CAR_Public/150423.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, April 23, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 81


                             Headlines

7-ELEVEN: Faces Minimum Wage Class Action in California
A&E FACTORY: Case Mgmt. Conference in Grande Case Set for June 18
A&M UNIVERSITY: Faces New Kyle Field Seating Lawsuit
AARON JON: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Campaign Contribution
AEROTEK INC: Court Wants Supplemental Briefing on Settlement

AMERICAN INT'L: $970.5MM Class Action Settlement Gets Court OK
AMERICAN REALTY: Court Denies Motion to Remand "Wunsch" Case
AMERICAN TRAFFIC: Podhurst Named Co-Lead Counsel in Camera Suit
ANGIE'S LIST: Faces "Moore" Action Over Deceptive Practices
ATLANTIC SOUTHERN: Faces "Knight" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

BANK OF NEW YORK: Settles Exchange Trades Misrepresentation Claim
BARNES AUTOMOTIVE: Faces "Mitchum" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
BAY SHORE: Faces "Diaz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
BLUE BELL: Recalls Frozen Snack Products Due to Listeria
CANADA CARTHAGE: Judge Addresses Systemic OT Practices Issues

CAPSTONE COATINGS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
CHANPRUNG LLC: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Suit Claims
CHEMICAL AND MINING: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
COMCAST CORPORATION: Mag. Judge Okays Fees in "Rouse" Action
CONSOLIDATED CREDIT: "Budyrk" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT

CONWAY IMPORT: Recalls Organic Dressings Due to Salmonella
DES MOINES, IA: Faces Class Action Over Automated Traffic Cameras
DOLLAR THRIFTY: Judge Dismisses Inflated Toll Fee Class Action
ED IDEAS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Riccardi" Suit Claims
ENSECO ENERGY: Sued Over Failure to Provide Termination Notice

ENTERGY OPERATIONS: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Vire" Suit Claims
GENERAL MOTORS: GM Organized Under Delaware Law, Says Court
GENERAL MOTORS: NY Judge Decision on Ignition Switch Claims
HERBALIFE LTD: AGs Meet with Private Lawyer to Verify Settlement
HIKO ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over "Bait-and-Switch Scheme

HINES NUT: Recalls Walnut Products Due to Salmonella
HOMEJOY: Faces Class Action Over Labor Practices
ILLINOIS: Four Prisons Sued Over Inmate Abuses
ILLINOIS: Denies Motion to Postpone Hearing in Prison Suit
INDIANA: BMV Top Officials Aware of Overcharges, Probe Shows

INTEREXCHANGE: Au Pairs File Minimum Wage Class Action
JPG LLC: "Romero" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
KASHI CO: Consumers Challenge Sanction in GMO Class Action
KING DIGITAL: Sued for Hiding Declining Candy Crush User Numbers
KMART CORPORATION: Sued in N.D. Illinois Over Alleged Data Breach

KMART HOLDING: Faces "West" Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
LEGAL SEA FOODS: Faces Class Action Over Shared Tips
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Robson" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Removes "Wolverton" Suit to E.D. La. Court
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Wolverton" Suit Over Toxic Flooring

MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Contempt Hearing v. Arpaio to Proceed
METROPOLITAN LIFE: June 18 Management Conference in "Simmons"
MILLENIUM OIL: Faces "Quintana" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MONSANTO: To Settle GM Wheat Lawsuits for $350,000
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Obama Calls for Guarantee Scholarships

NICOLET RESTAURANT: Sued Over Credit Card Transactions Policies
NISSAN NORTH: Faces "DeMaria" Suit Over Defective Floorboards
NY F&B: "Reyes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
OCWEN LOAN: Settles Class Suit Over Mortgage Interest Tax Breaks
OMNICELL INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action

OREGON: May Face Class Action Over VINE System Technical Glitch
ORIGEN BIOMEDICAL: Recalls VV13F Dual Lumen ECMO Catheters
PERSOLVE LLC: Court Enters Discovery Order in Jacobson Case
PFIZER INC: Faces "Fermin" Suit Over Misleading Product Packaging
PGA TOUR: More Caddies Join Suit Over Trade Restraint

PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Emerson" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Olson" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
PROLAINAT: Recalls Trader's Joe A Dozen Sweet Bites Products
RGS FINANCIAL: June 4 Management Conference in "Espineli" Case
RITE AID: Sued Over Failure to Provide Blind-Accessible POS

ROYAL FROZEN: Recalls Blintzes Products Due to Undeclared Milk
S&K GREEN: "Camacho" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
SCHNUCK MARKETS: Recalls Pasta Salad Products Due to Salmonella
SECURITY CREDIT: Court Orders Filing of Revised Dismissal Notice
SOHO UNIVERSITY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages

SOLUTIONS AT WORK: Recalls Kale Chips Products Due to Cashews
SOURCE REFRIGERATION: Court Approves Revision to Class Notice
SQM: Shareholders File Securities Class Action in New York
STATE FARM: July 2 Case Management Conference in "Levels" Suit
SUBWAY: Workers Get "Conditional Certification in Wage Suit

SUGAR ROCK: 4th Cir. Remands Valentine Suit to Dist. Court
SUPERIOR NUT: Recalls Pine Nuts Products Due to Salmonella
TAJ PALACE: "Pedro" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
TARGET CORP: Judge OKs $10MM Data Breach Class Action Settlement
TARGET INC: Customers May Face Difficulty in Getting Payout

TATA CONSULTANCY: Faces "Heldt" Suit Over Racial Discrimination
TD BANK: Judge Dismisses Breach-of-Contract Class Action
TRANSCEND HOLDINGS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
TWITTER INC: Faces Gender Discrimination Class Action
TYSON FOODS: Faces Class Action Over Application Process

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Objections on Bid to Stay Case Due
UBS AG: Faces "Fernandez" Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
ULTIMATE FIGHTING: Faces Antitrust Class Action in California
UNITED KINGDOM: Hindraf Class Action Set to Begin
UNITED STATES: ACLU Searches Mexicali Deportees for Class Action

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: "Clunie" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
UNIVERSAL MARKETING: Faces "Henry" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
WAL-MART STORES: Seeks High Court Review of Workers' Class Action
WELLS FARGO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Markos" Suit Claims
WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Macadamia Nuts Due to Salmonella

WINDSOR WINDOW: Faces "Schiller" Suit Over Defective Windows
WINE GROUP: Institute Says Arsenic-Tainted Wine Suits Misleading
WINE GROUP: Retailers Unaware of Arsenic Suits

* Bill Corrects Regulatory Flaw in Colo. Construction Defects Law
* Defense Cost Least Important factor When Defending Class Action
* ERISA Litigation Lull May Not Last Long, Lawyer Says
* Homeowners Face Difficulty in Filing Construction Defect Claims
* Mandatory Arbitration Prevents Expensive Lawsuits Against Banks

* Proposed Legislation Won't Halt Loser-Pays Disputes


                            *********


7-ELEVEN: Faces Minimum Wage Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------------
Nataly Tavidian, writing for KEYT, reports that a 7-Eleven and a
Subway franchise are being taken to court.  The class action
lawsuit alleges workers were not being paid fairly for the hours
they had put in.

Anticouni & Associates attorney, Bruce Anticouni, said "These
generally are people who are not making a large salary, often
times they're receiving minimum wage.  They typically live week to
week in terms of compensation.  If they're not paid everything
they've earned, it's a real hardship for them."  It was filed on
behalf of approximately 300 former and present employees.

Mr. Anticouni said, "Some people would work a double shift, and
they would allocate half that time to another day to avoid paying
double and over time."  Mr. Anticouni said there is possibly $ 3
million worth of damages over the course of four years, because he
said the statute of limitations allows the law firm to go back
four years.

Mr. Anticouni said, "Small employers either don't know how to
comply with California law or they choose to ignore it."


A&E FACTORY: Case Mgmt. Conference in Grande Case Set for June 18
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A Case Management Conference will be held in the case captioned
ANGEL GRANDE Plaintiff, v. A&E FACTORY SERVICE, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 15-CV-01171-PJH, (N.D. Cal.) on June 18,
2015, at 2:00 p.m., in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Federal Building,
1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California, ruled District Judge
Phyllis J. Hamilton in an order entered April 1, 2015, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/t0a5xpfrom Leagle.com.

Lead counsel must meet and confer as required by Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(f) prior to the Case Management Conference with respect to
those subjects set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c). Not less than
seven days before the conference, counsel must file a joint case
management statement addressing each of the items listed in the
"Standing Order For All Judges of the Northern District --
Contents of Joint Case Management statement, Judge Hamilton added.

Angel Grande, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Gregory Tidrick,
The Tidrick Law Firm & Joel Benjamin Young, The Tidrick Law Firm.

A&E Factory Service, LLC, Defendant, represented by Lindsey Connor
Hulse -- lhulse@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP &
Joseph Charles Liburt, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

Sears Holdings Corporation, Defendant, represented by Lindsey
Connor Hulse, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP & Joseph Charles
Liburt, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

Sears Holdings Management Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Lindsey Connor Hulse, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP & Joseph
Charles Liburt, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.


A&M UNIVERSITY: Faces New Kyle Field Seating Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
David Barron, writing for Chron, reports that the legal dispute
between donors to Texas A&M University's 12th Man Foundation over
ticketing and parking issues at the university's revamped Kyle
Field has been moved from a federal court in Marshall to a federal
court in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

The new lawsuit, filed under the name Jane Doe by an unidentified
A&M former student living in Fort Lauderdale who donated $30,000
to the foundation beginning in 1983 while she was a student at
A&M, was filed in Florida in an effort to meet federal guidelines
that would enable the case to be certified as a class action suit
involving almost 500 permanently endowed donors to the foundation.

A similar suit was filed in Marshall last by three A&M donors who
live in Texas.  However, attorneys for the plaintiffs have asked
that that suit be dismissed because, as noted by attorneys for the
foundation, it will not pass muster for class action certification
in a Texas federal court because more than two-thirds of the
plaintiffs are Texas residents and the foundation is a Texas
entity.

The Marshall suit had not been dismissed as of late on March 19,
but attorneys elected to proceed with filing the new case, using
the new, out-of-state plaintiff, in federal court for the Southern
District of Florida in an effort to preserve the possibility of a
class action.

The allegations in the Florida suit are essentially the same as in
the federal court suit filed in Marshall and as in similar cases
filed in several Texas counties: that the 12th Man Foundation is
attempting to renege on long-term agreements with donors by moving
them from their current seat locations at Kyle Field or forcing
them to pay tens of thousands of dollars to keep their seats in a
comparable section of the redeveloped stadium.

Jane Doe, according to the lawsuit, would have had to pay more
than $80,000 over her lifetime to retain her two seats in the same
location of the revamped Kyle Field.  Since she could not afford
the extra payments, according to the suit, she will have to settle
for seats in a less desirable location.


AARON JON: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Campaign Contribution
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Foster, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Aaron Jon Schock and John Does 1-100, seeks recover
campaign contributions made by the Plaintiff and the members of
the Class, contributions the Defendant solicited through false
representations and by concealing material facts.

Aaron Jon Schock is the former U.S. Congressman for Illinois'
Eighteenth Congressional District.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steve W. Berman, 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

         - and -

      Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
      Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1144 W. Lake Street, Suite 400
      Oak Park, IL 60301
      Telephone: (708) 628-4949
      Facsimile: (708) 628-4950
      E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com
              dank@hbsslaw.com


AEROTEK INC: Court Wants Supplemental Briefing on Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE RUBIO-DELGADO, Plaintiff, v. AEROTEK, INC., Defendant, CASE
NO. 13-CV-03105-SC, (N.D. Cal.), alleges violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). Plaintiff Jose Rubio-Delgado
purports to represent a class of persons aggrieved by Defendant
Aerotek, which is a recruiting and staffing agency. Mr. Rubio-
Delgado alleges that Aerotek obtained information about its
employees and prospective employees without proper notice and
authorization.

The parties have reached a settlement agreement and sought the
Court's preliminary approval. Plaintiffs have moved for
preliminary approval of the settlement agreement, and the motion
is unopposed.

According to District Judge Samuel Conti, "the Court is concerned
that the proposed Settlement Agreement may be obviously deficient,
fail to fall within the range of possible approval, or be the
result of collusive negotiations. At the same time, the Court is
cognizant of the well-established policy concerns in favor of
settlement. The Court finds that additional briefing may resolve
these concerns and permit preliminary approval of the Settlement
Agreement."

Accordingly, the Court directed the Plaintiffs to file a
supplemental brief of no more than 15 pages within 21 days. That
brief should address the Court's concerns with the fairness and
adequacy of the Settlement Agreement. Aerotek may file a
supplemental brief as well, of no more than 15 pages, within 14
days of the deadline for Plaintiffs' submission.

A copy of the Court's April 1, 2015 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/73ryJrfrom Leagle.com.

Jose Rubio-Delgado, Plaintiff, represented by Devin H. Fok, The
Law Offices of Devin H. Fok -- devin@devinfoklaw.com -- E.
Michelle Drake -- drake@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster PLLP, Anna P
Prakash -- aprakash@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster PLLP & Joseph C
Hashmall -- jhashmall@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, PLLP.

Aerotek, Inc., Defendant, represented by Rod M. Fliegel --
rfliegel@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, Alison S. Hightower --
ahightower@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson & Jennifer Mora --
jmora@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson.


AMERICAN INT'L: $970.5MM Class Action Settlement Gets Court OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond and Brendan Pierson, writing for Reuters, report that
American International Group Inc. shareholders won approval on
March 20 of a $970.5 million settlement resolving claims they were
misled about its subprime mortgage exposure, leading to a
liquidity crisis and $182.3 billion in federal bailouts.

U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain in Manhattan granted final
approval at a hearing to what lawyers for the investors call one
of the largest class action settlements to come out of the 2008
financial crisis.

It marks the largest shareholder class action settlement in a case
where no criminal or regulatory enforcement actions were ever
pursued, the plaintiffs' lawyers have said.

AIG said it was pleased with the judge's order.

The U.S. Justice Department and U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission closed related probes involving AIG in 2010.

Judge Swain noted on March 20 that no potential class member had
objected to the terms of the deal, which she said was strong
evidence that it was "fair, reasonable and adequate" and should be
approved.  She added that the amount was "very substantial" and
that shareholders would face significant risk if they continued to
litigate instead of settling.

The settlement covers investors who bought AIG securities between
March 16, 2006, and Sept. 16, 2008, when the company received its
first bailout.

Judge Swain overruled an objection by two people who bought AIG
shares before the beginning of that period and said they should be
included in the class.  For the lawyers' work, Judge Swain on
March 20 awarded plaintiffs law firms Barrack, Rodos & Bacine and
The Miller Law Firm $116.46 million in fees plus more than $4
million in expenses.

Investors led by the State of Michigan Retirement Systems, which
oversees several state pension plans, accused AIG of failing to
disclose the risks it took on through its portfolio of credit
default swaps and a securities lending program.  They said the
failures led investors to buy stock and debt they otherwise would
not have bought, resulting in billions of dollars in losses.

A government rescue in 2008 led taxpayers to take a nearly 80
percent stake in the New York-based insurer.  The government has
since sold off its stake in AIG, resulting in a positive return of
$22.7 million to the U.S. Treasury Department and Federal Reserve.

The case is In re: American International Group Inc 2008
Securities Litigation, U.S. District Court, Southern District of
New York, No. 08-04772.


AMERICAN REALTY: Court Denies Motion to Remand "Wunsch" Case
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge J. Frederick Motz entered on April 14, 2015, a
memorandum in the case captioned GARY WUNSCH, v. AMERICAN REALTY
CAPITAL PROPERTIES, ET AL., CIVIL NO. JFM-14-4007, (D. Md.), a
copy of which is available at http://is.gd/xiKzC4from Leagle.com.

"I agree with the decision in Knox v. Agria Corp., 613 F.Supp.2d
419 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) rather than the opinion of my friend and
colleague Judge Goodwin in Niitsoo v. Alpha Natural Res., Inc.,
902 F.Supp.2d 797 (S.D.W.Va. 2012)," wrote Jduge Motz in the memo.
"I do not believe that the Supreme Court's opinion in Kircher v.
Putnam Funds Trust, 547 U.S. 633 (2006) is material because this
case involves a class action based upon federal law. Thus, it is a
"covered class action" under 15 U.S.C. [Section]77p(b). Section
77p(c) is not relevant here because the asserted claims do not
arise under state law."

"For these reasons an order is being entered herewith denying
plaintiff's motion to remand and transferring this action to the
Southern District of New York, where it can be consolidated with
the seven suits that are presently pending there," he added.

Gary Wunsch, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick C Smith --
psmith@dehay.com -- Dehay and Elliston LLP.

American Realty Capital Properties Inc., Defendant, represented by
Laurie B Goon -- lbgoon@duanemorris.com -- Duane Morris LLP.


AMERICAN TRAFFIC: Podhurst Named Co-Lead Counsel in Camera Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Kay, Daily Business Review, reports that a Miami federal
judge has named Stephen Rosenthal -- srosenthal@podhurst.com -- of
Podhurst Orseck and Theodore Leopold of Cohen Milstein Sellers &
Toll to serve as co-lead counsel in a class action challenging
$200 million in red-light camera ticket fines.

Additionally, Ervin Gonzalez -- ervin@colson.com -- of Colson
Hicks Eidson was named liaison counsel to communicate with all
plaintiffs attorneys and maintain a documentary depository.

Ten cases were consolidated before U.S. District Judge Federico
Moreno for Florida drivers against three companies that operate
the camera systems, about 80 local government agencies using them
and the Florida Department of Revenue.

Public records show more than $200 million in camera fines have
been assessed during the four-year period covered by the lawsuits.
The lawsuit filed in October 2014 alleged the motorists' due
process rights were violated and the companies lacked authority to
make decisions that should have been made by law enforcement
officers.

Mr. Rosenthal of Miami, Leopold of Palm Beach Gardens and Gonzalez
of Coral Gables were all unopposed in their bids.

Other law firms working on the case include Farmer, Jaffe,
Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman in Fort Lauderdale and the
Ticket Clinic in Fort Lauderdale, Cohen & Malad of Indianapolis,
Estrella Ticket Defense Law Firm of Miami, Freidin, Dobrinsky,
Brown & Rosenblum of Miami and Wites & Kapetan of Lighthouse
Point.

"All of the firms who were involved in the litigation all sort of
agreed amongst ourselves to work together . . . and on who should
be lead counsel," Mr. Leopold said.

Among the co-lead counsel's duties is to confer with defense
counsel on a case management schedule and coordinate briefing,
motions argument, depositions and any settlement negotiations.

The class action lawsuit seeks a change in the manner in which the
red-light camera companies operate as well as a refund of "most of
the fines," Rosenthal said. The suit is not necessarily seeking to
end the use of red-light cameras by public agencies.

"The red-light cameras are a controversial thing," he said.  "Our
suit doesn't take a position on the controversy.  That may be a
policy decision by the Florida Legislature, which may seek to
institute a uniform law statewide rather than city by city."

Two Broward judges dismissed 24,000 red-light camera tickets,
finding they were not issued as required by state law.  The
rulings were made after the Ticket Clinic argued the program
constituted an improper delegation of police powers because the
videos were sent out-of-state for screening by employees of
Arizona-based American Traffic Solutions Inc.

This procedure violated state law because a city representative
was not creating or issuing the traffic tickets, the judges ruled.
The mass dismissal doesn't apply to the class action, Rosenthal
said.

"That's really of no consequence to our case," he said.  "Those
folks didn't get gouged by the fines."

Another Podhurst Orseck attorney was chosen the same week to chair
the lead plaintiffs counsel group overseeing a consolidated,
multidistrict litigation case involving Takata air bags, which is
also being overseen by Judge Moreno.

"We're going to be very busy," Mr. Rosenthal noted.


ANGIE'S LIST: Faces "Moore" Action Over Deceptive Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Pennsylvania Record reports that a Pennsylvania woman has
brought a class action lawsuit against a well-known online service
review business, charging it with using fraudulent and deceptive
practices for its monetary gain.

Janell Moore filed March 11 against Angie's List Inc.,
headquartered in Indianapolis and doing business in Pennsylvania,
in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
claiming breach of contract and fraud.

The defendant operates a review service of local service providers
via paid memberships in which consumers share reviews of
businesses such as medical professionals, contractors and
tradesmen.  According to the filing, Angie's List claims that
service providers cannot influence their profiles, and that it
places the consumer's interests first.  The suit alleges that
potential and existing members are actually manipulated into
believing they have honest feedback when in fact service providers
actually can and do pay to influence "the List."

Mr. Moore, a paying member of Angie's List since 2012, hired a
contractor to remodel her kitchen, having seen no reviews about
him on the list.  After he failed to complete the job, she
submitted a negative review to Angie's List; she then saw other
previously submitted negative reviews appear on the site,
according to the complaint.

When the plaintiff confronted the defendant, a representative
verified that the suppression of the negative views was directly
due to the contractor having paid extra fees, she claims.

Moreover, Mr. Moore claims, an electrician she knew stated that he
pays extra to be high in Angie's List search results.

Allegedly, the defendant influences providers to alter their
profiles in at least three ways: By paying to appear more
prominently in search results to create artificially higher
rankings; to suppress negative reviews; and/or to avoid
suppression of positive reviews.

The plaintiff claims that by wrongfully manipulating consumer
feedback and search result rankings, Angie's List deceives the
public.  Arguing that it secretly ranks providers according to
extra payment rather than public perception and feedback, Moore
maintains that the business falsifies its results.

Citing consumer protection law violation and unjust enrichment,
the lawsuit seeks corrective action in the form of declarative
judgment, injunctive action, restitution of membership fees,
punitive, actual and exemplary damages, attorneys fees, and court
costs.  The plaintiff is represented by Richard Golomb, Ruben
Honik, Kenneth Grunfeld, and David Stanoch of Golmb & Honik of
Philadelphia.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case
2:15-cv-01243


ATLANTIC SOUTHERN: Faces "Knight" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Knight, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Atlantic Southern Paving and Sealcoating, LLC
Michael Curry, and Daniel Curry, Case No. 0:15-cv-60801-KMM (S.D.
Fla., April 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a week.

Atlantic Southern Paving and Sealcoating, LLC is a Florida-based
pavement contractor specializing in parking lot construction and
maintenance.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marc Alan Silverman, Esq.
      FRANK WEINBERG & BLACK
      7805 SW 6th Court
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 474-8000
      Facsimile: 474-9850
      E-mail: msilverman@fwblaw.net


BANK OF NEW YORK: Settles Exchange Trades Misrepresentation Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Antoine Gara, writing for Forbes, reports that Bank of New York
Mellon admitted to a "statement of facts" on March 19 that alleged
the bank misrepresented the pricing and execution of foreign
exchange trades it made on behalf of clients over the course of
multiple years.  The admission came as part of a $714 million
settlement that resolves long-running litigation between the bank,
a handful of regulatory bodies, and a class action lawsuit filed
by its customers.  Bank of New York Mellon also will fire David
Nichols, head of product management at the bank, in addition to
other executives responsible for its misrepresentations.

BNY's misconduct, made over a span of years, centers on how it
represented pricing to its clients in foreign exchange markets.
While BNY said it was providing the "best rates" and "best
execution" on forex pegged to interbank rates, the firm was
actually giving its clients the worst reported price on those
rates.  The distinction, meant that clients who thought their
forex trades were done at the best available market price at the
time of execution were actually receiving prices at the far margin
of interbank ranges, where pricing is the worst.

BNY also agreed to pay a total of $714 million to settle lawsuits
brought by the U.S. government, the State of New York, the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the Department of Labor and
private investors.  The bank will pay a civil penalty of $335
million to the United States and New York State, collectively,
money that will go in to a fund that compensates customers who
were victims of BNY's misconduct, including state agencies such as
the New York State Deferred Compensation Plan and the State
University of New York system.

BNY will also pay $335 million to resolve private class action
lawsuits filed by the Bank's customers.  The government's lawsuit
was brought under the Financial Institutional Reform, Recovery and
Enforcement Act and New York State's lawsuit was brought pursuant
to the Martin Act, which permits the State to seek damages and
other relief for fraud.  BNY will also pay $14 million to its
Employee Retirement Income Security Act plan customers, in
addition to $70 million from other settlements, to resolve claims
with the Department of Labor.

"The Bank, after three years of litigation, has finally admitted
what was always clear from the evidence -- contrary to its various
representations, including a claim of 'best rates,' the bank in
fact gave clients prices at or near the worst interbank rates
reported during the trading day.  The bank repeatedly deceived its
customers and is paying a heavy penalty for it," said Preet
Bharara, Manhattan U.S. Attorney.

Nonetheless, Mr. Bharara and New York Attorney General Eric
Schneiderman, as in so many other instances, oversold their
settlement, and did not win a true admission on BNY's part -- just
an admission to a statement of facts.

"We did not admit to any violations -- we admitted to a set of
facts," Kevin Heine, a BNY spokesperson said in an email to
Forbes.

"The Bank of New York Mellon misled customers and traded at their
expense. T[he] settlement shows that institutions and individuals
responsible for defrauding investors will be held accountable and
will face serious consequences for their wrongdoing," added New
York Attorney General Schneiderman.


BARNES AUTOMOTIVE: Faces "Mitchum" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Mitchum, and Todd Gustavson v. Barnes Automotive and Truck
Service, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-03317 (N.D. Ill., April 14, 2015),
is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Barnes Automotive and Truck Service, Inc. owns and operates an
auto-repair shop in Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BAY SHORE: Faces "Diaz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Diaz, Juan A. Bonilla, and Celinda Iaboni, each individually
and on behalf of all others v. Bay Shore Moving & Storage, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-02160 (E.D.N.Y., April 15, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Bay Shore Moving & Storage, Inc. is a New York based moving and
storage Service Company with a principal place of business at
1 Corporate Drive, Hauppauge, New York 11788.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James B. Bouklas, Esq.
      BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP
      400 Jericho Turnpike, Suite 226
      Jericho, NY 11753
      Telephone: (516) 742-4949
      Facsimile: (516) 742-1977
      E-mail: james@bglawny.com


BLUE BELL: Recalls Frozen Snack Products Due to Listeria
--------------------------------------------------------
Blue Bell Ice Cream of Brenham, Texas, is voluntarily recalling
all of its products currently on the market made at all of its
facilities including ice cream, frozen yogurt, sherbet and frozen
snacks because they have the potential to be contaminated with
Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in 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 headaches, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and
diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

"We're committed to doing the 100 percent right thing, and the
best way to do that is to take all of our products off the market
until we can be confident that they are all safe," said Paul
Kruse, Blue Bell CEO and president. "We are heartbroken about this
situation and apologize to all of our loyal Blue Bell fans and
customers. Our entire history has been about making the very best
and highest quality ice cream and we intend to fix this problem.
We want enjoying our ice cream to be a source of joy and pleasure,
never a cause for concern, so we are committed to getting this
right."

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, Wyoming and
international locations.

The decision was the result of findings from an enhanced sampling
program initiated by Blue Bell which revealed that Chocolate Chip
Cookie Dough Ice Cream half gallons produced on March 17, 2015,
and March 27, 2015, contained the bacteria. This means Blue Bell
has now had several positive tests for Listeria in different
places and plants and as previously reported five patients were
treated in Kansas and three in Texas after testing positive for
Listeria monocytogenes.

"At every step, we have made decisions in the best interest of our
customers based on the evidence we had available at the time,"
Kruse said. "At this point, we cannot say with certainty how
Listeria was introduced to our facilities and so we have taken
this unprecedented step. We continue to work with our team of
experts to eliminate this problem."

Blue Bell is implementing a procedure called "test and hold" for
all products made at all of its manufacturing facilities. This
means that all products will be tested first and held for release
to the market only after the tests show they are safe. The Broken
Arrow facility will remain closed as Blue Bell continues to
investigate.

In addition to the "test and hold" system, Blue Bell is
implementing additional safety procedures and testing including:

Expanding our already robust system of daily cleaning and
sanitizing of equipment

Expanding our system of swabbing and testing our plant environment
by 800 percent to include more surfaces

Sending samples daily to a leading microbiology laboratory for
testing

Providing additional employee training

Blue Bell expects to resume distribution soon on a limited basis
once it is confident in the safety of its product.
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 1-866-608-3940 Monday - Friday 8
a.m. - 8 p.m., Saturday 10 a.m. - 2 p.m. CST or go to
bluebell.com.


CANADA CARTHAGE: Judge Addresses Systemic OT Practices Issues
-------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Fric, Esq., and Lauren Tomasich, Esq., of Osler, Hoskin &
Harcourt LLP, in an article for Canadian Employment Law Today,
report that Ontario has seen a significant development in the case
law surrounding overtime class actions in the past several years.

"When is an overtime misclassification case not a
misclassification case?" asked Justice Edward P. Belobaba in
Baroch v. Canada Cartage, a recent overtime class action decision.
His answer: "When it is framed as a complaint about the systemic
policies or practices of the defendant employer."

In Justice Belobaba's view, this case law has resulted in a clear
delineation of what is certifiable and what is not.

Certification of common issues based on 'systemic' overtime
practices

The defendant, Canada Cartage, was a national provider of trucking
and other distribution services, subject to the Canada Labour
Code, and other federal employment regulations.  The plaintiff
employee alleged that, as a matter of policy and practice, Canada
Cartage lacked a proper overtime policy and did not pay overtime
in accordance with the applicable legislation.

In Justice Belobaba's view, the Baroch action had been "carefully
framed" to avoid the pitfalls of proposed overtime class actions
that had previously been declared to be individual in nature.  In
McCracken and Brown, two previous overtime class action decisions
of the Ontario Court of Appeal, the central allegation was that
employees had been "misclassified."  This meant that it would be
necessary to consider each individual's job title, and whether the
employer had misclassified them to avoid paying overtime. By
contrast, in Fresco and Fulakwa, the employee plaintiff focused on
the "systemic" policies or practices of the employer that were
alleged to result in unpaid overtime.

In Baroch, the plaintiff employee's counsel did attempt to apply
these principles to construct a certifiable class action.
Following Fresco and Fulakwa, some of the certified common issues
in Baroch were about the employment law contract; the employer's
systemic policy, or lack thereof, in respect of payment of
overtime; and about whether there is a duty to have reasonable and
effective systems, procedures and/or policies to monitor and
record hours worked.

Justice Belobaba also certified a common issue about whether the
defendant owed class members a duty of good faith, candor and
honesty in respect of its overtime obligations and, if so, whether
this duty was breached.  This was apparently based on the recent
Supreme Court of Canada Decision in Bhasin, which articulated a
duty of honesty in contractual performance in the context of an
employment agreement.

No certification of the issues of contractual breach or general
remedies

The certification judge did not certify the question of breach of
employment agreements.  Justice Belobaba found that the fact of
disregarding overtime obligations would not amount to a breach of
the employment agreements.  The possibility or risk that a class
member may not be paid overtime because of an employer's impugned
practice is not a breach of the employment agreement.  Rather, a
breach is failing to pay overtime that is actually owed, and this
determination can only be made on an individual basis.  Justice
Belobaba also refused to certify a general question that asked
what remedies would be available to the class in the event
liability was proven on a common issue.

A possible map to certification -- but where does it lead?

While every case turns on its unique facts and the evidence
supporting common issues, Ontario's overtime class action
jurisprudence -- for now -- provides plaintiffs with a map to
certification. The plaintiff employee's counsel, in this case,
used this map to frame the case for certification and was
successful. However, it is unclear how far certification within
the confines of this framework can get a class. As noted by
Belobaba, the mere fact of a systemically unfair overtime policy
does not equate to damages, it remains to be seen whether an
overtime class action certified on the basis of "systemic"
practices can effectively be determined in a common issues trial
or whether damages can or should be awarded to the entire class.
Justice Belobaba left those questions open for the trial judge to
decide.


CAPSTONE COATINGS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Greenbaum, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Capstone Coatings & Windows, Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-02744-JFW-PJW (C.D. Cal., April 14, 2015), seeks to stop
the Defendant's practice of placing calls using an automatic
telephone dialing system on the class members' cellular telephone.

Capstone Coatings & Windows, Inc. is a provider of energy
efficient home improvements with its state of incorporation and
its corporate headquarters in the State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHANPRUNG LLC: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mario Hernandez, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown v. Chanprung LLC, d/b/a Fuji
Thai, and Sornarong Chanprung, Case No. 1:15-cv-03357 (N.D. Ill.,
April 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
week.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 1000
Weiland Rd., Buffalo Grove, 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


CHEMICAL AND MINING: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lynn Molinaro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Chemical and Mining Company of Chile Inc., Patricio
Contesse Gonzalez, Patricio De Solminihac and Ricardo Ramos, Case
No. 1:15-cv-02884 (S.D.N.Y., April 14, 2015), alleges that the
Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed
to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.

Chemical and Mining Company of Chile Inc. is a producer of
potassium nitrate, iodine and lithium chemicals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 367-7100
      Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
      E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      David C. Walton, Esq.
      Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 921 01
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
      E-mail: davew@rgrdlaw.com
              bcochran@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
      JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
      600 West Broadway, Suite 1540
      San Diego, CA 921 01
      Telephone: (619) 230-0063
      Facsimile: (619) 255-1856
      E-mail: frankj@johnsonandweaver.com

         - and -

       W. Scott Holleman, Esq.
       JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
       99 Madison A venue, 5th Floor
       New York, NY 10016
       Telephone: (212) 802-1486
       Facsimile: (212) 602-1592
       E-mail: scotth@johnsonandweaver.com


COMCAST CORPORATION: Mag. Judge Okays Fees in "Rouse" Action
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned KARIS ROUSE, Plaintiff, v. COMCAST
CORPORATION, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-1115, (E.D. Penn.),
Magistrate Judge Lynne A. Sitarski entered an order on April 15,
2015, holding that:

1. Plaintiff's Motion for Certification of the Settlement Class,
Final Approval of the Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release,
and Payment of an Enhancement Award to the Class Representative is
granted. The Court grants certification of the Rule 23 class and
FLSA collective action for settlement purposes only and finds that
the Joint Stipulation of Class Settlement and Release is fair,
reasonable, and adequate and resolves a bona fide dispute between
the parties.

2. The Court awards $158,865 in reasonable attorney's fees and
$4445.55 in costs.

3. The Claims Administrator RG/2 Claims Administration LLC will be
awarded an amount not to exceed $6500 for fair and reasonable
expenses incurred in the administration of the settlement, as
provided in the Joint Stipulation of Class Settlement and Release.

4. The Court approves the requested enhancement payment of $2500
to Named Plaintiff Karis Rouse, to be awarded per the terms of the
Joint Stipulation of Class Settlement and Release.

5. The Court dismisses with prejudice all claims and actions in
this matter and the claims of all Settlement Class members based
on or arising out of any acts, facts, transactions, occurrences,
representations, or omissions which are alleged, or which could
have been alleged, in the Class and Collective Action Complaint
(or Amended Class and Collective Action Complaint) in this matter,
on the merits and without costs to any of the parties as against
any other settling party, except as provided in the Joint
Stipulation of Class Settlement and Release.

A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/OChI1Vfrom
Leagle.com.

KARIS ROUSE, Plaintiff, represented by MICHAEL PATRICK MURPHY --
murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com -- JR., MURPHY LAW GROUP LLC.

COMCAST CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by JASON E. REISMAN --
JReisman@BlankRome.com -- Blank Rome LLP, JOSEPH J. CENTENO --
Joseph.Centeno@obermayer.com -- OBERMAYER REDMANN MAXWELL & HIPPEL
LLP & THERESE GILLESPIE -- therese.gillespie@obermayer.com --
OBERMAYER REBMANN MAXWELL & HIPPEL LLP.


CONSOLIDATED CREDIT: "Budyrk" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Budyrk, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Consolidated Credit Counseling Services, Inc. and Howard
Dvorkin, Case No. 0:15-cv-60793-CMA (S.D. Fla., April 14, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a financial services company with
its principal place of business in Broward County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CONWAY IMPORT: Recalls Organic Dressings Due to Salmonella
----------------------------------------------------------
Conway Import Co., Inc. is recalling Conway Organic Sesame Ginger
Dressing and Conway Citrus Organic Vinaigrette Dressing because it
has the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism
which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young
children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune
systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience
fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and
abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella
can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and
producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e.,
infected aneurysms), Endocarditis and arthritis.

Product was distributed in Illinois, Maryland, Georgia, Florida,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York and Texas through direct
deliveries.

The products were packed in plastic gallon jars with the mfg. code
printed on the top of the cap and the cardboard shipping
container.

  --- Conway Organic Sesame Ginger Dressing Recipe Code N-22

  --- MFG.CODE DATE: 28814....363014....030015....051015

  --- Conway Citrus Organic Vinaigrette Dressing Recipe Code L-18

  --- MFG.CODE DATE: 276014....337014

There have been no illnesses reported to date.

This recall was a result of a recall by FRONTIER CO-OP for a
possible health risk from ORGANIC GARLIC POWDER.

Consumers and Media with any questions may contact CONWAY IMPORT
CO., INC. at 847-455-5600.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm443464.htm


DES MOINES, IA: Faces Class Action Over Automated Traffic Cameras
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that two Polk County women are suing
the city of Des Moines over its use of automated traffic cameras.

The Des Moines Register reports that Sarah Brooks and Michelle
Bullock are seeking class action status for their lawsuit, filed
against the city and Gatso USA, which runs the traffic cameras.
The lawsuit says the city's use of the cameras violates their
fundamental right to travel granted in the U.S. and Iowa
constitutions.

The lawsuit also questions the effectiveness of the cameras and
whether they're calibrated properly.  The women seek to have the
cameras shut down and fines refunded to those ticketed by the
automated cameras.

Des Moines is among nine Iowa cities that use automated cameras
that ticket motorists who run red lights or exceed the speed
limit.

A class action suit against the city of Cedar Rapids was filed
last fall after the DOT found the cameras on Interstate 380 not in
compliance on a 1,000 foot distance between a speed limit decrease
and the position of the cameras.

On March 17, the DOT ruled that Cedar Rapids must move the cameras
that bring in 90% of the revenue.


DOLLAR THRIFTY: Judge Dismisses Inflated Toll Fee Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aebra Coe, Lisa Ryan and Jeff Sistrunk, writing for Law360, report
that an Oklahoma federal judge on March 20 freed Dollar Thrifty
Automotive Group Inc. from a consumer class action, finding that
its use of administrative fees to cover electronic toll charges is
clearly printed in its rental agreements and doesn't break any
applicable consumer protection laws.

U.S. District Judge Gregory K. Frizzell dismissed all of named
plaintiffs Stephen and Anne Sallee's claims, which included breach
of contract, unjust enrichment and breach of implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing.  The duo claimed that Dollar
Thrifty's practice of calling the charges "administrative fees" is
deceptive because they far exceed the company's actual cost for
administering tolls and are a "penalty disguised as a legitimate
charge."

Judge Frizzell decided otherwise.

"The toll fee provision is inapplicable if customers either
purchase the toll bypass option or simply avoid cashless toll
roads. Plaintiffs in this case rejected the toll bypass option and
agreed to the terms of the toll fee provision, which was clearly
disclosed and explained in the rental agreement," Judge Frizzell
said.

Because its breach of contract claims fail, so do the suit's
unjust enrichment claims, the court concluded.

Judge Frizzell also threw out the plaintiffs' breach of implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims, saying that no
special relationship, either express or implied, existed between
the parties that gives rise to an implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing.

"In this case, plaintiffs do not allege they have a long-standing
relationship with Dollar, nor do plaintiffs allege the parties
have a relationship involving significant trust or confidence.
Dollar merely provides rental services through arms-length
transactions with customers," the decision said.

The Sallees alleged in their May 2014 complaint that Dollar
Thrifty and two of its subsidiaries breached their contracts with
customers by tacking on an administrative fee of $15 or $25 per
electronic toll charge when the actual fee associated with
processing such charges is a fraction of that amount.  According
to the plaintiffs, the rental car giant's purported
misrepresentations have harmed thousands of customers.

The Sallees, residents of Florida, rented a car from Dollar
Thrifty during a trip to Texas in November and incurred four toll
charges totaling $4.70, the complaint said.  Upon returning the
car, a Dollar Thrifty agent informed them that there were no
additional charges, but the Sallees later received a bill for the
$4.70, plus $60 in administrative fees, according to the
complaint.

The plaintiffs argued that the company improperly leads customers
to believe that the fees go toward processing the tolls, but only
a small portion of those fees are used for administering Dollar
Thrifty's electronic toll program, and the rest is a hidden
additional charge on top of customers' rental fees, according to
the suit.

Dollar Thrifty shot back in July that the Sallees conceded in
their complaint that the fees were disclosed in the rental
contract, so the company therefore did not breach the contract by
charging the fees.  The company also said that the plaintiffs are
improperly asserting Oklahoma and Florida law claims, even though
Texas law is the only one applicable to the suit.

According to Dollar Thrifty, the customers were given the chance
to enroll in the Pass24 program offered through Dollar Thrifty by
electronic toll collection company Rent a Toll Ltd., under which
Dollar Thrifty pays for any toll charges customers incurred
between $8 and $21 per day.  The contract says that any customer
who opts out of the program will face the administrative fees,
Dollar Thrifty said.

The plaintiffs are represented by Tony M. Graham and R. Jack
Freeman of Graham & Freeman PLLC, Jeffrey W. Lawrence of The
Lawrence Law Firm, Bruce D. Greenberg and Jeffrey A. Shooman of
Lite DePalma Greenberg LLC and Daniel R. Karon and Laura K.
Mummert of Goldman Scarlato Karon & Penny PC.

Dollar Thrifty is represented by Sarah Jane Gillett --
sgillett@hallestill.com -- of Hall Estill Hardwick Gable Golden &
Nelson PC and John F. Ward Jr. -- jward@jenner.com -- of Jenner &
Block LLP.

The case is Stephen Sallee et al. v. Dollar Thrifty Automotive
Group Inc. et al., case number 4:14-cv-00250, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.


ED IDEAS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Riccardi" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Riccardi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Ed Ideas, Inc., Case No. 9:15-cv-80488-BB (S.D. Fla.,
April 14, 2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendant's practice
of making unsolicited calls using an auto-dialer and artificial or
pre-recorded or artificial voice message.

Ed Ideas, Inc. is a Florida corporation and its principle place of
business at 1000 E. Hillsboro Blvd., Ste. 105, Deerfield Beach,
Florida 33441, which specializes in lead generation, enrollment
management, performance improvement, consulting, training,
marketing, and advertising.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin H. Crumley, Esq.
      CRUMLEY & WOLFE, PA
      2254 Riverside Avenue
      Jacksonville, FL 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


ENSECO ENERGY: Sued Over Failure to Provide Termination Notice
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dale Murphy, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Enseco Energy Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00788
(D. Colo., April 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to provide 60 days' advance written notice in connection
with recent a Mass Layoff and Plant Closing.

Enseco Energy Services, Inc. is a provider of directional drilling
and production testing services with its principal place of
business located at 1801 Broadway, Suite 820, Denver, Colorado
80202.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Allen Ryan Vaught, Esq.
      BARON & BUDD, P.C.
      3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
      Dallas, TX 75219-4283
      Telephone: (214) 521-3605
      Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
      E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com


ENTERGY OPERATIONS: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Vire" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Vire, Joseph Thurber, Rooney Freeman, Franklin Standridge,
JR., Mike Jackson, Carl Estep, Marvin Foster, Kevin Wright, Tina
Allen, Justin Brown, Michael Felkins, Raymond Harkreaper, Vickie
Karnes, Michael Stahl, Darrell Mcdaniel, Mark A. Melton and Josh
Deyoung, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. Entergy Operations, Inc., Entergy Services, Inc., and Entergy
Arkansas, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-00214-SWW (E.D. Ark., April 14,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants operate the Arkansas Nuclear One power plant with
its principal place of business in New Orleans, Louisiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Holleman, Esq.
      Maryna O. Jackson, Esq.
      Timothy A. Steadman, Esq.
      HOLLEMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
      1008 West 2nd Street
      Little Rock, AR 72201
      Telephone: (501) 975-5040
      E-mail: jholleman@johnholleman.net
              maryna@johnholleman.net
              tim@johnholleman.net


GENERAL MOTORS: GM Organized Under Delaware Law, Says Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
In TERESA CLARK CAIN, ET AL, v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, CIVIL ACTION
NO. 14-CV-1057, (W.D. La.), Plaintiffs allege that they are
citizens of Louisiana and Texas. They name as defendant General
Motors, LLC (GM) and assert the court has subject-matter
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(d).

The citizenship of unincorporated associations such as a limited
liability company is ordinarily determined for purposes of
diversity jurisdiction by looking to the citizenship of its
members. The CAFA, however, provides that for purposes of Section
1332(d) "an unincorporated association shall be deemed to be a
citizen of the State where it has its principal place of business
and the State under whose laws it is organized."

Plaintiffs describe GM in paragraph four of their complaint. They
do not allege its state of organization, but GM's corporate
disclosure statement states that it is a Delaware LLC. Neither the
disclosure statement nor the complaint squarely allege the state
in which GM has its principal place of business, but the complaint
does allege that GM "is headquartered in Michigan." If that is
correct, then Michigan is likely the principal place of business
for GM under the "nerve center" test set forth in Hertz Corp. v.
Friend, 130 S.Ct. 1181 (2010).

Magistrate Judge Mark L. Hornsby, in a memorandum order entered
March 31, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/UStxO4from Leagle.com, held that "The court will
proceed with the assumption that GM is organized under Delaware
law and has its principal place of business in Michigan unless GM
provides contrary information in its answer or the portion of the
Case Management Report (which will soon be ordered) regarding the
subject-matter jurisdiction. Any party who wishes to ensure that
there is no doubt about the citizenship of the parties may amend
their complaint or plead in their answer with specificity General
Motors, LLC's (1) state of organization and (2) state where it has
its principal place of business within the meaning of federal law.

Teresa Clark Cain, Plaintiff, represented by Eric D Holland --
eholland@allfela.com -- Holland Groves, Randall Seth Crompton --
scrompton@allfela.com -- Holland Groves, Richard C Dalton, Law
Office of Richard C Dalton & Kevin R Duck, Duck Law Firm.

David Rosenthal, Plaintiff, represented by Eric D Holland, Holland
Groves, Randall Seth Crompton, Holland Groves, Richard C Dalton,
Law Office of Richard C Dalton & Kevin R Duck, Duck Law Firm.

Kellie M Guy, Plaintiff, represented by Eric D Holland, Holland
Groves, Randall Seth Crompton, Holland Groves, Richard C Dalton,
Law Office of Richard C Dalton & Kevin R Duck, Duck Law Firm.

General Motors L L C, Defendant, represented by Thomas A Casey,
Jr.  -- tcaseyjr@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker, David G Radlauer
-- dradlauer@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker & Tarak Anada --
tanada@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker.


GENERAL MOTORS: NY Judge Decision on Ignition Switch Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bankruptcy Judge Robert E. Gerber on Tuesday issued a decision on
the request of General Motors LLC -- the acquirer of most of Old
GM's assets in a section 363 sale back in July 2009 -- for an
order enforcing provisions of the July 5, 2009 order by which the
bankruptcy court approved New GM's purchase of Old GM's assets.

In March 2014, New GM announced to the public, for the first time,
serious defects in ignition switches that had been installed in
Chevy Cobalts and HHRs, Pontiac G5s and Solstices, and Saturn Ions
and Skys, going back to the 2005 model year. In the Spring of 2014
(though many have queried why Old GM and/or New GM failed to do so
much sooner), New GM then issued a recall of the affected
vehicles, under which New GM would replace the defective switches,
and bear the costs for doing so.

New GM previously had agreed to assume responsibility for any
accident claims involving post-sale deaths, personal injury, and
property damage -- which would include any that might have
resulted from the Ignition Switch Defect. But New GM's
announcement was almost immediately followed by the filing of
about 60 class actions in courts around the United States, seeking
compensatory damages, punitive damages, RICO damages and attorneys
fees for other kinds of losses to consumers -- "Economic Loss" --
alleged to have resulted from the Ignition Switch Defect. The
claims for Economic Loss include claims for alleged reduction in
the resale value of affected cars, other economic loss (such as
unpaid time off from work when getting an ignition switch
replaced), and inconvenience.  The Court has been informed that
the number of class actions now pending against New GM -- the
great bulk of which were brought by or on behalf of individuals
claiming Economic Loss -- now exceeds 140. Though the amount
sought by Economic Loss Plaintiffs is for the most part
unliquidated, it has been described as from $7 billion to $10
billion. Most of those actions are now being jointly administered,
for pretrial purposes, in a multi-district proceeding before the
Hon. Jesse Furman, U.S.D.J., in the Southern District of New York.

New GM seeks to enforce the Sale Order's provisions, blocking
economic loss lawsuits against New GM on claims involving vehicles
and parts manufactured by Old GM.  New GM argues that while it had
voluntarily undertaken, under the Sale Order, to take on an array
of Old GM liabilities (for the post-sale accidents involving both
Old GM and New GM vehicles just described; under the express
warranty on the sale of any Old GM or New GM vehicle (the "Glove
Box Warranty"); to satisfy statutory recall obligations with
respect to Old GM and New GM vehicles alike; and under Lemon Laws,
again with respect to Old GM and New GM vehicles alike), the Sale
Order blocked any others -- including those in these suits for
Economic Loss.

The Sale Order plainly so provides. But as to 70 million Old GM
cars whose owners had not been in accidents of which they'd
advised Old GM, the Sale Order was entered with notice only by
publication.  And those owning cars with Ignition Switch Defects
(again, those who had not been in accidents known to Old GM) -- an
estimated 27 million in number -- were given neither individual
mailed notice of the 363 Sale, nor mailed notice of the
opportunity to file claims for any losses they allegedly suffered.
And more importantly, from the perspective of these car owners,
they were not given recall notices which (in addition to
facilitating switch replacement before accidents took place), they
contend were essential to enabling them to respond to the
published notices to object to the 363 Sale or to file claims.

Then, after New GM filed the Motion to Enforce, two other
categories of Plaintiffs came into the picture. One was another
group of Ignition Switch Defect plaintiffs (the "Pre-Closing
Accident Plaintiffs") who (unlike the Economic Loss Plaintiffs)
are suing with respect to actual accidents. But because those
accidents involved Old GM and took place before the 363 Sale
Closing -- and taking on pre-closing accident liability was not
commercially necessary to New GM's future success -- they were not
among the accidents involving Old GM vehicles for which New GM
agreed to assume responsibility. The Pre-Closing Accident
Plaintiffs have (or at least had) the right to assert claims
against Old GM (the only entity that was in existence at the time
their accidents took place), but they nevertheless wish to proceed
against New GM.

New GM brought a second motion to enforce the Sale Order with
respect to the Pre-Closing Accident Plaintiffs, and issues with
respect to this Plaintiff group were heard in tandem with the
Motion to Enforce.

The other category of Plaintiffs later coming into the picture
("Non-Ignition Switch Plaintiffs") brought actions asserting
Economic Loss claims as to GM branded cars that did not have
Ignition Switch Defects, including cars made by New GM and Old GM
alike. In fact, most of their cars did not have defects, and/or
were not the subject of recalls, at all. But they contend, in
substance, that the Ignition Switch Defect caused damage to "the
brand," resulting in Economic Loss to them.

New GM brought still another motion to enforce the Sale Order with
respect to them, though this third motion has been deferred
pending the determination of the issues.

In the Bankruptcy Court, the first two groups of Plaintiffs, whose
issues the Court could consider on a common set of stipulated
facts and is in major respects considering together, contend that
by reason of Old GM's failure to send out recall notices, they
never learned of the Ignition Switch Defect, and that the Sale
Order is unenforceable against them.

Judge Gerber said New GM is right when it says that most of the
claims now asserted against it are proscribed under the Sale
Order.  "But that is only the start, and not the end, of the
relevant inquiry. And assuming, as the Plaintiffs argue, that Old
GM's and then New GM's delay in announcing the Ignition Switch
Defect to the driving public was unforgiveable, that too is only
the start, and not the end of the relevant inquiry," the judge
said.

According to Judge Geber, the real issues before the Court involve
questions of procedural due process, and what to do about it if
due process is denied: (1) what notice was sufficient; (2) to what
extent an assertedly aggrieved individual's lack of prejudice from
insufficient notice matters; (3) what remedies are appropriate for
any due process denial; and (4) to what extent sale orders can be
modified after the fact at the expense of those who purchased
assets from an estate on the expectation that the sale orders
would be enforced in accordance with their terms. They also
involve the needs and concerns of Old GM creditors whose claims
are pending, and of holders of units of the Old GM General
Unsecured Creditors Trust ("GUC Trust"), formed for the benefit of
unsecured creditors when Old GM confirmed its liquidating plan of
reorganization (the "Plan") -- all of whom would be prejudiced if
Old GM's remaining assets were tapped to satisfy an additional $7
billion to $10 billion in claims.

For the reasons discussed at length, the Bankruptcy Court
concluded, among other things, that:

     1. GM's publication notice, which otherwise would have been
perfectly satisfactory (especially given the time exigencies), was
not by itself enough for those whose cars had Ignition Switch
Defects -- because from Old GM's perspective, the facts that gave
rise to its recall obligation resulted in "known" claims, as that
expression is used in due process jurisprudence. Because owners of
cars with Ignition Switch Defects received neither the notice
required under the Safety Act nor any reasonable substitute
(either of which, if given before Old GM's chapter 11 filing,
could have been followed by the otherwise satisfactory post-filing
notice by publication), they were denied the notice that due
process requires.

     2. Old GM's knowledge of facts sufficient to justify notice
of a recall, and its failure to provide the recall notice,
effectively resulted in a denial of the notice due process
requires.

     3. Both groups of Plaintiffs were plainly prejudiced with
respect to the bar date for filing claims. But the Pre-Closing
Accident Plaintiffs were not prejudiced at all, and the Economic
Loss Plaintiffs were prejudiced only in part, by the failure to
give them the requisite notice in connection with the 363 Sale.
Neither the Economic Loss Plaintiffs nor the Pre-Closing Sale
Plaintiffs were prejudiced with respect to the Sale Order's Free
and Clear Provisions. Insofar as successor liability is concerned,
while the Plaintiffs established a failure to provide them with
the notice due process requires, they did not establish a due
process violation. The Free and Clear Provisions stand.

     4. The Economic Loss Plaintiffs were prejudiced in one
respect. Nobody else had argued a point that they argue now: that
the proposed Sale Order was overly broad, and that it should have
allowed them to assert claims involving Old GM vehicles and parts
so long as they were basing their claims solely on New GM conduct,
and not based on any kind of successor liability or any other act
by Old GM. If the Economic Loss Plaintiffs had made that argument
back in 2009, the Court would have agreed with them. And by
contrast to their predictions as to possible results of public
outrage, this is not at all speculative, since the Court had ruled
on closely similar issues before, seven years earlier, and,
indeed, again in that very same Sale Opinion. Here, by contrast,
the failure to provide the notice that due process requires was
coupled with resulting prejudice. The Economic Loss Plaintiffs
were not furnished the opportunity to make the overbreadth
argument back in 2009, and in that respect they were prejudiced.
The failure to be heard on this latter argument necessarily must
be viewed as having affected the earlier result.

Thus, with respect to Sale Order overbreadth, the Economic Loss
Plaintiffs suffered a denial of due process, requiring the Court
to then turn to the appropriate remedy.

     5. The Court has rejected the Plaintiffs' contention that
prejudice is irrelevant to a claim for denial of due process. And
it has likewise rejected the notion that the denial of the notice
that due process requires means that the Plaintiffs should
automatically win. But to the extent they were prejudiced (and the
Court has determined that the Economic Loss Plaintiffs were
prejudiced with respect to Sale Order overbreadth), they deserve a
remedy tailored to the prejudice they suffered, to the extent the
law permits.

     6. It is plain that to the extent the Plaintiffs seek to
impose successor liability, or to rely, in suits against New GM,
on any wrongful conduct by Old GM, these are actually claims
against Old GM, and not New GM. It also is plain that any court
analyzing claims that are supposedly against New GM only must be
extraordinarily careful to ensure that they are not in substance
successor liability claims, "dressed up to look like something
else."  Claims premised in any way on Old GM conduct are properly
proscribed under the Sale Agreement and the Sale Order, and by
reason of the Court's other rulings, the prohibitions against the
assertion of such claims stand.

     7. The GUC Trust is right in its mootness contentions, and
that the rights of GUC Trust beneficiaries cannot be impaired at
this late time* * * * Though late claims filed by the Plaintiffs
might still be allowed, assets transferred to the GUC Trust under
the Plan could not now be tapped to pay them. Under the mootness
standards laid down by the Second Circuit in its leading decisions
in the area -- see Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of LTV
Aerospace & Defense Co. v. Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors
of LTV Steel Co. (In re Chateaugay Corp.), 988 F.2d 322 (2d Cir.
1993) ("Chateaugay I"); Frito-Lay, Inc. v. LTV Steel Co. (In re
Chateaugay Corp.), 10 F.3d 944 (2d Cir. 1993) ("Chateaugay II);
Beeman v. BGI Creditors' Liquidating Trust (In re BGI, Inc.), 772
F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2014) ("BGI") -- GUC Trust Unitholders must be
protected from a modification of the Plan.

"The Court will not allow either the Economic Loss Plaintiffs
(including the Used Car Purchasers subset of Economic Loss
Plaintiffs) or the Pre-Closing Sale Plaintiffs to be exempted from
the Sale Order's Free and Clear Provisions barring the assertion
of claims for successor liability," Judge Gerber said.

The Economic Loss Plaintiffs (but not the Pre-Closing Sale
Claimants) may, however, assert otherwise viable claims against
New GM for any causes of action that might exist arising solely
out of New GM's own, independent, post-Closing acts, so long as
those Plaintiffs' claims do not in any way rely on any acts or
conduct by Old GM, Judge Gerber said.  The Plaintiffs may file
late claims, and to the extent otherwise appropriate such late
claims may hereafter be allowed -- but the assets of the GUC Trust
may not be tapped to satisfy them, nor will Old GM's Plan be
modified in this or any other respect.

Judge Gerber said the parties are to caucus among themselves to
see if there is agreement that no further issues need be
determined at the Bankruptcy Court level.  "If they agree (as the
Court is inclined to believe) that there are none, they are to
attempt to agree on the form of a judgment (without prejudice, of
course, to their respective rights to appeal) consistent with the
Court's rulings here," the judge said.  "If they cannot agree
(after good faith efforts to try to agree), any party may settle a
judgment (or, if deemed preferable, an order), with a time for
response agreed upon in advance by the parties."

A copy of Judge Gerber's April 14 Decision on Motion to Enforce
Sale Order is available at http://is.gd/dsudLsfrom Leagle.com.

Arthur J. Steinberg, Esq. (argued), Scott I. Davidson, Esq., KING
& SPALDING LLP, New York, New York, Counsel for General Motors LLC
(New GM).

Richard C. Godfrey, Esq., Andrew B. Bloomer, Esq., KIRKLAND &
ELLIS LLP, Chicago, Illinois, Counsel for General Motors LLC (New
GM).

Edward S. Weisfelner, Esq. (argued), David J. Molton, Esq., May
Orenstein, Esq., Howard S. Steel, Esq., Rebecca L. Fordon, Esq.,
BROWN RUDNICK, New York, New York, Designated Counsel and Counsel
for Economic Loss Plaintiffs.

Sander L. Esserman, Esq. (argued), STUTZMAN, BROMBERG, ESSERMAN &
PLIFKA, P.C., Dallas, Texas, Designated Counsel and Counsel for
Economic Loss Plaintiffs.

William P. Weintraub, Esq. (argued), Eamonn O'Hagan, Esq., Gregory
W. Fox, Esq., GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP, New York, New York, Designated
Counsel and Counsel for Pre-Sale Accident Victim Plaintiffs.

Jonathan L. Flaxer, Esq. (argued), S. Preston Ricardo, Esq.,
GOLENBOCK, EISEMAN, ASSOR, BELL & PESKOE, LLP, New York, New York,
Counsel for Groman Plaintiffs.

Lisa H. Rubin, Esq. (argued), Keith R. Martorana, Esq., Matthew
Williams, Esq., Adam H. Offenhartz, Esq., Aric H. Wu, Esq.,
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP, New York, New York, Counsel for
Wilmington Trust Company as GUC Trust Administrator.

Daniel Golden, Esq., Deborah J. Newman, Esq. (argued), Jamison A.
Diehl, Esq., Naomi Moss, Esq., AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD,
LLP, New York, New York, Counsel for Participating GUC Trust Unit
Trust Holders.


HERBALIFE LTD: AGs Meet with Private Lawyer to Verify Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Long, writing for Natural Products Insider, reports that
attorneys general who are investigating Herbalife Ltd. met with
private counsel in a class-action lawsuit to verify a settlement
agreement will not interfere with their ongoing probes into the
multi-level marketer (MLM), according to court papers.

A federal judge has already preliminarily approved the settlement
in the case, which was filed in 2013 against Herbalife by one of
its former distributors, Dana Bostick.

An amendment to the agreement filed on March 6 with the court
states, in part, that the settlement shall not "limit the right of
any Class Member to provide information, file complaints or
cooperate with any federal, state, or local government agency in
connection with any matter related to the Released Claims, nor
does it purport to limit the jurisdiction or authority of any
government agency to consider or investigate such claims."

Lawyers for the parties conferred with attorneys general in
several states to ensure the settlement will not interfere with
ongoing investigations or "release claims which could be
prosecuted by attorneys general," Thomas G. Foley Jr., one of the
lawyers representing the plaintiffs, wrote in a March 10 court
filing.

"If the SEC, the FTC or the New York and Illinois Attorneys
General commence administrative or other actions, Class members
are not precluded by the terms of the release from participating
in any future recoveries by regulatory authorities or the States
Attorneys General," Foley added earlier in the 22-page filing,
which requested attorneys' fees of USD $5.25 million.

Otherwise, the settlement agreement permanently bars Herbalife
distributors in the class from suing the company for claims that
were or could have been asserted in the case or relate to certain
issues, including among things, the purchase or sale of Herbalife
products and related packaging and handling or shipping charges,
according to court papers.  Such terms of release are typical in
the settlement of a lawsuit.

A hearing for final approval is scheduled for May 11 in the Los
Angeles courtroom of U.S. District Judge Beverly O'Connell.

Although Mr. Foley didn't rule out a future objection to the
settlement by state authorities, he said no attorneys general had
objected to the settlement as of the filing.  That had not changed
as of March 20, according to public court filings.

"However, the interest of numerous state attorneys general in the
terms of the proposed settlement is indicative of the high level
of lawyering required by experienced Class Counsel to address
those concerns," Mr. Foley wrote in the March 10 filing.

Bostick and other distributors who later joined him in an amended
lawsuit claimed Herbalife was a pyramid scheme, an allegation
Herbalife has repeatedly and vigorously denied.  In a separate
securities lawsuit, a federal judge dismissed a case against
Herbalife that claimed Herbalife and its executives inflated the
stock before revelations showed the MLM is a fraud.

The Bostick settlement covers around 1.55 million class members
who were Herbalife distributors from April 1, 2009 through Dec. 2,
2014, according to public records.  More than 1.5 million copies
of a notice of the settlement have been emailed and mailed to
potential class members, according to Mr. Foley.

Douglas Brooks, a Massachusetts attorney who represents more than
a dozen Herbalife distributors and has sued Herbalife in previous
class-action cases, has said he plans to object to the settlement
because, in part, he argued it would not compensate distributors
for all the losses they incurred.

A nonprofit organization that objects to the Herbalife settlement
requested permission from O'Connell to file a friend-of-the-court
or so-called amicus curiae brief. Truth in Advertising Inc.
(TINA), a consumer advocacy organization, contended in the brief
that the settlement will result in a windfall of $5.25 million to
plaintiffs' counsel and likely leaves most class members with less
than $20 each in recovery.

Although Herbalife agreed to abide by more than one dozen
corporate policies that are intended to address claims in the
lawsuit, the settlement also fails to stop deceptive practices as
alleged in the complaint, according to the brief.  For instance,
TINA lawyers said Herbalife can use testimonials and images of
luxury items to attract new distributors.

"And not one will prohibit Herbalife from telling distributors
that they can gain financial freedom with its business
opportunity," the lawyers wrote, arguing Herbalife's statement of
average annual compensation of U.S. supervisors is inadequate.
Herbalife has said the statement of average compensation that it
shares with all prospective members offers a level of transparency
that few MLMs provide.

As of early March 21, Herbalife had not provided a comment for
this story.


HIKO ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over "Bait-and-Switch Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Fitz-Gibbon, writing for lohud.com, reports that a class
action lawsuit accusing a Rockland County energy company of luring
in new customers with a "bait-and-switch" scheme includes local
customers and has now been moved to White Plains federal court.

The lawsuit against HIKO Energy of Monsey was originally filed on
behalf of a Moscow, Pennsylvania, woman and other plaintiffs,
charging that the company promised customers of major utility
companies huge savings if they switched to HIKO.  But after an
introductory period, the lawsuit said utility bills skyrocketed.

The suit claimed HIKO's promise of better rates "are a bait-and-
switch scheme.  Following the low introductory rate, Defendant's
energy rates increase dramatically, causing HIKO customers'
electricity bills to rise substantially."

"Defendant's sales pitch is in reality false and misleading in
that the rates actually charged to consumers are not competitive
and bear little relation to prevailing market conditions,"
according to the lawsuit, which was filed in October.  "As a
consequence of this scheme, consumers across the nation are
essentially being scammed out of millions of dollars in exorbitant
charges for electricity."

Court papers said at least two of the class action plaintiffs are
from New York.

But in a reply to the claims in February, company lawyers said in
court papers that the company's agreement with customers makes it
clear that rates "would be variable and subject to market-related
factors."  The company also said that the plaintiffs don't
represent the majority of their customers, and that
Audrey Bogdanski, a Pennsylvania woman who is the lead plaintiff,
failed to prove that she was overcharged "for the entirety of her
enrollment with HIKO."

"Plaintiff cannot claim breach of a term that does not appear
anywhere in her agreement," HIKO lawyers wrote.

They said Ms. Bogdanski's agreement with the energy company made
it clear that utility rates "shall be a variable price which each
month shall reflect transportation . . . and other market-related
factors, plus all applicable taxes, fees, charges or other
assessments and HIKO's costs, expenses and margins."

Energy companies like HIKO, which was founded in 2010, have grown
in numbers in recent years as more and more states deregulate the
utility industry. Energy customers are allowed to shop around for
better energy rates than those provided by large utility
companies.

The HIKO lawsuit claims Ms. Bogdanski did see a reduction of 1 to
7 percent in her monthly utility bills during an initial six-month
introductory period.  But the bills grew "substantially higher"
after that -- including 70 percent higher for February 2014, the
lawsuit said.

"Adding to the fraudulent scheme, defendant makes the cancellation
process lengthy and difficult," the lawsuit said.  "Defendant
requires a 30 day notice prior to cancellation. It can take up to
two billing cycles for a disgruntled customer who wishes to switch
to another company to do so."

The plaintiffs include "100 or more" HIKO customers in New York,
New Jersey, Connecticut, Ohio, Illinois, Maryland and
Pennsylvania.  Court papers did not specify exactly how many are
from the Lower Hudson Valley.


HINES NUT: Recalls Walnut Products Due to Salmonella
----------------------------------------------------
Hines Nut Company, Dallas, TX, announced a voluntary recall of
WALNUT HALVES & PIECES, Lot Number 6989.  The product was supplied
by GOLD STATE NUT COMPANY of Biggs, CA, and packaged by Hines Nut
Company. There is a possibility these nuts may be contaminated
with Salmonella.

Salmonella is an organism that can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
those with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with
Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody),
nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances,
infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into
the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as
arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and
arthritis.

The product was packaged and distributed as follows:

  --- HINES NUT BRAND
      128 cases, 25 trays per carton, in black foam trays with a
      Green and Gold Label
      Tray weight of 16 ounces
      Packaged  March 3, 2015
      Lot Number 6989 printed on label
      Best Buy Date of 12.28.15
      UPC 07826406516-5
      Distributed in Texas via Randalls Food Stores

The potential for contamination was noted after routine testing by
an outside company contracted by the FDA revealed the presence of
Salmonella in a package of the product.

Hines Nut Company, Inc. has not received any complaints concerning
illness on this lot number to date.  Consumers who have purchased
any of the recalled products are urged not to eat them and to
contact Hines Nut Company for information regarding a full refund
or for disposal information.

Consumers can contact the Company at 1 800-561-6374 for
information regarding this recall. This toll-free number is
operational Monday - Friday, 7 am to 4 pm CST.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm443478.htm


HOMEJOY: Faces Class Action Over Labor Practices
------------------------------------------------
Katy Steinmetz, writing for Time.com, reports that three more
companies in the exploding on-demand economy have been sued over
their labor practices, a day after it emerged a class action
lawsuit was pending against grocery startup Instacart.

The lawsuits filed on March 19 contend that workers for house-
cleaning company Homejoy, as well as delivery service companies
Postmates and Try Caviar, have been misclassified as independent
contractors when they should be treated like employees.  The class
action complaints were filed in California's Northern District
Court, where similar lawsuits are already pending against Uber,
Lyft and Instacart.

Postmates and Try Caviar are both primarily in the business of
facilitating delivery from restaurants that don't normally
deliver.  Customers places orders for food through their apps and
orders are dispatched to couriers who pick up and deliver the food
to the customers' homes or offices, using their own personal
transportation.  On March 18, Postmates announced it had partnered
with Starbucks to deliver food and beverages in Seattle.

The cleaners working for Homejoy use their own cleaning supplies
and transportation to do jobs they get through Homejoy.  The
companies take a cut of the proceeds, whether a fare, an hourly
wage or delivery fee.

The lawyer behind many of the cases is Shannon Liss-Riordan, a
Boston-based labor lawyer who specializes in worker
classification.  She first filed the case against Uber on behalf
of drivers in 2013, which claims thousands of workers in
California are owed for expenses like gas and vehicle maintenance.

The publicity from that case has put her much in demand from
people working similar jobs at other startups who believe they are
being treated unjustly, she says.  On March 19 she filed separate
class action complaints on behalf of workers for those three San
Francisco-based companies.  If the court approves the class, the
suits could potentially affect thousands around the U.S.

"When companies have control over their workers, when they get to
dictate how they should act, when they get to decide whether they
can work or not work," Ms. Liss-Riordan says, "those are
employees. These are the workers carrying out the services that
these companies provide. So these workers are entitled to the
protections of the law, to get their expenses reimbursed, to be
guaranteed overtime, to make [at least] minimum wage."

One of the key issues in the case is determining exactly what
business these companies are in.  These on-demand companies say
they are merely middle-man technology companies connecting people
who want a service with someone willing to provide it.  Homejoy,
for instance, bills itself as a marketplace where people willing
to clean homes can connect with people who want their homes
cleaned through their platform. Its terms of service are explicit:

THE COMPANY DOES NOT PROVIDE CLEANING SERVICES, AND THE COMPANY IS
NOT A CLEANING SERVICE PROVIDER. IT IS UP TO THE THIRD PARTY
CLEANING SERVICE PROVIDER TO OFFER CLEANING SERVICES WHICH MAY BE
SCHEDULED THROUGH USE OF THE SOFTWARE OR SERVICE.

But other marketing materials and advertisements often send
conflicting messages. Homejoy uses first person pronouns on their
website, telling potential users: "If you're not 100% satisfied
with your cleaning, we'll come back and re-clean it!" If
Ms. Liss-Riordan can prove in court that companies like Homejoy
and Uber are in fact cleaning companies or transportation
companies and not just middle-men that could help convince the
courts that the workers are in fact employees.

"You can't name yourself out of employer status," says Harvard law
professor Benjamin Sachs.  "The realities matter because if Uber
is really a transportation company -- and by that we mean they're
involved in many aspects of actually providing rides, screening
drivers, hiring drivers, setting rates -- that's like a taxi
company with a new technology. That doesn't change anything
important about the nature of employment."  Uber has said it
doesn't comment on pending legislation.

The complaints contend that workers for each of the platforms are
owed reimbursements for expenses like vehicle maintenance,
cleaning supplies and gas they used to get from job to job, as
well as overtime and in some cases minimum wage.  The suits
against Postmates and Try Caviar also contend that the companies
are unfairly competing, by not paying for expenses that delivery
companies with employee couriers would, like unemployment
insurance or workers' compensation.

"There seems to be this new wave of companies coming up that seem
to be copying one another and thinking that it's okay to do this
because they call themselves technology companies," Ms.
Liss-Riordan says.  "There's nothing new about this.  These
workers should be entitled to the protections of employees."


ILLINOIS: Four Prisons Sued Over Inmate Abuses
----------------------------------------------
Kurt Erickson, writing for Herald & Review, reports that inmates
held in four Illinois prisons are alleging they were sexually and
physically abused by a special guard unit last year.

In a lawsuit filed in federal court in Illinois' southern
district, the prisoners claim they were beaten, humiliated and
needlessly abused by a unit known as "Orange Crush."

The incidents allegedly took place at Menard Correctional Center,
Big Muddy Correctional Center, Lawrence Correctional Center and
Illinois River Correctional Center.

The prisoners are being represented, in part, by the Chicago-based
Uptown People's Law Center, which is in settlement talks with the
state on a separate class-action lawsuit involving substandard
living conditions at the Vienna Correctional Center.

The suit alleges that the unit conducted strip searches of male
inmates in front of female officers and forced inmates to stand so
close together their genitals were touching other inmates.

"Throughout all of the shakedowns . . . Orange Crush Officers
taunted, yelled at, and violently attacked prisoners solely to
harass and humiliate them," the suit noted.

Lead attorney Sarah Grady of Loevy & Loevy Attorney at Law of
Chicago said the violence and abuse associated with the activity
violated the prisoner's constitutional rights.

"We recognize there are legitimate precautions that guards must
take in any given situation," Ms. Grady said.  "We've brought this
lawsuit to address the shakedown procedures at these four
facilities."

Corrections spokeswoman Nicole Wilson said on March 20 the agency
did not have a comment on the lawsuit.


ILLINOIS: Denies Motion to Postpone Hearing in Prison Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Edith Brady-Lunny, writing for Pantagraph.com, reports that new
leadership in the governor's office and the state's prison system
will not slow progress to improve conditions for mentally ill
inmates, according to a ruling by a federal judge.

U.S. District Court Judge Michael Mihm denied a motion by the
state to postpone a March 20 hearing in a class action lawsuit on
the treatment of mentally ill prisoners.

Lawyers for the Department of Corrections cited the recent
appointments of Donald Stolworthy as the new director of the
Department of Corrections and LaShonda Hunt as IDO's chief counsel
as reasons for a requested 30-day delay.

"The court is sympathetic to the fact that we have a new governor
and the change in administration has delayed the decision-making
process.  It takes note, however, that little progress seems to
have occurred since the November 2014 settlement hearings,"
Judge Mihm said in denying the motion.

On March 20, representatives of Gov. Bruce Rauner, IDOC and the
Department of Human Services were present in U.S. District Court
as previously requested by Judge Mihm for a discussion on several
unresolved issues related to a massive overhaul of mental health
care in state prisons.

In a portion of the hearing open to the public before closed-door
negotiations, Judge Mihm asked for progress reports on two issues:
renovations to convert a former Joliet youth home to a 350-bed
treatment facility; and the effort to hire mental health staff for
positions identified in the lawsuit.

Harold Hirshman, one of the lawyers for the inmates, said the 100
percent hire rate reported to Judge Mihm by the state is currently
at 82 percent.

Lawyers for the state countered that substantial progress has been
made with 107 mental health staff hired since 2013.

"They have consistently increased hiring," said IDOC lawyer
Camille Lindsay.

Equally important are the qualifications they bring to the job,
argued Mr. Hirshman.  The new hires include workers "with a much
lower skill set than the state acknowledged it needed to treat the
populace," he said.

Dr. Raymond Patterson, hired to oversee the state's plan,
confirmed the state's efforts to recruit another 15 psychologists,
but noted his concern that critical vacancies remain unfilled.

On the issue of construction at the Joliet facility, Ms. Lindsay
said work is scheduled to begin April 1 with completion set for
April 2016.

Judge Mihm met in closed session with lawyers and state staff to
discuss how Illinois plans to meet its obligation to provide
in-patient care for about 100 inmates whose mental health
conditions are so severe that they cannot be managed inside a
prison.

"Obviously, hospitalization is a very serious component of this,
and not easily dealt with. It creates special challenges for the
state," said Judge Mihm.

The total cost of the mental health upgrades includes $29 million
for construction and $62 million in staffing and operational
expenses.  Areas at the state's Dixon, Pontiac and Logan
correctional facilities will be renovated to house 900 seriously
mentally ill prisoners.  The proposed agreement will take several
years to implement.


INDIANA: BMV Top Officials Aware of Overcharges, Probe Shows
------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Evans, Tony Cook and Cathy Knapp, writing for IndyStar, report
that top officials at the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles knew
for years they were likely gouging Hoosier motorists with tens of
millions of dollars in excessive and illegal fees for driver's
licenses and other services.

But those officials chose to ignore or cover up the overcharges
rather than refund the extra money and adjust to significant
budget losses, an Indianapolis Star investigation has found.

The Star's investigation shows that numerous officials --
including former BMV Commissioner R. Scott Waddell and his chief
of staff -- knew about potential overcharges for years.  Yet in
sworn testimony last year Mr. Waddell, claimed the mere
possibility that the state might be overcharging customers was
news to him and the entire agency.

"We were completely blindsided by it," he said.

State officials have portrayed the overcharges as an innocent
mistake, but emails obtained by The Star show that two years
before Mr. Waddell claimed the agency was blindsided, he received
a spreadsheet from a deputy BMV director identifying 17
overcharges.

Additionally, one of Mr. Waddell's top deputy commissioners
testified in a pending lawsuit that he urged Waddell and then-
Chief of Staff Shawn Walters to conduct an independent audit of
the bogus fees.

He said they refused.

One official said the BMV -- which, like other state agencies at
the time, was under pressure from then-Gov. Mitch Daniels to
return cash to the treasury -- did not want to refund the
ill-gotten money because it would require a budget cut.

It's hard to overstate the gravity of those decisions.

Every day they hesitated to fix the problem, the BMV overcharges
averaged more than $23,000, all of it coming directly out of
Hoosier motorists' pockets.  That's about $1,000 an hour, every
hour of every day, for two long years.

By the time someone blew the whistle and a class-action lawsuit
was filed in 2013, the state had over-billed Hoosiers more than
$60 million going back to 2007.

It's being paid back now.  But there's no indication in the
records examined by The Star that BMV leadership had any intention
of fixing the fees until backed into a corner by the lawsuit.
Instead, they hushed their internal critics, insisting the fees
were accurate, despite the findings of a yearlong study.

Though discussed within the BMV, the overcharges didn't come to
light publicly until the first class-action lawsuit was filed in
March 2013 by Irwin Levin of the Indianapolis law firm Cohen &
Malad.  Only then did the BMV approve an audit of its fees.  And
it was months later, after the audit confirmed that many fees
were, indeed, higher than allowed by law, that the agency finally
fessed up to its price gouging and began to pay back motorists.

The full extent of the damage is not yet known.  A second lawsuit
alleges as much as $38 million more was wrongfully charged. The
BMV is fighting that claim, but if true it would bring the total
overcharges to about $100 million.

Despite all of this, no one from the state or BMV has apologized
to customers.  No one has taken responsibility or offered a clear
explanation of what really happened. And no one has been publicly
disciplined or fired.

On the contrary, several of the agency officials who shrugged
their duties to uphold Indiana law remain at the BMV or in other
state jobs.

Gov. Mike Pence in February appointed a new BMV commissioner,
Kent Abernathy, and state officials are insisting it's time to
move on.  "I want the back office at the BMV to run as well as the
front office," the governor explained.

Mr. Abernathy declined to address questions regarding the
overcharges, portraying them as "the battle of he said/she said
taking place in the courts and the media."

But, in announcing his change of leadership, Pence also had a
warning for Hoosiers: An ongoing BMV review by accounting firm BKD
could identify more overcharges.

"I want to emphasize," Gov. Pence said, "there will likely be more
to come."

Overcharges known for years

Current and former BMV officials declined to comment for this
story.  But more than a thousand pages of internal BMV documents,
email messages and sworn video depositions examined by The Star
offer a rare glimpse into the inner workings of the BMV's many
political appointees as they grappled with internal reports of
overcharges.

Before the overcharge debacle, the BMV appeared to be an amazing
success story.

Reforms implemented by the Daniels administration had cut long
wait times and drastically improved customer service at the
agency's license branches.  Those reforms had been a keystone of
Daniels' platform when he ran for office in 2004, and the
turnaround, along with the state's budget surplus, became feathers
in the governor's cap.

Indications of fee problems go back at least to 2007, when the BMV
was in the midst of improving customer service.  Records show
staff attorney Mark Goodrich spent nearly a year reviewing
statutes and fees from 2007 to 2008.

Despite that review, former commissioner Andrew Miller still had
enough concerns to assign Mathew Foley, who would become the BMV's
deputy director for fee management, to the "major project" of
reviewing the agency's fees again in mid-2010.

Why the BMV would need at least two separate fee reviews over a
period of about three years, particularly when few fees were
changed during that time period, is not clear.

But at least some of the problems that ultimately resulted in
refunds were tied to the agency's implementation from 2006 to 2008
of its System Track and Record Support (STARS) database.

Mr. Foley's testimony indicated the philosophy was that "speed was
more important" than accuracy in entering new information into
that system.

"We could cram it in," Mr. Foley said, "and fix the problems
later."

A 'Fee Code War Plan'

Determining the correct charges for BMV transactions is no easy
task.

"The current system is extremely complicated because of thousands
of statutes, regulations, classifications and 92 different taxing
authorities all on top of over 1,100 fees and taxes," new
commissioner Abernathy explained in an email to The Star.

Mr. Foley and others who tried to "map" those fees were required
to pore over law books, legislation and agency records to
determine when changes took effect and how they affected
individual fees.

Mr. Foley, a former banker, said in a deposition that when he
first met with Mr. Waddell -- then chief of staff overseeing BMV
finances -- about the project, Mr. Waddell "was concerned about
inaccurate information" being included in the agency's fee chart.

When Mr. Miller resigned in October 2010, following his arrest for
public indecency in a men's room at Claypool Court, Mr. Foley
continued to work on the project.  But instead of reporting to
Waddell, who was named to succeed Miller as commissioner, Foley
was placed under the supervision of Shannon Dickson. She was the
BMV's director of vehicle programs and reported to Deputy
Commissioner Ron Hendrickson.

Around that time, Mr. Foley created and distributed a "Fee Code
War Plan" that said "bureau confidence in the accuracy of the Fee
Chart is marginal at best" and laid out his plans for a
comprehensive review of all of the agency's charges.

Over the next nine months, Mr. Foley meticulously conducted that
audit, finishing his review in May 2011.

In an email to Mr. Dickson and four other BMV officials --
including general counsel Elizabeth Murphy and controller Harold
Day, both members of the BMV's "lead team" of top executives --
Foley warned that the concerns about fee accuracy had been
confirmed.

"There are a lot of discrepancies between what BMV currently
charges and what I've been able to calculate," Mr. Foley wrote.

On June 16, 2011, Mr. Foley sent the same group another email with
a spreadsheet that showed fee errors highlighted in red for
suspected overcharges and blue for suspected undercharges.

"I've counted 26 fees where we are potentially undercharging,"
Foley wrote, "and another 17 where we are potentially
overcharging."

'Print these out for me'

In response to Mr. Foley's report, Dickson quickly set up a series
of meetings with key agency staff members.  The group included
Foley, staff attorney Goodrich, Day, Hendrickson and Stephen Leak,
the BMVs executive director of credential programs.

Minutes from the first meeting in late June 2011 say the group
reviewed Mr. Foley's work, focusing in on two driver's license
fees that Foley had called into question.  If he was right, those
fees had the potential for a major hit to BMV finances.

A week later, on July 7, 2011, Dickson emailed Mr. Foley's
spreadsheet to Hendrickson, the deputy commissioner.

Later that day, Hendrickson forwarded Foley's "final" report --
with the 43 fees Foley was questioning highlighted in red and blue
-- to Waddell. He noted in the email that Foley had spent "about
one year" on the project.

Mr. Hendrickson also forwarded the same email, including Mr.
Foley's spreadsheet, to Walters, the chief of staff.

Three years later Mr. Waddell would testify under oath that he
never saw Foley's spreadsheet.

"I am aware of it," Waddell said, "but I have not seen that."

But on July 11, 2011, four days after receiving the spreadsheet,
Mr. Waddell forwarded the email to his executive assistant.

Mr. Waddell's request: "Can you print these out for me."

Directors discussed options

Meanwhile, the group of high-level BMV officials reviewing Foley's
work continued to meet.

Foley and a BMV intern each independently re-examined Foley's work
and confirmed a $4 overcharge for the 6-year drivers license.

By the Aug. 24, 2011, meeting there was a consensus that the
current $21 fee was too high.

"The committee generally agreed," minutes say, "that $17.00 is the
charge currently allowed."

Minutes show the team discussed the possibility of adding a new
regulation to legitimize the unauthorized $21 fee the BMV was
charging.  But they concluded any action would need to be "a lead
team decision."

Deputy commissioner Hendrickson was to "work with legal, finance
and the lead team to determine the next step in this process.
This may include bringing in an outside, independent audit team,"
the minutes say.

The fee problems presented a dilemma for the agency.  At that time
the BMV, like other state agencies, was under strict orders from
Daniels to cut spending and return a portion of its budget to the
state's general fund.

Mr. Foley warned Mr. Hendrickson a fix would be expensive.

His prediction: "a revenue loss of $8,400,000 in 2012 alone."  All
from that one fee.

Officials refuse audit request

Mr. Hendrickson said he went to the lead team in mid-2011 and
personally spoke with Mr. Walters and Mr. Waddell about Mr.
Foley's findings.

Mr. Hendrickson said he suggested to Mr. Walters and the lead team
that the BMV conduct an outside audit, but that Mr. Walters
"disagreed with that idea."

"Shawn Walters told me that he knows for a fact that Mark
(Goodrich) looked at these fees and said they were good,"
Hendrickson said under oath.

Some time after meeting with Mr. Walters and other members of the
lead team, Mr. Hendrickson said he also approached Mr. Waddell
about the fee issue.

"And he didn't tell me no," Mr. Hendrickson said, "but he changed
the subject, in my opinion, somewhat deliberately, and I assumed
that that was no."

Later, he went back to Mr. Walters to again request the outside
audit, Mr. Hendrickson said -- even though he, too, had questions
about the errors Foley reported finding.

"I thought that it made sense to do an audit," he said.  "Felt
like due diligence.  Seemed like something we should do . . . so I
went in again and I talked to Shawn about it again."

Mr. Walters rebuffed Mr. Hendrickson a second time.

"He said, 'No.  These are our fees,'" Mr. Hendrickson testified.
"And I remember that, 'No.  These are our fees.' I don't know
exactly what he said after that, but the answer was no."

Still, Mr. Hendrickson said, he continued to push for an audit,
going to Mr. Leak, a friend of Mr. Walters', for support.

But Mr. Leak declined to step in.

"He said -- I remember he said, 'Nah,'" Mr. Hendrickson testified.

'Do you understand me?'

Mr. Hendrickson wasn't alone in going to Messrs. Waddell and
Walters about problems with BMV fees.

Mr. Foley said he also had conversations with them to object to
any effort to change rules to match the overcharges he had
uncovered.

Instead of fixing the problems, Mr. Foley said, in his opinion
Mr. Waddell and other top officials preferred to look for a way
"to rewrite the regulations so they matched the fees being charged
rather than refund the fees to taxpayers."

When asked why BMV did not refund or fix the errors until after
the first lawsuit was filed, Mr. Foley said, "my opinion is that
. . . the BMV needed to keep the money."  Mr. Foley said that
opinion was based on conversations he had with others at the BMV.

The overcharges exceeded the $47 million the BMV turned back to
the state's bank account from 2006 to 2014, money that contributed
to a state budget surplus.  At the time, Indiana was being
promoted as the "fiscal envy of the nation" with a budget surplus
built on frugal government and low taxes.

The largest amount BMV returned to the treasury -- $10.3 million
-- came in 2011, the same year Messrs. Waddell and Walters were
told of the overcharges.  It was also the same year Mr. Foley
pointed out that correcting just one of the excessive fees would
wipe out $8.4 million in BMV revenue the following year.

"There was a concern that the BMV would need to potentially lay
off employees," Mr. Foley said, "or go back to the well and borrow
money again when they had very publicly repaid the last of its
government -- or state-borrowed loans the prior year."

Mr. Foley's said his candor in his meeting with Mr. Waddell didn't
sit well with the commissioner.

"By the time I had finished the walk back to my desk, I'd barely
sat down," Mr. Foley said, when he was called into Mr. Walters'
office "and yelled at."

"I was told that I interrupted work that they had been doing . . .
on the proposed rules for the last six months to a year, and
loudly told that," Foley said under oath.

Mr. Walters is a former Army Colonel, he explained, "and when he's
angry, its clear."

"Mr. Walters asked me in the middle of his -- I don't know what to
call it -- for a lack of a better term, rant, he said 'Are we
clear now? Do you understand me?'"

"Frankly, sir, no, I do not," Foley said he responded.

Mr. Walters sent him back to his desk.

And word of the possible overcharges remained a closely guarded
secret within BMV.

"I was told frequently," Mr. Foley said, "that this was a
confidential project."

No action taken

Mr. Foley left the BMV in 2012, not long after that run-in with
Walters.

Any effort to correct the illegal fees ground to a halt.

Mr. Dickson, Mr. Foley's surpervisor, said the fee evaluations
project was "tabled" and "not reassigned." Other projects, she
said, took precedent.

But the agency could no longer ignore the problem when a class
action lawsuit was filed on behalf of Hoosier motorists in March
2013. It alleged that BMV customers had been routinely overcharged
for driver's license fees.

Four months later, the BMV admitted that overcharge and announced
it would cut fees and refund customers $30 million.

But even then, BMV officials downplayed their previous knowledge
of the fees.

"There was a miscalculation," BMV spokesman Josh Gillespie told
media outlets at the time, "and once we discovered that
miscalculation, we immediately took steps to lower the driver's
license fees."

Agency officials never mentioned that Foley had identified that
problem nearly three years earlier.

The BMV did, however, announce in September 2013 that it had
overcharged for other fees as well.  The second lawsuit was filed
the following month.

The new suit alleges $38 million in additional overcharges -- and
perhaps millions more.  The amount hinges, in part, on the
question of whether the BMV covered up its price gouging.  If so,
motorists could be entitled to refunds for overcharges that
occurred prior to the statute of limitations that normally applies
in such cases.

The BMV, which already doled out $6 million in legal fees to
settle the first lawsuit, continues to fight the new case, with
Waddell and other officials avoiding questions and claiming they
knew little or nothing about the fee problems.

Mr. Waddell was deposed in April and again in September after a
judge ordered him to answer numerous questions that he had refused
to address during his first deposition.  In those interviews, he
denied any advance warning about the overcharges, claiming he was
aware only that Mr. Foley had called one or two fees into
question.

But even those, he insisted, had been reviewed and discredited by
a team of BMV directors and legal staff, including Messrs.
Hendrickson and Goodrich.  He also testified that he was unaware
of any other fees Mr. Foley called into question.

Mr. Waddell acknowledged, however, that Mr. Foley was not
disciplined for making any alleged errors.  And records show that
Mr. Foley was approved for a merit raise during that time.

Messrs. Hendrickson and Dickson also wrote glowing recommendations
for Mr. Foley just months after he had called dozens of fees into
question.  The two supervisors cited Mr. Foley's work on the fee
project as an example of his "commitment to integrity and
accuracy."

They said "the BMV and more importantly Hoosier taxpayers are
better off due to Mat's direct contributions to the agency."

And ultimately, when the dust settled from the first lawsuit in
2013, his calculations of the driver's license fee error proved
accurate.


INTEREXCHANGE: Au Pairs File Minimum Wage Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Lydia DePillis, writing for The Washington Post, reports that
Johana Paola Beltran  has joined four other au pairs in a lawsuit
alleging InterExchange and other sponsor agencies are keeping
wages artificially low -- and are failing to comply with state
laws that require employers to pay higher minimum wages.

Ms. Beltran graduated from high school in Bogota, Colombia, she
learned about a program that would send her to the United States
to become an au pair -- a live-in nanny.  An au pair sponsor
agency, InterExchange, sold her on the idea that she would be
learning about a new culture and matched her with a family in
Highlands Ranch, a posh suburb of Denver.  She was excited: The
host family's house had a gym; she would have access to a car; and
she planned to take classes and improve her English.  It even
seemed worth paying out of pocket for the whole process: a $2,500
fee.

But the experience was not what she expected.  When she flew to
New York City for orientation, Ms. Beltran wasn't paid for the
days she spent in training.  And after arriving in Colorado,
Ms. Beltran says, she cooked dinner for the family every night
(but was not permitted to eat with them), cleaned, did laundry,
gardened and cared for the family's eight chickens.  Sometimes,
she didn't have enough food to eat herself.

For all that, she was given room and board and paid exactly
$195.75 per week -- or $4.35 per hour -- compensation that met
federal standards but fell short of Colorado's minimum wage.

The attorneys who filed the lawsuit say the sponsor agencies have
turned the au pair program into a source for the cheapest child
care in America, a far cry from its roots as a cultural exchange
program.  Pay for au pairs has remained extraordinarily low, even
as salaries for traditional nannies and the cost of day care have
soared in recent years.  The suit, which was filed in Colorado
District Court in November and substantially amended, demands
punitive damages and back pay for as many as 30,000 current and
former au pairs.

The 15 sponsor agencies that place au pairs in the United States
deny they have been holding pay down.  They say that the pay rate
is set by the State Department, which oversees the program, and
that the federal government has never explicitly told them they
needed to follow state and local minimum wage laws.

"There's always been one nationwide stipend," says
Michael McCarry, director of the Alliance for International
Cultural and Educational Exchange, an industry group that
represents many of the sponsors. "State has never raised the issue
with us about state minimum wage laws."

State Department officials disagree.  In a statement to The
Washington Post, the agency says that sponsors "must also comply
with all other applicable federal, state, and local laws,
including any state minimum wage requirements."

When asked how federal officials have been communicating this
requirement to au pair sponsor agencies, State Department
spokesman Nathan Arnold replied: "The Department has been
communicating with au pair sponsors to confirm that they are aware
of their obligations under the regulations -- including with
respect to host family requirements -- and will continue to do
so."

So far, that has not translated into higher pay for au pairs.  And
for Ms. Beltran, it was untenable.  InterExchange called once to
check on her, but her host family didn't want to take her to the
required monthly meetings with the sponsor and other au pairs. So
in November 2012, she left.  InterExchange declined to comment on
the pending litigation.

"When I asked InterExchange for help, they did nothing,"
Ms. Beltran says.  "It was all a lie."


JPG LLC: "Romero" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cutberto Romero, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class v. J.P.G. LLC d/b/a Philip Marie, et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-02880 (S.D.N.Y., April 14, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages
and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Defendants own and operate an enterprise comprised of four
restaurants in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KASHI CO: Consumers Challenge Sanction in GMO Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Joe Van Acker, writing for Law360, reports that consumers bringing
a class action accusing Kashi Co. of falsely labeling products
containing genetically modified organisms as "all natural" told a
Florida federal judge on March 19 that striking their statement of
disputed facts would amount to a sanction for an inadvertent
procedural violation.

The plaintiffs filed a 35-page statement despite being limited to
10 pages but said Kashi wasn't harmed by the length of the
document contesting facts the company put forward as "undisputed,"
whereas the plaintiffs would be irreversibly harmed if Kashi's
facts are admitted as evidence.

"Plaintiffs will be severely prejudiced if their response to
defendant's statement of undisputed facts is stricken, as
plaintiffs will then have no way to dispute the ninety-eight
'facts' defendant proffered in support of its summary judgment
motion," the consumers said.

The plaintiffs, who alleged in 2012 that Kashi's Go Lean Crunch
cereal and other products contain GMOs, said that some sanctions
may be appropriate for their violation of a "procedural
technicality" but argued that striking their statement would
unfairly clear a path for final judgment in Kashi's favor.

The consumers said their counsel had misinterpreted the 10-page
rule as applying only to Kashi's statement of facts and not the
opposition, saying their statement wasn't argumentative but simply
served to identify instances where the evidence didn't support
Kashi's facts.

"For example, plaintiffs were required to point out when defendant
mischaracterized the evidence, made nonsensical citations to
evidence, made legal conclusions and states immaterial 'facts,'"
the plaintiffs said.

As an alternative to striking the statement of disputed facts
altogether, the court should either retroactively approve the
document or allow a new one to be filed, the plaintiffs said.

In its motion, Kashi said the court should strike not only the 35-
page statement of disputed facts but also a "contradictory"
declaration from the plaintiffs' expert that accompanied the
statement.  The company said the expert had admitted during a
deposition that it was fair to refer to a product as being "all
natural" if it contains ingredients allowed under organic
regulations but later reversed course by saying "heavily
processed" foods should be excluded.

On March 19, the plaintiffs said Kashi can't strike the expert's
opinion under the "sham doctrine" because the expert isn't an
interested party in the case and doesn't stand to benefit
financially from any outcome.

The plaintiffs are represented by Howard W. Rubinstein, Michael T.
Fraser and Benjamin M. Lopatin of The Law Offices of Howard W.
Rubinstein, Angela Arango-Chaffin and Robert A. Chaffin of The
Chaffin Law Firm, L. Dewayne Layfield of Law Office of L. Dewayne
Layfield, Mark A. Milstein, Gillian L. Wade and Sara D. Avilaa of
Milstein Adelman LLP.

Kashi is represented by Edward M. Waller -- edward.waller@bipc.com
-- and Ashley B. Trehan -- ashley.trehan@bipc.com -- of Buchanan
Ingersoll & Rooney PC, along with Dean N. Panos --
dpanos@jenner.com -- Richard P. Steinken -- rsteinken@jenner.com
-- and Kenneth K. Lee of Jenner & Block LLP.

The case is Eggnatz et al v. The Kellogg Company et al, case
number 1:12-cv-21678 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.


KING DIGITAL: Sued for Hiding Declining Candy Crush User Numbers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Business Standard reports that San Francisco-based King Digital,
maker of "Candy Crush saga," is facing a class-action lawsuit that
claims the company deliberately hid a significant fall in the
number of users ahead of its IPO last year.

The case, which was filed on March 17 in California Superior
Court, by investors Sean Debotte and Michael Nunes accused King
Digital of misleading investors in its federal documents, Mashable
reported.

The suit said that the company claimed that 97 million active
users played 1.065 billion average daily games of Candy Crush
ahead of the company's initial public offering a year ago.

However, that figure had witnessed a "significant decline" as
once-paying customers began to leave the game.  The suit argued
that the company should have revealed the real numbers at the time
of the IPO.

According to the company's official IPO filings, Candy Crush Saga
accounts for nearly 80% of King's business.  The firm sold shares
worth 499.5 million dollars to the public last year at 22.50
dollars per share.  King executives earned millions, as did their
financial backers, the lawsuit said.


KMART CORPORATION: Sued in N.D. Illinois Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Governmental Employees Credit Union, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Kmart Corporation and Sears
Holdings Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-03354 (N.D. Ill., April 15,
2015), arises out of a breach of customer data that left
vulnerable the Defendants' store customers' names, credit and
debit card numbers, card expiration dates, and card verification
values, as well as the states and ZIP codes of the stores
associated with individual card transactions.

Kmart Corporation is a Michigan corporation with a principal place
of business located at 3333 Beverly Road, Hoffman Estates,
Illinois 60179, which operates a chain of retail stores that sell
a wide variety of merchandise, including home appliances, consumer
electronics, home goods, apparel, grocery & household, pharmacy
and drugstore items.

Sears Holdings Corporation is a Delaware corporation with a
principal place of business located at 3333 Beverly Road, Hoffman
Estates, Illinois 60179, which is the parent company of Kmart.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

      Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
      Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
      Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
      Eric S. Taubel, Esq.
      GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
      Canadian Pacific Plaza
      120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 333-8844
      Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
      E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
              dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
              jbourne@gustafsongluek.com
              etaubel@gustafsongluek.com


KMART HOLDING: Faces "West" Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary West, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. Kmart Holding Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-02918-ER (S.D.N.Y.,
April 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failing to
design, construct, and own or operate a website that is fully
accessible to, and independently usable by, blind people.

Kmart Holding Corporation is a Delaware corporation that owns and
operates retail stores throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LEGAL SEA FOODS: Faces Class Action Over Shared Tips
----------------------------------------------------
Katie Johnston, writing for The Boston Globe, reports that
Legal Sea Foods has been hit with another class-action lawsuit
over tips, this time by wait staff in Kendall Square and Chestnut
Hill who say that their gratuities were shared illegally with
oyster shuckers.

According to state law, only employees who serve food or drinks to
customers, or clear their tables, are entitled to tips.  Requiring
waiters and bartenders, who are paid a minimum of $3 an hour, to
share tips with oyster shuckers violates the law, the complaint
says, and therefore the restaurant chain owes servers and
bartenders the full minimum wage, which rose to $9 an hour this
year.

Oyster shuckers were previously paid the lower minimum wage that
tipped employees receive, but Legal Sea Foods ended the practice
at most of its restaurants within the last two years, and started
paying shuckers the full minimum wage, according to lawyer Hillary
Schwab, who is representing the plaintiffs.

The lawsuit, filed recently in Suffolk Superior Court, asks that
employees receive back pay equal to the full minimum wage and
unpaid tips going back three years.  The suit could involve
hundreds of wait staff employees at Legal restaurants across
Massachusetts.  Schwab, of the Boston law firm Fair Work P.C.,
would not speculate on how much money could be recovered.

Richard Heller, general counsel for Legal Sea Foods, said the
company would "vigorously defend" the litigation.

The lawsuits allege the restaurant chain forced servers and
bartenders to share tips with workers who rolled silverware in

"The most recent filing is part of this firm's playbook, a
continuing attempt to obfuscate the facts and the law," he said in
an e-mail.

Legal Sea Foods is facing two other tips-related lawsuits, brought
last year by Schwab on behalf of servers and bartenders at its
Prudential Center and Burlington restaurants.  The suits involve
tips shared with workers who roll silverware into napkins, and are
not entitled to tips, according to the complaint, because they
don't personally serve customers.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Robson" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alan Robson, Andrew Tressler, Joseph Bennett, Nicholas Bennett,
Robert Bennett, Scott Mabb, Shanna Sands-Muigai, Mickey Yu and
Daniel Michael Snickles, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-02156 (E.D.N.Y., April 15, 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:

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


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Removes "Wolverton" Suit to E.D. La. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators, Inc. removed the class action lawsuit
captioned Eric Wolverton and Norma Wolverton, individually and on
behalf of those similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc.
Case No. 67734, Division "B", from 40th Judicial District Court,
St. John the Baptist Parish, State of Louisiana to U.S. District
Court Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans. The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-01191-KDE-DEK to the
proceeding.

The Defendant is represented by:

      George John Nalley Jr., Esq.
      NALLEY & DEW, APLC
      2121 Ridgelake Dr., Suite 200
      Metairie, LA 70001
      Telephone: (504) 838-8188
      E-mail: george@gnalley.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Wolverton" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Wolverton and Norma Wolverton, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-01191 (E.D. La., April 14, 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:

      Daniel E. Becnel Jr., Esq.
      Salvadore Christina Jr., Esq.
      Toni Becnel, Esq.
      BECNEL LAW FIRM, LLC
      106 West 7th Street
      P.O. Drawer H
      Reserve, LA 70084
      Telephone: (985) 536-1186
      Facsimile: (985) 536-6445

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      George John Nalley Jr.,Esq.
      NALLEY & DEW, APLC
      2121 Ridgelake Dr., Suite 200
      Metairie, LA 70001
      Telephone: (504) 838-8188
      E-mail: george@gnalley.com


MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Contempt Hearing v. Arpaio to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Casey and Megan Cassidy, writing for The Republic, reports
that a federal judge says he will not consider calling off an
upcoming criminal contempt hearing against Maricopa County Sheriff
Joe Arpaio and his top deputies for failure to comply with court
orders unless a settlement is reached and he's confident
Mr. Arpaio will pay money out of his own pocket.

"Let me make this clear, the schedule remains the same," U.S.
District Court Judge G. Murray Snow said on March 20 before ending
a status conference.  "If there is a settlement, let me know."

The orders resulted from a 2007 class-action civil-rights case
that alleges the Sheriff's Office's immigration sweeps amounted to
discriminatory policing against Latinos.  The hearing was
scheduled before Mr. Arpaio, and Chief Deputy Jerry Sheridan
consented to a civil contempt finding in a court filing.

They admitted to the three areas alleged in contempt proceedings:
evidence that the agency failed to abide by Judge Snow's December
2011 preliminary injunction to stop enforcing federal immigration
law; evidence sheriff's officials did not disclose all required
information in pretrial proceedings; and evidence that
Mr. Arpaio's aides failed to properly follow Snow's order to
quietly collect deputies' audio- and video-recording devices.

Maricopa County Supervisor Steve Gallardo said Mr. Arpaio's
admission is evidence he should be removed from office.

"Anytime you have the top law enforcement officer in Maricopa
County thumbing his nose at federal court order, it's time for him
to go," he said.

Plaintiff's attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union and
other organizations responded that the offer falls short and that
the scheduled hearing would shed light on information not included
in the motion filed by the Sheriff's Office's lawyers.

"I don't think that the sheriff has yet agreed to the full scope
of protection that the community needs to make sure that he
changes his ways and he stops violating the Constitution and the
court's orders," said attorney Cecillia Wang of the ACLU's
Immigrants' Rights Project

Mr. Arpaio's attorneys have proposed he issue a public, videotaped
statement admitting guilt, a gesture his critics have sought,
unsuccessfully, for years.  Judge Snow on March 20 said that he'd
want Mr. Arpaio to do that in court and an additional unspecified
place.

Mr. Arpaio would also ask the county to set up an initial $350,000
to serve as a compensation fund for confirmed victims and would
"seek to adjust this figure" should it not cover all of the
claims.

Judge Snow also questioned whether that money would come from
Mr. Arpaio's budget or from taxpayers. And he expressed concern
about whether all victims could be identified and on setting a
limit on the amount of money needed to compensate all victims.

"We are working diligently to identify these people," Mr. Arpaio
defense attorney Michele Iafrate told Judge Snow.  "There are
outliers we may never find."

Messrs. Arpaio and Sheridan have also volunteered to personally
donate $100,000 to a civil-rights organization with a mission of
"protecting the constitutional and civil rights of the Hispanic
community."

Snow worried whether that money would come from Mr. Arpaio's own
pocket or his legal defense fund.  He wants Sheridan to pay out of
pocket too, but not as much as Mr. Arpaio because the judge said
Sheridan has acted in good faith.

Lawyers flanked Mr. Arpaio on March 20 as he sat at the corner of
a backward L-shaped table. Sheridan sat behind him with his
attorney.

Judge Snow said their admission was not enough to forgo the
criminal contempt hearing scheduled for April 21-24 but that the
settlement proposed through their attorneys "merits
consideration."  He added that to avoid facing criminal contempt
proceedings, Mr. Arpaio would have to offer a settlement "equal to
deserved punishment."

The two sides were due in federal court again on March 27.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: June 18 Management Conference in "Simmons"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The PRINCESS SIMMONS, Plaintiff, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, CASE NO. 14-CV-05464-PJH, (N.D. Cal.) has been
reassigned to the Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton.

In an order entered April 15, 2015, a copy of which is available
at http://is.gd/KffTNwfrom Leagle.com, Judge Hamilton informed
all parties and counsel of record that a Case Management
Conference will be held in this case on June 18, 2015, at 2:00
p.m., in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Federal Building, 1301 Clay
Street, Oakland, California.

Lead counsel must meet and confer as required by Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(f) prior to the Case Management Conference with respect to
those subjects set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c), she said.  Not
less than seven days before the conference, counsel must file a
joint case management statement addressing each of the items
listed in the "Standing Order For All Judges of the Northern
District -- Contents of Joint Case Management statement.

Princess Simmons, Plaintiff, represented by Paul Randall Noah --
pnoah@ix.netcom.com -- Law Offices of P. Randall Noah.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Erin A. Cornell -- erin.cornell@sedgwicklaw.com -- Sedgwick LLP.


MILLENIUM OIL: Faces "Quintana" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urania Isabel Quintana and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b) v. Millenium Oil & Gas Distributors, Inc., Elena G.
Hasan, Case No. 1:15-cv-21414 (S.D. Fla., April 14, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Millenium Oil & Gas Distributors, Inc. is a petroleum importer and
distributor that regularly transacts business within Dade County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONSANTO: To Settle GM Wheat Lawsuits for $350,000
--------------------------------------------------
NBC News reports that genetically-modified food giant Monsanto
said it will pay about $350,000 to settle class action lawsuits
brought by farmers in seven states over tainted wheat.

The St. Louis company said on March 18 it will make donations of
$50,000 to agricultural schools at land grant colleges in Kansas,
Missouri, Illinois, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi.
It will also reimburse the plaintiffs' and their lawyers for a
portion of the costs associated with the case.  The company said
that under the terms of the settlement agreement it can't disclose
how much that will cost.

The lawsuits relate to the discovery of genetically modified wheat
on a farm in Oregon in May 2013.  The wheat had not been approved,
and after the discovery, Japan and South Korea temporarily
suspended some wheat orders.  The European Union called for
tougher testing of shipments from the U.S.

In November, Monsanto agreed to pay about $2.4 million to settle
other lawsuits related to the incident.  Most of the money will go
into a fund to pay farmers in Washington, Oregon and Idaho who
sold soft white wheat between May 30 and Nov. 30, 2013.

Monsanto Co. said one class action lawsuit remains active.  That
suit involves farmers in Arkansas, and Monsanto said it hopes to
resolve that litigation soon.

The USDA said last year that it believes the genetically modified
wheat in Oregon was the result of an isolated incident and that
there is no evidence of that wheat in commerce.  The report said
the government still doesn't know how the modified seeds got into
the fields.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Obama Calls for Guarantee Scholarships
--------------------------------------------------------
Mike Herndon, writing for AL.com, reports that in an interview
with the Huffington Post on March 20, President Barack Obama said
that American universities "bear more responsibility than right
now they're showing" for their student-athletes, but added that
compensating college athletes would "ruin the sense of college
sports."

Mr. Obama said he believes the NCAA should require schools to
guarantee scholarships and bemoaned the reach of some NCAA rules
protecting amateurism.

"What does frustrate me is where I see coaches getting paid
millions of dollars, athletic directors getting paid millions of
dollars, the NCAA making huge amounts of money, and then some kid
gets a tattoo or gets a free use of a car and suddenly they're
banished," he said.  "That's not fair."

He added, however, that paying athletes could "create a situation
where there are bidding wars. . . . And that I do think would ruin
the sense of college sports."

The NCAA's definition of amateurism has come under several high
profile challenges recently, including the Ed O'Bannon class
action suit over name, image and likeness rights and a National
Labor Relations Board ruling allowing the Northwestern football
team the right to unionize.

The Post interview was published on March 21, hours after Obama
looked on as his niece Leslie Robinson's Princeton team defeated
Wisconsin-Green Bay in a first-round women's NCAA tournament game.


NICOLET RESTAURANT: Sued Over Credit Card Transactions Policies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Meyers, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Nicolet Restaurant of De Pere, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-
00444-WCG (E.D. Wis., April 14, 2015), arises out of the
Defendant's practice of printing the expiration date of the card
number on receipts provided to debit card and credit card
cardholders transacting business with the Defendant.

Nicolet Restaurant of De Pere, LLC owns and operates a restaurant
located at 525 Reid St., De Pere, Wisconsin 54115.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
      John D. Blythin, Esq.
      Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
      ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
      3620 East Layton Avenue
      Cudahy, WI 53110
      Telephone: (414) 482-8000
      Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
      E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
              jblythin@ademilaw.com
              meldridge@ademilaw.com

          - and -

      Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr., Esq.
      Adam M. Tamburelli, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
      77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 440-0020
      Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
      E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
              adam@attorneyzim.com
              www.attorneyzim.com


NISSAN NORTH: Faces "DeMaria" Suit Over Defective Floorboards
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marie DeMaria, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Nissan North America Inc., Nissan Motor Company, Ltd.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-03321 (N.D. Ill., April 14, 2015), is brought on
behalf of all Illinois owners of Nissan Altima automobiles for
model years 2002-2006, whose floorboards in the vehicles that do
not withstand normal exposure to the elements, do not drain
properly, and rust to the degree that the floorboards
substantially deteriorate and allow visible exposure to the
roadway beneath the vehicle.

The Defendants manufacture, market, distributes, and warrant
automobiles in the United States that maintain their headquarters
and principal place of business in Franklin, Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
      Mark E. Silvey, Esq.
      Lisa A. White, Esq.
      GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
      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
              mark@gregcolemanlaw.com
              lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com

         - and -

      Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
      Dylan Hughes, Esq.
      GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
      One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 1125
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 350-9700
      Facsimile: (415) 350-9701
      E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com
              dsh@classlawgroup.com


NY F&B: "Reyes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johnny Daniel Reyes, Efrain Gonzalez Serveriano and Neil Sanchez
on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class
v. NY F&B Services LLC d/b/a 7 Green & Grain Dardanel, Inc.,
Ertunc Gundogdu, and Yusuf Sezer, Case No. 1:15-cv-02882-LTS
(S.D.N.Y., April 14, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages,
unpaid overtime, unpaid compensation due to time shaving,
illegally retained gratuities, liquidated damages and attorneys'
fees and costs.

The Defendants own and operate a chain of Mediterranean
restaurants in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OCWEN LOAN: Settles Class Suit Over Mortgage Interest Tax Breaks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dena Aubin, writing for Reuters, reports that Ocwen Loan Servicing
has agreed in principle to settle a nationwide class action
accusing it of causing homeowners to lose valuable tax breaks by
misreporting mortgage interest to U.S. tax authorities, according
to a court filing on March 18.

"If the deal goes through, it will be very good for the class,"
plaintiffs' lawyer David Vendler -- dvendler@mpplaw.com -- at
Morris Polich & Purdy said in an emailed message.  Ocwen is
represented by lawyers at Greenberg Traurig.  A spokesman for
Ocwen declined comment.


OMNICELL INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on March 19 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Omnicell, Inc. and certain of its officers.
The class action, filed in United States District Court, Northern
District of California, and docketed under 15-cv-01280, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased Omnicell securities between May 2, 2014 and March 2,
2015, inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover damages
against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Omnicell securities during
the Class Period, you have until May 18, 2015 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Omnicell, Inc. provides automation solutions for medication and
supply management.  The company operates in two segments, Acute
Care and Non-Acute Care.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts pertaining to arrangements with
certain customers.  Specifically, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) the existence
of a "side letter" arrangement with a Company customer for certain
discounts and Company products that were to be provided at no
cost, but which were not reflected in the final invoices paid by
the customer; (2) that the Company lacked adequate internal
controls over financial reporting; and (3) that as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On March 2, 2015, after the market closed, the Company disclosed
in a regulatory filing that it would be unable to timely file its
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014.
According to the Company, "additional time is required by the
Company to investigate a notice received on February 27, 2015 from
a Company employee alleging, among other matters, the existence of
a 'side letter' arrangement with a Company customer for certain
discounts and Company products that were to be provided at no
cost, but which were not reflected in the final invoices paid by
the customer."

As a result of this news, shares of Omnicell fell $2.14, or over
6%, on extremely heavy volume, to close at $33.08 on March 3,
2015.

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


OREGON: May Face Class Action Over VINE System Technical Glitch
---------------------------------------------------------------
KATU.com reports that a "major technical glitch" caused a state
computer system on March 20 to mistakenly notify crime victims
that, in some cases, offenders had been let out of prison early.

Routine maintenance appears to have caused the problem in Oregon's
VINE (Victim Information and Notification Everyday) system, the
Oregon Department of Corrections said.

The department said Appriss, the contractor of the service that's
based in Kentucky, is working to fix the problem and will send out
an "alert express" when the system is fixed.

Nicole, contacted KATU News minutes after she received a phone
call notifying her that, Edward T. Hernandez, the man convicted of
sexually assaulting her when she was 11-years-old was released
from the Two Rivers Correctional Institution.  She said she broke
down into tears.

Then she started making phone calls.  The first was to VINE.

"I was on hold for 11 minutes this particular call . . . I have
not talked to anybody," she said.

Then she turned to the State Department of Corrections website and
looked up Mr. Hernandez there.  That website said Mr. Hernandez
was still in prison.  However, she was skeptical of it at first
because it indicated the website had been updated the day before.
She wasn't sure if the information was current.

Finally, she called the prison and said a guard who answered the
phone told her about the fake phone calls originating from the
VINE system.

"Hearing the word released, I just went into a total mode of 'why
is this happening?'," she said.

Nicole doesn't appreciate having an erroneous phone call toy with
her emotions over a traumatic part of her life.

"I've gotten to a point in my life where I no longer feel shame.
I no longer feel like I did something wrong but it does bring me
back to a place where I don't feel safe," she said.

"DOC and Appriss apologize for the erroneous notifications, and
are committed to remedying the issue as soon as possible," the
Department of Corrections said in a statement.  There is no
estimate as to when the system will be fixed.

Nicole doesn't want to be called a victim.  Instead, she said
she's a survivor.  She's using that strength to make sure
something like this never happens again.

Nicole got a phone call from VINE around 10:00 p.m. on March 20
apologizing for the mix-up. The DOC said that's a first-step in
fixing the problem.  Everyone who received an erroneous phone call
or email message about an inmate's release should also receive an
apology message.

Still, Nicole feels that's not good enough.

"I'm going to find anyone and everyone out there that they have
done this too and we're going to file a class-action lawsuit.
I've had enough," she said.


ORIGEN BIOMEDICAL: Recalls VV13F Dual Lumen ECMO Catheters
----------------------------------------------------------
OriGen Biomedical initiated a nationwide recall for one lot of 51
VV13F Reinforced Dual Lumen ECMO Catheters. These VV13F Reinforced
Dual Lumen ECMO Catheters have been found to have the potential
for a separation of the clear extension tube from the hub that it
is inserted in, which potentially could result in required
intervention to prevent permanent impairment/damage.

Customers who have this lot of VV13F Reinforced Dual Lumen ECMO
Catheters should return any product that they currently have to
OriGen Biomedical.

OriGen VV13F Reinforced Dual Lumen ECMO Catheters manufactured on
September 22, 2014 and distributed from February 16 to March 26,
2015 have been recalled:

   --- OriGen Reinforced Dual Lumen ECMO Catheters
       VV13F
       Lot N18549, 238 Units
       Manufactured 09/2014
       Expiration 09/2018

The OriGen VV13F Reinforced Dual Lumen ECMO Catheters is indicated
for use as a single cannula for both venous drainage and re-
infusion of blood in the internal jugular vein during
extracorporeal life support procedures of six hours or less in
Neonatal Intensive Care and Pediatric Intensive Care ECMO centers.

OriGen Biomedical voluntarily recalled OriGen VV13F Reinforced
Dual Lumen ECMO Catheters Lot N18549 after becoming aware of a
reported adverse event. Origen Biomedical has notified the FDA of
this action.

OriGen Biomedical is aware of one product failure and has received
a complaint associated with the problem. This serious adverse
event resulted in patient death.

The recalled product was distributed to ECMO sites in the
following states:

California    Texas     Pennsylvania
Michigan      Indiana   Hawaii
Ohio          New York  Kentucky
Oregon        Florida

If you have any questions regarding this recall, you can contact
the company at:

OriGen Biomedical
Attn: Bernie R Silvers
7000 Burleson Rd, Bldg. D
Austin, TX 78744

CST Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00
+1 512 474 7278

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.

Complete and submit the report Online:
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm
Regular Mail or Fax: Download form
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address
on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178


PERSOLVE LLC: Court Enters Discovery Order in Jacobson Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Howard r. Lloyd issued on April 1, 2015, an order
regarding discovery dispute joint report #1 in the case captioned
SANDRA LEE JACOBSON, Plaintiff, v. PERSOLVE, LLC, D/B/A ACCOUNT
RESOLUTION ASSOCIATES; et al., Defendants, NO. C14-00735 LHK
(HRL), (N.D. Cal.).

Sandra Lee Jacobson sued Persolve and Stride Card, LLC for
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692 et seq. and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, Cal. Civ. Code Section 1788 et seq. Plaintiff
alleges that Persolve, a third-party debt collector, sent a
collection letter on behalf of Stride Card that does not state or
disclose the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed in
violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a)(2) and Cal. Civ. Code
Section 1788.17.

In Discovery Dispute Joint Report #1, Plaintiff seeks documents
relating to Persolve's net worth, for the purposes of filing a
motion for class certification and determining potential damages.
Plaintiff contends that to get a true accounting of Persolve's
financial standing, Persolve must produce several different
categories of documents relating to Persolve or any related series
LLC or other entity.

In his order, Magistrate Judge Lloyd denied Plaintiffs' first,
second, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh requests for documents.

He said Plaintiff may bring their fourth, fifth, sixth, and
seventh requests again in the event that Judge Lucy Koh grants
Plaintiff's pending motion for leave to file a second amended
class action complaint.

With respect the Plaintiff's third request for a complete listing
of all accounts receivable for Persolve, including any of its
series or related entities, the Court ordered Persolve to produce
this information for PL2, subject to protective order, if it has
not already done so.

The Court also ordered Persolve to produce documents, subject to
protective order, if it has not already done so, pertaining to the
Plaintiff's eighth request for a copy of the corporate record book
for Persolve, including any of its series or related entities.

Finally, the Court denied Plaintiff's request for Persolve to
produce unredacted versions of the documents.

A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/p270FNfrom
Leagle.com.

Sandra Lee Jacobson, Plaintiff, represented by Fred W. Schwinn --
ksb_cmecf@fredschwinn.com -- Consumer Law Center, Inc., O.
Randolph Bragg -- Rand@horwitzlaw.com -- Horwitz,Horwitz &
Associates & Raeon Rodrigo Roulston --
raeon.roulston@sjconsumerlaw.com  -- Consumer Law Center, Inc.

Persolve, LLC, Defendant, represented by Charles Robert Messer --
messerc@cmtlaw.com -- Carlson & Messer LLP, David J. Kaminski --
kaminskid@cmtlaw.com -- Carlson & Messer LLP & Stephen Albert
Watkins -- watkinss@cmtlaw.com -- Carlson and Messer LLP.

Stride Card, LLC, Defendant, represented by David J. Kaminski,
Carlson & Messer LLP & Stephen Albert Watkins, Carlson and Messer
LLP.


PFIZER INC: Faces "Fermin" Suit Over Misleading Product Packaging
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Fermin, Lichun Huo, Josefina Valdez, Adriana Sousa, John
Doe (Illinois), John Doe (Michigan), John Doe (New Jersey), John
Does 1-100, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated
v. Pfizer Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02133 (E.D.N.Y., April 14, 2015),
arises out of misleading packaging of the Defendant's Advil(R)
ibuprofen products, which are produced in the form of coated
tablets, film-coated tablets, coated caplets, and Liqui-Gels(R)
containing 200mg ibuprofen, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory
drug.

Pfizer Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters at 235
East 42nd Street, New York, NY 10017, which owns and operates a
research-based pharmaceutical company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PGA TOUR: More Caddies Join Suit Over Trade Restraint
-----------------------------------------------------
Rex Hoggard, writing for Golf Channel, reports that on March 16
lawyers for caddies, who claim the PGA Tour has engaged in
restraint of trade and anticompetitive conduct involving caddie
bibs, amended the lawsuit to include 167 caddies, more than double
the original number involved in the case.

Among the additional plaintiffs was Steve Williams, Tiger Woods'
former caddie who told Cut Line, "They [the Tour] treat the
caddies like second-class citizens."

Some may not like the concept, but a new caddie credo is emerging,
"show up, keep up and speak up."


PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Emerson" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anne P. Emerson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Premera Blue Cross, Case No. 2:15-cv-00591
(W.D. Wash., April 14, 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:

      Duncan Calvert Turner, Esq.
      Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
      Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
      BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC
      19929 Ballinger Way NE, Ste 200
      Seattle, WA 98155
      Telephone: (206) 621-6566
      E-mail: dturner@badgleymullins.com
              sbasser@badgleymullins.com
              sward@badgleymullins.com


PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Olson" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
Juanita Olson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Premera Blue Cross, Case No. 2:15-cv-00588 (W.D.
Wash., April 14, 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 -

      Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
      Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
      Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
      CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
      One Haverford Centre
      361 W. Lancaster Ave.
      Haverford, PA 19041
      Telephone: (610) 645-4717
      Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
      E-mail: josephsauder@chimicles.com
              bfj@chimicles.com
              jbk@chimicles.com


PROLAINAT: Recalls Trader's Joe A Dozen Sweet Bites Products
------------------------------------------------------------
PROLAINAT is voluntarily recalling all lots of 9.16 oz packages of
Trader Joe's A Dozen Sweet Bites (Chocolate & Coffee "Opera" Cake,
Raspberry "Macaron Aux Framboises" Cake, Caramel & Chocolate Cake)
due to undeclared coconut. People who have an allergy or
sensitivity to coconut run the risk of serious or life threatening
allergic reaction if they consume the product. The Trader Joe's A
Dozen Sweet Cakes is safe for consumption by those who do not have
coconut allergies.

The recalled product was produced from January 1, 2011 to February
5, 2015 and distributed to Trader Joe's stores nationwide. The
product was sold frozen and packaged in a 9.16 oz box with a
photograph of the product on the front of the box and a UPC
#00967679 that can be found printed the back of the package.

The recall was initiated after a routine product packaging review
surfaced the omission of coconut from the ingredient panel. All
affected product has been removed from shelves and from
distribution.

No allergic reactions or illnesses have been reported to date.

Customers who have purchased 9.16 oz packages of Trader Joe's A
Dozen Sweet Bites and have a sensitivity to coconut are urged to
discard the product or return it to any Trader Joe's for a full
refund. Customers with questions may contact Trader Joe's Customer
Relations at 626-599-3817 [Monday through Friday, 6:00AM to 6:00
PM PST].

We deeply regret this situation and apologize to any consumers for
any inconvenience.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm443481.htm


RGS FINANCIAL: June 4 Management Conference in "Espineli" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case ESTER ESPINELI, Plaintiff, v. RGS FINANCIAL, INC.,
Defendant, CASE NO. 15-CV-00869-PJH, (N.D. Cal.) has been
reassigned to the Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton.

In an order entered April 1, 2015, Judge Hamilton informed all
parties and counsel of record that a Case Management Conference
will be held in this case on June 4, 2015, at 2:00 p.m., in
Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Federal Building, 1301 Clay Street,
Oakland, California.

Judge Hamilton said the Lead counsel must meet and confer as
required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) prior to the Case Management
Conference with respect to those subjects set forth in Fed. R.
Civ. P. 16(c). Not less than seven days before the conference,
counsel must file a joint case management statement addressing
each of the items listed in the "Standing Order For All Judges of
the Northern District -- Contents of Joint Case Management
statement.

A copy of the Case Management Order is available at
http://is.gd/IhZg5Nfrom Leagle.com.

Ester Espineli, Plaintiff, represented by Amy Lynn Bennecoff
Ginsburg, Kimmel and Silverman PC.


RITE AID: Sued Over Failure to Provide Blind-Accessible POS
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mary West, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. Rite Aid Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-02881-CM (S.D.N.Y.,
April 14, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's discriminatory
policies or practices that result in unlawful point-of-sale
devices which deny blind individuals equal access to the goods and
services at Rite Aid Pharmacies.

Rite Aid Corporation owns and operates a chain of drug stores and
pharmacies throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ROYAL FROZEN: Recalls Blintzes Products Due to Undeclared Milk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Frozen Food is recalling its BLINTZES products due to
undeclared milk. The products contain milk, a known allergen,
which is not declared on the product label. People who have
allergies to milk run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume these products.

The Cherry/Potato/Potato Mushroom Blintzes were produced on
various dates prior to April 16, 2015. The following products are
subject to recall:

   --- 20-oz. plastic trays containing ten pieces of "Royal
       Frozen Food, BLINTZES Blintzes with Cherry" with bar code
       "6 0723830021 8."
   --- 20-oz. plastic trays containing ten pieces of "Royal
       Frozen Food, BLINTZES Blintzes with Potato" with bar code
       "6 0723830020 1."

   --- 20-oz. plastic trays containing ten pieces of "Royal
       Frozen Food, BLINTZES Blintzes with Potato Mushroom" with
       bar code " 6 0723830020 1".

These items produced were shipped to retail stores and markets in
California and Nevada.

The problem was discovered during a routine label review by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) inspection.

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

Consumers who have purchased the Blintzes products and have
sensitivity to milk are urged to discard the product and bring
their receipt to the store for a full refund.

Consumers and Media with questions about the recall can contact
Gloria Cheng, Manager at (323) 938-8666, hour 8:00-5:00 PM, PST.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm443681.htm


S&K GREEN: "Camacho" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Edgar Camacho, Emilio Gamez, Oscar Par, Elmer Par, Julio Par,
Thomas Orozco, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. S&K Green Groceries Inc. et al, Case No. 1:15-cv-02150
(E.D.N.Y., April 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

S&K Green Groceries Inc. is a New York corporation that owns and
operates APNA Bazar market located at 113-18 Liberty Avenue,
Richmond Hill, New York 11419.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SCHNUCK MARKETS: Recalls Pasta Salad Products Due to Salmonella
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schnuck Markets, Inc. of St. Louis, Mo. is recalling its Chef's
Express California Pasta Salad sold in its Deli/Chef's Express
departments April 2 - April 14, 2015 because it has the potential
to be contaminated with Salmonella , an organism which can cause
serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or
elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy
persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea
(which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In
rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting in the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms,
endocarditis and arthritis.

The product was distributed to 99 Schnucks stores in Missouri,
Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin and Iowa.

The product would have been labeled "Chef's Express California
Pasta Salad" and sold by weight through the company's Deli/Chef's
Express departments.

No illnesses have been reported to date related to the consumption
of this product.

This recall is a result of Taylor Farms (Salina, Calif.) recall of
fresh, flat leaf spinach due to the possible contamination of
Salmonella. This spinach is an ingredient in Schnucks California
Pasta Salad. Schnucks has ceased sale of the California Pasta
Salad at this time.

Customers may return any unused portion to their nearest store for
a full refund. Customers with questions should contact the
Schnucks Consumer Affairs department Monday - Friday, 8:30 a.m. -
5 p.m. at 314-994-4400 or 1-800-264-4400.


SECURITY CREDIT: Court Orders Filing of Revised Dismissal Notice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Before the court in MAYA C. CROSS, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SECURITY CREDIT SYSTEMS,
INC., Defendant, CASE NO. CV414-122, (D. Ga.) is Plaintiff's
Notice of Voluntary Dismissal.  Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action by
filing "a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves
either an answer or a motion for summary judgment." Normally, a
class action suit such as this may be dismissed only with the
Court's approval. Although a class has not been certified in this
case, "Nile requirements of Rule 23(e) can be applied to a
stipulation of dismissal in the pre-certification stage-and indeed
should be so applied-to avoid collusion in the early stages of
class litigation."  However, court approval is not required where
a putative class representative seeks to settle only individual
claims.

"Here, it is unclear whether Plaintiff seeks to settle only her
individual claims against Defendant or whether the dismissal is
intended to apply to the entire prospective class," wrote District
Judge William T. Moore, Jr., in his order entered April 15, 2015,
a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/NUln96from
Leagle.com.  "The Notice of Voluntary Dismissal is comprised of a
single sentence that simply indicates that "this action shall be
dismissed with prejudice to all claims." As a result, the Court is
unable to determine whether the protections afforded by Rule 23(e)
are appropriate in this case.

For this reason, the Court ordered the Plaintiff to file an
amended Notice of Voluntary Dismissal that clearly identifies the
claims affected.

Maya C. Cross, Plaintiff, represented by James M. Feagle --
jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com -- Skaar & Feagle, LLP & Justin T.
Holcombe -- jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com -- Skaar & Feagle, LLP.


SOHO UNIVERSITY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Spallone, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Soho University, Inc. d/b/a Soho 544 and John Doe,
Case No. 4:15-cv-01622-RBH (D.S.C., April 14, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees
and costs, and for other relief under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendant own and operate a restaurant in Horry County, South
Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bruce E. Miller, Esq.
      BRUCE E MILLER LAW OFFICE
      147 Wappoo Creek Drive, Suite 603
      Charleston, SC 29412
      Telephone: (843) 579-7373
      E-mail: bmiller@brucemillerlaw.com


SOLUTIONS AT WORK: Recalls Kale Chips Products Due to Cashews
-------------------------------------------------------------
Solutions At Work, Inc. of Cleveland, Ohio is recalling CLEVELAND
CROPS CHILI CHEEZY KALE CHIPS because they may contain undeclared
raw cashews. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to
raw cashews run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume this product.

CLEVELAND CROPS CHILI CHEEZY KALE CHIPS were distributed at three
local retail stores in the Cleveland, Ohio area between the period
of 12/1/2014 and 3/30/2015. These CLEVELAND CROPS CHILI CHEEZY
KALE CHIPS are individually packaged in a 2-ounce, stand-up, paper
pouch with a clear viewing window on the back under the "Cleveland
Crops" brand. The UPC code for this product is 58736 00504.

No known illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered by the Ohio
Department of Agriculture that the CLEVELAND CROPS CHILI CHEEZY
KALE CHIPS, which contain raw cashews, were distributed in
packaging that did not reveal the presence of raw cashews.
Subsequent investigation indicates the problem was caused by the
mislabeling of a limited batch of this product.

Consumers who have purchased CLEVELAND CROPS CHILI CHEEZY KALE
CHIPS that fall under this recall notice are urged to return them
to the place of purchase for a full refund and/or contact
Solutions At Work, Inc. (dba Cleveland Crops) at (216) 736-4567
Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm443030.htm


SOURCE REFRIGERATION: Court Approves Revision to Class Notice
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Vince Chhabria signed on April 15, 2015, a
stipulation and order regarding an edit to the class notice in the
case captioned LYLE E. GALEENER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SOURCE REFRIGERATION &
HVAC, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 13-CV-04960-VC, (N.D. Cal.).

The Court granted preliminary approval of the parties' proposed
class action settlement on March 13, 2015, approving, among other
things, the Class Notice and Confirmation Form.  The Class Notice
explains to class members that the settlement provides for
$10,000,000 in monetary relief as a common fund, from which
attorneys' fees and costs and class representative service
payments approved by the Court will be subtracted

Pursuant to the court-approved stipulation, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/m0V8RUfrom Leagle.com, the Class Notice
will be edited to include this text in Section 18: "The cost of
administration of the settlement, estimated to be approximately
$30,000, will also come from the settlement fund."

John M. Padilla -- jpadilla@pandrlaw.com -- PADILLA & RODRIGUEZ,
L.L.P., Los Angeles, California, Galvin B. Kennedy --
gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com -- (admitted pro hac vice) Gabriel
Assaad (admitted pro hac vice) -- gassaad@kennedyhodges.com ---
KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P., Houston, Texas, Attorneys for Plaintiff
and proposed Class Members.

MARGARET A. KEANE -- margaret.keane@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER LLP
(US), San Francisco, CA, Jahan C. Sagafi --
jsagafi@outtengolden.com -- Outten & Golden LLP, San Francisco,
CA, Christopher M. McNerney -- cmcnerney@outtengolden.com --
(admitted pro hac vice) Outten & Golden LLP, New York, NY,
BENJAMIN M. GIPSON -- ben.gipson@dlaiper.com -- KATHARINE J. LIAO
-- katharine.liao@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER LLP (US), Los Angeles,
CA, Attorneys for Defendant Source Refrigeration & HVAC, Inc.


SQM: Shareholders File Securities Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Argus reports that shareholders of Chilean fertilizer producer SQM
have filed a class action lawsuit against the company and three of
its current and former officers, seeking damages for a sharp drop
in the company's market value.

The complaint, filed by US law firm Pomerantz, alleges that SQM
violated US federal securities law by making false or misleading
statements about its business, that the company illicitly funneled
money to electoral campaigns for the conservative Independent
Democratic Union (UDI) and lacked sufficient internal controls
over financial reporting.  As a result SQM's financial statements
were false between March 4, 2014 and March 17, 2015, according to
the suit.

The complaint, filed in the US District Court in the Southern
District of New York, noted that SQM's stock price fell from
$26.17/share on 25 February, 2015 to $18.65/share by March 18 on
"extremely heavy" trade volume, as reports of the corruption
scandal surfaced.  On March 16 chief executive Patricio Contesse
was removed from his post, followed by the resignation of three
PotashCorp-appointed board members.  PotashCorp owns 32pc of SQM.

The suit includes shareholders who acquired SQM stock on the New
York stock exchange between March 4, 2014 and March 17, 2015. The
law firm estimates that shareholders meeting the plaintiff
criteria could number into the thousands.

The suit names as defendants Mr. Contesse and his successor
Patricio de Solminihac, who previously served as chief operating
officer, and chief financial officer Ricardo Ramos.

Pomerantz in March was also appointed lead counsel in a similar
class-action suit against Brazil's state-controlled Petrobras,
which is at the center of massive corruption scandal that has
eroded the company's share value.

Another US law firm, Peiffer Rosca Wolf, said it is preparing a
potential class-action suit against SQM on behalf of shareholders.

Chile's tax authority SII on March 20 delivered SQM accounting
records from 2009-14 to the national prosecutor's office, which is
seeking to investigate.  Politicians from the opposition UDI and
ruling left-of-center coalition, known as the New Majority, are
under scrutiny for allegedly benefiting from the scheme.  SQM had
delivered the accounting records to the SII on March 16, after
rebuffing the prosecutor's request for the records.

The high-profile case has called into question the integrity of
the SII and Chile's constitutional court (TC), which ruled to
suspend the investigation.

The US securities regulator SEC declined on comment on whether it
has opened an investigation into SQM.

SQM could not be reached for comment.


STATE FARM: July 2 Case Management Conference in "Levels" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton had set a July 2, 2015 case
management conference in ROBBIE LEVELS, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM
MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, CASE NO.
15-CV-01371-PJH, (N.D. Cal.).

The conference will be held at 2:00 p.m., in Courtroom 3, 3rd
Floor, Federal Building, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California.

Judge Hamilton ordered Lead counsel to meet and confer as required
by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) prior to the Case Management Conference
with respect to those subjects set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c).
Not less than seven days before the conference, counsel must file
a joint case management statement addressing each of the items
listed in the "Standing Order For All Judges of the Northern
District -- Contents of Joint Case Management statement.

A copy of the April 1, 2015 Order is available at
http://is.gd/6vsSgafrom Leagle.com.

Robbie Levels, Plaintiff, represented by John F. Vannucci.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Defendant,
represented by Stephen M. Hayes -- shayes@hayesscott.com -- Hayes,
Scott, Bonino, Ellingson & McLay, LLP, Tara S Nayak --
tnayak@hayesscott.com -- & Stephen P. Ellingson --
sellingson@hayesscott.com -- Hayes, Scott, Bonino, Ellingson &
McLay, LLP.

State Farm General Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Stephen P. Ellingson, Hayes, Scott, Bonino, Ellingson & McLay,
LLP, Stephen M. Hayes, Hayes, Scott, Bonino, Ellingson & McLay,
LLP & Tara S Nayak.


SUBWAY: Workers Get "Conditional Certification in Wage Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Satterfield, writing for Knoxville News Sentinel, reports
that a federal judge is has given the green light to a group of
East Tennessee fast food workers in their push for a class-action
lawsuit over an alleged plot to deny them pay to line the pockets
of managers.

U.S. District Judge Pamela Reeves granted "conditional
certification" for a group of seven Subway workers to recruit
fellow co-workers, both past and present, to join their right to
prove franchise owners Randall Lowe of Maryville and John Boike of
Knoxville are violating the Fair Labor Standards Act.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Guyton already had approved the move,
but Lowe and Boike appealed to Judge Reeves.

The lawsuit involves at least eight Subway stores in Maryville and
one on Chapman Highway in Seymour.  Messrs. Lowe and Boike own all
of them, and the pair share a common headquarters at 600
Reliability Circle in Knoxville.  The legal action originally was
filed in Sevier County Circuit Court last April but then was
transferred to U.S. District Court.

The workers, all assigned to different stores at different times,
contend via attorneys James H. Price, Michael Ryan Franz and W.
Allen McDonald they all were robbed of wages by managers who
garnered bonuses from Messrs. Lowe and Boike for keeping hours
low.

"The defendants allegedly accomplished this by, among other
things, requiring employees to work while 'off the clock' for
breaks and closing, by failing to compensate employees for time
spent attending staff meetings, and by altering time records so
that employees were not paid for work actually performed,"
Judge Reeves wrote.

"The plaintiffs contend that these are willful alterations made by
managers for the purpose of reducing labor costs and qualifying
themselves for performance bonuses," she continued.  "This bonus
system allegedly incentivizes managers to cut hours from the
employees' time worked, thereby denying the plaintiffs fair pay
for their work performed as well as denying them minimum wage and
overtime pay under the FLSA."

Attorneys Robert Bowman and George Arrants Jr., who represent
Messrs. Lowe and Boike, deny any such plot. But their chief
argument against class-action status is that each store is unique
and each worker's situation different.  To qualify as a class-
action lawsuit, there must be proof members of the proposed
"class" of plaintiffs share common injury under the same legal
theory.

Reeves opined, as did Guyton in his original ruling, that, so far
at least, the seven Subway workers named in the lawsuit have
presented enough proof to merit the publication of a legal notice
inviting similarly-situated workers employed sometime during the
last three years to join in the fight.  Although the lawsuit
focuses on the Maryville and Seymour locations, Messrs.
Lowe and Boike own other franchises as far away as Chattanooga,
documents show.

"The plaintiffs have pled sufficient facts to support their
contention that the defendants operate their stores as a joint
employer, with shared management, policies, employee handbooks,
and even office space," Reeves wrote. The proof of violations will
not be so different, store to store, as the defendants contend.


SUGAR ROCK: 4th Cir. Remands Valentine Suit to Dist. Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Clifton G. Valentine filed a diversity action on November 8, 2010,
in the Northern District of West Virginia, alleging that he owns
fractional working interests in four mining partnerships, which in
turn own six oil and gas wells on four separate leaseholds located
in Ritchie County. Named as defendants in Valentine's lawsuit are
Sugar Rock, Inc., and two of its officers, Gerald D. Hall and
Teresa D. Hall.  Valentine demands an accounting of the four
partnerships and seeks compensatory and punitive damages, together
with reimbursement of his attorney fees and litigation costs.  On
January 13, 2011, Sugar Rock answered the complaint and filed a
counterclaim for the cumulative operating expenses attributable to
Valentine's asserted working interests in the partnerships.

By its Memorandum Opinion and Order of September 18, 2012, the
district court awarded summary judgment to Sugar Rock and
dismissed Valentine's case with prejudice.

The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, in an order
entered April 2, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/mLohRKfrom Leagle.com, vacated the judgment of the
district court and remanded for such other and further proceedings
as may be appropriate. Although the Fourth Circuit concomitantly
affirmed the district court's denial of Valentine's motion to
voluntarily dismiss his complaint without prejudice, it expressed
no view as to how the court should rule on remand if Valentine
renews his effort to join the putative class action, styled
Washburn v. Sugar Rock, Inc. in the Circuit Court of Ritchie
County.

The case is CLIFTON G. VALENTINE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SUGAR
ROCK, INC.; GERALD D. HALL; TERESA D. HALL, Defendants-Appellees,
NO. 12-2273.

ARGUED: James Scott Huggins, THEISEN BROCK, LPA, Marietta, Ohio,
for Appellant.

W. Henry Lawrence, IV -- hank.lawrence@steptoe-johnson.com --
STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC, Bridgeport, West Virginia, for Appellees.

ON BRIEF: Daniel Patrick Corcoran -- corcoran@theisenbrock.com --
THEISEN BROCK, LPA, Marietta, Ohio, for Appellant.

Amy Marie Smith -- amy.smith@steptoe-johnson.com -- William J.
O'Brien -- william.obrien@steptoe-johnson.com -- STEPTOE & JOHNSON
PLLC, Bridgeport, West Virginia, for Appellees.


SUPERIOR NUT: Recalls Pine Nuts Products Due to Salmonella
----------------------------------------------------------
Superior Nut & Candy Co., Inc. is recalling 4 ounce packages Pine
Nuts because it has the potential to be contaminated with
Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail and elderly people, and
other with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with
Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody),
nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances,
infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into
the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as
arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and
arthritis.

The recalled Pine Nuts were distributed nationwide in retail
stores.

The product come in a 4-ounce packages of Pine Nuts are sold in
store Produce Departments with a clear package front and tan-
colored label on the back. The back label list Pine Nuts as the
only ingredient and has the UPC Number of 72549320016 with a Best
By date between 10/22/2015 to 12/27/2015 on the back label.

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

The potential for contamination was noted after routine testing by
the FDA revealed the presence of Salmonella in a 4 ounce package.

Production of the Pine Nuts has been suspended while the FDA and
Superior Nut & Candy continue their investigation as to the source
of the problem.

Customers who have purchased any 4 ounce packages of Pine Nuts are
urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers with questions may contact Customer Relations at (773)
254-7900 [Monday through Friday, 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM CST].

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm443667.htm


TAJ PALACE: "Pedro" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Calixto Contreras Pedro, individually and in behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. Taj Palace Incorporated d/b/a
Minar's Taj, Ranjit Kaur, and Inder Singh, Case No. 1:15-cv-02887-
GBD (S.D.N.Y., April 14, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 5 West 31st
Street, Front 1, 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


TARGET CORP: Judge OKs $10MM Data Breach Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Chapman, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
an agreement in which Target Corp. will pay $10 million to settle
a class-action lawsuit over a massive data breach in late 2013
received preliminary approval on March 19 in the United States.

U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson gave his approval at a hearing
on March 19 in St. Paul, Minn.

"Target really needs to be commended for being willing to step
up," Judge Magnuson said.

The move will allow people to begin filing claims ahead of another
hearing for final approval.  People covered by the settlement can
file for up to $10,000 with proof of their losses, including lost
time dealing with the problem.

A spokesperson for Target says the class action didn't include
people living in Canada.

Company documents say the Minneapolis-based company also faces one
Canadian class-action stemming from the breach, which occurred at
U.S. stores during the busy U.S. Thanksgiving shopping period.

Target's data breach in 2013 exposed details of as many as 40
million credit and debit card accounts and hurt its holiday sales
that year.  The company offered free credit monitoring for
affected customers and overhauled its security systems.

The settlement would also require Minneapolis-based Target Corp.
to appoint a chief information security officer, keep a written
information security program and offer security training to its
workers.  It would be required to maintain a process to monitor
for data security events and respond to such events deemed to
present a threat.

"We are pleased to see the process moving forward and look forward
to its resolution," Target spokesperson Molly Snyder said in an
emailed statement.

The company said in court documents filed in Minnesota that the
funds for reimbursements will be kept in an interest bearing
escrow account.  Claims will mostly be submitted and processed
online through a dedicated website.

Vincent Esades, an attorney for Target customers, said after the
hearing that the settlement could end up costing Target $25
million, when attorney fees and administrative costs are added in.

He said consumers will likely be able to start filing claims
around April 30, and 100 million people may be eligible.
Consumers can claim up to $10,000 if they can document losses;
after those claims are paid out, the rest of the settlement funds
will be divided among consumers who claim they suffered a loss,
but don't have documentation.

Mr. Esades said customers who opt out of the settlement have the
right to appeal.

Target attorney David McDowell declined to comment after the
hearing.

The chain has worked hard to lure back customers that were
hesitant to shop there after the incident.  Over the 2014 holiday
season, Target offered free shipping on all items.  It recently
announced that it was cutting its minimum online purchase to
qualify for free shipping in half to $25.  And on March 18 the
retailer said it will now allow returns for up to a year for its
private and exclusive brands.

Earlier in February, Target said it would lay off about 1,700
people, eliminate another 1,400 unfilled positions and cut up to
$2 billion in costs.  It will also focus more on technology to
boost online sales growth.  The latter move will involve about $1
billion aimed at beefing up business from shoppers who are more
likely to shop online.


TARGET INC: Customers May Face Difficulty in Getting Payout
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Hatamoto, writing for TweakTown, reports that Target may
have agreed to a $10 million class-action lawsuit settlement, but
trying to actually collect payment could be rather difficult.
Consumers trying to cash in will need to submit documentation of
fraudulent losses, which can be rather hard to prove.

Many fraudulent charges are caught by a bank or credit card
company -- and even if a charge isn't caught -- the bank or credit
card company typically takes care of fraud-based purchases.

"The law generally does not compensate consumers for their
hassle," the USA Today learned.  "In terms of being able to
document that and say, I as a consumer have suffered legal
damages, that's a very tough putt for a consumer."

To collect, victims must have suffered an unauthorized and
unreimbursed charge; time spent addressing unauthorized charges;
costs to hire someone to correct their credit report; a higher
interest rate, or payment of higher interest fee; lost access to
funds; associated fees paid on the account; or credit-related
costs to acquire credit monitoring or purchase a credit report.


TATA CONSULTANCY: Faces "Heldt" Suit Over Racial Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Heldt v. Tata Consultancy Services, Ltd., Case No. 3:15-cv-
01696 (N.D. Cal., April 14, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's
intentional pattern and practice of employment discrimination
against individuals who are not South Asian, including
discrimination in hiring, placement, and termination decisions.

Tata Consultancy Services, Ltd. is headquartered in Mumbai, India,
operates approximately 19 offices in the United States, which is a
business that provides consulting, technology, and outsourcing
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel Low, Esq.
      Daniel Kotchen, Esq.
      Michael von Klemperer, Esq.
      KOTCHEN & LOW LLP
      1745 Kalorama Road NW, Suite 101
      Washington, DC 20009
      Telephone: (202) 471-1995
      E-mail: dlow@kotchen.com
              dkotchen@kotchen.com
              mvk@kotchen.com

          - and -

      Michael F. Brown, Esq.
      DVG LAW PARTNER LLC
      P.O. Box 645
      Neenah, WI 54957
      Telephone: (920) 238-6781
      Facsimile: (920) 273-6177
      E-mail: mbrown@dvglawpartner.com

         - and -

      Vonda K. Vandaveer, Esq.
      V.K. VANDAVEER, P.L.L.C.
      P.O. Box 27317
      Washington, DC 20038-7317
      Telephone: (202) 340-1215
      Facsimile: (202) 521-0599
      E-mail: atty@vkvlaw.com

         - and -

      Steven G. Tidrick, Esq.
      Joel B. Young, Esq.
      THE TIDRICK LAW FIRM
      2039 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 308
      Berkeley, CA 94704
      Telephone: (510) 788-5100
      Facsimile: (510) 291-3226
      E-mail: sgt@tidricklaw.com
              jby@tidricklaw.com


TD BANK: Judge Dismisses Breach-of-Contract Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Y. Peter Kang and Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, report that a
Pennsylvania federal judge on March 20 tossed a breach-of-contract
class action accusing TD Bank NA of processing debits on its
customers' bank accounts from payday lenders it allegedly knew
were making unlawful online loans, finding the lead plaintiff
failed to state a claim.

The putative class action was brought by TD Bank customers
David Andrichyn and Gladstone Williams, who received payday loans
from several out-of-state lenders, alleging the bank processed the
debits from these lenders without challenge and assessed overdraft
fees in violation of the customers' contract and various state
laws.

In granting TD Bank's motion to dismiss, U.S. District Judge J.
Curtis Joyner said TD Bank's customer account agreements do not
require it to block or repay payments that were authorized in
connection with transactions that plaintiffs alleged were
unlawful.

"We see no plausible implication in the complaint that TD acted in
bad faith by processing these transactions," Judge Joyner wrote in
the opinion.  "It strains credulity to argue after the fact that
TD 'evaded the spirit' of the contract by processing debits
initiated and authorized by the plaintiffs.  If anything, TD was
acting in accord with the plaintiffs' reasonable expectations, not
undermining them."

The judge said TD Bank's customer agreement states that overdraft
fees are not determined by the nature of a transaction but merely
if the account has a negative balance.

"We see nothing in the account agreement -- and plaintiffs do not
point to anything -- that conditions TD's ability to charge these
fees on the nature of the transaction that overdraws the account,"
the judge wrote in the opinion.  "While it is unfortunate that
these fees contributed to plaintiffs' dire financial
circumstances, TD did not breach the Account Agreement by
assessing them."

The March 20 decision comes as consumer advocates and state
regulators are pushing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to
come up with strong regulations to protect payday loan borrowers,
who currently have few places to turn for help.  Prosecutors and
regulators in a number of states have taken a hard line on payday
lending, particularly online loans that violate state laws.

Bank of America NA had a similar suit in New York federal court
dismissed in February.

The plaintiffs are represented by Brent W. Landau --
blandau@hausfeld.com -- Sathya S. Gosselin and James J. Pizzirusso
of Hausfeld LLP, Daniel L. Berger and Raymond F. Schuenemann III
of Grant & Eisenhofer PA, Hassan A. Zavareei and Jeffrey D. Kaliel
of Tycko & Zavareei LLP, Jason H. Alperstein and Jeffrey M. Ostrow
-- ostrow@kolawyers.com -- of Kopelowitz Ostrow PA and Steve Six
of Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

TD Bank is represented by Allen Burton -- aburton@omm.com -- and
Jonathan Rosenberg -- jrosenberg@omm.com -- of O'Melveny & Myers
LLP and Alexander D. Bono -- abono@duanemorris.com -- and Ryan E.
Borneman -- reborneman@duanemorris.com -- of Duane Morris LLP.

The case is David Andrichyn et al. v. TD Bank NA, case number
2:14-cv-03863, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.


TRANSCEND HOLDINGS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Luis Ahuacateco, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Transcend Holdings, Inc. (d/b/a Transcend Construction
& Renovations), Nicholas Cagiulo and Dominic Jacino, Case No. 15-
cv-02149 (E.D.N.Y., April 15, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company with its
main office located at 41 Terrace Place, Brooklyn, New York, 1121.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TWITTER INC: Faces Gender Discrimination Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wiessner, writing for Reuters, reports that a former
Twitter Inc female software engineer has filed a proposed class
action claiming the company's "black box" promotion process
unlawfully favors men, the latest suit to highlight claims of
widespread gender discrimination in the tech industry.

In a suit filed on March 19 in California state court in San
Francisco, where Twitter is based, engineer Tina Huang says the
microblogging company has no formal procedures for posting job
openings or granting promotions, relying instead on a secretive
"shoulder tap" process that elevates few women to top engineering
positions.


TYSON FOODS: Faces Class Action Over Application Process
--------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a class action lawsuit against a food
distributor claims the business violated federal law on its
application forms for new employees.

Mosa Gabra, Samea Gabra, Nashat Ayoud and Kelly Bowlds filed the
lawsuit on March 10 against Tyson Foods alleging the company
didn't inform applicants it would use information from third-party
reports to conduct background checks during the hiring process.
The lawsuit claims Tyson violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by
not clearly telling potential employees it would obtain
information about them from outside sources.

"FCRA's disclosure requirements are important because they enable
employees to control and correct information collected about them
by third parties," the lawsuit said.  "In order for consumers to
exercise their statutory right to obtain a copy of their consumer
reports and to correct information in those reports, it is
necessary that consumers are aware a report is going to be
procured and used."

The lawsuit claims FCRA requires a "stand-alone disclosure" when
looking at consumer reporting agencies' information on applicants.
However, the application provided to the plaintiffs, which stated
employment was contingent upon background check reports, wasn't a
standalone document, but a part of the entire application.

The lawsuit seeks class status and an unspecified amount of
damages plus court costs.  The plaintiffs are represented by
Charles P. Yezbak III of Yezback Law Offices in Nashville, Tenn.,
and Gregory K. McGillivary, Molly A. Elkin and Robin S. Burroughs
-- robin@wmlaborlaw.com -- of Woodley & McGillivary, LLP in
Washington, D.C.

United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
case number 3:15-cv-00232.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Objections on Bid to Stay Case Due
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar signed on April 1, 2015, a stipulation
and order modifying the briefing schedule regarding defendants'
motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration in the case
captioned JACOB SABATINO, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
a Delaware corporation; RASIER, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; RASIER-CA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;
RASIER-DC, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; RASIER-PA,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 to 25,
inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 3:15-CV-00363-JST, (N.D. Cal.).

Pursuant to the court-approved stipulation, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/DzjOpVfrom Leagle.com, the briefing
schedule on Defendants' Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending
Arbitration, for which a hearing is currently scheduled for May
21, 2015, is modified to provide that Plaintiff's opposition to
Defendants' Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Arbitration will be
due on April 22, 2015, and Defendants' reply brief will be due on
May 4, 2015.

IRELL & MANELLA LLP Andra Barmash Greene -- agreene@irell.com --
A. Matthew Ashley -- mashley@irell.com -- Justin N. Owens --
jowens@irell.com -- Newport Beach, California, Attorneys for
Defendants.

KATHRYN HARVEY, Attorneys for Plaintiff.


UBS AG: Faces "Fernandez" Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nora Fernandez, Augusto Schreiner, Eddie Toro Velez, Victor R.
Vela Diez De Andino, Juan Viera, Georgina Velez Montes, and Esther
Santana, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. UBS AG, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-02859-UA (S.D.N.Y., April 14,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for breaches of their
fiduciary and contractual duties, specifically by steering Class
members, most of whom are older individuals focused on preserving
their capital and generating income for retirement, to invest in
the Funds, which were high-risk, volatile investments that
ultimately wiped out much of their life savings.

UBS AG is a Swiss global financial services company with its
principal places of business in Zurich and Basel, Switzerland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Deborah A. Elman, Esq.
      Robert D. Gerson, Esq.
      Daniel L. Berger, Esq.
      Mary S. Thomas, Esq.
      GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
      485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (646) 722-8500
      Facsimile: (646) 722-8501
      E-mail: delman@gelaw.com
              rgerson@gelaw.com
              dberger@gelaw.com
              mthomas@gelaw.com

         - and -

      Hannah Ross, Esq.
      Jacob Nachmani, Esq.
      Jeremy P. Robinson, Esq.
      PHV Gerald H. Silk, Esq.
      BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
      1285 Ave of the Americas, 38th Floor
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 554-1400
      Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
      E-mail: hannah@blbglaw.com
              jake.nachmani@blbglaw.com
              Jeremy@blbglaw.com
              jerry@blbglaw.com

         - and -

      Johnston Whitman Jr., Esq.
      Joshua E. D'Ancona, Esq.
      Margaret E. Onasch, Esq.
      Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq.
      KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
      280 King of Prussia Road
      Radnor, PA 19087
      Telephone: (610) 667-7706
      Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
      E-mail: jwhitman@ktmc.com
              jdancona@ktmc.com
              monasch@ktmc.com
              myarnoff@ktmc.com


ULTIMATE FIGHTING: Faces Antitrust Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
John S. Nash, writing for Boody Elbow, reports that yet another
antitrust complaint has been filed against the UFC in the Northern
California District Court, this time with former UFC fighters Kyle
Kingsbury and Darren Uyenoyama named as the plaintiffs.  This
brings the total number of complaints filed against the UFC to
five with eleven named plaintiffs asking to be class
representatives in a class action lawsuit.

The lawsuit, which was filed on March 20, 2015, claims that
"Through a series of anticompetitive, illicit and exclusionary
acts, the UFC has illegally acquired, enhanced and maintained
dominant position in the markets" for MMA events and fighters.

Kyle Kingsbury made his UFC debut against Tom Lawlor at The
Ultimate Fighter Season 8 Finale, after having been a contestant
on the reality show.  He would have 8 more fights in the
promotion, 4 wins and 5 loses, before retiring after a loss to
Patrick Cummings on the July 26, 2014 UFC on Fox event.

Darren Uyenoyama fought four times in the UFC, debuting on the
prelims of the first FOX event, where he defeated Norifumi
Yamamoto.  Mr. Uyenoyama would win his next bout before losing two
in a row and being released.

Worth noting, as the UFC tries to have the venue moved from
San Jose, California to Las Vegas, Nevada, is that Mr. Uyenoyama
is a resident of San Francisco and Kingsbury is a resident of
Sunnyvale, California, which is located in the Bay Area

The previously filed complaints, Le et al v. Zuffa, LLC, Vazquez
et al v. Zuffa, LLC, Vera et al v. Zuffa, LLC. and Ruediger et al
v. Zuffa, LLC named Cung Le, Jon Fitch, Nathan Quarry. Luis Javier
Vazquez, Dennis Lloyd Hallman, Brandon Vera, Pablo Garza, Gabe
Ruediger, and Mac Danzig as the plaintiffs.  Counsel for the
plaintiffs have filed a motion to consolidate these complaints and
a hearing has been scheduled for June 11.  The new case name would
be "In Re: Ultimate Fighting Championship Antitrust Litigation."


UNITED KINGDOM: Hindraf Class Action Set to Begin
-------------------------------------------------
Sukbhir Cheema, writing for The Rakyat Post, reports that the
Hindu Rights Action Force's (Hindraf) class action suit against
the British government for negligence against the Indian community
in then Malaya is set to begin on March 30 at the London High
Court.

Its national adviser, N. Ganesan said the suit which was re-filed
on July 2, 2012 took into account the British government for its
role in the current marginalized socio-economic status of the
Indian community in Malaysia.

"Our detractors in both the coalition political parties should now
recall all they had uttered in the interim about this suit and
about roles and eat all of that," Mr. Ganesan said in a press
conference held on March 21.

Adding that the pro-Indian organization is committed in bringing
about changes of the Indian communities' poor and marginalized,
Mr. Ganesan said Hindraf would be represented by one of UK's
leading law firm, Imran Khan & Partners.  He, however, declined to
elaborate on the amount the suit cost but stressed that fund was
collected through personal efforts by Hindraf members.

The Indian rights movement, through its suit highlighted seven
points that the British government through its Reid Constitutional
Commission (RCC) had been negligent against the Indian community
in then Malaya.

"Our claims are that the British government had failed to
appreciate and disregarded the peculiar position of the Indian
community.

"They had also failed in protecting and preserving the rights of
the Malayan Indians along with failure in giving priority to the
constitutional needs of the country by not adopting important
recommendations of the RCC," he said.

Mr. Ganesan added that the RCC had also failed to act fairly when
it relied upon and agreed to amendments introduced by the working
party controlled by the Umno-led Alliance government.

With the RCC failing to keep the original terms of the independent
constitutional commission within its framework, Mr. Ganesan said
the British government had also failed after an amended
constitution drastically different than one initially recommended
by the RCC was formulated.

"We expect to prevail in this suit in spite of the fact that we
are taking on the entire British establishment, as we are calling
into question the doings of their great empire over a period of a
tleast 180 years," Mr. Ganesan said, declining to speculate should
the suit prove to be a success.

Describing it as a major step forward following the first suit
which was filed on Aug 30, 2007 lapsed due to lack of resources
leading the movement to re-file another suit five years later,
Mr. Ganesan said he believes the implications are huge for
Malaysians with the suit being highly significant.

"Such claims have never been made in British courts before and
resources were obtained through intellectual efforts and
networks."

Hindraf chairman P. Waytha Moorthy is currently on a month-long
trip in London to oversee the suit taking place.


UNITED STATES: ACLU Searches Mexicali Deportees for Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jean Guerrero, writing for KPBS, reports that The American Civil
Liberties Union visited Mexicali on March 20 in search of
deportees who may qualify to return to the U.S.

About 100 people, mostly students, attended the public forum at
the Universidad Autonoma de Baja California of Mexicali, where the
ACLU discussed a settlement with the U.S. government that could
benefit thousands of deportees.

In February, a U.S. District Court told the ACLU it could broaden
its class of plaintiffs. The original lawsuit allowed 11 deportees
to return to the U.S. after they accused immigration officials of
coercing them into signing voluntary return forms, which waive the
right to an immigration hearing.

Deportees who signed voluntary return forms between June 1, 2009
and August 28, 2014 may qualify to join them.

Representatives from the ACLU asked members of the audience to
contact the ACLU if they think they may qualify.

Monica Oropeza attended the ACLU event in Mexicali to learn more
about the settlement. She runs a migrant shelter in Mexicali, and
thinks several visitors may be eligible plaintiffs.

"We're going to see if one of the people who come to us can
apply," Ms. Oropeza said.

Miguel Lepe, the Baja California representative for the Ministry
of Foreign Relations, said the state government is working with
the ACLU to identify deportees who were expelled from the U.S.
under the conditions of the settlement.

"There are people who suffered this type of deportation who aren't
aware they may be able to return," Ms. Lepe said.

The ACLU will be searching for potential plaintiffs through the
summer, and will be filing applications on their behalf until the
end of the year.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: "Clunie" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Marta Clunie, Patricia Valverde, Melinda Rivera, Luz Torres on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, Case No. 1:15-cv-02136 (E.D.N.Y.,
April 14, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

UnitedHealth Group Incorporated is an insurance company that
operates throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
      SHULMAN KESSLER LLP
      510 Broadhollow Road, Suite 110
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 499-9100
      Facsimile: (631) 499-9120
      E-mail: tk@shulmankessler.com


UNIVERSAL MARKETING: Faces "Henry" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Henry, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Universal Marketing Group, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-00733
(N.D. Ohio, April 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Universal Marketing Group, LLC operates three call centers that
provide inbound call sales support to its clients who are direct
response marketers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WAL-MART STORES: Seeks High Court Review of Workers' Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Packel and Michael Lipkin, writing for Law360, report that
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has filed petitions to the U.S. Supreme Court
over a pair of related Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions that
upheld a nearly $188 million judgment against the retailer for
denying breaks to workers, arguing the state courts had used the
wrong standard for certifying the class.

In the petitions, filed March 13, the company contended that the
plaintiffs used an unfair "trial by formula" that the U.S. Supreme
Court expressly barred in its 2011 Dukes v. Wal-Mart decision.
While only six plaintiffs testified on behalf of the class, the
class's experts used extrapolated evidence to calculate the total
amount of damages suffered.

"The court should utilize this valuable opportunity to make clear
that due process does not permit courts to facilitate classwide
adjudication by adopting procedures that relieve individual class
members of their burden of proof and restrict the right of
defendants to raise individualized defenses," Wal-Mart said in one
of the two petitions.

The award stems from two suits lodged by two former Wal-Mart
employees, Michelle Braun and Dolores Hummel, who claimed the
company owed them $3 million for 187,000 off-the-clock hours from
1998 onward.  Lawyers in the case claimed that Wal-Mart made
workers skip more than 33 million breaks and 2 million meal
periods from 1998 to 2001.

In June 2011, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas' $188 million judgment
against Wal-Mart, finding that there was sufficient evidence to
conclude that Wal-Mart breached its contract with its workers and
violated state wage laws.

Wal-Mart then took the case to the state's high court, which
concluded in December -- a year and a half after oral arguments --
that individual examinations of all 187,000 class members weren't
necessary to determine whether employees were forced to work
through their breaks.

In the petitions, the company pointed to a dissent by Pennsylvania
Justice Thomas Saylor, in which he critiqued the majority for its
"relaxed approach to class-action litigation."

The company urged the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case, saying
that a number of state trial courts have been approving the sort
of "procedural shortcuts" that had been ruled out in the Dukes
case, adding that appellate courts have been condoning these
practices.  It said that the Pennsylvania case -- the rare state
court class action that was actually tried to verdict -- provided
an unusual and valuable opportunity to demonstrate the due process
limits on class actions.

"It may be years before the court is presented with another such
case; the price of delay -- in terms of settlements exacted,
verdicts paid, and rights abridged  --  is simply too high to
tolerate," the company said.

The plaintiffs are represented by Michael D. Donovan of Donovan
Axler LLC and Judith L. Spanier -- jspanier@abbeyspanier.com -- of
Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams LLP.

Wal-Mart is represented by Theodore Boutrous of Gibson Dunn.

The cases are Wal-Mart Stores Inc. et al v. Braun, and Wal-Mart
Stores Inc. et al v. Hummel, case numbers 14-1123 and 14-1124,
before the U.S. Supreme Court.


WELLS FARGO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Markos" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steven L. Markos, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:15-cv-01156-LMM
(N.D. Ga., April 14, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice
of initiating non-emergency telephone calls using an automatic
telephone dialing system to cellular telephone numbers without the
prior express consent of the subscribers.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a national banking association that is
headquartered and has its corporate offices at 420 Montgomery
Street, San Francisco, CA 94104.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James M. Feagle, Esq.
      SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP
      2374 Main Street, Suite B
      Tucker, GA 30084
      Telephone: (404) 373-1970
      Facsimile: (404) 601-1855
      E-mail: jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com

         - and -

      Justin T. Holcombe, Esq.
      Kris Skaar, Esq.
      SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP
      133 Mirramont Lake Drive
      Woodstock, GA 30189
      Telephone: (770) 427-5600
      Facsimile: (404) 601-1855
      E-mail: jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com
              krisskaar@aol.com

         - and -

      Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
      BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
      155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 729-5288
      Facsimile: (312) 729-5289
      E-mail: ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com
              www.BurkeLawLLC.com


WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Macadamia Nuts Due to Salmonella
-----------------------------------------------------
Whole Foods Market is voluntarily recalling packaged raw macadamia
nuts due to possible Salmonella contamination. Salmonella is an
organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in
young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened
immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often
experience fever, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain.
In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms),
endocarditis and arthritis.

The product was labeled as "Whole Foods Market Raw Macadamia Nuts"
and was packaged in 11 oz. plastic tubs. The recalled product has
a best-by date of Feb. 4, 2016 and a UPC code of 7695862059-1.

Recalled items were sold in AR, AZ, CA, CO, HI, KS, LA, NM, NV,
OK, TX, and UT Whole Foods Market Stores.

No illnesses have been reported to-date. Based upon routine
testing conducted by an FDA-contracted laboratory, it was
determined that the raw macadamia nuts tested positive for
Salmonella.

Customers who have purchased this product should discard it and
may bring in their receipt for a full refund.

Consumers with questions may contact Whole Foods Market Customer
Service, 512-477-5566 ext. 20060 Monday to Friday 9:00am to 5:00pm
CDT.


WINDSOR WINDOW: Faces "Schiller" Suit Over Defective Windows
------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Schiller and Steve Libsack, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Windsor Window Company d/b/a
Windsor Windows and Doors, and Woodgrain Millwork, Inc., Case No.
0:15-cv-01932 -DSD-FLN (D. Minn., April 14, 2015), arises out of
the Windows that are designed and manufactured by the Defendants,
which contain a latent defect that allows water to penetrate and
leak behind the aluminum cladding, resulting in premature wood rot
and other physical damage to both the Windows and main structure.

The Defendants design, develop, manufacture, market, and sell the
Windows with a principal place of business in the State of Iowa.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rhett A. McSweeney, Esq.
      David M. Langevin, Esq.
      MCSWEENEY/LANGEVIN
      2116 2nd Avenue South
      Minneapolis, MN 55404
      Telephone: (612) 746-4646
      Facsimile: (612) 454-2678
      E-mail: ram@westrikeback.com
              dave@westrikeback.com

         - and -

      Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
      Matthew E. Lee, Esq.
      Margaret P. Sandwith, Esq.
      WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP
      900 W. Morgan Street
      Raleigh, NC 27603
      Telephone: (919) 600-5000
      Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
      E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com
              matt@wbmllp.com
              maggie@wbmllp.com

         - and -

      Jordan L. Chaikin, Esq.
      PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
      27300 Riverview Center Blvd., Suite 103
      Bonita Springs, Florida 34134
      Telephone: (239) 390-1000
      Facsimile: (239) 390-0055
      E-mail: jchaikin@yourlawyer.com


WINE GROUP: Institute Says Arsenic-Tainted Wine Suits Misleading
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bradenton Herald reports that more than two dozen California
vintners are facing a lawsuit claiming their wines contain
dangerously high levels of arsenic.

The industry group Wine Institute dismissed the allegations as
"false and misleading."

The lawsuit names numerous low-priced wines, including popular
brands such as Franzia, Mogen David and Almaden.  It says tests by
three independent laboratories found arsenic levels that in some
cases were 500 percent higher than what's considered safe.

The complaint was filed on March 19 in Los Angeles Superior Court
on behalf of three San Diego residents and a Los Angeles man.  It
seeks class-action status.  The plaintiffs want unspecified
punitive damages and a stop to the production of arsenic-tainted
wine.

Arsenic occurs naturally in the air, soil and water in small
amounts.  In larger amounts, it can be deadly.


WINE GROUP: Retailers Unaware of Arsenic Suits
----------------------------------------------
Feroze Dhanoa, writing for Hamden Patch, reports that a class-
action lawsuit filed on March 19 in California claims that many
inexpensive brands of wine contain illegal and dangerously high
levels of poisonous inorganic arsenic.

Franzia, Menage a Trois, Sutter Home, Wine Cube, Charles Shaw,
Glen Ellen, Cupcake, Beringer and Vendage are some of the popular
brand names cited in the lawsuit, according to court documents.

Hamden Patch called 10 local wine stores in Connecticut that
included stores in Newtown, Milford, Darien, West Hartford,
Greenwich, Danbury, Ridgefield and Wilton.  Out of the 10 stores,
only three had heard of the class-action lawsuit.

Fairgrounds Wine and Spirits in Danbury had heard about the
claims, however, the wine manager at the store wouldn't comment
any further.

Jeff Troop, the manager at Loading Dock Wine and Spirits in
Milford, said he was interested in talking to his distributor
about the claims. Troop said it was too early to tell what impact
this would have on sales.

A representative from Maximum Beverage in West Hartford said he
had just heard about the claims in the last hour.

Court documents allege three separate testing laboratories skilled
in arsenic testing each confirmed that several California wineries
are producing wines with high levels of the toxin, "in some cases,
up to 500 percent or more than what is considered the maximum
acceptable safe daily intake limit."

Store Locators

Below is a list of available store locators for the wines and/or
vineyards named in the lawsuit.  Scroll down further for a
complete list of wines and varieties named.

Almaden Vineyards
Arrow Creek
Bandit Wines
Beringer Wines
Colores del Sol
Concannon's
Cook's Spumante
Corbett Canyon
Cupcake
Fish Eye
Flipflop
Franzia
Hawkstone
HRM Rex Goliath
Korbel
Menage a Trois
Mogen David
SeaGlass
Simply Naked
Sutter Home
Trapiche
Tribuno
Vendange
Wine Cube

Before you head out to the liquor store, keep in mind these wines
specifically cited in the lawsuit:

Acronym's GR8RW Red Blend 2011
Almaden's Heritage White Zinfandel
Almaden's Heritage Moscato
Almaden's Heritage White Zinfandel
Almaden's Heritage Chardonnay
Almaden's Mountain Burgundy
Almaden's Mountain Rhine
Almaden's Mountain Chablis
Arrow Creek's Coastal Series Cabernet Sauvignon 2011
Bandit's Pinot Grigio
Bandit's Chardonnay
Bandit's Cabernet Sauvignon
Bay Bridge's Chardonnay
Beringer's White Merlot 2011
Beringer's White Zinfandel 2011
Beringer's Red Moscato
Beringer's Refreshingly Sweet Moscato
Charles Shaw White Zinfandel 2012
Colores del Sol's Malbec 2010
Glen Ellen by Concannon's Glen Ellen Reserve Pinot Grigio 2012
Concannon's Selected Vineyards Pinot Noir 2011
Glen Ellen by Concannon's Glen Ellen Reserve Merlot 2010
Cook's Spumante
Corbett Canyon's Pinot Grigio
Corbett Canyon's Cabernet Sauvignon
Cupcake's Malbec 2011
Fetzer's Moscato 2010
Fetzer's Pinot Grigio 2011
Fish Eye Pinot Grigio 2012
Flipflop's Pinot Grigio 2012
Flipflop's Moscato
Flipflop's Cabernet Sauvignon
Foxhorn's White Zinfandel
Franzia's Vintner Select White Grenache
Franzia's Vintner Select White Zinfandel
Franzia's Vintner Select White Merlot
Franzia's Vintner Select Burgundy
Hawkstone's Cabernet Sauvignon 2011
HRM Rex Goliath's Moscato
Korbel's Sweet Rose Sparkling Wine
Korbel's Extra Dry Sparkling Wine
Menage a Trois' Pinot Grigio 2011
Menage a Trois' Moscato 2010
Menage a Trois' White Blend 2011
Menage a Trois' Chardonnay 2011
Menage a Trois' Rose 2011
Menage a Trois' Cabernet Sauvignon 2010
Menage a Trois' California Red Wine 2011
Mogen David's Concord
Mogen David's Blackberry Wine
Oak Leaf's White Zinfandel
Pomelo's Sauvignon Blanc 2011
R Collection by Raymond's Chardonnay 2012
Richards Wild Irish Rose's Red Wine
Seaglass Sauvignon Blanc 2012
Simply Naked's Moscato 2011
Smoking Loon's Viognier 2011
Sutter Home's Sauvignon Blanc 2010
Sutter Home's Gewurztraminer 2011
Sutter Home's Pink Moscato
Sutter Home's Pinot Grigio 2011
Sutter Home's Moscato
Sutter Home's Chenin Blanc 2011
Sutter Home's Sweet Red 2010
Sutter Home's Riesling 2011
Sutter Home's White Merlot 2011
Sutter Home's Merlot 2011
Sutter Home's White Zinfandel 2011
Sutter Home's White Zinfandel 2012
Sutter Home's Zinfandel 2010
Trapiche's Malbec 2012
Tribuno's Sweet Vermouth
Vendange's Merlot
Vendange's White Zinfandel
Wine Cube's Moscato
Wine Cube's Pink Moscato 2011
Wine Cube's Pinot Grigio 2011
Wine Cube's Pinot Grigio
Wine Cube's Chardonnay 2011
Wine Cube's Chardonnay
Wine Cube's Red Sangria
Wine Cube's Sauvignon Blanc 2011
Wine Cube's Cabernet Sauvignon/Shiraz 2011

Note: Any wines listed without specific years are non-vintage,
meaning the grapes used did not come from a single year.


* Bill Corrects Regulatory Flaw in Colo. Construction Defects Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Gazette reports that Colorado state senators took a big step
on March 18 toward correcting a regulatory flaw that creates a
shortage of basic housing for senior citizens, young adults and
others who seek to own or rent condominiums and townhomes.  Let's
hope leadership in the House doesn't set things back.

Colorado's construction defects law, imposed in 2005, makes suing
condominium builders for construction defects exceptionally easy.
The omnipresence of lawyer-driven class-action suits against
builders has pushed insurance premiums for new condos so high
almost no one wants to build them.

"Many builders simply will not play in the condo and townhome
market since it is almost certain that a lawsuit will follow,"
said a major Colorado Springs developer.

Senate Bill 177, passed out of a Senate committee on March 18,
would require approval from a majority of condo owners before the
filing of a class-action construction defects lawsuit.  As it
stands, a lawsuit requires only the majority of a homeowners
association board.

As one homebuilder said, when asked at the hearing why he's not
building condos: "Because I've got better things to do than be
sued."

The bill would require mediation efforts ahead of lawsuits.  In
other words, homeowners with legitimate problems may get fast
resolutions -- without enriching trial attorneys -- by trying to
work through disputes with builders.

The bill also prevents Homeowners Associations from unilaterally
changing contractual terms of alternative-dispute procedures
without approval from builders.  When builders feel at the mercy
of unstable, ever-changing rules, they tend not to build.

"They don't mind rules, but they want them applied consistently,"
said Sen. Jessie Ulibarri, D-Commerce City, who co-sponsored the
bill with Senate Majority Leader Mark Scheffel, R-Parker. "They
want more predictability if they are going to invest in this
market."

The bill would also require notification to condo owners about the
possible negative effects of filing lawsuits against builders.
The most obvious pitfall: Units mired in lawsuits are difficult,
if not impossible, to sell.

In metropolitan Denver, the "sue your builder" defects law has
stifled plans for high-density developments in communities along
the expanding light-rail system.  Lakewood passed an ordinance,
with provisions similar to those of SB 177, in hopes of spurring
condo and townhome development. E arly evidence suggests the
ordinance is helping.


* Defense Cost Least Important factor When Defending Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Dipietro, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that a
survey of general counsels and senior legal advisers at about 350
companies by law firm Carlton Fields Jorden Burt found defense
cost was the least important of the nine factors considered when
defending a class-action lawsuit.


* ERISA Litigation Lull May Not Last Long, Lawyer Says
------------------------------------------------------
Allen Greenberg, writing for Benefits Pro, reports that punitive
damages aren't allowed under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, so whoever came up with "401(k) Fee Lawsuits: The
Next Tobacco?" as the title for a March 22 afternoon workshop at
the 2015 NAPA Summit was aiming for titillation.

On the other hand, the 10 largest class-action settlements in
claims brought under ERISA topped $1.3 billion in 2014, almost 10
times the sum of the biggest settlements from the previous year.

In two of the biggest, a $480 million settlement was reached in
August in a class-action filed by retired UAW workers, while a
$415 million settlement was announced the following month in a
case against ING Life Insurance & Annuity Co.

This year may not match 2014 but it won't be without at least a
few more headline-generating settlements.  We've already seen
Lockheed Martin Corp.'s agreement in February to pay $62 million
to end a lawsuit over claims it shortchanged 120,000 workers and
retirees who participated in its pension plans.  The plaintiffs in
that case accused the defense contractor of subjecting them to
excessive management fees and leaving those who invested in the
company stock fund with returns that were worse than if they'd
bought shares on the open market.

Still, Mr. Greenberg agrees when ERISA lawyer Bradford Campbell
suggests that the workshop title is "perhaps a bit hyperbolic."
On the other hand, that doesn't mean there haven't been and don't
continue to be some pretty significant ERISA cases moving through
court dockets.

If you can afford him, Mr. Campbell's probably one of the better
attorneys to know if you've been hit with ERISA litigation or,
better yet, wanting to do all you can to avoid becoming the target
of -- as NAPA puts it -- "a growing and better informed
plaintiffs' bar."

A member of the K Street staff of Drinker Biddle & Reath, Campbell
headed the Employee Benefits Security Administration during the
last couple of years of the George W. Bush administration.   From
where he now stands, we're in an ERISA litigation lull at the
moment, after a wave of cases, many of them brought by St. Louis
homeboy Jerry Schlichter.  Looking ahead, it may be that the
Tibble case before the U.S. Supreme Court serves as a tipping
point, potentially setting off a round of lawsuits based not on
excessive fee claims but on whether fiduciaries failed in their
duty to monitor investment options in a plan menu.

Whatever happens, this lull won't last long, Campbell thinks.
"There's a retrenching now . . . and the plaintiff's bar is
deciding what next to do. I do think it's (the next wave is)
coming. There's enough money there to keep them interested."

That's only good news to black-hearted journalists and the lawyers
who defend sponsors.

So, what's an advisor to do? How best to help sponsors avoid a
legal battle that can be expensive even without the potential of
punitive damages?

Mr. Campbell offers a few quick tips, none of which may be
terribly original but which sponsors seem to overlook with
dangerous regularity:

Review your plan fees. Are they equitably allocated among
participants? That includes recordkeeping costs. If 10 percent of
participants are paying 90 percent of the cost, there's a problem.

Disclosure, disclosure, disclosure. The 404(a)(5) regulation of
2012 was designed to ensure everything is as clearly spelled out
to participants as possible, including revenue-sharing deals.
Failing to live up to the minimum requirements behind 404(a)(5) is
just asking for trouble.

The investment policy statement. There's no room for debate on
this point, Campbell says. The IPS cannot be ambiguous in any way.
It should spell out what the process was in choosing and
evaluating investment options. And every sponsor needs one,
regardless of size.

Because it limits relief to "equitable remedies," aiming to make
plans whole rather than opening them up to punitive damages, ERISA
doesn't present what Mr. Campbell calls a "tort lottery."

That's the good news. But with so much still at stake, any advisor
sitting in on a single hour-long workshop at a conference should
appreciate there's a lot more work ahead if they want to properly
protect their sponsors and participants alike.


* Homeowners Face Difficulty in Filing Construction Defect Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a bill awaiting Gov. Doug
Ducey's signature could make it more difficult for homeowners to
sue over construction defects in their homes.

When homeowners find cracks in their houses' walls, ceilings or
floors, they have an eight-year window after construction to work
with homebuilders to fix the problem, or go to court.  If the
homeowners win, the court awards damages as well as attorney,
court and expert-witness fees.

But a proposal by Rep. Darin Mitchell, R-Litchfield Park, would
repeal the part of law that allows homeowners who win in court to
also recover their attorney and expert-witness fees.  That means
they have to pay the fees out of their award for the construction
defects and may not even have enough to pay for their house.

Mr. Mitchell, a former homebuilder, said the intention of the bill
is to protect homeowners while shielding builders from excessive
litigation from out-of-state law firms specializing in
construction defects.  "It does remove the legal carve out that
has existed regarding this type of litigation, which is why
Arizona has, up until now, been a virtual feeding ground for the
out state class-action law firms," Mr. Mitchell said in an email.

But a Phoenix-based attorney who specializes in construction-
defect cases said the math doesn't add up for homeowners.  "This
revision will effectively bar the doors to the courthouse for
homeowners with legitimate defects," said Stephen Weber of the
Kasdan Simonds Weber & Vaughan law firm.

In February, an Arizona appeals court upheld a more than $13
million judgment for a construction-defects case Weber won against
developer Del Webb Communities Inc. on behalf of 460 homeowners in
Sun City Grand, a Phoenix suburb, who had cracks in their
ceilings, walls and floors. An arbitration panel awarded the
homeowners about $7.5 million in damages and about $6 million in
expert, attorney and arbitration fees, Mr. Weber said.

Without the extra award money, the 460 homeowners would have had
about $1.5 million to split between them to pay for the
construction defects, he said.  "The big point is without the
ability to recover attorney fees, expert fees and court fees,
homeowners are never going to be made whole." Mr. Weber said.

The Senate approved House Bill 2578 on a 24-5 vote on March 18 and
transmitted the bill to the governor on March 19.  The proposal
would also establish a homebuilder's right to repair construction
defects before a homeowner can sue.

Kevin O'Malley, an attorney from the Gallagher & Kennedy law firm
representing the Home Builders Association of Central Arizona,
said the right to repair would allow builders to come out and fix
the problem without having to litigate.

Right now, homeowners have to write a notice to the homebuilders
detailing the problems at least 90 days before filing a lawsuit
against them.  The homebuilder can choose to inspect the house,
fix the problem, offer to compensate the owners for the value of
the defect or go to court.

Mr. O'Malley said current law has created an "avalanche of
construction-defect litigation," and Mr. Mitchell's bill would fix
that.  "Instead of creating an incentive to settle it created an
incentive to litigate, and we want to unwind that," Mr. O'Malley
said.


* Mandatory Arbitration Prevents Expensive Lawsuits Against Banks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carter Dougherty, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that
mandatory arbitration clauses were created by corporate lawyers
about 15 years ago and buried in the fine print of credit card
contracts and checking account agreements.  But they may not live
much longer following the March 10 publication of a three-year
study by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  The 728-page
report confirmed what consumer advocacy groups have long argued:
Mandatory arbitration doesn't much help customers but does prevent
expensive lawsuits against banks. The bureau was required to
complete the report under the Dodd-Frank Act prior to issuing new
regulations.  "Now that our study has been completed, we will
consider what next steps are appropriate," said CFPB Director
Richard Cordray in a statement.

The clauses require customers to use arbitration, not the courts,
to resolve disputes and waive their right to be part of a class-
action case.  The CFPB could ban them outright in consumer finance
contracts or just do away with the class-action waivers.

The report's findings presage a pitched battle between the
consumer agency and business groups, notably the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, which views arbitration as a way to thwart avaricious
plaintiffs' lawyers.  The changes won't happen overnight.  The
rulemaking process -- and the fight with Wall Street -- could drag
on for years.

The bureau can count on supporters who have successfully fought
off efforts to defang it since its creation in 2010.  Those
include Senator Al Franken.  The Minnesota Democrat has for years
railed against forced arbitration clauses not only in consumer
finance agreements but also in employment, mobile phone, and
cable-TV contracts.  Restrictions on arbitration "would go a long
way toward keeping the big banks in line and toward making sure
that justice is available to consumers who get swindled," Franken
told reporters on March 11.

Twenty-eight of the 50 largest banks by domestic deposits,
including JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo, require checking account
holders to submit disputes to arbitration, according to a 2012
study by Pew Charitable Trusts. Of the next group of 50 banks, 30
percent do so.  Richard Hunt, president of the Consumer Bankers
Association, called arbitration "mutually beneficial" to all
parties in a March 10 statement.

Deepak Gupta, a lawyer who argued a case challenging arbitration
before the Supreme Court in 2011 and later joined the CFPB as an
enforcement attorney, says the real reason companies are wedded to
arbitration is not that it's fast and cost-effective but that it
suppresses claims.  Mr. Gupta, who's now in private practice, says
most customer claims against banks involve small sums of money so
people don't bother to seek redress, by arbitration or any other
method.  And since they're barred from joining class actions, they
can't band together to make it worth the lawyers' fees.

In its report, the CFPB noted that there were just 52 arbitration
claims under $1,000 in 2010 and 2011, and consumers won relief in
just four of them. Says Gupta: "What this report shows is not that
claims go to arbitration but that they simply go away."

Alan Kaplinsky -- kaplinsky@ballardspahr.com -- an attorney with
Ballard Spahr who helped pioneer the use of arbitration clauses in
financial contracts, counters that consumers resolve claims in
other ways.  They call the company to complain. They go to the
Better Business Bureau. "That's why you don't see a heck of a lot
of arbitration or litigation when there's a clause," he says.

The CFPB study found that over a five-year period contracts not
covered by arbitration resulted in $2.7 billion in class-action
settlement payments to more than 160 million people.
Mr. Kaplinsky says that since the vast majority of class-action
cases go nowhere -- a fact the CFPB noted in its report -- this
route to relief is overhyped. About 18 percent of that $2.7
billion went to attorney fees.

Myriam Gilles, a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of
Law, argues that class-action litigation has an important "halo
effect."  In the report, the CFPB highlights how a wave of class-
action suits revealed that banks were manipulating checking
account transactions to maximize overdraft fees, a multibillion-
dollar revenue source.  In 2010 a court awarded $203 million in
damages in one prominent case involving Wells Fargo, prompting the
bank and many of its rivals to revise their overdraft policies.

Following publication of the CFPB report, the Chamber of Commerce
Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness, which represents
financial-services companies, issued a statement accusing the CFPB
of "trying to protect plaintiffs' lawyers."  There's no question
trial lawyers were pleased by the study's conclusions: The
American Association for Justice, a lobbying group that represents
the profession, praised the study for documenting "denied justice
to countless victims of Wall Street's unscrupulous behavior."

In congressional hearings last year, Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard
law professor who helped set up the bureau and is now a Democratic
senator from Massachusetts, pressed CFPB Director Cordray
repeatedly to get the study done.  It's not new terrain for her.
Ms. Warren criticized forced arbitration in an article published
seven years ago.  Banks "can break the law," she wrote, "but if
the amounts at stake are small -- say, under $50 per customer --
few customers would ever bother to sue."  In that same article,
she proposed the creation of what became the CFPB.


* Proposed Legislation Won't Halt Loser-Pays Disputes
-----------------------------------------------------
According to Reuters' Alison Frankel, if you think the furious
debate over corporate loser-pays provisions in shareholder
litigation will end if Delaware legislators enact the proposal
suggested earlier in March by the state bar's Corporation Law
Council, think again.

Columbia Law School professor John Coffee looked closely at the
actual language of the council's proposal and realized that it
distinguishes between "Delaware-style" shareholder litigation --
derivative suits and M&A class actions -- and securities fraud
class actions under federal law.  The proposal would prohibit
corporations from adopting loser-pays charter or bylaw provisions
in the sorts of shareholder cases typically litigated in Delaware
Chancery Court.  But as Coffee points out, the council is silent
on fee-shifting in federal-court cases.  Its proposed prohibition
on fee-shifting does not extend to shareholder class actions under
the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Mr. Coffee's article suggests a motive for the split.  Delaware
lawyers on both the plaintiff and defense sides, he says, want to
squelch the threat that fee-shifting poses to their own business
in Chancery Court, but they don't want prohibitions on such
provisions to drive companies to incorporate in other states.  "In
short, Delaware may have found a compromise that protects the
local bar without threatening Delaware's competitive position,"
Mr. Coffee wrote.  "The premise here is that defense counsel sees
derivative actions as a nuisance, but securities class actions as
a serious threat."

So let's assume that Delaware passes the bar council's proposed
law. What would happen? You can be sure that additional Delaware
corporations would join the ranks of the 50 or so companies that
have already adopted fee-shifting bylaws or included provisions in
corporate charters.  The new clauses wouldn't shift fees in
Chancery Court breach-of-duty suits against board members but
would require shareholders in federal court securities fraud class
actions to pay defense costs if they lost.

And that prospect would inevitably lead to a clash between
corporations and shareholders over Delaware's authority to pre-
empt federal securities laws.  The resolution of that conflict
could profoundly impact the securities class action industry.
There is no doubt, as both Coffee's article and a new paper on
fee-shifting by plaintiffs' lawyers Mark Lebovitch and Jeroen van
Kwawegen of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman point out, that
loser-pays provisions dissuade public pension funds from serving
as lead plaintiffs in securities class actions.  If corporations
are permitted to adopt fee-shifting, pension funds, which have a
fiduciary duty to their own beneficiaries, are unlikely to be
willing to bear the risk of paying defense costs in unsuccessful
cases.  Mr. Coffee hypothesizes that the only investors who will
rationally take the risk of serving as lead plaintiffs are
judgment-proof small shareholders with no real assets.

That is exactly the opposite of Congress' intention in the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) of 1995, which was based
on the premise that institutional investors are more desirable
lead plaintiffs than shareholders with small stakes.  According to
Coffee, if the Delaware Corporation Law Council proposal passes as
written, in other words, Delaware could be considered to be
frustrating congressional purpose.

Congress also enacted its own very moderate version of fee-
shifting in PSLRA, according to both Coffee and Lebovitch, when it
called on judges to review dismissed securities class actions for
possible violations of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.  If judges find that a shareholder complaint was
frivolous, they have discretion to order plaintiffs to pay defense
fees as a sanction. To borrow Coffee's metaphors, Congress used a
scalpel; defendants with fee-shifting provisions want to use a
club.  "Again, the broader sweep and harsher impact of such 'loser
pays' provisions arguably frustrates the more moderate balance
that Congress intended to strike," the professor wrote.

If Delaware enacts the council's proposal, he said, federal courts
may find it particularly offensive that the state prohibits loser-
pays bylaws for Delaware cases but not for securities fraud class
actions.  "To many federal courts, this may look as if Delaware is
discriminating against federal litigation," Ms. Coffee wrote.
"Does Delaware have a right to uniquely burden federal litigation
with a fee-shifting rule that does not apply in Delaware?"

We know that one very interested bystander is closely monitoring
what happens in Delaware.  On March 19, Securities and Exchange
Commission chair Mary Jo White said in a speech at Tulane Law
School's annual M&A conference that although the SEC hasn't yet
filed an amicus brief asserting "possible preemption and/or public
policy arguments" against loser-pays provisions, the agency has
said many times in the past that it regards private suits under
federal securities laws as an important complement to regulatory
enforcement.

"I am concerned about any provision in the bylaws of a company
that could inappropriately stifle shareholders' ability to seek
redress under the federal securities laws," Ms. White said.  "All
shareholders can benefit from these types of actions.  If the
commission comes to believe that these provisions improperly
hinder shareholders' exercise of their rights, it may need to
weigh in more directly in this discussion."


                             *********

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  * * *