CAR_Public/150427.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, April 27, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 83


                             Headlines

35 BAR & GRILL: Faces "Leyva" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Bid to Reconsider Mag. Judge's Ruling Denied
ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY: Removed "Bowler" Suit from St. Louis, MO
ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
AMERICAN APPAREL: Sued Over Failure to Provide Layoff Notice

AMERICAN SAVINGS: Settles Class Action on Overdraft Fees for $2MM
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Combs" Class Suit in Indiana District Court
APPLE INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss App Store Privacy Class Action
AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL: Essendon Players Mull Doping Class Action
AUTHOR SOLUTIONS: Giskan Solotaroff Files Class Action

B&D CONTRACTING: "Dantzler" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Sterk" Suit Over FX Futures Manipulation
BLUE CROSS: Galactic Suit Moved From D. Kansas to N.D. Alabama
BON JOUR: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
BOUCHAINE VINEYARDS: Settlement Conf. in Lyons to End by Aug. 1

BUSHWOOD INVESTMENTS: Collective Action Deal, Atty. Fees Okayed
CAPITAL BLUE: Galactic Suit Included in Blue Cross Antitrust MDL
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: "Sinohui" Stays in C.D. Cal. District Court
CEPHALON INC: Judge Refuses to Certify Actiq Class Action
CHENIERE ENERGY: Settles Shareholder Class Action

CHEROKEE ELECTRIC: Removed "Neyman" Suit to N.D. Ala. Dist. Court
CHEROKEE ELECTRIC: Sued Over Failure to Refund Excess Revenues
CHESWICK GENERATING: Ruling Is Roadmap for Class Suit Defendants
CHICAGO, IL: Faces Red Light Speed Camera Ticket Class Action
CINNABAR SERVICE: Out-of-Court Settlement Mulled for Picher Suit

COCA COLA COMPANY: Court Awards $1.2MM in Atty. Fees in Volz Case
COLLIFLOWER INC: "Gustin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
COMTRAK LOGISTICS: "Robles" Suit Moved From Calif. to Tennessee
CVS CAREMARK: Class Cert. Ruling in "Lauriello" Suit Affirmed
DIRECTV INC: Supreme Court Hear Class Suit Over Termination Fees

DOKIL BAKERY: Faces "Espino" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
EHEALTH INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action in California
ELECTRONICS ARTS: Gamers Agree to Arbitrate Claims
ELI LILY: M.D. Tenn. Judge Recommends Dismissal of Jefferson Case
ESKATON VILLAGE: Sued Over Financial Irregularities, Elder Abuse

FEDEX CORP: Court Sets Case Mgmt. Conf. in "Schuett" Case
FIFA: Hagens Berman Fights Motion to Dismiss Concussion Suit
FIRST NATIONAL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Judge Approves AIG Insurance Settlement
FRESENIUS USA: C.D. Cal. Judge Won't Allow Suit to be Remanded

GATORS DOCKSIDE: Removes "King" Suit to Florida District Court
GENERAL MOTORS: "Forthun" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL
GENERAL MOTORS: Firm Organized Under Delaware Law, Says Court
GEORGIA: Food Stamp Settlement May Cost Taxpayers Millions
HARLEM CORPORATION: Faces "Estrada" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

HERBALIFE LTD: Judge Dismisses Pyramid Scheme Class Action
HMSHOST CORP: Faces "Buy" Suit Over Misclassification of Workers
HOMEBRIDGE FINANCIAL: Faces "Bellany" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
INDIANA: Democrats Call Probe of BMV Officials' Conduct
INDYMAC: Judge Awards $28.5MM to Plaintiff Lawyers in MBS Suit

INTEGRITY SOLUTION: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says
IRELAND: Faces Class Suit Over Poor-Quality Housing in Strasbourg
IRELAND: EU Rights Chiefs Accept Run-Down Housing Class Action
JAMES HARDIE: Homeowners Join Class Action Over Leaky Homes
JC PENNEY: Loses Bid to Dismiss False Discount Class Action

JPMORGAN CHASE: "Taylor" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
KIND LLC: Judge Granted Bid to Dismiss "Ibarrola" Suit
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Escano Suit Settlement Gets Final Court OK
KMART CORP: Financial Institutions File Data Breach Class Action
LEPRINO FOODS: Judge Granted Bid to Dismiss "Finder" Suit

LOS ANGELES, CA: Judge OKs Settlement in Disabled Inmates' Suit
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Removes "Ruiz" Class Suit to C.D. California
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Experts Evaluate Response to Flooring Claims
MCLAREN REGIONAL: Accused of Harassment and Discrimination by RN

MEDICAL ACTION: Court Awards $250,000 in Attorneys' Fees
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: To Reimburse Repair Expenses of Class Members
MFRI INC: Comments on Press Release Issued by Andrew & Springer
NESTLE PURINA: Deadline to Join Pet Jerky Class Action Passes
NEWMAN & LICKSTEIN: Court Grants Initial Okay of Mamun Suit Deal

NORIDIAN MUTUAL: Sued in Ala. Over Illegal Market Allocation
NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Court Denies Approval of Hopwood Suit Deal
NUVERRA ENVIRONMENTAL: Judge Narrows Claims in Securities Suit
OCEAN SPRAY: Class Certification Bid in "Major" Case Denied
OMNICARE: Ruling Can Form Basis of Securities Act Claims

PARAMOUNT CITRUS: Seeks Dismissal of Wage Class Action
PERFORMANT RECOVERY: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
PERSOLVE LLC: Discovery in Joint Report #2 in "Jacobson" Denied
PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Facchinello" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
PREMERA BLUE: Removed "Welch" Suit From King County to W.D. Wash.

PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Welch" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
PRIMUS CANADA: Court of Appeal Upholds CPA Class Action Ruling
QUIKSILVER INC: Faces "Stein" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
ROBERT A MALONE: Reese Gets OK to File 3rd Amended Complaint
ROBINSON DRILLING: Sued Over Failure to Provide Layoff Notice

SABOR LATINO: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SELECT COMFORT: Faces Class Action Over Defective Bed Warranties
SHRED-IT USA: July 13 Final Hearing on "Kirchner" Suit Deal Set
SOCIETE NATIONALE: Illegally Took Jews Properties, Suit Claims
ST. GEORGE, UT: Dispute Over Court Enforcement Practices Continues

STANDARD DRYWALL: Removed "Perez" Suit from Alameda to N.D. Cal.
STANDARD DRYWALL: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, "Perez" Suit Says
SULLIVAN UNIVERSITY: Order Denying Class Cert. in McCann Upheld
SUNTECH POWER: Court Stays Shi's Deadline to Respond to Complaint
SUNWATER: Flood Victims Mull Callide Dam Class Action

TD AMERITRADE: Motions to Consolidate 4 Related Cases Denied
TD BANK: Faces "Koshgarian" Over Excessive Overdraft Fees
TESCO: Shareholders Sue for Allegedly Overstating Profits
TRUJILLO & TRUJILLO: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
UNITED STATES: Air Marshals File Overtime Class Action

US BANK: July 24 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
WAL-MART STORES: Removes "Haiderzad" Suit to S.D. California
WAL-MART STORES: Appeals $187-Mil. Pa. Wage Class Action Ruling
WESTERN STONE: July 8 Final Hearing on Litt Suit Settlement Set

WHIRLPOOL CORP: Removes "Burdt" Class Suit to N.D. California
WHOLE FOODS: "Frydman" Suit Consolidated in Greek Yogurt MDL

* Companies Use 1925 Arbitration Law to Block Class Actions
* Consumer Groups Urge CFPB to Issue Forced Arbitration Rules
* Courts Ignore Problems Inherent in Overbroad Class Actions
* Florida Unable to Take Up Bill on Tobacco Punitive Damages
* Health Insurers Become Targets of Hack Attacks, Attorney Says

* Settlement in Securities Class Action Hit 16-Year Low


                            *********


35 BAR & GRILL: Faces "Leyva" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lizbeth Leyva, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. 35 Bar & Grill, LLC d/b/a San Antonio Men's Club,
Iraklis Kouroumousis, and Thoedore Dimopoulos, Case No. 5:15-cv-
00295 (W.D. Tex., April 16, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a gentlemen's club for adult
entertainment in San Antonio, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Martin A. Shellist, Esq.
      SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
      11 Greenway Plaza-Ste 1515
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 621-2277
      Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
      E-mail: mshellist@eeoc.net


ALLIED INTERSTATE: Bid to Reconsider Mag. Judge's Ruling Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In KARINA DUBINSKAYA, Plaintiff, v. ALLIED INTERSTATE LLC,
Defendant, NO. CV-14-2975 (ARR), (E.D. N.Y.) is a a putative class
action brought by the plaintiff against the defendant, a debt
collector, pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that defendant sent a
collection letter to her stating that "the creditor continues to
assess interest on the debt" when in fact the creditor was not
assessing interest.

Discovery has revealed an unusual and disturbing set of facts with
respect to a particular telephone call. It appears the call was
placed to plaintiff's telephone number and made in an effort to
collect the debt at issue in this case. The telephone call was
recorded, and the recording was played in open court and
transcribed during a proceeding I held on March 16, 2015. After a
voice that sounds male answers, the caller asks to speak to
plaintiff, referring to her by her full name, and states that the
call is in reference to plaintiff's PayPal account. The male
answering the call apparently recognizes plaintiff's name, because
he responds that he is her husband and then states, repeatedly,
that "the problem is that she hung herself" about a week ago.

The Plaintiff, who is very much alive, appeared at the March 16
hearing. The Plaintiff claimed at the hearing that she does not
recognize the male voice that answered her phone and cannot
explain how someone she does not know came to answer her phone,
much less claim to be her husband and report her suicide by
hanging.

Plaintiff had made motions to compel class discovery that were
pending at the time of the hearing on March 16, 2015.

After listening to the recorded call and plaintiff's contention
that she did not know the voice of the man who answered her phone,
claimed to be her husband, and reported her dead, Magistrate Judge
Steven M. Gold concluded that these remarkable facts raised
serious questions about whether plaintiff could adequately
represent a class. Accordingly, plaintiff's motions to compel to
the extent they sought class-related discovery was denied and Mag.
Judge Gold ordered that defendant could conduct plaintiff's
deposition and decide whether to move to dismiss the class
allegations in plaintiff's complaint before producing class-
related discovery.

By letter dated March 26, 2015, plaintiff moved for
reconsideration of the rulings Mag. Judge Gold made on March 16,
2015.

In an order entered April 3, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/Fovs9Tfrom Leagle.com, Mag. Judge Gold denied
plaintiff's motion for reconsideration saying the Plaintiff has
not pointed out any matters or controlling decisions which were
overlooked.

"First, plaintiff seems to misunderstand my ruling as precluding
discovery relevant to her individual claims. The minute entry I
entered on March 19, however, clearly states that only
classrelated discovery is stayed. Second, much of plaintiff's
letter motion argues that the statutory violations alleged here
are strict liability offenses. A serious question about whether
plaintiff may qualify as a suitable class representative remains,
however, whether or not that is so," Mag. Judge Gold concluded.

Karina Dubinskaya, Plaintiff, represented by Hashim Rahman.

Allied Interstate LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher B.
Hitchcock -- chitchcock@hitchcockcummings.com -- Hitchcock &
Cummings, LLP & John Walter Hanson --
jhanson@hitchcockcummings.com -- Hitchcock & Cummings LLP.


ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY: Removed "Bowler" Suit from St. Louis, MO
---------------------------------------------------------------
AlliedBarton Security Services removed the class action lawsuit
captioned Steve Bowler, Dwight Watson, Chris Kassab, Paula
Antkowiak and Matthew Doubet, on behalf of themselves and a Class
of individuals similarly situated v. AlliedBarton Security
Services LLC, Case No. 1522-CC00440, from the Circuit Court of the
City of St. Louis, Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-00600-NCC to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleged denial of overtime compensation in violation
of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      John F. Medler Jr., Esq.
      MEDLER LAW FIRM
      7700 Bonhomme, Suite 360
      Clayton, MO 63105
      Telephone: (314) 727-8777
      Facsimile: (314) 727-7001
      E-mail: john@medlerlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Burton D. Garland Jr., Esq.
      OGLETREE AND DEAKINS
      7700 Bonhomme Avenue, Suite 650
      St. Louis, MO 63105
      Telephone: (314) 802-3935
      Facsimile: (314) 802-3936
      E-mail: burton.garland@odnss.com


ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Bowler, Dwight Watson, Chris Kassab, Paula Antkowiak and
Matthew Doubet, on behalf of themselves and a Class of individuals
similarly situated v. AlliedBarton Security Services LLC, Case No.
4:15-cv-00600-NCC (E.D. Mo., April 9, 2015), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

AlliedBarton Security Services LLC is a Delaware corporation with
its principal place of business in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, which
is in the business of providing security officers services.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      John F. Medler Jr., Esq.
      MEDLER LAW FIRM
      7700 Bonhomme, Suite 360
      Clayton, MO 63105
      Telephone: (314) 727-8777
      Facsimile: (314) 727-7001
      E-mail: john@medlerlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Burton D. Garland Jr., Esq.
      OGLETREE AND DEAKINS
      7700 Bonhomme Avenue, Suite 650
      St. Louis, MO 63105
      Telephone: (314) 802-3935
      Facsimile: (314) 802-3936
      E-mail: burton.garland@odnss.com


AMERICAN APPAREL: Sued Over Failure to Provide Layoff Notice
------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Hirschberg, Cesar Antonio Palma, Dominga Valencia Cordero
individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated,
and on behalf of the general public v. American Apparel, Inc.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-02827 (C.D. Cal., April 16, 2015), arises out of
a mass layoff of over 200 hard working employees who worked for
years at clothing manufacturer and retailer of the Defendant,
which they failed to give 60 days required legal notice.

American Apparel, Inc. clothing manufacturer, distributor, and
retailer based in Los Angeles, California.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Keith A. Fink, Esq.
      Sarah Hernandez, Esq.
      FINK & STEINBERG
      11500 Olympic Boulevard, Suite 316
      Los Angeles, CA 90064
      Telephone: (310) 268-0780
      Facsimile: (310) 268-0790
      E-mail: kfink@finksteinberg.com
              shernandez@finksteinberg.com


AMERICAN SAVINGS: Settles Class Action on Overdraft Fees for $2MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Ubay, writing for Pacific Business News, reports that
American Savings Bank has settled a class action lawsuit, which
alleged that the bank did not post debit card charges in
chronological order so it could levy more overdraft fees, for
$2 million.

The suit, filed in Hawaii's first circuit court, alleged that the
transactions were posted in order of the highest dollar amount to
the lowest dollar amount and, as a result, the number of overdraft
fees to the account increased.  American Savings Bank denied the
claims and said it followed posting procedures authorized by
federal law.

In regards to the settlement, the bank said in a statement:
"American Savings Bank and the plaintiff on behalf of the class
have reached a settlement to the mutual satisfaction of the
parties.  The settlement agreement resolves all claims in this
litigation."

Pacific Business News has reached out to Perkin & Faria LLLC, the
Honolulu-based law firm representing the plaintiffs, for comment.
American Savings Bank is at the least the third local bank to
settle a class action lawsuit regarding overdraft fees.  In 2011,
Bank of Hawaii settled for $9 million and Central Pacific Bank
settled for $1.2 million on similar lawsuits.

Anyone who had a consumer checking account with American Savings
Bank at any time between Jan. 1, 2006 and June 27, 2011, and had
more than one overdraft fee related to a debit card or ATM
transaction on a single banking day as a result of the
resequencing practices, is eligible for the settlement.

A final fairness hearing was scheduled for April 8.


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Combs" Class Suit in Indiana District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Combs and Patricia Oskam-Combs, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
00544-TWP-MJD (S.D. Ind., April 6, 2015) asserts insurance-related
claims.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Betsy Katherine Greene, Esq.
          Frederick William Schultz, Esq.
          GREENE & SCHULTZ
          320 West 8th Street, Suite 100
          Bloomington, IN 47404
          Telephone: (812) 336-4357
          Facsimile: (812) 336-5615
          E-mail: betsy@greeneschultz.com
                  fred@greeneschultz.com


APPLE INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss App Store Privacy Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Van Acker and Beth Winegarner, writing for Law360, report that
Apple Inc.,Twitter Inc. and other app developers were unable to
dismiss a class action accusing them of secretly accessing users'
personal information after a California federal judge ruled on
March 23 that a five-year-long Apple ad campaign can be considered
a "misrepresentation."

U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar said that the plaintiffs
adequately alleged that they relied on Apple's ads and other
statements touting the security of its devices, as well as their
claims that Twitter, Yelp Inc. and other developers invaded their
privacy by improperly collecting contacts from their address
books.

"It's been a very hard-fought case, and we're glad that we're
finally able to move into the discovery phase," said Nicholas A.
Carlin, an attorney for the plaintiffs.  "It's a good day for
privacy, and for users of Apple products and the Internet in
general."

In addressing the plaintiffs' fraud-based claims, Judge Tigar
applied a six-part test that he previously created in this case to
determine whether Apple's alleged misrepresentations met the
criteria in a California Supreme Court decision relating to
tobacco advertisements.

The judge's decision shows that a plaintiff can make fraud-based
allegations based on an extensive, long-term advertising campaign
without identifying specific statements that were misleading,
Carlin said.

Judge Tigar acknowledged Apple's point that the plaintiffs hadn't
pointed to specific statements they relied on, but said that
didn't matter.

The judge pointed to the plaintiffs' analogy comparing Apple's
argument to tobacco companies saying that smokers would have to
bring claims relating to "tar and chemical additive intake" rather
than "smoking," and said that point was well-taken.

Apple had also argued that the five-year-long iPhone ad campaign
at issue in the case wasn't comparable to the "decadeslong"
campaign used by tobacco companies, but Judge Tigar said that a
California state court's decision established that it was long
enough.

In separate motions, Twitter and the app makers urged Judge Tigar
to dismiss allegations that they had invaded the Apple device
users' privacy by accessing the plaintiffs' address books.

But the judge rejected the developers' argument that the
plaintiffs had no reasonable expectation of privacy because the
Apple device users' knew that the apps required access to their
address books.

The judge said that the app users might have been aware that the
"find friends" features on the apps would scan their personal
contacts, but said that the plaintiffs didn't know the information
would be used in unauthorized ways.

"It was offensive conduct that they went in and just grabbed
people's address book information without asking," Carlin said.

The judge agreed with Apple that its agreements with the app
developers shouldn't be considered part of the company's ad
campaign, but said that third-party "buzz marketing" about Apple
products was fair game for the plaintiffs.

However, Judge Tigar dismissed the plaintiffs' conversion claims
against all the defendants with prejudice, finding that the
plaintiffs failed to show that the value of the contact
information in their address books was diminished in any way.

The judge also denied the plaintiffs' bid for an injunction
against Apple, finding that that there is no "realistic threat"
that the company will allow contact information contained in
consumers' address books to be accessed by app developers in the
future.

The four member suits consolidated in this case were filed in 2012
after it was revealed that defendant Path Inc.'s photo sharing and
messaging app was accessing users' contacts and calendar
information without permission.  Path issued an apology and Apple
revised its operating system's privacy settings in response to
lawmakers' demand for answers.

The plaintiffs are represented by Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin
LLP, the Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker, Edwards Law, Gardy &
Notis LLP, the Law Offices of Martin S. Bakst and Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP.

Apple is represented by Hogan Lovells LLP. Electronic Arts Inc.
and Chillingo Ltd. are represented by ZwillGen PLLC. Rovio
Entertainment Ltd. is represented by Holland & Knight LLP.
Zeptolab UK Ltd. is represented by Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp
LLP. Instagram LLC and Kik Interactive Inc. are represented by
Cooley LLP. Twitter is represented by Perkins Coie LLP. Yelp and
Foodspotting Inc. are represented by Durie Tangri LLP. Gowalla
Inc. is represented by Dhillon Law Group Inc.

The consolidated case is Opperman et al. v. Path Inc. et al., case
number 3:13-cv-00453, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL: Essendon Players Mull Doping Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Warner, writing for Herald Sun, reports that a group of
senior Essendon players is considering launching a class action
against the AFL, and possibly the club, if found guilty of doping
offences.

It comes as one former Bomber began his own Supreme Court action,
seeking documents about the medical treatment he received while at
the club.  It is understood lawyers for the player, who on March
24 applied for a suppression order and wants to be known as Mr X,
initiated the legal action after requests for Essendon and the AFL
to hand over documents related to his health and safety were not
met.

The Herald Sun understands at least three senior Bombers have told
their managers they are keen to explore an action against the
league, which would involve a legal firm covering the cost of the
case and pocketing a percentage of any payout.

The players would also be suing for damages in the Supreme Court,
for breach of duty of care and breach of contract in relation to
the supplements scandal.

"They are wanting to explore a class action," a source close to
the players said last night.  The players would prefer to sue the
AFL rather than their own club -- but understand it may be
necessary to sue both organisations.

The players are facing suspensions of up to two years for use of
the prohibited peptide Thymosin beta-4.

A ruling in the case against the 34 current and former Essendon
players will be handed down by the AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal on
March 24.

A WorkSafe Victoria probe into the AFL and Essendon is continuing,
but it is believed no action will be taken by the authority until
after anti-doping charges are determined.

Mr. X, who named the AFL as first defendant and the club second
defendant in papers lodged on March 24, is expected to make an
application for pre-action discovery.  He is seeking documents
held by the AFL and Essendon so his lawyers can assess whether to
pursue a damages claim.  Such a claim could relate to possible
negligence or a breach of occupational health and safety
regulations.

AFL boss Gillon McLachlan has publicly stated the league must
accept some level of responsibility for the saga.


AUTHOR SOLUTIONS: Giskan Solotaroff Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Giskan Solotaroff Anderson & Stewart LLP on March 24 disclosed
that it filed another class action complaint in the Southern
District of Indiana against Author Solutions LLC, a self-
publishing company that operates multiple imprints.  Plaintiffs
allege that Author Solutions, a Penguin Random House Company,
operates as an aggressive telemarketing operation that, unlike
traditional publishers, makes money "from its authors, not for
them."  The complaint also alleges that:

The sales teams deceptively refer to themselves as Publishing,
Marketing, or Book Consultants but have no background in
publishing or marketing.  Instead, they are largely based in Cebu,
Philippines and are paid based on how many marketing services they
sell to authors.

Marketing Consultants aggressively pitch expensive services to
authors, such as Hollywood packages, even though Author Solutions
knows that the chances that a book will be optioned are
negligible.

To encourage authors to purchase services, Author Solutions tells
authors that their marketing services will help sell more books.
But Author Solutions has no basis for leading authors to believe
that their marketing services help sales, since the company never
analyzes its authors' retail success.

After spending thousands or tens of thousands of dollars, authors
often find they have sold very few books.  Despite the few book
sales, authors receive repeated telemarketing calls and emails
from Author Solutions even long after their books have been
published, and even if authors instruct Authors Solutions to stop
calling.

Author Solutions has increased its revenue by forming partnerships
with traditional publishing companies to create new imprints.  The
partners include: Simon & Schuster for the imprint Archway, Thomas
Nelson for Westbow Press, Reader's Digest for LifeRich, as well
Nook Press for Barnes & Noble and Lulu Press Inc. Several of these
partnerships conceal their affiliation with Author Solutions from
their authors.

Giskan Solotaroff has asked consumers to contact the firm with
descriptions, whether positive or negative, of their publishing
experiences with Author Solutions.


B&D CONTRACTING: "Dantzler" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Danny Dantzler, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. B&D Contracting, Inc., Case No. 1 1:15-cv-00126-LG-RHW (S.D.
Miss., April 16, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, declaratory relief, attorney's fees and costs,
and other damages and remedies pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

B&D Contracting, Inc. is a Louisiana corporation that subcontracts
with various shipyards and other marine and industrial companies
to provide the services of structural welders, ship fitters, pipe
welders, pipe fitters, electricians, and outside machinists.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Virginia Carothers LoCoco, Esq.
      LOCOCO AND LOCOCO, PA
      P. O. Box 6014
      D'Iberville, MS 39532
      Telephone: (228) 392-3799
      E-mail: virginia.lococo@lococolaw.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Sterk" Suit Over FX Futures Manipulation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Sterk, Kimberly Sterk, and Michael Melissinos, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Bank of America
Corporation, Bank of America, N.A., Barclays Bank Plc, Barclays
Capital, Inc., BNP Paribas Group, BNP Paribas North America, Inc.,
BNP Paribas Prime Brokerage, Inc., BNP Paribas Securities, Inc.,
Citigroup, Inc., Citibank, N.A., Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.,
Credit Suisse Group AP, Credit Suisse AG, Credit Suisse
International, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Deutsche Bank
AG, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.,
Goldman, Sachs & Co., HSBC Holdings Plc, HSBC Bank Plc, HSBC North
America Holdings Inc., HSBC Bank USA, N.A., HSBC Securities (USA)
Inc., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
Morgan Stanley, Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC, The Royal Bank of
Scotland Group Plc, Royal Bank of Scotland Plc, RBS Securities,
Inc., UBS AG, and UBS Securities LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-02705-UA
(S.D.N.Y., April 7, 2015) concerns the Defendants' alleged
successful attempts to manipulate prices for foreign exchange
futures and options on FX futures.

FX futures are agreements to buy or sell a foreign currency at a
set price and date in the future, and are traded on centralized
exchanges, such as the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and ICE Futures
U.S. Exchanges.

Bank of America Corporation is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.  BAC has extensive
operations in New York, including its investment banking division,
which is located in New York City.  Bank of America, N.A., is a
federally chartered national banking association with its
principal place of business in Charlotte.  BANA is a wholly owned
subsidiary of BAC, and has extensive operations in New York.  The
Defendants together dominate the FX market.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          485 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 722-8500
          Facsimile: (646) 722-8501
          E-mail: lnussbaum@gelaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel L. Brockett, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: (212) 849-7000
          Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
          E-mail: danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com

               - and -

          Jeremy D. Andersen, Esq.
          Chris R. Barker, Esq.
          865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 443-3000
          Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
          E-mail: jeremyandersen@quinnemanuel.com
                  chrisbarker@quinnemanuel.com

               - and -

          Adam S. Cashman, Esq.
          50 California St., 22nd Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 875-6600
          Facsimile: (415) 875-6700
          E-mail: adamcashman@quinnemanuel.com


BLUE CROSS: Galactic Suit Moved From D. Kansas to N.D. Alabama
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Galactic Funk Touring, Inc., et
al. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas, Case No. 2:15-cv-02662,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama (Southern).  The Alabama District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:15-cv-00575-RDP to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought for injunctive relief and treble damages
based on an alleged unlawful conspiracy between and among
Defendant BCBS-KS, the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and the
36 other Blue Cross Blue Shield member plans of the BCBSA to
divide and allocate geographic markets among the Individual Blue
Plans, including BCBS-KS.

The Subscriber Plaintiffs' Local Counsel are:

          Greg Wright, Esq.
          Charles T. Schimmel, Esq.
          WRIGHT SCHIMMEL LLC
          6900 College Blvd., Suite 285
          Overland Park, KS 66211
          Telephone: (913) 534-8534
          Facsimile: (913) 534-8536
          E-mail: greg@wrightschimmel.com
                  chuck@wrightschimmel.com

The Subscriber Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel are:

          David Boies, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          333 Main Street
          Armonk, NY 10504
          Telephone: (914) 749-8200
          Facsimile: (914) 749-8200
          E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Michael Hausfeld, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street NW, Suite 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
          E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com

The Subscriber Plaintiffs' Local Facilitating Counsel is:

          Chris T. Hellums, Esq.
          PITTMAN, DUTTON & HELLUMS, P.C.
          2001 Park Place N, 1100 Park Place Tower
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 322-8880
          Facsimile: (205) 328-2711
          E-mail: chrish@pittmandutton.com

The Subscriber Plaintiffs' Steering Committee is composed of:

          William A. Isaacson, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          5301 Wisconsin Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20015
          Telephone: (202) 237-2727
          Facsimile: (202) 237-6131
          E-mail: wisaacson@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Gregory Davis, Esq.
          DAVIS & TALIAFERRO, LLC
          7031 Halcyon Park Drive
          Montgomery, AL 36117
          Telephone: (334) 832-9080
          Facsimile: (334) 409-7001
          E-mail: gldavis@knology.net

               - and -

          Megan Jones, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 744-1970
          Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
          E-mail: mjones@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Kathleen Chavez, Esq.
          FOOTE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ & O'NEIL, LLC
          10 West State Street, Suite 200
          Geneva, IL 60134
          Telephone: (630) 797-3339
          Facsimile: (630) 232-7452
          E-mail: kcc@fmcolaw.com

               - and -

          Cyril V. Smith, Esq.
          ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER, LLP
          100 East Pratt Street, Suite 2440
          Baltimore, MD 21202-1031
          Telephone: (410) 949-1145
          Facsimile: (410) 659-0436
          E-mail: csmith@zuckerman.com

The Subscriber Plaintiffs' Committee Chairs and Members are:

          Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (800) 424-6690
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: ecramer@bm.net

               - and -

          Karen Dyer, Esq.
          Hamish P.M. Hume, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          5301 Wisconsin Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20015
          Telephone: (202) 237-2727
          Facsimile: (202) 237-6131
          E-mail: kdyer@bsfllp.com
                  hhume@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Patrick Cafferty, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
          101 North Main Street, Suite 565
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 769-2144
          Facsimile: (734) 769-1207
          E-mail: pcafferty@caffertyclobes.com

               - and -

          Bryan Clobes, Esq.
          Ellen Meriwether, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
          1101 Market Street, Suite 2650
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 864-2800
          Facsimile: (215) 864-2810
          E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com
                  emeriwether@caffertyclobes.com

               - and -

          Douglas Dellaccio, Esq.
          CORY WATSON CROWDER & DEGARIS, P.C.
          2131 Magnolia Avenue, Suite 200
          Birmingham, AL 32505
          Telephone: (205) 328-2200
          Facsimile: (205) 324-7896
          E-mail: ddellaccio@cwcd.com

               - and -

          Chris Cowan, Esq.
          THE COWAN LAW FIRM
          209 Henry Street
          Dallas, TX 74226-1819
          Telephone: (214) 826-1900
          Facsimile: (214) 826-8900
          E-mail: chris@cowanlaw.net

               - and -

          Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq.
          Benjamin Sweet, Esq.
          DEL SOLE CAVANAUGH STROYD LLC
          200 First Avenue, Suite 300
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 261-2393
          Facsimile: (412) 261-2110
          E-mail: ekilpela@dsclaw.com
                  bsweet@dsclaw.com

               - and -

          Robert M. Foote, Esq.
          FOOTE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ & O'NEIL, LLC
          10 West State Street, Suite 200
          Geneva, IL 60134
          Telephone: (630) 797-3339
          Facsimile: (630) 232-7452
          E-mail: rmf@fmcolaw.com

               - and -

          Charles T. Caliendo, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER
          485 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 722-8500
          Facsimile: (646) 722-8501
          E-mail: ccaliendo@gelaw.com

               - and -

          Robert Eisler, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER
          123 Justison Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 622-7000
          Facsimile: (302) 622-7100
          E-mail: reisler@gelaw.com

               - and -

          David Guin, Esq.
          Tammy Stokes, Esq.
          GUIN, STOKES & EVANS, LLC
          The Financial Center
          505 20th Street North, Suite 1000
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 226-2282
          Facsimile: (205) 226-2357
          E-mail: davidg@gseattorneys.com
                  tammys@gseattorneys.com

               - and -

          Daniel Gustafson, Esq.
          Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          William Butterfield, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street NW, Suite 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
          E-mail: wbutterfield@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Arthur Bailey, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 744-1970
          Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
          E-mail: abailey@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Brent Hazzard, Esq.
          HAZZARD LAW, LLC
          447 Northpark Drive
          Ridgeland, MS 39157
          Telephone: (601) 977-5253
          Facsimile: (601) 977-5236
          E-mail: brenthazzard@yahoo.com

               - and -

          John Saxon, Esq.
          JOHN D. SAXON, P.C.
          2119 3rd Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203-3314
          Telephone: (205) 324-0223
          Facsimile: (205) 323-1583
          E-mail: jsaxon@saxonattorneys.com

               - and -

          Lawrence Jones, Esq.
          JONES WARD PLC
          312 South Fourth Street, Sixth Floor
          Louisville, Kentucky 40202
          Telephone: (502) 882-6000
          E-mail: larry@jonesward.com

               - and -

          Andrew Lemmon, Esq.
          LEMMON LAW FIRM
          650 Poydras Street, Suite 2335
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 581-5644
          Facsimile: (504) 581-2156
          E-mail: andrew@lemmonlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Virginia Buchanan, Esq.
          LEVIN PAPANTONIO THOMAS MITCHELL RAFFERTY
          & PROCTOR, P.A.
          316 South Baylen Street, Suite 600
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Telephone: (850) 435-7000
          Facsimile: (850) 435-7020
          E-mail: vbuchanan@levinlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert Methvin, Esq.
          James M. Terrell, Esq.
          MCCALLUM, METHVIN & TERRELL, P.C.
          The Highland Building
          2201 Arlington Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 939-0199
          Facsimile: (205) 939-0399
          E-mail: rgm@mmlaw.net
                  jterrell@mmlaw.net

               - and -

          Michael McGartland, Esq.
          MCGARTLAND & BORCHARDT LLP
          1300 South University Drive, Suite 500
          Fort Worth, TX 76107
          Telephone: (817) 332-9300
          Facsimile: (817) 332-9301
          E-mail: mike@attorneysmb.com

               - and -

          H. Lewis Gillis, Esq.
          MEANS GILLIS LAW, LLC
          3121 Zelda Court
          Montgomery, AL 36106
          Telephone: (800) 626-9684
          E-mail: hlgillis@tmgslaw.com

               - and -

          David J. Hodge, Esq.
          MORRIS, KING & HODGE
          200 Pratt Avenue NE
          Huntsville, AL 35801
          Telephone: (256) 536-0588
          Facsimile: (256) 533-1504
          E-mail: lstewart@alinjurylaw.com

               - and -

          Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
          NASTLAW LLC
          1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 923-9300
          Facsimile: (215) 923-9302
          E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick W. Pendley, Esq.
          Christopher Coffin, Esq.
          PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP
          Post Office Drawer 71
          Plaquemine, LA 70765
          Telephone: (225) 687-6369
          E-mail: pwpendley@pbclawfirm.com
                  ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com

               - and -

          Edgar D. Gankendorff, Esq.
          Eric R.G. Belin, Esq.
          PROVOSTY & GANKENDORFF, LLC
          650 Poydras Street, Suite 2700
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 410-2795
          Facsimile: (504) 410-2796
          E-mail: egankendorff@provostylaw.com
                  ebelin@provostylaw.com

               - and -

          Richard Rouco, Esq.
          QUINN, CONNOR, WEAVER, DAVIES & ROUCO LLP
          2700 Highway 280 East, Suite 380
          Birmingham, AL 35223
          Telephone: (205) 870-9989
          Facsimile: (205) 870-9989
          E-mail: rrouco@qcwdr.com

               - and -

          Garrett Blanchfield, Esq.
          REINHARDT, WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
          E-1250 First National Bank Building
          332 Minnesota Street
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 287-2100
          Facsimile: (651) 287-2103
          E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jason Thompson, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ
          One Towne Square, 17th Floor
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com

               - and -

          Larry McDevitt, Esq.
          David Wilkerson, Esq.
          VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
          11 North Market Street
          Asheville, NC 28801
          Telephone: (828) 258-2991
          E-mail: lmcdevitt@vwlawfirm.com
                  dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Carl S. Kravitz, Esq.
          ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
          1800 M Street NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036-5807
          Telephone: (202) 778-1800
          Facsimile: (202) 822-8106
          E-mail: ckravitz@zuckerman.com


BON JOUR: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro Martinez, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Bon Jour, Inc. d/b/a Cafe Bonjour, Hussein Hagag a/k/a
"Mike Hagag", and John Does # 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-02964-RA
(S.D.N.Y., April 16, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a deli-restaurant located at 20 E.
39th Street, New York, New York 10016.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin Nathan Dictor, Esq.
      EISNER & MIRER, P.C.
      113 University Place
      New York, NY 10003
      Telephone: (212) 473-8700
      Facsimile: (212) 473-8705
      E-mail: ben@eisnerassociates.com


BOUCHAINE VINEYARDS: Settlement Conf. in Lyons to End by Aug. 1
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen signed on April 2, 2015, a
stipulation in SHERI LYONS, individually and on behalf of a class
of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. BOUCHAINE VINEYARDS,
INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 3:14-CV-4869 EMC, (N.D. Cal.).

The court-approved stipulation, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/T19hfjfrom Leagle.com, provides that:

1. The case will be reassigned from Magistrate Judge Laporte to a
different Magistrate Judge for an early settlement conference.

2. The settlement conference will be completed by August 1, 2015.

3. The Case Management Conference currently set for June 18, 2015,
will be reset to a date after the settlement conference deadline
that is convenient for the Court.

4. The stay of proceedings and the post-stay deadlines set forth
in the Court's February 18, 2015 Order shall still apply.

Racheal Turner -- rturner@fbm.com -- Amber C. Chrystal --
achrystal@fbm.com -- Farella Braun + Martel LLP, San Francisco,
CA, Attorneys for Defendant BOUCHAINE VINEYARDS, INC.

Stephanie R. Tatar, Esq. -- stephanie@thetatarlawfirm.com -- Tatar
Law Firm, APC, Burbank, CA, Thomas J. Lyons Jr., Esq., Consumer
Justice Center P.A., Vadnais Heights, MN, admitted pro hac vice
1/20/15, Attorneys for Plaintiff, SHERI LYONS.


BUSHWOOD INVESTMENTS: Collective Action Deal, Atty. Fees Okayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT LEWIS and GRANT FERGUS, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BUSHWOOD INVESTMENTS,
LLC, BUSHWOOD OF FORT WORTH, LLC, and BUSHWOOD VENTURES, LLC,
Defendants, CASE NO. 13-2610-JAR-JPO, (D. Kan.) is before the
court on the parties' joint motion and memorandum for approval of
a FLSA Collective Action Settlement and unopposed sealed motion
and memorandum for approval of attorneys' Fees and costs.

District Judge Julie A. Robinson granted the parties' motions for
approval of settlement and for attorneys' fees in a memorandum and
order dated April 3, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/XWWlU1from Leagle.com.

The Court found the settlement proposed by the parties as fair and
reasonable.

The Named Plaintiffs, Scott Lewis and Grant Fergus, will receive a
Service Award under the settlement agreement in the amount of
$2,000 each.

Plaintiffs found the unopposed attorneys' fees and expenses in the
amount of $73,000.00 as reasonable.

The parties were directed to file a Joint Stipulation of
Dismissal.


CAPITAL BLUE: Galactic Suit Included in Blue Cross Antitrust MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Galactic Funk Touring, Inc., et
al. v. Capital Blue Cross, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00534, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama (Southern).  The Alabama District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-00578-RDP to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation, MDL
No. 2406.

The lawsuit is brought for injunctive relief and treble damages
based on an alleged unlawful conspiracy between and among
Defendants Capital BC and BC-Northeastern PA, the Blue Cross Blue
Shield Association and the 35 other Blue Cross Blue Shield member
plans of the BCBSA to divide and allocate geographic markets among
the Individual Blue Plans, including Capital BC and BC-
Northeastern PA.

The Subscriber Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel are:

          David Boies, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          333 Main Street
          Armonk, NY 10504
          Telephone: (914) 749-8200
          Facsimile: (914) 749-8200
          E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Michael Hausfeld, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street NW, Suite 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
          E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com

The Subscriber Plaintiffs' Local Facilitating Counsel is:

          Chris T. Hellums, Esq.
          PITTMAN,DUTTON &HELLUMS, P.C.
          2001 Park Place N, 1100 Park Place Tower
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 322-8880
          Facsimile: (205) 328-2711
          E-mail: chrish@pittmandutton.com

The Subscriber Plaintiffs' Steering Committee is composed of:

          William A. Isaacson, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          5301 Wisconsin Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20015
          Telephone: (202) 237-2727
          Facsimile: (202) 237-6131
          E-mail: wisaacson@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Gregory Davis, Esq.
          DAVIS & TALIAFERRO, LLC
          7031 Halcyon Park Drive
          Montgomery, AL 36117
          Telephone: (334) 832-9080
          Facsimile: (334) 409-7001
          E-mail: gldavis@knology.net

               - and -

          Megan Jones, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 744-1970
          Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
          E-mail: mjones@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Kathleen Chavez, Esq.
          FOOTE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ & O'NEIL, LLC
          10 West State Street, Suite 200
          Geneva, IL 60134
          Telephone: (630) 797-3339
          Facsimile: (630) 232-7452
          E-mail: kcc@fmcolaw.com

               - and -

          Cyril V. Smith, Esq.
          ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER, LLP
          100 East Pratt Street, Suite 2440
          Baltimore, MD 21202-1031
          Telephone: (410) 949-1145
          Facsimile: (410) 659-0436
          E-mail: csmith@zuckerman.com

The Subscriber Plaintiffs' Committee Chairs and Members are:

          Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (800) 424-6690
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: ecramer@bm.net

               - and -

          Karen Dyer, Esq.
          Hamish P.M. Hume, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          5301 Wisconsin Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20015
          Telephone: (202) 237-2727
          Facsimile: (202) 237-6131
          E-mail: kdyer@bsfllp.com
                  hhume@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Patrick Cafferty, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
          101 North Main Street, Suite 565
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 769-2144
          Facsimile: (734) 769-1207
          E-mail: pcafferty@caffertyclobes.com

               - and -

          Bryan Clobes, Esq.
          Ellen Meriwether, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
          1101 Market Street, Suite 2650
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 864-2800
          Facsimile: (215) 864-2810
          E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com
                  emeriwether@caffertyclobes.com

               - and -

          Douglas Dellaccio, Esq.
          CORY WATSON CROWDER & DEGARIS, P.C.
          2131 Magnolia Avenue, Suite 200
          Birmingham, AL 32505
          Telephone: (205) 328-2200
          Facsimile: (205) 324-7896
          E-mail: ddellaccio@cwcd.com

               - and -

          Chris Cowan, Esq.
          THE COWAN LAW FIRM
          209 Henry Street
          Dallas, TX 74226-1819
          Telephone: (214) 826-1900
          Facsimile: (214) 826-8900
          E-mail: chris@cowanlaw.net

               - and -

          Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq.
          Benjamin Sweet, Esq.
          DEL SOLE CAVANAUGH STROYD LLC
          200 First Avenue, Suite 300
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 261-2393
          Facsimile: (412) 261-2110
          E-mail: ekilpela@dsclaw.com
                  bsweet@dsclaw.com

               - and -

          Robert M. Foote, Esq.
          FOOTE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ & O'NEIL, LLC
          10 West State Street, Suite 200
          Geneva, IL 60134
          Telephone: (630) 797-3339
          Facsimile: (630) 232-7452
          E-mail: rmf@fmcolaw.com

               - and -

          Charles T. Caliendo, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER
          485 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 722-8500
          Facsimile: (646) 722-8501
          E-mail: ccaliendo@gelaw.com

               - and -

          Robert Eisler, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER
          123 Justison Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 622-7000
          Facsimile: (302) 622-7100
          E-mail: reisler@gelaw.com

               - and -

          David Guin, Esq.
          Tammy Stokes, Esq.
          GUIN, STOKES & EVANS, LLC
          The Financial Center
          505 20th Street North, Suite 1000
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 226-2282
          Facsimile: (205) 226-2357
          E-mail: davidg@gseattorneys.com
                  tammys@gseattorneys.com

               - and -

          Daniel Gustafson, Esq.
          Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          William Butterfield, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street NW, Suite 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
          E-mail: wbutterfield@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Arthur Bailey, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 744-1970
          Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
          E-mail: abailey@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Brent Hazzard, Esq.
          HAZZARD LAW, LLC
          447 Northpark Drive
          Ridgeland, MS 39157
          Telephone: (601) 977-5253
          Facsimile: (601) 977-5236
          E-mail: brenthazzard@yahoo.com

               - and -

          John Saxon, Esq.
          JOHN D. SAXON, P.C.
          2119 3rd Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203-3314
          Telephone: (205) 324-0223
          Facsimile: (205) 323-1583
          E-mail: jsaxon@saxonattorneys.com

               - and -

          Lawrence Jones, Esq.
          JONES WARD PLC
          312 South Fourth Street, Sixth Floor
          Louisville, Kentucky 40202
          Telephone: (502) 882-6000
          E-mail: larry@jonesward.com

               - and -

          Andrew Lemmon, Esq.
          LEMMON LAW FIRM
          650 Poydras Street, Suite 2335
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 581-5644
          Facsimile: (504) 581-2156
          E-mail: andrew@lemmonlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Virginia Buchanan, Esq.
          LEVIN PAPANTONIO THOMAS MITCHELL RAFFERTY
          & PROCTOR, P.A.
          316 South Baylen Street, Suite 600
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Telephone: (850) 435-7000
          Facsimile: (850) 435-7020
          E-mail: vbuchanan@levinlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert Methvin, Esq.
          James M. Terrell, Esq.
          MCCALLUM, METHVIN & TERRELL, P.C.
          The Highland Building
          2201 Arlington Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 939-0199
          Facsimile: (205) 939-0399
          E-mail: rgm@mmlaw.net
                  jterrell@mmlaw.net

               - and -

          Michael McGartland, Esq.
          MCGARTLAND & BORCHARDT LLP
          1300 South University Drive, Suite 500
          Fort Worth, TX 76107
          Telephone: (817) 332-9300
          Facsimile: (817) 332-9301
          E-mail: mike@attorneysmb.com

               - and -

          H. Lewis Gillis, Esq.
          MEANS GILLIS LAW, LLC
          3121 Zelda Court
          Montgomery, AL 36106
          Telephone: (800) 626-9684
          E-mail: hlgillis@tmgslaw.com

               - and -

          David J. Hodge, Esq.
          MORRIS, KING & HODGE
          200 Pratt Avenue NE
          Huntsville, AL 35801
          Telephone: (256) 536-0588
          Facsimile: (256) 533-1504
          E-mail: lstewart@alinjurylaw.com

               - and -

          Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
          Joanne E. Matusko, Esq.
          Erin C. Burns, Esq.
          NASTLAW LLC
          1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 923-9300
          Facsimile: (215) 923-9302
          E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com
                  jmatusko@nastlaw.com
                  eburns@nastlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick W. Pendley, Esq.
          Christopher Coffin, Esq.
          PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP
          Post Office Drawer 71
          Plaquemine, LA 70765
          Telephone: (225) 687-6369
          E-mail: pwpendley@pbclawfirm.com
                  ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com

               - and -

          Edgar D. Gankendorff, Esq.
          Eric R.G. Belin, Esq.
          PROVOSTY & GANKENDORFF, LLC
          650 Poydras Street, Suite 2700
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 410-2795
          Facsimile: (504) 410-2796
          E-mail: egankendorff@provostylaw.com
                  ebelin@provostylaw.com

               - and -

          Richard Rouco, Esq.
          QUINN, CONNOR, WEAVER, DAVIES & ROUCO LLP
          2700 Highway 280 East, Suite 380
          Birmingham, AL 35223
          Telephone: (205) 870-9989
          Facsimile: (205) 870-9989
          E-mail: rrouco@qcwdr.com

               - and -

          Garrett Blanchfield, Esq.
          REINHARDT, WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
          E-1250 First National Bank Building
          332 Minnesota Street
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 287-2100
          Facsimile: (651) 287-2103
          E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jason Thompson, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ
          One Towne Square, 17th Floor
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com

               - and -

          Larry McDevitt, Esq.
          David Wilkerson, Esq.
          VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
          11 North Market Street
          Asheville, NC 28801
          Telephone: (828) 258-2991
          E-mail: lmcdevitt@vwlawfirm.com
                  dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Carl S. Kravitz, Esq.
          ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
          1800 M Street NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036-5807
          Telephone: (202) 778-1800
          Facsimile: (202) 822-8106
          E-mail: ckravitz@zuckerman.com


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: "Sinohui" Stays in C.D. Cal. District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Josephine L. Staton of the Central District of
California denied plaintiff's motion to remand the case Richard
Sinohui, v. CEC Entertainment, Inc., CASE NO. EDCV 14-2516-JLS
(C.D. Cal.)

The plaintiff Richard Sinohui filed a putative class action suit
in Riverside County Superior Court against defendant CEC
Entertainment, Inc.  Sinohui alleges that CEC improperly
classified him and other similarly situated employees as exempt
and thus violated the California Labor Code when it failed to pay
them overtime for all overtime hours worked, failed to provide
meal and rest periods, failed to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, failed to reimburse for business expenses, and failed
to timely pay wages upon separation from employment.

CEC removed the case to the District Court on the basis of both
diversity jurisdiction and the Class Action Fairness Act. On
December 30, 2014, Sinohui filed a motion to remand, arguing that
CEC has not established that the court possesses jurisdiction over
the matter on either basis. Sinohui also requests attorneys' fees
on the grounds that CEC's removal of this action lacked any
objectively reasonable basis.

District Judge Staton denied plaintiff's motion to remand the
action to Riverside County Superior Court.

A copy of Judge Staton's order dated February 26, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/D2nzm9from Leagle.com

Richard Sinohui, Plaintiff, represented by:

Brennan S Kahn, Esq.
Todd H Harrison, Esq.
PERONA LANGER BECK SERBIN AND MENDOZA
300 East San Antonio Drive
Long Beach, CA 90807
Telephone: 800-435-7542
Facsimile: 562-490-9823

     - and -

James M Trush, Esq.
TRUSH LAW OFFICES
695 Town Center Drive, Suite 700
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: 714-384-6390
Facsimile: 714-384-6391

CEC Entertainment Inc, Defendant, represented by Christopher K
Petersen -- cpetersen@akingump.com -- Gary M McLaughlin --
gmclaughlin@akingump.com -- at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer and Feld
LLP


CEPHALON INC: Judge Refuses to Certify Actiq Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael Mello, writing for Law360, reports that a Pennsylvania
federal judge on March 23 refused to certify a proposed class
action accusing drugmaker Cephalon Inc. of unjustly enriching
itself by marketing a painkiller for off-label uses, ruling the
plaintiffs failed to show that a class action was the best way to
resolve their claims.

The plaintiffs, entities who pay for employees' prescription
drugs, allege Cephalon promoted its painkiller Actiq for uses not
approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, uses the
companies had to reimburse.


CHENIERE ENERGY: Settles Shareholder Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Nora Olabi, writing for Houston Business Journal, reports that the
shareholder class action complaint against Houston-based Cheniere
Energy Inc. and many of its top executives over $2 billion worth
of stock awards has been settled.

The settlement that came out of Delaware's Court of Chancery said
the company wouldn't be able to ask shareholders for additional
stock grants before 2017.  The settlement also awarded the
plaintiffs in the case $5.5 million in fees paid by Cheniere.

The complaint alleged that a Feb. 1, 2013, stockholder vote to
nearly triple the 2011 incentive plan was improperly counted.
The settlement will allow employees to keep the shares already
awarded to them, but those that haven't been awarded will undergo
a shareholder vote before being approved.

No more than 1 million shares, worth $80 million, can be awarded
to the company's president and CEO, Charif Souki.

Although Souki recently made national headlines as the highest-
paid executive in the U.S., the vast majority of his total
compensation came from stock awards -- $132.93 million of $141.95
million in 2013.

The complaint sought to "recover 25 million shares of Cheniere
stock that were improperly awarded to Cheniere's employees,
consultants and directors."


CHEROKEE ELECTRIC: Removed "Neyman" Suit to N.D. Ala. Dist. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cherokee Electric Cooperative removed the class action lawsuit
entitled John Hollis Neyman, on behalf of himself and on others
similarly situated v. Cherokee Electric Cooperative, Case No. 13-
CV-215-900030.00 from the Circuit Court of the Cherokee County,
Alabama to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama (Middle). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-
cv 00586-VEH to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleged failure to distribute excess revenues as
Patronage Capital or provide rate reductions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William J. Parks III, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES & MEDIATION CENTER
      107 East Laurel Street
      Scottsboro, AL 35768
      Telephone: (256) 574-1111
      Facsimile: (256) 574-1167
      E-mail: wparks@scottsborolawyer.com

         - and -

      J. Bradley Ponder, Esq.
      Lucas C. Montgomery, Esq.
      MONTGOMERY PONDER, LLC
      2421 2nd Avenue North
      Unit 1
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 201-0303
      Facsimile: (205) 208-9443
      E-mail: brad@montgomeryponder.com
              luke@montgomeryponder.com

         - and -

       Nicholas W. Armstrong, Esq.
       Oscar Monfort Price IV, Esq.
       PRICE ARMSTRONG
       2421 2nd Avenue North, Suite 1
       Birmingham, AL 35203
       Telephone: (205) 208-9503
       Facsimile: (205) 939-0399
       E-mail: nick@pricearmstrong.com
                oscar@pricearmstrong.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      John D. Coggin, Esq.
      THE COGGIN FIRM LLC
      104-D Northwood Drive
      Centre, AL 35960
      Telephone: (256) 927-9090
      Facsimile: (256) 927-9089
      E-mail: jdcoggin@tds.net


CHEROKEE ELECTRIC: Sued Over Failure to Refund Excess Revenues
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Hollis Neyman, on behalf of himself and on others similarly
situated v. Cherokee Electric Cooperative, Case No. 4:15-cv-00586-
VEH (N.D. Ala., April 8, 2015), is brought against the Defendant
for breach of contract, specifically by failing to refund excess
revenues to its members yearly.

Cherokee Electric Cooperative is an Alabama electric distribution
cooperative headquartered in Cherokee County, Alabama.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William J. Parks III, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES & MEDIATION CENTER
      107 East Laurel Street
      Scottsboro, AL 35768
      Telephone: (256) 574-1111
      Facsimile: (256) 574-1167
      E-mail: wparks@scottsborolawyer.com

         - and -

      J. Bradley Ponder, Esq.
      Lucas C. Montgomery, Esq.
      MONTGOMERY PONDER, LLC
      2421 2nd Avenue North
      Unit 1
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 201-0303
      Facsimile: (205) 208-9443
      E-mail: brad@montgomeryponder.com
              luke@montgomeryponder.com

         - and -

       Nicholas W. Armstrong, Esq.
       Oscar Monfort Price IV, Esq.
       PRICE ARMSTRONG
       2421 2nd Avenue North, Suite 1
       Birmingham, AL 35203
       Telephone: (205) 208-9503
       Facsimile: (205) 939-0399
       E-mail: nick@pricearmstrong.com
                oscar@pricearmstrong.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      John D. Coggin, Esq.
      THE COGGIN FIRM LLC
      104-D Northwood Drive
      Centre, AL 35960
      Telephone: (256) 927-9090
      Facsimile: (256) 927-9089
      E-mail: jdcoggin@tds.net


CHESWICK GENERATING: Ruling Is Roadmap for Class Suit Defendants
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Iannucci, Esq., and Laura Vendzules, Esq., of Blank Rome
LLP, in article for JDSUpra, report that two billion dollars.
That is what the top legal counsel at nearly 350 companies spent
on the defense of class actions in 2014.  In addition to the cost
of outside counsel, on average, companies dedicate six in-house
individuals to manage class actions, four of whom are attorneys.
Moreover, class actions -- regardless of whether they concern
consumer fraud, cybersecurity or employment -- have the ability to
instantly damage an entity's goodwill and reputation.  And,
critically, bet-the-company class action litigation is on the
rise.  Given these high stakes, it is too often that class action
defendants bear the heavy burden of paying for costly discovery
and substantial motion practice well before they can challenge
even the flimsiest class action allegations.

Perhaps in response to these trends, a recent case emanating from
the Western District of Pennsylvania, Bell v. Cheswick Generating
Station, et al., Civ. A. No. 12-929 (W.D. Pa., Jan. 28, 2015), has
provided a road map for defendants seeking to strike class
allegations before slogging through burdensome discovery.

The Bell Framework: Rules 12(f), 23(c)(1)(A) and 23(d)(1)(D); Not
Rule 12(b)

In Bell, plaintiffs alleged a class comprised of individuals that
live or own property within one mile of the Cheswick Generating
Station "who have suffered similar damages to their property by
the invasion of particulates, chemicals and gases from defendant's
facility which thereby caused damages to their real property."
Defendant challenged the class definition by filing a motion to
strike plaintiffs' class allegations, relying primarily on Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1)(A) and 12(b).  The court ruled
that the authority to strike class allegations does not arise from
Rule 12(b), but rather from Rules 12(f), 23(c)(1)(A) and
23(d)(1)(D).

Rule 23(d)(1)(D) provides that a "court may issue orders that
. . . require that the pleadings be amended to eliminate
allegations about representation of absent persons and that the
action proceed accordingly."  Further, Rule 23(c)(1)(A) directs
the court to make the class certification determination "[a]t an
early practicable time."  Rule 12(f) permits a district court to
"strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant,
immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter."  The Bell court
noted that these rules, when read in conjunction with one another,
provide authority for the court to strike the class allegations
even before a plaintiff moves for class certification.  The Bell
court also noted that opinions from district courts in the Third
Circuit support striking class allegations where "no amount of
discovery will demonstrate that the class can be maintained."

Who Bears the Burden?

While the Third Circuit has not yet ruled on the appropriate
standard of review to be utilized for prediscovery motions to
strike class allegations, the Bell court adopted the reasoning set
forth by the Seventh Circuit's decision in Szabo v. Bridgeport
Mach. Inc., 249 F.3d 672 (7th Cir. 2001), which holds that the
Rule 23 burdens are on the plaintiff, even if the plaintiff is the
nonmoving party.  Specifically, the Bell court held that
accelerating the class certification question does not alter the
traditional Rule 23 burdens and plaintiffs must advance a "prima
facie showing that the class action requirements of Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23 are satisfied or that discovery is likely to
produce substantiation of the class allegations."

The Bell Proposed Class

After examining the class definition, the court determined that
the class, as alleged, was a "fail-safe" class (i.e., one that
"requires the court to address the central issue of liability in
the case."  The court ruled that the proposed class was
unascertainable because the class definition involved the ultimate
issue of liability that would require the court to conduct
minihearings to determine who belongs within the class and who
does not, rendering the process administratively infeasible and
therefore unascertainable.  In addition, the court criticized the
inclusion of "similar damages" in the class as independently
problematic.  Indeed, the court noted that the incorporation of a
standard that turns on subjective criteria is administratively
infeasible and renders the class uncertifiable.

While the court rejected the class claims, Bell may be saved by
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.  The court held that an
amended complaint that defines the class by "clear, objective
criteria" may not be futile. Accordingly, the court granted the
motion to strike the class claims without prejudice, subject to
plaintiffs filing a motion to amend, but cautioned that no further
amendments would be permitted.

The Class Action Climate Moving Forward

Not only is bet-the-company class action litigation on the rise,
but regulatory agencies are also becoming more vocal about their
support of class actions and disapproval of arbitration provisions
and class action waivers.  Recently, the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau issued a report criticizing arbitration
agreements in the context of consumer actions.  In addition, the
CFPB's study found that class actions deliver cash relief to
vastly more consumers than individual arbitration.  And, while the
CFPB has yet to formally propose a rule restricting financial
services companies from requiring consumers to arbitrate their
claims, many speculate that such a rule is expected in the near
future.  Beyond the CFPB, the Dodd-Frank Act forbids arbitration
agreements in certain contexts.  The cumulative effect of
regulatory agencies and certain laws forbidding arbitration
provisions will be more class actions, especially in the consumer
and financial services contexts.

However, despite the recent wave of support disfavoring
arbitration agreements and touting class actions as a preferably
method to get relief to the most people, there appears to be a
growing tension between the regulators and the courts, with judges
being more open to limiting the scope of class actions.  Indeed,
in addition to heightening the pleading requirements in all cases
pursuant to Iqbal and Twombly, courts have permitted various
avenues for defendant corporations to limit class actions, whether
through contractual arbitration and class waiver provisions or
otherwise.  In this respect, the Bell decision is critical in that
it signals a willingness to dispose of class claims before class
discovery and prior to any motion for certification if the class
as alleged is implausible on its face.

Conclusion

Companies must be prepared to vigorously defend themselves against
class and collective claims. In this respect, Bell may provide a
sharp weapon in a class action defendant's arsenal to be
brandished before undergoing pervasive and burdensome discovery.


CHICAGO, IL: Faces Red Light Speed Camera Ticket Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fran Spielman, writing for Chicago Sun Times, reports that cash-
strapped Chicago should be forced to refund $600 million in red-
light and speed camera tickets dating back to 2003 because it
"skipped a step" and denied motorists due process, a lawsuit filed
on March 23 argues.

Five months ago, attorney Jacie Zolna accused Mayor Rahm Emanuel's
administration of ignoring the ground rules established by the
state before speed cameras were installed around schools and parks
-- by issuing thousands of tickets on "non-school days."

Circuit Court Judge Mary Mikva subsequently dismissed the lawsuit;
she based that ruling on the grounds that any time even one
student is on campus attending an event, it counts as a school
day.

But on March 23, Ms. Zolna filed another class-action lawsuit
that's far more sweeping and potentially costly for the city.

It accuses the Emanuel administration of violating the city's own
legal requirement to issue a second notice of violation prior to
issuing a determination of liability against motorists who were
issued speed camera and red-light camera tickets.

The suit further accuses City Hall of two more "mistakes" that
Ms. Zolna says deprived motorists of their due process:

The failure to specify the make of the vehicle, as required under
state law and the municipal code.

The assessment of late penalties whenever payment is not received
within 21 days of a liability determination, when a 25-day grace
period is required by law.

Ms. Zolna -- for now -- represents three named plaintiffs in the
case: Delyn McKenzie-Lopez, Themasha Simpson and Erica Lieschke.

But he's seeking class-action status, which could compel the city
to refund $600 million in fines and millions more in penalties
dating back to 2003, when the first of 302 red-light cameras at
149 intersections were installed.

Ms. Zolna is also seeking an injunction that would prevent the
city from collecting on or otherwise enforcing outstanding speed
and red-light camera violations until the noticing mistakes are
remedied.

Ms. Zolna said McKenzie-Lopez is a poster-child for the city's
photo enforcement mistakes.

She got her first, $100 red-light camera ticket on April 29, 2014,
after blowing a red-light at 150 N. Sacramento, then got hit with
speed camera tickets on May 14, May 22 and May 29 after being
nailed by a camera at 4040 W. Chicago Ave.

"She was supposed to get a pre-liability notice and a subsequent
notice," Ms. Zolna said.  "Instead of affording her those rights,
the city hit her with a liability determination three or four
weeks later, then started assessing late penalties that doubled
the fine."

"So instead of getting a $100 ticket, which is difficult enough
for a lot of people to afford, you might get two or three of these
before you even realize a speed camera was operating because the
city is so quick to find you liable.  You could very easily be
confronted in a matter of weeks with $600 or $800 in penalties.
People can't afford to pay that.  That's rent and groceries."

But law department spokesman John Holden said, "Automated traffic
enforcement is an important public safety tool, and while we
haven't seen the lawsuit, the program already has been upheld by
the courts in a prior challenge filed by this same law firm and we
are confident it is on solid legal ground."

The demand for refunds dating all the way back to 2003 comes at a
time when the city's financial crunch is front and center in the
race for mayor.

Chicago is facing a $300 million operating shortfall, a $20
billion pension crisis, $10 billion in unfunded pension
liabilities at the Chicago Public Schools and a state-mandated,
$550 million payment due in December to shore up police and fire
pensions.

"It could mean a refund of every fine and penalty ever paid by
anyone for a red-light or a speed camera violation dating all the
way back to 2003," Ms. Zolna said on March 23.

"In every single case of red-light or speed camera violations,
they have failed to provide the subsequent notice as required
under the municipal code.  They send the initial violation notice
and, instead of sending the second notice as they are required to
do, they simply issue a determination of liability and begin
enforcing fines and assessing penalties.  They're skipping a
step."


CINNABAR SERVICE: Out-of-Court Settlement Mulled for Picher Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wally Kennedy, writing for Joplin Globe, reports that a class-
action lawsuit brought by former residents of Picher, Oklahoma,
against a Tulsa-based appraisal firm involved with the federal
buyout of property at Picher could be resolved in an out-of-court
settlement.

Members of the class recently received a letter dated March 20
from Jeff Marr, an Oklahoma City attorney who represents about 161
former residents of Picher.  A copy of the letter, obtained by the
Globe, shows that the appraisal company, Cinnabar Service Co., of
Tulsa, wants to settle the suit and "offer every dime of insurance
which Cinnabar has available" for the claims sought by the
residents.

The settlement proposal by Cinnabar's lawyer comes a few weeks
after Cinnabar's chief owner and operating officer, Bill Bacon,
was deposed, according to the letter.

Cinnabar, which according to Bacon has more debt than assets, has
a liability insurance policy for $2 million, covering its action
with the Lead-Impacted Relocation Assistance Trust.  The trust
oversaw the buyout of Picher, which was completed in 2009, with
guidance from state environmental officials.  Cinnabar and another
company, Van Tuyl, appraised the properties.  Van Tuyl has filed
for bankruptcy.

The $2 million insurance policy has been reduced by $150,000 for
defense costs associated with the class-action lawsuit brought
against Cinnabar.  The class has approximately $1,850,000 in
coverage available.  After attorney fees for Mr. Marr and co-
counsel John Wiggins are subtracted, the class would have $925,000
available for distribution, or roughly $5,700 for each Cinnabar-
appraised household.

Missy Beets, class representative, of Miami, has authorized
Marr and Wiggins to proceed with a potential settlement.
Ms. Beets could not be reached for comment on March 23.  Mr.
Marr's secretary said he was not available for comment on March
23.  She noted that the letter is a proposal at this stage in that
it seeks approval from members of the class to move forward with a
settlement.

After the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled in October 2014 that the
affected residents could move forward as a class, Messrs. Marr and
Wiggins said the case would proceed to trial unless an out-of-
court settlement could be reached.

The former residents of Picher alleged that their properties were
intentionally undervalued by Cinnabar during the company's
appraisals for the Lead-Impacted Communities Relocation Assistance
Trust.

Picher, located in Ottawa County, lies at the heart of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's Tar Creek Superfund Site.  Years
of zinc and lead mining led to studies conducted by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers that found properties in the town were
undermined and at high risk of caving in. That prompted the buyout
of residents.


COCA COLA COMPANY: Court Awards $1.2MM in Atty. Fees in Volz Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In an order entered March 31, 2015, a copy of which is available
at http://is.gd/DshI9mfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Michael R.
Barrett granted class counsel's request for attorneys' Fees and
costs in DAVID VOLZ, et al. Plaintiffs, v. THE COCA COLA COMPANY
and ENERGY BRANDS, INC. Defendants, CASE NO. 1:10CV879, (S.D.
Ohio).

The Court ordered that Class Counsel receive $1,200,000.00 for
attorneys' fees, costs and expenses.

Truth In Advertising, Inc., Interested Party, represented by
Ronald Lee Burdge -- ron@burdgelaw.com -- Burdge Law Office.

David Jay Ference, Objector, represented by Simina Vourlis --
svourlis@vourlislaw.com -- The Law Offices of Simina Vourlis.

David Volz, Plaintiff, represented by Brian T Giles --
bgiles@statmanharris.com -- Jeffrey Phillip Harris --
jharris@statmanharris.com -- Statman Harris & Eyrich , Joseph J
Braun --  jjbraun@strausstroy.com -- Strauss & Troy & Richard
Stuart Wayne --  rswayne@strausstroy.com -- Strauss & Troy.

Ahmed Khaleel, Plaintiff, represented by Brian T Giles & Richard
Stuart Wayne, Strauss & Troy.

Nicholas Armada, Plaintiff, represented by Brian T Giles & Richard
Stuart Wayne, Strauss & Troy.

Scott Cook, Plaintiff, represented by Brian T Giles & Richard
Stuart Wayne, Strauss & Troy.

Stephanie Bridges, Plaintiff, represented by Brian T Giles &
Richard Stuart Wayne, Strauss & Troy.

Juan Squiabro, Plaintiff, represented by Brian T Giles & Richard
Stuart Wayne, Strauss & Troy.

Coca Cola Company, Defendant, represented by Jason D. Groppe --
groppe@blankrome.com -- Michael Lawrence Cioffi --
cioffi@blankrome.com -- Blank Rome LLP, Nathaniel R Jones --
jonesn@blankrome.com -- Blank Rome LLP, Thomas H Stewart --
stewart@blankrome.com -- Blank Rome LLP, James R Eiszner --
jeiszner@shb.com -- Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP, Shon Morgan, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges & Tammy B Webb --  tbwebb@shb.com
-- Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP.

Energy Brands Inc., Defendant, represented by Jason D. Groppe,
Michael Lawrence Cioffi, Blank Rome LLP, Nathaniel R Jones, Blank
Rome LLP, Thomas H Stewart, Blank Rome LLP, James R Eiszner, Shook
Hardy & Bacon LLP, Shon Morgan, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver &
Hedges & Tammy B Webb, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP.


COLLIFLOWER INC: "Gustin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Gustin, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
individuals v. Colliflower, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01217 (N.D.
Ga., April 16, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Colliflower, Inc. owns and operates hardware store located at 4794
Clark Howell Highway, Suite #6, College Park, Georgia 30349.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amanda A. Farahany, Esq.
      Benjamin F. Barrett Jr., Esq.
      Elizabeth Lorraine Brown, Esq.
      BARRETT & FARAHANY, LLP
      1100 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 500
      Atlanta, GA 30309
      Telephone: (404) 214-0120
      Facsimile: (404) 214-0125
      E-mail: amanda@bf-llp.com
              ben@bf-llp.com
              lbrown@bf-llp.com


COMTRAK LOGISTICS: "Robles" Suit Moved From Calif. to Tennessee
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Robles v. Comtrak Logistics, Inc.,
Case No. 2:13-CV-00161-JAM-AC, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento
Division, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee (Memphis).  The Tennessee District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:15-cv-02228-SHM-tmp to the proceeding.

The action is brought to halt the Defendants' alleged unlawful
practice of misclassifying their truck driver employees as
"independent contractors."  By misclassifying the drivers as
independent contractors, the Defendants have sought to avoid
various duties and obligations owed to employees under the
California's Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission for the
Transportation Industry wage orders, according to the complaint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stanley D Saltzman, Esq.
          Christina A. Humphrey, Esq.
          Leslie H. Joyner, Esq.
          MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
          29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 991-8080
          Facsimile: (818) 991-8081
          E-mail: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com
                  chumphrey@marlinsaltzman.com
                  ljoyner@marlinsaltzman.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Andrew M. McNaught, Esq.
          Joshua Mark Henderson, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          560 Mission Street, Suite 3100
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 397-2823
          Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
          E-mail: amcnaught@seyfarth.com
                  jhenderson@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Thomas Piskorski, PHV, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          131 S. Dearborn Street, Suite 2400
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 460-5000
          Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
          E-mail: tpiskorski@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Brandon Reed McKelvey, Esq.
          MEDINA MCKELVEY LLP
          983 Reserve Drive
          Roseville, CA 95678
          Telephone: (916) 960-2211

               - and -

          Daniel C. Kim, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 498-7004
          Facsimile: (916) 288-6340
          E-mail: dckim@seyfarth.com


CVS CAREMARK: Class Cert. Ruling in "Lauriello" Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Justice James Gregory Shaw of the Supreme Court of Alabama
affirmed the trial court orders in the consolidated appealed case
entitled CVS Caremark Corporation, et al., v. John Lauriello, et
al.; and John Lauriello et al., v. CVS Caremark Corporation et
al., NOS. 1120010, 1120114 (Ala.)

In connection with a 1998 nationwide, securities-fraud class
action initiated against MedPartners, Inc., a physician-practice-
management/pharmacy-benefits-management corporation and the
predecessor in interest to Caremark the Jefferson Circuit Court
certified a class that included the plaintiffs. Based on the
alleged financial distress and limited insurance resources of
MedPartners, the 1998 litigation was concluded in 1999 by means of
a negotiated global settlement, pursuant to which the claims of
all class members were settled for $56 million.

Purportedly based on representations of counsel that MedPartners
lacked the financial means to pay any judgment in excess of the
negotiated settlement and that the settlement amount was thus the
best potential recovery for the class, the trial court, after a
hearing, approved the settlement and entered a judgment in
accordance therewith.

Thereafter, however, MedPartners, now Caremark, allegedly
disclosed, in unrelated litigation, that it had actually obtained
and thus had available during the 1998 litigation an excess-
insurance policy providing alleged unlimited coverage with regard
to its potential-damages exposure in the 1998 litigation, the
existence of which it had purportedly concealed in negotiating the
class settlement. As a result, in 2003, John Lauriello, seeking to
be named as class representative, again sued Caremark and the
insurers in the Jefferson Circuit Court, pursuant to a class-
action complaint alleging misrepresentation and suppression,
specifically, that Caremark and the insurers had misrepresented
the amount of insurance coverage available to settle the 1998
litigation and that they also had suppressed the existence of the
purportedly unlimited excess policy, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated. Alternatively, Lauriello sought relief
from the judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b), Ala. R. Civ. P.

Frank G. McArthur, Bill Greene, and Virginia Greene, also members
of the class certified in the 1998 litigation, filed a separate
but substantially similar action in the Jefferson Circuit Court;
their proposed class-action complaint asserted claims almost
identical to Lauriello's but named, as additional defendants,
plaintiffs' counsel from the 1998 litigation.

The trial court issued an order certifying as a class action the
fraud claims asserted by John Lauriello and the trial court issued
an order granting class-action certification under Rule 23(b)(3).

In case no. 1120010, Caremark and the insurers appeal from the
trial court's order certifying as a class action the fraud claims
asserted by John Lauriello; James O. Finney, Jr.; Sam Johnson; and
the City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System. In case no.
1120114, the plaintiffs cross-appeal from the same class-
certification order, alleging that, though class treatment was
appropriate, the trial court erred in certifying the class as an
"opt-out" class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), Ala. R. Civ. P., rather
than a "mandatory" class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(1).

Justice Shaw concluded that the trial court properly certified the
plaintiffs' claims for class treatment and the judgment is
affirmed in all respects.

A copy of Justice Shaw's opinion dated February 27, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/vL9eCQfrom Leagle.com


DIRECTV INC: Supreme Court Hear Class Suit Over Termination Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jess Bravin, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that the
Supreme Court on March 23 took up a class-action lawsuit against
DirecTV Inc. brought in California over early termination fees
charged to customers.

The justices, in a brief order, said they would decide whether the
company's customer agreements require the dispute to proceed in
private arbitration, rather than as a group lawsuit in the courts.

Plaintiffs' attorneys and consumer organizations contend
arbitration, which occurs behind closed doors by private
arbitrators, is stacked in favor of companies.  Businesses say the
process is a way to control litigation costs and more efficiently
resolve customer disputes.

The Supreme Court has in a string of cases held that Congress, in
passing the Federal Arbitration Act, sought to encourage
arbitration.

A California state appeals court held a clause in DirecTV's
contract made its arbitration clause unenforceable.  But the Ninth
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled federal
arbitration law allows the company to move the dispute into
arbitration.

The case will be heard in the fall of 2015.


DOKIL BAKERY: Faces "Espino" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Irma Espino, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Dokil Bakery, Inc. and Jung Hoon Oh, Case
No. 1:15-cv-03385 (N.D. Ill., April 16, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EHEALTH INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that an Internet-based health insurance
agency is being sued for making allegedly misleading statements
about the company's revenue, giving shareholders a false picture
of the company's financial health.

The Laborers' Local No. 231 Pension Fund filed the lawsuit on
March 10 against eHealth Inc.  The lawsuit said eHealth didn't
disclose that its revenue was adversely affected by the rise in
the number of approved insurance applicants who didn't make
payments on their plans.  These nonpayments caused a reduction in
the amount of commission payments eHealth received, the complaint
says.

Executives for the company also didn't disclose that a decrease in
market share compromised eHealth's ability to retain and attract
paying individual and family plan members to meet its guidance for
2014, the suit says.

"(eHealth) knew about these operational and financial
shortcomings, but nevertheless touted revenue and earnings results
and prospects that did not reflect the true state of the company,"
the lawsuit said.

On June 9, the company's stock reached a high of $39.16 per share.
However, after second-quarter financial results emerged at the end
of July, the stock price began to fall.  On July 31, the stock
dropped nearly $11 per share and closed at $20.70 per share.

The lawsuit seeks class status for those who held eHealth common
stock between June 5 and Jan. 14, and seeks an unspecified amount
of damages, plus court costs.

The labor union is represented by Shawn Williams --
shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- David Walton -- davew@rgrdlaw.com -- and
Brian Cochran of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP in San
Francisco.

United States District Court for the Northern District of
California case number 3:15-cv-01106


ELECTRONICS ARTS: Gamers Agree to Arbitrate Claims
--------------------------------------------------
Joe Van Acker and Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360,
report that gamers bringing a proposed class action accusing
Electronics Arts Inc. of cheating them out of online content that
they had paid extra to access agreed to arbitrate their claims by
accepting the company's terms of service, according to a judge's
report accepted in New York federal court on March 23.

U.S. District Judge Margo K. Brodie agreed with Magistrate Judge
Steven M. Gold's conclusion that the lead plaintiff's attempt to
challenge the validity of his agreement with EA as a whole is a
matter for an arbitrator to decide, and said it is not for the
court to determine whether or not EA's arbitration clause should
have been incorporated into a point-of-purchase contract with the
retailer where the plaintiff purchased his games.

"The court need not delve into the obligations of the relevant
parties under either [contract]," Judge Brodie said.  "The extent
to which EA was required to provide plaintiff with online access
gets to the heart of the matter, and is an issue for arbitration."

Justin T. Bassett sued EA in 2013, claiming that the game maker
had improperly retired the online features that allow players to
compete and interact over the Internet for popular franchises,
including "The Sims," "Madden NFL" and "FIFA Soccer" after
releasing new versions of the games.

On March 23, Judge Brodie accepted Judge Gold's determination that
Bassett accepted EA's terms when he attempted to play the
company's games online.

Judge Gold's report said that Mr. Bassett was presented with a
"clickwrap" agreement that required him to click "I Accept" in
order to proceed with an online registration process.

Mr. Bassett had argued that the online contract wasn't enforceable
because EA already had a pre-existing duty to allow him to use his
games' online features, and compared EA's conduct to "Frigidaire
selling a consumer a refrigerator, but requiring that consumer to
sign terms of service to access the freezer."

Mr. Bassett also said that his agreement with EA contained an
"illusory promise," because it allowed the company the unilateral
right to modify its contract after giving 30 days' notice and said
that Judge Gold was wrong to find otherwise.

Judge Brodie said that New York and California law allows parties
to modify agreements without them being illusory as long as fair
notice is given and the changes are reasonable.

EA satisfied both of those requirements by posting changes to the
agreement on its website 30 days before they went into effect and
allowing the plaintiff to opt out by notifying the company within
30 days after the changes were imposed.

Judge Brodie agreed to stay the case and denied EA's motion to
change the venue to California without prejudice, pending the
arbitrator's decision.

Mr. Bassett is represented by Clayton Halunen --
halunen@halunenlaw.com -- Susan M. Coler -- coler@halunenlaw.com
-- and Melissa W. Wolchansky of Halunen & Associates and Michael
Robert Reese and Kim Richman of Reese Richman LLP.

EA is represented by Kenneth M. Dreifach -- ken@zwillgen.com -- of
ZwillGen PLLC and Michele D. Floyd -- mfloyd@srclaw.com -- of
Sacks Ricketts & Case LLP.

The case is Justin T. Bassett v. Electronic Arts Inc., case No.
1:13-cv-04208, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York.


ELI LILY: M.D. Tenn. Judge Recommends Dismissal of Jefferson Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge John S. Bryant of the Middle District of
Tennessee, Nashville Division made a report and recommendation on
the case SAMUEL JEFFERSON, Plaintiff, v. FERRER, POIROT &
WANSBROUGH, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 3:10-0754 (M.D. Tenn.)

Plaintiff Samuel Jefferson was a plaintiff in a pharmaceutical
product liability class action based upon the drug Zyprexa, an
antipsychotic drug sold by Defendant Lilly. This case was included
in an MDL proceeding maintained in a federal district court in New
York. Defendant Ferrer Poirot & Wansbrough, represented Jefferson.

As part of a settlement Jefferson signed a confidential release of
all claims. Later, on February 26, 2008, Jefferson signed his
mother's name to a document entitled Zyprexa Settlement Award
Acknowledgment Form and a disbursement statement acknowledging the
amount of his portion of the MDL settlement. Plaintiff Jefferson
admits that he received a total settlement amount of approximately
$28,000, of which he paid his lawyers approximately $11,000.

Jefferson filed an action against defendant Lilly and others
alleging that Lily committed numerous legal wrongs in the course
of settling a pharmaceutical product liability case in which he
was a plaintiff. Plaintiff's complaint charges Lilly with
violation of plaintiff's due process rights under the Fourteenth
Amendment, negligence, and fraud. Plaintiff seeks money damages.
Defendant Lilly has filed its motion for summary judgment.

Magistrate Judge Bryant recommends that defendant Lily's motion
for summary judgment should be granted and the complaint against
it dismissed.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Bryant's report and recommendation
dated February 25, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/ELHvjXfrom
Leagle.com

Samuel Jefferson, Plaintiff, Pro Se

Ferrer, Poirot, and Wansbrough, Defendant, represented by James W.
Bewley -- John T. Kirtley, III -- jkirtley@lawyerworks.com -- at
Ferrer, Poirot & Wansbrough

Eli Lilly Corporation, Defendant, represented by Adam B. Michaels
-- michaelsa@pepperlaw.com -- Andrew R. Rogoff --
rogoffa@pepperlaw.com -- Franklin Thomas Pyle -- at Pepper
Hamilton LLP; Samuel Lanier Felker -- samfelker@bakerdonelson.com
-- at Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC

Garretson Law Firm, LLC, Defendant, represented by William L.
Campbell, Jr. -- ccampbell@fbtlaw.com -- at Frost Brown Todd LLC &
William N. Helou -- at WSMLEGAL PLLC

Mat Daniel, Consol Defendant, represented by James W. Bewley --
John T. Kirtley, III -- jkirtley@lawyerworks.com -- at Ferrer,
Poirot & Wansbrough

Middle Tennessee Mental Health Institute, Consol Defendant,
represented by Joshua D. Baker, Tennessee Attorney General's
Office

State of Tennessee Department of Mental Health and Developmental
Disabilities, Consol Defendant, represented by Joshua D. Baker,
Tennessee Attorney General's Office

Western Mental Health Institute, Consol Defendant, represented by
Joshua D. Baker, Tennessee Attorney General's Office


ESKATON VILLAGE: Sued Over Financial Irregularities, Elder Abuse
----------------------------------------------------------------
Keri Brenner, writing for The Union, reports that homeowners at a
luxury 130-unit Nevada County senior living community have filed a
class action lawsuit against the Sacramento-based corporate owners
of the complex and four of its top managers, alleging financial
irregularities and elder abuse.

The suit, filed in Sacramento County Superior Court, names Eskaton
Village Grass Valley, Eskaton Properties Inc., Eskaton Village
Grass Valley Homeowners Association, Eskaton CEO Todd Murch, Chief
Operating Officer Betsy Donovan, Operations Director Mark Cullen
and former COO Trevor Hammond as defendants in the case.

Lead plaintiffs are Eskaton homeowners Ronald Coley and Karen
Lorini, filing on behalf of themselves and the other 130-plus
homeowners, alleging nine complaints of breach of fiduciary
duties, financial elder abuse, unfair business practices and
negligence.

"I can't comment on the particulars, since we are in open
litigation," Mr. Murch said on March 23.  "The homeowners
association will be vigorously defending its side, so that means
they disagree with whatever's being alleged."

Part of the complaint alleges that the Eskaton Homeowners
Association, rather than being an organization representing
homeowners' interests, is actually controlled by management.

In addition to some Eskaton homeowners, the board of Eskaton
Village Grass Valley Homeowners Association also includes
corporate representatives such as Cullen, who served on the board
between 2003 through 2012, and Hammond, a board member from 2003
through the middle of 2011.

"Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that
Eskaton has disregarded the separate corporate existence of EVGV
(Eskaton Village Grass Valley), EPI (Eskaton Properties Inc.) and
the HOA," the complaint says. "Among other things, Eskaton has
treated HOA property as its own."

Both Mr. Coley and Ms. Lorini declined comment on the case, which
is scheduled for a public case management conference on May 21,
according to Sacramento County Superior Court public records.  The
hearing is set for 1:30 p.m. in Department 35 of the Gordon D.
Schaber Courthouse.

The 95-page complaint was first filed Nov. 19, 2014, but an
amended first complaint was filed on Jan. 5 by the plaintiffs'
co-counsels, Sacramento-based attorneys David Diepenbrock and
Michael Vinding.

Mr. Diepenbrock on March 23 declined all comment on the case.
Neither Vinding nor defendants' attorney Rod Baydaline of
Sacramento could be reached for comment. Donovan also could not be
reached for comment.

The homeowners' class action lawsuit is separate from a successful
union organizing effort last June.  In a landmark election,
employees of Eskaton Village Grass Valley became one of the first
groups of senior living workers to vote in favor of joining a
section of the local Service Employees International Union.

Larry King, a campus patrol officer at Eskaton, said there have
been eight contract negotiating sessions since September, when the
union members delivered a proposed 49-page contract to management.
He said the sessions have so far been "slow-going," mostly
confined to disputes over language.

"We haven't gotten to the financial terms yet," he said.

Sources who contacted The Union and who declined to be identified
said both the class action lawsuit and the union election are
indicative of a widespread pattern of dissatisfaction with
management attitudes toward workers and residents in the
community.

As an example of alleged management intimidation, sources cite a
Feb. 12 letter in which the Eskaton HOA's legal committee notified
homeowners about the costs of the lawsuit and warned that "special
assessments levied against each member may be required to pay for
this unanticipated expense this year if our insurance carrier
denies coverage."

In the letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Union, the
legal committee states that "the purpose of this letter is to make
you aware of this litigation, and to give you sufficient notice
that special assessments may be required."

According to the complaint, Eskaton Village Grass Valley includes
287 housing units, of which 130 are individually owned condominium
units sometimes referred to as "patio homes." The patio homeowners
pay a monthly "assessment" to cover various services, such as
landscaping and security patrol.

Of numerous allegations in the complaint, plaintiffs allege
"breach of fiduciary duties" in regard to mandated 3 percent
annual increases in the cost to homeowners for a variety of
services "supposedly needed to pay for increased personnel costs,"
the complaint says.

"Plaintiffs learned for the first time in 2014, however, that EVGV
employees have received no raises since 2010," the complaint adds.
"Thus, the increases were unjustified and improper for nonexistent
wage increases."


FEDEX CORP: Court Sets Case Mgmt. Conf. in "Schuett" Case
---------------------------------------------------------
STACEY SCHUETT, Plaintiff, v. FEDEX CORPORATION RETIREMENT APPEALS
COMMITTEE, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 15-CV-00189-PJH, (N.D.
Cal.) has been reassigned to the Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton.

In an order entered April 3, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/OFRMmgfrom Leagle.com, Judge Hamilton ordered that
a Case Management Conference will be held in this case on April
23, 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). 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."

Stacey Schuett, Plaintiff, represented by Nina Rachel Wasow --
nwasow@lewisfeinberg.com -- Lewis Feinberg Lee & Jackson, P.C.,
Amy Whelan -- AWhelan@NCLRights.org -- National Center for Lesbian
Rights, Christopher Francis Stoll -- cstoll@nclrights.org --
National Center for Lesbian Rights, Julie Wilensky --
jwilensky@lewisfeinberg.com -- Lewis Feinberg Lee & Jackson, P.C.,
Shannon Minter -- SMinter@NCLRights.org -- National Center For
Lesbian Rights & Tate A. Birnie, Birnie Law Office.

FedEx Corporation Retirement Appeals Committee, Defendant,
represented by Emily Christin Pera, Federal Express Corporation &
David P. Knox, Federal Express Corporation.

FedEx Corporation Employees' Pension Plan, Defendant, represented
by Emily Christin Pera, Federal Express Corporation & David P.
Knox, Federal Express Corporation.

FedEx Corporation, Defendant, represented by Emily Christin Pera,
Federal Express Corporation & David P. Knox, Federal Express
Corporation.


FIFA: Hagens Berman Fights Motion to Dismiss Concussion Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
National plaintiffs law firm Hagens Berman on March 23 filed a
response to a motion to dismiss from the Federation Internationale
de Football Association (FIFA) in a class-action lawsuit on behalf
of several current and former soccer players against soccer's
worldwide governing body and affiliated youth soccer organizations
in the United States who claim they had no duty to protect soccer
players against concussions.  The opposition to FIFA's motion
states that FIFA has "no basis to dismiss" claims and argues that
FIFA and other defendants neglected to protect soccer players by
failing to enact and enforce best practices for concussion
management.

"FIFA and other US soccer governing entities have made an argument
that they had no duty to protect their players against concussions
-- an argument that we find morally and legally outrageous," said
Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman and attorney
representing the soccer players.  "I can only imagine the surprise
and shock of parents if they were told that the governing bodies
for millions of kids who play soccer believe they have no
responsibility to protect these young players."

Hagens Berman's opposition to FIFA's motion to compel arbitration
states, "FIFA's approach is telling.  Its suggested scattershot,
piecemeal and ineffective approach to critical health and safety
issues is exactly what has led to Defendants' woefully inadequate
management of youth concussions."

"We believe that FIFA and other organizations that govern soccer
safety regulations have chosen to ignore a massive problem that is
only growing worse," Mr. Berman said.  "As expected, FIFA has
attempted to pass the buck once again on this issue, and we
believe that it is wrong on all accounts of its attempt to dismiss
this case."

Hagens Berman recently led a separate class action and settlement
that will reform concussion policies across the National
Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA).  The lawsuit against FIFA
could mean similar changes to soccer around the world.

The lawsuit alleges that these groups have failed to adopt
effective policies to evaluate and manage concussions, a common
occurrence at all levels of the game.  They also claim that a lack
of effective policies poses a greater danger to women and children
players, who are more vulnerable to traumatic and long-lasting
brain injury.

Find out more about the class-action lawsuit against FIFA. To
contact Hagens Berman attorneys about the concussion case call
888-381-2889 or email FIFA@hbsslaw.com

Plaintiffs allege that there is "an epidemic of concussion
injuries in soccer at all levels around the world, including in
the United States, from youth to professionals, from elite players
to children playing for the first time, women and men, girls and
boys."

Attorneys representing the soccer players in the case have asked
the court to deny FIFA's motion to dismiss the case, stating,
"FIFA erroneously argues that: (1) this Court lacks personal
jurisdiction over FIFA; (2) the Complaint should be dismissed
because nonparty IFAB (International Football Association Board)
is an indispensable party; (3) Plaintiffs lack standing; and (4)
the Complaint does not state any valid claim. FIFA is wrong on all
counts."

"As to jurisdiction, FIFA has engaged in myriad intentional
soccer-related contacts with California, and Plaintiffs' claims
arise from the failure of FIFA and the other Defendants to take
steps to reduce players' injuries, including concussions.  As to
IFAB, FIFA's 'Statutes' expressly give IFAB any power that it may
appear to have.  And Plaintiffs have amply alleged factual
material supporting every element of their causes of action and
their standing to maintain those claims," the brief states.

The players cite FIFA's marketing and policy materials, which tout
a commitment to player safety.  In the past, FIFA has implemented
policies to address health threats including cardiac arrest and
performance-enhancing drugs, and concussions deserve the same
attention.

The lawsuit, Mehr v. Federation Internationale de Football
Association, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California seeks to require FIFA and its U.S.
affiliates to implement up-to-date guidelines for detection of
head injuries and for return to play after a concussion.  The suit
also calls for regulation of heading by players under 17 years
old, and a rule change to permit substitution of players for
medical evaluation purposes.  Currently, FIFA rules generally
allow only three substitutions per game with no clear provision
for head injuries.  If an athlete bleeds, even from a scrape,
removal is required, but no similar rule exists for concussions.
FIFA provides no guidance on substitutions in youth games in the
U.S.

In addition, the lawsuit seeks medical monitoring for soccer
players who received head injuries in the past.  The lawsuit does
not seek monetary damages to compensate for athletes' injuries,
but injured athletes could still pursue awards individually.

                      About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a
consumer-rights class-action law firm with offices in nine cities.
The firm has been named to the National Law Journal's Plaintiffs'
Hot List eight times.


FIRST NATIONAL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Breeden, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. First National Collections Bureau, Inc., LVNV Funding,
LLC and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:15-cv-02458-MAS-LHG (D.N.J.,
April 7, 2015) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Judge Approves AIG Insurance Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ken Ward Jr., writing for The Charleston Gazette, reports that a
federal judge has approved a more than $3 million deal between
Freedom Industries and the bankrupt company's insurance company,
but has also limited how Freedom can use the money from the
settlement.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Ronald Pearson approved the settlement
between Freedom and AIG Speciality Insurance for AIG to
essentially pay Freedom the roughly $3.2 million limit of its
coverage to pay off Freedom's claim resulting from the January
2014 chemical spill on the Elk River.

The deal had been proposed in June 2014, but had hit a variety of
hurdles, including objections from former Freedom owners and
executives who wanted insurance coverage to pay for any of their
legal costs related to investigations and court cases over the
spill, which contaminated drinking water for hundreds of thousands
of people in the Kanawha Valley and surrounding communities.

Former Freedom officials Dennis Farrell, Charles Herzing and
William Tis withdrew their objections late last year, and in a
recently issued ruling, Judge Pearson rejected a similar objection
raised by former Freedom President Gary Southern.

Initially, the plan for the Freedom Insurance money was to use it
as part of a class-action settlement with victims of the Crude
MCHM chemical spill.  Lawyers for area residents had proposed that
the insurance payment fund projects like water testing or health
monitoring that would serve the interests of the community that
was harmed by the spill.

But in a legal filing, lawyer a committee of Freedom Industries
creditors, including spill victims, said that class-action
settlement has "now been abandoned" because "the necessary parties
were not able to come to a final agreement."

In his 19-page order approving Freedom's insurance deal with AIG,
Judge Pearson noted that the new settlement document omitted
language from a previous proposal that described how Freedom
planned to use the insurance money.  The judge noted that
previously, spill victims had been led to believe that the
insurance proceeds would "facilitate either payment to, or
performance of some community supported project found to be
important by" the spill victims.

Judge Pearson said that Freedom managers who are trying to guide
the company through bankruptcy toward liquidation have apparently
decided that the insurance proceeds would be the property of
Freedom's bankruptcy estate.

The judge said that this means the insurance money could "become
subject to the large legal fees" that Freedom and its lawyers have
billed for work "much of which has been of minimal or of no value
to the majority of creditors in the case, for which reason the
court has been reluctant to allow payments.

"It appears that much of the legal work initially done in this
case by counsel for the debtor and by litigation counsel for the
debtor, was work that was more to the benefit of former
shareholders and the new single shareholder" of Freedom "as some
considerable portion of the work done appears to have been to
limit the civil and criminal exposure of shareholders, for which
reason the court has still under consideration those fee
requests," Pearson wrote.

Judge Pearson said that, as a result, he would order that the
insurance money be "used only for the purpose of paying
liabilities arising from or related to the incident and any
related costs of administering the payment of such liabilities."

Mark Welch, Freedom's court-approved chief restructuring officer,
said that he had hoped to use some of the insurance money to pay
off creditors other than just the spill victims.

Mr. Welch said on March 24 that he is in "deep negotiations" with
all creditors "regarding a plan to get us out of bankruptcy."
Welch said that there are "other funds available" besides just the
insurance money, including proceeds of the potential sale of the
Freedom site.

In a separate order issued March 6, Pearson had already given
Welch more time to come up with a viable bankruptcy plan. The
judge set a hearing for April 9 for a report on Welch's progress.


FRESENIUS USA: C.D. Cal. Judge Won't Allow Suit to be Remanded
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jesus G. Bernal of the Central District of
California denied plaintiffs' motion for remand in the case Aletha
Allen, et al. v. Carl Wilson, et al., CASE NO. CV 14-9686-JGB
(AGRX) (C.D. Cal.)

Plaintiffs Aletha Allen, Odessa Andrews, Kennedy Anderson, Anita
Toliver, Royline Smith, April Ciambrello, Lacree Rue, and Ollie
Tate filed their complaint against defendants Fresenius USA, Inc.,
Fresenius USA Manufacturing, Inc., Fresenius Medical Care
Holdings, Inc., Fresenius Medical Care North America, Inc.,
Fresenius USA Marketing, Inc., Walter L. Weisman, Ben Lipps, and
fictitious persons in the Superior Court of California, County of
Sonoma, on March 12, 2014. The complaint asserted products
liability claims related to personal injuries and death resulting
from the use of defendants' products "GranuFlo Dry Acid
Concentrate" and "NaturaLyte Liquid Acid Concentrate."

On July 16, 2014, 50 plaintiffs in another GranuFlo/NaturaLyte
case filed a request to coordinate their claims into the judicial
council coordinated proceedings (JCCP). The JCCP court granted the
petition on August 14, 2104, after which that case was coordinated
into the JCCP, and the total number of plaintiffs in the
coordinated cases exceeded one hundred plaintiffs.

Numerous other GranuFlo/NaturaLyte cases were also filed in
California state courts and on September 29,, 2014, plaintiffs
filed a request to coordinate their claims as part of the JCCP.
The JCCP court granted the petition, and the case was coordinated
into the JCCP on October 15, 2104.

On December 1, 2014, the JCCP coordination trial judge approved
the parties' stipulation to select the claims of only four
plaintiffs for discovery and trial. The trials would involve a
single plaintiff per trial. Defendants filed their Notice of
Removal on December 18, 2014. Plaintiffs moved to remand on
January 20, 2015.

District Judge Bernal denied plaintiffs' motion to remand and
vacated a March 2, 2015 hearing.

A copy of Judge Bernal's order dated February 26, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/2aDqWTfrom Leagle.com

Plaintiffs, represented by:

Mark E Burton, Jr., Esq.
William M Audet, Esq.
Jill T Lin, Esq.
AUDET AND PARTNERS LLP
221 Main St #1460
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: 415-568-2555
Facsimile: 415-568-2556

Fresenius USA, Inc., Fresenius USA Manufacturing, Inc., Fresenius
Medical Care Holdings, Inc., Fresenius Marketing USA, Inc. and Ben
Lipps, Defendants, represented by Carolin Sahimi --
carolin.sahimi@hugheshubbard.com -- David H Stern --
david.stern@hugheshubbard.com -- at Hughes Hubbard and Reed LLP;
Juanita Rose Brooks -- brooks@fr.com -- at Fish and Richardson PC

Walter L Weisman, Defendant, represented by Colin H Murray --
Colin.Murray@bakermckenzie.com -- Keith L Wurster --
Keith.Wurster@bakermckenzie.com -- at Baker and McKenzie LLP


GATORS DOCKSIDE: Removes "King" Suit to Florida District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled King v. Gators Dockside of Lake
Mary, Inc., Case No. 2014-CA-002599-16-W, was removed from the
Seminole County Court to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida (Orlando).  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 6:15-cv-00560-ACC-KRS to the proceeding.

Plaintiff Cassandra King accuses the Defendant of failure to pay
minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act to all
bartenders, who worked in the state of Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          20 N Orange Avenue, Suite 1600
          Orlando, FL 32802-4979
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 425-3341
          E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Lori R. Benton, Esq.
          FORD & HARRISON, LLP
          300 S Orange Ave., Suite 1300
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 418-2300
          Facsimile: (407) 481-2327
          E-mail: lbenton@fordharrison.com


GENERAL MOTORS: "Forthun" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Forthun v. General Motors LLC, et
al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00623, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square).  The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:15-cv-02640-JMF to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In
Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-
md-02543-JMF.

The case involves an alleged unprecedented failure to disclose,
indeed, affirmatively to conceal, known dangerous defects in GM
vehicles.  Since 2002, GM has sold millions of vehicles throughout
the United States and worldwide that have a safety defect in which
the vehicle's ignition switch can unintentionally move from the
"run" position to the "accessory" or "off" position, resulting in
a loss of power, vehicle speed control, and braking, as well as a
failure of the vehicle's airbags to deploy, according to the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John W. Hanson, Esq.
          THE HANSON LAW FIRM
          16870 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 400
          San Diego, CA 92127
          Telephone: (858) 451-0291
          Facsimile: (858) 451-0281
          E-mail: john@thesandiegolemonlawyer.com

               - and -

          Michael E. Lindsey, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL E. LINDSEY
          4455 Morena Boulevard, Suite 207
          San Diego, CA 92117-4325
          Telephone: (858) 270-7000
          Facsimile: (858) 270-7710
          E-mail: mlindsey@lemonlawcenter.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeffrey Sinek, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          333 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 680-8400
          Facsimile: (213) 680-8500
          E-mail: jeff.sinek@kirkland.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Firm Organized Under Delaware Law, Says Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
In AMANDA MORGAN, ET AL v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, CIVIL ACTION NO.
14-CV-1058, (W.D. La.), Plaintiffs allege in their complaint that
they are citizens of Louisiana. 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 two 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/3wy0HUfrom 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."

Amanda Morgan, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin R Duck, Duck Law
Firm, Eric D Holland -- eholland@allfela.com -- Holland Groves,
Randall Seth Crompton -- scrompton@allfela.com -- Holland Groves,
Richard J Arsenault -- rarsenault@nbalawfirm.com -- Neblett Beard
& Arsenault & Richard C Dalton -- daltonlawfirm@aol.com -- Law
Office of Richard C Dalton.

Sean C Benoit, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin R Duck, Duck Law
Firm, Eric D Holland, Holland Groves, Randall Seth Crompton,
Holland Groves, Richard J Arsenault, Neblett Beard & Arsenault &

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


GEORGIA: Food Stamp Settlement May Cost Taxpayers Millions
----------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Lindstrom, writing for WXIA, reports that a food stamp
program settlement may cost taxpayers millions.

Remember when it was the federal government breathing down the
state's neck -- demanding DFCS fix its struggling food stamp
program?  They threatened to cut nearly $75 million in funding if
the state didn't change its ways.  That now seems like chump
change to what it could cost taxpayers if a federal court judge
approves a proposed settlement to a lawsuit filed last year.

The National Center for Law and Economic Justice filed a class
action suit on behalf of all Georgia recipients who applied for
benefits but were wrongly denied. Court documents say there could
be more than 2 million people who qualify for some kind of
compensation as part of the settlement.

The current terms call for two months of retroactive benefits for
those who were denied benefits between October 1, 2013 and
December 31, 2014, but were approved for benefits when they
reapplied.  There is also a compensation option for those who were
wrongly denied, but never reapplied and those who are caught up in
the system's flaws even now.

Supporters of the settlement say it's money that would have been
paid out anyway, had the applications been processed correctly the
first time around.  While its federal funds that would have to go
toward paying out the settlement, it's still taxpayer money. The
USDA, which oversees the food stamp program, will only say that it
is reviewing the proposal.

The problems with the state's application system and new call
center, Georgia One, are now well documented.  Stardrecous Brooks
says she's experienced them all.  She's received notification
about appointments -- after they were scheduled to occur.  She has
submitted applications electronically, and even received
confirmation emails, only for them to be lost in processing.
Brooks says the worst, are the wait times for help at the state's
call center.

"Being on the phone two, three hours," said Ms. Brooks, only to
have your call disconnected by the system.  A DFCS report on call
volume and wait times showed there were still people waiting more
than five hours to talk with someone and nearly 75% of those that
called gave up before reaching an agent.

A DFCS spokeswoman says mailing should not be going out on time
and no one should be dropped from the phone system, but the number
of emails and phone calls 11Alive News receives each week about
the problems suggest there's still a serious problem to be fixed.

There's no date set yet on when a judge will rule on the
settlement -- there's still time for the terms to change.  But a
conference call on March 24 with the parties involved set April 1,
2015 as the deadline for stakeholders to file preliminary approval
for the settlement.


HARLEM CORPORATION: Faces "Estrada" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Salvador Estrada, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Harlem Corporation d/b/a Nick's Drive-In,
and George Lekas, Case No. 1:15-cv-03387 (N.D. Ill., April 16,
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 in Cook County,
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HERBALIFE LTD: Judge Dismisses Pyramid Scheme Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
David O. Klein, Esq., of Klein Moynihan Turco LLP, in an article
for Lexology, report that Judge Dale S. Fischer dismissed a
federal class action lawsuit against Herbalife, Ltd. and three of
its corporate officers, who were accused by Herbalife shareholders
of operating the company as an illegal pyramid scheme.  The
lawsuit alleged that Herbalife artificially inflated its stock
price by misrepresenting that the company was a legitimate multi-
level marketing company ("MLM").

How did Herbalife pull off the win, and can the supplement company
rest easy after its latest legal victory?

Herbalife's Marketing Plan

Herbalife sells nutritional supplements in more than 90 countries
through a network of independent distributors.  The company
operates under a business model whereby each distributor is
encouraged to enlist other distributors to join his or her team.
Herbalife claims that its marketing plan pays out up to 73% of
product revenues to its distributors in the form of profits,
royalties and other various incentives.

Many critics have argued that compensation for Herbalife
distributors is largely dependent on how successful they are in
their recruitment efforts, rather than on the sale of actual
product.  Likewise, others have complained that, while some
distributors are able to profit under the Herbalife model, the
vast majority end up losing money.

Federal Court Dismisses Herbalife Class Action and Pyramid Scheme
Allegations

In the federal securities class action, filed in the Central
District of California on behalf of all persons or entities that
purchased the common stock of Herbalife between February 23, 2011,
and July 29, 2014, the lead plaintiffs alleged that Herbalife
violated federal securities laws by misrepresenting the nature,
scope and legality of its business practices and operations.  More
specifically, the lawsuit claimed that, by self-identifying as a
legitimate MLM (instead of an illegal pyramid scheme), Herbalife
violated section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
respectively, which prohibit any act or omission resulting in
fraud or deceit in connection with the purchase or sale of any
security.

The court outlined the six elements that constitute a violation of
section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5:

   -- A material misrepresentation or omission;

   -- Scienter (i.e., intent to deceive, manipulate or defraud);

   -- A connection between the misrepresentation and purchase or
sale of a security;

   -- Reliance on the misrepresentation;

   -- Economic loss; and

   -- Loss causation.

Judge Fischer based his analysis primarily on the element of loss
causation.  The plaintiffs argued that a number of events,
including a call to action by Senator Edward J. Markey last
January, constituted corrective disclosures that revealed
Herbalife's fraud and established loss causation.  However, the
court found that the cited events were insufficient to constitute
corrective disclosures and dismissed the lawsuit.

Herbalife won the battle, but the war may not be over quite yet.
Judge Fischer, giving the plaintiffs until April 8 to amend their
complaint to address its deficiencies, remarked that "Herbalife
operates in the 'gray area' between legitimate MLM and unlawful
pyramid scheme."

Multi-Level Marketers: Take Note

The federal securities violations alleged in Herbalife's lawsuit
are just two examples of the many legal risks involved with multi-
level marketing.  To minimize the risk of adverse legal action,
MLMs should ensure that their marketing practices comply with
applicable state and federal regulations.


HMSHOST CORP: Faces "Buy" Suit Over Misclassification of Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sophal Buy, Daniel Dixon, and Michele Simpson v. HMSHost
Corporation and Host International, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00628
(D. Nev., April 6, 2015) alleges that the Defendants misclassified
the Plaintiffs as exempt under federal law and failed to pay them
for all hours worked.

The Defendants are Delaware corporations with their principal
place of business located in Bethesda, Maryland.  HMSHost
Corporation is wholly owned by Autogrill Group, Inc., a subsidiary
of Autogrill S.p.A., an Italian corporation.  Directly or through
wholly owned subsidiaries, including Defendant Host International,
Inc., manages and oversees the operations of food and beverage
concessions at numerous United States airports and other travel
facilities.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Leon Greenberg, Esq.
          Dana Sniegocki, Esq.
          LEON GREENBERG PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          2965 South Jones Blvd., Suite E3
          Las Vegas, NV 89146
          Telephone: (702) 383-6085
          Facsimile: (702) 385-1827
          E-mail: leongreenberg@overtimelaw.com
                  dana@overtimelaw.com

               - and -

          Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
          Michael H. Reed, Esq.
          KLAFTER, OLSEN & LESSER LLP
          Two International Drive, Suite 350
          Rye Brook, NY 10573
          Telephone: (914) 934-9200


HOMEBRIDGE FINANCIAL: Faces "Bellany" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberlee Bellamy, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Homebridge Financial Services, Inc., f/k/a Real Esate
Mortgage Network, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01158 (N.D. Tex., April
16, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Homebridge Financial Services, Inc. is a non-bank lender that
conducts business in Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INDIANA: Democrats Call Probe of BMV Officials' Conduct
-------------------------------------------------------
Tony Cook and Tim Evans, writing for Indianapolis Star, reports
that democratic leaders are calling for an investigation of
revelations that top officials at the Indiana Bureau of Motor
Vehicles knew for years they were likely overcharging Hoosier
motorists tens of millions of dollars.

Indiana Democratic Party Chairman John Zody on March 23 urged
Indiana Inspector General Cynthia Carrasco and U.S. Attorney Josh
Minkler to open investigations into the actions of BMV officials.

"The BMV is the front door of state government and someone needs
to kick that door open and find out what is really going on,"
Mr. Zody said.

The Indianapolis Star reported on March 22 that despite claims to
the contrary, top officials at the BMV knew since at least 2011
that they were likely gouging Hoosier motorists with 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,
The Star's investigation found.

Tim Horty, a spokesman for U.S. Attorney Minkler, said he could
not comment on the matter, even to confirm or deny whether there
is an investigation. The Inspector General did not immediately
respond to a request for comment from The Star.

Mr. Zody was joined at the Statehouse on March 23 by Rep. Dan
Forestal, the top Democrat on the House Roads and Transportation
Committee.

"The cut-at-all-cost mentality is what created this situation," he
said.  "I think Hoosiers deserve and want accountable, transparent
government, and this is not it."

Mr. Forestal said he plans to introduce legislation that would
require the BMV to keep its fees at the "lowest common
denominator."  Fees that are higher than permitted under Indiana
law would be reduced, while any fees lower than what was
stipulated in law would remain at that lower level, he said.

Gov. Mike Pence indicated a similar approach in February, when he
announced the appointment of a new BMV commissioner.  He has
ordered an audit by accounting firm BKD and has suggested that
additional refunds are likely.

A spokeswoman for the governor said Pence would not comment on The
Star's findings.

"Governor Pence took swift action as soon as he learned of the
overcharges in 2013," said spokeswoman Kara Brooks, "and the
administration continues to work diligently to correct the fees
and fee system."

House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, stopped short of
calling for an outside investigation. But he said the governor's
office should investigate.

"If the information you have is accurate, it is information of
concern," he said. "It is something for the administration to
investigate, I believe, and take a look at it."

Mr. Bosma said he has trouble believing agency officials would
intentionally charge illegal fees to bolster the state budget.

"I would consider that to be a far stretch for someone to
purposefully overcharge Hoosiers because of requests for
reversions," he said, referring to the practice of agencies being
asked to send some of their budgets back to the state treasury.
"That doesn't seem to be a very credible reason for some of the
errors that have occurred."

Mr. Bosma said Rep. Ed Soliday, chairman of the transportation
committee, is working with the governor's office to simplify the
tangle of state laws and administrative rules that the BMV uses to
set fees.

The illegal fees first became public in 2013 when Indianapolis
attorney Irwin Levin filed a class-action lawsuit against the BMV.
The state agreed to refund motorists about $30 million to settle
that suit.  The BMV has since admitted to another $30 million in
overcharges on other fees, which is also being refunded.  A second
pending lawsuit alleges up to $40 million in additional
overcharges.

BMV officials, including former Commissioner R. Scott Waddell,
have maintained they knew nothing about the possibility of
overcharges until the first lawsuit was filed.

But emails obtained by the The Star show that two years earlier,
Waddell received -- and asked his assistant to print out -- a
spreadsheet identifying overcharges on 17 fees and undercharges on
even more.

Emails, meeting minutes, and sworn depositions also indicate that
a group of BMV officials met repeatedly to discuss that report,
and that one deputy commissioner approached Waddell and his chief
of staff about an external audit, only to be rebuffed.

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.

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.

"If we discover that -- and can prove, frankly -- that somebody
who is still involved at the BMV knowingly deceived Hoosiers and
overcharged Hoosiers and kept doing it, then they have no business
being in the BMV anymore," Mr. Forestal said.  "They have no
business being in charge of anything related to state government."

Julia Vaughn, policy director of Common Cause Indiana, a
government accountability group, said she finds it "particularly
troubling that it takes a lawsuit, a class action lawsuit, to get
the BMV to do the right thing, to charge fees that are appropriate
and that are legal under its own rules and regulation."

"Unfortunately, I think this lawsuit and the revelations about the
BMV that have come forward because of it are going to make
Hoosiers distrust the BMV for a long time," she said.  "We need to
be bolstering public trust in state government, not eroding it.
But I think that is what this case has done."

Irwin Levin, the Indianapolis attorney behind the lawsuit that
finally uncovered the overcharges in 2013, declined to say if he
thought there was a deliberate cover-up attempt by BMV officials.

"We know the BMV was aware that it was overcharging.  We know that
there were people internally who told the administration at the
BMV that they should get an outside lawyer to audit the fees.  We
know that they refused to get an outside lawyer to do an audit.
And we know that they refused to either fix the fees or refund the
money that they took from the public until we filed the class
action lawsuit," said Mr. Levin.  "So instead of giving you an
opinion, I can tell you what the evidence is -- and that's the
evidence."

Mr. Levin said he thinks it is appropriate for state officials to
try to get to the bottom of what happened.

"When you overcharge millions of people by millions of dollars
it's incompetence at best," he said.  "And in every business,
incompetent people should be fired and held accountable.  And
certainly that would be true for the people's business."

Carl Hayes, the Indianapolis attorney hired by the BMV to defend
the agency against a second lawsuit alleging the state owes
motorists as much as $38 million more for overcharges, said he
cannot explain why officials turned a deaf ear to staffers who
urged an outside audit in 2011.

"You've got the transcripts.  . . . I can't change the facts,"
Mr. Hayes said.  "Look, the BMV acknowledged in its press release
in 2013 that there had been mistakes and they announced they found
them and they are being proactive about correcting them.  That's
been the case at a minimum since then . . . it has been find and
correct consistently."

Mr. Hayes also noted that during the period the BMV was
overcharging motorists by at least $60 million, the agency also
undercharged customers nearly $140 million for other fees that
also were incorrect.  The governor has said the agency will not
attempt to recover that loss.

"Undercharges aren't a good thing," Mr. Hayes said.  "So I'm not
trying to imply that, 'Hey, we undercharged people, so they should
be happy about that.' That's not the case.  But I think it does
bear on things to know the public at large was not overcharged
some massive amount and were in fact undercharged."

Mr. Hayes could provide no information on what agencies and
programs were shorted money they were due because of those
undercharges.  He said he had no other information about the
undercharges, leaving unanswered where the money needed to make up
for the $140 million error would have to come from.

"In an ideal world, every charge is correct every time," he said.
"That's the goal now."

Mr. Hayes also insisted there is no evidence that BMV officials
attempted to cover-up the overcharges in a manner that would
violate the law and open victims up for refunds going back before
2007.

"I don't think there is any evidence of fraudulent concealment as
a legal matter or as a practical matter," he said.  "Were mistakes
made? Yes. In retrospect, obviously, mistakes were made.  I think
that the current BMV, if it could travel back in time and correct
those, certainly would.  The next best thing is to correct them
now and be proactive in cleaning things up, and I think that's
what happened through legislation, through refunds."


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

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

The award comes on the heels of a lackluster year for securities
class settlements, which totaled $1.1 billion in 2014, according
to a study released on March 24 by Cornerstone Research.  That's
the lowest total Cornerstone has recorded in a decade, and far
below the average of $6.6 billion for the years 2005 to 2013.

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

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

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

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

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


INTEGRITY SOLUTION: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Riley, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Integrity Solution Services, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case No.
3:15-cv-02394-FLW-DEA (D.N.J., April 6, 2015) alleges violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


IRELAND: Faces Class Suit Over Poor-Quality Housing in Strasbourg
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kitty Holland, writing for The Irish Times, reports that a class
action against the State, taken by residents of 20 local authority
estates, alleging poor-quality housing is breaching their human
rights, has been declared admissible by the European Committee of
Social Rights in Strasbourg.

The residents, who live in flats and houses in Dublin, Cork and
Limerick, say "substandard housing conditions" and the fact there
is no independent body to which they can complain about these
conditions breach their rights under five sections of the Revised
European Social Charter.

They received confirmation on March 24 that their action, known as
a "collective complaint", will be considered.  The Government will
now have to respond and the tenants' groups may be asked to
respond further.

A decision on the merits of the complaint should be made within a
year.  A finding that the State is in breach of the charter would
not be not legally binding but continued nonconformity with the
charter could lead to a resolution by the committee of ministers
of the council against Ireland. No member state has ignored such a
resolution.

Dr. Padraic Kenna of the school of law at NUI Galway, who wrote
the complaint, said a finding in the tenants' favor should lead to
fundamental changes in the provision and management of social
housing and establish rights for public housing tenants that could
be used across Europe.

Social exclusion

Among the poor housing conditions cited are persistent damp, mould
growing inside homes, persistent bad odors, poor plumbing and lack
of central heating.  These, the complaint says, have had an impact
on the health of adults and children, caused children to miss
school and adults to miss work, as well as causing shame, stress
and damage to mental health.  The conditions exacerbate social
exclusion and poverty and promised regeneration has stalled in
many estates, it says.

The State has failed to incorporate fundamental charter rights
into the legal, policy and administrative framework of social
housing policy, it says.

Among the rights breached are the right to health, rights of the
family, rights of children to appropriate social, legal and
economic protection, the right to be protected against poverty and
social exclusion and the right to nondiscrimination, it says.

The 47-page collective complaint was lodged on the complainants'
behalf by the International Federation of Human Rights
Organisations.


IRELAND: EU Rights Chiefs Accept Run-Down Housing Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
BreakingNews.ie reports that European rights chiefs have accepted
a landmark class action against the Irish State taken by residents
of 20 of the country's most run-down housing estates.

Five years of research into the conditions in council-run
complexes revealed 355,000 people in parts of inner city Dublin
and Limerick living in homes with sewage problems, persistent
leaks, harmful damp and mould.  The Government will be forced to
answer allegations of breaches of human rights to the European
Committee of Social Rights in Strasbourg.

Among them are questions over why families with children are
living in homes with damp, mould, sewerage problems, poor
maintenance and pyrite, and independent medical evidence which
shows the conditions are having detrimental effects on health,
particularly among children, the elderly and other vulnerable
people.

Debbie Mulhall, who lives at Dolphin House, one of the country's
oldest council estates, said residents are being treated as third-
class citizens.

"Your home and where you raise your family is so much more than
just bricks and mortar.  It is the starting place for so many
basic rights essential for life -- the right to health, the right
to education, the right to work," she said.

"We are being denied these basic rights and being treated like
third-class citizens simply because we are tenants of the state."
Dolphin House has been earmarked for regeneration for several
years and residents have joined with others, including the eight-
year-old Balgaddy estate in south Dublin, where the hazardous
mineral pyrite has been recorded and buildings show signs of damp
and poor materials and construction.

Other estates in Dublin highlighted in the original complaint
included St Theresa's Gardens, Charlemont Street and Bridgefoot
Street in the south inner city and O'Devaney Gardens, Dominick
Street and Croke Villas in the north inner city.

Surveys carried out on residents in Dolphin House in 2012 revealed
a risk of lung disease and nine out of 10 children missing school
days because of the impact of damp, mould and sewage.

Some people in the flats reported breathing difficulties,
diarrhoea, skin rashes and depression due to the conditions.
Ms Mulhall has no confidence the regeneration will happen.

"It is already well over 18 months behind time and at this rate it
could be years before it really happens," she said.

"In the meantime, tenants continue to live in conditions that we
allege are unacceptable, unhealthy and uninhabitable.  Many people
have been moved out which means that our previously strong
community is breaking down while we wait patiently for what we
were promised."

The report also targeted the EUR3 billion Limerick Regeneration
Scheme for failing to complete promised work in estates like
Moyross, Southill, St Mary's Park and Ballinacurra Weston.  It
says only EUR116 million has been spent.

It also pointed to Dublin City Council plans dating back to 2008
to regenerate 12 large disadvantaged local authority estates in
inner city locations involving more than 2,000 of its stock of
11,000 inner city flats.

Padraic Kenna of National University Ireland Galway, the legal
expert behind the complaint, said it is ironic that council
housing falls well short of the standards set for the private
sector.

"While local authorities carry out a range of limited inspections
of private rented properties, there are no such inspections of
local authority housing," he said.

"This illustrates the clear conflict of interest in this situation
and the failure to respect the rights of local authority tenants.
The result is that the same standards expected for private tenants
are not applied on behalf of the state's own tenants."

The complaint claimed 130,000 households face discrimination over
housing standards and there is no national or regional tenants'
associations in Ireland, and no state support to set them up.

The human rights complaint, which claimed the state has breached
residents' right to health, social, legal and economic protection
and to the protection against poverty and social exclusion, was
first lodged last summer with the Council of Europe.
The Government has until May 28 to respond.


JAMES HARDIE: Homeowners Join Class Action Over Leaky Homes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anne Gibson, writing for The New Zealand Herald, reports that
Wellington couple Sharon and Kevin Leigh, facing a $350,000-plus
bill to fix their rotting house, have joined the new $100 million-
plus leaky home class action.

"It has just ruined us," Sharon Leigh said.  "Our property is a
beautiful home with a beautiful view and we don't want to move.
My health is extremely bad. I take pain relief medication every
day due to stress.  I'm a chronic asthmatic and we've been told by
builders and consultants that I should not be living in the house
because of the black rot and mold. But where do we go? It's gut
wrenching."

Construction of the 293sq m house, clad in James Hardie's Harditex
monolithic material, was started in 1992 but only finished in 2001
due to a house-builder's collapse, she said.

The couple bought the house in 2006, not knowing of any problems
and with a clean pre-purchase inspection report.

They discovered issues in February 2013 when re-carpeting and they
saw a skirting board bulging.

"We've removed internal walling and flooring from a spare bedroom
on the middle level of the three-storey house.  That has serious
damage including holes in the particle board floor.  There is no
flashing on the Harditex exterior cladding so where the joins are,
there's sunlight coming straight through and rain penetrates that
gap inside our house," she said.

"The framing is completely rotted and in some parts there is no
framing because it's completely rotted out.  There's nothing
there."

The couple cannot sue in the High Court because they don't have
the money and nor can they go to the Weathertight Homes Tribunal
because the final sign-off for the house was in 2001, more than 10
years ago, making it ineligible for the state mediation and
arbitration scheme.

Gay Johnson of Castor Bay has spent $600,000 fixing her place.
She has also joined the action and is in much the same position as
the Leighs: her house was built in 1995 so was well outside the
10-year timeframe.

Auckland lawyer Adina Thorn wants owners of plaster-clad buildings
to join her action which has now passed the $100 million
threshold.  She said that was the cost of repair claims, including
one $10 million-plus Auckland apartment block repair.

In a separate case, Jim Farmer, QC, is awaiting a Court of Appeal
decision in the action involving Carter Holt Harvey and 880 leaky
Ministry of Education school buildings.

Meanwhile, action against James Hardie and CSR resulted in
confidential settlements being reached with both those businesses,
Farmer said.

Ms. Thorn said her action came after approaches from owners of
buildings constructed using Harditex, Monotek, Titan board and
various different polystyrene claddings.

She refuses to say who the action is against.

Registration is enabling her to assess the scale of the claim and
gather expert evidence for the case  About 400 people had
registered their interest, with most claims about $200,000.

James Hardie in Sydney, which made Harditex, Monotek and Titan
board, would not comment.

Thorn said an international business was funding the action but
Paul Grimshaw, of Auckland law firm Grimshaw & Co, which acts for
about 6000 leaky-home owners, said that if it succeeded, people
overseas stood to benefit financially.

Thorn said she had spent the past two years working on the case
and she hopes to be able to announce the next step soon.


JC PENNEY: Loses Bid to Dismiss False Discount Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Randles and Joe Van Acker, writing for Law360, report
that a California federal judge refused on March 23 to nix a
proposed class action accusing J.C. Penney Corp. Inc. of tricking
customers into believing they were getting deeper discounts on
apparel than they actually were, rejecting the retailer's argument
that customers aren't entitled to restitution under the law.

U.S. District Judge Fernando Olguin denied J.C. Penney's motion
for summary judgment over whether named plaintiff Cynthia Spann
and other potential class members would be entitled to refunds if
they could prove the company is liable for deceptively marketing
the prices of its clothing.

J.C. Penney argued that Spann had not presented evidence showing
that the items she purchased were worth less than the amount that
she had paid for them.  Instead, the company claimed, Ms. Spann's
own economic expert showed that the items she purchased "have an
economic value equal to or in excess of the amount she paid."

Therefore, even if Ms. Spann could show that J.C. Penney was
liable for deceptively marketing the prices of its clothing, her
suit would still fail because she would not be entitled to
restitution under either federal or state consumer protection
laws, the retailer argued.  The motion decided on March 23 turned
on the restitution question and did not consider J.C. Penney's
potential liability.

In a 20-page opinion, Judge Olguin rejected the retailer's
argument, ruling that J.C. Penney had missed the crux of
Ms. Spann's legal claim.  Ms. Spann and other potential class
members are potentially entitled to restitution because they
contend that, had they known that the price comparisons at J.C.
Penney were inaccurate, they would not have shopped at the
retailer and purchased the items they did.

"Here, plaintiff has presented evidence that every dollar she
spent was as a result of J.C. Penney's alleged false advertising,
and defendant cites no evidence to the contrary or any evidence to
demonstrate that a full refund would not be proper under the facts
of this case," Judge Olguin said.

Plaintiffs attorneys Matthew Zevin of Stanley Law Group on
March 24 called Judge Olguin's decision "a step in the right
direction."  Mr. Zevin said attorneys are waiting to hear back
from the court on a pending motion for class certification and,
depending on how that turns out, will prepare for trial.

"We are very happy with the decision and think the judge was right
on with everything he said in the opinion," Mr. Zevin said.

Ms. Spann accused J.C. Penney in 2012 of putting up signs with
fake "original" and "sale" prices in order to dupe customers into
paying full price while thinking they were getting bargains, and
proposed a class period running from Nov. 5, 2010, to Jan. 31,
2012, in her fourth and latest amended complaint.

She said that the company had rolled out a "fair and square
pricing strategy" that proved disastrous for J.C. Penney, which
she claimed then returned to using fake sale signs after removing
former CEO Ron Johnson.

Besides the departure of Johnson, J.C. Penney has been shuffling
its top ranks.  The company previously announced the departure of
longtime executive vice president and general counsel Janet
Dhillon.

J.C. Penney declined to comment.

J.C. Penney is represented by Moe Keshavarzi --
mkeshavarzi@sheppardmullin.com -- John Landry --
jlandry@sheppardmullin.com -- and Paul L. Seeley of Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Ms. Spann is represented by Matthew J. Zevin of Stanley Law Group,
Derek J. Emge of Emge & Associates and David A. Huch of Law
Offices of David Huch.

The case is Cynthia E. Spann v. J.C. Penney Corp. Inc. et al.,
case number 8:12-cv-00215, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.


JPMORGAN CHASE: "Taylor" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
LeRoy Taylor III, Agnes Lambert and Kaytie Smith, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, as Class/Collective
representatives v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. and
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:15-cv-03023 (S.D.N.Y., April
16, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a Delaware corporation that owns and
operates a financial services firm with a principal place of
business in New York City, New York.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. is a commercial bank chartered by the
Comptroller of the Currency with a principal place of business in
Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael J. Palitz, Esq.
      Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
      Alan L. Quiles, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
      1515 South Federal Highway, Suite 404
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 447-8888
      Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
      E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com
              gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
              aquiles@shavitzlaw.com


KIND LLC: Judge Granted Bid to Dismiss "Ibarrola" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Sara L. Ellis of the Northern District of
Illinois granted defendant's motion to dismiss in the case
ROCHELLE IBARROLA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. KIND, LLC, Defendant, NO. C 50377 (N.D.
Ill.)

Kind, LLC produces at least four snack products under the label
"Kind Healthy Grains," including vanilla blueberry clusters.

The plaintiff Rochelle Ibarrola purchased vanilla blueberry
clusters from a store after reading the entire product label. At
the time of the purchases, the packaging of vanilla blueberry
clusters stated that the product contained no refined sugars.
Ibarrola was looking for a product which did not have refined
sugars, so she could enjoy a snack without adding additional
calories to her diet that had no and/or a diminished nutritional
value. When plaintiff read the claim "no refined sugars" she
understood that unrefined sugars provided certain health benefits
over refined sugars and chose Kind's products based on this
preference.

Ibarrola brings this suit pursuant to the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA), 815 Ill. Comp. Stat.
505/1 et seq., and Illinois common law alleging that the packaging
of vanilla blueberry clusters was deceptive in that it claimed
that the product contained no refined sugars. Ibarrola contends
that she paid a premium for the Vanilla Blueberry Clusters as a
result of Kind's statement that the product contained no refined
sugars.

The court previously dismissed Ibarrola's initial complaint for
failure to adequately allege deception or an injury. The First
Amended Complaint (FAC) alleges that evaporated cane juice and
molasses, the two sweeteners identified on the products'
ingredient lists, are refined sugars, and thus, that the "no
refined sugars" claim was false and misleading to reasonable
consumers. Ibarrola seeks to represent a statewide and nationwide
class of individuals who purchased any of Kind's four identified
healthy grains products. Kind moves to dismiss the complaint.

Judge Ellis granted defendant's motion to dismiss and the first
amended complaint is dismissed in its entirety with prejudice.

A copy of Judge Ellis's opinion and order dated March 12, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/7i7FSzfrom Leagle.com

Rochelle Ibarrola, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by:

Nick Suciu, III, Esq.
BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC
434 West Alexandrine, Suite 101
Detroit, MI 48201
Telephone: 313-303-3472

     - and -

Alyson L. Oliver, Esq.
Oliver Law Group P.C.
363 W Big Beaver Rd #200
Troy, MI 48084
Telephone: 800-939-7878

     - and -

Amy Elisabeth Keller, Esq.
Catherine C. Howlett, Esq.
Edward Anthony Wallace
WEXLER WALLACE LLP
Xerox, 55 Monroe St # 3300
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: 312-346-2222

     - and -

Jordan L Chaikin, Esq.
PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
59 Maiden Lane, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: 212-267-6700

     - and -

Randall Seth Crompton, Esq.
Eric D. Holland, Esq.
HOLLAND, GROVES & SCHNELLER, LLC
300 N Tucker, Ste 801
St. Louis MO 63101
Telephone: 314-241-8111
Facsimile: 314-241-5554

Kind, LLC, Defendant, represented by Dale J. Giali --
dgiali@mayerbrown.com -- Matthew David Provance --
mprovance@mayerbrown.com -- at Mayer Brown LLP.


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Escano Suit Settlement Gets Final Court OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Dean D. Pregerson on April 2, 2015, granted final
approval of the settlement resolving the case captioned FLORDELIZA
ESCANO, MARILA P. MAXIMO, JOEL T. CATUBLAS, and PENNY BURNEY, on
behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. KINDRED HEALTHCARE OPERATING, INC., a
Delaware Corporation, KINDRED HEALTHCARE, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, SPECIALTY HOSPITALS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, a
business form unknown, and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants RELATED
TO: DEBBIE FITZPATRICK-SECKLER and RICHARD SILVA, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. KINDRED
HEALTHCARE INC., KINDRED HEALTHCARE OPERATING GROUP, INC., KINDRED
HOSPITALS WEST, L.L.C., KINDRED NURSING CENTERS WEST, L.L.C., THC-
ORANGE COUNTY, INC. d/b/a KINDRED HOSPITAL WESTMINSTER, and DOES 1
through 100, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, CASE NO. CV 09-04778 DDP
(RZX), (C.D. Cal.).  A copy of the ruling is available at
http://is.gd/zwok22from Leagle.com.

The Court determined that the terms of the Settlement are fair,
reasonable and adequate to the Class, and that Settlement payments
to be paid to all members of the Class who submitted a timely and
valid IVF as provided for by the Settlement are fair and
reasonable. The Court granted final approval to and ordered the
payment of those amounts to the participating Class Members in
accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

The Court held that the payment to be paid to the California Labor
and Workforce Development Agency to satisfy alleged Labor Code
violations pursuant to the California Labor Code's Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") in the sum of $225,000.00
is fair and reasonable.

The Court also determined that the service award payments to
Plaintiffs Flordeliza Escano and Marila P. Maximo in the sum of
$25,000 each and to Penny Burney, Debbie Fitzpatrick-Seckler, and
Richard Silva in the sum of $20,000.00 each are reasonable and
fair under the circumstances of this case and for the work
performed by the class representatives. Furthermore each class
representative received compensation in exchange for a full
release including waiver of all Civil Code Section 1542 claims
that the Class Representatives are providing.

Plaintiff's Motion for an Award of Reasonable Attorneys' Fees,
Costs, and Expenses was granted. Plaintiff's efforts have resulted
in the creation of a common fund in the amount of $16,500,000.00,
and therefore awarding attorneys' fees on a percentage basis is
appropriate. Plaintiff seeks 33-1/3% of the common fund, which is
considered the benchmark in the Ninth Circuit. According to the
court, this case presents no special circumstances that would
warrant a departure from the benchmark. Moreover, the result
obtained by Plaintiffs is favorable. The average settlement award
prior to any increase as a result of the distribution of unclaimed
settlement amounts is $1,258.78.00. In view of the monetary
benefit conferred on the settlement class, the Court found the
requested fee of 33-1/3%, or $5,500,000, to be fair and
reasonable.

The Court found that Class Counsel, having conferred a benefit on
absent Class Members and having expended efforts to secure a
benefit to the Class, is entitled to a fee and accordingly, the
Court approved the application of Class Counsel for $5,500,000 for
their attorneys' fees, and up to $600,000.00 for their litigation
expenses.

Cross-checking the $5,500,000.00 amount against Class Counsel's
lodestar confirms the reasonableness of the fee award. Class
Counsel's collective lodestar is not less than $3,355,935.70, at
the time of filing the final approval papers seeking approval of
class representative enhancements, attorneys' fees and costs filed
on January 31, 2015. The hourly rates used to arrive at this
figure are consistent with market rates and reasonable in light of
the Class Counsel's skill, experience, and expertise. The Court
was further satisfied that the number of hours expended on the
litigation is reasonable. Dividing the requested fee by Class
Counsel's current lodestar yields a 1.6 multiplier. Such a
multiplier falls within the range of multipliers approved by
courts within the Ninth Circuit, Judge Pregerson concluded.

Plaintiff will recover, from the common fund established by the
Stipulation and Settlement of Class Action Claims, $5,500,000 in
and for attorneys' fees and up to $600,000 in costs and expenses.
These amounts will be paid by the Claims Administrator to Class
Counsel, divided as they shall direct.

The Court further approved payment of the fees and costs of the
appointed claims administrator Rust Consulting, Inc., of
$107,135.00 for services rendered and to be rendered in connection
with the completion of its duties pursuant to the terms of the
Settlement.

Defendant will deliver the Maximum Settlement Amount of
$16,500,000, within 10 business days of entry of the Final
Approval Order, as awarded by the Court (pursuant to the
Settlement Agreement), for Individual Settlement Payments, the
Class Representative service award, attorneys' fees and litigation
costs, the claims administration costs, and the PAGA Payment to
the Labor and Workforce Development Agency are due to be paid.

The Court further directs the Claims Administrator, to within 15
calendar days after Defendant delivers the $16,500,000.00, to
disburse to these persons and entities these amounts:

a. Individual Settlement Payment checks in accordance with the
Settlement Agreement to those members of the Class who submitted a
timely and valid IVF by U.S. First Class Mail, as calculated and
approved by Rust Consulting, Inc.;

b. Class Representative Service Awards to Plaintiffs Flordeliza
Escano and Marila P. Maximo for $25,000.00 each and to Penny
Burney, Debbie Fitzpatrick-Seckler, and Richard Silva for
$20,000.00 each, by check mailed to Class Counsel;

c. Attorneys' fees to Class Counsel, $5,500,000 by wire transfer,
as directed by Class Counsel;

d. Litigation expenses to Class Counsel, up to $600,000.00 by wire
transfer, as directed by Class Counsel;

e. PAGA Payment to the State of California Labor Workforce &
Development Agency ("LWDA"), $225,000.00, by check to Counsel for
Defendant for transmittal to the LWDA;

f. Claims Administration services to Rust Consulting, Inc., the
sum of $107,135.00 for services rendered in connection with its
duties and responsibilities to process claims and to disburse
payments, respond to continuing inquiries from the class and the
Parties in order to conclude its duties and responsibilities
pursuant to the settlement.

Joseph Antonelli, Esq. -- jantonelli@antonellilaw.com -- Janelle
Carney, Esq., LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI, Chino Hills, CA,
Kevin T. Barnes, Esq., Gregg Lander, Esq., LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T.
BARNES -- Barnes@kbarnes.com -- CLOSED, Los Angeles, CA, Attorneys
for Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated.

Steven Gold, Esq. -- SGold@TheGoldFirm.com -- THE GOLD FIRM(TM),
San Diego CA, David Boertje --  dboertje@boertjelaw.com -- Esq.,
LAW OFFICES OF DAVID BOERTJE, Carlsbad, CA, W. Michael Hensley --
mhensley@alvaradosmith.com -- ALVARADOSMITH, APC, Santa Ana,
California, Jeffrey A. Klafter, Seth R. Lesser --
seth@klafterolsen.com -- Fran L. Rudich --
Fran.Rudich@klafterolsen.com -- Michael Palitz, KLAFTER OLSEN &
LESSER LLP, Rye Brook, New York, Counsel for Plaintiffs Debbie
Fitzpatrick-Seckler and Richard Silva.


KMART CORP: Financial Institutions File Data Breach Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
BuckleySandler LLP reports that on March 13, a federal credit
union filed a class action suit against a national retailer and
parent company, alleging their actions during a September 2014
data breach injured credit unions, banks, and other financial
institutions.  Greater Chautauqua FCU v. Kmart Corp and Sears
Holdings Corp., No. 15-cv-2228, (N.D.Ill. Mar.13,2015)

The complaint contends that financial institutions (i) were
required to, among other things, refund fraudulent charges,
respond to a higher volume of customer complaints, and increase
fraud monitoring efforts, and (ii) lost revenue due to a decrease
in card usage after the breach was disclosed.  The complaint
alleges that the retailer failed to maintain adequate data
security under applicable payment card industry standards,
particularly in the wake of well-publicized data breaches at other
retailers by third parties using similar techniques and malicious
software. Moreover, the retailer failed to detect or notify
customers for a period of at least five weeks.  The complaint was
filed in US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
and alleges damages in excess of $5,000,000 for violations of the
Illinois Personal Information Protection Act, the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Act, and New York General
Business Law, as well as negligence, and negligent
misrepresentation and/or omission.


LEPRINO FOODS: Judge Granted Bid to Dismiss "Finder" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Anthony W. Ishii of the Eastern District of
California granted defendant's motion to dismiss in the case
JERROD FINDER, on behalf of himself and a class of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY, a Colorado
Corporation; LEPRINO FOODS DAIRY PRODUCTS COMPANY, a Colorado
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, CASE
NO. 1:13-CV-2059 AWI-BAM (E.D. Cal.)

Plaintiff Jerrod Finder is a former employee of the defendant
Leprino Foods Company. He alleges that he was not provided meal
breaks as required by California law. Plaintiff filed suit in
state court and alleged that defendant failed to provide meal
periods in violation of California Labor Code Sections 512 and
226.7, failed to provide accurate wage statements in violation of
California Labor Code Section 226, failed to promptly pay wages
due in violation of California Labor Code Sections 201 and 202,
violated the California Business & Professions Code Section 17200,
and enforcement of California Labor Code provisions under the
Private Attorney Generals Act (PAGA).

Defendant removed the case to federal court, asserting subject
matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).
The court raised questions about the adequacy of the amount in
controversy. Defendant then filed a written response to address
the issue. Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Senior District Judge Ishii granted defendant's motion to dismiss
and all claims are dismissed without prejudice.  He gave Plaintiff
time to file an amended complaint if he wishes to continue with
the suit.

A copy of Senior District Judge Ishii's order dated March 12,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/TyRa01from Leagle.com

Jerrod Finder, Plaintiff, represented by Morris Nazarian --
nazarian@hotmail.com -- at Law Offices Of Morris Nazarian

Jonathon Talavera, Plaintiff, represented by Cory Lee at The
Downey Law Firm, LLC

Defendants, represented by Sandra Lynn Rappaport --
srappaport@hansonbridgett.com -- Emily Hartig Fulmer --
efulmer@hansonbridgett.com -- at Hanson Bridgett LLP; Kent Lee
Bradbury -- kbradbury@orrick.com -- at Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe LLP


LOS ANGELES, CA: Judge OKs Settlement in Disabled Inmates' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge approved a
sweeping settlement on March 23 mandating improvements for inmates
using wheelchairs and others with impaired mobility at Los Angeles
County jails.

Under the agreement, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
will be required to construct wheelchair accessible toilets and
build new housing for inmates with disabilities, among other
improvements.

ACLU of Southern California staff attorney Jessica Price called
the settlement a "huge step in the right direction" toward
ensuring inmates with disabilities have access to basic
accommodations.

"But it is just the beginning," Ms. Price said.  "Now inmates,
their family members, the Office of the Inspector General, and the
lawyers must be vigilant to ensure these important protections are
enforced."

The agreement came six years after attorneys filed the class-
action suit alleging discrimination and violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the Eighth and 14th
amendments.

In addition to making housing and toilets more accessible to the
disabled, the agreement requires the sheriff's department to
develop a new system to deliver working wheelchairs to inmates;
provide equal access to employment, educational and vocation
programs; and appoint a coordinator to address complaints from
inmates or their relatives.

The department will be required to create a document outlining
inmate rights within the next months and begin taking steps toward
implementing training for staff and tracking inmates with mobility
impairments.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
-------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Williams, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-
21432-JEM (S.D. Fla., April 16, 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:

      Harry Dohn Williams Jr., Esq.
      CULLIN O'BRIEN LAW, P.A.
      990 NW 5th Street
      Boca Raton, FL 33486
      Telephone: (561) 929-5432
      E-mail: hdohn@hotmail.com

         - and -

      Cullin Avram O'Brien, Esq.
      CULLIN O'BRIEN LAW, P.A.
      6541 NE 21st Way
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308
      Telephone: (561) 676-6370
      Facsimile: (561) 320-0285
      E-mail: cullin@cullinobrienlaw.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Removes "Ruiz" Class Suit to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Leticia Ruiz v. Lumber
Liquidators Holdings Inc., et al., Case No. BC574685, was removed
from the Superior Court of the state of California, County of Los
Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Western Division - Los Angeles).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02507-DDP-JPR to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that the putative class action consists of
all individuals or entities, who since January 1, 2011, "purchased
laminate wood flooring products, manufactured in China and sold by
Lumber Liquidators . . . ."  The Plaintiff further alleges that
"there have been hundreds of thousands of subject laminate wood
flooring products sold throughout the world, and also on
information and belief, there are at least tens of thousands of
Class Members spread throughout the State of California."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth S. Kasdan, Esq.
          Graham B. LippSmith, Esq.
          Celene S. Chan, Esq.
          KASDAN LIPPSMITH WEBER TURNER LLP
          19900 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 850
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (800) 593-3332
          Facsimile: (949) 833-9455
          E-mail: kskasdan@klwtlaw.com
                  glippsmith@klwtlaw.com
                  cchan@klwtlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          William L. Stern, Esq.
          William F. Tarantino, Esq.
          Lisa A. Wongchenko, Esq.
          Lauren Wroblewski, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 268-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
          E-mail: WStern@mofo.com
                  WTarantino@mofo.com
                  LWongchenko@mofo.com
                  LWroblewski@mofo.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Experts Evaluate Response to Flooring Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Dipietro, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
Lumber Liquidators has seen its stock price take a wild ride down
and back up after allegations raised in a '60 Minutes' story.  The
story alleged the laminate-flooring material sold by the company
didn't meet emission standards for the chemical formaldehyde.  The
story prompted one U.S. senator to call on federal agencies to
investigate, and the company's stock plunged as a result of the
negative coverage.

Lumber Liquidators rejected the allegations, then held a press
conference at which it defended its practices and products,
spelled out the impact the report has had on sales, offered a
revised business outlook and blamed the stock price drop on short
sellers looking to take advantage of the negative news. The
company later sent test kits to customers who purchased flooring
so they could check formaldehyde levels.

The experts evaluated how well the company has done in responding
to the crisis, how it delivered its message, how effective that
message is and what it should do next.

Jennifer Janson, owner, Six Degrees: "Based on all the evidence to
date, the company has been extremely responsive and transparent in
reacting to the allegations made on '60 Minutes.'  It has acted
fast to restore faith in its product and its brand, and the share
price has reacted accordingly.

"Unfortunately, when it comes to negative media frenzy, sometimes
perception is reality.  No matter what Lumber Liquidators does to
set the record straight, it will always fall on deaf ears in some
quarters. And that may well be a very important group of concerned
customers.

"If the company wants to avoid long-term reputational damage, it
will need to seriously consider making changes to its Chinese
supply chain, based on the outcome of the reviews it is currently
undertaking.  It must tread carefully here, as it is pinning its
public response on allegations that a group of short-sellers is
aiming to make quick money.  However, if any issues arise as a
result of its investigations with Chinese suppliers, it must not
be afraid to act.

"In terms of customer reassurance, in addition to all the customer
communications, sending testing kits is a great first step.  The
company must now ensure that the related follow-up is executed
flawlessly and to the full satisfaction of every customer.  It may
be that formaldehyde levels in the flooring are less than in
wallpaper or paint, but the fact is that young children and babies
crawl on floors, and not up walls. So concern will naturally be
heightened.

"Given that founder Tom Sullivan is so accessible, and invites
people to email him via the website, it's important the company
maintains open communication even under what I suspect is a
dramatic increase in traffic."

Vincent Schiavone, executive chairman, Listen Logic: "Rule number
one: Don't make things worse! That is exactly what Lumber
Liquidators did by agreeing to an on-camera interview.  Lumber
liquidators is experiencing an attack crisis in the digital world
where consumers, media, activists, lawyers, regulators and
politicians are aligned as stakeholders on an issue damaging to
the reputation and value of the company.

"While the strategic goal driving stakeholders, short sellers and
tort lawyers seems to be financial in nature, the enabling trigger
issue is the health and safety of ingredients in the product.  The
core issue driving the conversation is corporate profits at the
health risk of the customer.

"Lumber Liquidators chose to participate in the '60 Minutes'
story, something they should not have done. Often putting senior
executives on the spot in an interview puts the company at greater
reputation risk than issuing a statement. A written statement
would have been less damaging.  If a company is going to respond
to an attack issue they need to be prepared to answer the key
question: 'What did you know and when did you know it?' That
answer determines if you can or want to apologize, take
responsibility, reassure that all is OK and promise it will never
happen again.

"Lumber Liquidators did not handle this issue well and the damage
is evident by the share price, numerous class-action suits filed,
legal and regulatory investigations.  Failure to handle the first
stage of an attack crisis often brings on the next stage-- who and
how many in executive management will pay with their careers.  The
company had known this story was coming and could have prepared
and responded better."

Carreen Winters, executive vice president, global corporate
reputation practice leader, MWW: "To date, the response by Lumber
Liquidators to the accusations made by '60 Minutes' has been
textbook crisis management.  They've acted quickly and
communicated thoroughly, shifted the narrative by identifying
short sellers as the source of the report and they've sought to
rebuild confidence among customers by sharing at-home testing
kits.

"This approach is a high-risk, high-reward strategy, and only
available when you have the facts on your side.  If there is
another shoe to drop -- and they've now put a target on their back
after defending themselves with such vigor -- Lumber Liquidators'
assertiveness in its original response can and will be used
against them, damaging their reputation and the credibility of any
additional responses.

"Lumber Liquidators has seemingly established the upper hand in
this fight, and they have only one path forward: They need to
continue to be assertive in communicating confidence in their
product, sharing the story of the short sellers who profited from
this campaign against them, and respectfully engage with
government officials and regulators in clarifying obligations
under the law.

"As this story evolves, it will be important for Lumber
Liquidators to educate and empower employees to handle inquiries
from customers who might have seen the original reports, but not
the follow-on coverage.  Once this story resolves itself, those
will be the folks who fight for Lumber Liquidators' reputation
each day on the front lines, determining their failure or
success."


MCLAREN REGIONAL: Accused of Harassment and Discrimination by RN
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ann M. Chapman v. McLaren Regional Medical Center, a Domestic Non-
Profit Corporation, Case No. 5:15-cv-11285-JEL-MKM (E.D. Mich.,
April 6, 2015) alleges that she was subjected to harassment and
discriminatory conduct by McLaren.

Ms. Chapman is a resident of the City of Flushing, County of
Genesee, Michigan.  She was hired by McLaren as a Registered Nurse
on September 13, 1994.  In April 2012, she suffered a dissection
of her Aorta and was required to take a medical leave.  She
returned to work from her medical leave in September 2012.  After
her return to employment, she alleges that she was subjected to
harassment and discriminatory conduct by the Defendant.

McLaren Regional Medical Center, doing business as McLaren Flint,
is a Domestic Nonprofit Corporation.  McLaren operates a hospital
known as McLaren Flint located in the City of Flint, in Michigan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Barry S. Fagan, Esq.
          DIB AND FAGAN, P.C.
          25892 Woodward Avenue
          Royal Oak, MI 48067-0910
          Telephone: (248) 542-6300
          E-mail: bfagan@dibandfagan.com


MEDICAL ACTION: Court Awards $250,000 in Attorneys' Fees
--------------------------------------------------------
Justice Emily Pines of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, awarded
plaintiffs' counsel the amount of $250,000 as attorneys' fees and
expenses in the case entitled MATTER OF MEDICAL ACTION INDUSTRIES,
INC., SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION, NO. 64930-2014 (N.Y.)

Plaintiffs' counsel have submitted an application for reasonable
attorneys' fees in connection with the asserted substantial
benefit achieved for the Medical Action public shareholders as a
result of their actions in causing valuable supplemental
disclosures in connection with the defendants' issuance of a Form
8-K in September 2014, following their application for injunctive
relief but prior to the requisite shareholder vote on the merger.

The defendants oppose the application on the grounds that
plaintiffs' counsel have no legal right to seek attorneys' fees
under the American Rule, as such are merely an incident of
litigation under both New York and Delaware Law. They further
oppose the application, stating that no substantial benefit was
achieved via the supplemental disclosures as they were unnecessary
and/or all material issues were set forth in the prior proxy
statements filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

A copy of Justice Pines's decision and order dated February 25,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/HLROc1from Leagle.com

Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. -- SRudman@rgrdlaw.com -- Joseph Russello,
Esq. -- jrussello@rgrdlaw.com -- Mark S. Reich, Esq. --
mreich@rgrdlaw.com -- William J. Geddish, Esq. --
wgeddish@rgrdlaw.com -- Andrew L. Schwartz, Esq. --
aschwartz@rgrdlaw.com -- at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP;
James Notis, Esq. -- jnotis@gardylaw.com -- Jennifer Sarnelli --
jsarnelli@gardylaw.com -- at Gardy & Notis, LLP, for Plaintiffs
Isaac Koll and Hilary Coyne

Paul Gluckow, Esq. -- pgluckow@stblaw.com -- Matthew O'Connor,
Esq. -- mo'connor@stblaw.com -- Alexander Li, Esq. --
zander.li@stblaw.com -- at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, for
Defendant Owens & Minor

Clifford L. Thau, Esq. -- cthau@velaw.com -- Steven Paradise, Esq.
-- sparadise@velaw.com -- Temilola O. Sobowale, Esq. --
tsobowale@velaw.com -- at Vinson & Elkins, LLP, Attorney for
Defendants Medical Action Industries, Inc., Kenneth W. Davidson,
Henry A. Berling, William W. Burke, Paul Chapman, Pamela R. Levy,
Paul D. Meringolo and Kenneth R. Newsome


MERCEDES-BENZ USA: To Reimburse Repair Expenses of Class Members
----------------------------------------------------------------
Caroline Simson, writing for Law360, reports that plaintiffs suing
Mercedes-Benz USA over allegedly defective engine parts have
agreed to an unopposed deal that offers putative class members the
potential to receive thousands of dollars in reimbursements to
repair their vehicles, according to documents filed on March 23 in
California federal court.

The accord stipulates that Mercedes will reimburse putative class
members for repair costs they incurred to replace the allegedly
defective engines and will cover future repairs on the parts at
issue for the lesser of either 10 years or 125,000 miles.  If the
repair was not done at an authorized Mercedes-Benz dealer, class
members will be reimbursed the actual amount paid or $4,000,
whichever is less.

The warranty terms agreed upon by the parties in the deal more
than double the durational limit of its new vehicle warranty,
which is currently for either four years or 50,000 miles,
whichever comes first, according to the plaintiffs' motion.

"The settlement agreement addresses the claims made in plaintiffs'
[second amended class action complaint] in comprehensive fashion,
providing recourse both for those settlement class members whose
vehicles have already manifested the defect and been repaired at
their owners' expense, as well as for those settlement class
members whose vehicles have yet to require repair but who are
concerned that their cars will require such repair in the future
due to the defects alleged in the [second amended class action
complaint]," according to the plaintiffs' motion.

Mercedes, which is not admitting wrongdoing in the suit, filed a
joinder to the plaintiffs' motion on March 23.

The amount that will be paid to class members for future repairs
will depend on when the defect manifests itself, according to the
accord.  The company will pay either 100 percent, 70 percent, or
37.5 percent of the reasonable repair cost necessitated by the
alleged defect.

The agreement isn't subject to an aggregate monetary cap, the
plaintiffs noted.

Mercedes will also pay attorneys' fees of up to $2.475 million
under the deal.

The plaintiffs are also asking the court to certify a nationwide
class of current and former owners and lessees of Mercedes-Benz
vehicles with the allegedly defective engines.  They noted that
there are about 300,000 vehicles that were manufactured by
Mercedes that fall within the settlement class definition.

The suit claims that Mercedes-Benz equipped certain of its engines
with defective gears that wore out prematurely and without
warning, causing the "check engine" light to illuminate, and the
vehicle to misfire or stop driving.  Repairing the vehicles after
this occurred involved having the balance shaft or idle gear
replaced -- a large-scale job taking numerous days and costing
several thousand dollars, according to the suit.

The defective parts were contained in vehicles equipped with
Mercedes V-6 M272 and V-8 M273 engines in the U.S., the suit says.
The engines are included in many of Mercedes' vehicles
manufactured from 2004 until the present.

The defect is associated with the balance shaft gear in the M272
engine or the idle gear that drives the timing chain in the M273
engine.

The suit claims that Mercedes knew about the defect, and in 2007,
it distributed service bulletins to its dealers informing
technicians how to diagnose the problem and replace the parts.
Nevertheless, the company actively concealed it from consumers,
according to the suit.

The parties entered mediation sessions on November, the same month
that the plaintiffs asked the court for partial summary judgment.
The partial summary judgment was withdrawn earlier in March.

The plaintiffs are represented by Roy A. Katriel of the Katriel
Law Firm and Gary S. Graifman of Kantrowitz Goldhamer & Graifman
PC.

Mercedes is represented by Troy Masami Yoshino, Chad Allen
Stegeman and Johnny J. Yeh of Carroll Burdick & McDonough LLP.

The case is Majeed Seifi et al. v. Mercedes Benz USA LLC, case
number 3:12-cv-05493, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


MFRI INC: Comments on Press Release Issued by Andrew & Springer
---------------------------------------------------------------
MFRI, Inc. on March 24 disclosed that it became aware of a press
release issued by the class action law firm of Andrews & Springer
LLC in which the law firm claims that it is investigating the
Company for potential securities fraud and breach of fiduciary
duty.  MFRI is not aware of any basis for any investigation into
the Company with respect to these matters.  Further, MFRI is not
aware of any facts that would give rise to such an investigation.

MFRI, Inc. manufactures pre-insulated specialty piping systems for
oil and gas gathering, district heating and cooling as well as
other applications.  The Company also manufactures custom-designed
industrial filtration products to remove particulates from air and
other gas streams.  In total, MFRI has operations at 10 locations
in six countries.


NESTLE PURINA: Deadline to Join Pet Jerky Class Action Passes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Fiala, writing for The VIN News Service, reports that
owners whose dogs became ill after consuming pet jerky marketed by
Nestle Purina PetCare Co. or its Waggin' Train subsidiary may be
entitled to reimbursement for the treats, veterinary care and
post-death expenses if those treats were made in or contained
ingredients from China.

The potential payout is part of a $6.5 million class-action
settlement fund created last spring that allows Nestle Purina and
Waggin' Train to "move forward" without admitting guilt in an
eight-year mystery about why the jerky seems to be sickening pets.

Owners who purchased products made by Waggin' Train or the Nestle
Purina brand Canyon Creek Ranch have until April 1 to submit a
claim.  Illinois federal Judge Robert W. Gettleman is expected on
June 23 to consider the class action's merits.

"The judge wanted the claims to come in first," explained
Bruce Newman, a attorney with one of three law firms representing
the class action.  "The $6.5 million fund has been set up to pay
these claims after expenses and attorneys' fees.  The goal is that
people can finally get recovery."

Three plaintiffs -- pet owners Dennis Atkins, Faris Martin and
Rosalinda Gandara -- each will receive $5,000 from the fund for
leading the case.  Mr. Newman would not say how many owners have
submitted claims thus far but noted the population is in the
"thousands." The nationwide class action incorporates at least
five lawsuits from across the country.

"If it's approved, people will get payments on their claim forms,
pro rata for their damages," Mr. Newman said.  "But if it's not
approved, the action will be further litigated."

One potential hitch stems from the fact that no one, the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration included, has a clear explanation for why
pet jerky treats seemingly have sickened thousands of pets in
several countries, despite exhaustive testing.

"Obviously that's an issue," Mr. Newman said.  "I understand the
FDA has not found a definitive, causative agent as of yet, and
there's an ongoing investigation."

Officials with the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine have
warned consumers since 2007 about growing reports of illness in
animals that ate chicken and other jerky treat products, mostly
from China.  Nestle Purina has been one of the largest makers of
pet jerky treats, but its brands aren't the only ones implicated.

To date, the FDA has received more than 5,800 adverse event
reports, most involving gastrointestinal or liver problems, skin
troubles and neurological issues in dogs.  A few cats and humans
who consumed pet jerky are included in the agency's tally. More
than 1,000 dogs have died, and some have exhibited a rare kidney
condition that mimics Fanconi syndrome, which is characterized by
increased thirst, urination, and glucose in the urine in the
absence of high blood sugar.

Without knowing what's causing the illnesses, companies have not
recalled pet jerky except in cases where the investigation has
detected illegal antibiotic and antiviral contaminants -- drug
residues that are prohibited but are not believed to be linked to
the illnesses.  There also have been recalls pertaining to
Salmonella contamination.

Nevertheless, public pressure has pushed marketers to move
production out of China, and many stores have phased out Chinese-
made pet treats while stocking shelves with those labeled "Made in
the USA."

Regulators warn that "Made in the USA" doesn't mean all
ingredients are sourced in America.  "Pet owners should be aware
that manufacturers do not need to list the country of origin for
each ingredient used in their products, and thus may still contain
ingredients sourced from China or other countries that export to
the U.S.," the FDA said in February.

The FDA noted that numbers of jerky-related complaints have since
slowed, though not necessarily due to the trend to move away from
Chinese production and ingredients.

Dr. Kendal Harr, a veterinary clinical pathologist who's
investigated the jerky puzzle for years for the Veterinary
Information Network, an online community for veterinarians and
parent of the VIN News Service, encourages colleagues to share the
April 1 deadline with clients.

"It's a bit frustrating that we don't know the compound" that's
sickening dogs, she said.  "But the likelihood in this case is
that we have a contaminated food source, and finding the smoking
gun is nearly impossible."

For that reason, she said, a negotiated settlement is "the best
that we can really expect, unfortunately."


NEWMAN & LICKSTEIN: Court Grants Initial Okay of Mamun Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein issued an order on March 31,
2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/xifDinfrom
Leagle.com, granting initial approval of a class action settlement
in ABDULLAH MAMUN AND JULIA MAMUN, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NEWMAN & LICKSTEIN AND
PAUL I. NEWMAN, Defendants, NO. 14 CV 3574, (E.D. N.Y.).

The Court preliminarily approved the Settlement of the Action set
forth in the Agreement as being fair, reasonable, and adequate to
the Parties. Specifically, the Court found that: I) based on
Defendants' representations of a net worth of $4,136,700.00,
settlement of this case for a recovery to the Settlement Class of
$41,367.00 to be divided on a pro rata basis among those class
members who do not effectively exclude themselves from the class,
constitutes the maximum available statutory damages recovery to a
class under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and is
therefore fair and reasonable; 2) payment to the Class
Representatives jointly the total sum of $5,000.00 for damages and
for their role in this litigation, is fair and reasonable; and 3)
a separate payment to Settlement Class Counsel of fees and costs
of $12,500.00, which is not taken from any recovery to the
Settlement Class is fair and reasonable for the services provided
by Settlement Class Counsel up to and continuing until all
questions of the Settlement Class have been answered and a Final
Approval Order is entered; and an additional payment to Class
Counsel of $475.00 for the cost of filing and serving this lawsuit
is fair and reasonable.

To the extent that there are any funds from un-cashed, expired
Settlement Checks, an amount equal to the amount of the uncashed
checks will be paid over as a cy pres award to Class Counsel to be
distributed to the Suffolk County Bar Association Pro Bono
Foundation.

"Class Members" will mean Persons defined in this manner: All
persons who, according to Defendants' records: (a) had mailing
addresses within New York State; and (b) between June 6, 2013 and
June 6, 2014, (c) received a letter from the Defendant.

A Settlement Hearing will be held on August 3, 2015, at 11:15am at
which the Court will finally determine whether the Settlement of
the Action, should be finally approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate and whether the Judgment and Order of Dismissal with
Prejudice should be entered.

To be legally effective, all requests for exclusion must be
received on or before June 19, 2015. All Change of Address forms
must be received by the same date.

Class Member Objections must be delivered to Class Counsel and
Defendants' Counsel and filed with the Court, as directed in the
Notice, on or before July 13, 2015. Objections not filed and
served in a timely manner will be deemed waived. Class Counsel and
Defendants' Counsel have until July 27, 2015, to submit any
written response to the objections to the Court and serve a copy
of the response to the objector by regular mail.

Abdullah Mamun, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Mauro --
JosephMauro@lawyer-emails.com -- The Law Office of Joseph Mauro,
LLC.

Julia Mamun, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Mauro, The Law
Office of Joseph Mauro, LLC.

Newman & Lickstein, Defendant, represented by Matthew J. Bizzaro
-- mbizzaro@lbcclaw.com -- L'Abbate, Balkan, Colavita & Contini,
LLP.

Paul I. Newman, Defendant, represented by Matthew J. Bizzaro,
L'Abbate, Balkan, Colavita & Contini, LLP.


NORIDIAN MUTUAL: Sued in Ala. Over Illegal Market Allocation
------------------------------------------------------------
Galactic Funk Touring, Inc., et al., v. Noridian Mutual Insurance
Company, d/b/a/ Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota, Case No.
2:15-cv-00577-RPD (N.D. Ala., April 8, 2015), arises out of the
unlawful conspiracy between and among the Defendant BCBS-ND, the
Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) and the thirty-six
other Blue Cross Blue Shield member plans of the BCBSA to divide
and allocate geographic markets among the Individual Blue Plans.

Noridian Mutual Insurance Company is the health insurance plan
operating under the Blue Cross and Blue Shield trademarks and
trade names in North Dakota with its principal headquarters
located at 4510 13th Avenue South, Fargo, ND 58121.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
      Jason S. Kilene, Esq.
      Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
      GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
      Canadian Pacific Plaza
      120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 333-8844
      Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
      E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
              jikelen@gustafsongluek.com
              dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com


NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Court Denies Approval of Hopwood Suit Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denied, without prejudice, a
motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement in
WILLIAM HOPWOOD, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS,
INC., ET AL., Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-02132-YGR, (N.D. Cal.).

According to the court, the Settlement Agreement should provide an
estimate or maximum amount of Settlement Administration Expenses,
or specify that such expenditures must be reasonable.  The
Settlement Fund should also be corrected as noted at the hearing
to ensure timely payments to proposed settlement class members
upon final approval given that the amount needed to fund those
payments will be known at the time of funding.

Judge Rogers held that the court's concerns, and the deficiencies
of the settlement agreement, must be addressed before final
approval.

The parties may file a renewed motion for preliminary approval on
an expedited briefing schedule. If the motion is unopposed, a
hearing may be set on seven days' notice.

A compliance hearing regarding the status of the renewed motion
will be held on Friday, May 1, 2015 on the Court's 9:01 a.m.
calendar, in the Federal Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland,
California, Courtroom 1. By five business days prior to the date
of the compliance hearing, the parties must file either: (a) the
renewed motion for preliminary approval; or (b) a one-page joint
statement setting forth an explanation for their failure to
comply. If compliance is complete, the parties need not appear and
the compliance hearing will be taken off calendar. Telephonic
appearances will be allowed if the parties have submitted a joint
statement in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in
sanctions.

A copy of the Court's April 2, 2015 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/o1qCfufrom Leagle.com.

William Hopwood, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Harris Richman
-- brichman@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, Rafey S. Balabanian --
rbalabanian@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, Christopher Lillard Dore --
cdore@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, Jay Edelson, Edelson PC, Samuel
Lasser -- slasser@edelson.com -- Law Office of Samuel Lasser &
Stefan Louis Coleman -- stefan.coleman@gmail.com -- Law Offices of
Stefan Coleman, LLC.

Teresa Martinez, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Harris
Richman, Edelson PC, Rafey S. Balabanian, Edelson PC, Christopher
Lillard Dore, Edelson PC, Jay Edelson, Edelson PC & Stefan Louis
Coleman, Law Offices of Stefan Coleman, LLC.

Nuance Communications, Inc., Defendant, represented by Paul T.
Friedman -- pfriedman@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Tiffany
Cheung -- tcheung@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Caitlin
Sinclaire Blythe -- cblythe@mofo.com -- Morrison and Foerster &
Margaret Elizabeth Mayo -- mmayo@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster
LLP San Francisco.

Infinity Contact, Inc., Defendant, represented by Regina Jill
McClendon -- rmcclendon@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP & Sally
Weiss Mimms -- smimms@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP.

The Phoenix Insurance Company, Objector, represented by Mark
Dennis Peterson -- markpeterson@catespeterson.com -- Cates
Peterson LLP.

The Travelers Indemnity Company, Objector, represented by Mark
Dennis Peterson, Cates Peterson LLP.

The Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut, Objector,
represented by Mark Dennis Peterson, Cates Peterson LLP.

Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, Objector,
represented by Mark Dennis Peterson, Cates Peterson LLP.


NUVERRA ENVIRONMENTAL: Judge Narrows Claims in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge John W. Sedwick of the District of Arizona
granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion in the case
entitled In re Nuverra Environmental Solutions Securities
Litigation. This Document Relates to: All Actions, CASE NO. 2:13-
CV-01800-JWS (D. Ariz.)

Nuverra environmental Solutions is an environmental solutions
company focused on serving the needs of exploration and production
(E&P) companies in their pursuit of shale oil and gas hydraulic
fracturing drilling.

The plaintiffs allege that Nuverra's truck drivers engaged in an
illicit bill padding scheme that artificially boosted Nuverra's
earnings. Plaintiffs also alleges that Nuverra entered into an
unprofitable sweetheart business deal in early 2012 under which it
provided its services at a below-market rate to E&P driller EOG
Resources, Inc. (EOG) at the Eagle Ford basin in Texas.

The plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging that defendants misled
the investing public by making positive statements about the
company without disclosing that Nuverra's profits were being
unsustainably propped up by the bill padding scheme and because
the EOG deal was actually causing it to lose substantial sums of
money at the Eagle Ford site. The complaint also alleges that
these false statements and misleading omissions artificially
inflated the price of Nuverra's publicly traded securities in
violation of federal law. The complaint alleged violations of
federal securities law. Count I alleges violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5
and Count II alleges violations of Section 20(a) of the Act.

The court dismissed the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a claim. The court held that plaintiffs' Count I
violations are not pled with sufficient particularity to comply
with Rule 9(b) or the heightened pleading requirements of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA), and that
this deficiency also dooms plaintiffs' Count II allegations.
Dismissal was entered without prejudice to plaintiffs' ability to
move to amend the complaint. Plaintiffs moved for leave to amend
their complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
15(a)(2).

Senior District Judge Sedwick granted in part and denied in part
plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend. Plaintiffs may file an
amended complaint that includes claims against Charles R. Gordon
and W. Christopher Chisholm that are related to Nuverra's contract
with EOG Resources, Inc. In all other respects, plaintiffs' motion
is denied with prejudice.

The court directed plaintiffs to file a version of the Proposed
Amended Complaint that omits all claims against any defendant
other than Charles R. Gordon and W. Christopher Chisholm and all
claims based on the alleged bill padding scheme.

A copy of Senior District Judge Sedwick's order and opinion dated
March 12, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/4PMZUxfrom
Leagle.com

Jewyl A Stevens, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy James
Christian, Tiffany & Bosco PA, Patricia Nicole Syverson, Bonnett
Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC & Richard Glenn Himelrick, Tiffany
& Bosco PA

Chad Monroe, Plaintiff, represented by Betsy C Manifold, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, Francis M Gregorek, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, Marisa C Livesay, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, Patricia Nicole Syverson,
Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC, Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP & Gregory Mark Nespole, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP

Page Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Patricia Nicole Syverson,
Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC & Richard Glenn Himelrick,
Tiffany & Bosco PA

Alan G Stevens, Plaintiff, represented by Patricia Nicole
Syverson, Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC & Richard Glenn
Himelrick, Tiffany & Bosco PA

Maria L Castro, Plaintiff, represented by David Avi Rosenfeld,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jack Reise, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jesse S Johnson, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, Jonathan Adam Dessaules, Dessaules Law Group, Rachel W Maron,
Dessaules Law Group, Stephen R Astley, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, Elizabeth A Shonson, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP &
Patricia Nicole Syverson, Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC

Robert W Karrasch, Plaintiff, represented by David Avi Rosenfeld,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jack Reise, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jesse S Johnson, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, Jonathan Adam Dessaules, Dessaules Law Group, Rachel W Maron,
Dessaules Law Group, Stephen R Astley, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, Elizabeth A Shonson, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP &
Patricia Nicole Syverson, Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC

Ralph E Brownfield, Plaintiff, represented by David Avi Rosenfeld,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jack Reise, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jesse S Johnson, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, Jonathan Adam Dessaules, Dessaules Law Group, Patricia Nicole
Syverson, Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC, Rachel W Maron,
Dessaules Law Group, Stephen R Astley, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP & Elizabeth A Shonson, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP

Nuverra Environmental Solutions Incorporated, Defendant,
represented by Brian Michael McQuaid, Squire Patton Boggs (US)
LLP, Kerryn Leigh Holman, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP & Joseph C
Weinstein, Squire Sanders Boggs (US) LLP

Richard J Heckmann, Defendant, represented by Brian Michael
McQuaid, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP,Joseph C Weinstein, Squire
Sanders Boggs (US) LLP & Kerryn Leigh Holman, Squire Patton Boggs
(US) LLP

Mark D Johnsrud, Defendant, represented by Brian Michael McQuaid,
Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP,Joseph C Weinstein, Squire Sanders
Boggs (US) LLP & Kerryn Leigh Holman, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

Jay Parkinson, Defendant, represented by Brian Michael McQuaid,
Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Joseph C Weinstein, Squire Sanders
Boggs (US) LLP & Kerryn Leigh Holman, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

W Christopher Chisholm, Defendant, represented by Brian Michael
McQuaid, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Joseph C Weinstein, Squire
Sanders Boggs (US) LLP & Kerryn Leigh Holman, Squire Patton Boggs
(US) LLP

Charles R Gordon, Defendant, represented by Joseph C Weinstein,
Squire Sanders Boggs (US) LLP &Kerryn Leigh Holman, Squire Patton
Boggs (US) LLP


OCEAN SPRAY: Class Certification Bid in "Major" Case Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward J. Davila of the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, denied motion for class
certification in the case NOELLE MAJOR, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OCEAN SPRAY
CRANBERRIES, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 5:12-CV-03067-EJD (N.D.
Cal.)

The plaintiff Noelle Major is a resident of California, who
purchased several of defendant's products juices and drinks.
Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant alleging that
defendant's food products have been improperly labeled so as to
amount to misbranding and deception in violation of several
California and federal law.

On March 29, 2013, plaintiff filed her first Motion for Class
Certification, appointment of class representative, and
appointment of class counsel. Defendant opposed the motion and on
June 10, 2013, the court denied plaintiff's motion because she did
not satisfy the typicality requirement of Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule
23(a)(3).

On November 1, 2013, Plaintiff filed a second motion for class
certification, appointment of class representative, and
appointment of class counsel and narrowed her class definition by
seeking coverage of only defendant's 100% juice products. She
alleges that defendant's 100% juice products contained packaging
and labeling that were unlawful, false, or misleading. In
addition, plaintiff contends that because defendant labels its
100% juice products identically with respect to the "No Sugar
Added" claim, the different flavors do not, at least for purposes
of this motion, distinguish them as different products.

Defendant filed its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

Judge Davila granted defendant's motion for partial summary
judgment and denied plaintiff's motion for class certification as
moot.

A copy of Judge Davila's order dated February 26, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/92Ggnffrom Leagle.com

Noelle Major, Plaintiff, represented by:

Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq.
PRATT & ASSOCIATES
1871 The Alameda, Suite 425
San Jose, CA 95126
Telephone: 408-369-0800

     - and -

Brian K Herrington, Esq.
Don Barrett, Esq.
BARRETT LAW GROUP
404 Court Square
PO Box 927
Lexington, MS 39095
Telephone: 662-834-2488
Facsimile: 662-834-2628

     - and -

David Shelton, Esq.
DAVID SHELTON, PLLC
1223 Jackson Ave E Ste 202
Oxford, MS 38655
Telephone: 662-281-1312

     - and -

Dewitt Marshall Lovelace, Sr., Esq.
LOVELACE LAW FIRM
12870 U.S. Hwy 98 West, Suite 200
Miramar Beach, FL 32550
Telephone: 850-837-6020
Facsimile: 850-837-4093

Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc, Defendant, represented by Ricky Lynn
Shackelford -- shackelfordr@gtlaw.com -- at Greenberg Traurig, LLP


OMNICARE: Ruling Can Form Basis of Securities Act Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that the U.S. Supreme
Court agrees to take a case that could significantly reshape the
securities class action business.  Defendants get their hopes up,
loading the docket with amicus briefs calling on the justices to
impose new restrictions on the cases.  But ultimately the justices
leave the status quo more or less intact, to the relief of
shareholder lawyers across the land.

So it was in 2011, when the Supreme Court in Erica P. John Fund v.
Halliburton shot down a ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals that would have forced shareholders to prove loss
causation to be certified as a class.  And so it was again in
2013, when the court refused in Amgen v. Connecticut Retirement
Plans to require investors to prove the importance of alleged
corporate misstatements at the class certification stage.  Last
year's model was Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund (aka
Halliburton II), in which the Supreme Court decided not to
demolish its own 1988 precedent establishing that shareholders can
sue as a class without proving individually that they relied on
corporate misstatements.

The court's ruling on March 24 in Omnicare v. Laborers District
Council Construction Industry Pension Fund -- which addresses
when, if ever, opinions in offering statements can be the basis of
claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 -- follows
the same storyline.  Omnicare and its amicus supporters in the
business community saw an opportunity for defendants to evade
increasingly common Section 11 class actions, pushing for
precedent that would bar securities class action lawyers from
filing suits over supposed omissions in statements of opinion.
They didn't get that -- but nor did shareholders persuade the
court that they should be permitted to sue over any opinion that
proves to misstate a material fact.  Instead of issuing a decision
that fundamentally changes securities class actions, the Supreme
Court once again chose in Omnicare just to tinker with the
mechanics of the cases.

The court took the Omnicare case to resolve a distinct split
between the 6th, 2nd and 9th Circuits.  The latter two courts have
held that opinions expressed in offering materials are not
actionable unless shareholders can show corporate officials didn't
actually believe what they said.  But in a 2013 decision
reinstating a Section 11 case against Omnicare, a nursing home
pharmacy company, the 6th Circuit said investors do not have to
show the corporation knew its opinion was false in order to
proceed with a class action over offering documents.  As long as
the statement of opinion contained a material misstatement, the
6th Circuit said, investors can proceed. (The particular opinions
at issue in the Omnicare case were statements expressing the
company's belief that its contracts complied with state and
federal laws.  The pension fund, represented by Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd, said Omnicare's $124 million settlement of a False
Claims Act kickback case in 2014 proved the falsity of its
compliance assurances.)

Omnicare, represented at the Supreme Court by Kannon Shanmugam of
Williams & Connolly, did not ask the justices to hold that every
statement of opinion in an offering document is protected.
Knowingly false statements, it conceded, can be actionable under
Section 11 even if they're couched as opinions.  The Supreme
Court's opinion on March 24, written by Justice Elena Kagan,
agreed.

The justices also agreed with Omnicare that the 6th Circuit used
an overly broad standard when it said that investors can sue over
opinions that turn out to contain a misstatement.  Section 11,
Justice Kagan wrote, "does not allow investors to second-guess
inherently subjective and uncertain assessments. In other words,
the provision is not an invitation to Monday morning quarterback
an issuer's opinions."

That holding is good news for Omnicare and other securities class
action defendants. If the Supreme Court had adopted the 6th
Circuit's loose standard, plaintiffs firms would have had a much
easier time bringing Section 11 claims.

But the Supreme Court refused to give Omnicare everything it
wanted.  The company had asked the justices to rule that
shareholders may not sue over truly held opinions even if
corporate offering materials omit important information that might
lead an investor to reach a different opinion.  A reasonable
investor, according to Omnicare, ought to know that the only
"fact" expressed in an opinion is the speaker's belief.

Justice Kagan, however, said that Omnicare's proposed
interpretation would give companies "virtual carte blanche to
assert opinions in registration statements free from worry about
Section 11," she wrote.  "That outcome would ill-fit Congress's
decision to establish a strict liability offense."

A statement of opinion in a registration statement can be
misleading, the Supreme Court said, if it omits key facts about
how the speaker formed that view.  "Congress adopted Section 11 to
ensure that issuers 'tell the whole truth' to investors," Justice
Kagan wrote.  "For that reason, literal accuracy is not enough: An
issuer must as well desist from misleading investors by saying one
thing and holding back another.  Omnicare would nullify that
statutory requirement for all sentences starting with the phrase
'we believe' or 'we think.' But those magic words can preface
nearly any conclusion, and the resulting statements, as we have
shown, remain perfectly capable of misleading investors."

As Justice Kagan noted, the court's new holding on omissions  --
which Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas said in
concurring opinions that they do not support -- doesn't give
investors much of an opening.  "The investor must identify
particular (and material) facts going to the basis for the
issuer's opinion -- facts about the inquiry the issuer did or did
not conduct or the knowledge it did or did not have -- whose
omission makes the opinion statement at issue misleading to a
reasonable person reading the statement fairly and in context,"
the opinion said.  "That is no small task for an investor."

Nevertheless, Laborers District Council lawyer Darren Robbins of
Robbins Geller claimed the opinion as "clearly favorable for
investors" because it gives shareholders recourse against
"unscrupulous issuers who might otherwise simply omit material
information" in registration statements. (Thomas Goldstein of
Goldstein & Russell, who argued for the pension fund at the
Supreme Court, referred me to Robbins for comment on the ruling.)

We'll get an early look at the new opinion's impact in this very
case.  The Supreme Court remanded the class action for a
determination of whether shareholders can show that Omnicare's
statements of opinion were misleading because the registration
statement omitted material facts.  The opinion hints that
plaintiffs will have a hard time making that showing in the
context of Omnicare's disclosure of state and federal inquiries
about its rebate programs.


PARAMOUNT CITRUS: Seeks Dismissal of Wage Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Bultman and Aaron Vehling, writing for Law360, report that
Paramount Citrus Cooperative Inc., the nation's largest citrus
grower, urged a California federal judge on March 23 to toss a
potential class action accusing it of failing to pay migrant
workers for nonharvesting tasks, arguing the laborers worked for a
contractor and were not joint employees.

Paramount Citrus in a motion to dismiss said the seasonal field
workers who brought the suit were directly employed by Camacho
FLC, a farm labor contractor that provides harvesting services to
Paramount Citrus.  Their complaint is void of any facts that would
establish an employment relationship with Paramount Citrus, the
grower said.

"Plaintiffs' unsubstantiated allegation that Paramount jointly
employed the plaintiffs embodies the very type of naked assertion
that courts have found insufficient," the grower said.

The workers have accused Delano, California-based Paramount Citrus
of failing to pay them minimum wage for work hours spent doing
"nonpiecework" -- waiting on standby before beginning to do
piecework, time spent waiting before being sent home for a lack of
work, traveling between fields during the work and for rest
periods -- in violation of California Labor Code and the Migrant
and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act.

But the co-op said workers, aside from being directly employed by
contractors, didn't present any allegations that it owned or
operated any property the class worked at.

"And, if pleaded truthfully, such an allegation is impossible," it
said.

The suit, filed in February by main plaintiffs Marcelina Peralta
and Rigoberto Monjaraz, stems from seasonal field work undertaken
each year at various locations affiliated with Paramount Citrus in
Kern County, California, outside of Bakersfield.

The workers claimed they were required to report to work at a time
of day specified by Paramount Citrus, and often had to wait an
hour or more before starting work, the complaint says, noting that
sometimes the workers would wait that duration before getting sent
home for a lack of work.  They were also required either to walk
or drive from one field to another to conduct their piecework, but
during that time they were not paid their piecework rates, the
suit says.

One of the co-op's constituent farms paid the workers only $2 an
hour to pick fruit and $4 an hour to clean equipment during one
point in the 2013-2014 season, according to the suit.  The workers
weren't compensated at all for the two 15-minute rest periods they
would take during their shifts, the complaint says.

After that season was over, and the workers laid off, the co-op
failed to compensate the field workers for all hours worked, the
suit says.

In its motion on March 23, Paramount Citrus said if the suit were
allowed to proceed, the claim for wages upon termination should be
tossed because the workers lack standing.  Under the California
Labor Code, those claims are reserved for individuals who quit
their job, not those who were laid off, it argued.

"As aptly put by the Supreme Court,'[s]tanding cannot be acquired
through the back door of a class action,'" the co-op said.

The plaintiffs are represented by Gregory Karasik of Karasik Law
Firm and Santos Gomez of the Law Offices of Santos Gomez.

Paramount Citrus is represented by Azadeh Allayee, Brooke S.
Hammond and J.P. Pecht of the Roll Law Group PC.

The case is Peralta et al. v. Paramount Citrus Cooperative Inc.,
case number 1:15-cv-00263, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California.


PERFORMANT RECOVERY: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
June Evans, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. Performant Recovery Inc. f/k/a Diversified Collection Services,
Inc. (DCS, Inc.), and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:15-cv-02393-PGS-
TJB (D.N.J., April 6, 2015) is brought over alleged violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PERSOLVE LLC: Discovery in Joint Report #2 in "Jacobson" Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd issued on April 2, 2015, a
discovery dispute joint report #2, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/N9faBAfrom Leagle.com, in 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, LLC 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. Stride Card is
engaged in the business of collecting defaulted consumer debts in
California. Plaintiff alleged 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. Plaintiff asserted that because
Stride Card both engaged Persolve to collect defaulted consumer
debts on its behalf and directed the alleged unlawful activities,
Stride Card is liable for the acts of Persolve.

In Discovery Dispute Joint Report #2, Plaintiff sought documents
relating to Stride Card's net worth, for the purposes of filing a
motion for class certification and determining potential damages.
Plaintiff contended that the documents and information that Stride
Card has produced do not properly disclose its net worth.

In addition, Plaintiff asserted that corporate formation documents
obtained from Stride Card show that Stride Card was created for
the benefit of two subsidiaries: SC1-20 and SC1-80. Plaintiff
requested production of the "SC1 Participation Agreement" that
created these affiliates, arguing that it will show the extent to
which SC1-20 and SC1-80 invested in Stride Card and the initial
contribution of each, as well as the monthly payments each is
entitled to receive.

Plaintiff makes these requests based on the theory that alter-ego,
under-capitalization and other veil-piercing theories may be
available to her. Although Plaintiff's proposed second amended
complaint alleges alter-ego theories, Plaintiff's first amended
complaint (the operative complaint) does not. Absent good cause,
parties are not entitled to discovery to develop new claims or
defenses that are not identified in the pleadings. In re REMEC,
Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 04-CV-1948 JLS (AJB), 2008 WL 2282647, at *2
(S.D. Cal. May 30, 2008) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)). Here,
Magistrate Judge Lloyd held that, "Plaintiff has not demonstrated
good cause to conduct such discovery. Discovery related to alter
ego claims is therefore irrelevant at this point in time. . . .
Accordingly, Plaintiff's requests are denied. Plaintiff may bring
these requests again in the event that Judge Lucy Koh grants
Plaintiff's pending motion for leave to file a second amended
class action complaint."

Sandra Lee Jacobson, Plaintiff, represented by Fred W. Schwinn,
Consumer Law Center, Inc., O. Randolph Bragg, Horwitz,Horwitz &
Associates & Raeon Rodrigo Roulston, Consumer Law Center, Inc..
Persolve, LLC, Defendant, represented by Charles Robert Messer,
Carlson & Messer LLP, David J. Kaminski, Carlson & Messer LLP &
Stephen Albert Watkins, Carlson and Messer LLP.

Stride Card, LLC, Defendant, represented by David J. Kaminski --
kaminskd@cmtlaw.com -- Carlson & Messer LLP & Stephen Albert
Watkins -- watkinss@cmtlaw.com -- Carlson and Messer LLP.


PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Facchinello" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dushy Facchinello, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Premera Blue Cross, Case No. :15-cv-00603
(W.D. Wash., April 16, 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:

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

         - and -

      Nick Suciu III, Esq.
      BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC
      434 West Alexandrine #101
      Detroit, MI 48201
      Telephone: (313) 303-3472
      E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com


PREMERA BLUE: Removed "Welch" Suit From King County to W.D. Wash.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Joann V. Welch, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Premera Blue Cross,
Case No. 15-2-07774-1, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of Washington for the County of King to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-00552 to the proceeding.

The Complaint alleges that criminals hacked into Premera's
computer systems and stole certain personal information related to
its insureds.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joann V. Welch
      PRO SE

The Defendant is represented by:

      Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq.
      BAKER HOSTETLER LLP
      1801 California St., Suite 4400
      Denver, CO 80202
      Telephone: (303) 861-0600
      Facsimile: (303) 861-7805
      E-mail: pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com

         - and -

      Randal L. Gainer, Esq.
      BAKER HOSTETLER LLP
      999 Third Avenue, Suite 3600
      Seattle, WA 98104-4040
      Telephone: (206) 332-1380
      Facsimile: (206) 624-7317
      E-mail: rgainer@bakerlaw.com


PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Welch" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
Joann V. Welch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Premera Blue Cross, Case No. 2:15-cv-00552 (W.D.
Wash., April 8, 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:

      David A. Leen, Esq.
      LEEN & O'SULLIVAN, PLLC
      520 East Denny Way Seattle Washington 98122
      Telephone: (206) 325-6022
      Facsimile: (206) 325-t424
      E-mail: david@leenandosullivan.com

         - and -

      Joseph N. Kravecr Jr., Esq.
      Wyatt A. Lison, Esq.
      McKean Evans, Esq.
      FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
      Allegheny Building, l7th Floor
      429 Forbes Avenue
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Telephone: (412) 28l-8400
      Facsimile: (412) 28l-l007
      E-mail: jkravec@ftlpklaw.com
              wlison@ftlpklaw.com


PRIMUS CANADA: Court of Appeal Upholds CPA Class Action Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Louis-Philippe Constant, Esq. of Clyde & Co, in an article for
Mondaq, reports that on February 20, the Quebec Court of Appeal
upheld the judgments of the Superior Court rendered in the context
of four class actions, which will be treated herein as one and the
same file, Dion c. Primus1.

This judgment addresses several interesting issues regarding the
mechanics and structure of the Consumer Protection Act (the
"C.P.A.") in the context of class action proceedings.  Clyde & Co
addresses two of these issues: first, the awarding of punitive
damages under section 272 and then, the consumer's choice of
recourse under sections 271 or 272.

In this class action, the class was comprised of consumers who had
purchased or leased an automobile, the financing of which was
provided by one of the defendants.  The class members claimed the
reimbursement of a portion of the fees paid by the consumers for
the publication of their contracts at the Register of personal and
moveable real rights (the "RDPRM").  The class alleged that a
portion of the RDPRM fees charged to them (e.g. CAD 15 out of a
total of CAD 50) was not properly set out in the defendants'
financing contracts.  Also, not surprisingly, the class claimed
punitive damages under section 272 C.P.A., varying between CAD 15
million and CAD 40 million depending on the number of class
members and who contracted with each defendant.

The trial judge decided that the clauses dealing with the RDPRM
fees in some of the contracts at issue were effectively misleading
under the C.P.A.  That said, in view of the fact that the
consumers at issue would nevertheless have purchased or leased
their automobiles if the amounts payable to the RDPRM had been
correctly disclosed in the contract, the Superior Court did not
order the reimbursement of such fees.  The Court, however, ordered
some of the defendants at fault to pay CAD 150,000 in punitive
damages under section 272 C.P.A.

The Court of Appeal reiterated the rulings of the Supreme Court of
Canada in Time.  It noted that:

The awarding of punitive damages is exceptional and seeks to (i)
rebalance the relationship between consumers and merchants, (ii)
eliminate unfair and misleading practices and (iii) secure the
confidence of consumers in regard to the market

Once it is established that the merchant has violated the C.P.A.,
the Court must determine whether the merchant displayed ignorance,
carelessness or serious negligence or, acted intentionally,
maliciously or vexatiously

In such event, the Court must take into account the necessity of
prevention and dissuasion as well as the behavior of the merchant
both before and after the violation

The Court of Appeal concluded in the case of certain defendants
that their violation of the C.P.A. did not justify an award of
punitive damages because they modified their financing contracts
shortly after having been informed of the alleged breach of the
C.P.A.

The Court of Appeal also noted that the individual or collective
nature of the recourse does not determine whether punitive damages
should be awarded, nor does it determine their quantum.  On
appeal, the class argued that the punitive damages awarded of CAD
150,000 (of the CAD 40 million claimed in one case) represented,
on an individual basis, less than CAD 1 per member.  The Court of
Appeal ruled categorically that the amount awarded should not be
reckoned on the basis of what the award would be if the consumers
had sued the merchants individually.  The fact that the amount
attributed to each member of the class is insignificant from an
individual point of view should not be considered in awarding
punitive damages.

It is interesting to note that two of the defendants were ordered
to pay the same amount of punitive damages (CAD 150,000), although
the number of contracts at issue in the class actions varied
greatly from one defendant to the other.  Thus, the frequency or
repetition of the violation was, in this instance, not considered
a determinative factor.

The Court of Appeal also ruled on the appropriate recourse for the
consumers.  The merchants argued that the facts at issue gave rise
exclusively to an action under section 271 C.P.A. and that the
class could not invoke section 272 C.P.A.  This nuance is
significant because section 271, as opposed to section 272, does
not create an irrebuttable presumption of prejudice and does not
allow a claim for punitive damages.

The Court of Appeal ruled that:

Section 271 sanctions the failure to comply with formal
contractual requirements, whereas section 272 sanctions the
merchants' substantial breach of the C.P.A.

There is nothing in the C.P.A. that precludes a consumer from
having recourse to one section or the other if permitted by the
facts giving rise to the action

In this case, both recourses were available because the disclosure
of the fees charged was misleading (272) and the detailed
disclosure of such fees is a mandatory component of the contract
(271)

The two recourses may not be exercised in a cumulative fashion;
the plaintiff must choose

It remains to be seen how the Court of Appeal's rulings on this
last point will be interpreted.  According to this
characterization of the scope of these sections, cases that fall
under section 271 may, in general, also be brought under section
272.  If the choice of recourse is in fact that of the consumer,
section 271 essentially becomes inert.  The recourse available
under section 272 is clearly more favorable to the consumer, and
we have trouble seeing in what circumstances consumers would opt
for the recourse available under section 271.


QUIKSILVER INC: Faces "Stein" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shiva Stein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Quiksilver, Inc., Andrew P. Mooney, and Richard
Shields, Case No. 2:15-cv-02810 (C.D. Cal., April 16, 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.

Quiksilver, Inc. designs, develops, and distributes branded
apparel, footwear, accessories, and related products primarily for
men, women, and children.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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

         - and -

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


ROBERT A MALONE: Reese Gets OK to File 3rd Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
CLAUDE A REESE et al., Plaintiffs, v. ROBERT A MALONE et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. C08-1008 MJP, (W.D. Wash.) is before the
Court on Plaintiffs Claude Reese et al.'s Motion to File a Third
Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint and to Substitute Lead
Plaintiffs.

Chief District Judge Marsha J. Pechman, in an order dated April 3,
2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/5Qqjpofrom
Leagle.com, granted the Motion to Amend insofar as it retains BP
CEO John Browne as a defendant and in other respects not
challenged by Defendants except it denied the Motion insofar as it
proposes to substitute Lead Plaintiffs without an opportunity for
outside applicants to move for appointment. The Court opened a
modified Private Securities Litigation Reform Act selection
process and will consider motions from putative class members for
appointment as Lead Plaintiff in the 60 day window following the
Order.

Claude A Reese, Plaintiff, represented by Neal A Dublinsky, GLANCY
BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP & Peter A Binkow, GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG
LLP.

Institutional Investors Group, Plaintiff, represented by Neal A
Dublinsky, GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP & Peter A Binkow, GLANCY
BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP.

City of Endinburgh Council As Administering Authority of the
Lothian Pension Fund, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan
Gardner, LABATON SUCHAROW LLP, Thomas A Dubbs, LABATON SUCHAROW
LLP, Robert D Stewart, KIPLING LAW GROUP PLLC & Timothy Michael
Moran, KIPLING LAW GROUP PLLC.

Bankinter Gestion De Activos SGIIC, Consol Plaintiff, represented
by Robert D Stewart, KIPLING LAW GROUP PLLC & Timothy Michael
Moran, KIPLING LAW GROUP PLLC.

Frankfurt Trust Investment-Gesellschaft MBH, Consol Plaintiff,
represented by Robert D Stewart, KIPLING LAW GROUP PLLC & Timothy
Michael Moran, KIPLING LAW GROUP PLLC.

Frankfurter-Service Kapitalanlage-Gesellschaft MBH, Consol
Plaintiff, represented by Robert D Stewart, KIPLING LAW GROUP PLLC
& Timothy Michael Moran, KIPLING LAW GROUP PLLC.

Piperfitters Local Union #537 Trust Funds, Consol Plaintiff,
represented by James W Johnson, LABATON SUCHAROW LLP, Thomas G
Hoffman, Jr., LABATON SUCHAROW LLP, Cynthia A. Hanawalt, LABATON
SUCHAROW LLP, Robert D Stewart, KIPLING LAW GROUP PLLC & Timothy
Michael Moran, KIPLING LAW GROUP PLLC.

Robert A Malone, Defendant, represented by Andrea Wang, DAVID
GRAHAM & STUBBS LLP, Jeffrey M Feldman, SUMMIT LAW GROUP, Michael
J Gallagher, DAVID GRAHAM & STUBBS LLP & Ralph H Palumbo, SUMMIT
LAW GROUP.

John Browne, Defendant, represented by Andrea Wang, DAVID GRAHAM &
STUBBS LLP, Diane L McGimsey, SULLIVAN & CROMWELL, Elizabeth K
Ehrlich, SULLIVAN & CROMWELL, Jeffrey M Feldman, SUMMIT LAW GROUP,
John L Warden, SULLIVAN & CROMWELL, Michael J Gallagher, DAVID
GRAHAM & STUBBS LLP, Richard C Pepperman, II, SULLIVAN & CROMWELL,
Steven J Purcell, SULLIVAN & CROMWELL, Patrick B. Berarducci,
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL & Ralph H Palumbo, SUMMIT LAW GROUP.

BP PLC, Consol Defendant, represented by Andrea Wang, DAVID GRAHAM
& STUBBS LLP, Diane L McGimsey, SULLIVAN & CROMWELL, Elizabeth K
Ehrlich, SULLIVAN & CROMWELL, Jeffrey M Feldman, SUMMIT LAW GROUP,
John L Warden, SULLIVAN & CROMWELL, Michael J Gallagher, DAVID
GRAHAM & STUBBS LLP, Richard C Pepperman, II, SULLIVAN & CROMWELL,
Steven J Purcell, SULLIVAN & CROMWELL, Patrick B. Berarducci,
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL & Ralph H Palumbo, SUMMIT LAW GROUP.

BP Exploration Alaska Inc, Consol Defendant, represented by Andrea
Wang, DAVID GRAHAM & STUBBS LLP, Diane L McGimsey, SULLIVAN &
CROMWELL, Elizabeth K Ehrlich, SULLIVAN & CROMWELL, Jeffrey M
Feldman, SUMMIT LAW GROUP, John L Warden, SULLIVAN & CROMWELL,
Jonathon D Townsend, SULLIVAN & CROMWELL, Michael J Gallagher,
DAVID GRAHAM & STUBBS LLP, Richard C Pepperman, II, SULLIVAN &
CROMWELL, Steven J Purcell, SULLIVAN & CROMWELL, Patrick B.
Berarducci, SULLIVAN & CROMWELL & Ralph H Palumbo, SUMMIT LAW
GROUP.

Maureen L Johnson, Consol Defendant, represented by Andrea Wang,
DAVID GRAHAM & STUBBS LLP, Diane L McGimsey, SULLIVAN & CROMWELL,
Elizabeth K Ehrlich, SULLIVAN & CROMWELL, Jeffrey M Feldman,
SUMMIT LAW GROUP, John L Warden, SULLIVAN & CROMWELL, Michael J
Gallagher, DAVID GRAHAM & STUBBS LLP, Richard C Pepperman, II,
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL, Steven J Purcell, SULLIVAN & CROMWELL,
Patrick B. Berarducci, SULLIVAN & CROMWELL & Ralph H Palumbo,
SUMMIT LAW GROUP.

Steven Marshall, Consol Defendant, represented by Andrea Wang,
DAVID GRAHAM & STUBBS LLP, Diane L McGimsey, SULLIVAN & CROMWELL,
Elizabeth K Ehrlich, SULLIVAN & CROMWELL, Jeffrey M Feldman,
SUMMIT LAW GROUP, John L Warden, SULLIVAN & CROMWELL, Michael J
Gallagher, DAVID GRAHAM & STUBBS LLP, Richard C Pepperman, II,
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL, Steven J Purcell, SULLIVAN & CROMWELL & Ralph
H Palumbo, SUMMIT LAW GROUP.


ROBINSON DRILLING: Sued Over Failure to Provide Layoff Notice
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Miranda, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Robinson Drilling of Texas, Ltd., Case No. 1:15-cv-
00078-P (N.D. Tex., April 16, 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 at the
Defendant's Big Spring, Texas operation site.

Robinson Drilling of Texas, Ltd. operates drilling rigs and
maintains a principal place of business at 607 South Main Street,
Big Spring, Texas 79720.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SABOR LATINO: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mirna Leticia Garcia Lopez and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Sabor Latino Restaurant Corp., Nicolas H.
Ruiz, Facto Ruiz, Norma E. Marazzi, Case No. 1:15-cv-21441 (S.D.
Fla., April 16, 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 in Dade County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SELECT COMFORT: Faces Class Action Over Defective Bed Warranties
----------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the maker
of a popular mattress brand is being sued over allegations it sold
a defective bed and failed to make the necessary repairs to the
mattress.

David and Katina Spade filed the lawsuit on March 11 against
Select Comfort Corp. and Leggett & Platt (L&P), alleging the
companies failed to uphold the warranty and fix a bed they
purchased in May.

The lawsuit, originally filed in New Jersey's Ocean County
Superior Court but recently removed to federal court, said the
plaintiffs purchased a Sleep Number Bed for about $9,378.  The
warranty names both Select Comfort and L&P.

The plaintiffs said in the lawsuit that about two weeks after
receiving the bed, only one side of the mattress would go up and
down with the remote.  The lawsuit said the Spades attempted to
change the batteries in the remote, but that only worked for a
couple of weeks.  Select Comfort said the issues were an "L&P
problem," the lawsuit said.

After several unsuccessful attempts by L&P to fix the mattress,
the Spades retained an attorney and filed a letter in October
revoking the acceptance of the bed and asking Select Comfort to
accept a return of the bed and refund the purchase price. However,
the company has not responded to the Spades' request.

The plaintiffs allege there are other customers who experienced
similar issues with their mattresses purchased from Select Comfort
and are seeking class status in the suit.  The lawsuit seeks
approximately $5 million in damages, plus court costs.

The plaintiffs are represented by Paul DePetris of the Law Office
of Paul DePetris in Medford, N.J.

Select Comfort removed the case to federal court on March 11 under
the federal Class Action Fairness Act.

U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey case number
3:15-cv-01826


SHRED-IT USA: July 13 Final Hearing on "Kirchner" Suit Deal Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William B. Shubb granted preliminary approval of a
settlement in MICHAEL KIRCHNER, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SHRED-IT
USA INC., a Delaware Corporation; FIRST ADVANTAGE LNS SCREENING
SOLUTIONS, INC., and Does 1 through 10, Defendants, CIV. NO. 2:14-
1437 WBS EFB, (E.D. Cal.).

According to Judge Shubb's March 31, 2015 memorandum and order,
a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/lH0i64from
Leagle.com, plaintiff's motion for preliminary certification of a
conditional settlement class and preliminary approval of the class
action settlement is, granted.

The Court provisionally certified for the purpose of settlement
the class defined as: All individuals as to whom, from June 16,
2009, through June 16, 2014, Shred-it procured or caused to be
procured a consumer report for employment purposes who signed an
authorization form, in electronic or written form, allowing for
consumer reports to be obtained which included a liability release
or other language of any kind other than the authorization and
disclosure permitted under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15
U.S.C. 1681b(b)(2).

Plaintiff Michael Kirchner is appointed as the representative of
the settlement class.

The Dion-Kindem Law Firm and The Blanchard Law Group, APC are
appointed as class counsel for the purposes of representing the
settlement class conditionally certified.

Simpluris, Inc. is appointed as the settlement administrator.


No later than 60 days from the date the Order is signed, any
member of the settlement class who intends to object to, comment
upon, or opt out of the settlement must mail written notice of
that intent to Simpluris pursuant to the instructions in the
Notice of Settlement and Release of Claims Form.

A final Fairness Hearing will be held before the court on Monday,
July 13, 2015, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 5 to determine whether
the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.

Michael Kirchner, Plaintiff, represented by Peter R Dion-Kindem --
peter@dion-kindemlaw.com -- Peter R. Dion-kindem, P.C.

Shred-It USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Greg S. Zucker --
gzucker@westermanllp.com -- Westerman Ball Ederer Miller Zucker &
Sharstein, LLP, Phillip J. Campisi -- pcampisi@westermanllp.com --
Westerman Ball Ederer Miller Zucker and Sharstein, LLP, Robert A.
Cirino -- rcirino@westermanllp.com -- Westerman Ball Ederer Miller
Zucker and Sharstein, LLP & Shon Morgan --
shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urguhart & Sullivan,
LLP.

First Advantage Background Services Corp., Defendant, represented
by Esther Slater McDonald -- emcdonald@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth
Shaw Llp, Frederick T. Smith -- fsmith@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth
Shaw LLP & Mark Peter Grajski -- mgrajski@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth
Shaw LLP.


SOCIETE NATIONALE: Illegally Took Jews Properties, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Scalin, Josiane Piquard and Roland Cherrier, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Societe Nationale
Des Chemins De Fer Francais, Case No. 1:15-cv-03362 (N.D. Ill.,
April 16, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the heirs and
beneficiaries of the deported Jews and other undesirables during
the World War II, and seeks compensation for the personal
property, including cash, securities, silver, gold, jewelry, works
of art, musical instruments, clothing, and equipment that was
illegally, improperly, and coercively taken from the ownership or
control by the Defendant as part of the genocide against the Jews
during the War.

Societe Nationale Des Chemins De Fer Francais is the national
railway of France and the operator of all rail passenger lines
within France.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven P. Blonder, Esq.
      Jonathan Loew, Esq.
      MUCH SHELIST, P.C.
      191 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1800
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 521-2000
      E-mail: sblonder@muchshelist.com
              jloew@muchshelist.com


ST. GEORGE, UT: Dispute Over Court Enforcement Practices Continues
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mori Kessler, writing for St. George News, reports that the battle
over the legality of the city's court enforcement practices
continues as opposing court filings duel for the favor of a
federal judge.

In February, a motion to certify an ongoing lawsuit against the
City of St. George as a class action was filed by the office of
attorney Aaron Prisbrey.  Mr. Prisbrey represents clients who
claim the city's code enforcement system violates their
constitutional rights.

According to the motion, up to 16,000 St. George residents were
given notices claiming they were in violation of city code. Of
that number, 3,200 are alleged to have been subjected to illegal
searches of their property.  Mr. Prisbrey said that number is
based on information from the city as well as testimony given by
Jeff Cottam, one of the city's code enforcement officers.

The plaintiffs, brothers Jake and John Rowley and former City
Council candidate Tara Dunn, through the lawsuit, are hoping to be
seen as representative of thousands of city residents they claim
had their constitutional rights violated by the code enforcement
program since its inception in 2003.

A second amended complaint was also issued alongside the motion
for class action certification.  Mr. Prisbrey said the revised
complaint contains new information his office received concerning
accusations of corruption within the city as it relates to the
code enforcement program.

The second amended complaint and motion for class action
certification came in the wake of U.S. District Judge Dee Benson's
November 2014 ruling that dismissed five out of the seven points
of the original lawsuit arguing that the city's code enforcement
program was unconstitutional on its face.

Ruling the code enforcement program and its associated "code
court" unconstitutional on its face would mean, Mr. Prisbrey said,
"it's just so outrageous that it shocks the conscience," and is
clearly recognized as a constitutional violation.

However, some points were dismissed without prejudice, allowing
the plaintiffs to refile their case with new information related
to those points -- which they did in February in the form of the
second amended complaint.

Attorneys for the City of St. George responded to the plaintiffs'
motion to certify the lawsuit as a class action.  In a memorandum
sent to Benson on March 13, the attorneys claim the lawsuit
doesn't meet the burden of proof needed to qualify for a class
action certification. They also argue it is built on elements
already thrown out by the court.

"These claims are barred by the court's order, and plaintiffs'
proposed amendment to add these claims would be futile," the
attorneys wrote, adding the plaintiffs are either choosing to
ignore the previous court order or do not understand it.  "For the
reason set forth above, the (City of St. George) respectfully
requests this court's order denying the plaintiffs' motion to
certify proceeding as a class action."

Mr. Prisbrey said his office is currently drafting a response to
the latest filing.  Should the class action certification be
denied, he said, the lawsuit can still move forward on due process
violations and unlawful searches not dismissed by the court.

The drawback of this is that the lawsuit becomes limited to the
three plaintiffs, and would not encompass the thousands of city
residents they claim have been adversely affected by the code
enforcement system

While the court may have ruled the city's code enforcement program
isn't unconstitutional on its face, Mr. Prisbrey said, the lawsuit
is looking at how the system itself is applied.  Everyone who has
ever dealt with the code program has been sent a "courtesy notice"
from the city, no matter what the particular violation may have
been.

Mr. Prisbrey has argued the courtesy notices are vague and do not
supply meaningful and adequate information to accused code
violators, therefore creating a lack of due process.

The vagueness of the notices, as well as others issues related to
how the code enforcement program is applied, create a "custom and
practice" that violates the Fourth and 14th Amendments,
Mr. Prisbrey said.

The lawsuit against the city was originally filed in 2013 and
alleges the city's code enforcement program has been selectively
enforced and possibly used as a method of retaliation.

The Rowley brothers and Dunn claim they were unfairly targeted by
the city for alleged code violations on one hand while, on the
other, city officials bent the rules in order to benefit others or
themselves.

In the second amended complaint, City Council members Gil Almquist
and Jimmie Hughes, as well as former St. George Mayor Daniel
McArthur are alleged to have benefited form selective enforcement
of city code.

Messrs. McArthur and Almquist, along with City Manager Gary
Esplin, Mayor Jon Pike, and city code enforcement officers Malcolm
Turner and Jeff Cottam are listed as defendants in the lawsuit.

As the litigation is ongoing, city officials said they were not at
liberty to comment on elements related to the case.

"Every city in the nation has code enforcement and the citizens
expect it," Mr. Almquist said and declined to comment further.

Currently the city's code enforcement team is comprised of two
enforcement officers who, according the city's website, play "an
important role in providing a safe and healthy environment for our
community."

For the time being, the city isn't processing contested code
violations in its administrative code court, City Attorney Shawn
Guzman said.  The court itself is currently without an
administrative law judge.

"We aren't processing any of these cases that would go to
hearing," Mr. Guzman said.  "We are working with people as we
normally do for compliance."

Brian Filter, who served as the code court's judge on a part-time
basis, resigned last year and moved out of the state.  Formerly a
deputy county attorney with the Washington County Attorney's
Office, Filter took a similar position in Nevada.  Brad Young,
Filter's interim replacement to the code court, resigned shortly
after his appointment by the City Council.


STANDARD DRYWALL: Removed "Perez" Suit from Alameda to N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action styled Servando Perez, as an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Standard Drywall, Inc.
and Does 1, Case No. RG147611429, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-01597-DMR sto the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts causes of action under the California Labor
Code and the California Industrial Welfare Commission's Wage
Orders. The Plaintiff contends that Standard Drywall violated the
state law by failing to pay all wages in a timely manner.
The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brittany Maraya Hernandez, Esq.
      Larry W. Lee, Esq.
      Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq.
      DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
      550 S. Hope Street, Suite 2655
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 488-6555
      Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
      E-mail: bhernandez@diversitylaw.com
              lwlee@diversitylaw.com
              nrosenthal@diversitylaw.com

         - and -

      William Lucas Marder, Esq.
      POLARIS LAW GROUP, LLP
      501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
      Hollister, CA 95023
      Telephone: (831) 531-4214
      Facsimile: (831) 634-0333
      E-mail: bill@polarislawgroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Chad Tighe Wishchuk, Esq.
      Laura Beatty MacNeel, Esq.
      FINCH, THORNTON & BAIRD, LLP
      4747 Executive Drive, Suite 700
      San Diego, CA 92121-3107
      Telephone: (858) 737-3100
      Facsimile: (858) 737-3101
      E-mail: cwishchuk@ftblaw.com
              lmacneel@ftblaw.com


STANDARD DRYWALL: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, "Perez" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Servando Perez, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Standard Drywall, Inc. and Does 1, Case No.
4:15-cv-01597-DMR (N.D. Cal., April 8, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay all wages in a timely manner and
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements identifying
all required information, including without limitation, the
inclusive dates of the pay period and the name and address of the
employer.

Standard Drywall, Inc. is a California corporation, which is
engaged in drywall contracting services for residential and
commercial properties.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brittany Maraya Hernandez, Esq.
      Larry W. Lee, Esq.
      Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq.
      DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
      550 S. Hope Street, Suite 2655
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 488-6555
      Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
      E-mail: bhernandez@diversitylaw.com
              lwlee@diversitylaw.com
              nrosenthal@diversitylaw.com

         - and -

      William Lucas Marder, Esq.
      POLARIS LAW GROUP, LLP
      501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
      Hollister, CA 95023
      Telephone: (831) 531-4214
      Facsimile: (831) 634-0333
      E-mail: bill@polarislawgroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Chad Tighe Wishchuk, Esq.
      Laura Beatty MacNeel, Esq.
      FINCH, THORNTON & BAIRD, LLP
      4747 Executive Drive, Suite 700
      San Diego, CA 92121-3107
      Telephone: (858) 737-3100
      Facsimile: (858) 737-3101
      E-mail: cwishchuk@ftblaw.com
              lmacneel@ftblaw.com


SULLIVAN UNIVERSITY: Order Denying Class Cert. in McCann Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James H. Lambert of the Court of Appeals of Kentucky
affirmed the circuit court's order in the appealed case entitled
MARY E. MCCANN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Appellants, v. THE SULLIVAN UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, INC.,
D.B.A SULLIVAN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF PHARMACY, SULLIVAN COLLEGE OF
TECHNOLOGY AND DESIGN, SULLIVAN UNIVERSITY GLOBAL E-LEARNING, DALE
CARNEGIA [SIC] KENTUCKIANA, INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR DISPUTE
RESOLUTION LEADERSHIP, SULLIVAN UNIVERSITY, LOUISVILLE TECHNICAL
INSTITUTE, THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR HOSPITALITY STUDIES, INSTITUTE
FOR PARALEGAL STUDIES, SPENCERIAN COLLEGE, AND INTERIOR DESIGN
INSTITUTE, Appellees, NO. 2014-CA-000392-ME (Ky. Ct. App.)

The Sullivan University System, Inc. employs Admissions Officers
at its various schools, including Sullivan University, Sullivan
College of Technology and Design, and Spencerian College, to
recruit and enroll prospective students. Mary McCann was the
Director of Admissions at Sullivan's campus at Fort Knox, Kentucky
and was terminated by Sullivan on 2008.

On February 18, 2010, McCann filed a class and collective action
complaint in Jefferson Circuit Court against Sullivan on behalf of
herself and all other current or former Admissions Officers
employed by Sullivan since February 2005. McCann alleged that
Sullivan violated Kentucky's wage and hour laws and the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq. (FLSA) by
misclassifying Admissions Officers as exempt employees and failing
to pay Admissions Officers overtime compensation. Sullivan removed
the action to federal court on March 12, 2010.

On March 1, 2010, Hilda Solis, then Secretary of the United States
Department of Labor (DOL), filed a complaint against Sullivan in
federal court seeking injunctive relief and back wages under the
FLSA on behalf of Admissions Officers, including McCann, and High
School Representatives. Sullivan settled the DOL's FLSA claims
against it pursuant to the Agreed Order and Permanent Injunction
entered on February 28, 2012. As part of the settlement, although
Sullivan disputed the DOL's allegations, Sullivan agreed to treat
its Admissions Officers as non-exempt employees and to pay
Admissions Officers overtime wages in accordance with the FLSA.

On March 1, 2010, Hilda Solis, then Secretary of the United States
Department of Labor (DOL), filed a complaint against Sullivan in
federal court seeking injunctive relief and back wages under the
FLSA on behalf of Admissions Officers, including McCann, and High
School Representatives. Sullivan settled the DOL's FLSA claims
against it pursuant to the Agreed Order and Permanent Injunction
entered on February 28, 2012. As part of the settlement, although
Sullivan disputed the DOL's allegations, Sullivan agreed to treat
its Admissions Officers as non-exempt employees and to pay
Admissions Officers overtime wages in accordance with the FLSA.

In the meantime, McCann voluntarily moved to dismiss her FLSA
claims against Sullivan. McCann's FLSA claims were dismissed by
agreed order on October 15, 2010. McCann's remaining Kentucky
state law claims were remanded to the Jefferson Circuit Court on
October 3, 2011. McCann did nothing further to prosecute those
claims or certify a class until she filed her motion for class
certification on October 24, 2013. On February 27, 2014, the
circuit court denied McCann's motion. McCann appealed.

Sullivan also paid back wages to specified Admissions Officers for
the time period August 1, 2007, through November 13, 2011.
In the meantime, McCann voluntarily moved to dismiss her FLSA
claims against Sullivan. McCann's FLSA claims were dismissed by
agreed order on October 15, 2010. McCann's remaining Kentucky
state law claims were remanded to the Jefferson Circuit Court on
October 3, 2011. McCann did nothing further to prosecute those
claims or certify a class until she filed her motion for class
certification on October 24, 2013.

On February 27, 2014, the circuit court denied McCann's motion.

Judge Lambert affirmed the Jefferson Circuit Court's February 27,
2014, order denying McCann's motion for class certification.

A copy of Judge Lambert's opinion dated February 27, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/QSP8Ybfrom Leagle.com

For Appellants:

Theodore W. Walton, Esq.
Garry R. Adams, Esq.
CLAY DANIEL WALTON ADAMS, PLC
462 S. 4th St.
Meidinger Tower, Suite 101
Louisville, KY 40202
Telephone: 502-561-2005
Facsimile: 502-415-7505

Grover C. Potts, Jr. -- gpotts@wyattfirm.com -- Michelle D. Wyrick
-- michellewyrick@wyattfirm.com -- at Wyatt Tarrant & Combs LLP;
Emily C. Lamb, Louisville, Kentucky, Brief for appellee

The Court of Appeals of Kentucky panel consists of Judges James H.
Lambert, Denise Clayton and Kelly Thompson.


SUNTECH POWER: Court Stays Shi's Deadline to Respond to Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard Seeborg signed on April 3, 2015, a
stipulation in the class action captioned SCOTT BRUCE,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. SUNTECH POWER HOLDINGS CO., LTD. and ZHENGRONG SHI,
Defendants, CASE NO. 3:12-CV-04061-RS, (N.D. Cal.).

Under the court-approved stipulation, a copy of which is available
at http://is.gd/E1m9GQfrom Leagle.com, the Parties agreed, among
other things, that:

1. Dr. Shi's time to answer the consolidated second amended class
action complaint (SAC) is stayed pending the Court's resolution of
settlement approval proceedings. In the event the settlement
approval proceedings do not result in the complete resolution of
this action, Dr. Shi will be required to answer the SAC on a date
ordered by the Court.

2. The Initial Case Management Conference set for April 9, 2015,
is adjourned pending the outcome of settlement approval
proceedings, and the Parties will not be required to file a Joint
Case Management Statement. In the event the settlement approval
proceedings do not result in the complete resolution of this
action, the Initial Case Management Conference will occur on a
date ordered by the Court. The Parties must file a Joint Case
Management Statement at least one week prior to the Initial Case
Management Conference.

3. There have been three previous modifications to the schedule
that the Court set in its August 12, 2014 Order for Dr. Shi to
answer the SAC.

4. The Initial Case Management Conference and related deadlines
have been continued seven times while motions to dismiss were
pending and to allow the Parties to engage in private mediation.

5. The Parties do not seek to stay or adjourn the dates set forth
for the purpose of delay, and a stay and adjournment will not have
an effect on any pre-trial or trial dates because the Court has
yet to schedule these dates.

Steven J. Toll -- stoll@cohenmilstein.com -- Daniel S. Sommers --
dsommers@cohenmilstein.com -- (admitted pro hac vice), Elizabeth
Aniskevich -- eaniskevich@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN
SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Washington, D.C.

Patrick V. Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- (admitted pro hac
vice), Joshua B. Silverman -- jbsilverman@pomlaw.com -- (admitted
pro hac vice), Louis C. Ludwig -- lcludwig@pomlaw.com -- (admitted
pro hac vice), POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP,
Chicago, Illinois, Co-Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs James
Bachesta, Thanh Le and Chen Weifeng.

Michael M. Goldberg -- mgoldberg@glancylaw.com -- Lionel Z. Glancy
-- info@glancylaw.com -- GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP, Los
Angeles, California, Liaison Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs James
Bachesta, Thanh Le and Chen Weifeng.

Jerome S. Fortinsky -- jfortinsky@shearman.com -- (admitted pro
hac vice), H. Miriam Farber -- mfarber@shearman.com -- (admitted
pro hac vice), SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP, New York, NY.
Stephen D. Hibbard -- shibbard@shearman.com -- SHEARMAN & STERLING
LLP, San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Defendant Zhengrong Shi.


SUNWATER: Flood Victims Mull Callide Dam Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that a law firm was urging
flood victims to attend a public meeting over a possible class
action against the operator of Queensland's Callide Dam.

About 400 properties flooded in Jambin and Biloela in February
when heavy rain from Cyclone Marcia prompted the dam's automatic
gates to open.

Maddens Lawyers was set to host the March 24 meeting, and
principal Brendan Pendergast -- bfp@maddenslawyers.com.au --
believes there are strong grounds for flood victims to sue dam
operator Sunwater for damages.

"If the dam and the flood levels had been properly managed, the
inundation that occurred could have been avoided," Mr. Pendergast
has told the ABC.

"The situation is aggravated by the fact that in 2013, a similar
turn of events occurred, with a similar flooding event to follow."

Another legal firm, Maurice Blackburn, is conducting its own
review of how Callide Dam was managed, on behalf of flood victims.
It will be carried out alongside an official investigation
promised by the state government.

That review, headed by Emergency Management Inspector-General
Iain MacKenzie, will examine the impact of flooding, dam
operations, the region's disaster management arrangements and
performance of telecommunications infrastructure during the
cyclone.

Mr MacKenzie is due to hand his report to Emergency Services
Minister Jo-Ann Miller on May 22.


TD AMERITRADE: Motions to Consolidate 4 Related Cases Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken of the District of Nebraska
ruled on the parties' motions in the consolidated case JAY ZOLA
and JEREMIAH JOSEPH LOWNEY, Plaintiffs, v. TD AMERITRADE, INC.,
and TD AMERITRADE CLEARING, INC., Defendants. TYLER VERDIECK,
Plaintiff, v. TD AMERITRADE, INC., Defendant. BRUCE LERNER,
Plaintiff, v. TD AMERITRADE, INC., Defendant. MICHAEL SARBACKER,
Plaintiff, v. TD AMERITRADE HOLDING CORPORATION, TD AMERITRADE,
INC., TD AMERITRADE CLEARING, INC., FREDRIC J. TOMCZYK, and PAUL
JIGANTI, Defendants. GERALD J. KLEIN, Plaintiff, v. TD AMERITRADE
HOLDING CORPORATION, TD AMERITRADE, INC., and FREDRIC J. TOMCZYK,
Defendants, NOS. 8:14CV289, 8:14CV325, 8:14CV341, 8:14CV288 (D.
Neb.)

The plaintiffs consist of the defendants' customers challenging
the defendants' practice of routing virtually all customers'
orders to certain stock exchanges for trading based on a single
factor and that is maximizing the payment-for-order-flow income
the defendants receive, rather than a wide variety of factors. The
plaintiffs filed five separate actions, between August 21, 2014,
and October 31, 2015, alleged related, but not identical claims,
with some overlap, including breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, misrepresentation,
violations of Nebraska's Consumer Protection Act, Neb. Rev. Stat.
Section 59-1601, et seq., and, finally, claims brought under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
which are subject to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
of 1995 (PSLRA). The parties agree the claims in each of the
actions implicate the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act
of 1998 (SLUSA).

The Zola plaintiffs seek an order coordinating the scheduling for
these five related cases pending resolution of any motions to
dismiss.  The Zola plaintiffs argue that due to the unique
pleading issues created by SLUSA, the cases should only be
consolidated after the court determines which claims may proceed
subsequent to the defendants' forthcoming motions to dismiss.

The Verdieck and Lerner plaintiffs contend Rule 42 consolidation
is appropriate, however these plaintiffs suggest the scope of
consolidation should be limited at this time to allow each of the
actions to maintain their separate identities. The joint Verdieck
and Lerner plaintiffs argue each group of plaintiffs approached
the lawsuits differently, which will likely result in very
different outcomes on motions to dismiss due to SLUSA. They
suggest deferring the appointment of lead plaintiff and class
counsel until the motions to dismiss are resolved.

The Sarbacker plaintiff argues the first four related cases
(excluding Klein) should be consolidated for all purposes because
they present substantially similar factual and legal issues
involving defendants' misconduct, and therefore consolidation
would reduce duplication in obtaining evidence, limit the need for
multiple proceedings, minimize the time and expense for all
parties involved, and promote efficiency in the court.
Additionally, the Sarbacker plaintiff seeks he be appointed lead
plaintiff and his counsel be appointed lead counsel.

The Klein plaintiff opposes consolidation with the four other
actions, but does not oppose coordination for certain common
discovery. Specifically, the Klein plaintiff contends he shares
only one overlapping claim, that is breach of fiduciary duty with
the Verdieck and Lerner plaintiffs.

The TD Ameritrade defendants seek to have the five cases
consolidated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42 and, after lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel are determined, the plaintiffs file a
consolidated and amended complaint. The defendants argue each of
the cases are based on substantially the same core allegations
that TD Ameritrade failed to meet its best execution obligations
in routing customer orders to market centers.

Magistrate Judge Thalken made the following order:

1. The Zola plaintiffs' Motion to Coordinate with Verdiak, Lerner,
and Sarbacker or, in the alternative, to Appoint Zola's Counsel as
Lead Counsel in a Consolidated Action is denied.

2. The Verdieck and Lerner plaintiffs' Joint Motion to appoint
Finkelstein & Krinsk, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, and Robbins Arroyo
as Interim Class Counsel is denied.

3. The Sarbacker plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate the Four
Related Actions against TD Ameritrade is denied.

4. The Sarbacker plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Plaintiff Michael
Sarbacker as Lead Plaintiff and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
as Lead Counsel is denied.

5. The defendants' Motion to Consolidate is denied.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Thalken's order dated February 26,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/T4H0yk from Leagle.com

Tyler Verdieck, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel J. Epstein --
depstein@hvwlawyers.com -- David S. Houghton --
dhoughton@hvwlawyers.com -- at HOUGHTON, VANDENACK LAW FIRM;
Jeffery R. Krinsk -- Mark L. Knutson -- Trenton R. Kashima --
William R. Restis -- at FINKELSTEIN, KRINSK LAW FIRM

TD Ameritrade, Inc., Defendant, represented by Thomas H. Dahlk --
Tom.Dahlk@KutakRock.com -- at KUTAK, ROCK LAW FIRM

TD Ameritrade, Inc., a New York Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Victoria H. Buter -- vicki.buter@kutakrock.com --
at KUTAK, ROCK LAW FIRM

Gerald J. Klein, Interested Party, represented by Gregory C.
Scaglione -- greg.scaglione@koleyjessen.com -- Patrice D. Ott --
patrice.ott@koleyjessen.com -- at KOLEY, JESSEN LAW FIRM

Kwok L. Shum, Roderick Ford, PSLRA Class, Interested Parties,
represented by Gregory C. Scaglione --
greg.scaglione@koleyjessen.com -- at KOLEY, JESSEN LAW FIRM


TD BANK: Faces "Koshgarian" Over Excessive Overdraft Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
John Koshgarian, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TD Bank, N.A. and The Toronto-Dominion
Bank, Case No. 6:15-cv-01534-BHH (D.S.C., April 8, 2015), arises
out of the Defendants' practice of engaging in unfair and
deceptive trade practices in connection with Defendants'
assessment and collection of improper and excessive overdraft
fees.

TD bank, N.A. owns and operates a national bank with its
designated main office in the State of New Jersey.

The Toronto-Dominion Bank is a Canadian-chartered bank.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James P. Batson, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JAMES P. BATSON
      8 Bedford Rd.
      Katonah, NY 10536
      Telephone: (914) 523-2278
      E-mail: jamespbatsonlegal@gmail.com

         - and -

      Steve Owings, Esq.
      OWINGS LAW FIRM
      1400 Brookwood Drive
      Little Rock, Arkansas 72202
      Telephone: (501) 661-9999
      E-mail: sowings@owingslawfirm.com

          - and -

      Corey D. Sullivan, Esq.
      SULLIVAN LAW, LLC
      1814 E. Eagle Bay Dr.
      Bloomington, IN 47401
      Telephone: (314) 971-9353
      E-mail: sullivcd@gmail.com


TESCO: Shareholders Sue for Allegedly Overstating Profits
---------------------------------------------------------
John Harrington, writing Proactive Investor UK, reports that a
Tesco shareholders group is planning to sue the company over its
embarrassing admission on 22 September 2014 that it had previously
overstated profits.

Tesco Shareholder Claims (TSC) claims that the overstatement
caused a permanent destruction of value to shareholders.
Tesco shares have risen 20% since the overstatement of profits was
announced.

TSC is seeking to bring a claim under section 90A of the Financial
Services and Markets Act 2000, and will do so on behalf of any
institutional shareholder that bought Tesco shares prior to the
announcement on September 22 or one month after.

"Tesco announced that it had overstated its expected profit for
the half year by GBP263 million, prompting a sharp decline in the
value of the company and driving the share price down to a 14 year
low of 164.8p," a statement from TSC said.

TSC reckons that the value destruction caused by the overstatement
is in the region of 50p to 70p a share, and given that Tesco has
around 8bn shares in issue, that implies a colossal GBP4 billion
to GBP5.6 billion hit to Tesco's market value.


TRUJILLO & TRUJILLO: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Hermilo Maldonado, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown v. Trujillo & Trujillo Corp.,
d/b/a Tacos & Burritos Rancho Grande, and Jorge A. Trujillo, Case
No. 1:15-cv-03395 (N.D. Ill., April 16, 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 3444 Ridge
Road, Lansing, 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


UNITED STATES: Air Marshals File Overtime Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Harding and Julie Zeveloff, writing for Law360, report
that a federal air marshal on March 23 accused the government of
failing to pay him and thousands of other air marshals for
overtime and other work in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act in a putative class action filed in federal claims court.

Senior Air Marshal J. Casaretti said the government relies on
arguments already struck down by a previous compensation case in
the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to avoid paying him and others
overtime.  In 2008, a federal judge ruled the government must pay
air marshals time-and-a-half for all hours worked in excess of 43
hours per week, offset accordingly by availability pay.

Mr. Casaretti said the government continues to force air marshals
to work beyond 43 hours without paying overtime.

"Despite the holding of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims  . .  .
defendant continued to knowingly and intentionally schedule and
require plaintiffs to work substantially in excess of 43 hours per
week, and in many instances, substantially in excess of 50 hours,
during most weeks of their employment," the complaint said.

According to the complaint, the government has said air marshals
are not entitled to overtime because Transportation Security
Administration employees are compensated through a personnel
management system, and availability pay for air marshals is
compensation for overtime.  Availability pay is a 25 percent
annual salary enhancement for each air marshal who averages two
additional hours of work on regular work days.

In the 2008 case, Judge Bohdan A. Futey rejected the notion that
availability pay constituted FLSA overtime compensation, and also
determined that the air marshals were entitled to protection under
the FLSA.

"Defendant's violations of FLSA were willful in that defendant
knew or in reckless disregard failed to identify whether its
failure to pay overtime compensation to plaintiffs was prohibited
by the FLSA," the complaint filed on March 23 said.

Mr. Casaretti, the plaintiff, also accuses the government of
failing to properly calculate the base pay rate for overtime, and
for not paying air marshals for on-duty work during overnight
missions and international trips.  Air marshals travel on
commercial flights to "detect and neutralize" security threats,
the complaint said.

"Defendant has failed to pay plaintiffs on [overnight mission] or
[international trips] appropriate sleep time pay," the complaint
said.

With the exception of Mr. Casaretti, the complaint is being filed
anonymously, in part because of concerns that public disclosure of
the names of the air marshals could compromise national security
or put them in danger.  The complaint also said there are concerns
of retaliation.

"In addition, plaintiffs file this complaint anonymously because
numerous federal air marshals have been threatened with
retaliation if they prosecute an action seeking compensation to
which they are lawfully entitled," the complaint said.

Mr. Casaretti is represented by Nicholas Wieczorek --
nwieczorek@mpplaw.com -- of Morris Polich & Purdy LLP.

The case is J.Casaretti and Federal Air Marshals 6500 to 10000 v.
United States of America, case number 1:15-cv-00294, in the U.S.
Court of Federal Claims.


US BANK: July 24 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott announced the pendency of class action and proposed
settlement in the following case:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


OKLAHOMA POLICE PENSION AND         CASE NO. 1:11-CV-08066-JGK
RETIREMENT SYSTEM,

Plaintiff,

- against -

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (as
Trustee Under Various Pooling and Servicing
Agreements),

Defendant.


SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND OF PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT AND FINAL APPROVAL HEARING

TO:

ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED, AT
ANY TIME, NOTES FROM ANY OF THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-
BACKED SECURITIES TRUSTS: BEAR STEARNS ARM TRUST SERIES 2005-2,
BEAR STEARNS ARM TRUST SERIES 2005-5, BEAR STEARNS ARM TRUST
SERIES 2005-7, BEAR STEARNS ARM TRUST SERIES 2005-9, AND BEAR
STEARNS ARM TRUST SERIES 2006-1 (COLLECTIVELY, THE "COVERED
TRUSTS").

Please Note: A complete list of the Notes issued by the Covered
Trusts and corresponding CUSIPS can be found on the website for
the settlement, www.BearStearnsTIASettlement.com

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY; YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY
THE SETTLEMENT OF A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York that a hearing will be
held on July 24, 2015 at 2:30 p.m. before the Honorable John G.
Koeltl at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse,
500 Pearl Street, New York, New York, 10007-1312, for the purpose
of determining: (i) whether the proposed settlement in the above-
captioned litigation for the sum of $6,000,000 in cash (the
"Settlement") should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable
and adequate; (ii) whether the proposed settlement class (the
"Settlement Class") should be certified for purposes of
effectuating the Settlement; (iii) whether that portion of the
litigation asserting claims on behalf of Settlement Class members
with regard to Notes issued by the Covered Trusts should be
dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the terms and conditions set
forth in the Parties' Stipulation of Settlement dated as of
December 17, 2014 ("Stipulation"); (iv) whether the proposed plan
for allocating the Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and
adequate and should be approved; and (v) whether the application
of Plaintiff's Counsel for an award of Litigation Expenses and
attorneys' fees should be approved. The Court may reschedule the
hearing without further written notice to the Settlement Class.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Notes from any of the
Covered Trusts at any time, your rights may be affected by the
Settlement of this litigation, and you may be entitled to share in
the Settlement proceeds.  If you have not received a detailed
Notice of Pendency of Class Action and of Proposed Settlement and
Final Approval Hearing ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim
and Release Form ("Proof of Claim Form"), you may and should
obtain copies of these documents by contacting the claims
administrator at Bear Stearns TIA Settlement, c/o KCC Class Action
Services, P.O. Box 43034, Providence, RI 02940-3034; 877-564-2244;
info@bearstearnstiasettlement.co  or by going to the website for
the Settlement, www.BearStearnsTIASettlement.com

Inquiries other than requests for the Notice and Proof of Claim
Form may be made to:

          Scott+Scott,
          Attorneys At Law, LLP
          Deborah Clark-Weintraub
          Max Schwartz
          The Chrysler Building
          405 Lexington Avenue
          40th Floor
          New York, NY 10174
          Web site: http://www.scott-scott.com

If you are a member of the Settlement Class as defined in the
Notice, in order to be eligible to receive a payment from the
Settlement, you must submit a valid Proof of Claim Form by
August 24, 2015 establishing that you are entitled to such a
payment.  If submitting the Proof of Claim Form by first-class
mail, it shall be deemed submitted on the date of the postmark.
Otherwise, it shall be deemed submitted when received.

If you otherwise would be a member of the Settlement Class but
desire to be excluded from it, you must submit a request for
exclusion so that it is received no later than June 25, 2015 in
the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice referred to
above.  Exclusion is the only option that potentially allows you
to bring, maintain, participate in, or receive a monetary or other
recovery in connection with, another lawsuit against Defendant or
any of the other Released Parties with respect to the Released
Claims and the Covered Trusts.  All Settlement Class members that
do not timely and validly request exclusion from the Settlement
Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the litigation
pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Stipulation.

Any objection to any aspect of the Settlement, the proposed plan
for allocating the Settlement proceeds, or any request for an
award of Litigation Expenses or attorneys' fees must be filed or
delivered, such that it is received no later than June 25, 2015,
in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice referred
to above.

The foregoing is a summary notice only. You should obtain a copy
of the full Notice referenced above for more complete information
about the Settlement and about your rights and options in
connection therewith.

Do not contact the Court regarding this notice or the Settlement.
If you have questions, you may contact counsel for Plaintiff at
the addresses listed above or go to the following website:
http://www.BearStearnsTIASettlement.com

DATED:
February 18, 2015
BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES

New York, New York
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy Freeman, Lakesia Jackson, Jessie Miles, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Volunteers Of
America, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-00194-JED-TLW (N.D. Okla., April
16, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, unpaid mileage
reimbursement, prejudgment interest, liquidated damages, attorney
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Volunteers Of America, Inc. is a foreign corporation that
maintained offices within Tulsa County, Oklahoma that operates
various facilities located throughout the United States

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles Christopher Vaught, Esq.
      ARMSTRONG & VAUGHT PLC
      2727 E 21ST ST STE 505
      TULSA, OK 74114
      Telephone: (918) 582-2500
      Facsimile: (918) 583-1755
      E-mail: cvaught@a-vlaw.com


WAL-MART STORES: Removes "Haiderzad" Suit to S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Haiderzad, et al. v. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 37-2015-00004039-CU-BT-CTL, was
removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San
Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California (San Diego).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:15-cv-00746-WQH-KSC to the proceeding.

Mr. Haiderzad alleges that he purchased "Spring Valley Oderless
Garlic Softgels" based on statements made by the Defendant on the
label for the product.  He also alleges that Walmart misrepresents
facts regarding the contents of the "Spring Valley" products, and
fails to identify certain contents of these products, which has a
tendency to mislead consumers.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Craig McKenzie Nicholas, Esq.
          Alex M. Tomasevic, Esq.
          Mei-Ying Imanaka, Esq.
          NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
          225 Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 325-0492
          Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
          E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
                  atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org
                  Mei-Ying@nicholaslaw.org

The Defendants are represented by:

          David C. Allen, Esq.
          Kevin D. Rising, Esq.
          David W. Nelson, Esq.
          BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 300
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 284-3880
          Facsimile: (310) 284-3894
          E-mail: david.allen@btlaw.com
                  kevin.rising@btlaw.com
                  david.nelson@btlaw.com


WAL-MART STORES: Appeals $187-Mil. Pa. Wage Class Action Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Stuhldreher, writing for Lancaster Online, reports that if you
worked at a Pennsylvania Wal-Mart in the late 1990s or early
2000s, the company owes you money, according to state courts.
But don't expect a check just yet.

In December, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed a jury
verdict and lower court rulings that Wal-Mart owed $151 million in
unpaid wages and damages to employees who worked at the retail
giant between 1998 and early 2006.

Including attorneys' fees and expenses, the total reached $187
million.

Individual workers could receive anywhere from about $500 to
$5,000 or more, "depending on tenure" at the company, said
Michael Donovan of Donovan Axler, lead attorney for the
plaintiffs.

Wal-Mart isn't conceding, however.  Earlier in March, it appealed
to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the decision.

The class-action lawsuit encompassed about 187,000 hourly
employees who worked at Wal-Marts and Sam's Clubs in Pennsylvania.
It would include all such Lancaster County Wal-Mart employees
during the period in question, Donovan said.

Wal-Mart has stores on Fruitville Pike and Route 30 outside
Lancaster and a store outside Ephrata.  They opened between 1996
and 2003.  Wal-Mart is the county's 23rd largest employer,
according to state data.

Wal-Mart argues that the state courts subjected it to a "trial by
formula," improperly taking the complaints of a small number of
plaintiffs as being representative of all 187,000 employees.

"We . . . continue to believe that these claims should not be
bundled together into a class action lawsuit," Wal-Mart
spokeswoman Elizabeth Harden said in a statement.

The U.S. Supreme Court disallowed "trial by formula" in a 2011
case that also involved Wal-Mart: Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, however, wrote that "contrary to
Wal-Mart's assertions, the now-disapproved 'trial by formula'
process at issue in Dukes was not at work here."

In Pennsylvania, the plaintiffs' case was substantiated by
business records showing "an extensive pattern of discrepancies"
between breaks earned and breaks taken, the opinion said.
Donovan called Wal-Mart's latest appeal "frivolous" and "without
merit."

"It's the epitome of corporate greed," he said.

Wal-Mart has "strong policies" to ensure workers "receive their
appropriate pay and break periods," and it has enhanced them over
the past decade, Harden said.


WESTERN STONE: July 8 Final Hearing on Litt Suit Settlement Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granted preliminary approval of
a class action settlement in SARAH LITT, as an individual, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WESTERN
STONE & METAL CORP., a Colorado Corporation, dba Shane Co.; and
DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, CASE NO. 3:14-CV-02804-PJH, (N.D.
Cal.).

The Court conditionally certified the settlement classes defined
as:

All non-exempt employees of Western Stone & Metal Corp., who
worked in California between June 17, 2010, and April 1, 2015
(the "California Settlement Class").

All non-exempt employees of Western Stone & Metal Corp., who
worked outside of California between June 17, 2011, and November
8, 2014 (the "Non-California Settlement Class").

The Court appointed Sarah Litt, as the Class Representative, and
Hernaldo J. Baltodano of Baltodano & Baltodano LLP and Paul K.
Haines and Fletcher W. Schmidt of Boren Osher & Luftman LLP as
Class Counsel.

The Court also appointed CPT Group, Inc. as Claims Administrator.

The Court will conduct a Final Approval Hearing on July 8, 2015,
at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, to
determine the overall fairness of the settlement and to fix the
amount of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs to Class Counsel
and enhancement payment to the Class Representative.

Class Counsel must file their motion for approval of reasonable
attorneys' fees, costs, and the Class Representative payment
sought in the Settlement on or before June 3, 2015. Class Counsel
must file their motion for final approval of the settlement on or
before June 24, 2015.

Sarah Litt, Plaintiff, represented by Erica Flores Baltodano --
efb@bbemploymentlaw.com -- Fletcher W.H. Schmidt --
fschmidt@bollaw.com -- Boren, Osher and Luftman, LLP, Hernaldo
Jose Baltodano -- hjb@bbemploymentlaw.com --- Baltodano &
Baltodano LLP & Paul Haines -- phaines@bollaw.com -- Boren Osher &
Luftman.

Western Stone & Metal Corp., Defendant, represented by Benjamin
Michael Gipson -- ben.gipson@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP,
Caroline Donelan -- caroline.donelan@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER
LLP, Christopher Michael Foster -- christopher.foster@dlapiper.com
-- DLA Piper LLP US, Rachel Beth Cowen --
rachel.cowen@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP & Shannon M. Henderson
-- shenderson@halefriesen.com -- Hale Hackstaff Friesen LLP.

A copy of the Court's April 2, 2015 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/C3iJcDfrom Leagle.com.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Removes "Burdt" Class Suit to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled William Burdt v. Whirlpool
Corporation, Case No. RG15760840, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(Oakland).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-
01563-JSW to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from personal injury-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan E. Gertler, Esq.
          Samuel Price Cheadle, Esq.
          Dan Leo Gildor, Esq.
          CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP
          42 Miller Avenue
          Mill Valley, CA 94941
          Telephone: (415) 381-5599
          Facsimile: (415) 381-5572
          E-mail: jon@chavezgertler.com
                  sam@chavezgertler.com
                  dgildor@chavezgertler.com

               - and -

          Matthew Robert Harrison, Esq.
          Val Dawson Hornstein, Esq.
          HORNSTEIN LAW OFFICES
          235 Pine St., #1300
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 454-1490
          Facsimile: (415) 788-6929
          E-mail: mharrison@hornsteinlaw.com
                  Val@HornsteinLaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Clement L. Glynn, Esq.
          Jonathan A. Eldredge, Esq.
          GLYNN & FINLEY LLP
          One Walnut Creek Center
          100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 500
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 210-2800
          Facsimile: (925) 945-1975
          E-mail: cglynn@glynnfinley.com
                  jeldredge@glynnfinley.com


WHOLE FOODS: "Frydman" Suit Consolidated in Greek Yogurt MDL
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Frydman v. Whole Foods Market
Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 9:15-cv-80007, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
(Austin).  The Texas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-
cv-00264 to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known as
In re: Whole Foods Market, Inc., Greek Yogurt Marketing and Sales
Practices Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-mc-02588-SS.

The actions in the litigation share factual issues arising from
highly similar allegations that Whole Foods 365 Greek Yogurt
contains much more sugar than stated on its label, that the
Defendants' marketing of the Yogurt was false and deceptive, and
that the Defendants were negligent in testing the Yogurt, and in
ensuring that the label was accurate.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Barry L. Davis, Esq.
          THORNTON DAVIS & FEIN
          Brickell Bay View Centre
          80 SW 8th Street, Suite 2900
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 446-2646
          Facsimile: (305) 441-2374
          E-mail: davis@tdflaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Alexandre S. Drummond, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          1075 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 2500
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 881-5467
          Facsimile: (404) 892-7056
          E-mail: adrummond@seyfarth.com


* Companies Use 1925 Arbitration Law to Block Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Hendricks, writing for San Antonio Express-News, reports
that a 90-year-old law that allows business disputes to be settled
by arbitration increasingly is being used by companies to block
consumers and employees from the option of using the courts to
settle claims, including class-action lawsuits.

The 1925 Federal Arbitration Law was passed by Congress back then
to allow companies writing contracts with other companies to
include clauses that would require settling any disputes privately
with arbitration instead of filing lawsuits against each other.

Court rulings, including some by the U.S. Supreme Court, have
upheld the law, preventing states from enacting different laws.

About 15 years ago, however, companies started applying the
concept of what is called "mandatory pre-dispute arbitration" to
their customers and employees.

Anyone who acquires a credit card, opens a checking account, takes
out a consumer loan, buys a cellphone agreement or signs up with
cable television companies usually can find the "mandatory pre-
dispute arbitration" clause in the fine print.

Most consumers just throw the fine print materials into the trash
and are unaware they have limited themselves to arbitration if a
dispute arises.

Now the arbitration clauses are spreading into health care and
nursing home contracts, said St. Mary's University assistant law
professor Ramona Lampley.

Companies with arbitration clauses include Netflix, Dell Computer,
eBay, Paypal and Amazon, along with many financial and cellphone
companies, Ms. Lampley said.

"These clauses are now part of our daily life," she said.

A recent survey by the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
shows that about 75 percent of consumers do not know that their
legal options have been limited by the arbitration clauses.

"In cases where credit card issuers with an arbitration clause
were sued in a class action, companies invoked the arbitration
clause to block class actions 65 percent of the time," a bureau
report states.

Disputes can arise from undisclosed fees, unadvertised costs
associated with prices, improper billing, incorrect overdraft fees
and debt amounts, Ms. Lampley said.

In one case testing the arbitration clause, California consumers
tried a class-action suit against a cellphone company advertising
a free phone with a two-year service agreement but still had to
pay an unadvertised $30 sales tax.  The U.S. Supreme Court --
citing the arbitration clause -- ruled against the consumers.

Consumers faced with small claims often cannot afford to take the
cases to court, but when class-action lawsuits are possible,
consumers can benefit by being able to seek damage awards.

Consumers not only are largely unaware of their limited legal
options, they do not even understand arbitration.

If a dispute arises with a company enforcing an arbitration
agreement, the consumer can write to the company asking how to
seek resolution through arbitration. Or they can go to the
American Arbitration Association website and start the paperwork,
Lampley said.

Some companies will pay arbitration fees, but others will not, she
said.

But the American Arbitration Association is a private
organization, not a public court.  Ms. Lampley said she believes
arbitration can be a good way to settle claims -- but the matter
stays private.

Without broad information, "we don't know if consumers are getting
a fair shake.  We don't have a total picture," said Ms. Lampley,
who is preparing an article for the Washington Law Review.

Congress should amend the Federal Arbitration Act to require
companies to publicly reveal their arbitration data, she said,
including the number of cases and how many were resolved or
withdrawn.

Consumers would find such information helpful in selecting
companies to do business with. "Consumers should be able to see
data before agreeing to health care or to buy a car," Ms. Lampley
said.

"But Congress is unlikely to act until we know a whole lot more
about it," Ms. Lampley said.

Nevertheless, given the realities of confusing, widely ignored
small print and the broadening use of arbitration clauses,
Congress should give serious thought to doing something now to
require companies to disclose their arbitration data.


* Consumer Groups Urge CFPB to Issue Forced Arbitration Rules
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ashlee Kieler, writing for Consumerist, reports that just weeks
after the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau released a report
showing that tens of millions of Americans have clauses in their
credit card, checking account, student loan and wireless phone
contracts that take away their rights to sue those companies in a
court of law, more than 100 consumer groups have signed a letter
urging the Bureau to address the use of forced arbitration clauses
by issuing rules forbidding the clauses.

The consumer groups, which include the Center for Responsible
Lending, the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the
National Consumer Law Center and our colleagues at Consumers
Union, sent the letter to CFPB director Richard Cordray
reiterating the need for the bureau to create rules to protect
consumers.

"Few practices are as abusive, unfair, and deceptive as the
widespread use of forced arbitration clauses," the letter states.
"Forced arbitration funnels consumers into a private system set up
by corporations to protect and hide harmful and unlawful corporate
behavior.  Not only do these terms eliminate the right to a jury
trial in a civil action, limit discovery and make meaningful
appeal impossible; they also often prohibit consumers from banding
together in a class action as an effective way to seek legal
accountability."

According to the CFPB's report, 53% of credit cards currently have
arbitration clauses, 92% of prepaid debit cards are subject to
arbitration, and 99% of all payday loans in California and Texas
include the restrictive clauses.  In all, more than 93% of
consumers under these clauses have no idea they've had their
rights taken away from them.

Additionally, the report found that most arbitration clauses
include a ban on class actions, even if the group of wronged
consumers hope to seek joint arbitration. As the report pointed
out, these bans have become an important tool for credit card
companies who frequently cite their arbitration clauses as a way
to preempt group litigation.

The prevalence of forced arbitration clauses stems, in part from a
2013 Supreme Court decision that gave credit card companies more
of a reason to use arbitration clauses.  At the time a divided
SCOTUS ruled that the clauses could be used to preempt class-
action lawsuits, even in cases where class actions are the only
economically feasible way for the plaintiff to make its case.
Following the CFPB's report on forced arbitration clauses, several
national consumer groups applauded the study, saying it proved
financial institutions used the clauses as a "license to steal."
Consumer groups contend that by eliminating class actions the
financial industry can ignore laws far more easily and operate
with impunity.

"We believe that the final results of the CFPB arbitration study
offer concrete evidence that the use of forced arbitration clauses
is harmful to consumers, and therefore, it is in the public
interest and in the interest of consumer protection to prohibit
the practice," the groups state.  "The CFPB must act now to use
its statutory authority to prohibit the use of forced arbitration
clauses in contracts for consumer financial products and services,
and restore consumers' right to choose how to resolve disputes
with financial institutions."

The national groups urge the CFPB to follow recent federal
government actions that curb forced arbitration clauses.
In the past, Congress banned forced arbitration in transactions
with military servicemembers with respect to payday loans, vehicle
title loans, and tax refund anticipation loans; auto dealers and
automobile and truck manufacturers; livestock and poultry growers;
and employees of government defense contractors with Title VII and
sexual assault tort claims.


* Courts Ignore Problems Inherent in Overbroad Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Aguiar, Esq. -- lauren.aguiar@skadden.com --
Brian Baggetta, Esq. -- brian.baggetta@skadden.com --
Mondi Basmenji, Esq., and Jason Beesinger, Esq., of Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that
a number of federal courts have ignored the problems inherent in
overbroad class actions.  For example, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit has approved certification of consumer
classes largely consisting of absent class members who never
encountered the alleged defect in certain products, such as
washing machines, windows and roofing tiles.  The Seventh Circuit
and other courts have justified this approach with a promise that
the uninjured could be sorted out in later proceedings if
necessary -- specifically, in individual damages trials following
a plaintiff verdict on liability.

"We have questioned the viability of this approach, noting that
class participation is typically quite low in consumer suits even
when submitting a claim is as simple as completing a form, and
thus the notion that any significant number could be expected to
participate in actual damages trials is wishful at best,"
Skadden's Aguiar, Baggetta, Basmenji and Beesinger said.

A copy of the full memorandum is avaialble at:

          http://is.gd/x4UlpJ


* Florida Unable to Take Up Bill on Tobacco Punitive Damages
------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Ellen Klas, writing for Bradenton Herald, reports that the
Florida House Civil Justice Subcommittee adjourned its meeting
early on March 24, with time to spare, but did not take up a bill
intended to shield the tobacco industry from punitive damages in
thousands of pending cases from injured Florida smokers.

The bill, HB 1067 sponsored by Rep. David Santiago, R-Deltona,
would retroactively apply a 1999 cap on punitive damages to any
claims that were filed before that date.  The measure would
effectively limiting the potential payments to about 4,500 Florida
smokers and their families who have sued cigarette makers but are
still awaiting trial over claims that the industry deceived them
about the dangerous and addictive properties of cigarettes.

The industry claims it is a fairness issue and the lawsuits
unfairly give plaintiffs an advantage in the state, which has more
tobacco cases pending that any other state.  Sitting in the
audience, prepared to testify, were plaintiffs and family members
who were victims of the tobacco industry's deceptive practices.

This is the House committees are able to take up new bills, but
questions remain about whether there are enough votes on the
committee to pass it in the Senate.  The companion bill, SB 978 by
Senator Garrett Richter, R-Naples, has been referred to two Senate
committees but has not been heard in that chamber either.

The tobacco companies have hired more than 40 lobbyists, not
including another 50-plus lobbyists who are also working on
litigation reform as part of the state and federal tort reform
efforts which the tobacco industry has long supported.  The trial
lawyers are opposing the effort and created a website to court
public opinion www.nobigtobaccobailout.com

The issue stems from the 1994 landmark class-action lawsuit known
as the Engle case.  It was brought by Miami lawyers Stanley and
Susan Rosenblatt on behalf of Howard A. Engle, a Miami
pediatrician.  He had been addicted to cigarettes since college,
when tobacco companies handed out free cigarettes to students.
The Engle case was the first smokers' class action to come to
trial in a U.S. court.  A Miami-Dade jury, after hearing 157
witnesses in two years, decided that the industry had
intentionally misled smokers about cigarettes' dangers and awarded
a record-breaking $145 billion in damages in 2000.

The industry appealed and, in 2006, the Florida Supreme Court
tossed out the award and ruled that smokers must prove
individually that cigarettes caused their illness.  The high court
also decertified the class-action filed on behalf of approximately
700,000 smokers, but let stand that the tobacco manufacturers
committed fraud by deceiving smokers about the addictive nature
and harmful effects of cigarettes.


* Health Insurers Become Targets of Hack Attacks, Attorney Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Bowman, writing for FierceHealthIT, reports that in the wake
of the recent Premera data breach, in which information for
roughly 11 million consumers was compromised, legal and financial
fallout looms large both from the company's perspective and a
consumer perspective, according to Ken Dort, a partner at national
law firm Drinker Biddle & Reath's intellectual property practice
group.

"Particularly given the breadth of the information that was the
issue with Premera, you may be seeing big class action lawsuits,"
Dort recently told FierceHealthIT.  "We could see some kind of
general protection comparable to what the Sony plaintiffs have
asked for. Their allegations particularly stated that two years
worth of credit monitoring weren't enough and that this could go
on for years and years."

Dort, in an exclusive interview with FierceHealthIT, talks about
why payers have become such an appealing target for hackers and
what steps healthcare organizations can take going forward to
mitigate the damage caused in similar attacks.

FierceHealthIT: How imperative is it that cybersecurity be a top
tier priority for payers, providers and other healthcare
organizations?

Ken Dort: This is something that should be at the top end of any
C-suite or board of directors' list of considerations.  This is
something that, given the sensitivity of the data, it should be a
top flight effort.  While the Anthem and Premera breaches
certainly shed light on the situation and should be otherwise
pressuring companies to escalate their efforts, those entities
should have been focusing on security already.

FHIT: What do you think makes payers, in particular, such an
appealing target for hackers?

Dort: In the grand scheme of cybersecurity, the original early
targets were the finance companies; the banks.  Those companies
got ahead of the curve a long time ago, and it's now very
difficult to breach any of those entities.

What's next on the hierarchy? Those entities that have medical
records.  While those aren't as directly remunerative as financial
records, where you can actually go in and take money directly,
medical files are very valuable on the black market for their
ability to enable fraud on the insurance companies.  That's why, I
think over the last few years, you're seeing a lot more of this
nature of breach as compared to financial situations.

As a result, these entities should have been escalating their
efforts.  The real question now is, what exactly were Anthem and
Premera doing? In the case of the former, hackers were able to
penetrate 78 million files, which is onerous.  Premera, while the
penetration wasn't as deep, it was qualitatively much wider in
terms of not only contact information, but also Social Security
numbers, bank account numbers, as well as actual medical
information.


* Settlement in Securities Class Action Hit 16-Year Low
-------------------------------------------------------
Ben Conarck, writing for Law360, reports that total settlement
dollars in securities class actions dipped to $1.1 billion last
year, marking a 16-year low that came with a significant drop in
average settlement amount but a fairly unchanged number of deals,
according to a report on March 24 by Cornerstone Research.

The national economic and financial consulting firm noted a 60
percent drop in "estimated damages," a simplified calculation of
potential shareholder losses that Cornerstone said is the most
important factor in predicting settlement amounts.

Cornerstone report co-author and senior adviser Dr. Laura Simmons
emphasized that stock price movements are "fundamental" to damages
calculations and said that lower estimated damages may stem from
reduced stock price volatility during the years when many of the
cases were filed.

"As the market has remained relatively stable on the whole in 2013
and 2014, it suggests that this trend of lower 'estimated damages'
for settled cases may continue," Ms. Simmons said.

The steep decline in total settlement dollars from $4.8 billion in
2013 to $1.1 billion in 2014 primarily stemmed from a lack of
large cases, according to the report.

The average settlement amount also dropped last year to its lowest
level since 2000, the report said, with the largest amount
standing at $265 million compared with $2.5 billion the year
before.  The report said the number of settlements was "fairly
unchanged," hovering at 63.

The Cornerstone report said that a smaller proportion of large
cases involved third-party defendants and public pensions as lead
plaintiffs, which also contributed to a decrease in settlement
amounts.

Cornerstone said not only did public pensions participate in fewer
settlements last year, but also their typical association with
cases involving larger market capitalization losses, higher
numbers of docket entries prior to settlement, accompanying
derivative actions and corresponding SEC actions did not hold.

Professor Joseph A. Grundfest, director of the Stanford Law School
Securities Class Action Clearinghouse, said that "the class
actions securities fraud market appears to be shrinking, whether
measured in terms of the size of settlements or in the severity of
new actions filed."

"It may also mean that public pensions could have fewer large
cases to draw them into the lead plaintiff role," Mr. Grundfest
added.

The report also noted a decline in settlements involving financial
firms last year.  Cornerstone stated this resulted from a majority
of credit crisis-related cases, which comprised a large chunk of
financial-sector settlement activity in recent years, having
progressed through the litigation process.


                             *********

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  * * *