CAR_Public/150429.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, April 29, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 85


                             Headlines


A-TOW INC: Faces "Benton" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
ACCURATE MEDICAL: Faces "Dumas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ACT FAST: D. Colo. Judge Issues Recommendation in "Ruiz" Suit
ACTIVE POWER: May 15 Final Settlement Approval Hearing
AHDS BAGEL: Faces "Castillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

ALWAYS CLEAN: Faces "Roque" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
AMERICAN EQUITY: Pegs Litigation Liability at $11.1MM as of 12/31
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Myers" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach
ANTIOCH PIZZA: Faces "Price" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ARCH SPECIALTY: Policyholder's Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend

ATLANTIC POWER: Mass. Judge Dismissed Securities Class Action
AUDIOEYE INC: Sued in Ariz. Over Misleading Financial Reports
AUTOS INC: North Dakota High Court Flips Cert. Ruling in "Baker"
BAKER HUGHES: Consolidated Suit Filed Over Halliburton Merger
BAKER HUGHES: Scheduled to Respond to Rovner Class Action

BAKER HUGHES: Settled "Zamora" Lawsuit for De Minimis Amount
BALTIMORE, MD: Court Vacates Ruling in Suit Against School Board
BANK OF THE OZARKS: "Muzingo" Plaintiff Agree to Stay Proceedings
BANK OF THE OZARKS: Agreement Reached in Greentech Action
BELL HELICOPTER: Mexican Law Governs Crash Case, High Court Rules

BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Judge Dismisses "Pearlstein" Suit
BRYAN COLLEGE: Judge Won't Certify Class in "Ramthun" Suit
CAFE ISTANBUL: Faces "Mohammad" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CAPITAL INVESTMENT: Judge Recommends Denial on Case Dismissal Bid
CEDAR FAIR: Final Hearing to Final Settlement Set in 2015 Q2

CELADON TRUCKING: "Wilmoth" Class Suit Remanded to Marion County
CEPHALON INC: FTC Can After Profits in Reverse-Payment Case
CHELSEA THERAPEUTICS: 4th Cir. Vacates and Remands "Zak" Suit
CHICAGO, IL: Illegally Frisk People, "Smith" Suit Claims
CLECO CORPORATION: One Claim Set for Trial on May 11

CLECO CORPORATION: Updates on Merger Class Actions
COLUMBIA GAS: Court Dismisses "Baatz", Says Case Duplicative
COMMERCE ENERGY: Judge Denies Bid to Certify Interlocutory Appeal
COMMERCE ENERGY: Judge Denies Decertification Bid in "Hurt" Suit
COTTON STATES: Judge Ruled on Motions Related to Discovery

DADE CONTRACTING: Faces "Obando" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
DANFOSS LLC: Judge Declines to Rule on Antitrust Standing Issue
DATASCAN FIELD: "Stevens" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
DAVITA HEALTHCARE: Defending Against Remaining Class Suit Claims
ERIE INDEMNITY: Defendants' Responsive Briefing Due

FIRST AVIATION: Del. Ch. Judge Granted Former Stockholder's Bid
FIVE BROTHER'S: "Sandoval" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
FORD MOTOR: Judge Denies Bid to Alter, Amend or Vacate Judgment
GENERAL MOTORS: W.D. La. Judge Narrows Claims in "Cain" Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: W.D. La. Judge Narrows Claims in "Morgan" Suit

GENERAL MOTORS: Most Economic Loss Claims Expected to Go Forward
GENESEE & WYOMING: Still Awaits Final Approval of Settlement
GRAHAM HOLDINGS: Faces "Freeman v. Kaplan Inc." Action
GRANT ELECTRIC: "Roberts" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
HCA HOLDINGS: Request to Appeal in "Schuh" Case Denied

HEARST NEWSPAPERS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Kran" Suit Claims
HENKEL CORP: June 2 Final Pretrial Conference in "Davidson" Case
HERTZ CORP: Plaintiffs in "Moretti" Case May Amend Complaint
HIKO ENERGY: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Energy Fraud Services
ICAHN ENTERPRISES: Appeal in Dynegy Class Action Pending

IM SOLUTIONS: Okla. Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Allen" Suit
IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
INGRAM MICRO: Received $9.4MM Award From Class Action During 2014
INTELLIQUICK DELIVERY: AZ Court Narrows Claims in "Collinge" Suit
INTERNATIONAL DELIGHT: "Gerez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT

INTUIT INC: Faces "Diaz" Suit in N.D. Cal. Over Alleged Tax Fraud
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Meitav Fund Appointed Lead Plaintiff
JPMORGAN CHASE: 2nd Cir. Affirms Trial Court Judgment in "Scott"
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Will Defend Against Jansky Lawsuit
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Consent Judgment Okayed in "Baker Pepe"

LABORATORY CORPORATION: Appeal Filed in Sandusky Wellness Case
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Hearing on Settlement Merits Held
LABORATORY CORPORATION: To Defend Against Rabanes & Varsam Suits
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Defending Against Legg Class Action
LABORATORY CORPORATION: MOU Entered in LipoScience Investor Suit

LABORATORY CORPORATION: MOU Entered in Delaware Class Action
LANDRY'S INC: Judge Enters Class-Related Notice in "Saecho" Suit
LINKEDIN CORP: Averts FCRA Suit Over Reference Searches
LOUISA CORPORATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
MATCH.COM LLC: Faces "Graf" Suit Over Dating Services Contract

MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Judge Dismissed Local 210's Class Action
MERIDIAN FUNDS: Judge Grants Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
MICROSOFT CORP: Wants 9th Cir. to Reconsider Xbox Case Ruling
MICROSOFT CORP: Judge Dismisses "No Poach" Claims
NATIONAL HOCKEY: Faces "Blue" Suit Over Players Head Trauma

NAYA EXPRESS: "Ortiz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
NRG ENERGY: Cheswick Plaintiffs Seek to File Amended Complaint
OLSON ASSOCIATES: Judge Grants Certification and Appoints Counsel
PATH INC: N.D. Cal. Judge Narrows Claims in "Opperman" Suit
PLASTIPAK HOLDINGS: Faces "Hall" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

PNC BANK: Judge Narrows Claims in "Montoya" Suit
POOL CORPORATION: Court Preliminarily Approved Settlements
PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Hardan" Suit in Wash. Alleged Data Breach
RJ REYNOLDS: EU Countries' RICO Suit May Proceed
RLI CORP: Objection to Class Action Settlement Filed

SAN DIEGO GAS: Settled Claim Related to Sept. 2011 Power Outage
SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Motion to Dismiss "Corban" Case Pending
SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Will Move to Dismiss "Kader" Case
SEACOR HOLDINGS: Parties in Himmerite Case Reached Settlement
SEACOR HOLDINGS: Court Approved Settlement, Dropped Prejean Suit

SEACOR HOLDINGS: BP Case Settlements Reduced Potential Exposure
SEACOR HOLDINGS: Abney and Abood Cases Remain Stayed
SEACOR HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Against Wunstell Action
SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: Judge Dismisses "Dash" Consumer Class Lawsuit
SEAWORLD: Sued for Misrepresenting Treatment of Orcas

SK FOODS: Class Counsel Directed to Escrow Bankruptcy Funds
SKECHERS U.S.A.: Grabowski/Morga Settlement to Resolve Tomlinson
SKECHERS U.S.A.: Grabowski/Morga Settlement to Resolve Boatright
SKECHERS U.S.A.: Court Approved Settlement in Angell Case
SKECHERS U.S.A.: Court Dismissed Davies/Smith Action

SKECHERS U.S.A.: Court Dismissed Niras Action
SKECHERS U.S.A.: Court Dismissed Dedato Action
SKECHERS U.S.A.: Angell Settlement to Resolve Cooper Action
SKECHERS U.S.A.: Discovery Proceeding in 60 Personal Injury Cases
SKECHERS U.S.A.: Court Sets Trial Dates for 2 Bellwether Cases

SKECHERS U.S.A.: No Discovery Yet in 100+ Personal Injury Cases
SOURCE REFRIGERATION: Class Settlement Preliminarily Approved
TATE & KIRLIN: Illegally Collects Debt, "Alston" Suit Claims
TATYANA DESIGNS: Judge Ruled on Request for Rule 11 Sanctions
TELEFONICA BRASIL: Judgment in Services Quality Action Suspended

TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Judge Narrows Claims in Aggrenox Suit
TOTAL SYSTEM: ProPay Not Yet Required to Answer Telexfree Suits
TOTAL SYSTEM: ProPay Has Not Been Served With "Abdelgadir" Suit
UNITED PARCEL: Ruling Not Clear on Light Duty for Pregnant Staff
UNITED PARCEL: Trial Scheduled for June 2015 in "Morgate" Case

UNITED PARCEL: No Trial Date Scheduled in AFMS Suit v. UPS, FedEx
UNITED PARCEL: Appealing Decision in Canada Class Actions
UNITED PARCEL: Class Action Deal Subject to Final Court Approval
UNITED SERVICES: Judge Remands "Turk" Suit to Wash. State Court
UTECO NORTH AMERICA: Ky. Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss AEP Suit

WAL-MART STORES: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Gun Sale Policy Case
WALTER ENERGY: Evidentiary Hearing on Renewed Class Cert Bid Held
WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Reserves Amount for FLSA Litigation
YAHOO! INC: Plaintiffs' Appeal in Stockholder Suits Still Open
ZAMORANO'S CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Workers OT, Suit Claims

* Calif. Cos. Urged to Comply with Supply-Chain Disclosure Law
* Canada to Impose Fines Against Anti-Spam Legislation Violators
* Tobacco Companies Sue FDA Over New Product Label Directive


                            *********


A-TOW INC: Faces "Benton" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Benton, Moultrie Benham, Arthur Hooten, Corey Collins, and
Deronta Franklin, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. A-Tow, Inc. and Susan Page Porter, Case No.
1:15-cv-01257 (N.D. Ga., April 20, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a tow truck service company with a
principal place of business is located at 180 Harriet Street,
S.E., Atlanta, GA 30315.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles Ronald Bridgers, Esq.
      Kevin D. Fitzpatrick Jr., Esq.
      Matthew Wilson Herrington, Esq.
      DELONG CALDWELL BRIDGERS & FITZPATRICK, LLC
      101 Marietta Street, NW
      3100 Centennial Tower
      Atlanta, GA 30303
      Telephone: (404) 979-3150
      E-mail: charlesbridgers@dcbflegal.com
              kevin.fitzpatrick@dcbflegal.com
              matthew.herrington@dcbflegal.com


ACCURATE MEDICAL: Faces "Dumas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dalord Dumas, Jennifer Bellamy, Serenity Pinkney, and Jasmine
Brown, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v.
Accurate Medical Transportation and Joe Cohen, Case No. 3:15-cv-
02748-PGS-LHG (D.N.J., April 20, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation in violation
of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a medical transportation company
located at 2681 Quakerbridge Road, Ste. A3 Trenton, NJ 08619.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
      SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
      1101 Kings Highway North, Suite 402
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
      Telephone: (856) 685-7420
      Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
      E-mail: mmiller@swartz-legal.com


ACT FAST: D. Colo. Judge Issues Recommendation in "Ruiz" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang of the District of Colorado made a
recommendation on the case entitled DOMINGO RUIZ, MICHAEL BRYANT
Plaintiffs, v. ACT FAST DELIVERY OF COLORADO, INC., POWERFORCE OF
COLORADO, INC. Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-CV-00870-MSK-NYW
(D. Colo.)

Plaintiffs Domingo Ruiz and Michael Bryant filed a complaint
alleging that the defendant Powerforce is the successor-in-
interest to the defendant Act Fast and that they worked for
defendants as delivery truck drivers, and that defendants
misclassified them as independent contractors to avoid their
obligations to comply with the overtime and minimum wage
provisions of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and
Colorado's Wage Claim Act (CWCA)

Defendants answered plaintiff's complaint but amended their
original answers as of right pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a)(1)(A) to include counterclaims for indemnification from
plaintiffs based on alleged Independent Contractor Agreements
(ICAs) between each of the plaintiffs and each of the defendants,
respectively.

Plaintiffs in turn filed an amended complaint alleging that
defendants' Indemnification Counterclaims constitute unlawful
retaliation under FLSA section 29 U.S.C. Sec. 215(a)(3).
Plaintiffs aver that the Indemnification Counterclaims are
frivolous and not brought in good faith. Plaintiffs also assert
defendants brought their counterclaims in retaliation for
plaintiffs bringing the action to enforce their rights and the
rights of other similarly situated individuals under the FLSA.

Plaintiffs filed their motion to dismiss defendants' counterclaims
contemporaneously and on September 2, 2014, Act Fast and
Powerforce filed their partial motion to dismiss, seeking
dismissal of plaintiffs' claim for retaliation.

Magistrate Judge Wang granted plaintiffs' motion to dismiss on the
ground that the indemnification counterclaims asserted by
defendants fail to state a viable claim for relief under Fed. Rule
Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The judge granted defendants' partial motion
dismiss as to plaintiffs' claim for retaliation arising from
defendants' assertion of a counterclaim for indemnification,
respectively.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Wang's recommendation dated March 3,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/70Q6oqat Leagle.com

Domingo Ruiz and Michael Bryant Plaintiffs - Counter Defendants,
represented by:

David Wayne Hodges, Esq.
Galvin Bernard Kennedy, Esq.
KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
711 W. Alabama Street
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: 713-523-0001
Facsimile: 713-523-1116

Act Fast Delivery of Colorado, Inc. and Powerforce of Colorado,
Inc., Defendants - Counter Claimants represented by Heidi Kristina
Wilbur -- Michelle Brand Muhleisen --
michelle.muhleisen@ogletreedeakins.com -- Stacy Dian Mueller --
stacy.mueller@ogletreedeakins.com -- at Ogletree, Deakins, Nash,
Smoak & Stewart, P.C.


ACTIVE POWER: May 15 Final Settlement Approval Hearing
------------------------------------------------------
Active Power, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the proposed settlement
in a class action is subject to final approval by the Court at a
hearing scheduled for May 15, 2015.

"On September 10, 2013, a purported class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Western District
of Texas against us and certain of our former executives. The case
is captioned Don Lee v. Active Power, Inc., et. al. (Civil Action
No. 1:13-cv-00797-SS)," the Company said.  "As amended, the
complaint alleges that on February 19, 2013, we reported that we
had begun working with an unnamed Chinese distributor partner, and
that on April 30, 2013, we announced in press releases and
conference calls that we had entered into a strategic distribution
partnership with Digital China. However, on September 5, 2013,
after the close of trading, we disclosed that our partnership was
with Qiyuan Network System Limited, which is neither an affiliate
nor a subsidiary of Digital China. The amended complaint asserts
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
and seeks unspecified damages on behalf of all stockholders who
purchased common stock between February 19 and September 5, 2013.
On March 7, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the class action
complaint.  Our motion was denied by the Court on July 2, 2014.
On August 11, 2014, we filed an answer to the class action
complaint, and on September 2, 2014, the Court declined to certify
its order of July 2, 2014 for an interlocutory appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit."

"On September 23, 2014, we reached an agreement in principle and
entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle the class
action complaint.  The parties to the class action signed a
definitive settlement agreement on December 2, 2014, which was
granted preliminary approval by the Court on January 7, 2015. The
proposed settlement would resolve for all defendants all of the
issues that are pending in the class action complaint.  If
completed, the class action settlement would result in a payment
of $1.5 million to the settlement class, inclusive of fees and
expenses.  We anticipate that the total settlement amount and
related expenses would be paid from insurance proceeds.  The
proposed settlement is not yet consummated, and is subject to a
number of conditions.  The proposed settlement is also subject to
final approval by the Court at a hearing scheduled for May 15,
2015."


AHDS BAGEL: Faces "Castillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fidel Velez Castillo, Jorge Urbano, Juan Carlos Diaz Bravo and
Neft Ali Gonzalez (a.k.a. Rafael Gonzalez), individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. AHDS Bagel LLC (d/b/a Pick
A Bagel), Pick A Bagel On Second, Inc. (d/b/a Pick A Bagel),
Harvey Greene, Avi Sharabani and Haim Wysoki, Case No. 1:15-cv-
03053-AJN (S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate bagel restaurants in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALWAYS CLEAN: Faces "Roque" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ania Roque v. Always Clean 51, Inc. and Mady Gomez, Case No. 1:15-
cv-21478 (S.D. Fla., April 20, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a home cleaning Services Company
that regularly transacts business within Miami-Dade County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMERICAN EQUITY: Pegs Litigation Liability at $11.1MM as of 12/31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American Equity Investment Life Holding Company said in its Form
10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that the estimated litigation liability related to a class action
at December 31, 2014 is $11.1 million.

"We were a defendant in a purported class action, McCormack, et
al. v. American Equity Investment Life Insurance Company, et al.,
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Western Division and Anagnostis v. American Equity, et
al., coordinated in the Central District, entitled, In Re:
American Equity Annuity Practices and Sales Litigation (complaint
filed September 7, 2005) (the "Los Angeles Case"), involving
allegations of improper sales practices and similar claims.
The Los Angeles Case was a consolidated action involving several
lawsuits filed by putative class members seeking class action
status for a national class of purchasers of annuities issued by
us," the Company said.

"On July 30, 2013, the parties entered into a settlement agreement
and stipulated to certification of the case as a class action for
settlement purposes only. Notice of the terms of the settlement
was mailed to the members of the class on October 7, 2013 and
settlement claim forms were due from members of the class on or
before December 6, 2013. On January 27, 2014, a hearing was held
regarding the fairness of the settlement. On January 29, 2014, the
District Court signed a final order approving the settlement and
finding the settlement is fair and represents a complete
resolution of all claims asserted on behalf of the class. On
January 30, 2014, a final judgment was entered dismissing the case
on the merits and with prejudice. On February 28, 2014, a member
of the class filed an appeal of the District Court's approval of
the terms of the settlement agreement with the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

"We recorded an estimated litigation liability of $17.5 million
during the third quarter of 2012 related to the Los Angeles Case.
We increased our estimated litigation liability for this matter to
$21.2 million during the fourth quarter of 2013 following the
passage of the deadline for submission of claims by class members
in the lawsuit and based upon information available at that time.
However, we decreased the liability by $2.3 million in the first
quarter of 2014 as additional information became available
concerning the nature and magnitude of the claims received. In
addition, during the first quarter of 2014, we paid $7.8 million
in legal fees to the plaintiffs' counsel. The estimated litigation
liability at December 31, 2014 is $11.1 million.

"While review of the claim forms has been stayed due to the appeal
and it is difficult to predict the amount of the liabilities that
will ultimately result from the completion of the claims process,
the $11.1 million litigation liability represents our best
estimate of probable loss with respect to this litigation. In
light of the inherent uncertainties involved in the matter
described, there can be no assurance that such litigation, or any
other pending or future litigation, will not have a material
adverse effect on our business, financial condition, or results of
operations."


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Myers" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy Myers, a natural person v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:15-cv-01766-WHA (N.D. Cal., April 20, 2015), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to provide adequate security and
protection for its computer systems containing patient's
personally identifiable information and personal health
information.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dan Lawton, Esq.
      LAWTON LAW FIRM
      Emerald Plaza
      402 West Broadway, Suite 1330
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 595-1406
      Facsimile: (619) 59501520
      E-mail: dan@lawtonlaw.com


ANTIOCH PIZZA: Faces "Price" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Price, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. Antioch Pizza, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-00657
(E.D. Mo., April 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Antioch Pizza, LLC owns and operates at least 39 Jet's Pizza
franchise stores in Missouri, Michigan and Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark A. Potashnick, Esq.
      WEINHAUS AND POTASHNICK
      11500 Olive Boulevard, Suite 133
      St. Louis, MO 63141
      Telephone: (314) 997-9150
      Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
      E-mail: attorneymp@hotmail.com


ARCH SPECIALTY: Policyholder's Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell of the Central District of
California granted defendant's motions in the case AMERICAN
WESTERN DOOR & TRIM v. ARCH SPECIALTY INSURANCE CO. ET AL., CASE
NO. CV 15-00153 BRO (SPX) (C.D. Cal.)

The plaintiff American Western Door & Trim (AWDT) is a California
corporation conducting business in the construction industry.  It
purchased 5 insurance policies from defendant Arch Specialty
Insurance Co. These insurance policies require defendant to pay
all reasonable and necessary fees and costs of defense incurred by
plaintiff in defense of third-party claims.

Plaintiff alleges, however, that, in practice, defendant does not
hire counsel for its insured to discharge its duty to defend, but
instead has claims adjusters negotiate settlements, and
essentially provides no defense to its insured. Plaintiff further
alleges that defendant maintains a policy and practice of not
reimbursing plaintiff for any fees and costs incurred in defending
against third-party claims, in violation of the parties' insurance
policy. Finally, plaintiff alleges that defendant consistently
overpays for claims -- sometimes settling for up to ten times the
amount paid in comparable cases without conducting reasonable
investigation and without engaging counsel, in an attempt to
exhaust Plaintiff's insurance policy prematurely.

Plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class defined as "all Arch
insureds, currently and previously within the applicable statute
of limitations, who have tendered a liability claim under their
policy to Arch and Arch subsequently settled the insured's claim
without assigning counsel to the claim."  Plaintiff alleges three
causes of action on behalf of this putative class, including: (1)
breach of contract; (2) insurance bad faith; and (3) violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
Sections 17200 et seq.

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and a motion to strike
class allegations pursuant to Rules 12(f), 23(c), and 23(d).

Judge O'Connell granted defendant's motion to dismiss and strikes
plaintiff's class allegations. All of plaintiffs' claims are
dismissed with leave to amend and plaintiff was directed to file
an amended complaint by no later than April 10, 2015 at 12 p.m.

A copy of Judge O'Connell's order dated March 18, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/TaoEp9from Leagle.com

American Western Door & Trim, a California Corporation,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Aaron Bernard Booth --
abooth@aaronbooth.com -- at Law Offices of Aaron B Booth; Brian S
Kabateck -- bsk@kbklawyers.com -- Joshua H Haffner --
jhh@kbklawyers.com --Terry Robert Bailey -- trb@kbklawyers.com --
at Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP

Arch Specialty Insurance Company, a Nebraska corporation,
Defendant, represented by Gregory J Newman --
nselman@selmanbreitman.com -- Hee Sung Yoon --
hyoon@selmanbreitman.com -- at Selman Breitman LLP


ATLANTIC POWER: Mass. Judge Dismissed Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Indira Talwani of the District of Massachusetts
ruled on the parties' motions in the case entitled In Re: Atlantic
Power Corporation Securities Litigation, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-CV-
10537-IT (D. Mass.)

Defendant Atlantic Power Corporation operates a portfolio of power
generation and infrastructure assets throughout the United States
and Canada, selling the power generated by its assets or projects
to electric utilities and other entities such as municipalities
and electric cooperatives. The value of Atlantic Power's stock is,
in part, dependent on its ability to distribute consistent
dividends to shareholders.

On February 28, 2013, defendants unexpectedly announced that
Atlantic Power was cutting its monthly dividend by 65%. At the
close of March 1, 2013, the company's shares of common stock
dropped by $2.85 per share, almost 29% in value. The company's
stock price continued to decline another $1.21 per share.

Plaintiffs alleged claims under the federal securities laws on
behalf of purchasers of Atlantic Power's common stock that traded
on the New York Stock Exchange between June 20, 2011, and March 4,
2013. They asserted that they suffered significant damages as a
result of defendants' materially false and misleading statements
and omissions during June 20, 2011, and March 4, 2013, concerning
the company's ability to sustain the dividend that it had
previously paid out to its shareholders and the decline in market
value of the company's securities.

Plaintiffs alleged violations of (1) section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b), and
Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5, promulgated thereunder;
(2) violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act; and (3)
unjust enrichment against Defendants Atlantic Power, Barry E.
Welch, and Terrence Ronan. These claims are based on defendants'
alleged false and misleading statements made, leading up to the
company's announcement, in which defendants are accused of
misleading investors as to the financial condition of the company,
including its debt.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class action
complaint for failing to allege any actionable misstatements or
omissions, and establish a strong inference of scienter as
required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA),
15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(b)(2).

Plaintiff, on the other hand, filed a motion to amend the
complaint. In the proposed amended complaint, plaintiffs add
factual allegations relating to defendants' actions after the
company announced its dividend reduction on February 28, 2013. On
a March 1, 2013 conference call, defendant Welch stated that the
dividend reduction was caused, at least in part, to the tough
market it encountered in financing the CPILP acquisition. The
proposed amended complaint details further statements made by
defendants after the close of the class period clarifying the
extent to which the company's debt caused the dividend reduction.

Judge Talwani allowed defendants' motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action complaint and the same is being
dismissed and denied plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint.

A copy of Judge Talwani's memorandum and order dated March 13,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/nDrv45from Leagle.com

Judith M. Huckins Williams, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by
Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Hutchings, Barsamian, Cross and
Mandelcorn, LLP

Jr. James P. Pelham, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by
Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Hutchings, Barsamian, Cross and
Mandelcorn, LLP

William Weddle, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Theodore M.
Hess-Mahan, Hutchings, Barsamian, Cross and Mandelcorn, LLP.
Malcolm Waldron, III, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by
Joseph Edward White, III, Saxena White P.A.

John Dornan, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Leslie R.
Stern, Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo.
John J. Erla, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by David Pastor,
Pastor Law Office, LLP

Patricia Solvibile, Plaintiff, represented by Jason M. Leviton,
Block & Leviton LLP

Daughenbaugh Group, Plaintiff, represented by Jason M. Leviton,
Block & Leviton LLP

James Kinberger, Plaintiff, represented by Jason M. Leviton, Block
& Leviton LLP

Feldman, Shapero, Carter and Smith Investor Group, Plaintiff,
represented by Joseph Edward White, III, Saxena White P.A., Peter
G. Safirstein, Morgan & Morgan, P.C., Daryl DeValerio Andrews,
Berman DeValerio, Glen DeValerio, Berman DeValerio, Kristin J.
Moody, Berman DeValerio, Leslie R. Stern, Berman DeValerio Pease
Tabacco Burt & Pucillo & Nathaniel L. Orenstein, Berman DeValerio
Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo

Patrick J. Welch, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Nicholas
B Carter, Todd & Weld LLP

Lisa Donahue, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Nicholas B
Carter, Todd & Weld LLP

Terrence Ronan, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Nicholas B
Carter, Todd & Weld LLP & Jared Gerber, Cleary Gottlieb Steen &
Hamilton LLP

Atlantic Power Corporation, Defendant, represented by Lawrence B.
Friedman, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, Nicholas B Carter,
Todd & Weld LLP, Roger A. Cooper, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
LLP & Jared Gerber, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP

Barry Welch, Defendant, represented by Lawrence B. Friedman,
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP,Nicholas B Carter, Todd &
Weld LLP, Roger A. Cooper, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP &
Jared Gerber, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP

John Tracy, Movant, represented by David Pastor, Pastor Law
Office, LLP

Belinda Tracy, Movant, represented by David Pastor, Pastor Law
Office, LLP

Leonard Kube, Movant, represented by David Pastor, Pastor Law
Office, LLP

Norman Haltrich, Movant, represented by David Pastor, Pastor Law
Office, LLP

Richard A. Bremer, Movant, represented by David Elliot, Johnson &
Weaver, LLP, David A. Rosenfeld, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
& Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Hutchings, Barsamian, Cross and
Mandelcorn, LLP

Jean Marie Parker, Movant, represented by David Elliot, Johnson &
Weaver, LLP, David A. Rosenfeld, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
& Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Hutchings, Barsamian, Cross and
Mandelcorn, LLP

Earl K. Oman, Movant, represented by David Elliot, Johnson &
Weaver, LLP, David A. Rosenfeld, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
& Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Hutchings, Barsamian, Cross and
Mandelcorn, LLP

Diane H. Oman, Movant, represented by David Elliot, Johnson &
Weaver, LLP, David A. Rosenfeld, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
& Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Hutchings, Barsamian, Cross and
Mandelcorn, LLP

Robert J. Tait, Movant, represented by David Elliot, Johnson &
Weaver, LLP, David A. Rosenfeld, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
& Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Hutchings, Barsamian, Cross and
Mandelcorn, LLP

Wilbert F. Schwarz, Movant, represented by David Elliot, Johnson &
Weaver, LLP, David A. Rosenfeld, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
& Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Hutchings, Barsamian, Cross and
Mandelcorn, LLP

Jean Schwartz, Movant, represented by David Elliot, Johnson &
Weaver, LLP, David A. Rosenfeld, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
& Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Hutchings, Barsamian, Cross and
Mandelcorn, LLP


AUDIOEYE INC: Sued in Ariz. Over Misleading Financial Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Saczawa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AudioEye, Inc., Nathaniel Bradley, and Edward
O'Donnell, Case No. 4:15-cv-00163-DCB (D. Ariz., April 20, 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.

Audioeye, Inc. is the creator of patented audio browsing and
automated publishing and accessibility technology platforms that
create voice-driven technologies to enhance the mobility,
usability, and accessibility of Internet-based content in the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eugene N. Goldsmith, Esq.
      MCNAMARA GOLDSMITH, P.C.
      1670 E. River Rd., Ste. 200
      Tucson, AR 85718-5834
      Telephone: (520) 624-0126
      Facsimile: (520) 624-9238
      E-mail: eng@mgm-legal.com

         - and -

      Andrei Rado, Esq.
      MILBERG LLP
      One Pennsylvannia Plaza, 49th Floor
      New York, NY 10119
      Telephone: (212) 594-5300
      Facsimile: (212) 868-1229
      E-mail: arado@milberg.com


AUTOS INC: North Dakota High Court Flips Cert. Ruling in "Baker"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Carol Ronning Kapsner of the Supreme Court of North Dakota
reversed the district court's order and remanded the case of
Darilyn Baker, individually, and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Autos, Inc., a
North Dakota Corporation, d/b/a Global Auto; RW Enterprises, Inc.,
a North Dakota Corporation; Robert Opperude, an individual; Randy
Westby, an individual; and James Hendershot, an individual,
Defendants and Appellees, NO. 20140033 (N.D.)

Darilyn Baker purchased a 2003 Pontiac Grand Am automobile from
Autos, Inc., d.b.a. Global Auto. The total balance of the Grand
Am, after the credit Baker received for her vehicle trade-in, was
$5,470.94. The total included a document administration fee of
$195 and a loan fee of $200. Baker agreed to repay the loan in
thirty monthly payments of $247.08. The retail installment
contract also provided that if the payment was late, Baker would
be charged $25.

Baker was late on making some of her required monthly payments,
and the vehicle was repossessed. Before Baker defaulted on her
loan, Global Auto assigned Baker's contract to RW Enterprises.
After the vehicle was repossessed, Baker filed suit in state
district court alleging Global Auto and RW Enterprises' sales and
lending practices violated state usury law, among other claims.

The defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the
District of North Dakota based on federal question jurisdiction.
In federal court, Baker filed a motion seeking certification of a
class action. While the motion was pending, Baker amended her
complaint, effectively eliminating her claims under federal law.

The federal district court determined only state law issues
remained, and remanded the case back to state court without ruling
on the motion to certify a class.

Back in state district court, Baker filed a motion to have the
suit certified as a class action for all putative purchasers who,
subject to the applicable statute of limitations period, may have
suffered an injury as a result of Global Auto and RW Enterprises'
business practices. Baker alleged the loan fee, the document
administration fee, and the late payment charge violated North
Dakota usury law and the North Dakota Retail Installment Sales
Act. Baker argued the defendants' alleged violations of state
usury law and the Retail Installment Sales Act were universal and
affected approximately five hundred retail installment sales
contracts. The district court entered an order denying the motion
for class certification. Baker appealed.

Justice Kapsner reversed the district court's order denying
certification and remanded the case to the U.S. District Court for
the District of North Dakota.

A copy of Justice Kapsner's opinion dated March 24, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/mgKWvhfrom Leagle.com

For plaintiff and appellant:

Larry M. Baer, Esq.
1550 S. Deer Rd.
West Des Moines, IA 50266
Telephone: 515-225-9054

     - and -

Robert G. Ackre, Esq.
ACKRE LAW FIRM
1307 Durum Triangle Frontage Rd.
P.O. Box 685
Cando, ND 58324-0685
Telephone: 701-968-3324
Facsimile: 701-968-3100

For defendants and appellees Autos, Inc., d/b/a Global Auto,
Robert Opperude and James Hendershot:

Kraig A. Wilson, Esq.
MORLEY LAW FIRM, LTD.
4000 Garden View Drive, Suite 100
Grand Forks, ND 58201
Telephone: 701-772-7266
Facsimile: 701-772-7269

For defendants and appellees RW Enterprises, Inc. and Randy
Westby:

Erich M. Grant, Esq.
Bryan L. Van Grinsven, Esq.
MCGEE, HANKLA & BACKES
2400 E. Burdick Expwy., Ste 100
P.O. Box 998
Minot, ND 58702-0998
Telephone: 701-852-2544
Facsimile: 701-838-4724

The North Dakota Supreme Court panel consists of Justices Carol
Ronning Kapsner, Daniel J. Crothers and Lisa Fair McEvers.


BAKER HUGHES: Consolidated Suit Filed Over Halliburton Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on February 4, 2015,
related to Baker Hughes Incorporated's pending merger with
Halliburton, Baker Hughes said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

The following lawsuits have been filed in Delaware in connection
with the Company's pending merger with Halliburton:

* On November 24, 2014, Gary Molenda, a purported shareholder of
the Company, filed a class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware ("Delaware Chancery Court") against Baker
Hughes, the Company's Board of Directors, Halliburton, and Red
Tiger LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Halliburton ("Red Tiger"
and together with all defendants, "Defendants") styled Gary R.
Molenda v. Baker Hughes, Inc., et al., Case No. 10390-CB.

* On November 26, 2014, a second purported shareholder of the
Company, Booth Family Trust, filed a substantially similar class
action lawsuit in Delaware Chancery Court.

* On December 1, 2014, New Jersey Building Laborers Annuity Fund
and James Rice, two additional purported shareholders of the
Company, filed substantially similar class action lawsuits in
Delaware Chancery Court.

* On December 10, 2014, a fifth purported shareholder of the
Company, Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund, filed another
substantially similar class action lawsuit in the Delaware
Chancery Court, and

* On December 24, 2014, a sixth purported shareholder of the
Company, Annette Shipp, filed another substantially similar class
action lawsuit in the Delaware Chancery Court.

"All of the lawsuits make substantially similar claims," the
Company said.  "The plaintiffs generally allege that the members
of the Company's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary
duties to our shareholders in connection with the merger
negotiations by entering into the merger agreement and by
approving the merger, and that the Company, Halliburton, and Red
Tiger aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary
duties.  More specifically, the lawsuits allege that the merger
agreement provides inadequate consideration to our shareholders,
that the process resulting in the merger agreement was flawed,
that the Company's directors engaged in self-dealing, and that
certain provisions of the merger agreement improperly favor
Halliburton and Red Tiger, precluding or impeding third parties
from submitting potentially superior proposals, among other
things.  The lawsuit filed by Annettee Shipp also alleges that our
Board of Directors failed to disclose material information
concerning the proposed merger in the preliminary registration
statement on Form S-4.  On January 7, 2015, James Rice amended his
complaint, adding similar allegations regarding the disclosures in
the preliminary registration statement on Form S-4.  The lawsuits
seek unspecified damages, injunctive relief enjoining the merger,
and rescission of the merger agreement, among other relief."

On January 23, 2015, the Delaware lawsuits were consolidated under
the caption In re Baker Hughes Inc. Stockholders Litigation,
Consolidated C.A. No. 10390-CB. Pursuant to the Court's
consolidation order, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on
February 4, 2015, which alleges substantially similar claims and
seeks substantially similar relief to that raised in the six
individual complaints, except that while Baker Hughes is named as
a defendant, no claims are asserted against the Company.


BAKER HUGHES: Scheduled to Respond to Rovner Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Baker Hughes Incorporated said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on November 26,
2014, a seventh class action challenging the merger was filed by a
purported Company shareholder in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas (Houston Division).  The
lawsuit, styled Marc Rovner v. Baker Hughes Inc., et al., Cause
No. 4:14-cv-03416, asserts claims against the Company, most of its
current Board of Directors, Halliburton, and Red Tiger.  The
lawsuit asserts substantially similar claims and seeks
substantially similar relief as that sought in the Delaware
lawsuits.  The Defendants were scheduled to respond to the
complaint on February 13, 2015.


BAKER HUGHES: Settled "Zamora" Lawsuit for De Minimis Amount
------------------------------------------------------------
Baker Hughes Incorporated said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on November 26,
2014, a seventh class action challenging the merger was filed by a
purported Company shareholder in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas (Houston Division).  The
lawsuit, styled Marc Rovner v. Baker Hughes Inc., et al., Cause

"We are a defendant in various labor claims including the
following matters," the Company said. "On April 28, 2014, a
collective action lawsuit alleging that we failed to pay class of
workers overtime in compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") was filed titled Michael Ciamillo, individually, etc., et
al. vs. Baker Hughes Incorporated in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Alaska ("Ciamillo"). During the fourth quarter of
2014, the parties agreed to settle the Ciamillo lawsuit, including
certain state law claims, for $5 million, subject to final court
approval. On December 10, 2013, a class and collective action
lawsuit alleging that we failed to pay a nationwide class of
workers overtime in compliance with the FLSA and certain state
laws was filed titled Lea et al. v. Baker Hughes, Inc. in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Galveston
Division ("Lea")."

"During the second quarter of 2014, the parties agreed to settle
the Lea lawsuit, subject to final court approval, and we recorded
a charge of $62 million, which includes the Lea settlement amount
and associated costs and an amount for settlement of another wage
and hour lawsuit.

"On October 21, 2013, a collective action lawsuit alleging that we
failed to pay a class of workers overtime in compliance with the
FLSA was filed titled Zamora et al. v. Baker Hughes Incorporated
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Corpus Christi Division ("Zamora"). In October of 2014, the
parties agreed to settle the Zamora lawsuit for an amount that was
not material to our financial position, results of operations or
cash flows."


BALTIMORE, MD: Court Vacates Ruling in Suit Against School Board
----------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge William M. Nickerson of the District of
Maryland granted plaintiffs' request in the case ANNA D. GREEN, et
al. v. BALTIMORE CITY BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS, CIVIL ACTION
NO. WMN-14-3132 (D. Md.)

On January 22, 2015, the court issued a memorandum and order
granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs Anna Green and
Carolyn Richards and denying the motion to dismiss, or in the
alternative, for summary judgment, filed by the defendant City
Board of School Commissioners. In granting summary judgment to
plaintiffs, the court relied on the body of precedent interpreting
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the
Comprehensive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA),
amendments to ERISA to conclude that defendant violated its COBRA
obligations and its fiduciary duties under ERISA by failing to
provide adequate notice of the change in their health care
coverage when their hours were taken down to zero.

On March 10, 2015, as part of supplemental briefing for class
action status and further relief, plaintiffs submitted a letter
bringing to the attention of the court a provision of ERISA
previously unaddressed by either party. Specifically, the letter
explained that 29 U.S.C. Section 1003(b)(1) establishes that ERISA
does not apply to a governmental plan. Plaintiffs' counsel
requested that, in light of discovery, the court suspend briefing
on their motion for class action or further relief, withdraw its
January 22 memorandum and order, and provide a schedule that
allows for a period of discovery on jurisdictional facts and class
certification, amendment of the complaint, and a new round of
motions on the merits, class certification, and remedies.

Senior District Judge Nickerson granted plaintiffs' request and
vacated his memorandum and order dated January 22, 2015. Briefing
on plaintiffs' motion to certify class and for further relief is
suspended and within 30 days of the order, parties were directed
to submit to the court a modified scheduling order detailing
deadlines for limited jurisdictional discovery, amended pleadings,
dispositive motions, and other deadlines as needed.

A copy of Senior District Judge Nickerson's memorandum and order
dated March 17, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/a9LQ7gfrom
Leagle.com

Plaintiffs, represented by David Gray Wright --
wright@kahnsmith.com -- Joel A Smith -- smith@kahnsmith.com --
Keith J Zimmerman -- zimmerman@kahnsmith.com -- at Kahn Smith and
Collins PA

Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners, Defendant,
represented by Amanda L Costley, Baltimore City Public Schools &
Tamal Ajani Banton, Office of Legal Counsel


BANK OF THE OZARKS: "Muzingo" Plaintiff Agree to Stay Proceedings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bank Of The Ozarks, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Plaintiff in the
Muzingo case has agreed to stay the proceedings in that case
pending the outcome of the hearing in the Walker case.

On January 5, 2012, the Company and the Bank were served with a
summons and complaint filed on December 19, 2011, in the Circuit
Court of Lonoke County, Arkansas, Division III, styled Robert
Walker, Ann B. Hines and Judith Belk vs. Bank of the Ozarks, Inc.
and Bank of the Ozarks, Case No. CV-2011-777. In addition, on
December 21, 2012, the Bank was served with a summons and
complaint filed on December 20, 2012, in the Circuit Court of
Pulaski County, Arkansas, Ninth Division, styled Audrey Muzingo v.
Bank of the Ozarks, Case No. 60 CV 12-6043.

The complaint in each case alleges that the Company and/or Bank
have harmed the plaintiffs, current or former customers of the
Bank, by improper, unfair and unconscionable assessment and
collection of excessive overdraft fees from the plaintiffs.
According to the complaints, plaintiffs claim that the Bank
employs sophisticated software to automate its overdraft system,
and that this system unfairly and inequitably manipulates and
alters customers' transaction records in order to maximize
overdraft penalties, particularly utilizing a practice of posting
of items in "high-to-low" order, despite the actual sequence in
which such items are presented for payment. Plaintiffs claim that
the Bank's deposit agreements with customers do not adequately
disclose the Bank's overdraft assessment policies and are
ambiguous, deceptive, unfair and misleading. The complaint in each
case alleges that these actions and omissions constitute breach of
contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, unconscionable conduct, conversion, unjust enrichment and
violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The
complaint in the Walker case also includes a count for conversion.
Each of the complaints seeks to have the cases certified by the
court as a class action for all Bank account holders similarly
situated, and seeks a declaratory judgment as to the wrongful
nature of the Bank's overdraft fee policies, restitution of
overdraft fees paid by the plaintiffs and the putative class
(defined as all Bank customers residing in Arkansas) as a result
of the actions cited in the complaints, disgorgement of profits as
a result of the alleged wrongful actions, and unspecified
compensatory and statutory or punitive damages, together with pre-
judgment interest, costs and plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.

The Company and Bank filed a motion to dismiss and to compel
arbitration in the Walker case. The trial court denied the motion
and found that the arbitration provision contained in the
controlling Consumer Deposit Account Agreement was unconscionable
and thus unenforceable on the grounds that the provision was the
result of unequal bargaining power. The Company and Bank appealed
the trial court's ruling to the Arkansas Court of Appeals on an
interlocutory basis.

On September 18, 2013, a three-judge panel of the Arkansas Court
of Appeals reversed the trial court's ruling and remanded the case
to the trial court for the purpose of entering an order compelling
arbitration. On October 7, 2013, the plaintiffs filed petitions
for reconsideration and review before the Arkansas Court of
Appeals and Arkansas Supreme Court, respectively. On October 30,
2013, the Arkansas Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs'
petition for reconsideration.

In January 2014, the Arkansas Supreme Court granted the
plaintiff's petition for review. Oral arguments were presented to
the Arkansas Supreme Court on May 1, 2014. On May 15, 2014, the
Arkansas Supreme Court vacated the Arkansas Court of Appeals'
decision, reversing and remanding the case to the trial court to
determine, in the first instance, whether there is a valid
agreement to arbitrate disputes between the named plaintiffs and
the Bank.

An evidentiary hearing was conducted by the trial court on the
arbitration issue on October 1, 2014, and the trial court took the
matter under advisement. On October 30, 2014, the trial court
issued an order once again denying the Company and Bank's motion
to dismiss and to compel arbitration. The trial court ruled that
the Consumer Deposit Account Agreement containing the arbitration
provision was not enforceable because of a lack of mutual
agreement and lack of mutual obligation. The Company and Bank have
appealed the trial court's ruling to the Arkansas Supreme Court on
an interlocutory basis.

The Plaintiff in the Muzingo case has agreed to stay the
proceedings in that case pending the outcome of the hearing in the
Walker case. The Company and the Bank believe the Plaintiffs'
claims in each of these cases are unfounded and subject to
meritorious defenses and intend to vigorously defend against these
claims.


BANK OF THE OZARKS: Agreement Reached in Greentech Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Bank Of The Ozarks, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that an agreement in
principle has been reached to settle all claims of the plaintiffs
and the proposed class in the Greentech action.

On August 7, 2014, a putative class action complaint, styled
Greentech Research LLC v. Callen, et al., was filed in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York for New York County, by an entity
purporting to be a stockholder of Intervest Bancshares Corporation
("Intervest"). On August 19, 2014, a putative class action
complaint, styled Sonnenberg v. Intervest Bancshares Corp., et
al., was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for
New York County, by an individual purporting to be a stockholder
of Intervest.

Each of the complaints alleges that the directors of Intervest
breached their fiduciary duties to Intervest's stockholders in
connection with the merger of Intervest by approving a transaction
pursuant to an allegedly inadequate process that undervalues
Intervest and includes preclusive deal protection provisions; and
that Intervest and the Company allegedly aided and abetted the
Intervest directors in breaching their duties to Intervest's
stockholders. The complaints seek court certification of the
respective plaintiffs as class representatives and that such
proceedings may proceed as stockholder class actions, and various
remedies, including enjoining the merger from being consummated in
accordance with its agreed-upon terms, rescission or an award of
rescissory damages in the event that the merger is consummated, an
accounting by the defendants to the plaintiff class for all
damages caused by the defendants, recovery of plaintiffs' costs
and attorneys' and experts' fees relating to the lawsuit, and such
further relief as the court deems just and proper. On October 14,
2014, the plaintiff in the Greentech action filed an amended
complaint alleging, among other things, inadequacy of the
disclosures contained in a preliminary version of the proxy
statement/prospectus included in the registration statement on
Form S-4 filed on September 29, 2014.

Pursuant to a stipulation among the parties in both actions and an
order of the court, the Sonnenberg action was voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice on November 17, 2014 and a second
amended complaint in the Greentech action was filed on November
18, 2014, including the Sonnenberg plaintiff as an additional
putative class representative. After certain preliminary discovery
conducted in the Greentech action, the parties, after negotiation
between their respective counsel, reached an agreement in
principle to settle all claims of the plaintiffs and the proposed
class in the Greentech action. The agreement in principle was
memorialized in a memorandum of understanding signed by counsel
for plaintiffs, plaintiff class and all defendants on November 18,
2014, which agreement is expected to be confirmed in a Settlement
Agreement. The settlement is conditioned upon, among other things,
approval of the settlement by the court and closing of the merger
after its approval by the Intervest stockholders which was
obtained on January 27, 2015.

While the defendants deny the allegations in the complaint and
believe them to be without merit, they have agreed to the terms of
the settlement to avoid the costs and disruptions of any further
litigation and to permit timely closing of the merger.

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement: (i) Intervest and the
Company, without in any way admitting liability or conceding the
allegations of the complaints, agreed to make certain changes to
the disclosure in the Form S-4, as reflected in the final proxy
statement/prospectus dated December 8, 2014, and agreed to bear
certain expenses in connection with notice to the class in
relation to the proposed settlement; and (ii) plaintiffs agreed to
move the court for certification of the proposed class and
approval of the parties' settlement and have agreed that, upon
such approval, plaintiffs and plaintiff class would release all
defendants from all claims asserted in the Greentech action. In
connection with these motions, plaintiffs' class counsel will also
petition the court to award them attorneys' fees and expenses,
which fees and expenses as ordered by the court will be paid by
the Company, as Intervest's successor.

The parties have also agreed, pending final approval of the
settlement, to stay and not pursue any further proceedings in the
Greentech action, other than proceedings related to seeking
approval of the settlement. There can be no assurance that the
settlement between the parties will be approved by the court.
Absent court approval of the settlement, the defendants intend to
defend themselves vigorously against the plaintiffs' claims.


BELL HELICOPTER: Mexican Law Governs Crash Case, High Court Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for Delaware Law Weekly, reports that the
state Supreme Court has ruled that a case involving a Bell
helicopter that crashed in Mexico, killing everyone inside, should
be governed by Mexican law.

In Bell Helicopter Textron v. Arteaga, the justices reversed a
Superior Court decision applying Texas law to the case.  Bell,
while a Delaware corporation, is headquartered in Texas.  The
family members of those killed in the crash filed suit against
Bell in Delaware.

The high court heard the case en banc.

In the court's majority opinion, Chief Justice Leo E. Strine Jr.
said because the helicopter had been flown in Mexico, crashed in
Mexico, and all of its passengers were Mexican citizens, the case
belonged in Mexico.

"Despite the presumption in the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts
that the law of the place where the injury occurred should govern
the dispute, the Superior Court found that Texas law has the 'most
significant relationship' to the liability, damages, and remedies
at issue.  The court also opined that Texas law would be easier to
apply than Mexican law because there would be no need to hire
interpreters," Justice Strine said.

"Bell argues that Mexican law is more appropriate because the
decedents were all Mexican citizens, their relatives bringing this
suit are all Mexican citizens, the helicopter was owned by a
Mexican company, and it had been operated solely within Mexico for
over 30 years when it crashed," Justice Strine continued.
"Because the governing Restatement test to determine which
sovereign's law to apply strongly favors Mexico, we reverse."

Justice James T. Vaughn Jr. offered the sole dissent to the
court's ruling.

"Because I believe the appellees have successfully rebutted the
presumption that Mexican law applies to the substantive issues of
this case, I respectfully dissent," Justice Vaughn said.

But Justice Strine said the specific issues of liability, damages
and remedies should be determined under Mexican law.

According to Justice Strine, the Superior Court misapplied the
first factor of the Restatement test when it decided the place of
injury was "fortuitous," or bore little relation to the parties
involved.

"All of the victims were Mexican citizens, who were traveling from
one Mexican state to another for their jobs in Mexico," Justice
Strine said.  "In other words, the Mexican victims boarded a
helicopter in Mexico that had been operating in Mexico since 1979
to take a journey that was supposed to end (and did end, albeit
tragically) in Mexico.  There was nothing fortuitous about this:
They did not 'fortuitously' happen to be in Mexico -- they lived
and worked there."

Justice Strine said the Superior Court also mistakenly decided the
conduct that caused the accident, a faulty part manufactured in
Texas, occurred in that state.

According to Justice Strine, "The trend has been instead to look
to the place where the injury-causing product was used, as the
Superior Court itself has noted previously: 'Modern choice-of-law
considerations suggest that the jurisdiction where the product is
marketed has a greater interest than a jurisdiction where a
product is manufactured, developed, or tested.'"

Additionally, Justice Strine said the helicopter in question was
not marketed or sold in the United States at all.  Furthermore,
Justice Strine said it was unlikely that any of the crash victims'
relatives had any relationship with Bell in Texas.

Justice Strine also said the Superior Court's ruling didn't
properly take international relations into account by applying
Texas law over Mexican law.

"The Mexican people, acting through their elected representatives,
are entitled to determine for themselves the appropriate balance
between the remedies available to victims and limiting liability
to encourage companies to operate in Mexico," Justice Strine said.

"Providing incentives for Mexican citizens to evade the limits on
remedies and damages imposed by their own legal system when the
defendant fortuitously happens to be a U.S.-based company
threatens to disturb international relations and to impede the
willingness of companies to do business in Mexico."

Joseph J. Bellew -- jbellew@cozen.com -- of Cozen O'Connor
represented Bell and declined to comment.  An attorney for the
plaintiffs, Richard A. Zappa -- rzappa@ycst.com -- of Young
Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, did not return a call seeking comment.


BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Judge Dismisses "Pearlstein" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thomas P. Griesa of the Southern District of New
York granted defendants' motion to dismiss in the case MARVIN
PEARLSTEIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. BLACKBERRY LIMITED, et al., Defendants,
NO. 13-CV-7060 (TPG) (S.D.N.Y.)

BlackBerry Limited, formerly Research in Motion Limited, was at
one point a leading smartphone manufacturer. In 2007, however,
competing technology company Apple Inc. introduced the first
iPhone. Over the next several years, BlackBerry lost market share
to Apple Inc. and other companies offering technologically
superior products. In an effort to reverse its decline in the
smartphone market, BlackBerry began to develop a new series of
smartphones running a new operating system, BlackBerry 10. The
BlackBerry Z10 would be an all-touchscreen device, and the Q10
would have a physical keyboard. BlackBerry put all of its
resources into the new BlackBerry 10 devices, counting on them to
reverse the company's losses and bring a return to profitability.

BlackBerry released its Z10 smartphones in the United States on
March 28, 2013, the date marks the beginning of the class period,
which ran until September 20, 2013. The Z10's domestic performance
was poor, leading the devices to be sold at a discount.
Nevertheless, defendants made a number of positive statements
about the devices in their public filings, press releases, and
earnings calls.

Plaintiffs allege that during the class period defendants made a
number of misrepresentations to conceal the poor performance of
the BlackBerry 10 smartphones.  Plaintiffs further allege that
defendants: (1) violated generally accepted accounting principles
(GAAP); and (2) failed to disclose to the SEC that BlackBerry
devices, although shipped, were not being sold through to end
customers. Plaintiffs claim that defendants took these actions,
either knowingly or recklessly, in order to return the company as
a meaningful competitor in the mobile arena and to ensure that
corporate officers would continue in their employment and receive
performance-based compensation. These actions purportedly
increased BlackBerry's stock price and led market analysts to
overstate the company's value, causing plaintiffs and other
investors to purchase the stocks at inflated prices.

The case is the consolidation of three separate actions. The court
consolidated the actions on March 25, 2014 and also appointed the
lead plaintiffs and counsel. Plaintiffs filed the Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint on June 2, 2014. Defendants move to
dismiss the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Judge Griesa granted defendants' motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended class action complaint.

A copy of Judge Griesa's opinion dated March 13, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/pdeLHOfrom Leagle.com

Todd Cox & Mary Dinzik, Lead Plaintiff, represented by:

Kim Elaine Miller, Esq.
KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
250 Park Ave., Suite 2040
New York, NY 10177
Telephone: 504-455-1400
Facsimile: 504-455-1498

Marvin Pearlstein, Plaintiff, represented by:

Bruce Whitney Dona, Esq.
Kim Elaine Miller, Esq.
KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
250 Park Ave., Suite 2040
New York, NY 10177
Telephone: 504-455-1400
Facsimile: 504-455-1498

Omar Ahmed, Movant, represented by:

Peter George Safirstein
Morgan & Morgan, P.C.
175 Derby Street, Unit 40
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: 781-749-0050
Facsimile: 781-740-1792

The BlackBerry Limited Investor Group, Movant, represented by
Brian C. Kerr -- kerr@browerpiven.com -- at Brower Piven, A
Professional Corporation

Mark Katz, Movant, represented by Gregory Bradley Linkh

Blackberry Limited, Thorsten Heins, and Brian Bidulka, Defendants,
represented by Joel Charles Haims -- jhaims@mofo.com -- Dan Edward
Marmalefsky -- dmarmalefsky@mofo.com -- James Joseph Beha, II --
jbeha@mofo.com -- Jordan Eth -- jeth@mofo.com -- at Morrison &
Foerster LLP


BRYAN COLLEGE: Judge Won't Certify Class in "Ramthun" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge P.K. Holmes of the Western District of Arkansas,
Fayetteville Division, denied class certification in the case
TRACY RAMTHUN and ANGELA CLEMENS, Plaintiffs, v. BRYAN CAREER
COLLEGE INCORPORATED, d/b/a Bryan College; and BRYAN UNIVERSITY,
Defendants, CASE NO. 5:13-CV-05039 (W.D. Ark.)

The plaintiffs Tracy Ramthun and Angela Clemens are residents of
Arkansas who enrolled in and attended classes at Bryan Career
College (Bryan) campus in Rogers, Arkansas, and received medical
assistant degrees. Plaintiffs allege that Bryan represented to
them that Bryan was fully and nationally accredited, but did not
tell them that, due to the difference in national and regional
accreditation standards, credit hours from nationally accredited
institutions were unlikely to be accepted by regionally accredited
institutions. Upon completion of their degrees, plaintiffs
allegedly attempted to transfer credit hours from Bryan to other
institutions and found that those institutions did not accept
Bryan credits.

Plaintiffs bring causes of action for fraud, constructive fraud, a
violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA)
(Ark. Code Ann. Section 4-88-101 et seq.), breach of contract, and
breach of implied warranty. Plaintiffs claim that Bryan committed
fraud and breached its contract with them by representing that its
credit hours could be transferred to other institutions.
Plaintiffs brought an action in the state courts of Arkansas.
Bryan removed on the basis of the Class Action Fairness Act, 28
U.S.C. Section 1332(d), and then filed a motion to dismiss. The
Court denied the motion on the grounds that the complaint alleged
plausible claims based on nontransferability of credits, but
otherwise rejected plaintiffs' educational malpractice
allegations. Plaintiffs then moved for class certification and
further propose the putative class into four subclasses. The
putative subclass claims include all the claims in the complaint -
- fraud, constructive fraud, a violation of the ADTPA, breach of
contract, and breach of implied warranty -- with the exception
that the ADTPA claim be construed as a claim under the state
consumer protection laws relevant to each putative subclass.
Plaintiffs also filed a motion for leave to file supplemental
affidavits to their motion for certification.

Judge Holmes granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to supplement
but denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Plaintiffs
were ordered to show cause by April 8, 2015 why Bryan should not
have partial judgment as a matter of law with respect to the
breach of implied warranty and ADTPA claims. Any response by Bryan
to Plaintiffs' filing will be due within 14 days of the filing.

A copy of Judge Holmes's opinion and order dated March 18, 2015,
is available at http://is.gd/AoX4cqfrom Leagle.com

Plaintiffs, represented by:

Alan L. Lane, Esq.
Matt L. Lindsay, Esq.
Monte A. Sharits
ODOM & ELLIOTT, P.A.
One Street Mountain
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: 479-442-7575
Facsimile: 479-442-9008

Defendants, represented by Jason C. Smith --
jcsmith@spencerfane.com -- Derek A. Ankrom --
dankrom@spencerfane.com -- at Spencer Fane Britt & Browne LLP;
Steven M. Gombos -- sgombos@ritzert-leyton.com -- Charles Robinson
Camp -- at Ritzert Leyton P.C.


CAFE ISTANBUL: Faces "Mohammad" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mobarak Mohammad, and all other similarly situated under 29
USC 216(B) v. Cafe Istanbul, Inc. & Erol Girgin, Case No. 3:15-cv-
01194-M (N.D. Tex., April 20, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate two restaurants located in Dallas
and Plano, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack Lewis Siegel, Esq.
      SIEGEL LAW GROUP
      Meadow Park Tower
      10440 N. Central Expy., Suite 1040
      Dallas, TX 75231
      Telephone: (214) 706-0834
      Facsimile: (469) 339-0204
      E-mail: jsiegel.esq@gmail.com


CAPITAL INVESTMENT: Judge Recommends Denial on Case Dismissal Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin of the District of South
Carolina, Greenville Division, recommends that defendant's motion
be denied in the case Harold Brooks, Clara Louise Brooks, Benjamin
Brooks, William F. Tomz, Frances W. Tomz, Sharon Finch,
Individually and as Class Representatives, Plaintiffs, v. Arthur
M. Field, Frederick Scott Pfeiffer, Defendants, C.A. NO. 6:14-CV-
02267-BHH-JDA (D.S.C.)

The defendant Arthur M. Field, together with Elliot Salzman and
some South Carolina investors, formed Lancaster Resources, Inc.
(LRI), which ultimate formed Capital Investment Funding, LLC
(CIF).  LRI owned more than 90% of the CIF membership interest.

On March 13, 2000, the members of CIF executed an Operating
Agreement, providing that the primary purpose of CIF shall be to
raise funding to be loaned to LRI for the purposes set forth in
its Articles of Incorporation, By-Laws, Operating Agreements,
etc., including the making of loans to purchase, develop, operate,
lease, manage, and sell, alone or with others, commercial real
property in the New York tri-state area, but this statement shall
not confine or limit the Company's legitimate business activities.

CIF issued a prospectus dated April 1, 1999, for distribution to
South Carolina residents. CIF then began selling promissory notes
to investors in South Carolina. During this time, Field primarily
controlled the business activities of CIF. At some point, Field
befriended defendant Frederick Scott Pfeiffer (Pfeiffer), and the
two began to intertwine their business affairs.

Plaintiffs purchased numerous notes from CIF between 2000 and
2008, with interest rates between 6.25% and 9.75% per annum. On
January 20, 2008, Field sent an unsigned letter to CIF's
investors, indicating that CIF was no longer accepting monies and
that it was winding up its business.

Plaintiffs filed a case on June 11, 2014, alleging violations of
the civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
(RICO). Plaintiffs alleged two causes of action. A violation of 18
U.S.C. Section 1962(c) and a violation of 18 U.S.C. Section
1962(d) and seek certification of a class as well as actual
damages, trebled, plus attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiffs bring
this RICO action as a class action for all 1,142 Note holders.
Plaintiffs allege that they relied upon prospectuses prepared by
defendants as material representations to invest in their
securities and to continue to let defendants, by and through
various corporations they controlled and/or managed, retain
plaintiffs' investments. Defendant Arthur M. Field ("Field") filed
a motion to dismiss on July 30, 2014.

Magistrate Judge Austin recommends denial of defendant Field's
motion to dismiss and advised the parties that they may file
specific written objections to the report and recommendation
within 14 days of the date of service.
A copy of Magistrate Judge Austin's report and recommendation
dated February 20, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/KI6Wozfrom
Leagle.com

Plaintiffs, represented by Gene McCain Connell, Jr. --
GConnell@classactlaw.net -- at Kelaher Connell

     - and -

Connor John M Read, IV, Esq.
Rodney F Pillsbury, Esq.
PILLSBURY AND READ LAW FIRM
1204-A East Washington Street
Greenville, SC 29601
Telephone: 864-241-9828
Facsimile: 864-241-9818

Arthur M Field, Defendant, Pro Se

Frederick Scott Pfeiffer, Defendant, represented by Ralph Lee
Gleaton, II -- ralph@pgwhlaw.com -- at Pfeiffer Gantt Gleaton
Wyatt


CEDAR FAIR: Final Hearing to Final Settlement Set in 2015 Q2
------------------------------------------------------------
Cedar Fair, L.P. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the hearing to approve
the final settlement is not expected to occur until the second
quarter of 2015 in the case Ortegon, et al vs. Cedar Fair, L.P.,
Cedar Fair Management Company, et al.

The Partnership and Cedar Fair Management, Inc. are defendants in
a class action lawsuit filed in Superior Court of the State of
California for Santa Clara County on October 3, 2013 by Frank
Ortegon-Ramirez seeking damages and injunctive relief for claims
related to certain employment and pay practices at our parks in
California, including those related to certain check-out, time
reporting, discharge and pay statement practices. The defendants
filed an answer on November 21, 2013 denying the allegations in
the complaint and requesting a dismissal of all claims. The class
has not been certified.

On November 12, 2014, the Partnership participated in a mediation
relating to the claims alleged in the lawsuit. Following this
mediation, the Partnership negotiated a $4.75 million settlement
with the named Plaintiff on a class wide basis which is subject to
final court approval. The Partnership and the named Plaintiff are
required to file a brief in support of the settlement with the
court. The hearing to approve the final settlement is not expected
to occur until the second quarter of 2015. Based upon the
information available, the Partnership believes the liability
recorded as of December 31, 2014 is adequate and does not expect
the terms of the negotiated settlement or final briefing to
materially affect its financial results in future periods.


CELADON TRUCKING: "Wilmoth" Class Suit Remanded to Marion County
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William T. Lawrence remanded to Marion County
Superior Court the class action CHARLES WILMOTH and KENT VASSEY,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. CELADON TRUCKING SERVICES, INC., Defendant, CAUSE
NO. 1:14-CV-2082-WTL-MJD, (S.D. Ind.).

The action is a breach of contract case. The Plaintiffs are a
class of independent owner/operator truck drivers who entered into
a lease agreement with Celadon Trucking Services, Inc., a publicly
traded transportation company. Under the lease agreement, the
parties agreed that Celadon Trucking could withhold compensation
for a driver for, among other things, charges and deductions
authorized by the driver. The Plaintiffs assert that Celadon
Trucking withheld more money from their compensation than it
actually paid for fuel purchases in breach of the lease agreement.
The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendant owes them $3,805,836.00,
plus prejudgment interest in the amount of $1,721,423.64.

The District Court agrees that the interest owed to the Plaintiffs
in the case is due because the Defendant delayed payments.  The
prejudgment interest, therefore, is not an essential ingredient of
the Plaintiffs' claim under Brown and cannot be included in the
amount in controversy.  Because the amount in controversy is not
met, the District Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the
case and removal was improper, Judge Lawrence holds.

A copy of the District Court's April 6, 2015 Order is available at
http://is.gd/hhLmDEfrom Leagle.com.

CHARLES WILMOTH, Plaintiff, represented by Barry A. Macey --
bmacey@maceylaw.com -- MACEY SWANSON AND ALLMAN, Irwin B. Levin --
ilevin@cohenandmalad.com -- COHEN & MALAD LLP, Jeffrey A. Macey --
jmacey@maceylaw.com -- MACEY SWANSON & ALLMAN, Lynn A. Toops --
ltoops@cohenandmalad.com -- COHEN & MALAD LLP, Richard J. Swanson,
MACEY SWANSON AND ALLMAN & Robert Adam Hicks, MACEY SWANSON &
ALLMAN.

KENT VASSEY, Plaintiff, represented by Pro Se.

KENT VASSEY, Plaintiff, represented by Barry A. Macey, MACEY
SWANSON AND ALLMAN & Irwin B. Levin, COHEN & MALAD LLP.

KENT VASSEY, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey A. Macey, MACEY
SWANSON & ALLMAN, Lynn A. Toops, COHEN & MALAD LLP, Richard J.
Swanson, MACEY SWANSON AND ALLMAN & Robert Adam Hicks, MACEY
SWANSON & ALLMAN.

CELADON TRUCKING SERVICES, INC., Defendant, represented by Gregory
M. Feary -- GFEARY@SCOPELITIS.COM -- SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT
HANSON & FEARY PC & Braden Kenneth Core -- BCORE@SCOPELITIS.COM --
, SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON & FEARY PC


CEPHALON INC: FTC Can After Profits in Reverse-Payment Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that the Federal Trade Commission can go after six years of
Cephalon's profits in a reverse-payment case against the
pharmaceutical company, a federal judge has ruled.

Reverse-payment settlements are the deals made by major
pharmaceutical companies with generic drugmakers in order to keep
the cheaper drugs off the market and, in this case, Cephalon had
made deals with four generic drugmakers ranging from $25 million
to $164 million to protect its name-brand wakefulness drug called
Provigil.

"These settlements . . . drew immediate antitrust scrutiny from
private plaintiffs and, as relevant here, the FTC," said U.S.
District Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, who is handling the case, in the opinion he issued
on April 15, ruling the FTC can seek disgorgement of Cephalon's
profits from 2007 to 2012.

The FTC filed its suit in 2008 and, initially, only sought
injunctive relief to keep Cephalon from enforcing the settlements
and making new ones in the future.

But, following Goldberg's 2011 finding in a related case that
Cephalon's patent for the active ingredient in Provigil was
invalid and the entry into the market of a generic version of the
drug a year later, the FTC was prompted to change course and
pursue disgorgement, according to the opinion.

"The FTC persuasively argues that the finding that Cephalon
procured its patent by fraud as well as the entry of generic
Provigil into the market in 2012 are 'dramatic changes in
circumstances since it brought its case' and necessitate a change
in the relief requested," Judge Goldberg said.

Cephalon objected to the change, making several arguments,
primarily that the section of the FTC Act under which the case was
brought doesn't allow the commission to seek equitable monetary
relief.

That section gives the FTC the power to bring cases against
entities that have violated the law that the FTC enforces, but it
doesn't explicitly say that the commission can seek monetary
relief, a fact emphasized by Cephalon.

"The FTC counters that courts have uniformly concluded that
Section 13(b) grants district courts authority to order monetary
equitable relief.  The weight of precedent supports this
position," Judge Goldberg said, citing to eight circuit court
opinions that ruled that way and dicta from the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit, which hasn't ruled directly on the
question.

In finding that courts can have the authority to grant monetary
equitable relief under Section 13(b), those circuits looked to a
pair of U.S. Supreme Court cases -- Porter v. Warner Holding,
decided in 1946, and Mitchell v. Robert DeMario Jewelry, decided
in 1960.

"According to Third Circuit precedent, Porter and Mitchell have
'charted an analytical course that seems fairly easy to follow. .
. . A district court sitting in equity may order restitution
unless there is a clear statutory limitation on the district
court's equitable jurisdiction and powers,'" Judge Goldberg said,
quoting from the Third Circuit's 2005 opinion in United States v.
Lane Labs-USA.

The judge rejected Cephalon's reading of an intervening case from
the U.S. Supreme Court in 1996, Meghrig v. KFC Western, which had
a more narrow ruling than the company described.

"Nothing in the FTC Act creates a necessary and inescapable
inference that a district court's equitable power under Section
13(b) is limited.  Eight circuit courts of appeals have reached
this conclusion.  I find that the FTC is permitted to seek
disgorgement in cases brought pursuant to Section 13(b),"
Judge Goldberg said.

He also dispensed with the handful of other more minor arguments
made by Cephalon.

Eric Mahr -- eric.mahr@wilmerhale.com -- of Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr in Washington, D.C., represented Cephalon
and couldn't be reached for comment.

Betsy Lordan, a spokeswoman for the FTC, declined to comment.


CHELSEA THERAPEUTICS: 4th Cir. Vacates and Remands "Zak" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Barbara Milano Keenan of the United States Court of
Appeals, Fourth Circuit, vacated a judgment and remanded the
appealed case entitled ROMAN ZAK, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, and CAMERON
McINTYRE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated Plaintiff, v. CHELSEA THERAPEUTICS INTERNATIONAL, LTD.;
SIMON PEDDER; WILLIAM D. SCHWIETERMAN, Defendants-Appellees, and
L. ARTHUR HEWITT; J. NICK RIEHLE, Defendants, NO. 13-2370 (4th
Cir.).

In 2006, Chelsea Therapeutics International, Ltd. (Chelsea) began
its effort to gain approval from the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) concerning the right to market the drug Northera as a
treatment for symptomatic neurogenic orthostatic hypotension
(NOH).

During a conference call held with Chelsea investors, Dr. Simon
Pedder, Chelsea's President and Chief Executive Officer, stated
that the FDA officials had clarified that additional efficacy
studies were not required for a new drug application filing. On
the same conference call, Dr. William Schwieterman, Chelsea's Vice
President and Chief Medical Officer, expresses that Chelsea was
very pleased with the FDA's responses to Chelsea's questions about
its application and supporting data. After these statements,
Chelsea's stock price rose about 28 percent.

On February 13, 2012, eight days before the FDA briefing document
was made available to the public, Chelsea issued a press release.
In the release, Chelsea stated that it was in receipt of the
briefing document, and that several lines of inquiry have emerged
as significant components of the benefit-risk analysis of
Northera, including that Chelsea's drug development program may
not adequately establish a durable treatment effect as a result of
the short duration of" the clinical trials. After the February 13,
2012 press release issued, Chelsea's stock price dropped about
37.5 percent. When the briefing document became public eight days
later on February 21, 2012, Chelsea's stock price dropped an
additional 21 percent.

The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint
asserting violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC
Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5 (Rule 10b-5). In their
complaint, the plaintiffs, who purchased Chelsea stock between
November 3, 2008 and March 28, 2012 (the class period), asserted
numerous claims including that the defendants misled investors to
believe that the FDA would approve Northera based on the results
of only one successful efficacy study, even though the FDA
repeatedly had warned Chelsea that two successful studies and
evidence of duration of effect would be necessary for approval of
the new drug. In their complaint, the plaintiffs identified dozens
of allegedly misleading statements or material omissions by the
defendants.

In response, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), contending that the complaint
failed to show that the defendants made any materially false
statements or omissions, and that any such statements or omissions
were not made with the required scienter. The defendants attached
to their motion several exhibits and asked the court to take
judicial notice of them.

After considering the defendants' motion to dismiss filed under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the district court
dismissed the complaint, holding that the plaintiffs' allegations
were insufficient as a matter of law to establish that the
defendants acted with the required scienter. Plaintiffs appealed

Circuit Judge Keenan holds that the district court erred in
dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint on the basis that the
allegations supporting an inference of scienter were legally
insufficient. The district court's judgment is vacated and the
case is remanded to the district court.

A copy of Judge Keenan's opinion dated March 16, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/PFififfrom Leagle.com

Richard William Gonnello -- rgonnello@faruqilaw.com -- at FARUQI &
FARUQI, LLP, for Appellant

Barry M. Kaplan -- bkaplan@wsgr.com -- at WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH
& ROSATI, for Appellees

Lee M. Whitman -- lwhitman@wyrick.com -- Tobias S. Hampson --
thampson@wyrick.com -- at WYRICK ROBBINS YATES & PONTON LLP;
Gregory L. Watts -- gwatts@wsgr.com -- Ignacio E. Salceda --
isalceda@wsgr.com -- Cheryl W. Foung -- cfoung@wsgr.com -- at
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROASATI, for Appellees Chelsea
Therapeutics International, Ltd., Simon Pedder, and William D.
Schwieterman

The Fourth Circuit panel consists of Chief Judge William B.
Traxler Jr., and Judges Barbara Milano Keenan and Stephanie D.
Thacker.


CHICAGO, IL: Illegally Frisk People, "Smith" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Darnell Smith, Darren Nathan, Gregory Davis, Jeff Coleman, Phillip
Overton, and Marque Ross, individually and on behalf of a class of
all others similarly situated v. The City Of Chicago, Chicago
Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy, and Unknown Chicago Police
Officers (John Doe Officers 1-14), Case No. 1:15-cv-03467 (N.D.
Ill., April 20, 2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendants'
practice of stopping and frisking people in the absence of
reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal conduct.

The City Of Chicago is a municipal entity created and authorized
under the laws of the State of Illinois.

Garry McCarthy is the Police Superintendent for the City, and is
responsible for, and the chief architect of, the policies,
practices and customs of the CPD, a municipal agency of the City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Antonio Maurizio Romanucci, Esq.
      Martin D. Gould, Esq.
      ROMANUCCI & BLANDIN, LLC
      321 North Clark Street, Suite 900
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Telephone: (312) 458-1000
      E-mail: aromanucci@rblaw.net
              mgould@rblaw.net

         - and -

      Rodney G. Gregory, Esq.
      THE GREGORY LAW FIRM
      3127 Atlantic Blvd., Suite 3
      Jacksonville, FL 32207
      Telephone: (904) 398-0012
      Facsimile: (904) 398-5131
      E-mail: cspgregory@thegregorylawfirm.net


CLECO CORPORATION: One Claim Set for Trial on May 11
----------------------------------------------------
Cleco Corporation and Cleco Power LLC said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that one claim related to discrimination complaints has been
remanded to the Court and is set for trial on May 11, 2015.

In December 2009, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (the Court)
on behalf of eight current employees and four former employees
alleging that Cleco discriminated against each of them on the
basis of race. Each was seeking various remedies provided under
applicable statutes prohibiting racial discrimination in the
workplace and together, the plaintiffs sought monetary
compensation exceeding $35.0 million.

In July 2010, the plaintiffs moved to add an additional current
employee alleging that Cleco had discriminated on the basis of
race. The additional plaintiff sought compensation of no less than
$2.5 million and became the thirteenth plaintiff. In April 2011,
Cleco entered into a settlement with one of the current employees
which resulted in a dismissal of one of the thirteen cases with
prejudice.

In September 2011, the Court ruled on Cleco's summary judgment
motions, resulting in eleven of the twelve remaining plaintiffs
having at least one claim remaining. In February 2013, the Court
ruled on the second motion for summary judgment, filed by Cleco in
March 2012, in each of the eleven cases and each such case was
dismissed with prejudice. Appeals were filed in ten of the eleven
dismissed cases to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit (the Fifth Circuit).

In June 2013, the Fifth Circuit clerk dismissed the appeals of two
of the current employees due to their failure to file a brief in
support of their respective appeals. On various dates in August
through November 2013, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the trial court
judgments in favor of Cleco in seven of the eight remaining cases.
On April 8, 2014, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the Court's summary
judgment dismissing the wrongful termination and other
discrimination claims of the one remaining plaintiff, a former
employee who served as one of Cleco's human resource
representatives. Excluded from the ruling was one claim that the
former employee alleged was the result of a disciplinary warning
Cleco issued to the former employee. This one claim has been
remanded to the Court and is set for trial on May 11, 2015.


CLECO CORPORATION: Updates on Merger Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------
Cleco Corporation and Cleco Power LLC, in their Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, provided
updates on the class action lawsuits related to a Proposed Merger.

In connection with the proposed Merger, four actions have been
filed in the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish,
Louisiana and three actions have been filed in the Civil District
Court for Orleans Parish, Louisiana. The petitions in each action
generally alleged, among other things, that the members of the
Cleco Corporation Board of Directors breached their fiduciary
duties by, among other things, conducting an allegedly inadequate
sale process, agreeing to the Merger at a price that allegedly
undervalues Cleco, and failing to disclose material information
about the Merger. The petitions also allege that Cleco Partners,
Cleco Corporation, Merger Sub, and in some cases, certain of the
investors in Cleco Partners, either aided and abetted or entered
into a civil conspiracy to advance those supposed breaches of
duty. The petitions seek various remedies, including an injunction
against the Merger and monetary damages, including attorneys' fees
and expenses.

The four actions filed in the Ninth Judicial District Court for
Rapides Parish are captioned as follows:

* Braunstein v. Cleco Corporation, No. 251,383B (filed October 27,
2014),

* Moore v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No. 251,417C
(filed October 30, 2014),

* Trahan v. Williamson, No. 251,456C (filed November 5, 2014), and

* L'Herisson v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No.
251,515F (filed November 14, 2014).

On November 14, 2014, the plaintiff in the Braunstein action moved
for a dismissal of the action without prejudice, and that motion
was granted on November 19, 2014. On December 3, 2014, the court
consolidated the remaining three actions and appointed interim co-
lead counsel. On December 18, 2014, the plaintiffs in the
consolidated action filed a Consolidated Amended Verified
Derivative and Class Action Petition for Damages and Preliminary
and Permanent Injunction (the Consolidated Petition), which is now
the operative petition in the consolidated action. The action
names Cleco Corporation, its directors, Cleco Partners, and Merger
Sub as defendants. The Consolidated Petition alleges, among other
things, that the directors breached their fiduciary duties to
Cleco's shareholders and grossly mismanaged Cleco by approving the
Merger Agreement because it does not value Cleco adequately,
failing to structure a process through which shareholder value
would be maximized, engaging in self-dealing by ignoring conflicts
of interest, and failing to disclose material information about
the Merger. The Consolidated Petition further alleges that all
defendants conspired to commit the breaches of fiduciary duty.
Cleco believes that the allegations of the Consolidated Petition
are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious defenses
to the claims set forth in the Consolidated Petition.

The three actions filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans
Parish are captioned as follows:

* Butler v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-10776 (filed November 7,
2014),

* Creative Life Services, Inc. v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-
11098 (filed November 19, 2014), and

* Cashen v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-11236 (filed November 21,
2014).

Both the Butler and Cashen actions name Cleco Corporation, its
directors, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, Macquarie Infrastructure
and Real Assets Inc. (MIRA), British Columbia Investment
Management Corporation, and John Hancock Financial as defendants.
The Creative Life Services action names Cleco Corporation, its
directors, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, MIRA, and Macquarie
Infrastructure Partners III, L.P., as defendants. On December 11,
2014, the plaintiff in the Butler action filed an Amended Class
Action Petition for Damages, which is now the operative petition
in that action. Each petition alleges, among other things, that
the directors breached their fiduciary duties to Cleco's
shareholders by approving the Merger Agreement because it does not
value Cleco adequately, failing to structure a process through
which shareholder value would be maximized and engaging in self-
dealing by ignoring conflicts of interest. The Butler and Creative
Life Services petitions also allege that the directors breached
their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose material information
about the Merger. Each petition further alleges that Cleco, Cleco
Partners, Merger Sub, and certain of the investors in Cleco
Partners aided and abetted the directors' breaches of fiduciary
duty.

On December 23, 2014, the directors and Cleco filed declinatory
exceptions in each action on the basis that each action was
improperly brought in Orleans Parish and should either be
transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides
Parish or dismissed. On December 30, 2014, the plaintiffs in each
action jointly filed a motion to consolidate the three actions
pending in Orleans Parish and to appoint interim co-lead
plaintiffs and co-lead counsel. On January 23, 2015, the Court in
the Creative Life Services case sustained the defendants'
declinatory exceptions and dismissed the case so that it could be
transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides
Parish. On February 5, 2015, the plaintiffs in Butler and Cashen
also consented to the dismissal of their cases from Orleans Parish
so they could be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court
for Rapides Parish. On February 25, 2015, the Ninth Judicial
District Court for Rapides Parish held a hearing on a motion for
preliminary injunction filed by plaintiffs Moore, L'Herisson, and
Trahan seeking to enjoin the shareholder vote at the Special
Meeting of Shareholders scheduled for February 26, 2015, for
approval of the Merger Agreement. Following the hearing, the court
denied the plaintiffs' motion.

Cleco believes that the allegations of the petitions in each
action are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious
defenses to the claims set forth in each of the petitions.


COLUMBIA GAS: Court Dismisses "Baatz", Says Case Duplicative
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lesley Wells of the Northern District of Ohio,
Eastern Division granted defendant's motion to dismiss the case
RICHARD BAATZ, et al, Plaintiff, v. COLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSION,
LLC, Defendant, CASE NO. 1:14 CV 00505 (N.D. Ohio)

The defendant Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, (Columbia) operates
fourteen underground natural gas storage fields in the State of
Ohio. One of those storage fields, the Medina Storage Field, is
located beneath real properties owned by the plaintiffs.

Columbia notified the plaintiffs that each of their real
properties is located above the Medina Storage Field, and it
offered each of the plaintiffs the monetary sum of $250.00 per lot
in return for the execution of an easement permitting use of the
properties for gas storage. All of the plaintiffs refused the
offer.

According to the plaintiffs, Columbia took no steps to initiate
eminent domain proceedings for the purpose of compensating them.
The plaintiffs maintain that Columbia is presently storing and has
stored natural gas beneath the plaintiffs' properties, without
permission and without paying just compensation.

The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit alleging that Columbia wrongfully
stored natural gas in the Medina Storage Field located beneath
their property. The plaintiffs bring claims of trespass, unjust
enrichment, and inverse condemnation. They seek monetary damages,
a declaratory judgment, and a permanent injunction.

Columbia seeks dismissal of the case and argued that dismissal is
appropriate because this case is duplicative of Wilson et al. V.
Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, No. 2:12-cv-01203 (S.D. Ohio), a
previously filed class action lawsuit in United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

Judge Wells granted defendant's motion to dismiss.  A copy of
Judge Wells's memorandum of opinion and order dated March 5, 2015,
is available at http://is.gd/HYOEuvfrom Leagle.com


COMMERCE ENERGY: Judge Denies Bid to Certify Interlocutory Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James S. Gwin of the Northern District of Ohio
denied defendants' motions in the case DAVINA HURT, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, v. COMMERCE ENERGY, INC., ET AL., Defendants, CASE NO.
1:12-CV-00758 (N.D. Ohio)

Defendants sell electricity and natural gas to residential and
commercial customers in the United States and Canada. Under
defendant's selling scheme, plaintiffs would go door to door to
obtain applications from potential customers. Plaintiffs were paid
commission for every finalized contract, but if an application was
rejected for any reason before the contract became final, the
employee would not be paid.

Plaintiffs brought suit, alleging that the commission-based
compensation system deprived them of minimum wage and overtime.
The plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated the minimum wage
and overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and
overtime pay under the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act (Ohio
Wage Act).

Two classes were certified, a nationwide FLSA collective action
seeking minimum wage and overtime under federal law, and a Rule 23
class action seeking overtime under Ohio law. Defendants argued
that plaintiffs were exempt from overtime and minimum wage
requirements because of the outside salesperson exemption.

Following a trial on the merits, a jury found defendants liable
for violations of the FLSA and the Ohio Wage Act. Defendants now
renew the motion for judgment as a matter of law they made at
trial. In the alternative, defendants move for a new trial, or to
certify an interlocutory appeal of the liability phase of the
trial.

Judge Gwin denied defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of
law, denied defendants' motion for a new train and denied
defendants' motion to certify an interlocutory appeal.

A copy of Judge Gwin's opinion and order dated March 10, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/mAUxgOfrom Leagle.com

Plaintiffs, represented by Frank A. Bartela --
fbartela@dworkenlaw.com -- Nicole T. Fiorelli --
nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com -- Patrick J. Perotti --
pperotti@dworkenlaw.com -- Kristen M. Kraus --
kmkraus@dworkenlaw.com -- Richard N. Selby, II --
rselby@dworkenlaw.co -- at Dworken & Bernstein; Murray Richelson
-- at Law Office of David A. Katz; James A. DeRoche at Garson
Johnson

Defendants, represented by Jennifer L. Schilling --
jschilling@littler.com -- Alexander R. Frondorf --
afrondorf@littler.com -- Bradley A. Sherman --
bsherman@littler.com -- Edward H. Chyun -- echyun@littler.com --
Robert M. Wolff -- rwolff@littler.com -- Shannon K. Patton --
spatton@littler.com -- at Littler Mendelson


COMMERCE ENERGY: Judge Denies Decertification Bid in "Hurt" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James S. Gwin of the Northern District of Ohio
denied defendants' motion to decertify the case of DAVINA HURT, ET
AL., Plaintiffs, v. COMMERCE ENERGY, INC., ET AL., Defendants,
CASE NO. 1:12-CV-00758 (N.D. Ohio)

Defendants sell electricity and natural gas to residential and
commercial customers in the United States and Canada. Under
defendants' selling scheme, plaintiffs would go door to door to
obtain applications from potential customers. Plaintiffs were paid
commission for every finalized contract, but if an application was
rejected for any reason before the contract became final, the
employee would not be paid.

Plaintiffs brought suit, alleging that the commission-based
compensation system deprived them of minimum wage and overtime.
The plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated the minimum wage
and overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and
overtime pay under the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act (Ohio
Wage Act).

Two classes were certified, a nationwide FLSA collective action
seeking minimum wage and overtime under federal law, and a Rule 23
class action seeking overtime under Ohio law. Defendants argued
that plaintiffs were exempt from overtime and minimum wage
requirements because of the outside salesperson exemption.

Following a trial on the merits, a jury found defendants liable
for violations of the FLSA and the Ohio Wage Act. Defendants now
renew the motion for judgment as a matter of law they made at
trial. In the alternative, defendants move for a new trial, or to
certify an interlocutory appeal of the liability phase of the
trial.

Judge Gwin denied defendants' motion for decertification without
prejudice to re-file once the final structure of the damages phase
is determined.  A copy of Judge Gwin's order dated March 23, 215,
is available at http://is.gd/y2IDvIfrom Leagle.com

Plaintiffs, represented by Frank A. Bartela --
fbartela@dworkenlaw.com -- Nicole T. Fiorelli --
nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com -- Patrick J. Perotti --
pperotti@dworkenlaw.com -- Kristen M. Kraus --
kmkraus@dworkenlaw.com -- Richard N. Selby, II --
rselby@dworkenlaw.com -- at Dworken & Bernstein; David A. Katz --
at Law Office of David A. Katz

     - and -

Murray Richelson, Esq.
50 Public Square Walkway # 842
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: 216-696-5250

     - and -

James A. DeRoche, Esq.
GARSON JOHNSON LLC
101 W. Prospect Avenue
Midland Building, Suite 1610
Cleveland, OH 44115
Telephone: 216-696-9330
Facsimile: 216-696-8558

Defendants, represented by Jennifer L. Schilling --
jschilling@littler.com -- Alexander R. Frondorf --
afrondorf@littler.com -- Bradley A. Sherman --
bsherman@littler.com -- Edward H. Chyun -- echyun@littler.com --
Robert M. Wolff -- rwolff@littler.com -- Shannon K. Patton --
spatton@littler.com -- at Littler Mendelson


COTTON STATES: Judge Ruled on Motions Related to Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Terry F. Moorer of the Middle District of
Alabama, Southern Division, ruled on the parties' motions in the
case ROBERT C. McDONALD, et al., Plaintiff, v. COTTON STATES
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, CASE NO. 1:13-CV-552-WKW-
TFM(WO) (M.D. Ala.)

The plaintiffs Robert and Lucy McDonalds filed a complaint against
the defendant Cotton States Mutual Insurance Company, alleging
that the defendant breached their contract with the plaintiffs as
well as a class of current and former policyholders, by knowingly
using a dwelling coverage calculation which exceeds the actual
amount necessary to replace the covered homes.  The complaint
further alleges that Cotton States used the Residential Component
Technology (RCT) program to calculate the replacement cost of
insured homes.  It is alleged that Cotton States added inflation
adjustment into the RCT's calculation for the sole purpose of
collecting higher premiums even though they knew or should have
known that the actual replacement cost amount was substantially
less than the cost output by the RCT.

The McDonalds filed a motion to compel requesting the court to
compel a series of discovery requests. Specifically, plaintiffs
propounded interrogatories, request for production, and requests
for admission requesting detailed information on every Alabama
insured whose replacement coverage value for a residential
dwelling was set using RCT, the methodology employed to determine
the building costs in Alabama, detailed information on every
Alabama insured whose policy included Coverage CC Inflation and
Coverage EE inflation, as well as several other various requests
for admissions and requests for production. Plaintiffs also filed
a motion to continue deadlines.

Cotton States filed motion to quash requesting the court to quash
the McDonalds' third party subpoena as untimely, as well as for
other reasons. Cotton States argues that the case has had three
discovery deadlines following two extension requests being
granted. The final discovery deadline was August 22, 2014.
However, on August 29, 2014, a week past the discovery deadline,
the McDonalds served a purportedly Rule 45 Subpoena on non-party
Marshall & Swift/Boeckh seeking production of three demands.

On September 3, 2014, Cotton States asked the court to compel the
McDonalds to provide complete responses to several interrogatories
and requests for production.

Magistrate Judge Moorer granted in part and denied in part
plaintiffs' motion to compel and denied the motion to continue
deadlines as moot. Defendant's motion to quash is granted but the
court denied its motion to compel.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Moorer's order dated March 13, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/QTmwrvfrom Leagle.com

Robert C. McDonald and Lucy McDonald, Plaintiffs, represented by:

Francis Inge Johnstone, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF F. INGE JOHNSTONE
15 Richard Arrington Jr. Blvd.
N. Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: 205-383-1809

     - and -

James Michael Terrell, Esq.
McCALLUM METHVIN & TERRELL PC
2201 Arlington Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: 205-939-0199
Facsimile: 205-939-0399
Email: jterrell@mmlaw.net

     - and -

Marion Dale Marsh, Esq.
MARSH & COTTER LLP
P.O. Box 310910
203 E. Lee Street
Enterprise, AL 36331
Telephone: 334-347-2626
Facsimile: 334-393-1396

     - and -

Robert Brent Irby, Esq.
McCALLUM, HOAGULAND COOK & IRBY LLP
905 Montgomery Highway # 201
Vestavia Hills, AL 35216
Telephone: 205-824-7767

Cotton States Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Chanda M Feldkamp -- cfeldkamp@kellywalkerlaw.com -- William J
Kelly, III -- wkelly@kellywalkerlaw.com -- at Kelly & Walker LLC;
William Evans Brittain -- bbrittain@ball-ball.com -- at Ball Ball
Matthews & Novak PA


DADE CONTRACTING: Faces "Obando" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Nestor Jose Mejia Obando and Pablo Antonio Valle Centeno v. Dade
Contracting, Inc. and Louis Lara, Case No. 1:15-cv-21477-UU (S.D.
Fla., April 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DANFOSS LLC: Judge Declines to Rule on Antitrust Standing Issue
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sean F. Cox of the Eastern District of Michigan,
Southern Division, ruled on the defendants' motion to dismiss in
the case entitled In re: Refrigerant Compressors Antitrust
Litigation, CASE NO. 2:09-MD-02042 (E.D. Mich.)

General Electric Company (GE) filed its complaint on February 15,
2013, in the United States District Court for the Western District
of Kentucky, Louisville Division. The action was transferred to
the present court by a June 17, 2013 order of the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL), which
transferred the action to the present court for inclusion in the
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in this MDL
proceeding, which began in 2009. The indirect purchaser and direct
purchaser putative class action cases have been resolved. All that
remains is GE's individual claims. GE asserts claims against
defendants Danfoss A/S, Danfoss Flensburg GmbH, and Danfoss, LLC.
GE is pursuing its claims against the Danfoss defendants on its
own behalf after having opted out of the direct purchaser class
action settlement.

GE alleges that as part of its joint venture relationship with GE,
during the conspiracy period MABE has manufactured residential
refrigerators for GE for sale in the United States pursuant to
contract manufacturing agreements between GE and Mabe. It also
alleges that GE's procurement teams in the United States have
controlled and determined the price and quantity of refrigerant
compressors MABE has incorporated into refrigerators it has
manufactured for sale by GE in the United States. GE's complaint
asserts violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 1, fraud and conspiracy as its causes of action.

Defendants Danfoss Flensburg GMBH and Danfoss LLC filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint and raised the issue of whether GE has
federal antitrust standing to assert claims based on MABE
purchases and whether those purchases are barred under the Foreign
Trade Antitrust Improvement Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 6(a)(FTAIA).

District Judge Cox declines to rule on the issues of whether GE
has federal antitrust standing to assert claims based on MABE
purchases, and whether those purchases are barred under the FTAIA,
until after both parties have had an opportunity to file a
supplemental brief. Defendants and GE were directed to file a
supplemental brief, of no more than 8 pages, addressing the
issues, no later than April 3, 2015.

A copy of Judge Cox's opinion and order dated March 13, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/cQyknUfrom Leagle.com

General Electric Company, Plaintiff, represented by Carl H. von
Ende -- vonende@millercanfield.com -- Kimberly L. Scott --
scott@millercanfield.com -- at Miller, Canfield; David M.
Schnorrenberg -- dschnorrenberg@crowell.com -- at Crowell & Moring

Danfoss AS, Defendant, represented by Brett A. Rendeiro --
barendeiro@varnumlaw.com -- John W. Allen -- jwallen@varnumlaw.com
-- at Varnum, Riddering; Daniel S. Bitton -- dbitton@axinn.com --
John DeQuedville Briggs -- jbriggs@axinn.com -- Thomas Gerard
Rohback -- trohback@axinn.com -- at Axinn Veltrop & Harkrider;
Fred K. Herrmann --fherrmann@kerr-russell.com -- at, Kerr, Russell

Danfoss Commercial Compressors, Limited, Danfoss, Incorporated,
Danfoss Scroll Technologies, LLC and Danfoss Turbocor Compressors,
Incorporated, Defendants, represented by Brett A. Rendeiro --
barendeiro@varnumlaw.com -- John W. Allen -- jwallen@varnumlaw.com
-- at Varnum, Riddering; Fred K. Herrmann --fherrmann@kerr-
russell.com -- Matthew L. Powell -- mpowell@kerr-russell.com --
at, Kerr, Russell; James M. Andriola -- jandriola@reedsmith.com --
at Reed Smith LLP

Danfoss Compressor, LLC, Defendant, represented by Brett A.
Rendeiro-- barendeiro@varnumlaw.com -- John W. Allen --
jwallen@varnumlaw.com -- at Varnum, Riddering; Daniel S. Bitton --
dbitton@axinn.com -- John DeQuedville Briggs -- jbriggs@axinn.com
-- Thomas Gerard Rohback -- trohback@axinn.com -- at Axinn Veltrop
& Harkrider LLP; Fred K. Herrmann --fherrmann@kerr-russell.com --
Matthew L. Powell -- mpowell@kerr-russell.com -- at, Kerr,
Russell; James M. Andriola -- jandriola@reedsmith.com -- at Reed
Smith LLP

Danfoss Flensburg GMBH, Defendant, represented by Daniel S. Bitton
-- dbitton@axinn.com -- John DeQuedville Briggs --
jbriggs@axinn.com -- Thomas Gerard Rohback -- trohback@axinn.com
-- at Axinn Veltrop & Harkrider LLP; John W. Allen --
jwallen@varnumlaw.com -- at Varnum, Riddering


DATASCAN FIELD: "Stevens" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charlene Stevens, suing individually and by and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, and the general public v. Datascan
Field Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00839 (E.D. Cal.,
April 20, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
compensation and interest thereon, waiting time penalties,
liquidated damages and other penalties, and reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Datascan Field Services, LLC to provide floor-plan inventory
verification and vehicle inspection services to third party
customers locations in the State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David E. Mastagni, Esq.
      David P. Mastagni, Esq.
      Isaac Sean Stevens, Esq.
      Jeffrey Robert Alan Edwards, Esq.
      MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT AMICK MILLER & JOHNSEN
      1912 I Street
      Sacramento, CA 95811-3151
      Telephone: (916) 446-4692
      Facsimile: (916) 447-4614
      E-mail: davidm@mastagni.com
              dmastagni@mastagni.com
              istevens@mastagni.com
              jedwards@mastagni.com


DAVITA HEALTHCARE: Defending Against Remaining Class Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Davita Healthcare Partners Inc. intends to continue to vigorously
defend against the remaining claims in a class action, the Company
said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014.

"A wage and hour claim, which has been styled as a class action,
is pending against us in the Superior Court of California," the
Company said.  "We were served with the complaint in this lawsuit
in April 2008, and it has been amended since that time. The
complaint, as amended, alleges that we failed to provide meal
periods, failed to pay compensation in lieu of providing rest or
meal periods, failed to pay overtime, and failed to comply with
certain other California Labor Code requirements. In September
2011, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. Plaintiffs appealed that decision. In January 2013,
the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision on some
claims, but remanded the case to the trial court for clarification
of its decision on one of the claims. We reached an agreement with
the plaintiffs to settle the claim that was remanded to the trial
court, and that settlement has been finalized. The amount of the
settlement is not material to our consolidated financial
statements. We intend to continue to vigorously defend against the
remaining claims. Any potential settlement of the remaining claims
is not anticipated to be material to our consolidated financial
statements."


ERIE INDEMNITY: Defendants' Responsive Briefing Due
---------------------------------------------------
Erie Indemnity Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Defendants' responsive
briefing was due March 3, 2015, in a federal court lawsuit against
directors.

On February 6, 2013, a lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, captioned
Erie Insurance Exchange, an unincorporated association, by members
Patricia R. Beltz, Joseph S. Sullivan and Anita Sullivan, and
Patricia R. Beltz, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situate v. Richard L. Stover; J. Ralph Borneman, Jr; Terrence W.
Cavanaugh; Jonathan Hirt Hagen; Susan Hirt Hagen; Thomas B. Hagen;
C. Scott Hartz; Claude C. Lilly, III; Lucian L. Morrison; Thomas
W. Palmer; Martin P. Sheffield; Elizabeth H. Vorsheck; and Robert
C. Wilburn (the "Beltz" lawsuit), by alleged policyholders of the
Exchange who are also the plaintiffs in the Sullivan lawsuit. The
individuals named as defendants in the Beltz lawsuit were the
then-current Directors of Indemnity.

As subsequently amended, the Beltz lawsuit asserts many of the
same allegations and claims for monetary relief as in the Sullivan
lawsuit. Plaintiffs purport to sue on behalf of all policyholders
of the Exchange, or, alternatively, on behalf of the Exchange
itself. Indemnity filed a motion to intervene as a Party Defendant
in the Beltz lawsuit in July 2013, and the Directors filed a
motion to dismiss the lawsuit in August 2013.

On February 10, 2014, the court entered an order granting
Indemnity's motion to intervene and permitting Indemnity to join
the Directors' motion to dismiss; granting in part the Directors'
motion to dismiss; referring the matter to the Department to
decide any and all issues within its jurisdiction; denying all
other relief sought in the Directors' motion as moot; and
dismissing the case without prejudice. To avoid duplicative
proceedings and expedite the Department's review, the Parties have
stipulated that only the Sullivan action will proceed before the
Department and any final and non-appealable determinations made by
the Department in the Sullivan action will be applied to the Beltz
action.

On March 7, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Indemnity
filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on March 26, 2014. On
November 17, 2014, the Third Circuit deferred ruling on
Indemnity's motion to dismiss the appeal and instructed the
parties to address that motion, as well as the merits of
Plaintiffs' appeal, in the parties' briefing. Plaintiffs filed
their Opening Brief on January 12, 2015. Defendants' responsive
briefing is currently due on March 3, 2015.

Indemnity believes that it has meritorious legal and factual
defenses and intends to vigorously defend against all allegations
and requests for relief in the Beltz lawsuit. The Directors have
also advised Indemnity that they intend to vigorously defend
against the claims in the Beltz lawsuit and have sought
indemnification and advancement of expenses from the Company in
connection with the Beltz lawsuit.


FIRST AVIATION: Del. Ch. Judge Granted Former Stockholder's Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chancellor Andre G. Bouchard of the Court of Chancery of Delaware
granted plaintiff's motion for partial judgment on the pleadings
in the case ROBERT STROUGO, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AARON P. HOLLANDER, STANLEY J.
HILL, JOSEPH J. LHOTA, ITSIK MAARAVI, and FIRST AVIATION SERVICES,
INC., Defendants, C.A. NO. 9770-CB (Del. Ch.)

Defendant First Aviation Services, Inc., is Delaware corporation
based in Westport, Connecticut, that provides repair, overhaul,
and related services to the aviation industry. In 2007, First
Aviation became a non-SEC reporting company and on 2011, First
Aviation's shares were traded on the OTC US Market stock exchange.
Defendants Aaron P. Hollander, Stanley J. Hill, Joseph J. Lhota,
and Itsik Maaravi are directors of the company. Hollander was the
Chairman of the Board and the company's chief executive officer.
Hollander "maintained control over the day to day operations of
the Company and had managerial supremacy. Plaintiff Robert Strougo
was a stockholder of the company.

On May 2014, the company announced that it had established a
Special Committee of the Board, consisting of Lhota and Hill, to
analyze a potential reverse stock split transaction. That same
day, the company announced that the Board approved the reverse
stock split, which consisted of a 10,000-to-1 reverse stock split
at a pre-split price of $8.40 per share. Both members of the
Special Committee held enough First Aviation stock at the time to
remain stockholders of the Company following the Reverse Stock
Split.

On May 30, 2014, the Reverse Stock Split was completed. The effect
of the Reverse Stock Split was to eliminate the interests of
plaintiff and the putative class and thereby make First Aviation a
privately owned company. After the reverse stock split, Hollander
and the entities he controlled remained stockholders of the
company. Four days later, on June 3, 2014, the directors of First
Aviation adopted the Bylaw.

On June 14, 2014, the plaintiff initiated an action on behalf of
himself and a class of former stockholders of the company who
similarly had been cashed out, alleging that the reverse stock
split was unfair. On September 24, 2014, plaintiff filed the
amended complaint, which asserts five breach of fiduciary duty
against the Board (Count I); breach of fiduciary duty against
Hollander as the Company's de facto controlling stockholder (Count
II); a challenge to the Bylaw as invalid and unenforceable under 8
Del. C. Section 145 (Count III); a challenge to the Bylaw as void
under 8 Del. C. Section 144 (Count IV); and a challenge to the
Bylaw as not entirely fair, reasonable, or equitable (Count V).
Plaintiff requested the court for summary judgment on Counts III-V
challenging the Bylaw and to stay Counts I-II pending resolution
of the summary judgment motion, in which the court granted the
request.

The plaintiff has now moved for partial judgment on the pleadings
that the Bylaw does not apply in this case because it was adopted
after the reverse stock split had been consummated.

Chancellor Bouchard granted plaintiff's motion for partial
judgment on the pleadings.

A copy of Chancellor Bouchard's opinion dated March 16, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/XF7AvKfrom Leagle.com

Sidney S. Liebesman -- sliebesman@mmwr.com -- Lisa Zwally Brown --
lzbrown@mmwr.com -- at MONTGOMERY McCRACKEN WALKER & RHOADS, LLP;
Gustavo F. Bruckner -- gfbruckner@pomlaw.com -- Alla Zayenchik --
azayenchik@pomlaw.com -- at POMERANTZ LLP, Attorneys for Plaintiff

Francis G.X. Pileggi -- fpileggi@eckertseamans.com -- Gary W.
Lipkin -- glipkin@eckertseamans.com -- Aimee M. Czachorowski --
aczachorowski@eckertseamans.com -- at ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN &
MELLOTT, LLC, Attorneys for Defendants


FIVE BROTHER'S: "Sandoval" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Geovani Sandoval v. Five Brother's Enterprises, Corp. and Rodrigo
Bueno, Case No. 1:15-cv-21464-KMW (S.D. Fla., April 20, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company with its
principal place of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian Howard Pollock, Esq.
      FAIRLAW FIRM
      8603 S. Dixie Highway, Suite 408
      Miami, FL 33143
      Telephone: (305) 230-4884
      Facsimile: (305) 230-4844
      E-mail: brian@fairlawattorney.com


FORD MOTOR: Judge Denies Bid to Alter, Amend or Vacate Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the Northern District of
California denied plaintiffs' motion in the case MICHAEL DURKEE,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, NO. C 14-
0617 PJH (N.D. Cal.)

The plaintiffs Michael and Leslie Durkee filed a complaint against
the defendant Ford Motor Company on February 24, 2014, claiming
that the defendant had breached its warranty under the Song
Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Cal. Civ. Code Section 1790, et
seq., the complaint also claims of unfair business practices under
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, a claim
under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code Section
1770, et seq., and a claim for declaratory relief.

Ford filed a special motion to strike pursuant to California's
Anti-SLAPP Statute, Cal. Civ. P. Code Section 425.16, which was
denied on August 7, 2014. Ford also filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint for failure to state a claim, which was granted on
September 9, 2014, with leave to amend as to only the Song-Beverly
Act claims.

Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint (FAC) and alleged that
Ford had breached the express and implied warranties, and had
violated the Song-Beverly Act by demanding that plaintiffs pay for
excessive wear and tear to an eight-year old truck as a condition
for repurchase or replacement. Ford moved to dismiss the FAC, and
the court granted the motion on December 24, 2014. The court
reasoned that since the four-year limitation period expired as of
October 19, 2013, and plaintiffs did not file suit until February
10, 2014, the plaintiffs' claims were time-barred. Plaintiffs
filed a motion pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e)
and 60(b) to reconsider the order granting defendant Ford Motor
Company's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, and the
judgment entered.

Judge Hamilton denied plaintiffs' motion and the vacated the date
of hearing previously noticed and scheduled on March 18, 2015.

A copy of Judge Hamilton's order dated March 13, 2015, is
available at - http://is.gd/h8KtL0from Leagle.com

Plaintiffs, represented by:

Steve Borislav Mikhov, Esq.
Mark D O'Connor, Esq.
O'CONNOR & MIKHOV LLP
1801 Century Park E Ste 2300
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: 310-552-2250
Facsimile: 310-552-7973

     - and -

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Amir M Nassihi --
anassihi@shb.com -- Michael Kevin Underhill -- kunderhill@shb.com
-- at Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP


GENERAL MOTORS: W.D. La. Judge Narrows Claims in "Cain" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge S. Maurice Hicks, Jr. of the Western District of
Louisiana, Shreveport Division granted in part and denied in part
defendant's motion in the case TERESA CLARK CAIN, ET AL, v.
GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-1057 (W.D. La.)

Plaintiffs Teresa Cain, Kellie Guy, and David Rosenthal have all
purchased a Chevrolet Camaro Convertible which has been in a
repair shop due to the water leaks in the Camaro because of a
defective convertible top design. Plaintiffs filed a class action
complaint and alleged breach of implied contract, breach of
implied warranty of merchantability and breach of implied warranty
of fitness for a particular purpose as its causes of action.

Plaintiffs seek damages suffered by the class, contending that
they lost the use of their vehicles, paid out of pocket for costs
such as alternative transportation, the diminution in resale value
of the vehicles and increased risk of physical harm.

The defendant General Motors (GM) filed a motion to dismiss and/or
motion to strike. GM seeks dismissal of any and all of plaintiffs'
claims based on failure to state a claim under Louisiana law.

Magistrate Judge Hicks finds that plaintiffs' redhibition claim to
recover damages, attorney fees, and rescission of the sale may
proceed. Accordingly GM's motion to dismiss is denied and GM's
motion to strike is denied as premature as to class action
certification and granted as to punitive damages.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Hicks's memorandum ruling dated March
16, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/HQawnXfrom Leagle.com

Plaintiffs, represented by:

Eric D Holland, Esq.
Randall Seth Crompton, Esq.
HOLLAND GROVES
300 N Tucker, Ste 801
St. Louis MO 63101
Telephone: 314-241-8111
Facsimile: 314-241-5554
Email: info@allfela.com

     - and -

Richard C Dalton, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD C DALTON
1343 W Causeway Approach
Mandeville, LA 70471
Telephone: 985-778-2215

     - and -

Kevin R Duck, Esq.
DUCK LAW FIRM
5040 Ambassador Caffery Pkwy #200
Lafayette, LA 70508
Telephone: 337-406-1144

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


GENERAL MOTORS: W.D. La. Judge Narrows Claims in "Morgan" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge S. Maurice Hicks, Jr. of the Western District of
Louisiana, Shreveport Division, granted in part and denied in part
defendant's motion in the case AMANDA MORGAN AND SEAN C. BENOIT,
v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-1058 (W.D. La.)

Plaintiffs Amanda Morgan and Sean C. Benoit have purchased a
Chevrolet Camaro Convertible which has been in a repair shop due
to the water leaks in the Camaro because of a defective
convertible top design. Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint
and alleged breach of implied contract, breach of implied warranty
of merchantability and breach of implied warranty of fitness for a
particular purpose as its causes of action.

Plaintiffs seek damages suffered by the class, contending that
they lost the use of their vehicles, paid out of pocket for costs
such as alternative transportation, the diminution in resale value
of the vehicles and increased risk of physical harm.

The defendant General Motors (GM) filed a motion to dismiss and/or
motion to strike. GM seeks dismissal of any and all of plaintiffs'
claims based on failure to state a claim under Louisiana law.

Magistrate Judge Hicks finds that plaintiffs' redhibition claim to
recover damages, attorney fees, and rescission of the sale may
proceed. Accordingly GM's motion to dismiss is denied and GM's
motion to strike is denied as premature as to class action
certification and granted as to punitive damages.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Hicks's memorandum ruling dated March
16, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/YAOrxqfrom Leagle.com

Plaintiffs, represented by:

Eric D Holland, Esq.
Randall Seth Crompton, Esq.
Holland Groves
300 N Tucker, Ste 801
St. Louis MO 63101
Telephone: 314-241-8111
Facsimile: 314-241-5554
Email: info@allfela.com

     - and -

Richard J. Arsenault, Esq.
Neblett Beard & Arsenault
2220 Bonaventure Court
P.O. Box 1190
Alexandria, LA 71309
Telephone: 800-256-1050

     - and -

Richard C Dalton, Esq.
Law Office of Richard C Dalton
1343 W Causeway Approach
Mandeville, LA 70471
Telephone: 985-778-2215

     - and -

Kevin R Duck, Esq.
Duck Law Firm
5040 Ambassador Caffery Pkwy #200
Lafayette, LA 70508
Telephone: 337-406-1144

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


GENERAL MOTORS: Most Economic Loss Claims Expected to Go Forward
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a bankruptcy judge has barred many of the claims brought
against General Motors Co. over its ignition-switch defect.

The April 15 ruling, by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Gerber of the
Southern District of New York, means that GM isn't liable for its
actions prior to its 2009 exit from bankruptcy that dealt with the
ignition-switch defect.  The ruling was part of a motion GM
brought to bar class actions by consumers seeking economic
damages, such as the reduced value of their vehicles.  But the
ruling also applies to other lawsuits filed over injuries or
deaths prior to 2009 and those involving cars that were subject to
other recalls.

More than 140 lawsuits have been filed for economic damages
totaling an estimated $10 billion.  The cases have been
coordinated for pretrial purposes before U.S. District Judge Jesse
Furman of the Southern District of New York.

In an interview, Steve Berman, co-lead plaintiffs attorney in the
ignition-switch litigation who filed two consolidated class action
complaints last year, said he expected most of the economic loss
claims to go forward, although he couldn't specifically say how
much the cases are now worth.

"The claims are still in the billions," he said.

The decision did not absolve GM of its actions after the
bankruptcy.  Judge Gerber concluded that the automaker could be
sued for its conduct after 2009 relating to the ignition-switch
defect, which forced GM to recall 2.6 million cars and trucks
worldwide last year.

GM immediately issued a statement: "Judge Gerber properly
concluded that claims based on Old GM's conduct are barred."  It
continued, "With respect to any claims that were not expressly
barred, Judge Gerber's decision doesn't establish any liability
against GM and the plaintiffs still must prove the merits of their
claims in the MDL proceeding."

Mr. Berman said in a prepared statement that he planned to appeal
the ruling.

"We are pleased that Judge Gerber will allow claims to proceed
against New GM if misconduct by New GM was involved in this series
of massive recalls," he said.  "We believe that New GM's
misconduct was in fact present in the sale of millions of
defective vehicles -- a truth that we believe New GM knew and
chose to conceal."


GENESEE & WYOMING: Still Awaits Final Approval of Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
In connection with Genesee & Wyoming Inc.'s acquisition of
RailAmerica, five putative stockholder class action lawsuits were
filed in 2012, three in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware (Delaware Court) and two in the Circuit Court of the
Fourth Judicial Circuit for Duval County, Florida, Civil Division
(Florida Circuit Court), against RailAmerica, the RailAmerica
directors and G&W.

The two lawsuits filed in the Florida Circuit Court alleged, among
other things, that the RailAmerica directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with their decision to sell
RailAmerica to G&W via an allegedly flawed process and failed to
obtain the best financial and other terms and that RailAmerica and
G&W aided and abetted those alleged breaches of duty. The
complaints requested, among other relief, an order to enjoin
consummation of the merger and attorneys' fees. On July 31, 2012,
plaintiffs in the Florida actions filed a motion to consolidate
the two Florida actions, appoint plaintiffs Langan and Sambuco as
lead plaintiffs and appoint lead counsel in the proposed
consolidated action. Plaintiffs in the Florida actions also filed
an emergency motion for expedited proceedings on August 7, 2012
and an amended complaint on August 8, 2012, which included
allegations that the information statement filed by RailAmerica on
August 3, 2012, omitted material information about the proposed
merger. On August 17, 2012, the parties in the Florida actions
submitted a stipulation for expedited proceedings, which the
Florida Circuit Court ordered on August 20, 2012.

The three lawsuits filed in Delaware Court named the same
defendants, alleged substantially similar claims, and sought
similar relief as the Florida actions. The parties to the Delaware
actions submitted orders of dismissal in November 2012, which the
Delaware Court has granted.

On December 7, 2012, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, the Company and the other parties to the
Florida actions executed a Stipulation and Agreement of
Compromise, Settlement and Release to settle all related claims.
The settlement is not material and is subject to, among other
things, final approval by the Florida Circuit Court. On January
28, 2013, the Florida Circuit Court gave preliminary approval of
the settlement and scheduled a hearing on final approval of the
settlement for May 15, 2013.

No updates were provided by the Company in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.


GRAHAM HOLDINGS: Faces "Freeman v. Kaplan Inc." Action
------------------------------------------------------
Graham Holdings Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a former student
representative filed on December 22, 2014, a purported class- and
collective-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, in which she asserts claims under
the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act
(Sharon Freeman v. Kaplan, Inc.). The plaintiff alleges that she
and other law students who were student representatives, on their
respective law school campuses, of Kaplan's bar exam preparation
business should have been classified as employees and paid minimum
wage. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this inquiry.


GRANT ELECTRIC: "Roberts" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jon C. Roberts v. Grant Electric, Inc., and, Martin A. Elfrey,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00090 (S.D. Tex., April 20, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and a
reasonable attorney's fee and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate an electrical contracting business
in Pearland, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles L. Scalise, Esq.
      ROSS LAW GROUP
      1104 San Antonio Street
      Austin, TX 78701
      Telephone: (512) 474-7677
      Facsimile: (512) 474-5306
      E-mail: charles@rosslawpc.com


HCA HOLDINGS: Request to Appeal in "Schuh" Case Denied
------------------------------------------------------
A request to the court of appeals to hear an immediate appeal in
the case Schuh v. HCA Holdings, Inc. et al., was denied, HCA
Holdings said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014.

On October 28, 2011, a shareholder action, Schuh v. HCA Holdings,
Inc. et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee seeking monetary relief. The case
sought to include as a class all persons who acquired the
Company's stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's
Registration Statement issued in connection with the March 9, 2011
initial public offering. The lawsuit asserted a claim under
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the Company,
certain members of the board of directors, and certain
underwriters in the offering. It further asserted a claim under
Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the same members
of the board of directors. The action alleged various deficiencies
in the Company's disclosures in the Registration Statement.
Subsequently, two additional class action complaints, Kishtah v.
HCA Holdings, Inc. et al. and Daniels v. HCA Holdings, Inc. et
al., setting forth substantially similar claims against
substantially the same defendants were filed in the same federal
court on November 16, 2011 and December 12, 2011, respectively.
All three of the cases were consolidated.

On May 3, 2012, the court appointed New England Teamsters &
Trucking Industry Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiff for the
consolidated action. On July 13, 2012, the lead plaintiff filed an
amended complaint asserting claims under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2)
of the Securities Act of 1933 against the Company, certain members
of the board of directors, and certain underwriters in the
offering. It further asserts a claim under Section 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 against the same members of the board of
directors and Hercules Holding II, LLC, a majority shareholder of
the Company at the time of the initial public offering. The
consolidated complaint alleges deficiencies in the Company's
disclosures in the Registration Statement and Prospectus relating
to: (1) the accounting for the Company's 2006 recapitalization and
2010 reorganization; (2) the Company's failure to maintain
effective internal controls relating to its accounting for such
transactions; and (3) the Company's Medicare and Medicaid revenue
growth rates.

The Company and other defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint on September 11, 2012. The court granted the motion in
part on May 28, 2013. The action proceeded to discovery on the
remaining claims. The plaintiffs' motion for class certification
was granted on September 22, 2014. The court certified a class
consisting of all persons that acquired HCA stock on or before
October 28, 2011 (the date of the lawsuit) pursuant to the
Registration Statement issued in connection with the March 9, 2011
initial public offering. A request to the court of appeals to hear
an immediate appeal of this ruling was denied.


HEARST NEWSPAPERS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Kran" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Kran, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Hearst Newspapers, LLC, and A Marketing Resource, LLC,
Case No. 0:15-cv-02058 (D. Minn., April 20, 2015), seeks to stop
the Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls to the
telephones of consumers nationwide and to obtain redress for all
persons injured by their conduct.

Hearst Newspapers, LLC is an international media conglomerate,
which owns newspapers, TV stations, and websites with its
principal place of business located at 700 12th Street NW, Suite
100, Washington, DC 20005.

A Marketing Resource, LLC is a Minnesota corporation with its
principal place of business located at 1811 Weir Drive, Suite 350,
Woodbury, Minnesota 55125, which provides telemarketing services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
      100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Telephone: (612) 339-6900
      Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
      E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com

         - and -

      Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
      Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
      Eve-Lynn J. Rapp, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Telephone: (312) 589-6370
      Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
      E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
              brichman@edelson.com
              erapp@edelson.com

         - and -

      Stefan Coleman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, LLC
      201 South Biscayne Boulevard, 28th Floor
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (877) 333-9427
      Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
      E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com


HENKEL CORP: June 2 Final Pretrial Conference in "Davidson" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gershwin A. Drain of the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, ruled on the defendants' motions in
the case JOHN B. DAVIDSON, et al. Plaintiffs, v. HENKEL
CORPORATION, HENKEL OF AMERICA, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO.
12-CV-14103 (D. Mich.)

The plaintiff John B. Davidson is the class representative of the
present class action lawsuit against the defendants. On January 6,
2015, the court granted Davidson and the class's motion for
partial summary judgment regarding the liability of the
defendants.

Prior to the beginning of trial on the issue of damages, the
defendants filed a motion to remand to the Plan's Administrative
Process and Stay the Case. Prior to the hearing, the defendants
filed a motion for leave to file notice of supplemental authority.

Judge Drain denied defendants' motion to remand the case to the
Plan's Administrative Process and stay the case as remand would be
futile, but granted defendants' motion for leave to file notice of
supplemental authority, amend the scheduling order, and order
additional briefing in order to determine whether the court should
revisit its decision mooting plaintiffs' estoppels claims.

The responses were due April 7, 2015, replies to the opposition's
brief due April 14, 2015. The Motions in Limine are due May 11,
2015. The final pretrial order is due on May 26, 2015 and the
final pretrial conference will be held on June 2, 2015 at 2:00
p.m.

A copy of Judge Drain's opinion and order dated March 24, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/b3vRGFfrom Leagle.com

John B Davidson, Plaintiff, represented by Ann L. Miller --
alm@millerlawpc.com -- Christopher D. Kaye -- cdk@millerlawpc.com
-- Emily E. Hughes -- eeh@millerlawpc.com -- Sharon S. Almonrode
-- ssa@millerlawpc.com -- at The Miller Law Firm

Defendants, represented by Amanda A. Sonneborn --
asonneborn@seyfarth.com -- Ian H. Morrison --
imorrison@seyfarth.com -- at Seyfarth Shaw LLP; Hans J. Massaquoi
-- hmassaquoi@lewismunday.com -- at Lewis & Munday


HERTZ CORP: Plaintiffs in "Moretti" Case May Amend Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Leonard P. Stark of the District of Delaware ruled
on the parties' motion in the case ENRICO MORETTI, individually
and on behalf of Class Members, Plaintiffs, v. THE HERTZ
CORPORATION; DOLLAR THRIFTY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC.; and HOTWIRE,
INC., Defendants, CIV. NO. 14-469-LPS (D. Del.)

Hertz Corporation is a car rental business that operates through
the brand names "Hertz," "Dollar Rent-A-Car," "Thrifty Car
Rental," and "Firefly."

The plaintiff Enrico Moretti used the Hotwire website to reserve a
Thrifty-branded car which was advertised at a rate of $29.91 per
day, for a total estimated cost of $365.23. Plaintiff alleges that
at that time, defendants represented to plaintiff that the
purchase of insurance was optional and he received two
confirmation emails that did not disclose anything about
additional charges. However, when plaintiff went to pick up his
rental car at his chosen Thrifty location in Mexico and attempted
to decline purchase of personal liability insurance, the counter
agent told plaintiff that purchase of personal liability insurance
for $12 per day was required in order to rent the car.

Additionally, unbeknownst to plaintiff, the daily rate he was
charged was converted to Mexican currency at a rate of 13.99
Mexican pesos per U.S. dollar, about 12% above the official
exchange rate of 12.76 Mexican pesos per U.S. dollar at the time.
Plaintiff returned the car at the end of the ten-day rental period
and his credit card was charged a total of 9,563,43 Mexican pesos,
which ultimately appeared on his credit card as a charge of
$683.59.

Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of putative class members,
filed an action against Hertz Corporation, Hertz Global Holdings,
Inc., Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., Hotwire, Inc., and
Does 1 Through 25 on May 24, 2013 in the Superior Court of
California, alleging violations of the California Business and
Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq. & 17500, et seq.; and the
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Section 1750, et seq.; as well as
fraud, deceit, and/or misrepresentations under common and
statutory law. The action was removed to the Northern District of
California, based on diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action
Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2) & d(5). On April
15, 2014, the action was transferred to the District of Delaware.

Motions to dismiss were filed on May 15, 2014 by Hotwire. In
response, on June 2, 2014, plaintiff mooted the motions by filing
a first amended complaint, listing only Hertz Corporation, DTAG,
and Hotwire as defendants. The first amended complaint alleges
that defendants systematically operate an exchange rate scam and
an insurance rate scam that results in customers having to pay
more than expected for their car rentals.

Hertz Corporation and DTAG filed a motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter plaintiff's first amended
complaint as against the Hertz Corporation and DTAG pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), or in the alternative,
motion for more definite statement pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(e). In addition to opposing defendants' motion,
plaintiff has requested the opportunity to conduct jurisdictional
discovery or to file a second amended complaint.

Judge Stark granted plaintiff's leave to file a second amended
complaint, deny defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice to
renew after plaintiff has filed a second amended complaint, grant
defendants' alternative motion for a more definite statement, and
deny plaintiff's request for jurisdictional discovery.

A copy of Judge Stark's memorandum opinion dated March 23, 2015,
is available at http://is.gd/zYLhEefrom Leagle.com

Brian E. Farnan -- bfarnan@farnanlaw.com -- Michael J. Farnan --
mfarnan@farnanlaw.com -- at FARNAN LLP; Adam J. Gutride --
adam@gutridesafier.com -- Seth A. Safier -- seth@gutridesafier.com
-- Marie A. McCrary -- marie@gutridesafier.com -- at GUTRIDE
SAFIER LLP, Attorneys for Plaintiff Enrico Moretti

Raymond J. DiCamillo -- dicamillo@rlf.com -- Susan M. Hannigan --
hannigan@rlf.com -- at RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.; Ross B.
Bricker -- rbricker@jenner.com -- John F. Ward, Jr. --
jward@jenner.com -- Jeffrey A. Koppy -- at JENNER & BLOCK LLP,
Attorneys for Defendants The Hertz Corporation and Dollar Thrifty
Automotive Group, Inc.


HIKO ENERGY: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Energy Fraud Services
----------------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that a 2002 prediction from the Third Circuit that Pennsylvania
courts would bar contract actions from being brought under
statutory fraud claims because of the economic loss doctrine is no
longer valid, a federal district judge has ruled.

Although the Pennsylvania Supreme Court hasn't spoken directly on
the question, lower state courts have ruled differently than the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit had predicted, U.S.
District Judge Timothy J. Savage of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania said in his opinion rejecting an energy company's
motion to dismiss a potential class action alleging that it lured
customers to switch their energy supplier with low initial rates,
but ended up charging significantly more than local suppliers.

The suit includes a claim brought under the Pennsylvania Unfair
Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, the UTPCPL.
The energy company, Hiko Energy, argued the UTPCPL claim would be
barred by the economic loss doctrine, citing to the Third
Circuit's 2002 opinion in Werwinski v. Ford Motor.

"Werwinski no longer has any vitality," Judge Savage said.  "When
it was decided, there was no guidance from Pennsylvania courts,
leading the Third Circuit to predict how Pennsylvania's highest
court would rule . . . . Since Werwinski issued, the Pennsylvania
courts have spoken.  They have held that the economic loss
doctrine does not apply to UTPCPL claims."

The economic loss doctrine keeps plaintiffs from recovering for
purely economic losses under tort theories, according to the
opinion.

Hiko had argued "that [Michael] Kantor, by invoking the UTPCPL,
improperly attempts to convert his breach of contract claim into a
fraud claim," Judge Savage said.

Plaintiff Kantor responded that his breach of contract claim is
separate from his UTPCPL claim -- they are separate causes of
action -- and the economic loss doctrine doesn't apply to fraud
claims brought under the UTPCPL.

"The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has not expressly held that the
economic loss doctrine precludes recovery for economic losses
resulting from violations of the UTPCPL.  But, the Pennsylvania
Superior Court has, holding that the doctrine does not bar
statutory fraud claims brought pursuant to the UTPCPL,"
Judge Savage said, citing to that court's 2013 opinion in Knight
v. Springfield Hyundai.

In 2009, the state Supreme Court did define the economic loss
doctrine, saying, "No cause of action exists for negligence that
results solely in economic damages unaccompanied by physical
injury or property damage," in its opinion in Excavation
Technologies v. Columbia Gas Co. of Pennsylvania.

But, the Superior Court in Knight distinguished statutory UTPCPL
claims from negligence claims, holding the economic loss doctrine
doesn't apply to the UTPCPL, Judge Savage said.

"The Superior Court's holding, unless and until it is overruled by
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, is the law of Pennsylvania," the
judge said.

For further support, Judge Savage noted the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court had granted an appeal to address whether a section of the
Restatement (Second) of Torts would impose liability for a
contractor's economic loss from a public utility's failure to
properly mark a gas line -- the court ruled that it didn't,
Judge Savage said.

"In its analysis, the Supreme Court concluded that there was no
statutory basis to impose liability for economic losses,"
Judge Savage said.  "Here, there is a statutory basis for a cause
of action for fraud under the UTPCPL."

Also, Judge Savage said, the Supreme Court didn't say the economic
loss doctrine would bar the negligent misrepresentation claim.

"The Supreme Court's approval of the Superior Court's en banc
conclusion that a negligent misrepresentation claim is beyond the
reach of the economic loss doctrine indicates that the Supreme
Court determined that the Superior Court correctly concluded that
a cause of action for negligently supplying information seeking
economic damages is not barred by the economic loss doctrine," the
judge said.

Allowing Mr. Kantor's UTPCPL claim to survive means that he can
seek treble damages and attorney fees, according to the opinion,
while his contract claim would only recover the difference between
what Hiko had indicated he'd pay and what he actually paid.

"Kantor's entitlement to recovery arises from both the contract
and the UTPCPL, that is, from common law and statutory law -- two
separate and distinct sources that are not mutually exclusive,"
Savage said.

The judge also rejected Hiko's bid to dismiss the other claims in
the case and what he called a "pre-emptive attack" to strike the
class allegations at this early stage.

Kenneth Grunfeld of Golomb & Honik in Philadelphia represented
Kantor and Andrew Dressel -- adressel@bsfllp.com -- of Boies,
Schiller & Flexner in Armonk, New York, represented Hiko.  Neither
could be reached for comment.


ICAHN ENTERPRISES: Appeal in Dynegy Class Action Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
The appeal in a class action involving Dynegy Inc. is currently
pending, Icahn Enterprises L.P. and Icahn Enterprises Holdings
L.P. said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014.

On March 28, 2012 an action was filed in the U.S. District Court,
Southern District of New York (the "Court"), entitled Silsby v.
Icahn et. al. Defendants include Carl C. Icahn and two officers of
Dynegy Inc. ("Dynegy") and certain of its directors. As initially
filed, the action purports to be brought as a class action on
behalf of Dynegy shareholders who acquired their shares between
September 2011 and March 2012.  The complaint alleges violations
of the federal securities laws by defendants' allegedly making
false and misleading statements in securities filings which
statements artificially inflated the price of Dynegy stock. The
individual defendants are alleged to have been controlling persons
of Dynegy. Plaintiff is seeking damages in an unspecified amount.

Subsequent to the filing of this action, Dynegy filed for
bankruptcy, and a U.S. bankruptcy court has approved a Plan of
Reorganization. Plaintiff is proceeding with the action and has
filed an amended complaint that purports to be a class action on
behalf of Dynegy shareholders who acquired their securities
between July 10, 2011 and March 9, 2012.

"We believe that we have meritorious defenses to the claims and
filed a motion to dismiss on July 19, 2013," the Company said. On
April 30, 2014, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
and the case was dismissed with prejudice.  On May 30, 2014, the
Plaintiff filed an appeal, which is currently pending."


IM SOLUTIONS: Okla. Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Allen" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judges James H. Payne of the Eastern District of Oklahoma
granted defendant's motion in the case ANTHONY L. ALLEN; ALLEN &
WISNER, LLC; JAMES E. BLOUNT, IV; and BLOUNT LAW FIRM, PLLC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Plaintiffs, v. IM SOLUTIONS, LLC; LEADINGRESPONSE, LLC; REED
ELSEVIER INC.; and INTERNET BRANDS, INC., Defendants, CASE NO.
14-CV-00213-JHP (E.D. Okla.)

Plaintiffs Allen & Wiser, LLC and Blount Law Firm PLLC are law
firms located in Oklahoma and Tennessee. Plaintiffs Anthony L.
Allen and James E. Blount, IV are lawyers and members of those
respective law firms.

Defendants IM Solutions (IMS) and LeadingResponse, LLC (RME) are
limited liability corporations engaged in the business of using
the internet to generate leads for law firms to obtain potential
clients. Defendant Reed Elsevier Inc. (Reed) is the owner and
operator of LexisNexis Martindale Hubbell, Lawyers.com,
Attorneys.com and LawyerLocator. Defendant Internet Brands, Inc.
(Internet Brands) owned and operated Nolo Legal divisions and over
150 web properties providing marketing services for lawyers and
consumer-facing legal information.

Plaintiffs claim three distinct causes of action against Reed:
violations of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1125(a) (Count I);
tortious interference with prospective advantage under Oklahoma
and Tennessee law (Count III); and (3) civil conspiracy (Count
IV).

Defendant Reed filed a motion to dismiss counts I, III and IV of
the class action complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6).

Judge Payne granted defendant Reed's motion to dismiss in its
entirety, expressing that plaintiffs' complaint fails to state
claims for violation of the Lanham Act (Count I), tortious
interference (Count III) and civil conspiracy (Count IV).

A copy of Judge Payne's opinion and order dated March 2, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/cuNiMyfrom Leagle.com

Anthony L. Allen, Allen & Wisner, LLC, James E. Blount, IV, and
Blount Law Firm, PLLC, Plaintiffs, represented by:

David A. Stampley, Esq.
Scott A. Kamber, Esq.
Stuart L. Cochran, Esq.
KAMBERLAW, LLC
100 Wall St. 23rd Floor
New York, NY 1005
Telephone: 212-920-3072
Facsimile: 212-202-6364

     - and -

Lawrence R. Murphy, Jr., Esq.
Mariann M. Robison, Esq.
RICHARDS & CONNOR
ParkCentre Building, 12th Floor
525 South Main Street
Tulsa, OK 74103-4509
Telephone: 918-585-2394
Facsimile: 918-585-1449
Email: info@richardsconnor.com

     - and -

Michael Burrage -- mburrage@whittenburragel -- at Whitten Burrage

Internet Brands, Inc., Defendant, represented by:

David G. Graves, Esq.
Brad Smith, Esq.
THE BARKLEY LAW FIRM
401 S Boston Ave #2700
Tulsa, OK 74103
Telephone: 918-599-9991


IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
---------------------------------------------------------
Harry Rothenberg, individually and on behalf of all others  cn
similarly situated vs. Phillip F. Goldstein, Andrew Dakos, Antony
Mitchell, James M. Chadwick, Richard Dayan, Michael A. Crow, and
Gerald Hellerman and Imperial Holdings, Inc., Case No. 9:15-cv-
80505-KLR (S.D. Fla., April 20, 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.

Imperial Holdings, Inc. is a Florida corporation with its
principal place of business located at 5355 Town Center Road,
Suite 701, Boca Raton, Florida 33486. It is a specialty finance
company focused on providing premium finance and structured
settlements in the US and select markets.

The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of Imperial
Holdings, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul J. Geller, Esq.
      Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
      Robert J. Robbins, Esq.
      Christopher C. Martins, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      120 East Palmetto Park Rd., Suite 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 750-3000
      Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
      E-mail: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com
              sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
              rrobbins@rgrdlaw.com
              cmartins@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      Joseph H. Weiss, Esq.
      Joshua M. Rubin, Esq.
      David C. Katz, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 682-3025
      Facsimile: (212) 682-3010
      E-mail: jweiss@weisslawllp.com
              jrubin@weisslawllp.com
              dkatz@weisslawllp.com


INGRAM MICRO: Received $9.4MM Award From Class Action During 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ingram Micro Inc. received during 2014 an incremental award of
approximately $9,411,000, net of all attorney fees and expenses,
related to a class action, the Company said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

The Company was a claimant in a class action proceeding seeking
damages from certain manufacturers of LCD flat panel displays.  On
July 12, 2013, the federal district judge overseeing the
proceeding issued an order approving a plan of distribution to the
class claimants.

In July 2013, the Company received a distribution of $29,494,000,
net of all attorney fees and expenses, which was reflected as a
reduction of selling, general and administrative expenses in 2013.
In January 2014, the federal district judge overseeing the
proceeding issued an order approving a final distribution which
entitles the Company to an incremental award of approximately
$9,411,000, net of all attorney fees and expenses, which was
received during 2014.


INTELLIQUICK DELIVERY: AZ Court Narrows Claims in "Collinge" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge John W. Sedwick of the District of Arizona
ruled on the parties' motions in the case David Collinge, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. IntelliQuick Delivery, Inc., an Arizona
corporation, et al., Defendants, NO. 2:12-CV-00824-JWS (D. Ariz.)

Plaintiffs and the proposed class currently work or have worked
for IntelliQuick Delivery, Inc. (IntelliQuick) as delivery
drivers. Plaintiffs maintain that they have been misclassified as
independent contractors when they are actually employees, and as a
result defendants have violated their rights under various wage
and hour laws.

Count I of the complaint alleges Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
violations, which was conditionally certified by the court.
Plaintiffs' non-FLSA claims allege violations of Arizona's Wage
Act (Count II), restitution and unjust enrichment (Count III),
violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) (Count V),
and seek a declaratory judgment that several of defendants'
contracts are unenforceable (Count IV). Plaintiffs now seek class
certification on these non-FLSA claims.

Defendants move for decertification of the FLSA class pursuant to
29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and opposes plaintiffs move for class
certification on non-FLSA claims.

Judge Sedwick denied defendants' motion for decertification and
granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion for class
certification on the non-FLSA claims. Defendants shall provide to
plaintiffs' counsel the last known contact information for the
class members within 21 days of the order and plaintiffs shall
submit a proposed class notice within 14 days.

A copy of Senior District Judge Sedwick's order and opinion dated
March 23, 2015 is available at http://is.gd/L8iZ7yfrom Leagle.com

Plaintiffs, represented by:

Daniel Lee Bonnett, Esq.
Jennifer Lynn Kroll, Esq.
Ravi Vasishta Patel, Esq.
Susan Joan Martin, Esq.
Martin & Bonnett PLLC
1850 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2010
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Telephone: 602-240-6900
Facsimile: 602-240-2345

Intelliquick Delivery Incorporated, Felicia Tavison, Jason
Mittendorf, Jeffrey Lieber, William "Bill" Cocchia, Steven
Anastase, Unknown Anastase, Unknown Mittendorf, Unknown Cocchia,
Defendants, represented by Cory G Walker -- cgwalker@littler.com
-- Mark Ogden -- mogden@littler.com -- Rick D Roskelley --
rroskelley@littler.com -- at Littler Mendelson PC

Keith Spizzirri, husband, and Miriam Spizzirri, wife, Defendants,
represented by Cory G Walker -- cgwalker@littler.com -- Mark Ogden
-- mogden@littler.com -- Rick D Roskelley --
rroskelley@littler.com -- at Littler Mendelson PC

Majik Leasing LLC, an Arizona corporation, Defendant, represented
by Cory G Walker -- cgwalker@littler.com -- at Littler Mendelson
PC

Majik Leasing LLC, Defendant, represented by Cory G Walker --
cgwalker@littler.com -- at Littler Mendelson PC

Majik Leasing LLC, an Arizona corporation, Defendant, represented
by Cory G Walker -- cgwalker@littler.com -- at Littler Mendelson
PC


INTERNATIONAL DELIGHT: "Gerez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Gerez, Saul D. Zabell, Rafael Hernandez Hernandez, Saul D.
Zabell, and Vinicio De Jesus Lora Peralta, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. The International
Delight Cafe Inc., Antonia Rollandi, and Marcello Rollandi, Case
No. 2:15-cv-02237 (E.D.N.Y., April 20, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 322 Bedford
Avenue, Bellmore, New York 11710.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Saul D. Zabell, Esq.
      ZABELL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      1 Corporate Drive, Suite 103
      Bohemia, NY 11716
      Telephone: (631) 589-7242
      Facsimile: (631) 563-7475
      E-mail: SZabell@laborlawsny.com


INTUIT INC: Faces "Diaz" Suit in N.D. Cal. Over Alleged Tax Fraud
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Diaz and Michelle Fugatt, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Intuit, Inc., and Does 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. 5:15-cv-01778 (N.D. Cal., April 20,
2015), alleges that the Defendant facilitated third party imposter
tax fraud by allowing cybercriminals and fraudsters, who used the
personal information and data maintained by the Defendant's
TurboTax to file thousands of fraudulent tax returns and convert
billions of dollars from the U.S. government.

Intuit, Inc. owns and operates a financial management solutions
company with its principal place of business in Mountain View,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard D. McCune, Esq.
      David C. Wright, Esq.
      Jae (Eddie) K. Kim, Esq.
      MCCUNEWRIGHT LLP
      2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216
      Redlands, CA 92374
      Telephone: (909) 557-1250
      Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
      E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
              dcw@mccunewright.com
              jkk@mccunewright.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

      John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
      Rachel Soffin, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN
      201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 223-5505
      Facsimile: (813) 222-4738
      E-mail: JYanchunis@ForThePeople.com
              RSoffin@ForThePeople.com


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Meitav Fund Appointed Lead Plaintiff
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt of the Southern District of
Indiana, Indianapolis Division appoints a lead plaintiff in the
case DAVID BANES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, BABULAL TARAPARA, individually and on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, KUMUD JINDAL, individually and
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and
KRISTOPHER HENNEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. KEVIN MODANY, DANIEL
FITZPATRICK, and ITT EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC., Defendants, NO.
1:14-CV-1599-TWP-DML (S.D. Ind.)

The Court has consolidated four putative class action lawsuits
alleging violation of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by
ITT Educational Services, Inc. and two of its officers.

David Barnes, Kumud Jindal, Meitav Dash Mutual Fund Management
Ltd. (Meitav), Chang Pin Lin (Lin), and Helene Hamel have each
filed a motion to appoint counsel and for appointment of lead
plaintiff.

Among the persons or groups seeking appointment as lead plaintiff,
movant Meitav has, by far, the largest financial interest in the
relief sought by the class. Meitav also has selected and retained
lawyers with the law firms of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP and
Katz & Korin, PC as proposed lead and liaison counsel for the
class.  Meitav estimates its losses at approximately $1.4 million.
The other movants, except movant Lin, accept that Meitav has shown
that it is the presumptive lead plaintiff and that the presumption
has not been rebutted. Lin contends that Meitav lacks standing and
that its claims are atypical, rendering it an inadequate class
representative.

Judge Pratt granted Meitav's motion to be appointed as lead
plaintiff and approved Meitav's selection of lead and liaison
counsel.

A copy of Judge Pratt's order dated March 16, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/5e3aYyfrom Leagle.com

DAVID BANES, Plaintiff, represented by Ronald J. Waicukauski --
rwaicukauski@price-law.com -- Brad A. Catlin --
bcatlin@price-law.com -- at PRICE WAICUKAUSKI & RILEY

BABULAL TARAPARA, Plaintiff, represented by Offer Korin --
okorin@katzkorin.com -- at KATZ & KORIN P.C. & Robert V. Prongay
-- RProngay@glancylaw.com -- at GLANCY BINKOW & GLOLDBERG LLP

KUMUD JINDAL, Plaintiff, represented by Ronald J. Waicukauski --
rwaicukauski@price-law.com -- Brad A. Catlin --
bcatlin@price-law.com -- at PRICE WAICUKAUSKI & RILEY; Francis P.
McConville -- Jeremy A. Lieberman -- Patrick V. Dahlstrom -- at
POMERANTZ LLP

MEITAV DASH MUTUAL FUND MANAGEMENT LTD, Plaintiff, represented by
Offer Korin -- okorin@katzkorin.com -- at KATZ & KORIN P.C.

KRISTOPHER HENNEN, Plaintiff, represented by Offer Korin --
okorin@katzkorin.com -- at KATZ & KORIN P.C.

Defendants, represented by Philip A. Whistler --
philip.whistler@icemiller.com -- Thomas Eugene Mixdorf --
thomas.mixdorf@icemiller.com -- at ICE MILLER LLP

KRISTOPHER HENNEN, Plaintiff, represented by Offer Korin --
okorin@katzkorin.com -- at KATZ & KORIN P.C.


JPMORGAN CHASE: 2nd Cir. Affirms Trial Court Judgment in "Scott"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Second District, affirms the
District Court's judgment in the case LAURIE SCOTT, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-
Appellant, v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
CHASE BANK USA, N.A., Defendants-Appellees, NO. 14-578-CV (2nd
Cir.).

The plaintiff Laurie Scott filed a putative class action against
defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (JPMCB) for unilaterally
enrolling her and other customers into its overdraft protection
service, which conduct she asserts violates the Electronic Fund
Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1693 et seq., the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 1961
et seq., and California state statutory and common law. Scott also
named as defendants JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPMC), JPMCB's parent
holding company and Chase Bank USA, N.A. (CBUSA), a nationally
chartered bank that issues credit cards.

In her deposit account agreement with JPMCB, Scott agreed that any
dispute relating in any way to her account or transactions would
be resolved by binding arbitration, whether involving JPMCB, its
affiliates, or a third party.

JPMCB filed a motion to stay proceeding in favor of arbitration to
enforce the arbitration clause embodied in the deposit account
agreement.

The trial court dismissed Scott's complaint without prejudice and
granted defendants' motion to stay proceedings in favor of
arbitration. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the district court
erred by refusing to give effect to a settlement agreement in the
case of Ross v. Bank of America, N.A., which she alleges it
prevents defendants JPMC and CBUSA from requiring arbitration of
her claims. Scott also filed a motion to take judicial notice of
her 2012 cardholder agreement.

The Second Circuit affirms the judgment of the trial court and
denies Scott's motion to take judicial notice of her 2012
cardholder agreement, given that it was not presented to the
district court and Scott has not demonstrated extraordinary
circumstances warranting its consideration on appeal.

A copy of Second Circuit's summary order dated March 17, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/zThh55from Leagle.com

Josseph I. Marchese -- jmarchese@bursor.com -- Scott A. Bursor --
scott@bursor.com -- Neal J. Deckant -- ndeckant@bursor.com -- at
Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Appearing for Appellant

Noah A. Levine -- noah.levine@wilmerhale.com -- Alan E. Schoenfeld
-- alan.schoenfeld@wilmerhale.com -- at Wilmer Cutler Pickering
Hale and Dorr LLP, New York; Matthew P. Previn --
mprevin@buckleysandler.com -- Caroline K. Eisner --
ceisner@buckleysandler.com -- at BuckleySandler LLP, Appearing for
Appellees

The Second Circuit panel consists of Judges Reena Raggi, Richard
C. Wesley and Gerard Lynch.


LABORATORY CORPORATION: Will Defend Against Jansky Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings will vigorously defend
the lawsuit filed by Yvonne Jansky, the Company said in its Form
10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

On June 7, 2012, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Yvonne Jansky v. Laboratory Corporation of
America, et al., filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Francisco. The lawsuit alleges that the
defendants committed unlawful and unfair business practices, and
violated various other state laws by changing screening codes to
diagnostic codes on laboratory test orders, thereby resulting in
customers being responsible for co-payments and other debts. The
lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, actual and punitive damages, as
well as recovery of attorney's fees, and legal expenses. The
Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.


LABORATORY CORPORATION: Consent Judgment Okayed in "Baker Pepe"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit, Ann Baker Pepe v. Genzyme Corporation and Laboratory
Corporation of America Holdings, was resolved and a consent
judgment was approved by the Court in January 2015, Laboratory
Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

On June 7, 2012, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Ann Baker Pepe v. Genzyme Corporation and
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The
lawsuit alleged that the defendants failed to preserve DNA samples
allegedly entrusted to the defendants and thereby breached a
written agreement with plaintiff and violated state laws. The
lawsuit sought injunctive relief, actual, double and treble
damages, as well as recovery of attorney's fees and legal
expenses. The lawsuit was resolved and a consent judgment was
approved by the Court in January 2015.


LABORATORY CORPORATION: Appeal Filed in Sandusky Wellness Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff in the case Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC, et al. v.
MEDTOX Scientific, Inc., et al., has filed a notice of appeal,
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

On August 24, 2012, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC, et al. v. MEDTOX
Scientific, Inc., et al., filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota. The complaint alleges that on
or about February 21, 2012, the defendants violated the federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by sending unsolicited
facsimiles to Plaintiff and more than 39 other recipients without
the recipients' prior express permission or invitation. The
lawsuit seeks the greater of actual damages or the sum of $0.0005
for each violation, subject to trebling under the TCPA, and
injunctive relief.

In September of 2014, Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification
was denied. In January of 2015, the Company's Motion for Summary
Judgment on the remaining individual claim was granted. Plaintiff
has filed a notice of appeal. The Company will vigorously defend
the lawsuit.


LABORATORY CORPORATION: Hearing on Settlement Merits Held
---------------------------------------------------------
A court has held a hearing on the merits of the settlement terms
in the consolidated class action lawsuits, Christine Bohlander v.
Laboratory Corporation of America, et al., and Jemuel Andres, et
al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, et. al., the
Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014.

The Company was a defendant in two separate putative class action
lawsuits, Christine Bohlander v. Laboratory Corporation of
America, et al., and Jemuel Andres, et al. v. Laboratory
Corporation of America Holdings, et. al., related to overtime pay.
After the filing of the two lawsuits on July 8, 2013, the
Bohlander lawsuit was consolidated into the Andres lawsuit, and
the consolidated lawsuit is now pending in the Superior Court of
California for the County of Los Angeles. In the consolidated
lawsuit, the Plaintiffs allege on behalf of similarly situated
phlebotomists and couriers that the Company failed to pay
overtime, failed to provide meal and rest breaks, and committed
other violations of the California Labor Code. Plaintiffs have
subsequently filed an amended complaint. The complaint seeks
monetary damages, civil penalties, costs, injunctive relief, and
attorney's fees. The parties have reached a tentative class
settlement, which is subject to Court approval. The Court was
scheduled to hold a hearing on the merits of the settlement terms
on February 26, 2015. If the settlement is not approved by the
Court, the Company intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit.


LABORATORY CORPORATION: To Defend Against Rabanes & Varsam Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings will vigorously defend
the lawsuits, Rachel Rabanes v. California Laboratory Sciences,
LLC, et al., and Rita Varsam v. Laboratory Corporation of America
DBA LabCorp, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

The lawsuit Rachel Rabanes v. California Laboratory Sciences, LLC,
et al., was filed in April 2014 in the Superior Court of
California for the County of Los Angeles, and the lawsuit Rita
Varsam v. Laboratory Corporation of America DBA LabCorp, was filed
in June 2014 in the Superior Court of California for the County of
San Diego. In these lawsuits, the Plaintiffs allege on behalf of
similarly situated employees that the Company failed to pay
overtime, failed to provide meal and rest breaks, and committed
other violations of the California Labor Code. The complaints seek
monetary damages, civil penalties, costs, injunctive relief, and
attorney's fees. The Company will vigorously defend these
lawsuits.


LABORATORY CORPORATION: Defending Against Legg Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America will vigorously defend the
lawsuit filed by Christopher W. Legg, et al., the Company said in
its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014.

On July 9, 2014, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Christopher W. Legg, et al. v. Laboratory
Corporation of America, filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida. The complaint alleges that
the Company violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
("FACTA") by allegedly providing credit card expiration date
information on an electronically printed credit card receipt. The
lawsuit seeks statutory and punitive damages, injunctive relief,
and attorney's fees. The Company will vigorously defend the
lawsuit.


LABORATORY CORPORATION: MOU Entered in LipoScience Investor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the case, LipoScience, Inc. Stockholder Litigation,
entered into a memorandum of understanding with the defendants
regarding a settlement of the Consolidated Action, Laboratory
Corporation of America said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

Prior to the consummation of the Company's acquisition of
LipoScience, purported stockholders of LipoScience filed four
putative class action lawsuits against LipoScience, members of the
LipoScience board of directors, the Company and Bear Acquisition
Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, in the Delaware
Court of Chancery and, with respect to one of the lawsuits, in the
Superior Court of Wake County, North Carolina. The lawsuits
alleged breach of fiduciary duty and/or other violations of state
law arising out of the proposed acquisition. Each suit sought,
among other things, injunctive relief enjoining the merger. On
October 23, 2014, the case in North Carolina was voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice by the Plaintiff.

On October 29, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated
the four actions under the caption In re LipoScience, Inc.
Stockholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 10252-VCP (the
"Consolidated Action"). On November 7, 2014, the Consolidated
Action plaintiffs entered into a memorandum of understanding with
the defendants regarding a settlement of the Consolidated Action.
In connection with the settlement, the parties agreed that
LipoScience would make certain additional disclosures to its
stockholders. Subject to the completion of certain confirmatory
discovery by counsel, entry by the parties into a stipulation of
settlement and customary conditions, including court approval, the
settlement will resolve all of the claims that were or could have
been brought, including all claims relating to the merger.


LABORATORY CORPORATION: MOU Entered in Delaware Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a Delaware class action entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the Defendants regarding a settlement,
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

On November 19, 2014, the Company entered into a definitive merger
agreement to acquire Covance, Inc. ("Covance") for approximately
$6.2 billion in cash and Company common stock. The transaction
closed on February 19, 2015. Prior to the closing of the
transaction, purported stockholders of Covance filed two putative
class action lawsuits, one in the Delaware Court of Chancery, and
the other in Mercer County, New Jersey, against Covance, members
of the Covance board of directors, the Company and Neon Merger
Sub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company. The lawsuits
alleged breach of fiduciary duty and/or other violations of state
law arising out of the proposed acquisition. Each suit sought,
among other things, injunctive relief enjoining the merger.

On January 21, 2015, the case in New Jersey was voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice by the Plaintiff. On February 9, 2015,
the Plaintiffs in the Delaware case entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the Defendants regarding a settlement. In
connection with the settlement, the parties agreed that Covance
would make additional disclosures to its stockholders. Subject to
the entry by the parties into a stipulation of settlement and
customary conditions, including court approval, the settlement
will resolve all the claims that were or could have been brought,
including all claims relating to the merger.


LANDRY'S INC: Judge Enters Class-Related Notice in "Saecho" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The presiding judge in the lawsuit MOUANG SAECHO, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
LANDRY'S, INC, a Delaware corporation, and McCORMICK & SCHMICK
RESTAURANT CORP., a Delaware corporation, Defendants, Case No.
C 15-00815 WHA (N.D. Calif.) issued a Notice Regarding Factors to
be Evaluated for any Proposed Class Settlement.

District Judge William Alsup made the notice for the guidance of
counsel.  The judge urges counsel to review the substantive and
timing factors the Court will consider in reviewing a proposed
class settlement.

Among other things, the judge will consider adequacy of
representation, due diligence, cost-benefit for absent class
members, attorney's fees, and timing of proposed settlement.

A copy of the Notice dated April 6, 2015 is available at
http://is.gd/khsKk5from Leagle.com.

Mouang Saechao, Plaintiff, represented by Randy Scott Erlewine,
Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP & Cari Ann Cohorn, Cohorn
Law.

Landry's, Inc., Defendant, represented by Aaron Nathan Colby --
aaroncolby@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremain LLP, Janet Lynn Grumer
-- janetgrumer@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP & Evelyn F
Wang -- evelynwang@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.

McCormick & Schmick Restaurant Corp., Defendant, represented by
Aaron Nathan Colby, Davis Wright Tremain LLP, Janet Lynn Grumer,
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP & Evelyn F Wang, Davis Wright Tremaine
LLP.


LINKEDIN CORP: Averts FCRA Suit Over Reference Searches
-------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal judge
in San Jose ruled on April 14 that LinkedIn Corp. doesn't run
afoul of the Fair Credit Reporting Act by providing premium
members of its professional networking site with potential
reference contacts for job candidates.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal of the Northern District of
California knocked out the lawsuit which claimed that LinkedIn's
"References Searches" function violates the FCRA.  In a 21-page
opinion, Grewal concluded that LinkedIn can't be considered a
consumer reporting agency, as defined by the law, and that the
reference reports it produces also don't qualify as consumer
reports. Grewal's decision left open an opportunity for the
plaintiffs to amend their lawsuit by May 19.  LinkedIn's paying
premium members can use the searches to peruse their personal
LinkedIn networks for a list of connections to people who've
previously worked with a particular job candidate.

Lawyers with Greenwald Davidson in Boca Raton, Florida, and the
Law Offices Todd Friedman in Beverly Hills sued last year on
behalf of clients who claimed LinkedIn reference searches had cost
them job opportunities.  The proposed class action claimed that
the lists generated from the searches amount to consumer reports
under the FCRA, and that LinkedIn failed to abide by safeguards
required by the law.

But Judge Grewal found that reference searches aren't consumer
reports since they're generated from LinkedIn users' own input to
the site.  Because the results are generated from LinkedIn's
"transactions or experiences" with the job applicants themselves,
Judge Grewal wrote, the reference searches fall within an
exclusion in the FCRA's definition of a consumer report.

"As LinkedIn notes, the fact that a potential employer could use a
telephone directory for a job candidate's current employer to
contact people who know the candidate does not make that directory
a consumer report," Judge Grewal wrote.

The company is represented in the lawsuit by counsel at Morrison &
Foerster   In an emailed statement, a LinkedIn spokesman said, "We
are pleased that the court dismissed the plaintiffs' legal claims
and recognized that our members understand that when they share
their employment history on LinkedIn they make it easier to be
found and contacted regarding relevant job opportunities."
Plaintiffs lawyer James Davidson at Greenwald Davidson said his
team plans to file an amended complaint.


LOUISA CORPORATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth C. Salinas, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. The Louisa Corporation d/b/a Bell Finance
a/k/a Bell Finance Co. and Mary Lou Guerra, Case No. 7:15-cv-00178
(S.D. Tex., April 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants are in the consumer finance and lending business
with its principal place of business in McAllen, Hidalgo County,
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Matthew Guerra, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL M. GUERRA
      PO Box 5371
      McAllen, TX 78502
      Telephone: (965) 682-5999
      Facsimile: (888) 317-8802
      E-mail: mike@mmguerra.com

         - and -

      Michael Kevin Burke, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL M. GUERRA, BURKE & KHIRALLAH, LLP
      3900 N. 10th St., Suite 850
      McAllen, TX 78501
      Telephone: (956) 682-5999
      Facsimile: (888) 317-8802
      E-mail: mburke@mmguerra.com


MATCH.COM LLC: Faces "Graf" Suit Over Dating Services Contract
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zeke Graf, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Match.com, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-02913 (C.D. Cal.,
April 20, 2015), alleges that the Defendant is engaged in the
practice of forcing California consumers to enter into illegal
contracts for dating services. Specifically, the contracts failed
to contain a notice of consumers' rights to cancel said contract
and the name and address of the dating service operator to which a
notice of cancellation should be sent.

Match.com, LLC operates an online dating website.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Judge Dismissed Local 210's Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt of the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division, granted defendant's motion to dismiss in the
case LOCAL 210 UNITY PENSION AND WELFARE FUNDS, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, et al, Plaintiffs, v.
McDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL INC, et al, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO.
4:13-CV-2393 (S.D. Tex.)

McDermott International Inc. is a global engineering, procurement,
construction and installation (EPCI) company focused on designing
and executing complex offshore oil and gas projects. McDermott
conducts much of its business through fixed-price contracts,
executed for a pre-determined amount based on project cost and
profit assessments that are awarded through a competitive bid
process. All bids over $40 million are reviewed by executive
management, including defendants Stephen M. Johnson and Perry L.
Elders. Executive officers additionally review developments on
these projects on a monthly basis.

The plaintiff alleges that between November 6, 2012 and August 6,
2013, the plaintiff purchased shares of McDermott common stock and
that the stock value plummeted because the defendants concealed
pervasive and ongoing failures related to the company's project
bidding, execution and oversight. These failures caused McDermott
to experience significant losses. Stock prices dropped 13% in May
of 2013 and another 21% in August of 2013. It is claimed that
investors suffered losses in the hundreds of millions of dollars
as a result.

The consolidated class action complaint blames the defendants for
causing these losses by engaging in a course of fraudulent conduct
that deceived the plaintiff and other class-member investors in
the process. Allegedly, the defendants artificially inflated
McDermott's stock price by making overly optimistic, false and/or
misleading statements and concealing truths about McDermott's
business, financial status and outlook. The information concerned
material losses on several problematic projects and challenges
related to project bidding and execution.

Plaintiff sued defendants for alleged violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act),
as amended, 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b) and 78t(a), and Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section
240.10b-5, promulgated thereunder.  Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P.
12(b)(6), the defendants move to dismiss the consolidated class
action complaint for failure to plead fraud with the heightened
specificity required by Rule 9(b) of the federal procedure rules,
and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), 15
U.S.C. Section 78u-4 et seq. The plaintiff filed an opposing
response, in which it alternatively requests leave to amend the
complaint if dismissal is granted.

Judge Hoyt granted defendants' motion to dismiss, denied
plaintiff's request for leave to amend the complaint, and the
complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
A copy of Judge Hoyt's memorandum opinion and order dated March
13, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/10eI3Gfrom Leagle.com

State-Boston Retirement Systems, Plaintiff, represented by:

Damon Joseph Chargois, Esq.
MASHAYEKH & CHARGOIS, P.C.
1 Riverway Ste 1700
Houston, TX 77056

     - and -

Michael W Stocker -- mstocker@labaton.com -- at Labaton Sucharow
LLP

PAMCAH-UA Local 675 Pension Fund, Plaintiff, represented by
Danielle S Myers -- danim@rgrdlaw.com -- Jonah H Goldstein --
jonahg@rgrdlaw.com -- Ashley M. Robinson -- ashleyr@rgrdlaw.com --
at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP; Andrew M Edison --
andrew.edison@emhllp.com -- at Edison, McDowell & Hetherington,
LLP

Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund and Louisiana Municipal
Police Employees' Retirement System, Plaintiffs, represented by
Blair A Nicholas -- blairn@blbglaw.com -- David R Kaplan --
DavidK@blbglaw.com -- Timothy A. DeLange -- timothyd@blbglaw.com -
- at Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP; Thomas Robert
Ajamie -- tajamie@ajamie.com -- at Ajamie LLP

Jerad Flood, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Jerad Flood Pro se,
McDermott International Inc, Defendant, represented by David D
Sterling -- david.sterling@bakerbotts.com -- at Baker Botts LLP

Stephen M Johnson and Perry L. Elders, Defendants, represented by
David D Sterling -- david.sterling@bakerbotts.com -- at Baker
Botts LLP

Thomas Sauriol, Defendant, represented by:

Mark Alan Junell, Esq.
THE JUNELL LAW FIRM PC
100 Waugh Dr.
Houston, TX 77007
Telephone: 281-899-0241

     - and -

Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq.
LEVI KORSINSKY LLP
30 Broad St.
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: 212-363-7500


MERIDIAN FUNDS: Judge Grants Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thomas P. Griesa of the Southern District of New
York granted defendants' motions to dismiss in the case entitled
IN RE MERIDIAN FUNDS GROUP SECURITIES & EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME
SECURITY ACT (ERISA) LITIGATION. THE R.W. GRAND LODGE OF FREE &
ACCEPTED MASONS OF PENNSYLVANIA, Plaintiff, v. MERIDIAN CAPITAL
PARTNERS, INC., MERIDIAN DIVERSIFIED FUND, LTD., MERIDIAN
DIVERSIFIED FUND MANAGEMENT, LLC, WILLIAM H. LAWRENCE, and ERNST &
YOUNG LLP, Defendants, NOS. 09-MD-2082 (TPG), 09-CV-7099 (TPG)
(S.D.N.Y.)

The plaintiff R.W. Grand Lodge of Free & Accepted Masons of
Pennsylvania is a fraternity branch headquartered in Philadelphia
and a non-profit organization. It maintains assets in a
Consolidated Fund, which purchased shares in the Meridian Fund.

Defendant Meridian Capital Partners, Inc. (Meridian Capital) is an
investment manager that offers fund of hedge fund investments to
institutional and high net worth investors. Its offices are in New
York City. Defendant Meridian Diversified Fund, Ltd. (Meridian
Fund), is a Cayman Island investment fund. It is among the funds
offered by Meridian Capital. Defendant Meridian Diversified Fund
Management LLC (Meridian Management) is a Delaware limited
liability company that serves as an investment manager.

Meridian Management managed the investments of the Meridian Fund.
Meridian Capital, in turn, was the managing member of Meridian
Management and defendant William H. Lawrence was the Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Investment Officer of Meridian
Capital, overseeing substantially all investment activities and
serving as the leader of the firm. The Meridian defendants managed
investment funds whose strategy was to invest in other funds. They
profited through fees charged to investors.

Ernst & Young (E&Y) is a global professional services firm with a
principal place of business in New York, New York and served as
auditor for the Meridian Fund and issued annual financial reports
to the Meridian Fund and its investors.

The Meridian Fund allocated some of its capital to two hedge
funds. These two funds, both managed by Tremont Group Holdings,
Inc., were called the Rye Select Broad Market Portfolio, Ltd. and
the Rye Select Broad Market XL Portfolio, Ltd. The Rye funds
invested substantially all of their assets through the wealth
management arm of Bernard Madoff's firm, Bernard Madoff Investment
Securities LLC (BMIS).

Although BMIS claimed to invest its clients' money using an
unusual strategy called split-strike conversion, it did not really
invest at all. Instead, it placed its clients' money into a bank
account and falsified their returns in the manner of a classic
Ponzi scheme. BMIS concealed and sustained its fraud in part by
falsifying extremely strong, consistent returns from the early
1990s until the collapse of the scheme in 2008. When Madoff's
scheme ultimately collapsed in 2008, the Meridian defendants
announced that, due to Madoff's fraud, approximately 6-8% of the
money in the Meridian Fund would be written off.

Plaintiff now seeks recovery from three Meridian entities, as well
as Meridian director William H. Lawrence, and Meridian's auditor
at relevant times, Ernst & Young LLP, alleging defendants secured
plaintiff's investment through fraud. Plaintiff asserts two
federal claims, first, against all defendants, violation of
Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15
U.S.C. Section 78a et seq., and the Securities and Exchange
Commission's Rule 10b-5, 17 CFR Section 240 and second, against
the Meridian defendants, violation of Sec. 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.

Additionally, plaintiff asserts nine claims under state law,
including fraud, misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation,
and violation of Section 1-401 and 1-501 of the Pennsylvania
Securities Act of 1972. All of the state claims name some or all
of the Meridian defendants. Among the state claims, only the
misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation claims name E&Y.

The Meridian defendants and E&Y filed motions to dismiss the
complaint under Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. Defendants contend that, due to a litany of
deficiencies, the complaint cannot support any claims against
defendants. They further allege that the Securities Litigation
Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA) precludes plaintiff's state law
claims.

Judge Griesa granted defendants' motions to dismiss.  A copy of
Judge Griesa's opinion dated March 13, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/j0Pg7mfrom Leagle.com

The R.W. Grand Lodge of Free & Accepted Masons of Pennsylvania,
Plaintiff, represented by Sidney Stephen Liebesman --
sliebesman@mmwr.com -- Steven Eric Pachman -- spachman@mmwr.com --
at Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP

Meridian Capital Partners, Inc., William H. Lawrence, and Meridian
Diversified Fund Management LLC, Defendants, represented by
Marshall Howard Fishman -- marshall.fishman@freshfields.com -- at
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP; Aaron Charles Lang -- at Dewey
& LeBoeuf, L.L.P.; Gabrielle Lisa Gould -- at Kramer Levin
Naftalis & Frankel, LLP

Meridian Diversified Fund, Ltd., Defendant, represented by
Geoffrey Potter -- gpotter@pbwt.com -- Patterson, Belknap, Webb &
Tyler LLP

Ernst & Young LLP, Defendant, represented by Grant Joseph Esposito
-- gesposito@mofo.com -- Robert Byron Hubbell -- rhubbell@mofo.com
-- Ryan Whitcomb Borho -- at Morrison & Foerster LLP


MICROSOFT CORP: Wants 9th Cir. to Reconsider Xbox Case Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for Law.com, reports that Microsoft Corp.
and allies in the business community are asking an appeals court
to reconsider a ruling for a group of Xbox purchasers, arguing
that the decision gives class action plaintiffs an unfair
opportunity to bring cases back from the dead.

On March 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed the dismissal of class allegations in a suit brought by
consumer plaintiffs, represented by Keller Rohrback, who claim a
defect in the Microsoft's Xbox 360 console causes disc scratches
that can ruin video games.  The Ninth Circuit appeal followed a
lower court order that struck the class claims, and a stipulation
of dismissal with prejudice by Seth Baker and the other named
plaintiffs.

At the appeals court, Microsoft's lawyers, led by Davis Wright
Tremaine's Stephen Rummage -- steverummage@dwt.com -- and
Fred Burnside -- fredburnside@dwt.com -- argued that the Ninth
Circuit lacked jurisdiction to consider the case.  The plaintiffs'
"strategic" dismissal, Microsoft argued, shouldn't have opened
Martinez's class ruling up to appellate challenge.

A three-judge panel disagreed with Microsoft, finding the Ninth
Circuit had jurisdiction and giving the plaintiffs another chance
to seek class certification at the lower court.

In a petition for en banc rehearing filed April 1, Microsoft
argues that the plaintiffs shouldn't be allowed use a "procedural
sleight-of-hand" to skirt the normal process of waiting for a
final judgment or seeking permission for an interlocutory appeal.

"The law allows no shortcut for either party," Microsoft's lawyers
wrote.  "Consistent with these principles, a plaintiff cannot
voluntarily dismiss and thereby secure immediate review of a class
certification ruling, adding a route to appeal Congress did not
authorize."

On April 13 the Washington Legal Foundation weighed in with an
amicus brief backing Microsoft's bid for full court rehearing.
The decision in the Xbox case would open the door for piecemeal
proceedings, the WLF argues, and it unfairly harms defendants, who
would still be required to wait until a final judgment enters to
appeal issues of class certification.

"If an appeals court denies discretionary review of a class-
certification decision, plaintiffs who wish to appeal should be
required to wait until after the case has been fully tried -- just
as defendants must -- so that all appeal issues can be heard at
once," WLF's chief counsel, Richard Samp, said in a statement.

Keller Rohrback's Benjamin Gould -- bgould@kellerrohrback.com --
who argued at the Ninth Circuit for the plaintiffs, told Law.com
on April 15 that the initial panel ruling was entirely consistent
with Ninth Circuit precedent.

"The panel broke absolutely no new ground," he said.  "The need
for an en banc rehearing just isn't there, in our view."

The plaintiffs' legal team also includes Keller Rohrback's Amy
Williams-Derry and Mark Griffin, along with lawyers at Kopelowitz
Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg and Chitwood Harley Harnes.

In addition to Davis Wright's Rummage and Burnside, Microsoft's
defense lineup includes Charles Casper -- ccasper@mmwr.com -- and
Jennifer Canfield -- jcanfield@mmwr.com -- of Montgomery,
McCracken, Walker & Rhoads.


MICROSOFT CORP: Judge Dismisses "No Poach" Claims
-------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal
judge on April 10 dismissed claims that Microsoft Corp. was one of
several tech companies that depressed industry wages and stifled
competition by agreeing not to recruit certain employees.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh ruled plaintiffs' state and federal
antitrust claims are subject to a four-year statute of
limitations, and therefore expired in 2011.  She rejected
arguments that special circumstances in this case should restart
the clock, but gave plaintiffs lawyers with San Diego firms Hogue
& Belong and Markham Law Firm 30 days to file an amended
complaint.

The suit against Microsoft, filed in October in the Northern
District of California, follows similar "no-poach" claims made
against some of Silicon Valley's biggest employers.  The early
lawsuits, targeting companies including Google Inc., Apple Inc.
and Intel Corp., have landed settlements of more than $400
million.  But Judge Koh seems reluctant to allow another round of
litigation.  Earlier this month she ruled recent "no-poach" claims
against a handful of California animation studios also are time
barred.

Plaintiffs lawyers argued Microsoft first entered into the alleged
anti-solicitation agreements in May 2007.  But because the
defendant allegedly continued to commit antitrust violations
beyond that date, the lawyers said the court should extend the
statute of limitations.  They cited ongoing phone calls, emails
and meetings relating to the conspiracy, and claimed participants
used the present tense when describing the hiring agreements.  But
Judge Koh rejected those arguments.

"The court finds these allegations woefully lacking," the judge
wrote.  "Plaintiffs offer no facts detailing who Microsoft's
alleged co-conspirators were, much less any facts showing when,
where or with whom these alleged phone calls, emails and in person
meetings took place."

Plaintiffs had also argued the court should suspend the statute of
limitations because Microsoft fraudulently concealed the
"no-poach" pacts from its employees.  But Judge Koh ruled an
employer-employee relationship alone is not enough to create a
fiduciary relationship, and therefore, "the court concludes that
Microsoft had no obligation to affirmatively disclose its alleged
illicit conduct."

The ruling is a win for Microsoft's lawyers at Davis Wright
Tremaine.  The lawyers also had hoped to distance their client
from the earlier "no-poach" litigation by moving the case to
Washington, where Microsoft is headquartered.  Judge Koh denied
that request.


NATIONAL HOCKEY: Faces "Blue" Suit Over Players Head Trauma
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Blue, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. National Hockey League, Case No. 00621-DOC-VBK (C.D. Cal.,
April 20, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's negligence and
reckless delay in taking proactive steps to protect its players
that resulted in years of countless sustained head trauma and
injuries by National Hockey League players.

National Hockey League is an unincorporated association consisting
of separately-owned professional hockey teams that operate out of
many different cities and states within the United States and
Canada, which maintains its offices at 1185 Avenue of the
Americas, New York, New York, 10036.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
      W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
      Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
      100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Telephone: (612) 339-6900
      Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
      E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
              wjbruckner@locklaw.com
              rapeterson@locklaw.com

         - and -

      Clifford H. Pearson, Esq.
      Michael Pearson, Esq.
      Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
      PEARSON SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
      15165 Ventura Blvd., Suite 400
      Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
      Telephone: (818) 788-8300
      Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
      E-mail: cpearson@pswlaw.com
              mpearson@pswlaw.com
              dwarshaw@pswlaw.com

         - and -

      Howard Miller, Esq.
      GIRARDI | KEESE
      1126 Wilshire Blvd
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213) 977-0211
      Facsimile: (213) 481-1554
      E-mail: hmiller@girardikeese.com


NAYA EXPRESS: "Ortiz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Angel Ortiz, Arturo Yanez, Santiago Galvez and Saul Perez,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Naya
Express Inc. d/b/a Naya Express, Naya Express II Inc. d/b/a
Naya Express and Hady Kfoury, Case No. 1:15-cv-03054 (S.D.N.Y.,
April 20, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate two Middle Eastern restaurants in
New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NRG ENERGY: Cheswick Plaintiffs Seek to File Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the Cheswick Class Action have sought leave to file
an amended complaint, which NRG Energy, Inc. is contesting, the
Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014.

In April 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
GenOn Energy, Inc. in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania alleging that emissions from the Cheswick
generating facility have damaged the property of neighboring
residents. The Company disputes these allegations. Plaintiffs have
brought nuisance, negligence, trespass and strict liability claims
seeking both damages and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs seek to
certify a class that consists of people who own property or live
within one mile of the Company's plant.

In July 2012, the Company removed the lawsuit to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. In October 2012,
the District Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss, which
plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.

On August 20, 2013, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of
the District Court. On September 3, 2013, the Company filed a
petition for rehearing with the Court of Appeals which was
subsequently denied.

In February 2014, the Company filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review and reversal
of the Court of Appeals decision. On June 2, 2014, the U.S.
Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court's denial of GenOn's petition for
a writ of certiorari, the case continued to be litigated before
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
After briefing by the parties on GenOn's motion to strike class
allegations in the complaint, the court granted GenOn's motion,
but allowed the plaintiffs the opportunity to re-file their
complaint. On February 3, 2015, plaintiffs sought leave to file an
amended complaint, which the Company is contesting.


OLSON ASSOCIATES: Judge Grants Certification and Appoints Counsel
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Christine M. Arguello of the District of Colorado
ruled on the parties' motions in the case KELLIE RHODES, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OLSON
ASSOCIATES, P.C., d/b/a OLSON SHANER, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO.
14-CV-00919-CMA-MJW (D. Colo.)

The plaintiff Kellie Rhodes incurred a debt of $732.06 for
emergency medical care from APEX Emergency Group-St. Anthony
North.  APEX assigned this debt to North American Recovery, Inc.
(N.A.R.) and hired Olson Associates, P.C., d/b/a Olson Shaner, a
law firm, to initiate legal proceedings against Rhodes relating to
the debt.

Olson Shaner sent its first notice regarding the debt to Rhodes on
July 30, 2014. The first notice appeared on Olson Shaner's
letterhead, but was signed by Kelsey Mirelez, Attorney for N.A.R.,
Inc. Olson Shaner instructs its employees to use a scripted
voicemail when attempting to reach alleged debtors and if those
debtors do not answer the phone. On September 17, 2013, an Olson
Shaner representative named Tia Metters left plaintiff another
scripted voicemail message.

Plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint against the
defendant for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA). Plaintiff alleged that the scripted voicemail message
fails to disclose that it is a debt collector, which it is calling
to collect on a debt and that that any information it collects
will be used for that purpose.

Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, while plaintiff
filed a cross-motion for summary judgment as to liability, and a
motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel.

Judge Arguello denied defendant's motion for summary judgment and
granted plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment as to
liability.  The Judge held that defendant's scripted voicemail
messages, left for the named plaintiff, violated 15 U.S.C. Section
1692d(6) and 1692e(11). The Judge also granted plaintiff's motion
for class certification and appointment of class counsel; and
appointed plaintiff's counsel to represent the class.

A copy of Judge Arguello's order dated March 13 is available at
http://is.gd/nlLzESfrom Leagle.com

Kellie Rhodes, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Lewis Greenwald
-- mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com -- at Greenwald Davidson, PLLC

Olson Associates, P.C., Defendant, represented by:

Steven J. Wienczkowski, Esq.
ADAM L. PLOTKIN, P.C.
621 Seventeenth StreetSuite 2400
Denver, CO, 80293-2400
Telephone: (303) 296-3566
Facsimile: (303) 296-3544


PATH INC: N.D. Cal. Judge Narrows Claims in "Opperman" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar of the Northern District of California
granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss
the case MARC OPPERMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PATH, INC., et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO.13-CV-00453-JSt (N.D. Cal.)

The action began as several class actions filed both in California
and Texas. The four actions were consolidated, where plaintiffs
filed their Consolidated Amended Complaint (CAC). Plaintiffs
allege that Apple engaged in a mass marketing campaign, whereby it
consciously and continuously misrepresented its iDevices as
secure, and that the personal information contained on iDevices --
including, specifically, address books, could not be taken without
their owners' consent.

Defendants filed several motions to dismiss the CAC, and on May
14, 2014, the court granted the motions in part. The court
dismissed plaintiffs' false and misleading advertising, consumer
legal remedies/misrepresentation, deceit, Unfair Competition Law
(UCL), and conversion claims. The court also denied the motions to
dismiss plaintiff's invasion of privacy (intrusion upon seclusion)
claim.

Plaintiffs then filed their Second Consolidated Amended Complaint
(SCAC). In the SCAC, plaintiffs allege conversion and invasion of
privacy (intrusion upon seclusion) claims against all defendants,
and the following claims against only Apple: (1) violation of
California's False and Misleading Advertising Law (FAL), Business
and Professions Code Section 17500, et seq.; (2) violation of
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Civil Code
Section 1750, et seq.; (3) deceit, California Civil Code Section
1709, et seq.; and (4) violation of California's UCL, Business and
Professions Code Sec. 17200, et seq.  Plaintiffs request
certification of a class; an injunction prohibiting defendants
from continuing the challenged conduct; actual, compensatory,
statutory, presumed, punitive, and/or exemplary damages;
declaratory relief; restitution; the imposition on defendants of
constructive trusts; and fees, costs, and interest. In August
2014, Defendants filed these motions to dismiss.  All of the
motions challenge all claims alleged against each defendant,
except that Path does not challenge the invasion of privacy
(intrusion upon seclusion) claim alleged against it.

Judge Tigar dismissed plaintiffs' conversion claim and requests
for injunctive relief with prejudiced and the motions to dismiss
are denied.

A copy of Judge Tigar's order dated March 23, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/bnkX3qfrom Leagle.com

Marc Opperman, Plaintiff, represented by Cari Ann Cohorn, Cohorn
Law, David M. Given, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey
Scott Edwards, Edwards Law, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine
Given & Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F.
Schwenker, Dirk M. Jordan, Ivo Michael Labar, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John
von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP

Judy Long, Plaintiff, represented by Cari Ann Cohorn, Cohorn Law,
David M. Given, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey
Scott Edwards, Edwards Law, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine
Given & Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F.
Schwenker, Dirk M. Jordan & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr &
Wagstaffe LLP

Claire Moses, Plaintiff, represented by Cari Ann Cohorn, Cohorn
Law, David M. Given, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey
Scott Edwards, Edwards Law, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine
Given & Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F.
Schwenker, Dirk M. Jordan, Ivo Michael Labar, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John
von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP

Gentry Hoffman, Plaintiff, represented by Cari Ann Cohorn, Cohorn
Law, David M. Given, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey
Scott Edwards, Edwards Law, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine
Given & Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F.
Schwenker, Dirk M. Jordan, Ivo Michael Labar, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John
von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP

Steve Dean, Plaintiff, represented by Cari Ann Cohorn, Cohorn Law,
David M. Given, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey
Scott Edwards, Edwards Law, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine
Given & Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F.
Schwenker, Dirk M. Jordan, Ivo Michael Labar, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John
von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP

Alicia Medlock, Plaintiff, represented by Cari Ann Cohorn, Cohorn
Law, David M. Given, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey
Scott Edwards, Edwards Law, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine
Given & Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F.
Schwenker, Dirk M. Jordan & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr &
Wagstaffe LLP.

Alan Beueshasen, Plaintiff, represented by Cari Ann Cohorn, Cohorn
Law, David M. Given, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey
Scott Edwards, Edwards Law, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine
Given & Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F.
Schwenker, Dirk M. Jordan, Ivo Michael Labar, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John
von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP

Scott Medlock, Plaintiff, represented by Cari Ann Cohorn, Cohorn
Law, David M. Given, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey
Scott Edwards, Edwards Law, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine
Given & Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F.
Schwenker, Dirk M. Jordan & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr &
Wagstaffe LLP.

Greg Varner, Plaintiff, represented by Cari Ann Cohorn, Cohorn
Law, David M. Given, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey
Scott Edwards, Edwards Law, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine
Given & Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F.
Schwenker, Dirk M. Jordan, Ivo Michael Labar, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John
von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP

Rachelle King, Plaintiff, represented by Cari Ann Cohorn, Cohorn
Law, David M. Given, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey
Scott Edwards, Edwards Law, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine
Given & Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F.
Schwenker, Dirk M. Jordan, Ivo Michael Labar, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John
von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP

Guili Biondi, Plaintiff, represented by Cari Ann Cohorn, Cohorn
Law, David M. Given, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey
Scott Edwards, Edwards Law, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine
Given & Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F.
Schwenker, Dirk M. Jordan, Ivo Michael Labar, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John
von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP

Jason Green, Plaintiff, represented by Cari Ann Cohorn, Cohorn
Law, David M. Given, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey
Scott Edwards, Edwards Law, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine
Given & Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F.
Schwenker, Dirk M. Jordan, Ivo Michael Labar, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John
von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP

Nirali Mandaywala, Plaintiff, represented by Cari Ann Cohorn,
Cohorn Law, David M. Given, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP,
Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of
Carl F. Schwenker, Dirk M. Jordan, Ivo Michael Labar, Kerr &
Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP &
Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP

Maria Pirozzi, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine
Given & Carlin LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP,
Jennifer Sarnelli, Gardy & Notis, LLP & Michael John von
Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP

Oscar Hernandez, Plaintiff, represented by Nicholas A. Carlin,
Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Russell Strange,
Strange & Carpenter, David M. Given, Phillips Erlewine Given &
Carlin LLP, John Theodore Ceglia, Strange & Carpenter & Michael
John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP

Francisco Espitia, Plaintiff, represented by Nicholas A. Carlin,
Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr &
Wagstaffe LLP

Haig Arabian, Plaintiff, represented by Nicholas A. Carlin,
Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Russell Strange,
Strange & Carpenter, John Theodore Ceglia, Strange & Carpenter &
Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP

Steven Gutierrez, Plaintiff, represented by Nicholas A. Carlin,
Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Russell Strange,
Strange & Carpenter, John Theodore Ceglia, Strange & Carpenter &
Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP

Lauren Carter, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine
Given & Carlin LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP
& Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP

Stephanie Cooley, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given,
Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr &
Wagstaffe LLP &Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP

Claire Hodgins, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine
Given & Carlin LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP
& Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP

Judy Paul, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine
Given & Carlin LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP
& Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP

Theda Sandiford, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given,
Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr &
Wagstaffe LLP &Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP

Path, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gregory J. Casas, Greenberg
Traurig, LLP, Jedediah Wakefield, Fenwick & West LLP, Kathleen Lu,
Fenwick & West LLP & Tyler Griffin Newby, Fenwick & West LLP

Twitter, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ryan T. Mrazik, Perkins
Coie LLP, Tanya Deniese Henderson, Perkins Coie LLP, Timothy L.
Alger, Perkins Coie LLP, Amanda J Beane, Perkins Coie LLP & Julie
Erin Schwartz, Perkins Coie LLP

Apple Inc, Defendant, represented by Alan D. Albright, Gray Cary
Ware & Freidenrich LLP, Clayton Cole James, Hogan Lovells US LLP,
Jenny Qian Shen, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Jessica Adler Black
Livingston, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Jessica S. Ou, Gibson Dunn,
Maren Jessica Clouse, Hogan Lovells US LLP &Robert B. Hawk, Hogan
Lovells US LLP

Yelp! Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael Henry Page, Durie
Tangri LLP & Peter D. Kennedy, George & Donaldson, L.L.P..
Instagram, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lori R. Mason, Cooley
LLP, Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP & Michael G. Rhodes, Cooley
LLP

Foursquare Labs, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Frank
McDowell, Morrison & Foerster LLP

Gowalla Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Harmeet K.
Dhillon, Dhillon Law Group Inc. & Krista Lee Baughman, Dhillon Law
Group Inc.

Foodspotting, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael Henry Page,
Durie Tangri LLP & Peter D. Kennedy, George & Donaldson, L.L.P.

Rovio Mobile Oy, Defendant, represented by Judith R. Nemsick,
Holland & Knight LLP, Shannon W. Bangle, Beatty, Bangle, Strama
P.C., Shelley Gershon Hurwitz, Holland & Knight LLP & Christopher
G. Kelly, Holland & Knight LLP

ZeptoLab UK Limited, also known as ZeptoLab, Defendant,
represented by Christine Lepera, Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP,
Jeffrey M. Movit, Mitchell Silberberg and Knupp LLP & Valentine
Antonavich Shalamitski, Mitchell Silberberg Knupp LLP

Chillingo Ltd., Defendant, represented by Adam Hugh Sencenbaugh,
Haynes & Boone LLP, Hal L. Sanders, Jr., Haynes & Boone, LLP, Jui-
Ting Anna Hsia, ZwillGen Law LLP, Jacob Alan Sommer, ZwillGen
PLLC, Katherine Robison, ZwillGen Law LLP & Marc J. Zwillinger,
Zwillinger Genetski LLP

Electronic Arts Inc., Defendant, represented by Adam Hugh
Sencenbaugh, Haynes and Boone LLP, Hal L. Sanders, Jr., Haynes and
Boone, LLP, Jui-Ting Anna Hsia, ZwillGen Law LLP, Jacob Alan
Sommer, ZwillGen PLLC, Katherine Robison, ZwillGen Law LLP & Marc
J. Zwillinger, Zwillinger Genetski LLP

Kik Interactive, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lori R. Mason,
Cooley LLP, Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP, Michael G. Rhodes,
Cooley LLP & Christopher Brian Durbin, Cooley LLP

Instagram, LLC, Defendant, represented by Matthew Dean Brown,
Cooley LLP & Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP


PLASTIPAK HOLDINGS: Faces "Hall" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Hall, Ebony Martin, Roderick Smartt, Jason Trent, and Steve
Trent, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. Plastipak, Plastipak Holdings, Inc., Plastipak Packaging, Inc.,
Plastipak Technologies, LLC, and William C. Young, Case No. 2:15-
cv-11428 -MFL-MKM (E.D. Mich., April 20, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in
excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of manufacturing
packaging materials and containers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maia E. Johnson, Esq.
      David A. Hardesty, Esq.
      GOLD STAR LAW
      2701 Troy Center Dr., Suite 400
      Troy, MI 48084
      Telephone: (248) 275-5200
      Facsimile: (248) 817-2765
      E-mail: mjohnson@goldstarlaw.com
              dhardesty@goldstarlaw.com


PNC BANK: Judge Narrows Claims in "Montoya" Suit
------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman of the Southern District of
Florida, Miami Division, granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss in the case ENRIQUE MONTOYA, NEYSER
COLONIA and XI CHEN LAUREN, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PNC BANK, N.A., et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 14-20474-CIV-GOODMAN (S.D. Fla.)

The plaintiffs Enrique Montoya, Neyser Colonia and Xi Chen Lauren
have obtained loans from PNC Bank, N.A. (PNC). Plaintiffs allege
that lenders like defendant PNC and their insurance providers have
colluded together to create a nefarious scheme of unearned
kickbacks disguised as commissions and other benefits that
artificially inflate lender-placed insurance (LPI) rates.

The three named plaintiffs assert nine claims in their Third
Amended Complaint (TAC) for: breach of the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing against defendant PNC (Count I);
unjust enrichment against PNC (Count II); unjust enrichment
against defendant American Security Insurance Company (ASIC)
(Count III); violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act
(NJCFA) against PNC (Count IV) and ASIC (Count V); tortious
interference with a business relationship against ASIC (Count VI);
breach of fiduciary duty against PNC (Count VII); civil RICO
against all defendants (Count VIII); and civil RICO conspiracy
against all defendants (Count IX). Plaintiffs are pursuing claims
in Counts I, II, III, VI, VII, VIII and IX. Colonia is pursuing
claims alone in Counts IV and V.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, ASIC seeks to dismiss all of
Lauren's claims against ASIC and the repled RICO claims of Montoya
and Colonia. In its partial motion to dismiss, PNC moves to
dismiss with prejudice Counts VIII and IX in their entirety,
Lauren's claims in Counts I and VII and all of Plaintiff's claims
on behalf of a putative nationwide class in Counts I, II and VII.

Magistrate Judge Goodman granted defendants' motion to dismiss in
small part and denied in large part. The judge granted ASIC's
motion to dismiss Lauren's claim for breach of an implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing under Ohio law, and the claim is
dismissed without prejudice. Defendants' motion to dismiss the
remaining portions of the TAC is denied. If Plaintiffs wish to
file a fourth amended complaint, then they must do so within 14
days from entry of the order.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Goodman's order dated March 23, 2016,
is available at http://is.gd/gwYQBJfrom Leagle.com

Enrique Montoya, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron Samuel Podhurst,
Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Allan Aaron Joseph, Fuerst Ittleman David &
Joseph, PL, Archie Cleveland Lamb, Jr., Archie Lamb, Associates,
John Gravante, III, Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Lance August Harke,
Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP, Margery Ellen Golant, Margery E.
Golant, P.A., Matthew Weinshall, Podhurst Orseck, Peter A. Muhic,
Kessler, Topaz, Meltzer & Check, LLP, Peter Prieto, Podhurst
Orseck, P.A., Rachel Sullivan, Robert J Neary, Kozyak Tropin &
Throckmorton, P.A., Roosevelt N. Nesmith, Law Offices Roosevelt N.
Nesmith, LLC, Samantha E. Jones, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP, Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton,
Tyler S. Graden, Kessler Topza Meltzer & Check, LLP, Howard
Mitchell Bushman, Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP, Jeffrey N. Golant,
Mary Kestenbaum Fortson, The Merlin Law Group, Sean Michael Shaw,
Merlin Law Group, Tal J Lifshitz, Kozyak Tropin Throckmorton,
William F. Merlin, Jr., Merlin Law Group PA & Adam M. Moskowitz,
Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton

Neyser Colonia, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Moskowitz,
Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Archie Cleveland Lamb, Jr., Archie
Lamb, Associates, Catherine E. Anderson, Giskan, Solotaroff
Anderson & Stewart, LLP, Lance August Harke, Harke Clasby &
Bushman LLP, Margery Ellen Golant, Margery E. Golant, P.A., Peter
A. Muhic, Kessler, Topaz, Meltzer & Check, LLP, Rachel Sullivan,
Kozyak, Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A., Roosevelt N. Nesmith, Law
Offices Roosevelt N. Nesmith, LLC, Samantha E. Jones, Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Tyler S. Graden, Kessler Topza Meltzer
& Check, LLP, Jeffrey N. Golant & Robert J Neary, Kozyak Tropin &
Throckmorton, P.A.

Xi Chen Lauren, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Moskowitz,
Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Archie Cleveland Lamb, Jr., Archie
Lamb, Associates, Rachel Sullivan, Kozyak, Tropin & Throckmorton,
P.A.,Samantha E. Jones, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP &
Robert J Neary, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A..

PNC Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Daniel I. Booker, Reed
Smith Shaw & McClay, Jack B. Cobetto, Reed, Smith, LLP, Kyle R.
Bahr, Reed, Smith, LLP & Peter W. Homer, Homer Bonner Jacobs, P.A.

PNC Mortgage, Defendant, represented by Daniel I. Booker, Reed
Smith Shaw & McClay, Jack B. Cobetto, Reed, Smith, LLP, Kyle R.
Bahr, Reed, Smith, LLP & Peter W. Homer, Homer Bonner Jacobs, P.A.

Assurant, Inc., Defendant, represented by Denise A. Fee, Carlton
Fields Jorden Burt, PA, Farrokh Jhabvala, Carlton Fields Jorden
Burt, P.A., Franklin G. Burt, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt P.A.,
Kristin A. Shepard, Jorden Burt, Landon King Clayman, Carlton
Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., Irma T. Reboso-Solares, Carlton Fields
Jorden Burt, P.A. & Peter W. Homer, Homer Bonner Jacobs, P.A.

American Security Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Denise A. Fee, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, PA, Farrokh Jhabvala,
Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., Franklin G. Burt, Carlton Fields
Jorden Burt P.A., Kristin A. Shepard, Jorden Burt, Landon King
Clayman, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., Irma T. Reboso-Solares,
Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A. & Peter W. Homer, Homer Bonner
Jacobs, P.A.


POOL CORPORATION: Court Preliminarily Approved Settlements
----------------------------------------------------------
Pool Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court has
preliminarily approved a class action settlement between Zodiac
Pool Systems, Inc. and the direct purchaser plaintiffs, and a
class action settlement between Hayward Industries, Inc., Zodiac
Pool Systems, Inc., and the indirect purchaser plaintiffs.

"A number of purported anti-trust class action suits were filed
against us in various United States District Courts in 2012," the
Company said.  "The cases were transferred and consolidated before
the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation, MDL Docket No.
2328, and are presently pending in the Eastern District of
Louisiana.  The plaintiffs include indirect purchaser plaintiffs,
purporting to represent indirect purchasers of swimming pool
products in Arizona, California, Florida and Missouri, and direct
purchaser plaintiffs, who are current or former customers.  Three
additional defendants include Hayward Industries, Inc., Pentair
Water Pool and Spa, Inc. and Zodiac Pool Systems, Inc. The
plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and enhanced damages,
interest, costs and fees and other equitable relief."

"On April 11, 2013, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motions to dismiss the direct purchasers'
antitrust claim. On May 24, 2013, the Court granted in part and
denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss the indirect
purchasers' antitrust claims. Both direct and indirect purchaser
plaintiffs amended their complaints, and defendants moved to
dismiss certain of the direct purchasers' claims. On December 18,
2013, the Court granted in part and denied in part those motions.

"On September 26, 2014, the Court preliminarily approved a class
action settlement between Hayward Industries, Inc. and the direct
purchaser plaintiffs. On December 22, 2014, the Court
preliminarily approved a class action settlement between Zodiac
Pool Systems, Inc. and the direct purchaser plaintiffs. On
December 31, 2014, the Court preliminarily approved a class action
settlement between Hayward Industries, Inc., Zodiac Pool Systems,
Inc., and the indirect purchaser plaintiffs. We, along with
Pentair Water Pool and Spa, Inc., continue to defend ourselves in
this matter."


PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Hardan" Suit in Wash. Alleged Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Daniel Hardan, Rhonda Lynn Hardan, and Alex Mitchell Hardan,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Premera Blue Cross, Case No. 2:15-cv-00626-RSM (W.D. Wash., April
20, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
properly secure and protect its users' sensitive, personally-
identifiable information and personal health information.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Lynda J. Grant, Esq.
      THE GRANT LAW FIRM, PLLC
      521 Fifth Ave., 17th Fl.
      New York, NY 10175
      Telephone: (212) 292-4441
      Facsimile: (212) 292-4442
      E-mail: lgrant@grantfirm.com


RJ REYNOLDS: EU Countries' RICO Suit May Proceed
------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal
appeals court turned heads last year when it ruled that the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act could apply to
overseas conduct involving R.J. Reynolds.  The court, though
divided, stood by its decision on April 13, rejecting arguments by
RJR's lawyers at Jones Day and allowing a coalition of European
governments to proceed with their case.

By an 8-5 vote, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
denied a request by Jones Day's Gregory Katsas --
ggkatsas@jonesday.com -- for an en banc rehearing in European
Community v. RJR Nabisco, which has been meandering through the
courts since 2000.  The European plaintiffs accuse RJR Nabisco's
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco subsidiaries of engineering a complex,
global money laundering operation. The alleged scheme involved
criminal organizations from Russia and Colombia smuggling drugs
into Europe and laundering the money they made through currency
brokers, who then worked with importers to use the proceeds to
purchase R.J. Reynolds cigarettes.

The rehearing denial keeps in place a ruling from April 2014, in
which a three-judge panel revived longstanding RICO claims against
RJR that a lower court had dismissed.

The panel's ruling laid out a formula for weighing when RICO
claims centered on overseas activities, especially in light of the
U.S. Supreme Court's June 2010 ruling in Morrison v. National
Australia Bank.  In Morrison, which dealt with federal securities
law, the justices explicitly upheld the presumption that U.S. laws
don't apply in extraterritorial settings unless Congress clearly
intended so.

The Second Circuit panel ruled last year that some of RICO's
provisions -- specifically the "predicate" statutes that Congress
placed into the law by reference -- can be applied to foreign
conduct.

One of the three judges who sat on the panel, Judge Peter Hall,
reiterated his view on April 13 that he and his colleagues had
correctly interpreted RICO's scope.

"Some colleagues are troubled by the prospect of applying RICO to
extraterritorial conduct, which they deem unwise," Judge Hall
wrote. "Whether this is wise or unwise is not the court's business
when Congress has legislated clearly on the issue."

Five of the 13 Second Circuit judges wanted the court to rehear
the case, and issued four written dissents that ran to a total of
38 pages.

U.S. Circuit Judge Jose Cabranes, for one, wrote in a dissent that
while the panel had answered the question of RICO's
extraterritorial reach in a "novel and artful way," its ultimate
conclusion contradicted the text of the RICO statute.

"Though it is indisputable that Congress intended for certain RICO
predicate statutes to apply to actions or events abroad, there is
no clear basis for concluding that Congress intended for RICO
itself to go along with them," wrote Judge Cabranes.

Mr. Katsas, R.J. Reynolds' longstanding outside counsel, referred
us to the company for comment. An RJR spokesman said on April 14
that the company is disappointed with the decision but continues
to believe the claims are baseless and will press for dismissal on
other grounds.

Kevin Malone of Krupnick Campbell Malone Buser Slama Hancock
Liberman & McKee represents the EU countries.


RLI CORP: Objection to Class Action Settlement Filed
----------------------------------------------------
RLI Corp. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that prior to the court hearing for final
approval of the settlement in a class action, an objection to the
settlement was filed.

In July 2014 the Belmont Massachusetts Contributory Retirement
System filed a putative shareholder class action and derivative
lawsuit against RLI Corp. and its Board of Directors in Illinois
state court.

"In December 2014 we reached a  settlement on terms we believe are
favorable and in the best interests of the company and its
shareholders," the Company said.  "The proposed settlement, which
is subject to final court approval, included submitting proposed
amendments of our equity incentive plans to a shareholder vote at
our upcoming 2015 annual shareholder meeting, and payment to
plaintiff's counsel of legal fees in an amount to be awarded by
the court but not to exceed $350,000.  In February 2015, prior to
the court hearing for final approval of the settlement, an
objection to the settlement was filed. The court proceedings in
this matter are ongoing. While it is not possible to predict the
ultimate disposition of this matter and whether it will be
resolved consistent with the proposed settlement, we believe the
outcome will not have a material adverse effect on our financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows."


SAN DIEGO GAS: Settled Claim Related to Sept. 2011 Power Outage
---------------------------------------------------------------
San Diego Gas & Electric Company has settled the claim related to
the September 2011 Power Outage and an appeal and lawsuit have
been dismissed, Sempra Energy, San Diego Gas & Electric Company
and Southern California Gas Company said in their Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

In September 2011, a power outage lasting approximately 12 hours
affected millions of people from Mexico to southern Orange County,
California. Within several days of the outage, several San Diego
Gas & Electric Company customers filed a class action lawsuit in
Federal District Court in San Diego against Arizona Public Service
Company, Pinnacle West Capital Corporation and SDG&E alleging that
the companies failed to prevent the outage. The lawsuit sought
recovery of unspecified amounts of damages, including punitive
damages. In July 2012, the court granted SDG&E's motion to dismiss
the punitive damages request and dismissed Arizona Public Service
Company and Pinnacle West Capital Corporation from the lawsuit. In
September 2013, the court granted SDG&E's motion for summary
judgment and dismissed the lawsuit. In October 2013, the
plaintiffs appealed the court's dismissal of their action. In
January 2015, SDG&E settled this claim for an insignificant amount
and the appeal and lawsuit have been dismissed.


SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Motion to Dismiss "Corban" Case Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint in the case Corban v. Sarepta, et. al., remains
pending, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

Purported class action complaints were filed against the Company
and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on January 27, 2014 and January 29,
2014. The complaints were consolidated into a single action
(Corban v. Sarepta, et. al., No. 14-cv-10201) by order of the
court on June 23, 2014, and plaintiffs were afforded 28 days to
file a consolidated amended complaint. Plaintiffs' consolidated
amended complaint, filed on July 21, 2014, seeks to bring claims
on behalf of themselves and persons or entities that purchased or
acquired securities of the Company between July 10, 2013 and
November 11, 2013.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that Sarepta and
certain of its officers violated the federal securities laws in
connection with disclosures related to eteplirsen, the Company's
lead therapeutic candidate for DMD, and seeks damages in an
unspecified amount.

Pursuant to the court's June 23, 2014 order, Sarepta filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on August 18,
2014, which remains pending.


SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Will Move to Dismiss "Kader" Case
-------------------------------------------------------
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. will move to dismiss the complaint in
the William Kader case, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

A complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts on December 3, 2014 by William Kader,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
Sarepta Therapeutics Inc., Chris Garabedian, and Sandy Mahatme,
1:14-cv-14318, asserting violations of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 against the Company, and Chris
Garabedian and Sandy Mahatme. Plaintiff alleges that the
defendants made material misrepresentations or omissions during
the putative class period of April 21, 2014 through October 27,
2014, regarding the sufficiency of the Company's data for
submission of an new drug application for eteplirsen and the
likelihood of the FDA accepting a new drug application based on
that data. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and fees. The
Company received service of the complaint on January 5, 2015.
Sarepta will move to dismiss the complaint.


SEACOR HOLDINGS: Parties in Himmerite Case Reached Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
SEACOR Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the parties in the case
Himmerite et al. v. O'Brien's Response Management reached a full
and final settlement agreement with respect to all of the
Plaintiffs' claims for an undisclosed immaterial amount.

O'Brien's Response Management, L.L.C. ("ORM"), a subsidiary of the
Company, is defending against one collective action lawsuit, which
asserts failure to pay overtime with respect to individuals who
provided service on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response under
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). This case, Himmerite et al.
v. O'Brien's Response Management Inc. et al. (E.D. La., Case No.:
2:12-cv-01533) (the "Himmerite Action"), was brought on behalf of
certain individuals who worked on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill
response and who were classified as independent contractors.

On February 19, 2015, the parties reached a full and final
settlement agreement with respect to all of the Plaintiffs' claims
for an undisclosed immaterial amount. The parties intend to file
related documents with the Court to have the matter dismissed with
prejudice in its entirety.


SEACOR HOLDINGS: Court Approved Settlement, Dropped Prejean Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
SEACOR Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in the case, Dennis
Prejean v. O'Brien's Response Management Inc. (E.D. La., Case No.:
2:12-cv-01045) (the "Prejean Action"), which was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
and in which plaintiffs alleged claims similar to those alleged in
the Himmerite Action, the parties reached a full and final
settlement agreement on November 6, 2014 with respect to all of
the Plaintiffs' claims for an undisclosed amount. On November 19,
2014, the Court approved the parties' settlement and dismissed the
Prejean Action with prejudice in its entirety.


SEACOR HOLDINGS: BP Case Settlements Reduced Potential Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
SEACOR Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the settlements in the
class action against BP Exploration and BP America Production
Company have reduced SEACOR's and O'Brien's Response Management,
L.L.C.'s potential exposure, if any, from some of the pending
actions, and continues to evaluate the settlements' impacts on
these cases.

On March 2, 2012, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana announced that BP Exploration and BP America Production
Company ("BP America") (collectively "BP") and the plaintiffs had
reached an agreement on the terms of two proposed class action
settlements that will resolve, among other things, plaintiffs'
economic loss claims and clean-up related claims against BP. The
parties filed their proposed settlement agreements on April 18,
2012 along with motions seeking preliminary approval of the
settlements. The Court held a hearing on April 25, 2012 to
consider those motions and preliminarily approved both settlements
on May 2, 2012. A final fairness hearing took place on November 8,
2012. The Court granted final approval to the Economic and
Property Damages Class Action Settlement ("E&P Settlement") on
December 21, 2012, and granted final approval to the Medical
Benefits Class Action Settlement ("Medical Settlement") on January
11, 2013.

Both class action settlements were appealed to the Fifth Circuit.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the MDL Court's decision concerning the
E&P Settlement on January 10, 2014, and also affirmed the MDL
Court's decision concerning the interpretation of the E&P
Settlement with respect to business economic loss claims on March
3, 2014. The appeal of the Medical Settlement, on the other hand,
was voluntarily dismissed and the Medical Settlement became
effective on February 12, 2014. The deadline for bringing a claim
to the Medical Benefits Claims Administrator is one year from the
effective date of the Settlement.

Although neither the Company, O'Brien's Response Management,
L.L.C. ("ORM"), nor National Response Corporation ("NRC") are
parties to the settlement agreements, the Company, ORM, and NRC
are listed as released parties on the releases accompanying both
settlement agreements. Consequently, barring any further
successful appeal, class members who did not file timely requests
for exclusion will be barred from pursuing economic loss, property
damage, personal injury, medical monitoring, and/or other released
claims against the Company, ORM, and NRC. The Company believes
these settlements have reduced the Company's and ORM's potential
exposure, if any, from some of the pending actions described, and
continues to evaluate the settlements' impacts on these cases. The
Company is unable to estimate the potential exposure, if any,
resulting from these matters but believes they are without merit
and does not expect that these matters will have a material effect
on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or
cash flows.


SEACOR HOLDINGS: Abney and Abood Cases Remain Stayed
----------------------------------------------------
SEACOR Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the cases Abney et al.
v. Plant Performance Services, LLC et al., and Abood et al. v.
Plant Performance Services, LLC et al., have been stayed until
further notice.

On November 16, 2012, 668 individuals who served as beach clean-up
workers in Escambia County, Florida during the Deepwater Horizon
oil spill response commenced a civil action in the Circuit Court
for the First Judicial Circuit of Florida, in and for Escambia
County, Abney et al. v. Plant Performance Services, LLC et al.,
No. 2012-CA-002947, in which they allege, among other things, that
O'Brien's Response Management, L.L.C. and other defendants engaged
in the contamination of Florida waters and beaches in violation of
Florida Statutes Chapter 376 and injured the plaintiffs by
exposing them to dispersants during the course and scope of their
employment. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Florida on January 13, 2013, Abney et al.
v. Plant Performance Services, LLC et al., No. 3:13-CV-00024 (N.D.
Fla.), and on January 16, 2013, the United States Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") issued a Conditional Transfer
Order ("CTO") transferring the case to the MDL, subject to any
timely-filed notice of objection from the plaintiffs.

Upon receipt of a notice of objection from the plaintiffs, a
briefing schedule was set by the JPML, and so a stay of
proceedings and suspension of deadlines was sought and obtained by
the Court in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Florida. Following briefing before the JPML, the case was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana and consolidated with the MDL on April 2, 2013.

On April 22, 2013, a companion case to this matter was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida,
Abood et al. v. Plant Performance Services, LLC et al., No. 3:13-
CV-00284 (N.D. Fla.), which alleges identical allegations against
the same parties but names an additional 174 plaintiffs, all of
whom served as clean-up workers in various Florida counties during
the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response. A CTO was issued by the
JPML on May 2, 2013, no objection was filed by the plaintiffs, and
the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana and consolidated with the MDL on May
10, 2013.

By court order, both of these matters have been stayed until
further notice. The Company is unable to estimate the potential
exposure, if any, resulting from these matters but believes they
are without merit and does not expect that these matters will have
a material effect on its consolidated financial position, results
of operations or cash flows.


SEACOR HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Against Wunstell Action
------------------------------------------------------------
SEACOR Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company continues to
defend against the case, John Wunstell, Jr. and Kelly Blanchard v.
BP, et al.

On July 20, 2010, two individuals purporting to represent a class
commenced a civil action in the Civil District Court for the
Parish of Orleans in the State of Louisiana, John Wunstell, Jr.
and Kelly Blanchard v. BP, et al., No. 2010-7437 (Division K) (the
"Wunstell Action"), in which they assert, among other theories,
that Mr. Wunstell suffered injuries as a result of his exposure to
certain noxious fumes and chemicals in connection with the
provision of remediation, containment and response services by
O'Brien's Response Management, L.L.C. ("ORM"), during the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill response and clean-up in the U.S. Gulf
of Mexico. The action now is part of the overall multi-district
litigation, In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon",
MDL No. 2179 filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana ("MDL"). The complaint also seeks to
establish a "class-wide court-supervised medical monitoring
program" for all individuals "participating in BP's Deepwater
Horizon Vessels of Opportunity Program and/or Horizon Response
Program" who allegedly experienced injuries similar to those of
Mr. Wunstell.

The Company believes this lawsuit has no merit and will continue
to vigorously defend the action and pursuant to contractual
agreements with the responsible party, the responsible party has
agreed, subject to certain potential limitations, to indemnify and
defend ORM in connection with the Wunstell Action and claims
asserted in the MDL. Although the Company is unable to estimate
the potential exposure, if any, resulting from this matter, the
Company does not expect it will have a material effect on the
Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations
or cash flows.


SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: Judge Dismisses "Dash" Consumer Class Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A New York district court granted Defendant's second motion to
dismiss the putative consumer class action commenced by Matt Dash
in an April 1, 2015 Memorandum and Order available at
http://is.gd/AMftV1from Leagle.com.

The case is MATT DASH, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY (US)
HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No. CV 13-6329, (E.D.N.Y.).

Under the action, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and a putative
class of consumers who also purchased the a LaCie Rugged
Thunderbolt Drive, alleges that the Drive did not transfer data at
the rate claimed by Seagate Technology and that Seagate engaged in
deceptive conduct in the marketing, advertising and sale of the
Drive in order to induce consumers to purchase its product. The
Amended Complaint asserts these claims: (1) violation of Sections
349 and 350 of the New York General Business Law; and (2) common
law fraud.

LaCie S.A. is a manufacturer of computer hard drives and other
devices used to transfer and store electronic data. Seagate
Technology (US) Holdings, Inc. manufactures and markets computer
disk drives.1 La Cie is a wholly owned subsidiary of Seagate.

Plaintiff Matt Dash is an amateur photographer, who bought a LaCie
Rugged Thunderbolt Drive.

District Judge Leonard Wexler finds that the Amended Complaint
fails to sufficiently allege the requisite fraudulent intent
necessary to sustain a fraud claim.

LAW OFFICE OF PAUL C. WHALEN, P.C. Paul C. Whalen, Esq., Attorney
for Plaintiff Manhasset, New York.

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP Eamon P. Joyce, Esq. -- ejoyce@sidley.com ,
Elizabeth A. Espinosa, Esq. -- eespinosa@sidley.com , T. Robert
Scarborough, Esq. -- tscarborough@sidley.com , Elizabeth M.
Chiarello, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant New York, New York.


SEAWORLD: Sued for Misrepresenting Treatment of Orcas
-----------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that lawyers
with Covington & Burling are part of the latest attack on SeaWorld
over allegations that the park mistreats orca whales used in its
shows.

A complaint filed on April 13 in San Francisco Superior Court
claims the park duped visitors into buying tickets by falsely
portraying its orcas as healthy and stimulated.  The company's
website, television commercials and even the SeaWorld Parks and
Entertainment Inc. logo misled consumers into thinking the whales
thrive in captivity just as they would in the wild, the suit
states.

"These claims are misleading if not outright lies," the lawyers
wrote.  Without those misrepresentations, the lawyers argue,
plaintiffs would not have bought SeaWorld tickets, or would have
paid far less.

A SeaWorld spokesman said the park is committed to the health and
well-being of its animals.

"The lawsuit appears to be an attempt by animal right extremists
to use the courts to advance an anti-zoo agenda," spokesman
Fred Jacobs wrote in an email.  "The suit is baseless, filled with
inaccuracies, and SeaWorld intends to defend itself against these
inaccurate claims."

San Diego-based SeaWorld has been facing a mounting backlash
against its whale shows.  After an orca drowned a trainer during a
2010 show in Orlando, the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration cited the park for safety violations and
recommended ending the spectacle of trainers swimming with the
whales.  SeaWorld lost its appeal of that decision last year.

The park again came under scrutiny when "Blackfish," a documentary
about the whale involved in the attack, premiered at the Sundance
Film Festival in 2013.  The film also prompted litigation from
shareholders who claimed SeaWorld hadn't disclosed its whales were
being mistreated.

The April 13 complaint follows similar claims filed in federal
courts in Florida and the Southern District of California.
Steve Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro sued the park in
California in March, and Gainesville, Fla., lawyer Paul Rothstein
sued in Florida earlier this month.

In the San Francisco suit, Covington attacks the public-relations
campaign SeaWorld launched in response to "Blackfish."  The
lawyers, led by partner Christine Haskett in San Francisco, say
the SeaWorld website misled customers into believing captive orcas
live just as long as wild orcas.  In reality, the lawyers wrote,
stress and disease more than double the mortality rates of captive
orcas.  The lawyers contend bored orcas routinely chew on their
metal enclosures and suffer broken teeth, and they are given
psychoactive drugs when they fail to adapt to captivity. SeaWorld
also falsely claimed it does not separate orca mothers from their
calves, the suit states.

"In sum," the lawyers wrote, "captivity at SeaWorld harms orcas."


SK FOODS: Class Counsel Directed to Escrow Bankruptcy Funds
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FOUR IN ONE COMPANY, INC., on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SK FOODS, L.P.,
INGOMAR PACKING COMPANY, LOS GATOS TOMATO PRODUCTS, SCOTT SALYER,
STUART WOOLF and GREG PRUETT, Defendants, No. 08-cv-3017 (E.D.
Cal.), District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller for the Eastern District
of California ordered that Class Counsel will hold the funds from
the initial April 2015 bankruptcy distribution to the Class in an
escrow account until such time as the future distributions by the
Chapter 11 Trustee have been made or the Trustee provides
notification that there will be no further distributions. At that
time, Class Counsel will arrange for pro rata distribution of the
funds to the Class members by the claims administrator under the
plan of allocation approved by the District Court, subject to the
fees and reimbursement of expenses awarded to Class Counsel by the
bankruptcy court.

A copy of the District Court's April 23 Order is available at
http://is.gd/slamgnfrom Leagle.com.

Four in One Company, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Arthur N.
Bailey, Hausfeld LLP, Dana Statsky Smith, Bernstein Liebhard, LLP,
Donald A. Ecklund, Carella Byrne Bain Gilfillan Cecchi Stewart &
Olstein, James E. Cecchi, Carella, Byrne, Bain, Gilfillan, Cecchi,
Stewart and Olstein, Joey Dean Horton, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and
Sullivan LLP, Ronald J. Aranoff, Bernstein Liebhard, LLP, Stanley
D. Bernstein, Bernstein Liebhard, LLP, Steig D Olson, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Stephaine M. Beige, Bernstein
Liebhard, LLP, Stephen R. Neuwirth, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver
& Hedges, LLP & Tania T. Taveras, Bernstein Liebhard, LLP.

Cliffstar Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Arthur N. Bailey,
Hausfeld LLP, Steig D Olson, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan,
LLP, Allan Steyer, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith
LLP, Holly Joy Stirling, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez &
Smith, LLP, Lucas E Gilmore, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
LLP & Bruce L Simon, Pearson, Simon, Warshaw & Penny.

SK Foods, L.P., Defendant, represented by Paul Robert Griffin,
Winston & Strawn LLP, Robert Bernard Pringle, Winston and Strawn &
Jonathan E Swartz, Winston and Strawn LLP.

Randall Rahal, Defendant, represented by David Warren Dratman,
David W. Dratman, Attorney at Law.

Intramark USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Warren
Dratman, David W. Dratman, Attorney at Law.

Scott Salyer, Defendant, represented by Malcolm S. Segal, Segal &
Associates, PC.

Bradley D. Sharp, Chapter 11 Trustee for SK Foods, LP, Defendant,
represented by Gregory C Nuti, Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP
& Kevin W. Coleman, Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP.

United States of America, Intervenor, represented by Sean C.
Flynn, United States Attorney's Office.

US Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Intervenor,
represented by Anna Tryon Pletcher, US DOJ/Antitrust Division,
Richard B. Cohen, Department of Justice/Antitrust Divisionm & Tai
Snow Milder, U.S. DOJ - Antitrust Division.

Bruce Foods Corporation, Neutral, represented by Alexandra S.
Bernay, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Bonny E. Sweeney,
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins LLP, Carmen Anthony
Medici, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Christopher L. Lebsock,
Hausfeld Llp, Craig C. Corbitt, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason,
LLP, Hilary K. Ratway, Hausfeld, LLP, Allan Steyer, Steyer
Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Arthur N. Bailey,
Hausfeld LLP, Holly Joy Stirling, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas
Alvarez & Smith, LLP, Kimberly Ann Kralowec, The Kralowec Law
Group, Lucas E Gilmore, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
& Roger M. Schrimp, Damrell Nelson Schrimp Pallios Pacher & Silva.

Diversified Foods and Seasonings, Inc., individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Neutral, represented by Arthur N.
Bailey, Hausfeld LLP, Eric B. Fastiff, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and
Bernstein & Joseph R. Saveri, Saveri Law Firm.

Morning Star Packing Company, Neutral, represented by Alex James
Kachmar, Jr, Weintraub Genshlea Chediak Tobin & Tobin.

L'Ottavo Ristorante, et al., Neutral, represented by Jeff S.
Westerman, Westerman Law Corp..

SK Foods LP ran a tomato processing facility.  It filed for
Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection after being dropped by its
lending group.


SKECHERS U.S.A.: Grabowski/Morga Settlement to Resolve Tomlinson
----------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the settlement in the
Grabowski/Morga class actions is expected entirely to resolve the
class claims brought by the plaintiff in the case, Patty Tomlinson
v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc.

"On January 13, 2011, Patty Tomlinson filed a lawsuit against our
company in Circuit Court in Washington County, Arkansas, Case No.
CV11-121-7. The complaint alleges, on her behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, that our advertising for Shape-ups
violates Arkansas' Deceptive Trade Practices Act, constitutes a
breach of certain express and implied warranties, and is resulting
in unjust enrichment (the "Tomlinson action"). The complaint seeks
certification of a statewide class, compensatory damages,
prejudgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs," the Company
said.

"On February 18, 2011, we removed the case to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, where it was
pending as Patty Tomlinson v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., CV 11-05042
JLH. On March 21, 2011, Ms. Tomlinson moved to remand the action
back to Arkansas state court, which motion we opposed. On May 25,
2011, the Court ordered the case remanded to Arkansas state court
and denied our motion to dismiss or transfer as moot, but stayed
the remand pending completion of appellate review. On September
11, 2012, the District Court lifted its stay and remanded this
case to the Circuit Court of Washington County, Arkansas. On
October 11, 2012, by stipulation of the parties, the state Circuit
Court issued an order staying the case.

"On August 13, 2012, the United States District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky granted preliminary approval of the
nationwide consumer class action settlement in Grabowski v.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. Case No. 3:12-CV-00204, and Morga v.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 3:12-CV-00205 (the
"Grabowski/Morga class actions"), and issued a preliminary
injunction enjoining the continued prosecution of the Tomlinson
action, among other cases. On May 13, 2013, the Court in the
Grabowski/Morga class actions entered an order finally approving
the nationwide consumer class action settlement, and the time for
any appeals therefrom has expired. The settlement in the
Grabowski/Morga class actions is expected entirely to resolve the
class claims brought by the plaintiff in Tomlinson.


SKECHERS U.S.A.: Grabowski/Morga Settlement to Resolve Boatright
----------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the settlement in the
Grabowski/Morga class actions is expected entirely to resolve the
class claims brought by the plaintiff in the case, Elma Boatright
and Sharon White v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers U.S.A., Inc.
II and Skechers Fitness Group.

"On February 15, 2012, Elma Boatright and Sharon White filed a
lawsuit against our company in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Kentucky, Case No. 3:12-cv-87-S," the
Company said.  "The complaint alleges, on behalf of the named
plaintiffs and all others similarly situated, that our advertising
for Shape-ups is false and misleading, thereby constituting a
breach of contract, breach of implied and express warranties,
fraud, and resulting in unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks
certification of a nationwide class, compensatory damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs."

On March 6, 2012, the named plaintiffs filed a motion to
consolidate this action with In re Skechers Toning Shoe Products
Liability Litigation, case no. 11-md-02308-TBR. On August 13,
2012, the United States District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky granted preliminary approval of the consumer class action
settlement agreement in Grabowski v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. Case
No. 3:12-CV-00204, and Morga v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Case No.
3:12-CV-00205 (the "Grabowski/Morga class actions"), and issued a
preliminary injunction enjoining the continued prosecution of this
action. On May 13, 2013, the Court in the Grabowski/Morga class
actions entered an order finally approving the nationwide consumer
class action settlement, and the time for any appeals therefrom
has expired. The settlement in the Grabowski/Morga class actions
is expected entirely to resolve the class claims brought by the
plaintiff in Boatright.


SKECHERS U.S.A.: Court Approved Settlement in Angell Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Quebec Superior
Court issued its formal judgment approving the settlement in the
case Jason Angell v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers U.S.A., Inc.
II and Skechers U.S.A. Canada, Inc.

On April 12, 2012, Jason Angell filed a motion to authorize the
bringing of a class action in the Superior Court of Quebec,
District of Montreal. Petitioner Angell seeks to bring a class
action on behalf of all residents of Canada (or in the
alternative, all residents of Quebec) who purchased Skechers
Shape-ups footwear.

"Petitioner's motion alleges that we have marketed Shape-ups
through the use of false and misleading advertisements and
representations about the products' ability to provide health
benefits to users. The motion requests the Court's authorization
to institute a class action seeking damages (including damages for
bodily injury), punitive damages, and injunctive relief," the
Company said.

"Petitioner's motion was formally presented to the Court on June
29, 2012. At a mediation held on February 28, 2013, the parties
reached an agreement in principle to settle the Angell action (as
well as the Niras and Dedato actions) through authorization by the
Quebec Superior Court of a nationwide settlement class. That
agreement was finalized by the parties in December 2013 and
thereafter presented to the Quebec Superior Court for approval. On
November 5, 2014, the Court issued its formal judgment approving
the settlement.

"Notwithstanding, if approval of the class action settlement is
reversed on appeal, we cannot predict the outcome of the Angell
action or a reasonable range of potential losses or whether the
outcome of the Angell action would have a material adverse impact
on our results of operations, financial position or result in a
material loss in excess of the settlement or a recorded accrual."


SKECHERS U.S.A.: Court Dismissed Davies/Smith Action
----------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court of Queen's
Bench in Edmonton, Alberta, issued an order effectively dismissing
the action Brenda Davies/Kourtney Smith v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc.,
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II, and Skechers U.S.A. Canada Inc.

On September 5, 2012, Brenda Davies filed a Statement of Claim in
the Court of Queen's Bench in Edmonton, Alberta, on behalf of all
residents of Canada who purchased Skechers Shape-ups footwear. The
Statement of Claim alleges that Skechers marketed Shape-ups
through the use of false and misleading advertisements and
representations about the products' ability to provide fitness
benefits to users. The Statement of Claim seeks damages (including
damages for bodily injury), restitution, punitive damages, and
injunctive relief. On or about November 21, 2013, an Amended
Statement of Claim was filed to substitute a new representative
plaintiff, Kourtney Smith, in place of Ms. Davies and to allege
substantially the same claims as in the original Statement of
Claim with respect to all Skechers toning footwear sold to
residents of Canada. On or about February 28, 2014, representative
plaintiff Smith agreed to the terms and conditions of the
settlement reached in the Angell, Niras, and Dedato class actions,
and agreed to discontinue the Davies/Smith action once the
settlement in the Angell, Niras, and Dedato class actions is
finally approved by the Court and affirmed on appeal in the event
an appeal is taken.

On November 5, 2014, the Quebec Superior Court issued its formal
judgment approving the settlement in the Angell class action. On
January 16, 2015, the Court in the Davies/Smith action issued an
order effectively dismissing that action.

"Notwithstanding, if approval of the class action settlement is
reversed on appeal, we cannot predict the outcome of the
Davies/Smith action or a reasonable range of potential losses or
whether the outcome of the Davies/Smith action would have a
material adverse impact on our results of operations, financial
position or result in a material loss in excess of the settlement
or a recorded accrual," the Company said.


SKECHERS U.S.A.: Court Dismissed Niras Action
---------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Ontario Superior
Court issued an order effectively dismissing the action, George
Niras v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II, and
Skechers U.S.A. Canada Inc.

On September 21, 2012, George Niras filed a Statement of Claim in
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on behalf of all residents
of Canada who purchased Shape-ups, Resistance Runner, Shape-ups
Toners/Trainers, or Tone-ups. The Statement of Claim alleges that
Skechers marketed these toning shoes through the use of false and
misleading advertisements and representations about the products'
ability to provide health benefits to users. The Statement seeks
damages, restitution, punitive damages, and injunctive relief.
Skechers has not yet responded to the Statement. At a mediation
held on February 28, 2013, the parties reached an agreement in
principle to settle the Niras action (as well as the Angell action
and the Dedato action) through authorization by the Quebec
Superior Court of a nationwide settlement class. That agreement
was finalized by the parties in December 2013 and thereafter
presented to the Quebec Superior Court for approval. On November
5, 2014, the Quebec Superior Court issued its formal judgment
approving the settlement. On November 20, 2014, the Ontario
Superior Court issued an order effectively dismissing the Niras
action.

"Notwithstanding, if approval of the class action settlement is
reversed on appeal, we cannot predict the outcome of the Niras
action or a reasonable range of potential losses or whether the
outcome of the Niras action would have a material adverse impact
on our results of operations, financial position or result in a
material loss in excess of the settlement or a recorded accrual,"
the Company said.


SKECHERS U.S.A.: Court Dismissed Dedato Action
----------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Ontario Superior
Court issued an order effectively dismissing the action, Frank
Dedato v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A. Canada, Inc.

On or about November 5, 2012, Frank Dedato filed a Statement of
Claim in Ontario Superior Court of Justice on behalf of all
residents of Canada who purchased Shape-ups, Tone-ups or
Resistance Runner footwear. The Statement of Claim alleges that
Skechers has allegedly made misleading statements about its
footwear products' ability to provide fitness benefits to users.
The Statement of Claim seeks damages, restitution, punitive
damages, and injunctive relief. Skechers has not yet responded to
the Statement of Claim. At a mediation held on February 28, 2013,
the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the Dedato
action (as well as the Angell and Niras actions) through
authorization by the Quebec Superior Court of a nationwide
settlement class. That agreement was finalized by the parties in
December 2013 and thereafter presented to the Quebec Superior
Court for approval. On November 5, 2014, the Quebec Superior Court
issued its formal judgment approving the settlement. On November
19, 2014, the Ontario Superior Court issued an order effectively
dismissing the Dedato action.

"Notwithstanding, if approval of the class action settlement is
reversed on appeal, we cannot predict the outcome of the Dedato
action or a reasonable range of potential losses or whether the
outcome of the Dedato action would have a material adverse impact
on our results of operations, financial position or result in a
material loss in excess of the settlement or a recorded accrual,"
the Company said.


SKECHERS U.S.A.: Angell Settlement to Resolve Cooper Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the class action
settlement in the Angell action is expected to resolve the action,
Susan Cooper et al. v. Ontrea Inc. et al.

On October 22, 2014, the Company was named as a third-party
defendant in a lawsuit pending in the Court of Queen's Bench in
Calgary, Alberta, Case No. 1301 10673. The third party notice
asserts claims for indemnification and contribution arising from
injuries plaintiff allegedly sustained as a result of wearing
Shape-ups shoes. The class action settlement in the Angell action,
is expected to resolve the Cooper action.

"However, if approval of the class action settlement is reversed
on appeal, we cannot predict the outcome of the Cooper action or a
reasonable range of potential losses or whether the outcome of the
Cooper action would have a material adverse impact on our results
of operations, financial position or result in a material loss in
excess of the settlement or a recorded accrual," the Company said.


SKECHERS U.S.A.: Discovery Proceeding in 60 Personal Injury Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that sixty cases related to
personal injury lawsuits involving shape-ups were selected in
January 2015 and both written and deposition discovery is
proceeding. To the extent that the sixty selected cases are not
resolved by dispositive motions or otherwise, trials are expected
to be set for dates in early to mid-2016.

"On February 20, 2011, Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers U.S.A.,
Inc. II and Skechers Fitness Group were named as defendants in a
lawsuit that alleged, among other things, that Shape-ups are
defective and unreasonably dangerous, negligently designed and/or
manufactured, and do not conform to representations made by our
company, and that we failed to provide adequate warnings of
alleged risks associated with Shape-ups," the Company said.

"In total, we are named as a defendant in 1,171 currently pending
cases (some on behalf of multiple plaintiffs) filed in various
courts that assert further varying injuries but employ similar
legal theories and assert similar claims to the first case, as
well as claims for breach of express and implied warranties, loss
of consortium, and fraud. Although there are some variations in
the relief sought, the plaintiffs generally seek compensatory
and/or economic damages, exemplary and/or punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

"On December 19, 2011, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation issued an order establishing a multidistrict litigation
("MDL") proceeding in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky entitled In re Skechers Toning Shoe
Products Liability Litigation, case no. 11-md-02308-TBR. Since
2011, a total of 1,081 personal injury cases have been filed in or
transferred to the MDL proceeding and 414 individuals have
submitted claims by plaintiff fact sheets. The Company has
resolved 432 personal injury claims in the MDL proceedings,
comprised of 62 that were filed as formal actions and 370 that
were submitted by plaintiff fact sheets.

"Skechers has also settled 8 claims in principle -- 6 filed cases
and 2 claims submitted by plaintiff fact sheets -- and anticipates
that those settlements will be finalized in the near term. Thirty-
four cases in the MDL proceeding have been dismissed either
voluntarily or on motions by Skechers and 38 unfiled claims
submitted by plaintiff fact sheet have been abandoned. The MDL
currently encompasses 979 personal injury cases (which include the
claims of 939 individuals who filed court approved questionnaires)
and 4 claims submitted by plaintiff fact sheets.

"Under a mediation procedure authorized by the District Court, a
total of 2,353 settlement questionnaires were submitted by persons
who had yet to file a lawsuit or who were already participants in
the MDL or related coordinated proceedings pending in California
state court (described in greater detail below). Mediations were
held on October 4, 2014 and December 16, 2014, but no settlements
were reached.

"On December 29, 2014, the District Court ordered that a total of
sixty cases be selected by the parties for staggered, accelerated
discovery and then either be remanded to their originating
districts or set for trial. The sixty cases were selected in
January 2015 and both written and deposition discovery is
proceeding. To the extent that the sixty selected cases are not
resolved by dispositive motions or otherwise, trials are expected
to be set for dates in early to mid-2016."


SKECHERS U.S.A.: Court Sets Trial Dates for 2 Bellwether Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court set trial
dates of October 26, 2015 and January 25, 2016 for the first two
bellwether cases, but deferred selection of the specific
individual bellwether plaintiff to go forward on those two dates
to a later time.

Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II and Skechers
Fitness Group have been named as defendants in a total of 70
personal injury actions filed in various Superior Courts of the
State of California that were brought on behalf of 913 individual
plaintiffs (360 of whom also submitted MDL court-approved
questionnaires for mediation purposes in the MDL proceeding). Of
those cases, 67 were originally filed in the Superior Court for
the County of Los Angeles (the "LASC cases").

On August 20, 2014, the Judicial Council of California granted a
petition by the Company to coordinate all personal injury actions
filed in California that relate to Shape-ups with the LASC cases
(collectively, the "LASC Coordinated Cases"). On October 6, 2014,
three cases that had been pending in other counties were
transferred to and coordinated with the LASC Coordinated Cases.
Four of the actions originally filed as LASC cases, brought on
behalf of a total of 6 plaintiffs, have been dismissed. The claims
of 44 additional plaintiffs have been dismissed entirely from
certain of the lawsuits, either voluntarily, on motion by
Skechers, or as pursuant to settlement agreement. The claims of 21
persons have been dismissed in part, either voluntarily or on
motions by Skechers. Thus, the LASC Coordinated Cases currently
involve 66 pending personal injury lawsuits brought on behalf of a
total of 863 plaintiffs. On March 12, 2014, the Superior Court
selected twelve plaintiffs as bellwether cases to be set for one
or more trials starting in March 2015.

To date, extensive written discovery and document productions have
taken place in the LASC cases. Over twenty fact witness
depositions have been taken (all of which were cross-noticed in
the MDL), as have eight expert depositions. Two of the bellwether
cases have settled and one bellwether plaintiff dismissed her
action after Skechers filed a motion for summary judgment.

On January 7, 2015, the Court vacated the March 2015 initial
bellwether trial date and granted Skechers' motions for summary
adjudication in five bellwether cases with respect to those
plaintiffs' advertising-related claims, including their claims for
breach of warranty, fraud, and violations of consumer protection
laws.

On February 25, 2015, the Court granted Skechers' motions for
summary adjudication in the four remaining bellwether cases with
respect to those plaintiffs' advertising-related claims, including
their claims for breach of warranty, fraud, and violations of
consumer protection laws; the Court also granted Skechers' summary
adjudication motions as to two of the four plaintiffs' products
liability claims for an alleged failure to warn, and took under
submission the portion of Skechers' motions seeking summary
adjudication of all four plaintiffs' products liability claims for
alleged design defects. The Court also set trial dates of October
26, 2015 and January 25, 2016 for the first two bellwether cases,
but deferred selection of the specific individual bellwether
plaintiff to go forward on those two dates to a later time.


SKECHERS U.S.A.: No Discovery Yet in 100+ Personal Injury Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in other state courts, a
total of 136 personal injury actions (some on behalf of numerous
plaintiffs) have been filed that were not removed to federal court
and transferred to the MDL. Ten of those actions have been
resolved and dismissed. The remaining 126 actions include the
claims of 539 plaintiffs, 533 of whom had submitted court-approved
settlement questionnaires in the MDL. Sixteen of those personal
injury actions have been removed to various federal courts and are
expected to be transferred to the MDL in the near term. It is
further expected that removal petitions and requests for transfer
to the MDL will be filed for the other 110 state court personal
injury actions. No discovery has taken place in these actions and
no trial dates have been set.


SOURCE REFRIGERATION: Class Settlement Preliminarily Approved
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Vince Chhabria of the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division, granted preliminary approval
of the proposed class action settlement in the case LYLE E.
GALEENER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. SOURCE REFRIGERATION & HVAC, INC.,
Defendant, CASE NO. 3:13-CV-04690-VC (N.D. Cal.)

Plaintiffs allege that Source Refrigeration and HVAC, Inc.
violated wage and hour laws by failing to pay class members for
all hours worked, miscalculating the overtime rate and, with
respect to the California class members, violating meal and rest
period laws.

Plaintiff Lyle Galeener, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated asks the court for an order (1) conditionally
certifying the proposed settlement classes as opt-out classes
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23; (2) appointing
plaintiffs as class representatives; (3) appointing plaintiffs'
counsel as class Counsel; (4) granting preliminary approval to the
parties' stipulation of class settlement and settlement agreement;
(5) approving the mailing of the proposed class notice; (6)
appointing CPT as the settlement administrator; and (7) scheduling
a final approval hearing and related dates.

District Judge Chhabria finds and concludes that for purposes of
the settlement only, the classes satisfy all of the requirements
for certification under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.  The Court appoints the plaintiffs to serve as
class representatives of the classes they propose to represent.
The Court concludes that the proposed settlement meets the
criteria for preliminary settlement approval. The settlement has
no obvious defects and falls within the range of possible approval
as fair adequate, and reasonable, such that notice to the Class
Members is appropriate.

The Court finds and concludes that Kennedy Hodges, LLP, Padilla &
Rodriguez, LLP, and Outten & Golden LLP have, separately and
collectively, extensive experience and expertise in prosecuting
wage-and-hour class actions and collective actions. The Court
appoints these firms as class counsel.

The class notice and the CAFA notice of proposed settlement are
approved. Within 28 days following entry of the order, Source will
provide the settlement administrator with a database in a format
acceptable to the settlement administrator, that lists, for each
class member, the class member's name, social security number,
source employee ID number, last known mailing address, all known
personal e-mail addresses, and information adequate to calculate
class members' award allocations, including but not limited to:
time records and pay records applicable to each week within the
covered period during which the class member worked in a covered
position, as well as their location of work.

Within 48 days following entry of the order, the settlement
administrator will mail, via first-class mail and e-mail, the
class notice to all class members at their last known address or
at the most recent address that may have been obtained through the
National Change of Address (NCOA).

Plaintiffs will file with their motion for final approval a
declaration from the settlement administrator of due diligence and
proof of mailing with regard to the mailing of the notice, and
will file prior to the hearing on the motion a supplemental
declaration from the settlement administrator as applicable.

The court schedules a hearing to determine whether to grant final
approval of the Settlement on Thursday, August 20, 2015, at 10:00
a.m. The date of the hearing may be changed without further notice
to the Class. Any class member may opt out of participating in the
settlement by submitting a signed letter to the settlement
administrator stating that he or she wishes to be excluded from
the Settlement. A completed opt-out request will be deemed timely
submitted to the settlement administrator if it is (i) mailed to
the settlement administrator by first-class mail and postmarked by
not later than 60 days after the settlement administrator first
mails the class notice to class members, or (ii) it is delivered
to the Settlement Administrator by the deadline for submission
stated above, whether by mail, e-mail, facsimile transmission,
professional delivery, or personal delivery.

If 3.5% or more of the eligible class members validly opt out
pursuant to the process set forth, Source will have the right to
rescind the settlement, and the settlement and all actions taken
in its furtherance will be null and void. Source must exercise
this right by notifying class counsel of its decision in writing
by email and by telephone within 140 days after the Court enters
its Preliminary Approval Order.

Any class member who wishes to comment on or object to the
fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the Settlement must do so
in writing. To be considered, any comment on or objection to the
final approval of the settlement must state the basis for the
comment or objection and be mailed to the settlement
administrator, class counsel, and counsel for Source, at the
addresses provided in the class notice, via first-class mail,
received within 125 days after the Preliminary Approval Order.
Every class member who does not opt out of the settlement will be
eligible to receive his or her share of the net settlement
payment. The settlement administrator will disperse the settlement
share checks to the class members via U.S. mail within 49 days
after entry of the Final Approval Order, as defined in the
settlement agreement. Class members will have 180 days from the
date of issuance written on the check to cash their settlement
share checks, after which time the checks will expire.

Not later than 35 days before the final approval Hearing,
plaintiffs will file a motion for final approval of the
settlement. Not later than 14 days before the expiration of the
60-day opt-out and objection period, class counsel may file a
motion for approval of class representative payments. Not later
than seven days before the final approval hearing, class counsel
may file a reply brief providing additional information and
argument and/or responding to any opposition to the motion.

Not later than 14 days before the expiration of the 60-day opt-out
and objection period, class counsel may file a motion for approval
of their class counsel attorneys' fees and costs payment. Not
later than seven days before the final approval hearing, class
counsel may file a reply brief providing additional information
and argument and/or responding to any opposition to the motion.

CPT is appointed Settlement Administrator to carry out the duties
set forth in the preliminary approval order and the settlement.

A copy of Judge Chhabaria's revised order dated March 13, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/24kx52from Leagle.com

Galvin B. Kennedy, Pro Hac Vice, Gabriel Assaad, Pro Hac Vice
KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P., Houston, TX

John M. Padilla, PADILLA & RODRIGUEZ, L.L.P., Los Angeles, CA

Jahan C. Sagafi, OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP, San Francisco, CA,
Christopher McNerney, Pro Hac Vice, OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP, New York,
NY, Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Proposed Class


TATE & KIRLIN: Illegally Collects Debt, "Alston" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
El Rhonda Williams Alston, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Tate & Kirlin Associates, and John Does 1-
25, Case No. 1:15-cv-02784-NLH-JS (D.N.J., April 20, 2015), arises
out of the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable practice to
collect or attempt to collect any debt.

Tate & Kirlin Associates is a foreign business with its executive
offices located at 2810 Southampton Road, Philadelphia, PA 19154-
1207, that is engaged in business the principal purpose of which
is to attempt to collect debts alleged to be due another.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
      375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
      Fairfield, NJ 07004
      Telephone: (973) 227-5900
      Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
      E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com

         - and -

      Glen Chulsky, Esq.
      Law Offices of Joseph K. Jones, LLC
      375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
      Fairfield, NJ 07004
      Telephone: (973) 227-5900
      Facsimile: (973) 244-0019


TATYANA DESIGNS: Judge Ruled on Request for Rule 11 Sanctions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Richard L. Young of the Southern District of
Indiana, Indianapolis Division, ordered the defendants to file a
written memorandum in support of an award of attorneys' fees and
costs in the case CMG WORLDWIDE, INC., Plaintiff, v. JAN GLASER,
an individual, TATYANA KHOMYAKOVA, an individual, TATYANA DESIGNS,
INC., and TATYANA LLC, Defendants, NO. 1:14-CV-00928-RLY-DKL (SD
Ind.)

CMG Worldwide, Inc. is a celebrity and brand licensing agency that
serves as the agent of Bettie Page, LLC and the Estate of Bettie
Davis. CMG granted defendants a license to use the Bettie Page
Intellectual Property for use in connection with their stores,
clothing lines, and the like.

Stop Staring! Designs was a competitor of defendants, and, on
March 24, 2009, filed a lawsuit for trademark and trade dress
infringement against them in the Central District of California.
In November 2009, defendants allegedly contacted CMG and asked CMG
to sue Stop Staring! Designs as a means to deplete Stop Staring!
Designs' resources. As an incentive, defendants offered to pay
CMG's attorney's fees and costs associated with the lawsuit. CMG
agreed, but CMG Brands, LLC filed the lawsuit. CMG Brands lost
miserably. Defendants failed to pay CMG's attorney's fees and
costs. Consequently, CMG terminated its license agreements with
defendants and filed an action to recover its attorney's fees and
costs from the defendants.

Count III of plaintiff's complaint alleges that the defendants
violated Section 10(b) under the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934 ("Securities Act") and Rule 10b-5; and Count IV alleged
defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Act. The court dismissed
plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.

The defendant requests the court, pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), to make specific
findings regarding compliance by each party with each requirement
of Rule 11. 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(c)(1).

Chief District Judge Young ordered the defendants to file a
written memorandum in support of an award of attorneys' fees and
costs, with designated evidence, on or before April 2, 2015. CMG's
response was due April 16, 2015, and defendants' reply is due
April 30, 2015.

A copy of Chief District Judge Young's entry of judgment dated
March 13, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/VLptAZfrom
Leagle.com

CMG WORLDWIDE, INC., Plaintiff, represented by:

Theodore John Minch, Esq.
SOVICH MINCH LLP
10099 Chesapeake Drive
McCordsville, IN 46055
Telephone: 317-335-3601

Defendants, represented by Mario L. Herman -- Scott E. Shockley --
sshockley@defur.com -- at DEFUR VORAN LLP


TELEFONICA BRASIL: Judgment in Services Quality Action Suspended
----------------------------------------------------------------
Telefonica Brasil S.A. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the effects of the
judgment in the Services Quality Class Action have been suspended.

The Public Prosecutor Office of the state of Sao Paulo commenced a
class action suit claiming moral and property damages suffered by
all consumers of telecommunication services from 2004 to 2009 due
to the bad quality of service and failures of the communications
system. The Public Prosecutors Office suggested a total award
against the company of R$1 billion. A judgment was rendered on
April 20, 2010 imposing the payment of damages to all consumers
who proved to be eligible for the award. Alternatively, if clients
do not prove themselves eligible in a number compatible with the
severity of the damage after a period of one year, the judgment
establishes that R$60 million should be deposited in a special
fund for protection of diffuse customer interests (Fundo Especial
de Defesa de Repara‡ao de Interesses Difusos Lesados).

"It is not possible to estimate how many consumers may present
themselves in this procedure nor the values to be claimed by them.
The parties filled an appeal and the effects of the sentence were
suspended," the Company said.  "Despite the possible degree of
risk, no value amount was attributed to this action because
currently we are unable to calculate the total amount to be paid
by us in the event we lose and, as a result, we have not recorded
any provisions."


TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Judge Narrows Claims in Aggrenox Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Stefan R. Underhill of the District of Connecticut
granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss
in the case entitled IN RE AGGRENOX ANTITRUST LITIGATION. THIS
DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ALL ACTIONS, NO. 3:14-MD-2516 (SRU) (D.
Conn.)

The complaint is a consolidation of numerous antitrust actions
brought by the direct-purchaser plaintiffs' putative class
complaint, the indirect-purchaser plaintiffs' or end-payor
plaintiffs' putative class complaint and the Humana complaint.

The defendants are Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG and
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, which are organized under
German law, and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which
is a Delaware corporation (Boehringer), Teva Pharmaceutical
Industries, Ltd. (Teva Israel), which is organized under Israeli
law, and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Teva USA), which is a
Delaware corporation, Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Barr
Laboratories, Inc., which are both Delaware corporations (Barr)
and Duramed Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Duramed Pharmaceuticals Sales
Corp., which are both Delaware corporations (Duramed).

Aggrenox is a brand-name prescription medication consisting of a
particular combination of dipyridamole and aspirin. In January
2000, Boehringer obtained U.S. Patent No. 6,015,577 on the
composition (the 577 patent), after having obtained FDA approval
in November 1999 for its use to lower the risk of stroke in
patients who have already had a stroke or transient ischemic
attack. Boehringer listed the patent with the FDA and brought
Aggrenox to market, where it has been a commercial success.
In January 2007 -- ten years before patent 577 is set to expire,
Barr filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application seeking approval to
market a generic equivalent of Aggrenox, with Paragraph IV
certification challenging the 577 patent. Boehringer brought suit
in the District of Delaware. At the same time, Barr also intended
to introduce a generic of another Boehringer product, Mirapex, and
separate litigation on that issue was pending in the District of
Delaware. In August 2008, Boehringer and Barr settled all patent
litigation between them, with respect to both Aggrenox and
Mirapex.

In August 2009, at least some of the same parties and lawyers in
the present litigation brought suit against Boehringer in the
Western District of Pennsylvania, alleging that the 2008
settlement was intended to delay entry of generic Mirapex in
violation of antitrust law. When the Federal Circuit upheld the
validity of the Mirapex patent, the plaintiffs in that case
dropped their suit. In 2013, the various suits consolidated began
to be filed, now alleging that the 2008 settlement was intended to
delay entry of generic Aggrenox in violation of antitrust law.

Teva Israel filed a motion to dismiss all complaints against it
under Rule 12(b)(2) and Rule 12(b)(6). The defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the direct-purchaser complaint under Rule
12(b)(6) and the indirect-purchaser complaint under the same rule,
and the defendants also filed a motion to dismiss the Humana
complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).

Judge Underhill granted Teva Israel's motion to dismiss all
complaints against it without prejudice.  The Judge said the
plaintiffs may seek leave to replead claims against it in the
event that evidence of its participation in the specific
agreements underlying the case are revealed in discovery taken
from the other defendants. The defendants' motion to dismiss the
direct-purchaser complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) is denied in
substantial part. It is granted with respect only to any claims
made in connection with overcharges allegedly incurred more than
four years prior to the filing of the claims.

Judge Underhill also said the defendants' motion to dismiss the
indirect-purchaser complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) is granted in
part and denied in part. It is granted without prejudice with
respect to all state-law consumer-protection and unjust-enrichment
claims. It is granted with prejudice with respect to any claims
made in connection with overcharges allegedly incurred before the
filing of the claims by a longer period than the relevant statute
of limitations. It is granted with prejudice with respect to
claims under the antitrust statute of Puerto Rico, and with
respect to claims under the antitrust statute of Rhode Island that
are in connection with overcharges allegedly incurred before July
15, 2013. It is granted without prejudice with respect to claims
under the antitrust statute of Utah; the indirect purchasers have
leave to replead those claims only if some named plaintiff is a
citizen or resident of that state. It is granted without prejudice
with respect to other claims under the laws of states where the
named plaintiffs do not plead injury; the indirect purchasers have
leave to replead those claims only to the extent they can plead
sufficient facts to allege harm to named plaintiffs in particular
states.

The defendants' motion to dismiss the Humana complaint under Rule
12(b)(6) is granted in part and denied in part. It is granted
without prejudice with respect to all state-law consumer-
protection and unjust-enrichment claims. It is granted with
prejudice with respect to any claims made in connection with
overcharges allegedly incurred before the filing of the claims by
a longer period than the relevant statute of limitations. It is
granted with prejudice with respect to claims under the antitrust
statute of Puerto Rico, and with respect to claims under the
antitrust statute of Rhode Island that are in connection with
overcharges allegedly incurred before July 15, 2013. It is granted
without prejudice with respect to claims under the antitrust
statute of Utah; Humana has leave to replead those claims only if
it is a citizen or resident of that state.

A copy of Judge Underhill's memorandum of decision and order dated
March 23, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/RxdEuPfrom
Leagle.com

Aggrenox Antitrust Litigation, In Re, represented by Brian P.
Daniels, Brenner, Saltzman & Wallman LLP &David R. Schaefer,
Brenner, Saltzman & Wallman

A.F. of L. - A.G.C. Buildings Trade Welfare Plan, Plaintiff,
represented by Mathew P. Jasinski, Motley Rice LLC, Michael M.
Buchman, Motley Rice LLC & William H. Narwold, Motley Rice LLC.
Painters District Council No. 30 Health & Welfare Fund, Plaintiff,
represented by Derek Y. Brandt, Simmons Browder Gianaris Angelides
& Barnerd LLC, Mathew P. Jasinski, Motley Rice LLC, Mitchell M.
Breit, Simmons Hanly Conroy, LLP, Sarah S. Burns, Simmons Browder
Gianaris Angelides & Barnerd LLC, Lori Ann Fanning, Miller Law
LLC, Marvin A. Miller, Miller Law LLC & William H. Narwold, Motley
Rice LLC

Miami-Luken, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by David C. Raphael,
Jr., Smith Segura & Raphael, LLP, Ephraim R. Gerstein, Garwin
Gerstein & Fisher, LLP, Erin R. Leger, Smith Segura & Raphael,
LLP, Keith J. Verrier, Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, Bruce E
Gerstein, Garwin Gerstein & Fisher, LLP, Gerald C. Pia, Jr., Roche
Pia LLC, Jonathan Michael Gerstein, Garwin Gerstein & Fisher, LLP
& Joseph Opper, Garwin Gerstein & Fisher, LLP

International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132 Health and
Welfare Fund, Plaintiff, represented byChristina H.C. Sharp,
Girard Gibbs, LLP, Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs, LLP, Natalie
Finkelman Bennett, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP & Scott
M. Grzenczyk, Girard Gibbs, LLP

Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund,
Plaintiff, represented by Lee Albert, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP

United Food And Commercial Workers Local 1776 & Participating
Employers Health And Welfare Fund, Plaintiff, represented by
Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP
& Karen Leser Grenon, Sheperd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP-CT

Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Andrew Coyne Curley, Berger & Montague, P.C., Archana Tamoshunas,
Taus Cebulash & Landau LLP, David F. Sorensen, Berger & Montague,
P.C.,Joseph T. Lukens, Faruqi & Faruqi, Nicholas Urban, Berger &
Montague, P.C., Peter R. Kohn, Faruqi & Faruqi, Gerald C. Pia,
Jr., Roche Pia LLC, Joseph Opper, Garwin Gerstein & Fisher, LLP &
Sarah A. Westby, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP

Fraternal Order Of Police Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund,
Plaintiff, represented by Jayne A. Goldstein, Pomeranz LLP & Adam
Giffords Kurtz, Pomerantz LLP

Man-U Service Contract Trust Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Jacob
Alexander Goldberg, Cohen Placitella & Roth, P.C., Michael Coren,
Cohen Placitella & Roth, P.C. & Stewart Lee Cohen, Cohen
Placitella & Roth, P.C.

IAFF Local 22 Health & Welfare Fund, Plaintiff, represented by
David R. Woodward, Heins Mills & Olson, PLC-MN & Renae D. Steiner,
Heins Mills & Olson, PLC-MN

International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, District
Council 21 Health and Welfare Fund, Plaintiff, represented by
David R. Woodward, Heins Mills & Olson, PLC-MN & Renae D. Steiner,
Heins Mills & Olson, PLC-MN

Minnesota and North Dakota Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers
Health Fund, Plaintiff, represented byAnne T Regan, Zimmerman
Reed, PLLP, David R. Woodward, Heins Mills & Olson, PLC-MN & Renae
D. Steiner, Heins Mills & Olson, PLC-MN

AGC-International Union of Operating Engineers Local 701 Health &
Welfare Trust Fund, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Woodward,
Heins Mills & Olson, PLC-MN, Renae D. Steiner, Heins Mills &
Olson, PLC-MN, Vincent J. Esades, Heins Mills & Olson, PLC-MN &
Keith S. Dubanevich, Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter, PC

Local 17 Hospitality Benefit Fund, Plaintiff, represented by
Garrett D Blanchfield, Jr, Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield &
Roberta A. Yard, Reinhardt, Wendorf & Blanchfield

School Cafeteria Employees Local 634 Health and Welfare Fund,
Plaintiff, represented by David R. Woodward, Heins Mills & Olson,
PLC-MN, Krishna B. Narine, Meredith & Narine & Renae D. Steiner,
Heins Mills & Olson, PLC-MN

Newspaper And Magazine Employees Health And Welfare Fund,
Plaintiff, represented by Noah Axler, Donovan Searles

Afscme District Council 47 Health & Welfare Fund, Plaintiff,
represented by Stephen E. Connolly, Connolly Wells & Gray, LLP.
Neca-Ibew Welfare Trust Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Brian O.
O'Mara, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP-SD,CA & Marc S. Henzel,
Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel

Twin City Iron Workers Health And Welfare Fund, Plaintiff,
represented by Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Spector, Roseman & Kodroff,
John A. Macoretta, Spector, Roseman & Kodroff & Willis, P.C. &
William G. Caldes, Spector, Roseman & Kodroff & Willis, P.C.

Cesar Castillo, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Steinfeld, Grant &
Eisenhofer, P.A., Bradley J. Demuth, Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A.,
Brent W. Landau, Hausfeld LLP, Linda P. Nussbaum, Grant &
Eisenhofer, P.A.,David R. Schaefer, Brenner, Saltzman & Wallman,
Gerald C. Pia, Jr., Roche Pia LLC, Joseph Opper, Garwin Gerstein &
Fisher, LLP & Peter Anthony Barile, III, Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A.

Humana, Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara J. Hart, Lowey
Dannenberg Cohen & Hart, P.C., Noelle-Kristen F. Ruggiero, Lowey
Dannenberg Cohen & Hart, P.C., Peter D St. Phillip, Jr, Lowey
Dannenberg Cohen & Hart, P.C., Gerald Lawrence, Lowey Dannenberg
Cohen & Hart, P.C., Richard W. Cohen, Lowey Dannenberg Cohen &
Hart, P.C. & Uriel Rabinovitz, Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart, P.C.

Welfare Plan of the International Union of Operation Engineers
Locals 137, 137A, 137B, 137C, 137R, Plaintiff, represented by J.
Douglas Richards, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll & Sharon K.
Robertson, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC

American Sales Company, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Brian C.
Roche, Roche Pia LLC, Gerald C. Pia, Jr., Roche Pia LLC, David S
Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobel Shapiro, LLP, Joseph Opper, Garwin
Gerstein & Fisher, LLP & Thomas M. Sobol, Hagens Berman Sobel
Shapiro, LLP

International Union of Operating Engineers Local 49 Health and
Welfare Fund, Plaintiff, represented byHeidi M. Drewes-Silton,
Lockridge Grindall Nauen PLLP & Karen Hanson Riebel, Lockridge
Grindall Nauen PLLP

Pipefitters Union Local NO 537 Health & Welfare Fund, Plaintiff,
represented by Eric J. Belfi, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Gregory
Asciolla, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Jay L. Himes, Labaton Sucharow
LLP, Mathew P. Jasinski, Motley Rice LLC, Matthew J. Perez,
Labaton Sucharow LLP & William H. Narwold, Motley Rice LLC

Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc, Defendant, represented by Brigid M.
Carpenter, Baker, Donelson, Berman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C.,
Robert D. Carroll, Goodwin Procter, LLP, Sarah K. Frederick,
Goodwin Procter, LLP, Assaf Ze'ev Ben-Atar, Pullman & Comley,
Christopher T Holding, Goodwin Procter, LLP &James T. Shearin,
Pullman & Comley

Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Defendant, represented by
Alison Hanstead, White & Case, J. Mark Gidley, White & Case, Jack
E. Pace, III, White & Case, Matthew S. Leddicotte, White & Case,
Peter J. Carney, White & Case & Robert A. Milne, White & Case

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc, Defendant, represented
by Alison Hanstead, White & Case, J. Mark Gidley, White & Case,
Jack E. Pace, III, White & Case, John E. Iole, Jones Day, Kelly G.
Laudon, Lindquist & Vennum LLP, Mark A. Jacobson, Lindquist &
Vennum LLP, Peter J. Carney, White & Case,Robert Dale Grimes,
Bass, Berry & Sims, David Kessler, Norton Rose Fulbright, Matthew
S. Leddicotte, White & Case, Richard P. Colbert, Day Pitney LLP-
Stmfd & Robert A. Milne, White & Case

Duramed Pharmaceuticals Inc, Defendant, represented by Brigid M.
Carpenter, Baker, Donelson, Berman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C.,
Robert D. Carroll, Goodwin Procter, LLP, Sarah K. Frederick,
Goodwin Procter, LLP, Assaf Ze'ev Ben-Atar, Pullman & Comley,
Christopher T Holding, Goodwin Procter, LLP &James T. Shearin,
Pullman & Comley

Barr Lab Inc, Defendant, represented by Brigid M. Carpenter,
Baker, Donelson, Berman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C., Robert D.
Carroll, Goodwin Procter, LLP, Sarah K. Frederick, Goodwin
Procter, LLP,Assaf Ze'ev Ben-Atar, Pullman & Comley, Christopher T
Holding, Goodwin Procter, LLP & James T. Shearin, Pullman & Comley

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brigid
M. Carpenter, Baker, Donelson, Berman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C.,
Robert D. Carroll, Goodwin Procter, LLP, Sarah K. Frederick,
Goodwin Procter, LLP, Assaf Ze'ev Ben-Atar, Pullman & Comley,
Christopher T Holding, Goodwin Procter, LLP & James T. Shearin,
Pullman & Comley

Duramed Pharmaceuticals Sales Corp., Defendant, represented by
Brigid M. Carpenter, Baker, Donelson, Berman, Caldwell &
Berkowitz, P.C., Robert D. Carroll, Goodwin Procter, LLP, Sarah K.
Frederick, Goodwin Procter, LLP, Assaf Ze'ev Ben-Atar, Pullman &
Comley, Christopher T Holding, Goodwin Procter, LLP & James T.
Shearin, Pullman & Comley

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GMBH & Co. KG, Defendant, represented
by Alison Hanstead, White & Case, J. Mark Gidley, White & Case,
Jack E. Pace, III, White & Case, Matthew S. Leddicotte, White &
Case, Peter J. Carney, White & Case & Robert A. Milne, White &
Case


TOTAL SYSTEM: ProPay Not Yet Required to Answer Telexfree Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
ProPay, Inc., a subsidiary of Total System Services, Inc., has not
yet been required to respond to any of the complaints relating to
the activities of Telexfree, Inc., Total System Services said in
its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014.

ProPay, Inc. ("ProPay"), a subsidiary of the Company, has been
named as one of a number of defendants (including other merchant
processors) in several purported class action lawsuits relating to
the activities of Telexfree, Inc. and its affiliates and
principals. Telexfree is a former merchant customer of ProPay.
With regard to Telexfree, each purported class action lawsuit
generally alleges that Telexfree engaged in an improper multi-tier
marketing scheme involving voice-over Internet protocol telephone
services. The plaintiffs in each of the purported class action
complaints generally allege that the various merchant processor
defendants, including ProPay, knowingly furthered the improper
activities of Telexfree with knowledge that Telexfree did not have
legitimate business operations. Telexfree filed for bankruptcy
protection in Nevada. The bankruptcy was subsequently transferred
to the Massachusetts Bankruptcy Court.

Specifically, ProPay has been named as one of a number of
defendants (including other merchant processors) in each of the
following purported class action complaints relating to Telexfree:
(i) Waldermara Martin, et al. v. TelexFree, Inc., et al. (Case No.
BK-S-14-12524-ABL) filed on May 3, 2014 in the United States
Bankruptcy Court District of Nevada, (ii) Anthony Cellucci, et al.
v. TelexFree, Inc., et. al. (Case No. 4:14-BK-40987) filed on May
15, 2014 in the United States Bankruptcy Court District of
Massachusetts, (iii) Maduako C. Ferguson Sr., et al. v.
Telexelectric, LLLP, et. al (Case No. 5:14-CV-00316-D) filed on
June 5, 2014 in the United States District Court of North
Carolina, (iv) Todd Cook v. TelexElectric LLLP et al. (Case No.
2:14-CV-00134), filed on June 24, 2014 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, (v) Felicia
Guevara v. James M. Merrill et al., CA No. 1:14-cv-22405-DPG),
filed on June 27, 2014 in the United State District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, (vi) Reverend Jeremiah Githere, et
al. v. TelexElectric LLLP et al. (Case No. 1:14-CV-12825-GAO),
filed on June 30, 2014 in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts , and (vii) Paulo Eduardo Ferrari et al.
v. Telexfree, Inc. et al. (Case No. 14-04080), filed on August 20,
2014 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Massachusetts (together, the "Actions").

On October 21, 2014, all of the lawsuits, with the exception of
the Ferrari case, were transferred to the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation. ProPay has not yet been served with the
Ferrari complaint.

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
has entered an order appointing lead counsel for the plaintiffs,
but has not yet formally consolidated the Actions, and ProPay has
not yet been required to respond to any of the complaints.


TOTAL SYSTEM: ProPay Has Not Been Served With "Abdelgadir" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total System Services, Inc., said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in December
2014, ProPay was named as a defendant in a putative class action
relating to TelexFree filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, Abdelgadir v. TelexFree,
Inc., et al., Case No. 14-CV-9857. The Abdelgadir complaint makes
allegations that are substantially the same as those contained in
the other putative class actions relating to the activities of
Telexfree, Inc.  ProPay has not been served with the Abdelgadir
complaint.


UNITED PARCEL: Ruling Not Clear on Light Duty for Pregnant Staff
----------------------------------------------------------------
Suhaill Morales, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that
on March 25, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its Young v. UPS
opinion, ruling that an employee should have her day in court to
determine whether United Parcel Service Inc. violated the
Pregnancy Discrimination Act when it denied the employee's request
for a light-duty work accommodation when she was pregnant and
restricted from heavy lifting.

While the court's decision did not provide a bright-line rule as
to whether employers must provide light duty and other
accommodations to pregnant employees in the same manner as other
employees, it provided a framework for pregnant employees to
challenge workplace accommodation policies under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act.

In 1978, Congress enacted the PDA, which amended the definition of
"sex discrimination" under Title VII to include pregnancy
discrimination.  The first clause of the PDA specifies that the
prohibition against sex discrimination applies to discrimination
"because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related
medical conditions."  The second clause, which was carefully
scrutinized in Young, states that employers must treat "women
affected by pregnancy . . . the same for all employment-related
purposes . . . as other persons not so affected but similar in
their ability or inability to work."

Peggy Young was employed by UPS as a delivery driver in Maryland.
In 2006, Ms. Young became pregnant and was advised by her doctor
that she should refrain from lifting heavy packages.  Ms. Young
provided her supervisor with her doctor's note, which explained
that she should not lift more than 20 pounds during the first 20
weeks of her pregnancy and not more than 10 pounds, thereafter,
until the pregnancy was over. Based on these restrictions,
Ms. Young asked for a light-duty work accommodation.  At the time,
UPS required its drivers to lift a minimum of 70 pounds.  As a
result, UPS denied Ms. Young's request and told her she could not
return to work until these restrictions were released.

Notably, UPS had an Americans with Disabilities Act policy and a
policy for on-the-job injuries, which provided light-duty lifting
accommodations; however, these same accommodations were not
extended to pregnant employees.

As a result, Ms. Young exhausted all of her Family and Medical
Leave Act leave time, went on an unpaid leave of absence, and her
medical benefits eventually expired.  At some point after the
child's birth, Ms. Young returned to work and filed a lawsuit
against UPS for damages, including loss of income and benefits.

Procedural Posture

The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted
summary judgment for UPS, finding that Ms. Young had failed to
establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the PDA.  On
appeal, the Fourth Circuit upheld the ruling, finding that UPS did
not "regard" a pregnant employee as disabled under the ADA; and
under the PDA, employers are not required to provide pregnant
employees with light-duty assignments so long as the employer
treats pregnant employees the same as nonpregnant employees.
The Fourth Circuit expressed concern that reading the PDA too
broadly would result in granting pregnant employees a "most-
favored-nations" status over other employees who would not receive
accommodations for off-the-job injuries.

Subsequently, Ms. Young filed a petition for certiorari in the
U.S. Supreme Court to address the validity of UPS's policy.

Specifically, the issue before the court was: "Whether, and in
what circumstances, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act . . .
requires an employer that provides work accommodations to
nonpregnant employees with work limitations to provide work
accommodations to pregnant employees who are 'similar in their
ability or inability to work.'"

The court vacated the Fourth Circuit's decision and held that an
employee can create an issue for trial by providing evidence that
the employer accommodated "a large percentage of nonpregnant
workers while failing to accommodate a large percentage of
pregnant workers."  In other words, an employee can establish a
prima facie case of pregnancy discrimination by pointing to some
evidence that the employer's actions were discriminatory.

The court found that to establish a prima facie case of pregnancy
discrimination an employer needs only to show: she was pregnant at
the relevant time, her employer did not accommodate her, and her
employer did accommodate others who are similar only "in their
ability to work."

Significantly, the court explained that the plaintiff did not have
to show that the nonpregnant employees who were allegedly treated
more favorably were in similarly situated positions.  As a result,
the court found that Young had established a prima facie case of
discrimination because UPS had three separate accommodation
policies that, when taken together, demonstrated a genuine dispute
as to whether the company provided more favorable treatment to at
least some categories of employees under similar circumstances.
The court also noted that these policies, at least arguably,
burdened pregnant employees.

Applications

Although the question before the court was limited to the narrow
issue of UPS's light-duty policy, the holding could be interpreted
to apply to a broad range of employer practices.  In essence, it
will be substantially easier for plaintiffs to succeed in
pregnancy discrimination and accommodations claims.  In light of
Young, employers should carefully review their accommodation
policies for anything that might impose a burden on, or negatively
impact, pregnant employees. Specifically, if an employer has a
policy that provides accommodations or other benefits to
categories of employees (where pregnancy is not one of the
categories), the employer needs to ensure that it has legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for such a policy.  In order to avoid
significant risks for PDA violations, it would be wise for
employers to consider what potential accommodations might be made
for pregnant employees.


UNITED PARCEL: Trial Scheduled for June 2015 in "Morgate" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that trial is
scheduled for June 2015 in the case Morgate v. The UPS Store, Inc.
et al.

"UPS and our subsidiary The UPS Store, Inc., are defendants in
Morgate v. The UPS Store, Inc. et al. an action in the Los Angeles
Superior Court brought on behalf of a certified class of all
franchisees who chose to rebrand their Mail Boxes Etc. franchises
to The UPS Store in March 2003. Plaintiff alleges that UPS and The
UPS Store, Inc. misrepresented and omitted facts to the class
about the market tests that were conducted before offering the
class the choice of whether to rebrand to The UPS Store. The trial
is scheduled for June 2015," the Company said.


UNITED PARCEL: No Trial Date Scheduled in AFMS Suit v. UPS, FedEx
-----------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the case AFMS
LLC v. UPS and FedEx Corporation, does not have a trial date
scheduled.

"In AFMS LLC v. UPS and FedEx Corporation, a lawsuit filed in
federal court in the Central District of California in August
2010, the plaintiff asserts that UPS and FedEx violated U.S.
antitrust law by conspiring to refuse to negotiate with third-
party negotiators retained by shippers and by individually
imposing policies that prevent shippers from using such
negotiators. UPS and FedEx have moved for summary judgment.  There
has been no ruling on those motions.  The case does not have a
trial date scheduled," the Company said.


UNITED PARCEL: Appealing Decision in Canada Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that allegations of
inadequate disclosure were granted in class action cases in Canada
and the Company is appealing that decision.

"In Canada, four purported class-action cases were filed against
us in British Columbia (2006); Ontario (2007) and Quebec (2006 and
2013)," the Company said.  "The cases each allege inadequate
disclosure concerning the existence and cost of brokerage services
provided by us under applicable provincial consumer protection
legislation and infringement of interest restriction provisions
under the Criminal Code of Canada. The British Columbia class
action was declared inappropriate for certification and dismissed
by the trial judge. That decision was upheld by the British
Columbia Court of Appeal in March 2010, which ended the case in
our favor. The Ontario class action was certified in September
2011. Partial summary judgment was granted to us and the
plaintiffs by the Ontario motions court. The complaint under the
Criminal Code was dismissed. No appeal is being taken from that
decision. The allegations of inadequate disclosure were granted
and we are appealing that decision."

"The motion to authorize the 2006 Quebec litigation as a class
action was dismissed by the motions judge in October 2012; there
was no appeal, which ended that case in our favor. The 2013 Quebec
litigation also has been dismissed. We deny all liability and are
vigorously defending the one outstanding case in Ontario."


UNITED PARCEL: Class Action Deal Subject to Final Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the settlement
of the class action complaint alleging price-fixing activities is
subject to final court approval.

In January 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
alleging price-fixing activities relating to the provision of
freight forwarding services. UPS was not named in this case. In
July 2009, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint naming
numerous global freight forwarders as defendants. UPS and UPS
Supply Chain Solutions are among the 60 defendants named in the
amended complaint.

After two rounds of motions to dismiss, in October 2014, UPS
entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs to settle
the remaining claims asserted against UPS for an immaterial
amount. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement
on December 16, 2014. The settlement is subject to final court
approval.


UNITED SERVICES: Judge Remands "Turk" Suit to Wash. State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Ronald B. Leighton of the Western District of
Washington, in Tacoma, granted plaintiffs' motion to remand the
case DAVID TURK AND MARISSA TURK, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED SERVICES
AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Defendant, CASE NO. C14-5878 RBL (W.D.
Wash.)

Plaintiff Marissa Turk claimed that United Services Automobile
Association (USAA) failed to pay its insureds "loss of use"
damages reflecting the time that their vehicles were not usable
for at least one day following an accident with an un- or under-
insured at-fault driver. Turk purports to represent a class of
Washington USAA UIM policy holders who were not compensated for
this loss of use between September 3, 2008 and July 31, 2014. Turk
claims that the average loss of use as reflected by the cost to
rent an alternate vehicle is $35 per day. Turk's vehicle was in
the repair facility for 44 days, and her claimed loss of use was
$1540. She claims that the average loss for the approximately 5000
or 6000 class members is much less -- 4 days, or $140. She asserts
only a breach of contract claim, and seeks only compensatory
damages, post judgment interest, injunctive relief, and attorneys'
fees.

USAA removed the action under Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) 28
U.S.C. Sections 1332(d), 1446, and 1453], claiming that Turk's
claims satisfied that statute's $5 million amount in controversy
requirement.

Turk filed a motion to remand the case to Pierce County Superior
Court. Turk claims that her proposed class action against USAA
does not meet the Class Action Fairness Act's $5 million
jurisdictional threshold.

Judge Leighton granted plaintiff's motion to remand and the case
is remanded to Pierce County Superior Court.

A copy of Judge Leighton's order dated March 18, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/pxQjrxfrom Leagle.com

Plaintiffs, represented by Stephen M Hansen -
info@stephenmhansenlaw.com -- at LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN M. HANSEN

Defendants, represented by David B Edwards -
dedwards@corrcronin.com -- Michael A Moore --
mmoore@corrcronin.com -- at CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER &
PREECE; Jay Williams -- jwilliams@schiffhardin.com -- Marci A
Eisenstein -- meisenstein@schiffhardin.com -- at SCHIFF HARDIN


UTECO NORTH AMERICA: Ky. Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss AEP Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Greg N. Stivers of the Western District of
Kentucky, Bowling Green Division denied defendants' motions to
dismiss in the case AEP INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. UTECO
NORTH AMERICA, INC., SUMMIT RIGGING, INC., and RPM TRANSPORT,
INC., Defendants, v. COUGAR ESCORTE ROUTIERE, INC. Third-Party
Defendant, CASE NO. 1:14-CV-96-GNS (W.D. Ky.)

The plaintiff AEP Industries, Inc. (AEP) is a Delaware corporation
with a principal place of business in New Jersey and owns a
factory in Bowling Green, Kentucky. The defendants Uteco North
America, Inc. and Summit Rigging, Inc. are Georgia citizens while
defendant RPM Transport is a Canadian citizen.

AEP purchased a film printing press to aid its manufacture of
packaging material. It contracted with UTECO for the sale,
delivery, and installation of this equipment for its Kentucky
facility. UTECO then subcontracted with Summit to deliver the
equipment from Montreal, Quebec. Summit subcontracted RPM, a
transportation provider, who hired Cougar to provide highway
escort services as RPM transported the unusually-sized load to
Kentucky. While in transit to Kentucky, the large load struck a
highway overpass in Ottawa, Ontario, causing substantial damage to
the printing press.

AEP alleges that this resulted in a significant interruption of
its business activities. AEP received separate compensation for
its losses from two different insurers. AEP brings negligence and
breach of contract claims against Uteco, Summit and RPM. UTECO on
the other hand asserts a third-party claim against Cougar Escorte
Routiere, Inc.

RPM filed motions to dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens or, in the
alternative, to Stay Litigation. Third-party defendant Cougar
filed a similar motion to dismiss the third-party claims.

Judge Stivers denied RPM's motion to dismiss or, in the
alternative, stay litigation; and also denied the motions to
dismiss the cross and third-party claims.

A copy of Judge Stivers's memorandum opinion and order dated March
23, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/Wbawpnfrom Leagle.com

AEP Industries, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Glenn A. Cohen --
gcohen@derbycitylaw.com -- at Seiller Waterman, LLC

UTECO North America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Donald L.
Miller, II -- dmiller@qpwblaw.com -- John F. Carroll, Jr. --
jcarroll@qpwblaw.com -- at Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, PA;
Ruby D. Fenton-Iler -- rfenton@tilfordlaw.com -- at Tilford,
Dobbins, Alexander, PLLC

Summit Rigging, Inc., Defendant, represented by John R. Martin,
Jr. -- Jmartin@landrumshouse.com -- at Landrum & Shouse, LLP

RPM Transport, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kelly E. Mulrane --
kmulrane@beneschlaw.com -- Marc S. Blubaugh --
mblubaugh@beneschlaw.com -- Steven Andrew Oldham --
soldham@beneschlaw.com -- at Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Arnoff
LLP

UTECO North America, Inc., Third Party Plaintiff, represented by
Donald L. Miller, II -- dmiller@qpwblaw.com -- John F. Carroll,
Jr. -- jcarroll@qpwblaw.com -- at Quintairos, Prieto, Wood &
Boyer, PA

Cougar Escorte Routiere, Inc., Third Party Defendant, represented
by James M. Burd -- james.burd@wilsonelser.com -- at Wilson Elser
Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP

UTECO North America, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Donald
L. Miller, II -- dmiller@qpwblaw.com -- John F. Carroll, Jr. --
jcarroll@qpwblaw.com -- at Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, PA

RPM Transport, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Kelly E.
Mulrane -- kmulrane@beneschlaw.com -- Marc S. Blubaugh --
mblubaugh@beneschlaw.com -- Steven Andrew Oldham --
soldham@beneschlaw.com -- at Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Arnoff
LLP

Summit Rigging, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by John R.
Martin, Jr. -- Jmartin@landrumshouse.com -- at Landrum & Shouse,
LLP

Summit Rigging, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by John R.
Martin, Jr. -- Jmartin@landrumshouse.com -- at Landrum & Shouse,
LLP

Summit Rigging, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by John R.
Martin, Jr. -- Jmartin@landrumshouse.com -- at Landrum & Shouse,
LLP


WAL-MART STORES: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Gun Sale Policy Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that Wal-Mart won back control of its policy for the sale of guns
with high-capacity magazines with a short order from the Third
Circuit on April 14.

The appeals court reversed a December decision from the District
of Delaware that had ruled Wal-Mart would have to include in its
annual report to shareholders, called a proxy statement, a
proposal from one of its shareholders, an Episcopal church in New
York that filed under the name Trinity Wall Street, that would ask
them to vote on putting the oversight of policies concerning the
sale of certain merchandise, including guns with high-capacity
magazines, in the hands of the board.

The company has to go to the printer with its proxy statement by
April 16, so the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
issued its decision in less than a week.  It heard arguments on
April 8 and gave its two-page order on April 14.  It will issue a
full opinion with its reasoning at a later date, according to the
order, signed by Judge Thomas L. Ambro.

Judge Ambro led the three-judge panel that heard arguments and
included Judges Patty Shwartz and Thomas I. Vanaskie.

Judge Ambro had characterized the question of whether Wal-Mart
would have to include Trinity's proposal in its report to
shareholders as a close call during arguments.  He noted the trial
judge had changed his mind on the question, first denying
Trinity's motion for preliminary injunction, but, later, reversing
course and ruling in December that it did have to include the
proposal.  That's the opinion that Wal-Mart appealed and the Third
Circuit reversed.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission requires companies to
include the proposals of shareholders in their annual proxy
statements, but, an exception to that rule is that proposals that
concern the company's ordinary business operations can be
excluded.  If the proposal addresses a larger policy issue, it
cannot be excluded from the proxy statement.

Wal-Mart had argued that decisions about the products that a store
sells fall squarely within the realm of ordinary business
operations, which would mean that Trinity's proposal could be
excluded from the proxy statement.

"Selling products goes to the heartland of ordinary business
operations," Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Wal-Mart's Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher lawyer, told the panel.

Store managers routinely determine what customers in their stores
demand, he said, estimating that about a third of Wal-Mart's 3,000
stores nationwide carry the kind of guns at issue.
Trinity framed its proposal as addressing a broad issue of risk
that could impact the company.

The proposal had asked for a shareholder vote to add an obligation
to Wal-Mart's committee charter to "'provid[e] oversight
concerning the formulation and implementation of . . . policies
and standards that determine whether or not the company should
sell a product' having certain characteristics, i.e., one that
especially endangers public safety, has the substantial potential
to impair Wal-Mart's reputation, or would reasonably be considered
by many to be offensive to the values integral to Wal-Mart's
brand," according to the opinion from U.S. District Judge Leonard
P. Stark of the District of Delaware, granting Trinity's motion
for summary judgment.

"At its core, Trinity's proposal seeks to have Wal-Mart's board
oversee the development and effectuation of a Wal-Mart policy,"
Judge Stark said.  "While such a policy, if formulated and
implemented, could (and almost certainly would) shape what
products are sold by Wal-Mart, the proposal does not itself have
this consequence."

The order from the Third Circuit didn't say when it would issue
the full opinion, only that "the court will issue an opinion in
this matter at a later time."

When the Third Circuit issued a short decision immediately
following arguments in an appeal from objectors to the National
Football League concussion settlement in September, it issued a
full opinion on the issue three months later in December.

"The Third Circuit reached the right decision in reversing the
district court's ruling," said Randy Hargrove, spokesman for
Wal-Mart, in a prepared statement.  "We appreciate the court's
quick consideration of the issues."

Daniel Yunger, a spokesman for Trinity, said in a prepared
statement, "We are disappointed with the ruling, but pleased that
we have been able to draw attention to an important issue of
corporate governance and social responsibility.  The court has not
yet issued an opinion explaining its reasoning, and we will
consider our options when it is issued."


WALTER ENERGY: Evidentiary Hearing on Renewed Class Cert Bid Held
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court set an
evidentiary hearing on Plaintiffs' renewed class certification
motion for April 16, 2015.

On January 26, 2012 and March 15, 2012, putative class actions
were filed against Walter Energy, Inc. and some of its current and
former senior executive officers in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama (Rush v. Walter Energy, Inc., et
al.). The three executive officers named in the complaints are:
Keith Calder, Walter's former CEO; Walter Scheller, the Company's
current CEO and a director; and Neil Winkelmann, former President
of Walter's Canadian and U.K. Operations (collectively the
"Individual Defendants"). The complaints were filed by Peter Rush
and Michael Carney, purported shareholders of Walter Energy who
each seek to represent a class of Walter Energy shareholders who
purchased common stock between April 20, 2011 and September 21,
2011.

These complaints allege that Walter Energy and the Individual
Defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's operations outlook for the second quarter of 2011. The
complaints further allege that the Company and the Individual
Defendants knew that these statements were misleading and failed
to disclose material facts that were necessary in order to make
the statements not misleading. Plaintiffs claimed violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934
Act"), Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the
1934 Act. On May 30, 2012, the two actions were consolidated into
In re Walter Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation. The court also
appointed the Government of Bermuda Contributory and Public
Service Superannuation Pension Plans as well as the Stephen C.
Beaulieu Revocable Trust to be lead plaintiffs and approved lead
plaintiffs' selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as lead plaintiffs' counsel for
the consolidated action.

On August 20, 2012, Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint in this action. The consolidated amended
complaint names as an additional defendant Joseph Leonard, a
current director and former interim CEO of Walter Energy, in
addition to the previously named defendants. Defendants filed a
Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint on October 4, 2012. On
January 29, 2013, the court denied that motion without prejudice.
Defendants answered the complaint on February 15, 2013.

The parties are now in the process of discovery. Plaintiffs filed
a motion for class certification on August 15, 2013. On March 18,
2014, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
without prejudice to refiling and rebriefing and stayed this
litigation pending a decision by the United States Supreme Court
in Halliburton Co., et al. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc.
("Halliburton II"). Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in
Halliburton II on June 23, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion
for class certification on August 29, 2014. Defendants' filed
their opposition on October 28, 2014, and Plaintiffs' Reply was
due January 16, 2015. The Court has set an evidentiary hearing on
Plaintiffs' renewed class certification motion for April 16, 2015.
All other deadlines have been stayed by the Court.

Walter Energy and the other named defendants believe that there is
no merit to the claims alleged and intend to vigorously defend
these actions.


WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Reserves Amount for FLSA Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
Wintrust Financial Corporation has reserved an amount for the FLSA
Litigation that is immaterial to its results of operations or
financial condition, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

On March 15, 2012, a former mortgage loan originator employed by
Wintrust Mortgage Company, named Wintrust, Barrington Bank and its
subsidiary, Wintrust Mortgage Company, as defendants in a Fair
Labor Standards Act class action lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "FLSA
Litigation"). The suit asserts that Wintrust Mortgage Company
violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and challenges the
manner in which Wintrust Mortgage Company classified its loan
originators and compensated them for their work. The suit also
seeks to assert these claims as a class.

On September 30, 2013, the Court entered an order conditionally
certifying an "opt-in" class in this case. Notice to the potential
class members was sent on or about October 22, 2013, primarily
informing the putative class of the right to opt-into the class
and setting a deadline for same. Approximately 15% of the notice
recipients joined the class.

On September 26, 2014, the Court stayed actions by opt-in
plaintiffs with arbitration agreements, which reduced the class
size by more than 40%. The Court also denied the opt-in
plaintiffs' motion for equitable tolling, which the Company
anticipates will reduce the class size by an additional 15%.

The Company has reserved an amount for the FLSA Litigation that is
immaterial to its results of operations or financial condition.
Such class action litigation necessarily involves substantial
uncertainty and it is not possible at this time to predict the
ultimate resolution or to determine whether, or to what extent,
any loss with respect to this litigation may exceed the amounts
reserved by the Company.


YAHOO! INC: Plaintiffs' Appeal in Stockholder Suits Still Open
--------------------------------------------------------------
Since June 6, 2011, two purported stockholder class actions were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against Yahoo! Inc. and certain officers and directors
of the Company by plaintiffs Bonato and the Twin Cities Pipe
Trades Pension Trust. In October 2011, the District Court
consolidated the two actions under the caption In re Yahoo! Inc.
Securities Litigation and appointed the Pension Trust Fund for
Operating Engineers as lead plaintiff. In a consolidated amended
complaint filed December 15, 2011, the lead plaintiff purports to
represent a class of investors who purchased the Company's common
stock between April 19, 2011 and July 29, 2011, and alleges that
during that class period, defendants issued statements that were
materially false or misleading because they did not disclose
information relating to Alibaba Group's restructuring of Alipay.
The complaint purports to assert claims for relief for violation
of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and for violation of Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and seeks
unspecified damages, injunctive and equitable relief, fees, and
costs. On August 10, 2012, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. Plaintiffs have
appealed.

No updates were provided by Yahoo! in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.


ZAMORANO'S CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Workers OT, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Ramon Garcia, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Zamorano's Construction, LLC, Rosa Zamorano and
Gilberto Zamorano, Case No. 7:15-cv-00177 (S.D. Tex., April 20,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.

The Defendants are in the construction business with its principal
place of business in Mission, Hidalgo County, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Kevin Burke, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL M. GUERRA, BURKE & KHIRALLAH, LLP
      3900 N. 10th St., Suite 850
      McAllen, TX 78501
      Telephone: (956) 682-5999
      Facsimile: (888) 317-8802
      E-mail: mburke@mmguerra.com


* Calif. Cos. Urged to Comply with Supply-Chain Disclosure Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Doiy, writing for The Recorder, reports that California
businesses with significant global revenue received another
reminder from Attorney General Kamala Harris on the need to comply
with a state law aimed at exposing human trafficking within supply
chains.

The release on April 13 of updated guidelines comes a few weeks
after Harris' office sent out notification letters to companies
covered by the 2012 California Transparency in Supply Chains Act.
"I would be loathe to say that everybody who was covered by the
statute knew that they were covered before getting the AG's
letter," said Morrison & Foerster partner David McDowell --
dmcdowell@mofo.com

"I suspect some folks got those letters and said 'Oh, shoot,
what's that law? What are we supposed to do?' "

Any retail seller or manufacturer in California with global
revenue exceeding $100 million must by April 30 disclose the
actions it is taking -- or not taking -- to ensure that slave
labor hasn't been used in creating their products.  Companies must
disclose their efforts in five areas: verification, audits,
certification, internal accountability and training.  In short: Do
companies verify that suppliers are following human trafficking
and slavery laws? Are companies auditing suppliers to check for
human trafficking and slavery compliance? Are companies asking
suppliers to certify that certain materials comply with the law?
Do companies assume internal accountability for failures in the
supply chain? And last, do companies train supply-chain employees
in these areas? Companies that aren't making these efforts must
disclose that, the guidebook says.

The law, and guidebook, are intended to enlist consumers in the
fight against human trafficking.  "Human trafficking profits from
exploiting the most vulnerable in our society and often extends to
factories, farms and construction sites," Ms. Harris said in a
statement. "This guide will help companies disclose efforts to
eradicate human trafficking from their supply chains and empower
consumers to make informed purchasing decisions."

Companies that received letters from the AG's office at the start
of this month were told they had 30 days to comply.  Many of
Silicon Valley's largest companies, including Oracle Corp.,
Hewlett-Packard Co. and Apple Inc., were in compliance before the
notices went out.  However, an updated list online lists several
local companies that are said to be covered by the law but not in
compliance.  That list includes Zynga Inc., TiVo Inc. and NetSuite
Inc.

The guidelines say the disclosures should be accessible from a
"conspicuous link" on the home page.

"If you're doing what the AG thinks you ought to be doing, it's
just one more piece of clutter at the bottom of your page," said
MoFo's McDowell.  He said companies already have to comply with
California's privacy rules, which also add lines of text at the
bottom of web pages.

"California is just one state; imagine if the other 50 had the
same rules," Mr. McDowell said.  "There might come a point where
you'll have 100 links at the bottom of the page. People are
supposed to be able to find that and have it be useful
information? That's hard."


* Canada to Impose Fines Against Anti-Spam Legislation Violators
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marlisse Silver Sweeney, writing for Law.com, reports that
America's neighbor to the north is starting to hand out some stiff
penalties for violation of the its anti-spam legislation known as
CASL, enacted last July 1.  The legislation applies to any
electronic message sent in connection with a commercial activity.
The folks at Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg note the law's basic
premise is that the company sending the message must have the
prior consent of recipients, thus eliminating the spam sent to the
inboxes of Canadians.

The act's first violator was Compu-Finder Inc., which allegedly
sent four separate emails promoting its training courses without
the recipients' consent or an unsubscribe mechanism.  "Compu-
Finder flagrantly violated the basic principles of the law by
continuing to send unsolicited commercial electronic messages
after the law came into force to email addresses it found by
scouring websites," said Manon Bombardier, chief compliance and
enforcement officer of the Canadian Radio-television and
Telecommunications Commission, in a statement. The company was
fined $1.1 million.

Online dating company Plentyoffish Media Inc. is not off the hook
either.  It has paid $48,000 for an alleged violation, according
to the CRTC.  The agency says that company also allegedly sent
emails without a prominent unsubscribe mechanism.  "This case in
an important reminder to businesses that they need to review their
unsubscribe mechanisms to ensure they are clearly and prominently
set out and can be readily performed," says Bombardier.


* Tobacco Companies Sue FDA Over New Product Label Directive
------------------------------------------------------------
Zoe Tillman, writing for Legal Times, reports that tobacco
companies have long fought with the feds over what they can -- and
must -- say on cigarette packages and other product labels.  In
the latest case, filed on April 14, tobacco makers are challenging
a new directive from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that
the companies claim unlawfully requires pre-approval for label
changes.

Six tobacco companies, including Philip Morris USA Inc., R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Lorillard Tobacco co., filed suit against
the agency in the federal district court in Washington.  They
claimed that the FDA published new "guidance" materials in
March that effectively required pre-approval for any label changes
that made a tobacco product appear "distinct" from previous
versions.

The tobacco companies accuse the FDA of failing to go through the
necessary administrative processes for making a rules change.
They also say that the pre-approval requirement violates the First
Amendment.  Congress gave the FDA authority to require
pre-approval only in certain "narrow circumstances," the tobacco
companies argue.

Arnold & Porter and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher represent Philip
Morris and U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Co. LLC.  Jones Day and King &
Spalding are counsel for R.J. Reynolds, American Snuff Co. and
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co. Inc. Covington & Burling represents
Lorillard.


                             *********

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  * * *