CAR_Public/150416.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, April 16, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 76


                             Headlines

ABA TURKISH: Faces "Kayalamar" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ACE USA: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Boise" Suit Claims
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Suit Claims
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces "Eaton" Suit Over Anti-Steering Policies
AMERICAN WATER: Faces "Patrick" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

ANTHEM INC: Faces "Hayes" Suit in Ind. Over Alleged Data Breach
ARUBA NETWORKS: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Breeden" Suit Claims
B & J CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Amador" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
BEL FUSE: Faces "Ortega" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

BEST FOODS: Recalls Cumin Power Products Due to Peanuts
BIG JOYS: "Espinobarros" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
BLOOMINGDALE'S INC: Sued in E.D.N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BLUE BELL:  Recalls Banana Pudding Ice Cream Due to Listeria
BLUE CROSS: Faces Numerous Class Suits Alleging Antitrust Claims

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Faces Suit Over False Twin-Turbo Engines
BRIGHT HORIZONS: Faces "Douglas' Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CALIFORNIA: Border Patrol Sued for Not Providing Information
CATAMARAN HEALTH: Sued for Selling Insurance Using "Superman" Ad
CH2M HILL: "Schlei" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages

CHAPA'S NOODLES: "Zhang" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
CHASE RECEIVABLES: Court Junks Motion to Dismiss "Vinas" Case
CHUHAK & TECSON: Sued in Ill. for Perpetrating Tax Fraud Scheme
COLONY CAPITAL: Accused of Hiding Material Info From SEC Filing
COLORADO: Accused of Illegal Jail Time Due to Miscalculation

CONN LANDSCAPE: Faces "Arias" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
COOPER VISION: Faces "Crose" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing
COOPER VISION: Faces "Ball" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing
COOPER VISION: Faces "Valdez" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing
DEVA INC: "Sekiya" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

DIAMOND 1 PARKING: "Coronado" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
DICK'S SPORTING: Makes Employees Work Off the Clock, Suit Claims
DIRECTV INC: Supreme Court to Review Suit Over Claims Arbitration
DISTANCE LEARNING: Faces "Evans" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
EI DU PONT: Faces Suit Over Restructuring of Chemical Division

GLOBE LEND: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Mogannam" Suit Claims
GOLDEN MINE: Sued in Illinois Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
FAMILY SERVICE: "D'Arezzo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
HARDIN MEDICAL: Sued Over Unlawful Emergency Care Policies
HENRY'S FARM: Recalls Soybean Sprouts Due to Listeria

HIGDON COMPANIES: Faces "Carpenter" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
HO WONG: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Chen" Suit Claims
HOME DEPOT: Recalls Patio Set Rockers Due to Fall Hazard
HOPE FOODS: Recalls Kale Pesto Hummus Products Due to Walnuts
HUMANA PHARMACY: Faces Suit in Indiana Over Unsolicited Calls

HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Sued Over Forced-Placed Insurance Fees
IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
INTERNATIONAL UNION: Court Chipped Away Claims From "Slack" Suit
JAMBA JUICE: Deal to Re-label "All Natural" Smoothie Kits Okayed

JANTON INDUSTRIES: Faces "Koszkos" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
JUDICIAL ALTERNATIVES: Sued Over Unconstitutional Probation Fees
KAISER FOUNDATION: Trial in Suit by Surgery Patients Has Began
KING DIGITAL: IPO Prices Were Artificially Inflated, Suit Claims
LA COUNTY, CA: Battle Over Errors in Warrant System Turned Ugly

LENOVO (US) INC: Faces "Cullifer" Suit Over Harmful Spyware
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Jeffries" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Fultineer" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Picard" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Washington" Suit Over Toxic Flooring

LYFT INC: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, "Wolf" Suit Claims
MAGNOLIA HEALTH: Sued in S.D. Ind. Over Illegal Wages Deductions
MANAGEMENT & TRAINING: Faces "Smith" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MAYA OVERSEAS: Recalls Cumin Power Products Due to Peanuts
MERRILL LYNCH: Faces Suit by Clifford Chance Plan Participant

MICROSOFT CORP: 9th Cir. Reverses Denial of Class Certification
MONSANTO CO: To Pay $350K to Settle With Farmers in Seven States
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Appeal Trial in Pay-for-Play Suit Continues
NEVADA: Farmers Fight Restrictions on Groundwater Pumping
NY FIRE: Faces "Song" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

OIL STATES INT'L: Faces "Dotson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
OSAKA JAPANESE: "Chen" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
PACIFIC GATEWAY: Summary Judgment Bid in Arocho Case Denied
PELHAM BAY: "Dubiel' Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
POCKETS RESTAURANTS: Faces "Valadez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

POTESTIVO & ASSOCIATES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Carl" Suit Says
PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Archibald" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Kaplowitz" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
PRESENCE HEALTH: Doesn't Properly Fund Employees Plan, Suit Says
PRESTIGE DELIVERY: Faces "Mose" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

PRITCHARD INDUSTRIES: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Ruiz" Suit Says
PRODUCTION MEDIA: Fails to Provide Ad Presentation, Suit Claims
PROVIDENCE CENTER: "D'Arezzo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
RAJA FOODS: Recalls SWAD Cumin Powder Products Due to Peanuts
RITE-WAY JANITORIAL: "Reyes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT

RUST-OLEUM CORPORATION: Faces "Baden" Suit Over Misbranding
SANDISK CORP: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
SHADOW INDUSTRIES: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Defective Radial Treads
SHELDON RABIN: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Padilla" Suit Says
SMOOTH INDUSTRIES: Recalls Children's Pajamas Due to Burn Risk

SOCIAL SECURITY: Accused by Refugees of Tampering With Evidence
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Sued Over Misleading Boarding Policies
SPINNERS INC: Faces "Cornelio" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SQUARE 1 FINANCIAL: Being Sold for Too Little, Shareholders Say
STEPS TO SUCCESS: Faces "Artis" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

STERLING INFOSYSTEMS: Illegally Furnished Reports, Suit Claims
STOKKE LLC: Recalls Trailz Strollers Due to Fall Hazard
SUNTRUST BANKS: Faces " Gilbert" Suit Over Violation of ERISA
SUPERVALU INC: Cannot Compel Arbitration of Antitrust Claims
SUTTER HOME: Faces Suit Over Unsafe Levels of Arsenic in Wines

SYMANTEC CORP: Has Lost Bid to Shake Off Insurance Fraud Claims
TARGET CORP: To Pay $10MM to Settle Class Suit Over Data Breach
TOYS R US: Faces Suit Over Deceiving Babies R Us Rewards Program
TRADER JOE'S: Sued for Systematically Demoting "Older" Employees
TRANS UNION LLC: Sued Over $10 Charge in Placing Security Freezes

TRIPOLIS ENTERPRISES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
TURN INC: Illegally Tracks Users Web Activities, Action Claims
TWITTER INC: Accused by Ex-Software Engineer of Gender Bias
UIL HOLDINGS: Being Sold for Too Little to Iberdrola, Suit Says
UMG RECORDINGS: Close to Settling Suit Over Payments of Royalty

USPLABS LLC: Falsely Marketed PowerFULL Supplements, Suit Claims
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Denial of Mental Heath Coverage
WARNER/CHAPPELL: "Happy Birthday to You" Song Called a Cash Cow
WELLS FARGO: Bid to Strike Class Allegations in "Roy" Denied
WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Bran Muffin Products Due to Eggs and Milk

WISCONSIN DETAIL: Faces "Idris" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
XANODYNE PHARMACEUTICALS: Gets Ruling Dismissing Lightfoot Claims
YORK PARTNERS: Faces "Uribe" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime


                            *********


ABA TURKISH: Faces "Kayalamar" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Selma Kayalamar, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Aba Turkish Restaurant LLC, Mustafa Yalaza, and Arif
Gecer, Case No. 1:15-cv-02430 (S.D.N.Y., March 31, 2015),  is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for all hours worked over 40 each workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a Turkish restaurant in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
      JOSEPH, HERZFELD, HESTER, & KIRSCHENBAUM
      233 Broadway, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 688-5640 x 2548
      Facsimile: (212) 688-5639
      E-mail: maimon@jhllp.com


ACE USA: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Boise" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Justin Mark Boise, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ACE USA, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-21264 (S.D.
Fla., April 1, 2015), seeks to stop Defendant's practice of making
illegal telemarketing calls to the telephones of consumers
nationwide.

ACE USA, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that provides commercial
and personal property and casualty insurance, personal accident
and supplemental health insurance, reinsurance and life insurance.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin H. Crumley, Esq.
      CRUMLEY & WOLFE, PA
      2254 Riverside Avenue
      Jacksonville, Florida 32204
      Telephone (904) 374-0111
      Facsimile (904) 374-0113
      E-mail: ben@cwbfl.com

         - and -

      W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
      Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
      HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
      2700 Post Oak Blvd., Ste. 1120
      Galleria Tower I
      Houston, TX 77056
      Telephone: (713) 554-2377
      Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
      E-mail: craft@hughesellzey.com
              jarrett@hughesellzey.com


ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Activision Blizzard stiffs
its senior artists for overtime, a class action claims in
California Superior Court.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces "Eaton" Suit Over Anti-Steering Policies
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Eaton, Paul Kashishian, Gianna Valdes, Chad Tintrow and
Matthew Moriarty, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. American Express Company and American Express Travel
Related Services Company, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01770 (E.D.N.Y.,
April 1, 2015), arises out of the Anti-Steering Rules or Non-
Discrimination Provisions that the Defendants entered into an
illegal vertical agreements with merchants who accept American
Express credit cards which artificially inflate the retail prices
for goods and services.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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

         - and -

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

         - and -

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


AMERICAN WATER: Faces "Patrick" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Patrick, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. American Water Works Company, Inc. and Missouri-American Water
Company, Case No. 4:15-cv-00551 (E.D. Mo., March 30, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Defendants are providers of water and wastewater services in
approximately 45 States in the United States and Canada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      D. Todd Mathews, Esq.
      GORI JULIAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      156 N. Main Street
      Edwardsville, IL 62025
      Telephone: (618) 659-9833
      Facsimile: (618) 659-9834
      E-mail: todd@gorijulianlaw.com

         - and -

      Robert W. Cowan, Esq.
      BAILEY PEAVY BAILEY, PLLC
      440 Louisiana St., Suite 2100
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 425-7100
      Facsimile: (713) 425-7101
      E-mail: rcowan@bpblaw.com


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Hayes" Suit in Ind. Over Alleged Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steven L. Hayes, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00526
(S.D. Ind., April 1, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to provide adequate security and protection for its
computer systems containing patient's personally identifiable
information and personal health information.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edmond W. Foley
      FOLEY & SMALL
      1002 E. Jefferson Boulevard
      South Bend, IN 46617
      Telephone: (574) 288-7676
      E-mail: efoley@foleyandsmall.com

         - and -

      Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
      Francis J. Rondoni, Esq.
      Jeffrey D. Bores, Esq.
      CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
      17 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Telephone: (612) 339-7300
      Facsimile: (612) 336-2940
      E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
              frondoni@chestnutcambronne.com
              jbores@chestnutcambronne.com

         - and -

      Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
      Edwin J. Kilpela Jr., Esq.
      Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP
      PNC Park
      115 Federal Street, Suite 210
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Telephone: (412) 322-9243
      Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
      E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
              ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com
              jetzel@carlsonlynch.com

         - and -

      Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
      Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
      Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
      100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401-2159
      Telephone: (612) 339-6900
      Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
      E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com
              hmsilton@locklaw.com
              kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com

         - and -

      W. Daniel Dee Miles III, Esq.
      Larry A. Golston, Esq.
      Andrew E. Brashier, Esq.
      BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
      272 Commerce Street
      Post Office Box 4160
      Montgomery, Alabama 36103-4160
      Telephone: (334) 269-2343
      Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
      E-mail: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com
              larry.golston@beasleyallen.com
              andrew.brashier@beasleyallen.com

         - and -

      Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
      David R. Scott, Esq.
      Erin Green Comite, Esq.
      SCOTT + SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
      156 South Main Street, P.O. Box 192
      Colchester, CT 06415
      Telephone: (860) 537-5537
      Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
      E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
              david.scott@scott-scott.com
              ecomite@scott-scott.com


ARUBA NETWORKS: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Newfield, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Aruba Networks, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-
cv-01502 (N.D. Cal., April 1, 2015), alleges that the Defendants
made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.

Aruba Networks, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Sunnyvale, California, which is a next-generation network access
solution for the mobile enterprise.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
      Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
      Edward B. Gerard, Esq.
      Justin D. Rieger, Esq.
      ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
      600 B Street, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 525-3990
      Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
      E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
              soddo@robbinsarroyo.com
              egerard@robbinsarroyo.com
              jrieger@robbinsarroyo.com

         - and -

      Hamilton P. Lindley, Esq.
      DUNNAM DUNNAM HARMON WEST LINDLEY & RYAN LLP
      4125 W. Waco Drive
      Waco, TX 76710
      Telephone: (254) 753-6437
      Facsimile: (254) 753-7434
      E-mail: hlindley@dunnamlaw.com


ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Breeden" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
William K. Breeden, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Asset Acceptance, LLC and John Does 1-25, Case No.
3:15-cv-02306 (D.N.J., April 2, 2015), seeks to stop the
Defendant's practice of using an unfair and unconscionable means
to collect a debt.

Asset Acceptance, LLC is a collection agency with an office
located at 28405 Van Dyke Avenue, Warren, Michigan, 48093.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ari Marcus, Esq.
      MARCUS LAW, LLC
      1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
      Ocean, NJ 07712
      Telephone: (732) 660-8169
      Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
      E-mail: ari@marcuslawnj.com


B & J CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Amador" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Berman Ulises Treminio Amador and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. B & J Construction Service Corp, Beatriz
Velazquez Granado, Case No. 1:15-cv-21252 (S.D. Fla., March 31,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company that
regularly transacts business within Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BEL FUSE: Faces "Ortega" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ramon Ortega and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b) v. Bel Fuse, Inc., Array Connector Corporation, Bill
McPherson, Case No. 1:15-cv-21229 (S.D. Fla., March 30, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Defendants own and operate a Florida-based company that
manufactures electronic components for the computer, networking,
telecommunications, transportation and defense and aerospace
industries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BEST FOODS: Recalls Cumin Power Products Due to Peanuts
-------------------------------------------------------
Best Foods Inc. 75 Midvale Rd,. Edison, NJ is recalling its 7
ounce packages and 14 oz. packages of Deer brand Cumin Powder
because they may contain undeclared peanuts. People who have
allergies to peanuts run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume these products.

The recalled packages of Deer brand Cumin Powder were distributed
to NY, CT, NJ, MA, PA, DE and VA and have reached consumers
through retail stores.

The product comes in a clear and yellow plastic package. Some of
the 7 ounce packages are marked with UPC number 714760027497 and
some of the 14 ounce packages are marked with UPC number
714760027503.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling and analysis by
the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets who found
the product to contain peanuts which were not declared on the
label.

Consumers who have purchased 7 ounce and 14 ounce packages of Deer
brand Cumin Powder are urged to return them to the place of
purchase for full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the
company at 1-732-650-1300 Ext 222, Monday - Friday 9 a.m. - 5 p.m.
EST.


BIG JOYS: "Espinobarros" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Celso Valentin Espinobarros, individually and in behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Big Joys Corp. d/b/a West End
Superette and New West End Superette, Jai Sung Choi, and Kooim
Choi, Case No.  1:15-cv-02499 (S.D.N.Y., April 1, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a grocery store located at 273 West
72nd 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


BLOOMINGDALE'S INC: Sued in E.D.N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shamoura Welch-Robinson, and Randy Davis, on behalf ofthemselves
and all other similarly situated employees v. Bloomingdale's,
Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01752 (E.D.N.Y., April 1, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Bloomingdale's, Inc. is an Ohio Business Corporation that operates
a chain of department stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis Ginsberg, Esq.
      THE LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
      1613 Northern Boulevard
      Roslyn, NY 11576
      Telephone: (516) 625-0105


BLUE BELL:  Recalls Banana Pudding Ice Cream Due to Listeria
------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Bell Creameries is expanding its recall of products that were
produced in the Broken Arrow, Okla., plant to include Banana
Pudding Ice Cream pints which tested positive for Listeria
monocytogenes, and additional products manufactured on the same
line. These items have the potential to be young children, frail
or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems.
Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms
such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal
pain and diarrhea, Listeria monocytogenes infection can cause
miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

The products being recalled are distributed to retail outlets,
including food service accounts, convenience stores and
supermarkets in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida,
Georgia, Illinois, Indiana Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio
Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wyoming.

No illnesses have been confirmed to date.

On April 3, 2015, Blue Bell Creameries voluntarily suspended
operations at its Broken Arrow, Okla., plant to thoroughly inspect
the facility due to a 3oz. institutional/food service chocolate
cup that tested positive for Listeria monocytogenes and was
immediately withdrawn from all outlets. That product was only
available to Blue Bell's food service and institutional accounts
and was recalled along with 3oz. vanilla and strawberry
institutional/food service cups.

On April 4, 2015, out of an abundance of caution, Blue Bell began
working with retail outlets to remove all products produced in
Broken Arrow, Okla., from their service area. These products are
identified with a code date ending in O, P, Q, R, S or T located
on the bottom of the carton and they are a part of the voluntary
market withdrawal.

On April 7, 2015, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration notified
Blue Bell that the Banana Pudding Ice Cream pint tested positive
for Listeria monocytogenes. This pint was produced in the Broken
Arrow, Okla., plant on February 12, 2015. Subsequently Blue Bell
is recalling all products made on that one particular production
line, from February 12, 2015 - March 27, 2015. These products were
produced on that same line and have a code date ending in either S
or T.

Recalled products produced in Oklahoma are identified by the code
date on the bottom of the carton.

  Ice Cream Pints: UPC # 071899-05101 5     Code Date
  -------------------------------------     ---------
Ice Cream Banana Pudding pint               021217S
Ice Cream Butter Crunch pint                021917S
Ice Cream Mint Chocolate Chip pint          022017S
Ice Cream Cookies 'n Cream pint             030317S, 030617S
Ice Cream Homemade Vanilla pint             030417S
Ice Cream Dutch Chocolate pint              032317S
Ice Cream Moo-llennium Crunch pint          032417S, 032517S

  Sherbet Pint: UPC # 0 71899-19990 8
  -----------------------------------
Rainbow Sherbet pint                        021717S, 021817S,
                                            022317S, 030217S

  Sherbet Quarts: UPC # 0 71899-18992 3
  -------------------------------------
Orange Sherbet quart                        032617S
Mixed Berry Sherbet quart                   032717S

   3 ounce Tab Lid Cup: Product #
  136 *Institutional / food service
  cup only
  ---------------------------------
Rainbow Sherbet                             022417S, 022617S,
                                            022717S

  Gold Rim Half Gallon:
  UPC # 0 71899-03720 0
  ---------------------
Ice Cream Homemade Vanilla half gallon      030917T, 031017T,
                                            031117T, 031217T,
                                            031717T, 031717T,
                                            031817T

  Brown Rim Half Gallon:
  UPC # 0 71899-83548 6
  ----------------------
Ice Cream Pistachio Almond half gallon      031317T

  Light Half Gallon:
  UPC # 0 71899-73501 4
  ---------------------
Ice Cream Homemade Vanilla Light            031917T
half gallon

Consumers who have purchased these items are urged to return them
to the place of purchase for a full refund. For more information
consumers with questions may call 979-836-7977, Monday - Friday 8
a.m. - 5 p.m. CST or go to bluebell.comdisclaimer icon.


BLUE CROSS: Faces Numerous Class Suits Alleging Antitrust Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that 29 businesses accuse Blue
Cross and Blue Shield of Arizona of conspiring to monopolize
health insurance, in a federal antitrust class action.  Virtually
identical complaints were filed in Buffalo and Rochester, N.Y.


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Faces Suit Over False Twin-Turbo Engines
--------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Baker-Dennis at Courthouse News Service reports that BMW cut
costs by replacing its twin-turbo N54 engines with single-turbo
products, but it is trading on the more powerful predecessor's
prestige by marketing these newer models as "TwinPower Tubo," a
federal class action alleges.

"Twin-turbo engines are objectively superior to single-turbo
engines," the March 13 complaint states.  "Conventional driving
tests can measure this superior performance.  For example, twin-
turbo engines boast reduced turbo lag, superior throttle response,
smoother delivery power and torque, and greater ease of tuning."

BMW's N54 twin-turbo engine was a huge success from 2006 to 2008,
but the company phased that model out because of its high rate of
pressure fuel pump failures and because of pressure to meet the
Federal Corporate Average Fuel Regulations, according to the
federal complaint.

Lead plaintiff Deepkarn Singh Bedi says BMW's new engine, the N55,
is a single turbo, but that the automotive company is trading on
twin-turbo terminology to maintain the "market prestige" that the
old engine built up.

Bedi, a resident of Tiburon, Calif., says BMW deceived him into
paying a premium lease price for the 335i coupe in 2013 because he
expected a twin-turbo engine.

Calling the N55 the "false twin" of the N54, Bedi says BMW acted
"to manipulate consumers into believing that the vehicle contained
twin turbos, when, in actuality, it contains only a single turbo."

The N54's other "false twins" include the N20, N26 and B38
engines, according to the complaint.

Among model-year 2014 cars that BMW has also falsely marketed with
"TwinPower Turbo" nomenclature "the 228i, M235i, 320i, 328i, 335i,
428i, 435i, 528i, 535d, 535i, 640i, 740i, 740li, Z4 sDrive28i, Z4
sDrive35i, and Z4 sDrive35is," Bedi says.

"They are all False Twins," the complaint continues.

Noting that it is common knowledge in the marketplace that an
automobile with twin-turbo engines can command a premium price,
Bedi says "BMW charged a MRSP premium of $7,500 more for a twin-
turbocharged 2012 335i coupe" over a single-turbocharged engine in
an identical car.

BMW uses TwinPower Turbo terminology on various media to promote
single-turbo engines, Bedi says, pointing to the company's
website, printed brochures, and other outlets.

With even the "technically savvy, sophisticated car enthusiasts
and tuners" on Internet message boards confused about BMW's
marketing terms, Bedi says the average consumer doesn't stand a
chance.

"For the average consumer who uses the website to get a sense of
the kind of car he or she wants, and then goes to a BMW
dealership, there is no real opportunity to learn that every
single BMW N20 and N55 TwinPower Turbo engine has only one
turbocharger," the complaint states.  "In fact, BMW goes to great
lengths to lead average consumers to believe that 'TwinPower
Turbo' means a twin-turbo engine."

Bedi says he would have never leased the coupe at the price he
paid if he had been told the car only had a single turbocharger,
or if any of the stickers or labels on the car had not had the
"TwinPower Turbo" terminology.

The class seeks injunctive relief, restitution and punitive
damages for breach of warranty, deceptive acts and other claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Shah, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          475 White Horse Pike
          Collingswood, NJ 08107
          Telephone: (856) 858-1770
          Facsimile: (856) 858-7012
          E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com


BRIGHT HORIZONS: Faces "Douglas' Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Biancka Douglas, on behalf of herself and all other 15 CV 2 4 6
similarly situated employees v. Bright Horizons Children's Centers
LLC, and Bright Horizons Children's Centers, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-02486 (S.D.N.Y., April 1, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for all hours
worked up to 40 in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a school located at 910 9th Ave.
New York, NY 10019.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis Ginsberg, Esq.
      Matthew Eric Cohen, Esq.
      LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
      55 John St.-10th Fl.
      New York, NY 10038
      Telephone: (516) 625-0105
      Facsimile: (516) 625-0106
      E-mail: louisginsberg@1800lostjob.com
              matthewcohen21@gmail.com


CALIFORNIA: Border Patrol Sued for Not Providing Information
------------------------------------------------------------
Customs and Border Protection refused to respond to nearly 38,000
Freedom of Information requests, immigration attorneys say in a
federal class action, according to Mike Heuer at Courthouse News
Service.

Attorneys Meredith Brown of Glendale, Kelly Ryan of Denver, and
Jeri Flynn of Baton Rouge sued Customs and Border Protection on
March 12 in San Francisco on behalf of 11 co-plaintiff clients.
They say CBP has made them wait for more than a year for
information, though its statutory response time is 20 days.

At the end of fiscal year 2013, CBP had nearly 38,000 FOIA
requests that had been pending for more than 20 days, the
attorneys say. This backlog was more than nine times greater than
it had been at the close of 2011, despite enormous increases in
CBP funding, according to the complaint.

The failure to respond affects the proposed class's ability to
obtain legal permanent residency in the United States and other
issues.

Though CBP receives "significantly more funding than its two
counterparts within the Department of Homeland Security,"
Citizenship and Immigration Services and Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, and gets far fewer FOIA requests than its
counterparts, it has far more backlogged requests, according to
the complaint.

Customs and Border Protection received 41,381 FOIA requests in
2013 versus 132,797 received by Citizenship and Immigration
Services, but Customs and Border Protection's backlog increased,
while its counterpart's backlog decreased, the attorneys say.

The backlog hurts the attorneys' clients by making it impossible
to ascertain the significance of their clients' interactions with
Border Patrol officials and prevents the attorneys from "moving
forward with applications for which they or their clients may be
eligible," according to the lawsuit.

Such delay also "causes unnecessary emotional hardship for those
left in legal limbo while they wait to obtain the records that
hold the key to assessing their immigration options in the United
States," the attorneys say.

"The statistics demonstrate that Customs and Border Protection is
not prioritizing reducing its backlog of FOIA requests" and its
effort to clear the backlog "has been wholly inadequate and
ineffectual," according to the complaint.

The attorneys say there are "no exceptional circumstances" that
warrant the delay in processing the FOIA requests.  They seek
class certification, declaratory judgment that Customs and Border
Protection is violating the Freedom of Information Act, and a
nationwide injunction requiring a response to all backlogged FOIA
requests within 60 days of a court order.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stacy Tolchin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STACY TOLCHIN
          634 S. Spring St., Suite 500A
          Los Angeles, CA 90014
          Telephone: (213) 622-7450
          Facsimile: (213) 622-7233
          E-mail: Stacy@tolchinimmigration.com


CATAMARAN HEALTH: Sued for Selling Insurance Using "Superman" Ad
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Lessmiller, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that a class claims that an insurance company sold them disability
policies under an illegal blanket insurance group, using
"Superman" actor Christopher Reeve in its marketing materials.

James and Emma Imes sued Catamaran Health Solutions LLC --
formerly known as Catalyst Health Solutions Inc. and HealthExtras
Inc. -- Stonebridge Life Insurance Company, and Virginia Surety
Company Inc. individually and on behalf of a proposed class of
North Carolinians who have purchased the defendants' disability
insurance since 1999.

The Imeses say Catamaran created the scheme around 1997, which
offered $1 million in disability insurance coverage, and a $2,500
accident and sickness expense benefit, sold under the HealthExtras
name.

The lawsuit alleges Catamaran created a fake group to comply with
a North Carolina state law requiring that blanket group disability
policies be sold only to an employer or other entity that is not
controlled by the insurer.  Catamaran then paid credit card
companies to include its marketing materials, featuring pictures
of Reeve, in cardholders' monthly statements, according to the
complaint.

"The marketing flyers contained images of the late famed Superman
actor, Christopher Reeve, well-known for his equestrian accident
causing quadriplegia, as well as statements by Mr. Reeve endorsing
the HealthExtras Program," the complaint states.

Once consumers sent Catamaran a short application, they were made
a member of a fake group and were charged insurance premiums, the
class action claims.

"Avoiding insurance regulation, rate oversight and the scrutiny of
an actual group allowed Catamaran to fraudulently market and sell
illegal group disability policies known as the HealthExtras
Program to individuals on a large nationwide scale," the lawsuit
states.  "These policies, disguised as inexpensive individual
disability policies, were then issued to fictitious groups or
trusts formed by the defendants to create the illusion of a valid
group.  This was a successful scheme to avoid state regulatory
scrutiny and to avoid the scrutiny of an actual group and has been
perpetrated in North Carolina for nearly 15 years."

HealthExtras profits went from $5.3 million in 1999 to $44.2
million in 2000 thanks to more than 300,000 new enrollments,
according to a shareholder report cited in the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs allege Stonebridge and Virginia Surety, as
underwriters, approved the illegal policies that were not approved
by the North Carolina Department of Insurance, as required by
state law.  The insurance plan's policyholder -- HealthExtras Inc.
-- was not a valid group for disability insurance purposes, the
complaint says.

"HealthExtras Inc. was not a group or association at all.
HealthExtras, now Catamaran was a fictitious, illegal and sham
company, with premiums collected for the benefit of it and its
business partners, rather than a valid group of persons," the
plaintiffs claim.  "There was no constitution or bylaws and the
HealthExtras 'members' had no voting privileges or representation
on any boards or committees.  This group was created for the sole
purpose of selling the HealthExtras scheme to consumers, while
avoiding supervision and oversight of the North Carolina
Department of Insurance in direct violation of North Carolina
law."

The disability policies were cancelled without explanation in 2014
amidst similar class actions in different jurisdictions, according
to the complaint.  The lawsuit seeks the return of insurance
premiums, punitive damages and an order of restitution.

The class is represented by:

          Aaron C. Hemmings, Esq.
          HEMMINGS & STEVENS PLLC
          5613 Duraleigh Road, Suite 151
          Raleigh, NC 27612
          Telephone: (919) 277-0161
          Facsimile: (919) 277-0162
          E-mail: ahemmings@hemmingsandstevens.com


CH2M HILL: "Schlei" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Schlei, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CH2M Hill, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00350 (E.D. Wis.,
March 30, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

CH2M Hill, Inc. provides consulting, design, design-build,
operations, and program management services to government and
private clients.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
      Summer H. Murshid, Esq.
      Timothy P. Maynard, Esq.
      HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
      222 East Erie Street, Suite 210
      P.O. Box 442
      Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
      Telephone: (414) 271-8650
      Facsimile: (414) 271-8442
      E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com
              smurshid@hq-law.com
              tmaynard@hq-law.com


CHAPA'S NOODLES: "Zhang" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Guangli Zhang, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Chapa's Noodles and Grill Corp. d/b/a Cha Pa's Noodles and
Grill, Jenny Lien, and Michael Doe, Case No. 1:15-cv-02448
(S.D.N.Y., March 31, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest
and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant with a principal
address at 314 West 52nd Street, New York, NY 10019.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amy R. Millican, Esq.
      John Troy, Esq.
      TROY LAW, PLLC
      41-25 Kissena Blvd. Suite 119
      Flushing, NY 11355
      Telephone: (301) 758-5754
      E-mail: millicana@gmail.com
              johntroy@pllc.com


CHASE RECEIVABLES: Court Junks Motion to Dismiss "Vinas" Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Deborah K. Chasanow denied a motion to dismiss the
case captioned MARIA VINAS on Behalf of Herself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. CHASE RECEIVABLES, INC., CIVIL ACTION NO.
DKC 14-3270, (D. Md.).

The Plaintiff filed this putative class action on October 20,
2014, contending that the processing or convenience fee for
payment of debts online violates the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act. She sued on her own behalf as well as on behalf
putative class members:

   Class 1. All persons from whom Defendant attempted to collect a
   convenience fee within one year prior to the filing of the
   complaint where such fee was not authorized by the agreement
   creating the debt or by law.

   Class 2. All persons from whom Defendant collected a
   convenience fee within one year prior to the filing of the
   complaint where such fee was not authorized by the agreement
   creating the debt or by law.

Instead of answering, Defendant extended a Rule 68 offer of
judgment on December 15, 2014, which Plaintiff rejected. Then, on
December 22, 2014, Defendant moved to dismiss, contending that the
offer of judgment rendered Plaintiff's individual claim moot and
that the entire action should be dismissed.

According to Judge Chasanow's memorandum opinion entered March 27,
2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/rfkmJ9from
Leagle.com, a case is moot when a plaintiff receives all the
relief sought in the complaint.  Sometimes, an offer of settlement
or judgment is deemed to constitute complete relief, even if not
accepted by the plaintiff, and thus to moot a complaint.

"Here, of course, there is a complicating factor because Plaintiff
seeks to represent others in a class action. There is no binding,
clear authority in this circuit on whether an unaccepted offer of
judgment (if it offers complete relief to the named plaintiff),
prior to the filing of a motion for class certification, moots the
action. District courts in this circuit have consistently ruled
that the putative class action is not rendered moot in this
situation," Judge Chasanow added.  "Accordingly, even if the Rule
68 Offer of Judgment constitutes full relief for Plaintiff, the
unaccepted offer does not moot this case as long as Plaintiff does
not unduly delay in filing a motion for class certification.
Defendant's motion will be denied."

Maria Vinas, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Sergei Lemberg --
slemberg@lemberglaw.com -- Lemberg and Associates LLC.

Chase Receivables, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jordan M Spivok
-- jspivok@psclaw.net -- Protas Spivok and Collins LLC.


CHUHAK & TECSON: Sued in Ill. for Perpetrating Tax Fraud Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chuhak & Tecson attorneys perpetrated a multimillion-dollar tax
fraud scheme by selling bogus unconventional fuel-tax credits, a
former client claims in a class action, reports Lorraine Bailey at
Courthouse News Service.

Rauxa Direct filed the class action on March 16 in Cook County
Circuit Court against the Chicago firm; two of its attorneys, Gary
Stern and Leon Greenblatt III; a dozen other individuals and eight
other businesses.  Andy Tecson, the president of the firm who is
not a party to the action, did not have a comment on the lawsuit
by press time.

In addition to running a massive scheme of selling bogus tax
credits, Chuhak & Tecson attorneys charged outrageous fees to
prepare fraudulent tax documents, Rauxa says.

The Internal Revenue Service permits producers of fuels from non-
conventional sources to claim tax credits if the fuel was sold to
an unrelated third party.

Rauxa said the illegal plot was simple: approach wealthy
individuals and have them agree to buy a certain amount of credits
for a certain amount of money.

"The defendants would represent that by claiming the credits
purchased from them, plaintiff and others could substantially
decrease their tax liability," the complaint states.

Holding themselves out as experts in tax law, Chuhak & Tecson
attorneys agreed to assist a number of landfill operators sell the
tax credits they received for capturing methane gas produced by
garbage landfills, Rauxa claims.

Stern and the other attorneys allegedly knew, however, that the
vast majority of the tax credits they offered to unsuspecting
individuals were not legitimate because, Rauxa says, most of the
landfills lacked the proper equipment to convert methane gas to
electricity.

When the IRS began to investigate the tax credits, defendants
"submitted false statements and documents to the IRS in the hope
that they could somehow convince the tax authorities that the
credits were legitimate," the complaint states.

Rauxa says the IRS ultimately disallowed 90 percent of the
credits.

Undercutting the attorneys' attempts to legitimize the credits,
Rauxa says, is "their failure to respond to the IRS audit request
for the production of documentation that could have established
the legitimacy of the credits."

The class seeks punitive damages for violations of federal anti-
racketeering law, conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, and aiding
and abetting fraud.

The class is represented by:

          Daniel Konicek, Esq.
          KONICEK & DILLON, P.C.
          70 West Madison Street, Suite 2060
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 239-0283


COLONY CAPITAL: Accused of Hiding Material Info From SEC Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that with Colony Financial set to
take on all of the real estate and investment management
businesses and operations of Colony Capital for a "consideration
of up to $657.5 million," a class of shareholders claims the board
of directors omitted material information from an SEC filing.  The
case is filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court, Central District.


COLORADO: Accused of Illegal Jail Time Due to Miscalculation
------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado incarcerates prisoners beyond their release date after
miscalculating their good-time benefits, 154 inmates and former
inmates claim in a federal class action, reports Emma Gannon at
Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiff Arlene Rosetta-Rangel sued Colorado, Colorado
Department of Corrections Executive Director Rick Raemisch, and
six other directors and former directors on March 13.

Prisoners' mandatory release dates are supposed to be monitored by
the CDOC.  But the plaintiffs claim the CDOC denies that it is
required to credit prisoners' good-time days (Time Comp) to their
release date.  They claim that parole eligibility dates and
statutory discharge dates also are calculated in an inconsistent.

Rosetta-Rangel claims her May 5, 1999 release date was not honored
because the 180 days she spent in jail before sentencing was not
credited.  In fact, she says, she was forced to serve 839 days
longer than she should have under her properly credited statutory
discharge date.

"Time Comp as a department of CDOC acts without any meaningful
monitoring by any agency other than CDOC," the complaint states.
It claims that the state and its prison directors have been
"responsible for the willful, malicious, and reckless conduct of
Time Comp from 1993 to today."

Plaintiff Brian O'Connell claims he is scheduled to be released on
March 17, 2016, but with good behavior properly calculated he
should have been released in October 2011.

Plaintiff Gregory Rutschman, who has served 92 months in prison,
says he should have been released in July 2011 for good time
compensation, but will be in prison until November.

The plaintiffs compare their case to Randall Ankeney v. The State
of Colorado, in which Ankeney claimed that CDOC intentionally
refused to calculate his release date fairly and correctly.  It is
pending before the Colorado Supreme Court, and could affect
thousands of other state prisoners.

The plaintiffs in the new case seek credit for good time served
and damages for willful and wanton neglect, violations of the 4th,
8th and 14th Amendments, emotional distress, and costs of suit.
They also seek a rehaul of the Time Computation Department's
calculations for all prisoners' mandatory release dates.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Blake Embry, Esq.
          2953 Osceola St
          Denver, CO 80212-1438
          Telephone: (270) 491-0007


CONN LANDSCAPE: Faces "Arias" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Felipe Arias, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Conn Landscape Service, LLC, 2 Maple Place, LLC, James
S. Conn a/k/a James W.M. Conn and Valerie Ann Conn, Case No. 2:15-
cv-01691 (E.D.N.Y., March 30, 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 New York-based residential and
commercial landscape maintenance company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven John Moser, Esq.
      STEVEN J. MOSER, P.C.
      3 School Street, Suite 207B
      Glen Cove, NY 11542
      Telephone: (516) 671-1150
      Facsimile: (516) 882-5420
      E-mail: smoser@moseremploymentlaw.com


COOPER VISION: Faces "Crose" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer L. Crose, 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), 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:

      Daniel E. Becnel Jr., Esq.
      Matthew B. Moreland, Esq.
      Kevin P. Klibert, Esq.
      Salvadore Christina Jr., Esq.
      P.O. Drawer H
      Reserve, LA 70084
      Telephone: (985) 536-1186
      Facsimile: (985) 536-6445
      E-mail: dbecnel@becnellaw.com
              mmoreland@becnellaw.com
              kklibert@becnellaw.com
              schristina@becnellaw.com


COOPER VISION: Faces "Ball" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marn Larsen-Ball, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Cooper Vision, Inc., Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Bausch
+ Lomb, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., Abb Optical Group,
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Meijer, Inc., Costco Wholesale Corporation,
1-800-Contacts.Com, Lensdiscounters.Com, Case No. 3:15-cv-00138
(E.D. Tenn., March 30, 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:

      Gordon Ball, Esq.
      W. GORDON BALL, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      550 W. Main Street, Suite 601
      Knoxville, TN 37902
      Telephone: (865) 525-7028
      Facsimile: (865) 525-4679
      E-mail: gball@gordonball.com


COOPER VISION: Faces "Valdez" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Zamora-Valdes, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Novartis Corporation, Alcon Laboratories,
Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc.,
Bausch & Lomb, Inc., Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC;
Cooper Vision, Inc., and Abb/Con-Cise Optical Group LLC, Case No.
2:15-cv-02220 (D.N.J., March 30, 2015), alleges that the
Defendants entered into a conspiracy to impose minimum resale
prices on certain contact lens lines by subjecting them to so
called Unilateral Pricing Policies (UPPs) and eliminate price
competition on those products by big box stores, buying clubs, and
internet-based retailers that prevent them from discounting those
products.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DEVA INC: "Sekiya" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Masayo Sekiya, Sola Yoon, Alma Vicencio and Jallyn Sunrise De
Leon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Deva Inc. a/k/a Tod's, Case No. 1:15-cv-02364 (S.D.N.Y., March
30, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair
Labor Standards.

Deva Inc. owns and operates a high-end leather goods store on
Madison Avenue, New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew A. Kimler, Esq.
      Avrohom Y. Gefen, Esq.
      VISHNICK MCGOVERN MILIZIO LLP
      3000 Marcus Avenue
      Lake Success, NY 11042
      Telephone: (516) 437-4385
      Facsimile: (516) 437-4395
      E-mail: akimler@vmmlegal.com
              agefen@vmmlegal.com


DIAMOND 1 PARKING: "Coronado" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wilson Coronado, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Diamond 1 Parking Garage, Inc., d/b/a
Diamond Garage Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02548 (S.D.N.Y., April 2,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime
compensation, spread of hours compensation, and damages under the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Diamond 1 Parking Garage, Inc. owns and operates car wash and
parking businesses with several locations in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Leonor Hidalgo Coyle, Esq.
      Lloyd Robert Ambinder, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER LLP
      40 Broad Street, 7th fl., Suite 1403
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080
      Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
      E-mail: lcoyle@vandallp.com
              lambinder@bivas.net


DICK'S SPORTING: Makes Employees Work Off the Clock, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Dick's Sporting Goods stiffs
workers for overtime and makes them work off the clock, an
employee claims in a class action in California Superior Court.


DIRECTV INC: Supreme Court to Review Suit Over Claims Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DirecTV persuaded the Supreme Court on March 23 to decide whether
customers must arbitrate their claims over early termination fees,
reports Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service.

The satellite television provider claims that arbitration is
compelled by the landmark Supreme Court decision, Concepcion v.
AT&T Corp., but both the trial judge in Los Angeles and
California's Second Appellate District disagreed.

Amy Imburgia and Kathy Greiner are the lead plaintiffs in the
would-be class action, which has proceeded in state court at the
same pace as federal multidistrict litigation.  In addition to
refusing to kick the Imburgia case to arbitration, the trial court
refused to stay the litigation pending the outcome of the federal
case.

The court's class-certification order in Imburgia came just a week
before the Supreme Court decided Concepcion on April 27, 2011.
Though that finding said that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)
pre-empts California's law on unconscionable contracts, DirecTV
had not previously tried to compel arbitration.

In rejecting DirecTV's arguments last year, the California appeals
court noted that it did not find a similar case from the 9th
Circuit, Murphy v. DirecTV, persuasive.

"If the customer agreement expressly provided that the
enforceability of the class action waiver 'shall be determined
under the (nonfederal) law of your state without considering the
preemptive effect, if any, of the FAA,' then that choice of law
would be enforceable; Murphy cites no authority to the contrary,"
the decision states.

The court summarized its finding as thus: "Section 9 of the 2007
customer agreement provides that 'if . . . the law of your state
would find this agreement to dispense with class arbitration
procedures unenforceable, then this entire Section 9 is
unenforceable.'  The class action waiver is unenforceable under
California law, so the entire arbitration agreement is
unenforceable.  The superior court therefore properly denied the
motion to compel arbitration."

Per its custom, the U.S. Supreme Court did not issue any comment
in taking up the case March 23.

The case is DirecTV, Inc. v. Imburgia, Amy, et al., Case No. 14-
462.


DISTANCE LEARNING: Faces "Evans" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Corey Evans, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Distance Learning Systems Indiana, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-00519 (S.D. Ind., March 30, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked over
40 in a work week.

Distance Learning Systems Indiana, Inc. is a business engaged in
providing educational services in Greenwood, Indiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert F. Hunt, Esq.
      HUNT HASSLER LORENZ & KONDRAS LLP
      100 Cherry Street
      Terre Haute, IN 47807
      Telephone: (812) 232-9691
      Facsimile: (812) 234-2881
      E-mail: hunt@huntlawfirm.net


EI DU PONT: Faces Suit Over Restructuring of Chemical Division
--------------------------------------------------------------
DuPont is spinning off its performance chemicals division to
stifle shareholders' rights and make the new company takeover-
proof, a trust claims in a shareholder class action, reports Sean
Kelly at Courthouse News Service.

DuPont wants to "impede the exercise of stockholder voting rights
by transferring a substantial business segment to a new takeover
proof entity controlled by former or current DuPont board members
and other members hand-selected by DuPont," the Vladimir Gusinsky
Living Trust claims in its March 18 complaint in Chancery Court.

The trust says DuPont is doing it in response to a proxy contest
waged by activist investor Nelson Peltz, who proposed two nominees
to the DuPont board and another two nominees to the Chemours
board.

The DuPont board "will impose Draconian voting restrictions and
anti-takeover provisions on SpinCo [Chemours], including a
certificate of incorporation providing for a staggered board with
three-year terms, a prohibition on stockholders acting by written
consent, a 35% threshold for stockholders to call a special
meeting, an 80% threshold to amend any of the foregoing provisions
and by-laws providing for 90-day advance notice requirements for
stockholder proposals and nominations," according to the
complaint.

DuPont will issue shareholders stock in the spinoff company, but
their value will be "impaired because the proposed anti-takeover
measures will prevent an effective proxy contest or change-in-
control transaction," says the trust.

Because stockholders do not get to vote on these provisions,
DuPont's directors are "evading the stockholder vote required by
Delaware law by spinning off a substantial usiness segment into a
new company and causing that new company's charter to contain a
classified board provision," the trust says.

Classified boards, also known as staggered boards, can serve as a
powerful anti-takeover measure.

The fight between Peltz and DuPont goes back to 2013, when his
investment company, Trian Fund Management LP, bought a very large
stake in DuPont, citing underperformance of the company's stock
over the previous 10 years compared to similar conglomerates.

Peltz's Trian Fund Management has led reorganization efforts of
many older companies, such as H.J. Heinz.

DuPont's board reacted to this acquisition by amending DuPont's
bylaws to make it "more difficult for stockholders to nominate
directors or make other proposals at annual meetings," the trust
says.

DuPont also changed one of its "guiding principles" for executive
compensation during this time by adopting golden parachute
packages for executive officers, says the trust.

Shortly thereafter, DuPont announced the spin-off of Chemours,
which brings in about $6.5 billion annually for DuPont, accounting
for nearly 19% of DuPont's revenue.

In 2014 Peltz and Trian redoubled their efforts by accusing the
DuPont board in a lengthy letter of "destroying value" through
corporate '"bureaucracy and . . . lack of accountability,"
highlighting "$2 to $4 billion of excess corporate costs including
. . . the maintenance of a country club, a 1,252-seat theatre and
a 217-room hotel,"' the trust claims in the new lawsuit.

DuPont then filed a Form 10 Registration Statement for The
Chemours Company, announcing the spinoff and detailing the board's
intention to "subject the stockholders' interest in Chemours to
extreme corporate governance measures," the complaint states.

The trust wants the spinoff enjoined "unless and until defendants
have acted in accordance with their fiduciary duties," and/or the
voting restrictions and anti-takeover provisions enjoined, plus
damages for breach of fiduciary duty, and costs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Davenport, Esq.
          PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A.
          1310 King Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 888-6542
          Facsimile: (302) 658-8111
          E-mail: khdavenport@prickett.com


GLOBE LEND: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Mogannam" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Mogannam, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Globe Lend, Inc., 2:15-cv-00718 (E.D. Cal., April 1,
2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making
unsolicited calls in an attempt to collect debt.

Globe Lend, Inc. is a lender of consumer loans and capital to
individuals and small businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GOLDEN MINE: Sued in Illinois Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Villa-Dorantes and Alma Soto, individually and on behalf of
other employees similarly situated v. Golden Mine, Inc. and
Aliriza Eshtrefi, Case No. 1:15-cv-02764 (N.D. Ill., March 30,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Valentin Tito Narvaez I, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 878-1302
      Facsimile: (888) 270-8983
      E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


FAMILY SERVICE: "D'Arezzo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Darlene A. D'Arezzo, Stacey L. Salyers, Joseph K. Reardon,
individually and on behalf of other similarly situated v. Family
Service of Rhode Island, Inc., Docket No. 1:15-cv-00121 (D.R.I.,
March 30, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard A. Sinapi, Esq.
      SINAPI LAW ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
      175 Hillside Road
      Cranston, RI 02920
      Telephone: 944-9692
      Facsimile: 943-9040
      E-mail: ras@sinapilaw.com


HARDIN MEDICAL: Sued Over Unlawful Emergency Care Policies
----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Keith Woolery, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Hardin County General Hospital and Hardin
Medical Center, Case No. 1:15-cv-01070 (W.D. Tenn., March 30,
2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' unlawful policy and practice
of requiring identification, pre-payment for services or proof of
insurance to citizens who presented at the Defendant's hospital
for emergency care.

The Defendants own and operate a not for profit hospital in
Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael L. Weinman, Esq.
      WEINMAN & ASSOCIATES
      P.O. Box 266, 112 S. Liberty St., Ste. 321
      Jackson, TN 38302
      Telephone: (731) 423-5565
      Facsimile: (731) 423-5372
      E-mail: Mike@weinmanandassoc.com


HENRY'S FARM: Recalls Soybean Sprouts Due to Listeria
-----------------------------------------------------
Henry's Farm Inc. of Woodford, VA is recalling all packages of
soybean sprouts because they may be contaminated with Listeria
monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections to individuals with weakened immune systems.
Although healthy individuals may suffer only short term symptoms
such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal
pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

The following products are being recalled by the firm.

1-lb bags of soybean sprouts in clear plastic bags labeled "Natto
Soybean Sprouts" "Keep Refrigerated" with a UPC Code of 1303020000
produced on or after March 24, 2015.

10-lb bags of soybean sprouts in black plastic bags labeled "Soy
Bean Sprouts" "Keep Refrigerated" produced on or after March 24,
2015.

These items were distributed to retail stores in Virginia and
Maryland.

The contamination was discovered after sampling by the Virginia
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Food Safety
Program and subsequent analysis by the Virginia Division of
Consolidated Laboratory Services revealed the presence of Listeria
monocytogenes in the products. No illness has been reported to
date.

Individuals who purchased soybean sprouts, distributed by Henry's
Farm should return the product to the place of sale for a full
refund.

Consumers with questions may contact the company directly at 301-
802-2996 or the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services, Food Safety Program at 804-786-3520.


HIGDON COMPANIES: Faces "Carpenter" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mabel Carpenter, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated employees v. Higdon Companies, Inc. d/b/a Acuity Staffing
and 5 Star Home Care Services and Kenny Higdon, and Melissa
Stansbury, Case No. 1:15-cv-00076 (E.D. Tenn., April 2, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
compensation for hours worked over 40 per week.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of providing healthcare
and information technology staffing services with its principal
place of business in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael L. Russell, Esq.
      GILBERT RUSSELL MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC
      341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230
      Franklin, TN 37067
      Telephone: (615) 354-1144
      Facsimile: (731) 664-1540
      E-mail: mrussell@gilbertfirm.com


HO WONG: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Chen" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Qiang Chen, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Ho Wong Take-Out, Inc. d/b/a Golden Forest, Chris Ho Chan, and
Jane Doe, Case No. 1:15-cv-02449 (S.D.N.Y., March 31, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for all hours worked over 40 each workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amy R. Millican, Esq.
      John Troy, Esq.
      TROY LAW, PLLC
      41-25 Kissena Blvd. Suite 119
      Flushing, NY 11355
      Telephone: (301) 758-5754
      E-mail: millicana@gmail.com
              johntroy@pllc.com


HOME DEPOT: Recalls Patio Set Rockers Due to Fall Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Home Depot, of Atlanta, Ga., announced a voluntary recall of about
25,000 Patio set rockers. Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The patio sets' rocking chairs can break during normal use, posing
a fall hazard to consumers.

This recall involves Home Depot's Hampton Bay-branded Niles Park
Collection patio sets. The bronze patio sets are made of cast
aluminum and woven fabric with brown or tan cushions, or cushions
with a generic fabric to allow for custom covers. Patio sets were
sold in combinations of four rocking chairs and a tile-top fire
pit; and two rocking chairs, a love seat and a rectangular coffee
table. The chairs were also sold separately in sets of two
rockers. SKU number 658479, 658480, 658485, 658486, 662696, 682688
or 1000051056 is located on a label on the lower cross bar along
the back of the recalled chairs.

The firm has received three reports of the rocking chairs
breaking. No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/4On9dv

The recalled products were manufactured in China by Guangdong
Shunde Baiming Industry Co., Ltd., of China and sold at The Home
Depot stores nationwide and online at HomeDepot.com from October
2014 through January 2015 for between $280, for two chairs, and up
to $1,000, for a patio set.


HOPE FOODS: Recalls Kale Pesto Hummus Products Due to Walnuts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hope Foods is voluntarily recalling one specific lot of Kale Pesto
Hummus because it contains undeclared walnuts. People who have an
allergy or sensitivity to walnuts run the risk of serious or life
threatening allergic reaction if they consume the product. The
hummus is safe for consumption by those who do not have walnut
allergies.

The affected product was distributed in 8 oz plastic tubs and is
marked with a Best By date of 05/04/15 and Lot Code of 030215-KP
which can be found on the side of the lid. The unit UPC is 8-
56500-00426-6. No other product is included in this recall.

We believe fewer than 3100 units have been distributed nationwide
to limited retailers and wholesalers in the US only.

The recall was initiated after Hope Foods discovered that product
containing walnuts was distributed in packaging that did not
reveal the presence of walnuts. No illnesses have been reported to
date.

Consumers with a walnut allergy who have purchased the affected
product are urged to dispose of it or return them to the store
where they were purchased for an exchange or full refund.
Consumers with questions can call Hope Foods at 720-663-7123,
Monday through Friday 9:00 am to 5:00 pm MST.

This limited voluntary recall is being conducted with the
knowledge of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm440888.htm


HUMANA PHARMACY: Faces Suit in Indiana Over Unsolicited Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Humana Pharmacy Solutions dba
Rightsource makes unsolicited calls to advertise its medication-
delivery service, a class claims in Indiana Federal Court.


HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Sued Over Forced-Placed Insurance Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lynne Nofziger and Jeffrey Nofziger, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated v. Huntington Bancshares Incorporated, et
al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00646 (N.D. Ohio, April 2, 2015), alleges
that the Defendants are engaged in a force-placed insurance scheme
and pattern of demanding that borrowers maintain property
insurance for their property in amounts greater than that required
by law, greater than required by their mortgage agreements and
greater than the Defendant's financial interest in the property,
without any reasonable basis or justification.

Huntington Bancshares Incorporated is a Maryland corporation that
operates as a financial services company providing banking,
insurance, investments, mortgage banking and consumer finance to
individuals, businesses and institutions in many states.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian Giles, Esq.
      Bryce Lenox, Esq.
      GILES & LENOX LLC
      1018 Delta Ave., Suite 202
      Cincinnati, OH 45208
      Telephone: (513) 815-3853
      Facsimile: (513) 824-8160
      E-mail: Brian@gileslenox.com
              Bryce@gileslenox.com

         - and -

      Avonte D. Campinha-Bacote, Esq.
      Joseph B. Russell, Esq.
      CAMPINHA BACOTE LLC
      Two Miranova Place, Suite 500
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 233-4727
      Facsimile: (415) 276-2988 (fax)
      E-mail: Avonte@CamBacLaw.com
              Joe.Russell@CamBacLaw.com


IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
------------------------------------------------------------
Troy Hung, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. IDreamsky Technology Limited, et al., Case No. 1:15-
cv-02514 (S.D.N.Y., April 2, 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.

IDreamsky Technology Limited is a China corporation that operates
as a mobile game publishing platform.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
      Lesley F. Portnoy , Esq.
      GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
      122 E 42nd Street, Suite 2920
      New York, NY 10168
      Telephone: (212)682-5340
      Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
      E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com
              lportnoy@glancylaw.com

         - and -

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


INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and
Asbestos Workers Local #6 Pension Fund, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. International Business
Machines Corporation, Virginia M. Rometty, Martin J. Schroeter and
James J. Kavanaugh, Case No. 1:15-cv-02492 (S.D.N.Y., April 1,
2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.

International Business Machines Corporation is a global
information technology company based in Armonk, New York. It
manufactures and sells computer hardware and software and offers a
variety of technology services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
      Michael W. Stocker, Esq.
      Rachel A. Avan, Esq.
      LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
      140 Broadway
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 907-0700
      Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
      E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com
              mstocker@labaton.com
              ravan@labaton.com


INTERNATIONAL UNION: Court Chipped Away Claims From "Slack" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
William Dotinga at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge chipped away more of a lurid class action by disgruntled
union members who accuse leaders of squandering pension funds on
bad investments and "double-breasted" operations.

David Slack is the lead plaintiff in the 2013 lawsuit that accused
the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 3 --
headquartered in Alameda -- and 68 other defendants of violating
labor management laws, the California Labor Code, ERISA and
federal anti-racketeering law.

The IUOE represents heavy-equipment operators and other
construction workers and is the 10th largest union in the AFL-CIO.
Local 3 is its largest branch, representing workers in California,
Nevada, Utah, Hawaii and the Pacific Rim islands.

In addition to claiming that the union illegally forced members to
contribute 1 percent of their salaries to a political action
committee fund, the plaintiffs said they've paid millions to the
Hawaiian Stabilization Fund -- an alleged multimillion-dollar
slush fund for union bosses disguised as a mechanism to keep
contractors from operating "double-breasted" and working both
union and nonunion jobs.

The disgruntled union members also accused union leadership of
squandering $50 million in IUOE pension funds on a bad investment
vehicle born out of nepotism, and of cavorting with the Japanese
Yakuza and the Chinese Triads crime syndicates.

In response to five separate motions to dismiss the class action,
U.S. District Judge Edward Chen ruled this past August that most
of the union members' causes of action fell victim to either a
lack of jurisdiction on the court's end or a lack of standing for
the members.

On the second week of March, Chen chipped away at a second amended
complaint by the disgruntled union members -- finding that the
plaintiffs had not shown that nonunion firms were being used in a
sham attempt at avoiding collective bargaining obligations, a
requirement for their double-breasted theory.

The union members did better with the related theory regarding
circumvention of the collective bargaining agreement, where one
employer allegedly should have been making contributions for work
done by nonunion employees since the work they did fell under the
collective bargaining agreement parameters.

Chen also advanced the union members' claim that leadership had
written off millions in contributions owed to the pension trusts.
Defendants argued it was pointless to pursue the money because the
company that owed it was insolvent.

But the plaintiffs' second amended complaint pointed to instances
where write-offs took place for companies that weren't bankrupt or
in financial trouble.

"The court notes that plaintiffs have made allegations of a gross
disparity in write-offs," Chen wrote.  "Taking the allegations of
gross disparity and no insolvency, a plausible inference can be
made that the write-offs were not reasonable."

As for the health of one of the pension funds at issue in the
case, the judge noted -- as did the defendants -- that the fund
isn't necessarily at risk of default.  However, the union members
made a sufficient case that not enough money is going into the
pension fund due to the aforementioned circumvention of the
collective bargaining agreements to move forward, he said.

"Such a pocketbook injury directly suffered by plaintiffs is
sufficient to confer standing.  This stands in contrast to the
situation where a traditional defined benefit plan is involved; in
that instance, the contributing employer, not the employee, bears
the risk of misfeasance resulting in financial loss to the fund,"
Chen wrote.

Lastly, the judge advanced the members' claims that union bosses
illegally interfered with their efforts to oppose union policies
in violation of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act.
Three of the bosses have allegedly made threats and intimidated
union members after they filed their lawsuit, according to the
second amended complaint.

"At the very least, plaintiffs have alleged a threat to the
democratic integrity of the union," Chen wrote.  "The Supreme
Court has stated that Congress 'recognized that democracy would be
assured only if union members are free to discuss union policies
and criticize the leadership without fear of reprisal.'  Here, Mr.
Reding, Mr. Goff, and Mr. Burns threatened to act against
plaintiffs because of their lawsuit, and a reasonable jury could
conclude that a threat would be reasonably likely to deter
plaintiffs, or even other union members, from engaging in
protected activity directed at union policies and practices.

"That the threats of Reding, Goff, and Burns were not made to
plaintiffs directly is not dispositive because, at the very least,
plaintiffs learned of the threats as they were made in public or
quasi-public settings," Chen continued.  "Similarly, it should not
be dispositive that the threats made -- at least by Reding and
Goff -- were somewhat general in nature (i.e., just that they
would exact revenge, without the form being specified)."

The defendants did not challenge union members' claims over a
botched investment in the Longview Construction Loan Fund, a
vehicle sold and managed by the wife of a union leader that has
allegedly lost $50 million.

The case is David Slack, et al. v. International Union of
Operating Engineers, et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-05001-EMC, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.


JAMBA JUICE: Deal to Re-label "All Natural" Smoothie Kits Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jamba Juice will stop labeling its home smoothie kits "all
natural" under a federal class action settlement a judge approved
March 18, reports Elizabeth Warmerdam at Courthouse News Service.

The settlement of Aleta Lilly et al. v. Jamba Juice Co. will end
claims that the packaging was misleading because the products
contain non-natural ingredients, including ascorbic acid, xanthan
gum, steviol glycosides, modified cornstarch and gelatin.

In September 2014, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar certified a class
of people in California who bought Mango-a-go-go, Strawberries
Wild, Caribbean Passion, Orange Dream Machine and Razzmatazz
smoothie kits.

The class was not certified for purposes of seeking damages,
because the consumer plaintiffs did not produce evidence on
feasibility of their methods for calculating damages or submit a
detailed explanation of how damages could be fairly determined or
estimated.

Nor did Tigar resolve the question whether Lilly and co-plaintiff
David Cox had standing to seek injunctive relief.

The parties informed the court they had resolved the action by
stipulating to injunctive relief. But before approving the
settlement, Tigar had to determine whether the consumers had
standing for such relief.

"Courts in this district have grappled with the question of when a
consumer class may be certified for the purposes of obtaining
injunctive relief against deceptive product labeling under Rule
23(b)(2)," Tigar wrote in his March 18 order.  "Some courts have
held that once a consumer is aware that a label is misleading, she
can never have standing to seek injunctive relief, because there
is no danger that she will be misled in the future."

Tigar disagreed, finding that such a stance would preclude
consumers from ever obtaining relief against mislabeling.

"When a consumer discovers that a representation about a product
is false, she doesn't know that another, later representation by
the same manufacturer is also false.  She just doesn't know
whether or not it's true.  A material representation injures the
consumer not only when it is untrue, but also when it is unclear
whether or not it is true."

The manufacturer could change its product to conform to the
representations on the label, leaving the consumer unaware of
whether the label is accurate and unsure whether she should spend
money on the product due to past misrepresentations, Tigar said.

"In fact, knowing about the previous misrepresentation, she
probably won't buy it -- even though it is now precisely the
product she wants above all others.  So, while other consumers may
purchase the (now correctly labeled) product, our consumer -- the
person most likely to suffer future injury from the
misrepresentation -- will be deprived of it," Tigar wrote, finding
that these plaintiffs have standing to obtain injunctive relief.

Under the settlement, Jamba Juice will have until March 31 to
relabel all of the challenged smoothie kits so they are no longer
described as "all natural" on packaging or other advertising.

Jamba Juice is not required to remove or recall the products, nor
to discontinue the use of any packaging inventory that existed
before final approval of the agreement.  It can use all of its
existing packaging to distribute and sell the products before the
final approval date.

Tigar found the settlement reasonable, though the class will not
receive any money.

"In light of the difficulty plaintiffs would face establishing
damages on a classwide basis and the relatively small amount of
money individual class members would be entitled to, the risk,
expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation
also support the conclusion that the settlement is substantively
fair," Tigar wrote.

The case is Aleta Lilly, et al. v. Jamba Juice Company, et al.,
Case No. 3:13-cv-02998-JST, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.


JANTON INDUSTRIES: Faces "Koszkos" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Konrad Koszkos, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Janton Industries, Inc. and Designcore,
Ltd., Case No. 1:15-cv-01700 (E.D.N.Y., March 30, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
compensation for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants are engaged in the construction business with a
principal place of business at 13 42nd Street, Brooklyn, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maurice Samuel Pianko, Esq.
      PIANKO LAW GROUP PLLC
      30 Broad Street, 14th floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (646) 801-9675
      Facsimile: (646) 801-9675
      E-mail: mpianko@gmail.com

         - and -

       Lloyd Robert Ambinder, Esq.
       VIRGINIA & AMBINDER LLP
       40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
       New York, NY 10004
       Telephone: (212) 943-9080
       Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
       E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com


JUDICIAL ALTERNATIVES: Sued Over Unconstitutional Probation Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
that Judicial Alternatives of Georgia, a private company, charges
unconstitutional "probation supervision fees."


KAISER FOUNDATION: Trial in Suit by Surgery Patients Has Began
--------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Proctor, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that a class of patients, who claim Kaiser refuses to cover
reconstructive surgery after procedures for morbid obesity took
their case to trial in Alameda County Court on March 16.

Lead plaintiff Wendy Gallimore, a teacher covered by the Kaiser
Foundation Health Plan, claimed that the plan systematically
refuses to pay for removal of excess skin after bariatric surgery,
such as gastric bypass, in violation of a provision of the
Reconstructive Surgery Law.

The statute requires health care plans to cover reconstructive
surgery performed "to correct or repair abnormal structures of the
body" necessary "to improve function" and "to create a normal
appearance."

Gallimore's attorney Robert Gianelli argued in opening statements
that the class likely contains 10,000 patients.  Bariatric surgery
is frequently covered and provided by Kaiser, he said, because the
patients' health benefits ultimately reduce Kaiser's costs.

Gianelli said that Kaiser failed to assess the excess skin
remaining after bariatric surgery on a case-by-case basis to
determine whether the skin met the statute's "function" and
"normal appearance" requirements.  Instead, he said, the health
plan writes off too many cases as mere cosmetic concerns.  He
claimed that 75 to 93 percent of bariatric surgery patients say
they need the reconstructive surgery afterward.

"This is not a once-in-a-while surgery, it's across the board," he
said.

Gianelli said that Gallimore was not suing the medical groups that
provide the surgery because the groups are a third party.  As a
health plan, he said, it is Kaiser's "duty to provide statutory
coverage."

Mark Palley, representing Kaiser, argued that the statute was not
written to apply to cases such as Gallimore's, but to repair
abnormalities caused by congenital defects, diseases or accidents.
He claimed that the plaintiffs willfully ignore the causation
behind the reconstructive surgeries at issue and want to replace
doctors' clinical judgments with "iron rules."

"This is socializing the costs of cosmetic surgery, and the
statute doesn't require it," Palley said.

"It is cruel to treat a surgery to give someone with a congenital
defect a normal appearance the same as tummy tucks or face lifts."

Judge Wynne Carvill is presiding at the trial, which is expected
to last two weeks.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Gianelli, Esq.
          GIANELLI & MORRIS, A LAW CORPORATION
          888 West Sixth Street, 9th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 489-1600
          Facsimile: (213) 489-1611

Kaiser is represented by:

          Mark Palley, Esq.
          MARION'S INN LLP
          1611 Telegraph Ave Ste 707
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Phone Number: (510) 451-6770
          Fax Number: (510) 451-1711
          E-mail: mp@marionsinn.com


KING DIGITAL: IPO Prices Were Artificially Inflated, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Dave Tartre reports that the
makers of "Candy Crush Saga" concealed that their cash cow was
drying up to capitalize on an initial public offering, investors
claim in a class action.

King Digital Entertainment went public last year after a frenzy of
interest in its "Candy Crush" mobile app.  While the company has
other titles, such as "Pet Rescue Saga" and "Bubble Witch Saga,"
"Candy Crush Saga" represented 78 percent of the firm's gross
bookings at the end of 2013, the complaint filed March 17 in San
Francisco County Superior Court states.

By the time of King's IPO in March 2015, however, its "cash cow,
Candy Crush Saga, had entered into a serious decline," lead
plaintiffs Sean Debotte and Michael Nunes say.

The IPO raised nearly $500 million, and King kept around $329
million, while its venture-capital funders, insiders and
underwriters pocketed the rest.

Debotte and Nunes came to the party a little late.  Debotte picked
up 500 shares in April 2014 and Nunes bought 470 shares in July
2014.

Though its numbers were deteriorating at the time, "King Digital
represented in its IPO prospectus that there were 1.065 billion
average daily games of Candy Crush played by 97 million daily
active users," according to the complaint.

"The reality was that a significant number of individuals paying
to play Candy Crush Saga, which was the primary driver of King
Digital's revenues, were no longer playing Candy Crush Saga and
that . . . due to its decline, Candy Crush Saga had become a
weight on King Digital that was hampering and would continue to
hamper the Company's financial results," the complaint continues.

Debotte and Nunes say King's share prices were thus "artificially
and materially inflated at the time of the offering."

King allegedly did not reveal that monthly unique payers had
declined between the end of 2013 and the March 2014 until a
May 7, 2014, conference call.

The complaint quotes King's chief financial officer as saying on
that call: "We believe this dynamic is the result of the fact that
Candy Crush Saga is a game that brought first-time mobile gamers
and payers to our network.  As the game is maturing, we are seeing
less payment activity from the occasional payers."

On the day of that conference call, King shares declined 13
percent to close at $16.25, according to the complaint.

Though the price picked back up to $18.20 on Aug. 12, Debotte and
Nunes say it crashed again when King "shocked investors" after the
close of trading that day to report "a $69 million decline . . .
in Candy Crush bookings."

Shares closed at $13.99 on Aug. 13, "a decline of approximately 23
percent," according to the complaint.

King had emphasized gross bookings in its pre-IPO registration
statement, defining the term as the "total amount paid by our
users for virtual items and for access to skill tournaments."

Though the company claimed that gross bookings offered a way "to
evaluate the results of our operations, generate future operating
plans and assess our performance," it added the use of these
numbers in an analysis "should be considered supplemental in
nature and is not meant as a substitute for revenue recognized in
accordance with [International Financial Reporting Standards],"
according to that statement.

Debotte and Nunes note that Candy Crush Saga bookings had started
to drop by the time of the offering, having declined almost 13
percent between the quarters preceding the IPO, from $493 million
in the last quarter of 2013 to $429.5 million in the first quarter
of 2014.

In addition to King, the investors name its chief underwriters,
J.P. Morgan Securities and Credit Suisse Securities, as
defendants, as well as nine directors and officers at King Digital
and 11 more investment banks.

The class is seeking damages and rescission for violations of the
federal Securities Act.

The class is represented by:

          John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
          SCOTT AND SCOTT LLP
          707 Broadway, Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-4565
          Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
          E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com


LA COUNTY, CA: Battle Over Errors in Warrant System Turned Ugly
---------------------------------------------------------------
A battle over errors in the L.A. County warrant system turned ugly
March 19 after an attorney for the county said opposing counsel
had accused him of a "criminal conspiracy," reports Matt Reynolds
at Courthouse News Service.

"This litigation has gone far afield of the merits of the case," a
visibly angry Scott Caron said at a hearing in federal court.
"I've been accused of engaging in a criminal conspiracy."

Caron was incensed, he said, by statements the plaintiff's lawyer
Donald Cook had made in an amended civil complaint, accusing an
unnamed attorney and firm of accessing his client's criminal
records to gain an advantage in the case.

An attorney with Glendale firm Lawrence Beach Allen & Choi, Caron
said Cook had also questioned his intelligence during a deposition
hearing.

"I owe him an apology," Cook said, pausing for a moment.  "I owe
him an apology . . . If what he says is true."

"Did you call him stupid?" U.S. District Judge Dean Pregerson
asked.

"No, I did not," Cook said.

Pregerson spent the better part of the hearing trying to get to
the bottom of the dispute, after Caron complained that Cook was
impossible to deal with.

"It's never a good thing to make it personal," Pregerson told the
attorneys.  "It's always a bad idea."

Pregerson then took the unusual step of summoning the attorneys to
his chambers to conclude proceedings.

About 15 minutes later, Caron walked out of the chambers, grabbed
his case and marched out of the courtroom.

Through all the histrionics, it was easy to forget why the lawyers
were in court in the first place.

Pregerson had scheduled the hearing to consider the county's
motion to strike three civil rights claims in a class action
complaint to fix flaws in the county' warrant system.

In 2012, Cook's client Reggie Smith sued the county after his
wrongful arrest on a warrant for another man, seeking an order to
include unique identifiers on warrants.

The identifiers are readily available to federal and state law
enforcement agencies to prevent arrests or incarcerations because
of cases of mistaken identity.  The county, however, does not
include that information on arrest warrants, Smith says.

Though three counts of Smith's complaint were up for discussion,
Pregerson was preoccupied with a fifth cause of action for
violation of due process.

Explaining the claim, Cook said he believed that someone could be
looking at Smith's criminal history to see if his record was
clean.  His record might be used to gain a "litigation advantage,"
the attorney said.

The amended complaint lists 10 instances between Dec. 15, 2011 and
March 7, 2013 when Smith's California Department of Justice
criminal history was accessed "without lawful justification."

"That strikes me as odd and suspicious because it doesn't match up
with the case," Cook told Pregerson.

Caron said that Cook had provided no proof to support the claim.
The county had retrieved Smith's criminal history for a "proper
purpose," the attorney added.

"You cannot base a cause of action on conjecture and speculation,"
Caron said.

Cook said after the hearing that Pregerson had told the attorneys
in his chambers that he would grant the motion to dismiss the
count for due process.  He left the door open for Smith to support
his claim with evidence, Cook said.

In response to Caron's complaints, Cook said: "What's he got to be
angry about?  He gets paid by the hour.  I don't."

Cook said that Caron was upset by the language he had used in
Smith's amended complaint, stating that Smith's "confidential
criminal history" had been retrieved in a "conspiracy involving
county employees and Unnamed Lawyer and Unnamed Law Firm."

Cook said in a hallway outside the courtroom: "My gut tells me,
given the civil litigation it would be a law firm or a lawyer.
But for all I know, it could be lawyers who work in the county
counsel's office.  And so I really don't know."

He added: "I'm not saying it was him.  I'm not saying it's his law
firm, although that's a possibility.  But I haven't got the
evidence for it and that's why I'm not alleging it."

Caron did not immediately respond to a request for an interview.

The court posted civil minutes on March 19 noting that the
county's motion to strike portions of the complaint had been taken
under submission.


LENOVO (US) INC: Faces "Cullifer" Suit Over Harmful Spyware
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bill Cullifer, et al., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Lenovo (United States), Inc. and
Superfish, Inc., Case No. seeks to stop the Defendants' practice
of selling new computers with preinstalled harmful and offensive
spyware and malware.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Christopher S. Hinton, Esq.
      THE HINTON LAW FIRM
      275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (646) 723-3377
      Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
      E-mail: chinton@hintonlegal.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Jeffries" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wilbur Jeffries, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. et al, Case No.
3:15-cv-01490 (N.D. Cal., April 1, 2015), alleges that the
Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that
fails to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde
standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive
levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human
carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and
the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jill Michelle Manning, Esq.
      Allan Steyer, Esq.
      Donald Scott Macrae, Esq.
      STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP
      One California Street, Suite 300
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 421-3400
      Facsimile: (415) 421-2234
      E-mail: jmanning@steyerlaw.com
              asteyer@steyerlaw.com
              smacrae@bamlawlj.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Fultineer" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Fultineer, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:15-cv-00233 (W.D. Ky., March 30, 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:

      Michael Cannon, Esq.
      BUBALO, GOODE, SALES & BLISS
      9300 Shelbyville Rd., Suite 215b
      Louisville, KY 40222
      Telephone: (502) 753-1600
      E-mail: mcannon@bubalolaw.com

         - and -

      Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
      Lisa A. White, Esq.
      Mark E. Silvey, Esq.
      GREG COLEMAN LAWPC
      Bank of America Center
      550 Main Avenue, Suite 600
      Knoxville, TN 37902
      Telephone: (865) 247-0080
      Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
      E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
              lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com
              mark@gregcolemanlaw.com

         - and -

      Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      E-mail: scarson@bm.net
              rpaul@bm.net

         - and -

      Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
      Amy E. Keller, Esq.
      WEXLER WALLACE LLP
      55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 346-2222
      Facsimile: 312-346-0022
      E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallce.com
              aek@wexlerwallace.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Picard" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
-----------------------------------------------------------
Peter Picard and Sherry Liggins, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:15-cv-01460 (N.D. Cal., March 30, 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:

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

          - and -

      Robert A. Mosier, Esq.
      SANDERS PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
      2101 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 3290
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Telephone: (310) 358-2777
      Facsimile: (310) 258-2768
      E-mail: RMosier@THESANDERSFIRM.COM

         - and -

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


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Washington" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lila Washington, Laura Washingon, Ryan and Kristin Brandt, Kenneth
and Casandra Barrett, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-
01475 (N.D. Cal., March 31, 2015), alleges that the Defendants
manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that fails to
comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde standards. The
Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive levels of
formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human carcinogen by
the United States National Toxicology Program and the
International Agency for Research on Cancer.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Jeff D. Friedman, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
      Berkeley, CA 94710
      Telephone: (510) 725-3000
      E-mail: jefff@hbsslaw.com


LYFT INC: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, "Wolf" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Wolf, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. Lyft, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-01441 (N.D. Cal., March 30, 2015),
seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of sending text message via
an automatic telephone dialing system without their prior express
consent.

Lyft, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that provides transportation
services, which maintains its principal place of business in San
Francisco, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10013
      Telephone: (212) 355-9500
      Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
      E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com

         - and -

      Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
      Telephone: (415) 956-1000
      Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
      E-mail: dhutchinson@lchb.com

         - and -

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


MAGNOLIA HEALTH: Sued in S.D. Ind. Over Illegal Wages Deductions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Shayne Miller-Basinger, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Magnolia Health Systems, Inc., Case
No. 2:15-cv-00089 (S.D. Ind., March 30, 2015), arises out of the
Defendant's illegal uniform wage deductions practices and its
failure to pay wages for work-required time spent in drug screens
and medical examinations.

Magnolia Health Systems, Inc. owns and operates multiple nursing
homes throughout the State of Indiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Peter Kondras Jr.,Esq.
      HUNT HASSLER LORENZ & KONDRAS LLP
      100 Cherry Street
      Terre Haute, IN 47807
      Telephone: (812) 232-9691
      Facsimile: (812) 234-2881
      E-mail: kondras@huntlawfirm.net


MANAGEMENT & TRAINING: Faces "Smith" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Issah "Isaiah" Smith, individually and on behalf of other
employees similarly situated v. Management & Training Corporation,
Case No. 4:15-cv-00236 (N.D. Tex., March 30, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for all
hours worked over 40 each workweek.

Management & Training Corporation is a Utah corporation that
conducts academic and technical training to disadvantaged
population.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
      TRAN LAW FIRM LLP
      9801 Westheimer Road, Suite 302
      Houston, TX 77042
      Telephone: (713) 223-8855
      Facsimile: (713) 623-6399
      E-mail: ttran@tranlawllp.com


MAYA OVERSEAS: Recalls Cumin Power Products Due to Peanuts
----------------------------------------------------------
Maya Overseas Food Inc. of 48-85, Maspeth Ave., Maspeth, NY 11378,
is recalling its 7 ounce packages of "Cumin Powder" because they
may contain undeclared peanuts. People who have allergies to
peanuts run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume these products.

The recalled "Cumin Powder" were distributed NY, CT, NJ, MA, PA
and VA in retail stores. The product comes in a 7 ounce, clear
plastic package and is un-coded.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the peanut-
containing product was distributed in packaging that did not
reveal the presence of peanuts. Subsequent investigation indicated
the problem was caused by a temporary breakdown in the company's
production and packaging processes. Production of the product has
been suspended until the company is certain that the problem has
been corrected.

Consumers who have purchased 7 ounce packages of "Cumin Powder"
are urged to return to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers with questions may contact the company at 718-894-5145.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm440913.htm


MERRILL LYNCH: Faces Suit by Clifford Chance Plan Participant
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Merrill Lynch pursued its own
profit motives in operating the 401(k) plan for the law firm
Clifford Chance, a class represented by a pro se attorney-plan
participant claims.

The case is Craig Walker v. Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.; Bank of
America Corp., in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.


MICROSOFT CORP: 9th Cir. Reverses Denial of Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge erred in refusing to certify a class of gamers who
say Microsoft sells defective Xbox 360s that gouge discs, the 9th
Circuit ruled March 18, reports Katherine Proctor at Courthouse
News Service.

Seth Baker is the lead plaintiff in the case, which alleges that
even the smallest of vibrations, something bound to happen in
normal game-playing conditions, can send game discs spinning out
of control, scratching them against internal console components
and rendering them permanently unplayable.

Microsoft has countered that only 0.4 percent of Xbox owners
report this issue, and that consumer misuse is a more likely
culprit than design defect.

In denying Baker and his co-plaintiffs class certification,
however, the trial court pointed to a similar lawsuit that failed
years earlier.

The judge in that case had relied on reasoning from a case
involving Land Rovers, but the 9th Circuit said March 18 that he
erred in citing the Land Rover case for "the notion that
individual issues of causation predominate because differing
causes have produced the same effect."

Though the 9th Circuit had reversed the Land Rover case in 2010,
10 months after the original scratched-disc case was dismissed,
the judge presiding over Baker's lawsuit determined still deferred
to the earlier certification order out of comity.  The 2010 case
is captioned Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover North America LLC.

The 9th Circuit's reversal in favor of Baker on March 18 says that
the comity application was misplaced.

Citing Wolin, the court said that the issues of the case "are
susceptible to proof by generalized evidence and do not require
proof of individual causation."

"Rather, plaintiffs' breach of express warranty claim presents a
common factual question -- is there a defect? -- and a common
mixed question of law and fact -- does that defect breach the
express warranty?" according to the 32-page opinion.

The ruling slams the trial court for its erroneous ruling "that
defect allegations are not amenable to resolution on a class-wide
basis."

"We express no opinion on whether the specific common issues
identified in this case are amenable to adjudication by way of a
class action, or whether plaintiffs should prevail on a motion for
class certification if such a motion is filed," Judge Johnnie
Rawlinson wrote for the three-judge panel.  "We hold only that the
district court committed an error of law and abused its discretion
when it struck the class action allegations from the complaint."

Judge Carlos Bea concurred in the majority's result, but not in
its reasoning.  He said that district court's primary error was
its decision, at Microsoft's urging, to defer for reasons of
comity to the court's denial of class certification in an earlier
similar class action.

"Our court should not misconstrue the district court rulings it
reviews, and it should give guidance to district courts who face
difficult questions of law," Bea wrote.  He said that the
circuit's majority opinion did not satisfy either of those duties.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Benjamin Gould, Esq.
          Mark A. Griffin, Esq.
          Amy C. Williams-Derry, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
          E-mail: mgriffin@kellerrohrback.com
                  bgould@kellerrohrback.com
                  awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Paul L. Stritmatter, Esq.
          STRITMATTER KESSLER WHELAN COLUCCIO
          413 8th St.
          Hoquiam, WA 98550
          Telephone: (360) 533-2710
          E-mail: Brad@stritmatter.com

               - and -

          Brad J. Moore, Esq.
          STRITMATTER KESSLER WHELAN COLUCCIO
          200 Second Ave W.
          Seattle, WA 98119
          Telephone: (206) 448-1777

               - and -

          Robert L. Esensten, Esq.
          WASSERMAN, COMDEN, CASSELMAN & ESENSTEN, LLP
          5567 Reseda Blvd., Suite 330
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 705-6800

               - and -

          Darren T. Kaplan, Esq.
          DARREN KAPLAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
          39 North Drive
          Great Neck, NY 11021

               - and -

          Gregory E. Keller, Esq.
          CHITWOOD HARLEY HARNES LLP
          1230 Peachtree St. NE
          2300 Promenade II
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 873-3900
          Facsimile: (404) 876-4476
          Toll Free: (888) 873-3999
          E-mail: gkeller@chitwoodlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Ostrow, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG KEECHL
          200 SW 1st Avenue, Suite 1200
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
          E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com

The Defendant-Appellee is represented by:

          Stephen M. Rummage, Esq.
          Frederick B. Burnside, Esq.
          John Goldmark, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3045
          Telephone: (206) 622-3150
          Facsimile: (206) 757-7700
          E-mail: steverummage@dwt.com
                  fredburnside@dwt.com
                  johngoldmark@dwt.com

The appellate case is Seth Baker, et al. v. Microsoft Corporation,
Case No. 12-35946, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.  The District Court case is Seth Baker, et al. v.
Microsoft Corporation, Case No. 2:11-cv-00722-RSM, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington.


MONSANTO CO: To Pay $350K to Settle With Farmers in Seven States
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Monsanto will pay $350,000 to settle class actions over its
genetically modified wheat with farmers in Kansas, Missouri,
Illinois, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi.

The lawsuits stemmed from discovery of genetically modified wheat
on an Oregon farm in May 2013.  The wheat had not been approved
and the discovery prompted Japan and South Korea to temporarily
suspend orders.

Monsanto agreed to donate $50,000 to the agricultural school at
the land grant university in each state, to be used in the
interests of wheat farmers and the wheat industry.  Monsanto
admits no liability.

"Rather than paying the costs of protracted litigation, this
agreement puts that money to work in research and development
efforts for the wheat industry," Monsanto's chief litigation
counsel Kyle McClain said in a statement.

In November, Monsanto settled related lawsuits for $2.4 million.
With this latest settlement, only a class action in Arkansas
relating to the Oregon incident is still pending.


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Appeal Trial in Pay-for-Play Suit Continues
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that in its fight
for the reversal of a district court's historic ruling allowing
student athletes to be compensated from broadcast revenue, the
NCAA hung its legal hat on the argument that as the governing body
for college athletics it has broad authority to protect amateurism
in college sports by regulating student-athlete pay.

"If this were a challenge just flat out to a rule that said you
aren't paying the full amount of the reasonable expenses of
attending college, and the full amount is not consistent with the
principle of amateurism, we would have a different case," NCAA
attorney Seth Waxman told a 3-judge panel of the 9th Circuit on
March 17.  "But this is a situation in which a judge has said no,
the athletes must be allowed to share in the specific commercial
revenue stream that derives from their participation in sports,
and that is not what amateurs do.  It's what professionals do."

Waxman, a former U.S. solicitor general, added, "What constitutes
reasonable expenses is a decision for the NCAA, an association of
1,100 educational institutions to make, not a federal antitrust
judge to decide."

The idea that U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken overstepped her
authority by imposing an injunction that prohibits the NCAA from
enforcing rules that student-athletes cannot be for the use of
their names, images and likenesses was a common refrain for
Waxman.

"It can't be the role of an antitrust court to essentially
redefine the rules of eligibility that define the amateur nature
of athletics," he said.  "In no amateur sport, in no amateur
league that exists are athletes permitted to be paid to play.  The
notion that an antitrust court could say 'I don't see how that
violates the rules of amateurism,' it just doesn't compute."

In its appeal of Wilken's 2014 ruling, the NCAA has leaned on the
1984 Supreme Court case Oklahoma v. Board of Regents, which said
that the NCAA "needs ample latitude" in maintaining amateurism,
including not paying student-athletes.

NCAA believes Wilken erred by not following Board of Regents in
her landmark ruling that said the NCAA's rules limiting what
student-athletes can receive from schools "unreasonably restrain
trade in the market for educational athletic opportunities for
Division I colleges and universities."

Wilken explained her move, writing that "the college sports
industry has changed substantially in the thirty years since Board
of Regents was decided."

Her ruling allows for scholarships covering the full cost of
college attendance, and permits deferred name, image and likeness
payments of no less than $5,000 a year for every year a student
athlete plays.

Led by former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon, 20 student
athletes sued the NCAA in a 2009 class action for the right to a
share in the television broadcast revenue for their names, images
and likenesses.  A two-week bench trial was held in June.

On March 17, O'Bannon's lawyer Michael Hausfeld said the NCAA
misinterpreted its key case.  "They're trying to extrapolate that
Board of Regents has somehow established an impregnable
determination that no rule in anyway encompassing the rubric of
amateurism can be challenged, and that's not what Board of Regents
stands for."

He added, "What the NCAA argues in this case is by merely invoking
the talismanic word of amateurism, that this court cannot form a
judgment, because that judgment has already been made."

March 17's panel comprised the same judges that ruled against
video game maker Electronic Arts in a right-of-publicity class
action brought by former Nebraska and Arizona State quarterback
Sam Keller for using his image and likeness to increase profits
for its NCAA-branded football and basketball videogames.

With Chief Judge Sidney Thomas dissenting, the court ruled 2-1
that EA cannot hide behind First Amendment protections for
artistic creations, since it seeks "avatars" of players that are
as lifelike as possible.  Judge Jay Bybee and Senior U.S. District
Judge Gordon Quist from the Western District of Michigan were in
the majority.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up that case last year.

"At the end of the day we're talking about the value of the name-
image-likeness of the players.  Explain why you think the names,
images, and likenesses have value in the antitrust sense?" Thomas
asked Hausfeld March 17.

"The names, images, and likenesses of the athletes have value
because there are commercial enterprises that are wiling to pay
for them and because the NCAA commercializes them," Hausfeld
replied.

Thomas continued, "I think you'll agree in terms of broadcasts, no
court has recognized property rights in the names, images and
likenesses, true?"

Hausfeld assented but added, "In all instances, every contract
involving a live broadcast includes the request by the broadcaster
to receive the rights of the names, images, and likenesses."

"Right now those rights have not been acknowledged by any court,"
Thomas said.  "Let me get down to videogames and obviously with
our Keller decision that has opened the pathway for compensation,
but can you give me the likelihood given the uncontested rules and
force of the NCAA that has value in the current market or
reasonably foreseeable market?"

"That one, your honor, really is easy. It's a yes," Hausfeld
replied.  "The head of EA said if I could get the names I'd
publish the game and the only reason they're not publishing the
game is because the NCAA withdrew it because it didn't want the
athletes to have a share of that."

The attorney also poked holes at the "amorphous, ethereal
definition of what amateurism is," saying the NCAA has not applied
its definition consistently.

"Is there really a core consistent principle of amateurism? There
is, but it's not a rule," Hausfeld said.  "The record reveals the
NCAA has revised its rules governing athlete compensation numerous
times over the years.  Why? Because pay has no meaning other than
what the NCAA says it is, so you can't be in violation of a rule
or not because you never know what the rule is because the rule is
only what they say it is."

Bybee remarked on the blurry line of pay-for-play in college
sports, noting that a scholarship that covers the full cost of
education seems above board, but a $5,000 payment for name, image
and likeness crosses into dubious territory.

"It seems to me there's a reasonable rule to be drawn that the
cost of attendance bears some relation to the goods and services
you're receiving at a university and therefore doesn't violate a
theoretical notion of amateurism," Bybee said.  "Once we get to
the question of putting $5,000 per year in trust for athletes that
would be a cash award at the end of their time at the university,
it looks like we've crossed the line.  Even though the line wasn't
clearly drawn, at least it crosses some theoretical line about
pay-for-play."


NEVADA: Farmers Fight Restrictions on Groundwater Pumping
---------------------------------------------------------
Laney Olson, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
farmers in western Nevada challenged a state order demanding they
cut their groundwater pumping by half.

Facing severe drought, Nevada's State Engineer in February issued
Order 1250 for water curtailment.

Drought and excessive groundwater pumping have led to some of the
lowest groundwater levels on record. Since 2011, groundwater
levels in Mason Valley have dropped by nearly 30 feet and dropped
by nearly 40 feet in Smith Valley.

Mason and Smith Valleys are in Lyon County, where the lawsuit was
filed, and in adjacent counties.  Most of Nevada is horst and
graben mountain ranges, whose valleys are sinking and peaks are
rising. The ranges run roughly north and south, the peaks
separated by about 20 miles.

Rainfall replenishes the aquifers under the valleys, but farmers,
ranchers and cities are pumping it out far faster.

The "perennial yield" of Mason Valley is about 25,000 acre-feet,
the State Engineer's order says, but rights to more than 149,000
acre-feet a year have been issued.  Of that 119,198 acre-feet were
approved for irrigation -- 100,000 acre-feet of it designated as
supplemental water rights.

"The groundwater resources of Mason Valley and Smith Valley are
being depleted at an alarming rate and it is essential for the
welfare of the areas involved that immediate action be initiated
to protect the groundwater resources and water rights in these
hydrographic basins," the order states.

The Order aims to conserve the Walker River system and reduce the
excessive use of supplemental groundwater by limiting groundwater
use to 50 percent for farmers in Mason Valley and Smith Valley.

The plaintiffs, Farmers Against Curtailment Order LLC, claim the
order violates the rights to water that some have had since the
late 1940s.  They seek judicial review of the order, claiming it
will damage them and devalue their property.

"The State Engineer made several errors in his order and list of
water rights to be curtailed, including the decision to not order
curtailment of non-supplemental rights or partially supplemental
rights," the farmers group claims.  "The State Engineer applied
arbitrary and capricious rational on his explanations for
curtailment and in his selection of water rights to curtail."

The Nevada Farm Bureau Federation backs the farmers.

"For Lyon County President and farmer Darrel Pursel, the
curtailment will more than likely limit him to farming less than
50 percent of his operation," the Farm Bureau Federation said in
an undated statement.

"Pursel's operation is 160 acres, but his well is only permitted
to pump for 121 acres, meaning he and some other farmers in the
area will farm less than half of their land this irrigation
season," the Farm Bureau Federation said.

Similar concerns have been expressed throughout the state. John
Bosta and Frank Maurizio, farmers from Nye County, have filed a
class action, claiming the order violates their property rights.
Bosta and Maurizio filed their complaint pro se.

In the Farmers Against Curtailment lawsuit, the farmers said: "The
State Engineer provided no legal justification or need for the
curtailment.  The petitioner's members were not provided a fair
opportunity to hear or present evidence regarding this matter."

The State Engineer's Office held meetings with Lyon County farmers
before issuing the order.

At those meetings, "Concerns were expressed about not having
enough water to grow crops," said JoAnn Kittrell, with the Nevada
Division of Environmental Protection.


NY FIRE: Faces "Song" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bairu Song, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
NY Fire LLC, New York Business Fire System, Inc., Jian Li Hou
a/k/a Peter Hou, and Sui Xiang Zhu a/k/a Susan Zhu, Case No. 1:15-
cv-01769 (E.D.N.Y., April 1, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for all hours
worked over 40 each workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a professional service company in
New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Troy, Esq.
      TROY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119
      Flushing, NY 11355
      Telephone: (718) 762-1324
      Facsimile: (718) 762-1342
      E-mail: tsaihongjanq@hotmail.com


OIL STATES INT'L: Faces "Dotson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Louis Dotson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Oil States International, Inc. and Oil
States Energy Services, L.L.C., Case No. 7:15-cv-00040 (W.D. Tex.,
March 30, 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 petrochemical services company
with its principal place of business at 1999 Bryan Street, Suite
900, Dallas, Texas 75201.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Curt Hesse, Esq.
      Melissa Moore, Esq.
      MOORE & ASSOCIATES
      440 Louisiana, Suite 675
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 222-6775
      Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
      E-mail: curt@mooreandassociates.net
              melissa@mooreandassociates.net


OSAKA JAPANESE: "Chen" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Zhong Xian Chen, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated v. Osaka Japanese Food Service, Inc., d/b/a
Osaka Japanese Cuisine, Qing Song Jiang, John Does and Jane Does #
1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-01784 (E.D.N.Y., April 2, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure pay overtime compensation in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a Japanese restaurant located at
272 Court Street, Brooklyn, NY 11231.

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


PACIFIC GATEWAY: Summary Judgment Bid in Arocho Case Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
LOUIS AROCHO, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. CRYSTAL CLEAR BUILDING
SERVICES, INC., ET AL., Defendants, CASE NO. 1:12CV2186, (N.D.
Ohio) is before the Court on defendants' motion for summary
judgment as to named plaintiffs Louis Arocho, Aldurant Arrington
and Steven Hochstedler.

Steven Hochstedler, Aldurant Arrington and Louis Arocho filed
their Complaint with the Court on August 27, 2012, alleging that
Defendant Crystal Clear Building Services, Inc. failed to pay them
and similarly-situated employees overtime wages and/or minimum
wage as required under the Fair Labor Standards Act  29 U.S.C.
Section 216 et seq. On November 16, 2012, Plaintiffs' moved to
conditionally certify the action as a collective action. On April
30, 2013, the Court granted the Motion and conditionally certified
the collective action. Notice was approved and sent and 114
individuals opted-in to the collective action. On December 2,
2013, Plaintiffs' filed an Amended Complaint adding state law
Breach of Contract, Unjust Enrichment and violation of Ohio's
Prompt Pay Statute claims. Discovery was conducted and completed
and the parties have each filed respective Motions for Summary
Judgment. Defendants have also filed a Motion to Decertify the
Class.

District Judge Christopher A. Boyko, in his March 26, 2015
opinion and order denied the Defendants' Motion saying, among
other things, that the Plaintiffs' have produced unrefuted
evidence that they consented in writing to the collective action.
Therefore, Defendants contention that no written consent was filed
is unsupported by the evidence. Defendants also fail to provide
any authority holding that such a written consent as provided by
Plaintiffs fails to satisfy Section 256's written consent
requirement. Because Section 256 only requires a written consent,
the Court finds Plaintiffs' consents in their declarations satisfy
the FLSA's written consent requirement.

Moreover, the Court finds Defendants' argument on the timing of
the consents is unavailing. Nothing in the statute requires a
Named Plaintiff to file a written consent after conditional
certification. In fact, the statutory language clearly indicates
the written consent may be filed with the Complaint.

A copy of the Court's ruling is available at http://is.gd/7Ia0ty
from Leagle.com.

Louis Arocho, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph F. Scott, Thomas A.
Downie & Ryan A. Winters.

Aldurrant Arrington, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph F. Scott,
Thomas A. Downie & Ryan A. Winters.

Steven Hochstedler, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph F. Scott,
Thomas A. Downie & Ryan A. Winters.

Crystal Clear Building Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by
John F. Burke, III.

Stephen M. Lesko, Defendant, represented by John F. Burke, III.
James Lesko, Defendant, represented by John F. Burke, III.


PELHAM BAY: "Dubiel' Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Dubiel, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Pelham Bay Diner, Inc., Gerasimos Stefanitsis, and
Sarantis, Serras, Case No. 1:15-cv-02489 (S.D.N.Y., April 1,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
interest and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a diner located at 1920 East Gun
Hill Road, Bronx, NY 10469.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason Travis Brown, Esq.
      Nicholas R. Conlon, Esq.
      JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
      155 2nd Street, Suite 4
      Jersey City, NJ 07302
      Telephone: (212) 725-7272
      Facsimile: (212) 488-4848
      E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
              nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com


POCKETS RESTAURANTS: Faces "Valadez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hugo Valadez, Maria Magdalena Valadez, and all others similarly
situated v. Pockets Restaurants, Inc., John Stanfield, and Phil
Parker, Case No. 3:15-cv-01021 (N.D. Tex., April 2, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Dallas County,
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


POTESTIVO & ASSOCIATES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Carl" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gary A. Carl, Dorothy J. Carl, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC and
Potestivo & Associates, PC, Case No. 2:15-cv-11223 (E.D. Mich.,
March 31, 2015), arises out of the illegal practices of the
Defendants who, used false, deceptive, misleading, unconscionable,
and other illegal practices, in connection with their attempts to
collect an alleged debt.

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC is a mortgage loan servicer that
maintains its principal place of business in East Lansing, Ingham
County, Michigan.

Potestivo & Associates, PC is engaged in the business of using the
mails and telephone to collect consumer debts on behalf of
mortgage servicers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian P. Parker, Esq.
      BRIAN P. PARKER ASSOC.
      2000 Town Center, Suite 1900
      Southfield, MI 48075
      Telephone: (248) 642-6268
      Facsimile: (248) 659-1733
      E-mail: Brianparker@collectionstopper.com


PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Archibald" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy Archibald, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Premera Blue Cross, a Washington nonprofit
corporation; and Does 1-50, is brought against the Defendants for
failure to protect and safeguard its insureds' personal and
medical information, and to notify those affected in a timely and
complete manner.

Premera Blue Cross owns and operates a health insurance company
with headquarters located at 7001 220th Street SW, Mountlake
Terrace, Washington, 98043.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Ide, Esq.
      IDE LAW OFFICE
      7900 SE 28th Street, Suite 500
      Mercer Island, WA 98040
      Telephone: (206) 625-1326
      E-mail: mjide@yahoo.com

         - and -

      Tina Wolfson, Esq.
      Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
      Theodore W. Maya, Esq.
      AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
      1016 Palm Ave.
      West Hollywood, CA 90069
      Telephone: (310) 474-9111
      Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
      E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
              rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
              tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com


PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Kaplowitz" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Kaplowitz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Premera Blue Cross, Case No. 2:15-cv-00512 (W.D.
Wash., April 1, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to properly secure and protect its users' sensitive,
personally-identifiable information and personal health
information.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Howard Longman, Esq.
      Patrick Slyne, Esq.
      STULL, STULL & BRODY
      6 East 45th St.
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 687-7230
      Facsimile: (212) 490-2022

         - and -

      Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
      Robert Lubitz, Esq.
      KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
      747 Chestnut Ridge Rd.
      Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
      Telephone: (845) 356-2570
      Facsimile: (845) 356-4335


PRESENCE HEALTH: Doesn't Properly Fund Employees Plan, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leslee R. Carver, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Presence Health Network, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-
02905 (N.D. Ill., April 2, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, specifically for failing to properly fund the Plans
and depriving the Plans' participants of pension insurance, while
erroneously claiming that the Plans are exempt from ERISA's
protections because they are church plans.

Presence Health Network owns and operates a chain of hospital and
healthcare facilities in Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James B. Zouras, Esq.
      STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
      205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 233-1550
      Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
      E-mail: JZouras@stephanzouras.com

         - and -

      Lynn L. Sarko, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 623-1900
      Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
      E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com

         - and -

      Ron Kilgard, Esq.
      Christopher Graver, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400
      Phoenix, AZ 85012
      Telephone: (602) 248-0088
      Facsimile: (602) 248-2822
      E-mail: rkilgard@kellerrohrback.com
              cgraver@kellerrohrback.com

         - and -

      Karen L. Handorf, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC.
      1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
      Suite 500, West Tower
      Washington, D.C. 20005
      Telephone: (202) 408-4600
      Facsimile: (202) 408-4699


PRESTIGE DELIVERY: Faces "Mose" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Enoch Mose, and Efrain Rivera, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Prestige Delivery Systems, Inc. and
Prestige Delivery Systems, LLC, Case No. 7:15-cv-02488 (S.D.N.Y.,
April 1, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime compensation for all hours work in excess of 40 in a
week.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of providing delivery
and logistics services throughout the State of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason T. Brown, Esq.
      Nicholas R. Conlon, Esq.
      JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
      155 2nd Street, Suite 4
      Jersey City, NJ 07302
      Telephone: (201) 630-0000
      Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
      E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
              nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com


PRITCHARD INDUSTRIES: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Ruiz" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Ruiz, and all others similarly situated v. Pritchard
Industries (Southwest), Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-00841 (S.D. Tex.,
April 1, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime compensation for hours worked over 40 per week.

Pritchard Industries (Southwest), Inc. is a Texas corporation that
provides a full range of sustainable building services including
janitorial, engineering, window cleaning, and elevator consulting.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Charles Lipps, Esq.
      JOHN C. LIPPS, ATTORNEY-AT-LAW, PLLC
      7214 Winding Walk Dr.
      Houston, TX 77095
      Telephone: (832) 283-3555
      Facsimile: (281) 856-9393
      E-mail: lippsclan@gmail.com


PRODUCTION MEDIA: Fails to Provide Ad Presentation, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Di Tomaso Design Inc. /t/a Landscape Perceptions, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Production Media
Company, Production Media Company d/b/a Production Network Media,
and Production Media Company d/b/a School House Folders, Case No.
2:15-cv-02334 (D.N.J., April 2, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to provide completed Presentation Folders
or School Magnet Calendars containing Class members'
advertisements to the third parties with whom Defendant was in
contract.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of selling
advertisement space to service providers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James V. Bashian, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JAMES V. BASHIAN, PC
      70 Adams Street, Fourth Floor
      Hoboken, NJ 07030
      Telephone: (973) 227-6330
      Facsimile: (201) 488-3330
      E-mail: jbashian@bashianlaw.com


PROVIDENCE CENTER: "D'Arezzo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Darlene A. D'Arezzo, Olivia M. Howard, and Joelle A. Depeyrot,
individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals
v. The Providence Center, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00120 (D.R.I.,
March 30, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Providence Center, Inc. a non-profit organization that
provides care and training in programs for individuals with
disabilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard A. Sinapi, Esq.
      SINAPI LAW ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
      175 Hillside Road
      Cranston, RI 02920
      Telephone: 944-9692
      Facsimile: 943-9040
      E-mail: ras@sinapilaw.com


RAJA FOODS: Recalls SWAD Cumin Powder Products Due to Peanuts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Raja Foods of Maspeth, NY is recalling its 14 ounce packages of
"SWAD Cumin Powder 14 oz" because they may contain undeclared
peanuts. People who have allergies to peanut run the risk of
serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume
these products.

The recalled "SWAD Cumin Powder 14 oz" was distributed in the New
York, New Jersey and Connecticut are found in South Asian retail
stores. The product comes in a 14 ounce, clear packaged marked
with batch number 24714 on the back with an expiration date of
Sept 2017.

No illness have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York State
Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and
subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel
found the product to contain the presence of peanuts which were
not declared on the label.

Consumers who have purchased 14 ounce package of "SWAD Cumin
Powder" are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a
full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at
718-416-2632.


RITE-WAY JANITORIAL: "Reyes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Reyes and Angel Reyes, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Rite-Way Janitorial Service, Inc.,
Case No. 4:15-cv-00847 (S.D. Tex., April 1, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

Rite-Way Janitorial Service, Inc. is a Texas corporation that owns
and operates a janitorial services company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Curt Christopher Hesse, Esq.
      Melissa Moore, Esq.
      MOORE & ASSOCIATES
      440 Louisiana Street, Ste 675
      Houston, TX 77002-1637
      Telephone: (713) 222-6775
      Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
      E-mail: curt@mooreandassociates.net
              melissa@mooreandassociates.net


RUST-OLEUM CORPORATION: Faces "Baden" Suit Over Misbranding
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Baden, Michael Allen, Cynthia Scaglione and Inese
Blanchard, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Rust-Oleum Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-02892 (N.D.
Ill., April 1, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's
misrepresentation of its Restore wooden decks treatment product
that was designed to extend the life of decks and to spare
consumers the hassle of the needing to routinely repaint, re-
stain, resurface, and eventually replace their decks. However, the
Restore begins to bubble and peel away in just months, leaving the
decks not only unprotected but also looking significantly worse
than before.

Rust-Oleum Corporation manufactures, markets, warrants, and sells
protective paints and coatings for homes and businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
      Amy E. Keller, Esq.
      WEXLER WALLACE LLP
      55 West Monroe St. Suite 3300
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 346-2222
      Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
      E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
              aek@wexlerwallace.com

         - and -

      Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
      A.J. De Bartolomeo, Esq.
      Steve Lopez, Esq.
      GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
      One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 1125
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 350-9700
      Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
      E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com
              ajd@classlawgroup.com
              sal@classlawgroup.com

         - and -

      William M. Audet, Esq.
      Theodore H. Chase, Esq.
      AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
      221 Main St., Ste. 1460
      San Francisco, CA 94105
      Telephone: (415)568-2555
      Facsimile: (415)568-2556
      E-mail: waudet@audetlaw.com
              tchase@audetlaw.com


SANDISK CORP: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
------------------------------------------------------------
Trenton Glore, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SanDisk Corp., Sanjay Mehrotra, and Judy Bruner, Case
No. 3:15-cv-01455 (N.D. Cal., March 30, 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.

SanDisk Corporation designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
data storage solutions in the United States and internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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

         - and -

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


SHADOW INDUSTRIES: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Defective Radial Treads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Alley, individually and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. Shadow Industries, Inc.,
Greenball Corp., Case No. 5:15-cv-00632 (C.D. Cal., April 1,
2015), is brought on behalf of all California and nationwide
consumers who purchased a Greenball Tow-Master(R) tire
manufactured between May 1, 2011 and April 2015 that were designed
and manufactured with  defective radial treads.

The radial treads which are component of the tire crack and
separate from the sidewall causing explosive blowouts of the tire
during operation.

The Defendants are California corporations, which are retailers,
manufacturers, and sellers of auto parts.
The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

       Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
       Kazerouni Law Group, APC
       245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
       Costa Mesa, CA 92626
       Telephone: (800) 400-6808
       Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
       E-mail: ak@kazlg.com


SHELDON RABIN: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Padilla" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Raul Padilla, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Sheldon Rabin, M.D., P.C., and Sheldon Rabin, M.D.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-01708 (E.D.N.Y., March 31, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work
performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Defendants own and operate two medical offices in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason T. Brown, Esq.
      Patrick Sidney Almonrode, Esq.
      JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
      155 2nd Street, Suite 4
      Jersey City, NJ 07302
      Telephone: (201) 630-0000
      Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
      E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
              patalmonrode@jtblawgroup.com


SMOOTH INDUSTRIES: Recalls Children's Pajamas Due to Burn Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Smooth Industries, Oceanside, Calif., announced a voluntary recall
of about 7,600 Children's Pajamas. Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The pajamas fail to meet federal flammability standards for
children's sleepwear, posing a risk of burn injuries to children.

This recall involves children's one- and two-piece Smooth
Industries pajama sets. The pajamas are made of 100% polyester and
were sold in four styles: Ride Smooth, Honda, MX Superstars and
Moto X. The racing-themed pajamas have large motocross-related
graphics and were sold in red, white and black; orange, white and
black; and red, blue and black. One-piece pajama sets were sold in
sizes: 6 to 12 months, 12 to 18 months and 18 to 24 months. Two-
piece sets were sold in sizes XS to Youth XL. "Smooth Ind." and
"smoothindustries.com" is printed on the garment's neck label.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Authorized Smooth Industries motorcycle and motocross stores
nationwide and online at SmoothIndustries.com and other motocross
websites from October 2012 through January 2015 for between $30
and $35.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled pajamas away from
children, stop using them and return them to Smooth Industries for
credit towards another Smooth Industries product.


SOCIAL SECURITY: Accused by Refugees of Tampering With Evidence
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service reports that the Social
Security Administration tampered with evidence and harassed and
intimidated Vietnamese, Iranian, and Somalian refugees who filed
affidavits in an action pending in the 9th Circuit, immigrants
claim in a class action.

Lead plaintiff Mohammad Nassiri et al. sued Social Security
Commissioner Carolyn Colvin, the Social Security Administration
(SSA), and two SSA agents on March 14 in Federal Court.

The class consists of "poor, disabled and non-English speaking
Vietnamese or Middle Eastern (Somalian, Iraqi and Iranian)
refugees in the United States who reside in San Diego County and
who have been applying for or receiving Disability Insurance
Benefits (DIB) and/or Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
benefits."

According to the lawsuit, the SSA has "been maintaining and
implementing an illegal search and interrogation policy with
respect to plaintiffs, and have violated the plaintiffs' rights to
be free from unreasonable searches and inquisition."

Social Security agents have intimidated class members "to recant
their prior written testimonies in an ongoing action pending in
the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals," according to the complaint.

The 9th Circuit action relates to the class members'
representation in a complaint filed by Alexandra Nga Tran Manbeck,
who claims the agency suspended her in 2013 from practicing Social
Security law in retaliation for filing a previous class action
alleging bias by a Social Security judge.  Manbeck was the only
attorney in San Diego fluent in Vietnamese.

The new complaint claims the SSA "intimidated plaintiffs in
providing personal information and privileged information in
violation of the plaintiffs' privacy right and plaintiffs'
attorney-client privilege, even though defendants knew that
plaintiffs have been represented by counsel in ongoing litigation
in federal court since 2013."

Class member Anh T. Thai, a 50-year-old Vietnamese refugee, says
she was first misled in 2006 by Duke Tran, an SSA employee, into
letting him help her apply for benefits.  Tran began harassing her
in threatening phone calls in March 2013 after she obtained an
attorney, including calling her "stupid" for signing loan
documents to an acquaintance, and berating her "for seeking legal
representation instead of trusting him to help her," according to
the complaint.

After Thai filed her affidavits against the agency in the Manbeck
action, two agents bearing guns came to her house twice to
question her.

"Most of the questions centered on whether she was really disabled
and whether she was required to pay in advance for legal services
to her attorney," the lawsuit states.  "The SSA agents threatened
her with dismissal of her case if she refused to answer their
questions."

The class claims that because they are "refugees with a long
history of being persecuted by the Communist authority in Vietnam,
the warlords in Somalia or the ayatollahs in Iran, plaintiffs
obviously became intimidated by defendants and complied with
defendants' order."

The plaintiffs seek class certification, an order stop the Social
Security Administration and its agents from contacting them before
a final hearing or intimidating them without a warrant, and
compensatory and punitive damages for civil rights violations.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Quan Minh Chau, Esq.
          400 S Flower St., Unit 39
          Orange, CA 92868

               - and -

          Alexandra Manbeck, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDRA MANBECK
          95 North Salem Road
          P.O. Box 449
          Cross River, NY 10518


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Sued Over Misleading Boarding Policies
----------------------------------------------------------
Teri L. Lowry, individually, and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. Southwest Airlines, Co., and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 8:15-cv-00500 (C.D. Cal., April 1, 2015),
arises out of the Defendant's misleading and deceptive boarding
algorithm of letting passengers purchase the Early Bird Check-in
add-on to receive priority boarding over other customers. However
based on the Defendant's published and unpublished boarding
policies and procedures, the earlier a customer checks in, the
higher the boarding position that customer receives.

Southwest Airlines, Co. is a commercial airliner with its
headquarters and principal place of business located in Dallas,
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kristopher P. Badame, Esq.
      Joseph H. Hunter, Esq.
      Michele E. Pillette, Esq.
      BADAME & ASSOCIATES, APC
      25432 Trabuco Road, Suite 207
      Lake Forest, CA 92630
      Telephone: (949) 770-2867
      Facsimile: (866) 230-3044
      E-mail: kbadame@badameandassociates.com
              jhunter@badameandassociates.com
              mpillette@badameandassociates.com


SPINNERS INC: Faces "Cornelio" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marco Cornelio, Andres Cornelio Serrano, Florencio Perez, on
behalf of themselves and other similarly situated persons, known
and unknown v. Spinners, Inc., d/b/a Emily's Pancake House, Inc.,
Quince, Inc., and Konstantino Maravelas, Case No. 1:15-cv-02888
(N.D. Ill., April 1, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Defendants own and operate restaurants in various locations in
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
      Alvar Ayala, Esq.
      WORKERS' LAW OFFICE, PC
      53 W Jackson Blvd., Suite 701
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Telephone: (312) 795-9121
      Facsimile: (312) 929-2207
      E-mail: cwilliams@wagetheftlaw.com
              aayala@wagetheftlaw.com


SQUARE 1 FINANCIAL: Being Sold for Too Little, Shareholders Say
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling Square
1 Financial too cheaply through an unfair process to PacWest
Bancorp, in a 1-for-0.6 share swap valued at $849 million,
shareholders claim in Delaware Chancery Court.


STEPS TO SUCCESS: Faces "Artis" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anaise Artis, on behalf of herself and all others similarly-
sitnated v. Steps To Success II, LLC, d/b/a Steps 2 Success
Preschool/Brownsville Pre-School, and Anzhela Krimer, in her
individual and professional capacities, Case No. 1:15-cv-01758
(E.D.N.Y., April 1, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate four pre-school and day care
centers in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher Berlingieri, Esq.
      BORRELLI AND ASSOCIATES
      1010 Northern Blvd
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: cjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com


STERLING INFOSYSTEMS: Illegally Furnished Reports, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Stone, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Sterling Infosystems, Inc., and Does 1
through 10, Case No. 2:15-cv-00711 (E.D. Cal., March 30, 2015),
arises out of the Defendants' practice of furnishing consumer
reports regarding Plaintiff and other class members for employment
purposes to the US Security Associates and others without first
obtaining from US Security Associates and other persons to whom it
furnished such reports a certification.

Sterling Infosystems, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that is
engaged in the business of assembling, evaluating and disbursing
information concerning consumers for the purpose of furnishing
consumer reports.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter R. Dion-Kindem, Esq.
      PETER R. DION-KINDEM, P. C.
      21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 900
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367
      Telephone: (818) 883-4900
      Facsimile: (818) 883-4902
      E-mail: peter@dion-kindemlaw.com

         - and -

      Lonnie C. Blanchard III, Esq.
      THE BLANCHARD LAW GROUP, APC
      Los Angeles, CA 90023
      Telephone: (213) 599-8255
      Facsimile: (213) 402-3949
      E-mail: lonnieblanchard@gmail.com

         - and -

      Jeffrey D. Holmes, Esq.
      HOLMES LAW GROUP, APC
      3311 East Pico Boulevard
      Los Angeles, CA 90023
      Telephone: (310) 396-9045
      Facsimile: (970) 497-4922
      E-mail: jeffholmesjh@gmail.com


STOKKE LLC: Recalls Trailz Strollers Due to Fall Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Stokke LLC, of Stamford, Conn., announced a voluntary recall of
about 400 Trailz Strollers. Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The stroller handle can break while in use, posing a fall hazard
to the infant.

This recall involves Stokke Trailz strollers with the chassis and
seat sold between November 2014 and December 2014. The strollers
were sold in black, black melange, beige melange, deep blue, red
and purple. The four-wheeled adjustable chassis is silver
aluminum, and measures approximately 45 inches high by 32 inches
long when fully extended. The strollers have adjustable angle
handlebars, a storage bin above the wheelbase and a seat with an
adjustable cover. The Stokke logo is printed on the front of the
seat and the "Trailz" model name is printed on a tracking label
affixed to the front of the wheelbase assembly.

There has been one report of a broken handle in the United States.
The firm has received eight reports of handles breaking in other
countries. No injuries have been reported.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in Norway and sold at
Specialty baby boutiques nationwide and online at AlbeeBaby.com,
buybuyBABY.com, Diapers.com, Nordstrom.com and Stokke.com from
November 2014 to December 2014 for about $1,300.

Consumers should immediately stop using the stroller and contact
Stokke to schedule a repair.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Faces " Gilbert" Suit Over Violation of ERISA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Gilbert and Laura Pinho, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., Case No. :15-
cv-80415 (S.D. Fla., April 1, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act, specifically by failure to provide participants and
beneficiaries in the Plan with adequate notice of their right to
continue their health coverage upon the occurrence of a qualifying
event.

SunTrust Banks, Inc.is a large financial services corporation with
its headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Kai H. Richter, Esq.
      David J. Carrier, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
      4600 IDS Center
      80 South Eighth Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 256-3200
      Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
      E-mail: krichter@nka.com
              dcarrier@nka.com

         - and -

      Don J. Foty, Esq.
      Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES, LLP
      711 West Alabama
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      E-mail: dfoty@kennedyhodges.com
              gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com


SUPERVALU INC: Cannot Compel Arbitration of Antitrust Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
C&S Wholesale Grocer and its fellow industry leader SuperValu
cannot compel arbitration of antitrust claims it faces from mom-
and-pop businesses, reports Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service.

At issue is the fallout of a 2003 asset exchange agreement between
SuperValu and C&S Wholesale Grocers.  The deal was based on
geography, giving SuperValu the Midwest and C&S the New England
region.

Mom-and-pop grocery stores took to the courts, claiming the asset
exchange would increase the price of goods, and their cases were
ultimately consolidated in Minnesota.

Last year the 8th Circuit remanded the case for consideration of
possibly certifying a narrow class.

SuperValu and C&S filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that they
can enforce certain arbitration agreements they have assigned as a
result of the asset exchange through the successor-in-interest
doctrine.

U.S. District Judge Ann Montgomery shot down those arguments March
16, saying SuperValu and C&S are competitors and do not rely on
each other to act.

"To the extent Defendants have a relationship under the AEA, the
relationship is one of assignor and assignee, because each
wholesaler assigned to the other their rights to an arbitration
agreement," the nine-page opinion states.  "Thus, Defendants'
relationship differs greatly from agency or agency-related
relationships that courts have deemed to be sufficiently close for
purposes of permitting a nonsignatory to enforce an arbitration
agreement."

SuperValu and C&S also argued that they could enforce the
arbitration agreements because some of the events at issue in the
class action occurred before the agreements were transferred.

Montgomery found the argument failed because the examples used by
SuperValu and C&S involved agreements that were terminated.

"Here, the arbitration agreements were assigned, not terminated,"
Montgomery wrote.  "Thus, the issue is not whether the right to
arbitrate survives, but rather who is entitled to assert that
right."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
          Elizabeth R. Odette, Esq.
          Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401-2159
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com
                  erodette@locklaw.com
                  kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Richard B. Drubel, Esq.
          Kimberly H. Schultz, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          26 South Main Street
          Hanover, NH 03755
          Telephone: (603) 643-9090
          Facsimile: (603) 643-9010
          E-mail: rdrubel@bsfllp.com
                  kschultz@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Daniel A. Kotchen, Esq.
          Daniel L. Low, Esq.
          KOTCHEN & LOW LLP
          1745 Kalorama Rd., NW, Suite 101
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 471-1995
          Facsimile: (202) 280-1128
          E-mail: dkotchen@kotchen.com
                  dlow@kotchen.com

               - and -

          Edward (Terry) Dangel III, Esq.
          DANGEL DWYER, LLC
          10 Derne Street
          Beacon Hill
          Boston, MA 02114
          Telephone: (617) 557-4800
          E-mail: tdangel@dangeldwyer-llc.com

Defendant SuperValu, Inc. is represented by:

          Stephen P. Safranski, Esq.
          Martin R. Lueck, Esq.
          K. Craig Wildfang, Esq.
          Heather M. McElroy, Esq.
          Damien A. Riehl, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 349-8587
          E-mail: SSafranski@RobinsKaplan.com
                  MLueck@RobinsKaplan.com
                  KCWildfang@RobinsKaplan.com

Defendant C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. is represented by:

          Todd A. Wind, Esq.
          Nicole M. Moen, Esq.
          FREDRIKSON & BYRON, PA
          200 South Sixth Street, Suite 4000
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-1425
          Telephone: (612) 492-7000
          Facsimile: (612) 492-7077
          E-mail: twind@fredlaw.com
                  nmoen@fredlaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher J. MacAvoy, Esq.
          Charles A. Loughlin, Esq.
          BAKER BOTTS LLP
          The Warner
          1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
          Washington, DC 20004-2400
          Telephone: (202) 639-7709
          Facsimile: (202) 585-1006
          E-mail: christopher.macavoy@bakerbotts.com
                  charles.loughlin@bakerbotts.com

The multidistrict litigation is captioned In re Wholesale Grocery
Products Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 09-MD-2090 ADM/TNL, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.


SUTTER HOME: Faces Suit Over Unsafe Levels of Arsenic in Wines
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that more than two dozen cheap
California wines have unsafe levels of arsenic, consumers claim in
a class action in California Superior Court.

Lead plaintiff Doris Charles claims that the defendants' wines
contain "inorganic arsenic in amounts far in excess of what is
allowed in drinking water," but do not disclose it to consumers.

Twenty-eight of the 31 defendants are from California. They
include many well-known California labels, including Sutter Home
Winery, Beringer, Almaden, Fetzer, Korbel, Don Sebastiani and
Trader Joe's.

The Wine Institute, of California, called the lawsuit
"irresponsible," "misleading," and "false."

Institute spokeswoman Gladys Horiuchi told The Associated Press
that the United States has set no maximum arsenic levels for wine,
though other countries have, and California wines do not even
approach those levels.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency set a maximum level of
arsenic in drinking water at 10 parts per billion.  The plaintiffs
claim that some of the wines they tested had five times more
arsenic than that.

The 40-page complaint claims that most of the arsenic found in the
wines was "inorganic," which it says is more toxic than organic
arsenic -- arsenic that appears naturally in the soil.

"(J)ust a glass or two of these arsenic-contaminated wines a day
over time could result in dangerous toxicity to the consumer," the
March 19 complaint states.

California's 1,200 wineries produce nearly 90 percent of domestic
wines, according to the lawsuit, but "no government regulatory
agency is regularly monitoring or testing these wines to ensure
they are free from toxic poisons that could sicken or kill
consumers over time."

Plaintiffs' attorney Brian Kabateck told The Associated Press that
a Denver-based lab tested 1,306 bottles of wine, and found 83 with
"excessive arsenic levels."  Those statistics do not appear in the
lawsuit.

The four named plaintiffs, two from Los Angeles County and two
from San Diego County, seek class certification and damages for
consumer law violations, negligent misrepresentation, breach of
warranty, unjust enrichment and unfair competition.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian Kabateck, Esq.
          KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP
          644 S Figueroa St.
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 217-5000
          Facsimile: (213) 217-5010
          E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com


SYMANTEC CORP: Has Lost Bid to Shake Off Insurance Fraud Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
The makers of Norton Antivirus software must face claims they
misled consumers into purchasing a superfluous "download
insurance" add-on, reports Kevin Koeninger at Courthouse News
Service, citing a federal court ruling.

A class of consumers who purchased the "insurance" for between $5
and $10 says that the ability to redownload the software after 60
days was already included in the program.  The suit was filed in
2011 for violations of California's Unfair Competition Law and
Consumers Legal Remedy Act, as well as violations of Minnesota's
Consumer Fraud Act and unjust enrichment.

U.S. District Court Judge John R. Tunheim had already refused to
dismiss the case in March 2014, but Symantec filed another motion
for summary judgment on May 15, 2014.

The company claimed the language describing the download insurance
on its Web site -- which noted it was the only "guaranteed" way to
redownload the antivirus program -- did not violate any laws.  It
argued that, while there were other alternatives to the insurance,
none of them were guaranteed.

Symantec's reasoning did not fly with Judge Tunheim, who wrote:
"Where a technically true fact can still be misleading, an
obligation arises 'to disclose all other facts which 'materially
qualify' the limited facts disclosed.' . . . In Symantec's case,
irrespective of whether [the insurance] was the only 'guaranteed'
redownload option, the evidence suggests that Symantec continued
to provide the alternative options like trialware for the duration
of the relevant time period."

Alternatively, the company claimed the plaintiffs "suffered no
economic loss by purchasing [the insurance], because the benefit
[they] sought -- a guarantee that [they] would be able to
redownload [their] software beyond sixty days -- is precisely what
[they] received."

Judge Tunheim disagreed, and wrote: "Multiple sources in the
record indicate that customers could redownload the Norton
software through both the customer support website and trialware.
Although Symantec contends that it could have ceased offering
these options at any time, it has offered no evidence that the
company ever discussed or considered eliminating the alternatives.
Because [the plaintiff's] deposition suggests that she would have
acted differently had she been apprised of this information, a
genuine issue of material fact remains as to whether her reliance
on Symantec's representations caused her to suffer harm."

The plaintiffs and defendants also filed motions to exclude the
other's expert testimony.

Judge Tunheim denied all of these motions, with the exception of a
request by Symantec to exclude testimony regarding how consumers
would download the insurance and how easily they could have
rejected the product.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Douglas J. McNamara, Esq.
          Andrew N. Friedman, Esq.
          COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue Northwest
          West Tower, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com
                  afriedman@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com

Defendant Symantec Corp. is represented by:

          Patrick E. Gibbs, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP
          140 Scott Drive,
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Telephone: (650) 463-4696
          E-mail: Epatrick.gibbs@lw.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Gaskins, Esq.
          GASKINS, BENNETT, BIRRELL, SCHUPP, LLP
          333 South Seventh Street, Suite 2900
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-9500
          Facsimile: (612) 333-9579
          E-mail: Tsgaskins@gaskinsbennett.com

Defendant Digital River, Inc. is represented by:

          Charles Smith, Esq.
          Amy Van Gelder, Esq.
          Jessica Frogge, Esq.
          Marcella L. Lape, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM
          155 North Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 407-0516
          Facsimile: (312) 407-8523
          E-mail: charles.smith@skadden.com
                  amy.vangelder@skadden.com
                  jessica.frogge@skadden.com
                  marcella.lape@skadden.com

The case is Devi Khoday and Danise Townsend v. Symantec Corp. and
Digital River, Inc., Case No. 0:11-cv-00180-JRT-TNL, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota.


TARGET CORP: To Pay $10MM to Settle Class Suit Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lacey Louwagie, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Target agreed to pay $10 million to settle a class action over a
2013 holiday season data breach that consumers claimed compromised
as many as 100 million credit and debit accounts.

Under the terms of the proposal, which still requires the approval
of a federal judge in Minneapolis, Target will despot the money in
an interest bearing escrow account, and ultimately pay individual
victims up to $10,000 in damages.

Despite a federal judge's dismissal last December of most of the
consumer-negligence claims that had been filed against Target due
to the breach, the retailer has continued to struggle in the realm
of public perception.

To woo back shopper' back to its aisles, Target over the past 15
months has granted 1-year free credit card monitoring to in-store
shoppers, and has forgiven all fraudulent charges reported by
effected considers.

Investigators believe the security breach was carried out by
thieves who installed software on Target's payment terminals to
capture credit information.  The breach affected over 1,700 of
Target's 1,900 stores.

If the settlement is approved by U.S. District Judge Paul
Magnuson, who held a hearing on the proposal March 19 afternoon,
claims will be submitted and processed primarily through a
dedicated Web site.

The settlement proposal also requires Target to adopt and
implement data security measures , including appointing a chief
information security officer, maintaining a written information
security program, and implementing a process to monitor for so-
called "information security events" and to respond to such events
determined to present a threat.

Magnuson said at the March 19 hearing that he will preliminarily
approve the settlement. People can file claims before he holds a
hearing for final approval, in late October or early November.

Magnuson praised Target "for being willing to step up."

In a written statement, Target spokeswoman Molly Snyder said the
company is "pleased to see the process moving forward and looks
forward to its resolution."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Vincent J. Esades, Esq.
          David Woodward, Esq.
          HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
          310 Clifton Avenue
          Minneapolis, MN 55403
          Telephone: (612) 338-4605
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4692
          E-mail: vesades@heinsmills.com
                  dwoodward@heinsmills.com

               - and -

          E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center
          80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
          E-mail: drake@nka.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street, 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: DCG@girardgibbs.com

               - and -

          Ariana J. Tadler, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300
          Facsimile: (212) 868-1229
          E-mail: atadler@milberg.com

               - and -

          Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
          E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com

The multidistrict litigation is captioned In re: Target
Corporation Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 14-
2522 (PAM/JJK), in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota.


TOYS R US: Faces Suit Over Deceiving Babies R Us Rewards Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Lessmiller, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that a class claims Toys "R" Us's baby store division is
shortchanging expectant parents through a misleading baby registry
rewards program.

Stacy Tongate sued Toys "R" Us Inc. doing business as Babies "R"
Us and Toys "R" Us-Delaware Inc. in Federal Court individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated.  The lawsuit alleges
breach of contract and fraud.

Tongate says that the Babies "R" Us "Endless Earnings" program is
deceptive.  The program offers customers up to 10 percent back for
purchases made from their baby registries but the plaintiffs claim
that's not true.

"Unfortunately, those who register for the program soon discover
BRU's tantalizing offer of "Endless Earnings' is little more than
empty rhetoric," the complaint states.  "Indeed, consumers
throughout the country have complained of receiving rewards that
reflect only a fraction of the amount to which they are
contractually entitled."

Customers began complaining shortly after the Endless Earnings
program was implemented, according to the complaint.  The class
action alleges Babies "R" Us does not calculate rewards using the
formula in the program contract.

"When contacted by customers regarding their missing rewards,
however, BRU refuses to provide information on how their
particular rewards were calculated," the complaint states.
"Making matters worse, BRU even goes so far as to tell those
registrants that it cannot provide the total value of qualifying
purchases made from their registries."

Tongate says she registered for Endless Earnings in 2014 and more
than $3,400 in qualifying purchases were made from her baby
registry but she only got $160 on a gift card, not the $328 the
contract's formula provided for.

"Plaintiff contacted BRU on numerous subsequent occasions in the
hopes of reaching a supervisor (or any BRU employee, for that
matter) that could explain the shortfall in her rewards.  On each
occasion, BRU claimed that it could not provide plaintiff with the
information she requested," the complaint states.  "On or around
February 18, 2015, BRU sent plaintiff an additional eGift card for
$144 in rewards.  But even when factoring in this additional
amount, BRU still owes plaintiff approximately $23 in rewards.
Importantly, BRU did not provide plaintiff with any explanation as
to the $23 shortfall, nor has it explained the true method by
which it calculated her rewards."

The lawsuit proposes two related classes. The participant class
includes Americans who have created a Babies "R" Us registry since
April 2014 and who did not received a full measure of their earned
rewards.  The purchaser class includes Americans who meet that
same criteria but who also purchased a product from their own
registry and did not receive a rewards calculation.

The complaint seeks treble damages and attorney fees.

The class is represented by:

          Michael Silverman, Esq.
          SIPRUT, P.C.
          17 North State Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL  60602
          Telephone: (312) 236-0000
          Facsimile: (312) 948-9212
          E-mail: msilverman@siprut.com


TRADER JOE'S: Sued for Systematically Demoting "Older" Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Trader Joe's "systematically"
demotes employees 40 and older from upper-level positions, a class
action claims in California Federal Court.


TRANS UNION LLC: Sued Over $10 Charge in Placing Security Freezes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Credit-reporting giant TransUnion charges $10 before it places
security freezes on the files of people dealing with identity
theft, a class claims in Illinois Federal Court, reports Lorraine
Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service.

Jon Niermann, the lead plaintiff in the March 18 action, says he
learned about TransUnion's "illegal" policy after he became a
victim of identity theft.  After someone opened a Wells Fargo
credit card account in the Austin, Texas-based man's name on April
24, 2014, Niermann closed the account before any charges were
made, notified the police, and contacted the major credit
agencies.  Niermann says he wanted security notices on his account
to "prevent unauthorized persons from opening any new credit in
Mr. Niermann's name."

"Experian promptly complied with his request," the complaint
states.  "TransUnion, however, did not comply with his request,
but instead mailed a form letter requiring that he pay a $10.00
charge before TransUnion would place the security freeze on his
file."

Niermann says he sent TransUnion six separate requests to place a
freeze on his account, but each time it refused unless he first
paid $10.  He notes that Texas law "allows CRAs to charge a
'reasonable fee,' not to exceed $10.00, for placing a security
freeze, [but] does not make the CRAs' duty to place the security
freeze within five business days conditional on the payment of the
charge, nor does it allow CRAs to delay placing the security
freeze until after the charge is paid," the complaint states,
abbreviating credit-reporting agencies.

The law of Texas and other states also exempts victims of identity
theft who provide a police report from paying a fee to either
place, temporarily life or remove security freezes, according to
the complaint.

Niermann, who names the company as Trans Union in his complaint,
says the defendant refused to place a freeze on his file for six
weeks until he contacted the credit agency's outside counsel and
explained the situation.

After immediately placing a freeze on his file, TransUnion excused
its delay by claiming that the standard form police report
Niermann submitted was not generally accepted as a valid police
report.

Niermann says that "TransUnion's repeated form letters show that
TransUnion has a policy and practice of unlawfully charging
consumers a fee or requiring them to provide a police report,
investigative report, or complaint involving the alleged
commission of an identity theft offense as a pre-condition to
placing a security freeze," in violation of the Texas law.

Delaware-based TransUnion operates its main offices in Chicago,
where Niermann filed the federal complaint.  He seeks punitive
damages on behalf of a class including all individuals who sought
a credit freeze on their file, in addition to a subclass of
identity theft victims, for violations of the Texas Consumer
Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Caddell, Esq.
          CADDELL & CHAPMAN
          1331 Lamar Street, Suite 1070
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: (713) 581-8295
          Toll Free: (877) 553-3057
          Facsimile: (713) 751-0906


TRIPOLIS ENTERPRISES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kari Lynn Gilbert, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Tripolis Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a The Palace Men's
Club, Case No. 5:15-cv-00246 (W.D. Tex., April 1, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

Tripolis Enterprises, Inc. owns and operates a gentleman's club in
San Antonio, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert R. Debes Jr., Esq.
      SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 621-2277
      Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
      E-mail: bdebes@eeoc.net


TURN INC: Illegally Tracks Users Web Activities, Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Henson and William Cintron v. Turn, Inc., Case No. 3:15-
cv-01497 (N.D. Cal., April 1, 2015), alleges that the Defendant
secretly exploited a feature of the routing processes of Verizon
customers' mobile devices in order to convert those devices into
tracking beacons and to monitor the user's behavior and track all
of users' Web-based activities without their knowledge or consent,
and in disregard of users' efforts to prevent the tracking.

Turn, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Redwood City, California. It owns and operates an
online advertising clearinghouse for companies such as Google,
Yahoo and Facebook.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
      Nimish R. Desai, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
      Telephone: (415) 956-1000
      Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
      E-mail: msobol@lchb.com
              ndesai@lchb.com

         - and -

      Nicholas Diamand, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10013-1413
      Telephone: (212) 355-9500
      Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
      E-mail: ndiamand@lchb.com

         - and -

      Hank Bates, Esq.
      CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM PLLC
      11311 Arcade Drive, Suite 200
      Little Rock, AR 72212
      Telephone: 501.312.8500
      E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com

         - and -

      Bradley S. Clanton, Esq.
      CLANTON LEGAL GROUP PLLC
      627 Mohawk Avenue
      Jackson, MS 39216
      Telephone: 601-454-8794
      Facsimile: 866-421-9918
      E-mail: brad@clantonlegalgroup.com


TWITTER INC: Accused by Ex-Software Engineer of Gender Bias
-----------------------------------------------------------
Twitter fired a software engineer for complaining about the
company's sexist policies, which she told CEO Dick Costolo are
"arbitrary and unjust," she claimed March 19 in a class action,
reports Dave Tartre at Courthouse News Service.

Tina Huang claims in Superior Court that she was one of Twitter's
earliest hires, but was denied promotions because Twitter
"discriminates against its female employees by failing to promote
equally qualified or better qualified women to engineering
leadership positions."

"The company's promotion system creates a glass ceiling for women
that cannot be explained or justified by any reasonable business
purpose, because Twitter has no meaningful promotion process for
these jobs: no published promotion criteria, nor any internal
hiring, advancement, or application processes for employees,"
Huang says in the complaint.

Huang started at Twitter in 2009, when the company had fewer than
100 employees, and she says its dramatic growth has been largely
due to the work of early hires.

"Indeed, many of the early hires now hold senior positions in the
company, and without exception, all of those senior positions
within the software engineer job family are held by men," her
complaint states.

Huang claims that "Twitter recognizes its company-wide, pervasive
problem of discrimination.  It has conducted internal diversity
studies, focusing on barriers to women's advancement.  It also
treats its promotion process (and the gender disparities therein)
as a common, companywide problem requiring a companywide solution.
"For example, Twitter recently began providing bias mitigation
training throughout the company."

Huang says senior management has acknowledged the gender disparity
by saying the firm will "'continue improving' its 'diversity
standing' and 'move the needle.'"

In early 2013, she was put in the running for a senior software
position by her immediate supervisor, which Huang says is the only
way promotions are done at Twitter.

The senior staff engineer position would be a critical promotion
in her career, because the job would have shifted her focus from
coding and individual projects to a leadership role and company-
wide collaboration, as well as access to high-level management
meetings.

But despite years of impressive service to Twitter, excellent
evaluations by peers and supervisors and an absence of any
criticism or disciplinary issues, Huang says she was denied the
promotion without explanation.  She sought objective reasons, but
was given none.  The only reasons she could find, she says, were
rumors about "her 'aggressiveness' and 'lack of high quality
code'" on a specific project.

She also learned that seven men had been promoted to the senior
staff engineer level. That's when she sent CEO Costolo an e-mail
that said Twitter's promotion policy was arbitrary and unjust.
She says the corporate response was to order to take "personal
leave" and that it would investigate her complaint.  She says she
met with Costolo and HR people, but no information about the
investigation was shared with her, and her assignments were given
to other engineers.  Co-workers were told she was on personal
leave, though they knew she had complained about the promotion
process, so she says her ability to lead was undermined, too.

After three months, Huang says, "She felt she had no choice by to
leave the company for the sake of her career."  She says that
Twitter's actions "would cause a reasonable person in (her)
position to feel compelled to resign."

"Twitter intentionally caused objectively intolerable working
conditions and knowingly allowed them to exist," Huang says.

She seeks class certification, lost wages and benefits, full
vesting of her stock options, and damages and punitive damages for
sex discrimination, retaliation and wrongful termination.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Lohr, Esq.
          LOHR RIPAMONTI & SEGARICH LLP
          140 Geary Street, 4F
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 683-7266
          Facsimile: (415) 789-4163
          E-mail: jason.lohr@lrllp.com


UIL HOLDINGS: Being Sold for Too Little to Iberdrola, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling UIL
Holdings Corp. too cheaply through an unfair process to Iberdrola,
in a share-for-share plus $10.50 per share deal valued at more
than $3 billion, shareholders claim in New Haven Superior Court.


UMG RECORDINGS: Close to Settling Suit Over Payments of Royalty
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Universal Music Group is
close to a settlement resolving claims that it shorted recording
artists on royalties from digital downloads.

The class action was filed by artists including Chuck D. of Public
Enemy, Rick James (by way of trust) and Ron Tyson of The
Temptations.  The artists claim that record labels should treat
digital download income as "licenses" rather than "sales," which
would give artists 50 percent of the income instead of the 15
percent they currently receive.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston ordered Universal and the
artists to submit a motion to approve a settlement by April 10.
She also terminated all of Universal's motions for summary
judgment.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Leonard B. Simon, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF LEONARD B. SIMON, P.C.
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338-4549
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: lens@rgrdlaw.com

Universal is represented by:

          Jeffrey D. Goldman, Esq.
          JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL LLP
          1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 785-5386
          Facsimile: (866) 297-8774
          E-mail: JGoldman@jmbm.com

The case is Rick James v. UMG Recordings, Case No. 3:11-cv-01613-
SI, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


USPLABS LLC: Falsely Marketed PowerFULL Supplements, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brenden Moore, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. USPLabs, LLC and  AllStarHealth.com, Case No. 1:15-cv-
02374 (S.D.N.Y., March 31, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's
false and misleading claims that its PowerFULL supplement can
increase human growth hormone secretion, promote better sleep, and
provide a panoply of health benefits.

USPLabs, LLC is a Dallas County, Texas-based company that
manufactures a variety of health products and supplements.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas A. Canova, Esq.
      Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC
      Hillcrest Professional Building
      3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202
      San Diego, CA 92103
      Telephone: (619) 692-3840
      Facsimile: (619) 362-9555
      E-mail: tom@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
              jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Denial of Mental Heath Coverage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John P., Erin P. and Gabriella P., individually and as
representatives of the Class of similarly situated individuals v.
Verizon Communications Inc., and The Verizon Medical Plan, Case
No. 2:15-cv-00215 (D. Utah, March 31, 2015), is brought on behalf
of the Verizon Medical Plan participants and beneficiaries that
were denied of coverage for residential treatment services for
mental health conditions to which they are entitled under the
Plan.

Verizon Communications Inc. is a wireless communications service
provider throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian S. King, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN S. KING
      336 S 300 E STE 200
      Salt Lake City, UT 84111
      Telephone: (801) 532-1739
      E-mail: brian@briansking.com


WARNER/CHAPPELL: "Happy Birthday to You" Song Called a Cash Cow
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Warner/Chappell will not charge you if you sing "Happy Birthday"
before your toddler blows out the candles on her birthday cake.
But if you're a Hollywood producer, expect to take a hit.

In court to fight claims that the 120-year-old "Happy Birthday to
You" is in the public domain, a Warner/Chappell representative
said it sometimes charges major motion pictures between five and
six figures to license the most recognizable song in the English
language.

The revelation came at a March 23 hearing at the Edward R. Roybal
Courthouse in downtown Los Angeles, where U.S. District Judge
George King was hearing motions and cross-motions for summary
judgment in a 2013 class action complaint.

Good Morning to You Productions says Warner/Chappell collects
millions of dollars in licensing fees for "Happy Birthday to You,"
even though the origins of the song, and who owns it, are
disputed.

Calling the lawsuit a "David and Goliath" case, Good Morning
President Jennifer Nelson said it is "ridiculous" people have to
pay for a song that has been in the public domain for 65 years.

"If you don't pay for the license to the song they will notify you
and let you know that you have to pay," Nelson said after the
hearing.  "They've never actually sued anybody but they have
strong-armed people into having to pay."

Nelson said she had paid $1,500 to use "Happy Birthday to You" for
10 seconds at a festival.

Warner/Chappell says that chain of title extends to a valid
federal copyright registration for "Happy Birthday" in 1935.

But the plaintiffs say the song was not copyrightable because it
had already been performed for over three decades, and by then was
a public work.  In addition, the registrations were only for
"specific piano arrangements," the lawsuit states.

If King declines to rule in favor of either the plaintiffs or
music publisher the case could still go to trial.

While delving into the complex copyright issues that will decide
whether "Happy Birthday" belongs to one company -- or all of us --
Judge King asked for a breakdown of how much Warner/Chappell
charges to license the song.

Warner's attorney Kelly Klaus said he did not know the exact
numbers but clarified what the license fees cover.

"We're not talking about little kids' birthday parties in the back
yard," Klaus said.

Warner Chappell's head of legal and business affairs, Scott
McDowell, told King from the courtroom that a music
synchronization license varies but can cost from $500 to $1,500.

A major feature film could pay up to five or six figures, McDowell
said.

Klaus stressed that licenses for some public performances of the
song -- say at a party in a restaurant -- are covered under
blanket licensing agreements with American Society of Composers,
Authors and Publishers, known as ASCAP.

After the hearing, the plaintiffs' attorney Mark Rifkin said
plaintiff and filmmaker Robert Siegel had paid $3,000 to use
"Happy Birthday" in his indie comedy "Big Fan."

"For a major motion picture it could be six figures?" Rifkin said.

Warner bases its claim of ownership on two copyright registrations
in 1935 by the Clayton F. Summy Company.  The latter company
published the song in songbooks -- claiming to own the copyright,
but not to be the author.

The original melody for "Happy Birthday to You" was composed in
the late 1800s by school teacher Mildred Hill in St. Louisville,
Kentucky.  The song was part of the composition for a song called
"Good Morning to All," with lyrics by her sister Patty Hill,
according to court records.

The sisters sold or assigned their rights to Summy for 10 percent
of retail sales.

Warner/Chappell, a subsidiary of Warner Music Group, says it
secured the copyright after its $15 million acquisition of Birch
Tree Group Limited in 1988.

There has never been a judicial determination on the copyright of
"Good Morning to All," the plaintiffs claim.

Judge King took the case under submission.  He did not give an
indication when he will rule.


WELLS FARGO: Bid to Strike Class Allegations in "Roy" Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
Before the court in SUMIT ROY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Defendant, CASE NO. 14-CV-04661-SC, (N.D. Cal.) is Defendant Wells
Fargo's motion to strike class allegations.

District Judge Samuel Conti denied the request saying the class
allegations in Plaintiff's complaint are not an insufficient
defense, redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous. The
Court also found that Wells Fargo's motion to strike is an
improper motion and not permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

A copy of the Court's March 27, 2015 order is available at
http://is.gd/I4FnVefrom Leagle.com.

Sumit Roy, Plaintiff, represented by Seyed Abbas Kazerounian --
ak@kazlg.com -- Kazerouni Law Group, APC & Matthew Michael Loker -
- ml@kazlg.com -- Kazerouri Law Group, APC.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Mark Douglas
Lonergan, Severson & Werson & Scott J. Hyman -- sjh@severson.com
-- Severson & Werson.


WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Bran Muffin Products Due to Eggs and Milk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Whole Foods Market is recalling Bran Muffin six packs produced and
sold in retail stores in the Southwest Region, which includes TX,
OK, LA, and AR, due to undeclared egg and milk ingredients. People
who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to eggs or milk run the
risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume these products.

The product was sold in six packs packaged in clear plastic
containers, PLU 24857800499 with best by dates of 1/21/15 to
4/6/15.

The bran muffins in the six pack contain eggs and milk as
ingredients, which was not declared on the label.

No allergic reactions or illnesses have been reported to date.
Signage is posted to notify customers of this recall, and all
affected product has been removed from shelves.

The error was discovered during routine product review.

Consumers who have purchased this product from any Whole Foods
Market Southwest stores in TX, OK, LA, and AR are encouraged to
discard the product and may bring their receipt to the store for a
full refund. Consumers with questions should contact their local
store between the hours of 9am and 5pm CST any day of the week.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm440730.htm


WISCONSIN DETAIL: Faces "Idris" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Xolani Idris v. Wisconsin Detail Services and Todd Schultz, Case
No. 2:15-cv-00343 (E.D. Wis., March 30, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are engaged in an automotive detailing business
with its principal place of business at 2010 W Bender Road, in
Glendale, Wisconsin.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sara J. Geenen, Esq.
      THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM SC
      1555 N River Center Dr-Ste 202, PO Box 12993
      Milwaukee, WI 53212
      Telephone: (414) 271-4500
      Facsimile: (414) 271-6308
      E-mail: sjg@previant.com


XANODYNE PHARMACEUTICALS: Gets Ruling Dismissing Lightfoot Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE: DARVOCET, DARVON, AND PROPOXYPHENE PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION. Lightfoot v. Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, Inc., MASTER
FILE NO. 2:11-MD-2226-DCR, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-198-DCR, (E.D.
Ky.), Defendant Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, Inc. filed a motion to
dismiss the claims asserted against it pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff Felicia
Lightfoot, proceeding pro se, has filed a response which the Court
also construes as a motion for leave to amend her Complaint.

District Judge Danny C. Reeves granted both motions in his
memorandum opinion and order dated March 27, 2015, a copy of which
is available at http://is.gd/9ONxiYfrom Leagle.com.

Defendant Xanodyne's motion to dismiss is granted. Plaintiff
Felicia Lightfoot's claims against Xanodyne are dismissed, with
prejudice.

Plaintiff Felicia Lightfoot's motion to amend the Complaint is
granted. Plaintiff may tender an Amended Complaint within 10 days.
Failure to tender an Amended Complaint within the time permitted
will result in dismissal of this action without further notice.


YORK PARTNERS: Faces "Uribe" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rafael Uribe, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown v. York Partners, Inc., d/b/a
Nancy's Pizza, and Anthony Uroni, Case No. 1:15-cv-02889 (N.D.
Ill., April 1, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40
each workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 940 N. York
St., Elmhurst, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raisa Alicea, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N Pulaski Rd, Ste. 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 800-1017
      E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com


                             *********

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  * * *