging their feet to
generate more fees.  Regardless of the real or imagined bones of
contention, it is not helpful for the negotiators to demonize the
other side or their negotiating partners.  It is in everyone's
interest to settle and to realize that these ideological battles
cannot be won.

Finally, the negotiators must be patient, persistent, and
determined.  Even after the difficult task of agreeing to a
settlement fund, the negotiators must still hammer out a variety
of procedural aspects including the schedule for funding the
settlement, the content of the notice to the class, the
administration of the settlement, the scope of the release,
reversions, tax issues, and attorney fees, to cite a few of the
moving parts to a class settlement.  These technical issues must
be worked out for a settlement to be accepted by the class and
approved by a court.  Sufficient time must be allotted at the
mediation for the negotiators to reduce the agreed-upon issues to
a terms sheet, followed up in short order by a fully integrated
agreement.

Class actions can and should be resolved to avoid uncertain and
expensive litigation -- but in order to have a productive and
successful mediation, preparation, in advance, is essential.


                             *********

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  * * *