CAR_Public/150507.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, May 7, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 91


                             Headlines


ACURA PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Dismiss Product Liability Case
AGRESERVES INC: Deadline to File Responsive Pleading on May 10
AIR CANADA: Passengers Mull Class Action Over Crash Landing Trauma
ALBEMARLE CORPORATION: Class Action Parties Executed Stipulation
ALTERRA EXCESS: June 26 Status Conference in World Fuel Suit Set

AMERICAN CAPITAL: Court Issued Show Cause Order
AMERICAN REALTY: Court Tosses Bid to Remand Wunsch Class Action
ANTHEM LIFE: Removes "Smilow" Class Suit to E.D. New York
AOL INC: May 29 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss "Derby" Suit
ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS: No Ruling Yet on Case Dismissal Bid

AT&T SERVICES: Faces "Meador" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Removes "Voronov" Suit to D. New Jersey
BAYER: Class Seeks Riceland Gross Recovery in Settlement
BLOOMINGDALES INC: Faces "Ashkenazi" Class Suit in New Jersey
BROOKSAMERICA MORTGAGE: Final Judgment Entered in "Peel" Case

C&R DOWNHOLE: Faces "Blackford" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CALIFORNIA: "Dupree" Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
CAPITAL ONE: Settles Car Repo Class Action for $4.4 Million
CARBONITE INC: Fails to Backup Consumers Computer Data, Suit Says
CENTURY ALUMINUM: Retiree Medical Benefits Case Trial Ongoing

CHAPEI LLC: "Wang" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: To Defend Against "Masters" Action
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: To Defend Against "Garcia" Action
CLEAN HARBORS: Fairness Hearing Anticipated to Occur in May 2015
CLEAN HARBORS: 17 Product Liability Claims Settled or Dismissed

CRST VAN: 9th Cir. Reverses Dist. Court Ruling in "Cole" Case
D'ARCY BUICK: Faces "Salcedo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
DIRECTV: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Marketing Tactics
DR WELL: Faces "Kirk" Suit in Pa. Over Failure to Pay Overtime
EASY ACCESS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Blotzer' Suit Claims

EOG RESOURCES: Faces "Boudreaux" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
FEDERAL FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Hussin" Suit Says
FOOD MANAGEMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Termination Pay
FORCEFIELD ENERGY: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
FORD MOTOR: 3rd Cir. Upholds Dist. Court Ruling in Bayshore Case

FORT COLLINS, CO: Reveals Panhandling Settlement Details
GALILEE MEMORIAL: Lawyers Get Access to Cemetery Grounds
GENERAL CABLE: Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion Due
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Faces Suit Alleging Zofran-Related Injuries
GOOGLE INC: Court Wants Documents in Privacy Suit to be Sealed

HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Not Yet Set
HOMEWARD RESIDENTIAL: Kings' First Amended Class Action Dismissed
INTERTHINX INC: Obtains Final Judgment on "Shaw" Suit Settlement
INTUIT INC: Faces "Knoch" Suit Over Illegal Tax Return Filing
JACO OIL: De Santos Gets OK to File First Amended Complaint

JAGUAR ENERGY: Removes "Combs" Suit to Colorado District Court
JB HUNT: "Wheat" Suit Transferred From N.D. to C.D. California
K&L GATES: Hearing on "Siegal" Suit Settlement Moved to May 21
KENT'S MEATS: Duckworth to Amend Case to Omit Wage/Hour Claims
KEYCORP: Renewed Bid to Dismiss Overdraft Litigation Denied

KING DIGITAL: Faces Securities Class Action in California
KPMG: Settles PIF Class Action for Up to $30 Million
LATSHAW DRILLING: "Meadows 1" Suit Moved From W.D. to N.D. Texas
LATSHAW DRILLING: "Meadows 2" Suit Moved From W.D. to N.D. Texas
LIGHTHOUSE INSURANCE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims

LITESPEED ELECTRIC: Fires Worker Who Cried Race Bias, Suit Claims
LONGUEUIL, CANADA: Group of Residents Opposes Tainted-Water Suit
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Chavez" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Removes "Loup" Class Suit to E.D. Louisiana
MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Faces Class Suit Over Game Packages

MARINE SPILL: Wilson May Amend BELO Complaint to Demand Jury
MARRIOTT INT'L: Bid to Supplement Record in "Bond" Case Tossed
MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE: Securities Class Action Dismissed
MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE: "Steinberg" Lawsuit in Preliminary Stage
MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE: Klein v. Cubbin Case in Preliminary Stage

MGM RESORTS: Class Action Parties Agreed to Extend Deadlines
MGM RESORTS: No Trial Date Set in MGM MIRAGE Securities Suit
MICHAELS STORES: "Gettings" Suit Transferred From N.Y. to N.J.
MIDWEST SPORTING: Faces "Gaines" Suit Alleging Job Discrimination
MISSISSIPPI: Judge Hears Arguments in MDOC Prisoner Safety Suit

MONSTER BEVERAGE: District Court Granted Final Approval of Deal
MORGAN STANLEY: 2nd Cir. Affirmed Dismissal of "Stratte-McClure"
MORGAN STANLEY: July 2 Final Approval Hearing on Settlement
MORGAN STANLEY: Plaintiffs' Time to Pursue Appeal Expired
MORGAN STANLEY: Deal in Pass-Through Certs. Case Has Final Okay

MORGAN STANLEY: IndyMac Case Settlement Has Final Approval
MORGAN STANLEY: Parties Agreed to Settle Allstate Insurance Case
MORTGAGE GUARANTY: Faces "Arencibia" Class Suit in M.D. Florida
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Judge Seeks Dismissal of Academic Scandal Suit
NEW JERSEY: Did Not Violate Medicaid Law, Supreme Court Rules

NEXTEL COMMS: 2nd Cir. Addresses Punitive Damages Questions
NOVA BENEFIT: Court Enters Show Cause Order in "Dix" Case
NY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT: Accused of Discrimination & Retaliation
OCEAN DETAILING: "Lovinsky" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
OCWEN LOAN: Has Until May 15 to Respond to "Nemerovsky" Suit

OLD REPUBLIC: Class Not Certified in 2 Class Action Lawsuits
ONE ABINGDON: "Lazo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
PARAMOUNT PICTURES: Judge Dismisses Credit Check Class Action
PF CHANG'S: Judge Tosses Data Breach Class Action in Illinois
POPULAR INC: "Valle" Class Action Has Been Stayed Pending Ruling

POPULAR INC: Quiles Case Wins Conditional Certification
POPULAR INC: Motion to Transfer Fernandez Case Remains Pending
POPULAR INC: Settlement Terms Being Negotiated in Alvarez Case
POPULAR INC: Plaintiffs in "Valle" Filed Notice of Appeal
POPULAR INC: Settled Suit by 2 Former Assistant Branch Managers

PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Astengo" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Lynch" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
RADIAN GROUP: "White" Case Stayed Pending "Cunningham" Decision
RADIAN GROUP: "Menichino" Case Stayed Pending "Cunningham" Ruling
RADIAN GROUP: "Manners" Case Stayed Pending "Cunningham" Decision

RANBAXY LABORATORIES: Must Face Glass-Tainted Pill Class Action
ROBERT'S ASPHALT: "Tew" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
ROMANTIX INC: Faces "Kolias" Suit for Sending Spam Text Messages
RPM DINING: Faces "Ramirez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SAN FRANCISCO: Management Conference in Class Suit on July 16

SANDISK CORP: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
SEADRILL LTD: May 29 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Gaab" Suit in S.D. California
SOTHEBY'S: Defending Appeal in "Graham" Class Action
SOTHEBY'S: Court Entered Stipulation in St. Louis Action

STANFORD INT'L: US Government Not Liable to Ponzi Scheme Victims
STERICYCLE INC: MDL Action in Early Stages of Discovery
STERICYCLE INC: Discovery Is Proceeding in Junk Fax Lawsuit
STRATEGIC DELIVERY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
SUNEDISON INC: Updates on Jerry Jones Case

TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Restraints Trade of ACTOS Meds, Suit Says
TCP INTERNATIONAL: Scott+Scott Files Class Action Over 2014 IPO
TELOMERASE ACTIVATION: Class Cert. Bid Denial in Egan Case Upheld
TEXAS BRINE: Sinkhole Settlement Recipients Raise Concerns
TOLEDO, OH: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over 2006 Flooding

TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Faces "Panes" Suit Over False Fin'l Reports
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Faces White Suit Over Deceptive Fin'l Reports
TYSON FOODS: Class Action Obtains Preliminary Court Approval
UNITED STATES: Court Tosses Suit vs. Social Security Admin.
VAN'S INT'L: "Frei" Suit Transferred From Colorado to California

VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Faces "Cummins" Class Action Lawsuit
WAFFLE & WOLF: "Tococh" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Owens" Suit Over Product Misbranding
YOUKU TUDOU: May 26 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set

* Accounting Fraud Class Actions Up 47% in 2014, Cornerstone Says
* Investors Warned About Publicly Traded Marijuana Companies
* Labor Depreciation Class Actions Spread Across US
* Oklahoma Oil Cos. Sued Over Increased Earthquake Activity


                            *********


ACURA PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Dismiss Product Liability Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed a product liability
complaint related to Reglan(R)/Metoclopramide, Acura
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

"Halsey Drug Company, as predecessor to us, has been named along
with numerous other companies as a defendant in cases filed in
three separate state coordinated litigations pending in
Pennsylvania, New Jersey and California, respectively captioned In
re: Reglan(R)/Metoclopramide Mass Tort Litigation, Philadelphia
County Court of Common Pleas, January Term, 2010, No. 01997; In
re: Reglan Litigation, Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division,
Atlantic County, Case No. 289, Master Docket No. ATL-L-3865-10;
and Reglan/Metoclopramide Cases, Superior Court of California, San
Francisco County, Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No.
4631, Superior Court No.: CJC-10-004631," the Company said.

In addition, Acura was served with a similar complaint by two
individual plaintiffs in Nebraska federal court, which plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed in December 2014.

"In this product liability litigation against numerous
pharmaceutical product manufacturers and distributors, including
us, plaintiffs claim injuries from their use of the Reglan brand
of metoclopramide and generic metoclopramide."

"In the Pennsylvania action, over 200 lawsuits have been filed
against us and Halsey Drug Company alleging that plaintiffs
developed neurological disorders as a result of their use of the
Reglan brand and/or generic metoclopramide. In the New Jersey
action, plaintiffs filed approximately 150 lawsuits against us,
but served less than 50 individual lawsuits upon us. In the
California action, there are 89 pending cases against us, with
more than 445 individual plaintiffs.

"In the lawsuits filed to date, plaintiffs have not confirmed they
ingested any of the generic metoclopramide manufactured by us. We
discontinued manufacture and distribution of generic
metoclopramide more than 18 years ago.  In addition, we believe
the June 23, 2011 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in PLIVA v.
Mensing ("Mensing decision") holding that state tort law failure
to warn claims against generic drug companies are pre-empted by
the 1984 Hatch-Waxman Act Amendments and federal drug regulations
will assist us in favorably resolving these cases. We have
consistently maintained the position that these claims are without
merit and intend to vigorously defend these actions.

"In New Jersey, Generic Defendants, including Acura, filed
dispositive motions based on the Mensing decision, which the Court
granted with a limited exception. As of September 2012, the New
Jersey trial court dismissed Acura with prejudice.  In
Pennsylvania, and California, Generic Defendants, including Acura,
also filed dispositive motions based on the Mensing decision.

"In Pennsylvania, on November 18, 2011, the trial court denied
Generic Defendants' dispositive preemption motions. On appeal, the
Pennsylvania Superior Court held in a July 29, 2013 decision that
federal preemption applied, but that Mensing did not completely
bar all claims and refused to dismiss these cases. On September
17, 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declined to hear a
further appeal. On December 16, 2014, Generic Defendants filed a
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari requesting that the United
States Supreme Court agree to hear a further appeal on the grounds
that federal preemption under Mensing should completely bar all of
these claims. All trial court proceedings have been stayed pending
resolution of this lengthy appeal process.  To the extent that
plaintiffs intend to pursue their claims in the future, if the
appeal is denied, Acura nonetheless remains optimistic that most,
if not all, of these Philadelphia cases will eventually be
dismissed against us based upon the favorable aspects of the
Superior Court's narrow preemption ruling and lack of product
identification, although there can be no assurance in this regard.
Legal fees related to this matter are currently covered by our
insurance carrier.

"In California, the trial court entered a May 25, 2012 Order
denying Generic Defendants' dispositive preemption motions. The
Generic Defendants' appeals from this order were denied by the
California appellate courts.  Therefore, subject to further
developments, plaintiffs may be permitted to proceed with these
lawsuits including state law claims based on (1) failing to
communicate warnings to physicians through "Dear Doctor" letters;
and (2) failure to update labeling to adopt brand labeling
changes. The California trial court also has acknowledged the
preemptive effect of Mensing so that any claim "that would render
the generic defendants in violation of federal law if they are
found responsible under a state law cause of action, would not be
permissible." To date, however, none of these plaintiffs have
confirmed they ingested any of the generic metoclopramide
manufactured by us.  Therefore, we expect the number of plaintiffs
with possible claims to be reduced voluntarily or by motion
practice.  Action will be taken in an effort to dismiss Acura from
these cases, although there can be no assurance in this regard.
Legal fees related to this matter are currently covered by our
insurance carrier.

"As any potential loss is neither probable nor estimable, we have
not accrued for any potential loss related to these matters as of
December 31, 2014 and we are presently unable to determine if any
potential loss would be covered by our insurance carrier."


AGRESERVES INC: Deadline to File Responsive Pleading on May 10
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston signed on April 23, 2015, a
stipulation and order, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/ZJNMwnfrom Leagle.com, extending the time for
defendant to file responsive pleading in the case captioned LEONEL
ROJAS RIVERA, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AGRESERVES, INC. dba SOUTH
VALLEY FARMS; and SOUTH VALLEY ALMOND COMPANY, LLC; and DOES 1
through 10, Defendants, NO. 1:15-CV-00613-AWI-JLT, (E.D. Cal.).

The Defendants' deadline to file responsive pleadings was last
April 27, 2015.

On April 21, 2015, the parties met and conferred in compliance
with Eastern District of California Local Rule 144 regarding
Defendants' intent to file respective Motions to Dismiss the
Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12.  During the meet and
confer process, the parties could not agree on whether Plaintiff
would file a first amended complaint in federal court. To allow
Plaintiff ample time to decide whether to file an amended
complaint in the Eastern District of California in lieu of
Defendants filing their respective Motions to Dismiss the
Complaint, Defendants must have an extension to respond to the
initial Complaint while Plaintiff weighs his options.

Pursuant to the court-approved stipulation:

(1) Defendant AgReserves's date to answer or otherwise respond to
the initial Complaint on file is extended to May 10, 2015.

(2) Defendant Almond Company's date to answer or otherwise respond
to the initial Complaint on file is extended to May 10, 2015.

(3) If Plaintiff so chooses, Plaintiff may file an amended
complaint on or before May 1, 2015. If the amended complaint is
filed, Defendants' time to answer or otherwise respond to the
amended complaint will be in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a)(3) -- namely, 14 days after service of the amended
complaint.

Richard D. Marca -- Richard.Marca@greshamsavage.com -- Jamie Wrage
-- Jamie.Wrage@greshamsavage.com -- Jeff T. Olsen --
Jeff.Olsen@greshamsavage.com -- GRESHAM SAVAGE NOLAN & TILDEN, A
Professional Corporation, Riverside, CA, Attorneys for Defendants,
AGRESERVES, INC. dba SOUTH VALLEY FARMS and SOUTH VALLEY ALMOND
COMPANY, LLC

KARASIK LAW FIRM, Gregory N. Karasik -- greg@karasiklawfirm.com --
Attorneys for Plaintiff, LEONEL ROJAS RIVERA, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated


AIR CANADA: Passengers Mull Class Action Over Crash Landing Trauma
------------------------------------------------------------------
CTV News reports that passengers of the crashed Air Canada Flight
AC624 are in the process of filing a class-action lawsuit, a Nova
Scotia law firm confirmed.

MacGillivray Injury and Insurance Law say they have consulted with
passengers on a lawsuit which would likely target Air Canada, the
Halifax Stanfield International Airport, and Nav Canada, which
owns and operates Canada's civil air navigation system.  The
lawsuit would be filed with the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia,
seeking damages for any physical and psychological trauma suffered
during the crash landing.

Vancouver aviation lawyer J.J. Camp told CTV News Channel on
March 31 that airlines generally don't have a cap on the amount a
passenger can receive in a liability claim, adding there are
potential psychological damages that can arise after the crash
that could be taken into consideration.

"That's not the end of the story," Mr. Camp said.  "The post-
traumatic stress symptoms and the PTSD fallout can be much, much
more severe than the physical injuries."

Mr. Camp said he believes the passengers have a case, adding
lawyers will need to determine the condition of the airplane and
the state of the pilots at the time of the crash, as well as the
effectiveness of the airline, Nav Canada and the airport.

"(Nav Canada) has an obligation to keep the pilots fully informed
of on-ground weather conditions that prevailed at the time of the
crash landing," he said.

"Looking at the Halifax International Airport Authority, and
whether they were up to snuff with their instruments that guided
the aircraft in, and whether they had proper lighting, and whether
they were performing according to proper standards."

Following the crash, which occurred early Sunday morning,
passengers evacuated the plane and huddled on the dark, snowy
Halifax airport runway.  Passenger Steve Dijkema, who began
capturing the scene on video moments after climbing out of the
plane, told CTV News nearly half the passengers he saw were
"bleeding from their face, some profusely."

Mr. Dijkema's footage shows some passengers shouting, while others
are seen shivering, wearing little more than a T-shirt.  One man
presses an airplane pillow against his bleeding face.  Mr.
Dijkema's wife Sarah remembers passengers trying to get a safe
distance from the crashed aircraft.

"Once we got off, I remember Steve just grabbing me by the shirt
and like hauling me away, like run as far away from the plane as
you can get," she said.

Passengers grouped together for warmth as they waited for help to
arrive.  Mr. Dijkema himself was stuck standing on the tarmac
without shoes.  After emergency crews arrived, he was led off the
cold ground into a firetruck, where he continued to film.

"I was left in the firetruck for a while by myself while they were
trying to figure out what to do," he said.

While emergency crews arrived immediately, passengers were still
forced to wait up to 50 minutes on the runway before being
shuttled away.

Halifax International Airport Authority spokesperson Peter Spurway
said the process for such an operation was more complicated than
it appeared.

"The airfield is a secure area, people driving vehicles there need
proper certification, proper licensing to do that," Mr. Spurway
said. "And it's (12:45 a.m.) on a Sunday morning, so there are
circumstances that combine to prevent a quicker response to that."

Mr. Spurway called the emergency crew response "textbook," but
said the airport's process for picking up passengers in emergency
situations could be improved.

"We will work hard to develop protocols to shorten that time
should such a situation, such an extraordinary circumstance,
present itself again," Spurway told CTV News.  "I'm confident that
we can do better than that."

According to CBC News, meanwhile, lawyer Ray Wagner of Wagners
Serious Injury Law Firm confirmed on March 30 that he was also
meeting with a passenger from the flight on March 31 and he has
been in contact with a second passenger.


ALBEMARLE CORPORATION: Class Action Parties Executed Stipulation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Albemarle Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the parties to the class
action have executed a final Stipulation of Settlement and Release
("Stipulation"), which will be submitted to the Superior Court of
New Jersey for approval.

On January 12, 2015, the Company completed the previously
announced acquisition (the "Merger") of Rockwood Holdings, Inc.
("Rockwood") pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the
"Merger Agreement").

On July 22, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Chancery Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer
County ("Superior Court of New Jersey") relating to the Merger. On
July 24, 2014, an additional putative class action complaint was
filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey relating to the Merger.
Both suits named the same plaintiff but were filed by different
law firms.

On August 1, 2014 and August 12, 2014, three additional putative
class action complaints were filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware ("Delaware Chancery Court") relating to the
Merger. The lawsuits filed in New Jersey, Thwaites v. Rockwood
Holdings Inc., et al. ("Thwaites I"), Thwaites v. Rockwood
Holdings, Inc., et al. ("Thwaites II"), and the lawsuits filed in
Delaware, Rudman Partners, L.P. v. Rockwood Holdings, Inc., et
al., Riley v. Rockwood Holdings, Inc., et al., and North Miami
Beach Police Officers & Firefighters' Retirement Plan v. Rockwood
Holdings, Inc., et al., each named Rockwood, its former directors,
and Albemarle as defendants. Thwaites II and the cases filed in
Delaware also named Albemarle Holdings Corporation, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Albemarle, as a defendant. The lawsuits, which
contain substantially similar allegations, included allegations
that Rockwood's former board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the Merger by failing to ensure that
Rockwood shareholders would receive the maximum value for their
shares, failing to conduct an appropriate sale process and putting
their own interests ahead of those of Rockwood shareholders.
Rockwood and Albemarle are alleged to have aided and abetted the
alleged fiduciary breaches. The lawsuits sought a variety of
equitable relief, including enjoining the former Rockwood board of
directors from proceeding with the proposed Merger unless they
acted in accordance with their fiduciary duties to maximize
shareholder value and rescission of the Merger to the extent
implemented, in addition to damages arising from the defendants'
alleged breaches and attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 12, 2014, the plaintiff in Thwaites I filed a Notice of
Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice as to all defendants. On
August 27, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery ordered the three
Delaware cases consolidated and appointed co-lead counsel. The
court also ordered that no response to the complaints would be due
until after plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint. On
September 19, 2014, the plaintiff in Thwaites II filed an amended
complaint which included allegations that the registration
statement failed to disclose material information.

Plaintiffs in Thwaites II and in the Delaware consolidated action
subsequently coordinated their litigation efforts, and the
Delaware consolidated action was stayed pending the outcome of the
Thwaites II litigation. In Thwaites II, the parties (including the
Delaware plaintiffs) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on
November 6, 2014, provisionally settling all claims in the pending
actions and declaring the parties' intent to submit a settlement
agreement for the court's approval within 90 days. On December 2,
2014, the parties submitted a joint stipulation to extend the
defendants' time to respond to the amended complaint in Thwaites
II until February 4, 2015. The parties executed a final
Stipulation of Settlement and Release ("Stipulation") on February
4, 2015, which will be submitted to the Superior Court of New
Jersey for approval. In addition to extinguishing the current
claims, the Stipulation contemplates broad releases of any and all
actual and potential claims, whether known or unknown, by any
member of the putative shareholder class against the defendants
relating to or arising out of the Merger, the Merger Agreement, or
the registration statement. Upon final approval of the settlement
by the Superior Court of New Jersey, plaintiffs in the Delaware
actions will move to dismiss the pending consolidated action with
prejudice, thereby terminating the litigation.


ALTERRA EXCESS: June 26 Status Conference in World Fuel Suit Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller, Jr., issued on April 22, 2015,
an order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/1oInqefrom
Leagle.com, granting a motion to stay discovery and setting status
conference in World Fuel Services Corporation; World Fuel
Services, Inc.; World Fuel Services Canada, Inc.; Western
Petroleum Company; Dakota Petroleum Transport Solutions, LLC;
Petroleum Transport Solutions, LLC; DPTS Marketing, LLC; Dakota
Plains Marketing, LLC; and Dakota Plains Transloading, LLC;
Plaintiffs, v. Alterra Excess & Surplus Insurance Company n/k/a
Markel Corporation, Defendant, CASE NO. 4:14-CV-054, (D. N.D.).

Plaintiffs have been sued in a number of actions arising out of
the tragic derailment of a train operated by the Montreal, Maine
and Atlantic Railway that occurred in Lac-M‚gantic, Quebec. The
derailment resulted in the deaths of more than 40 persons and
caused substantial property and environmental damage. The actions
in which plaintiffs have been named include: (1) a class action in
Quebec alleging various bodily injury and property damages claims;
(2) a number of wrongful death claims filed in Illinois, removed
to the federal district court, and transferred to the federal
district court in Maine; (3) the railroad's bankruptcy proceedings
in the District of Maine and Canada; and (4) a Canadian
administrative environmental proceeding.

Plaintiffs filed their complaint in this action on May 23, 2014,
seeking a declaration of coverage under an excess liability policy
issued by defendant. Although the complaint was filed in 2014,
service was delayed with the consent of defendant for a period of
time. When the parties could not agree to further extensions for
service of the complaint, the complaint was served and defendant
filed its answer and counterclaim on January 13, 2015. Defendant
seeks in its counterclaim a declaration that it owes no obligation
to indemnify plaintiffs and asserts a number of defenses to
coverage.

Plaintiffs have sought a stay of all discovery for a period of 120
days to see if global settlement discussions led by
representatives of the railroad's bankruptcy estates will bear
fruit. Plaintiffs claim that a global resolution may provide
greater clarity with respect to any underlying liabilities of
plaintiffs and potentially narrow the issues to be resolved in
this case, which, in turn, could lessen the amount of discovery
required. Defendant opposed the motion.

After careful review, the Court concluded that plaintiffs have
shown good cause for deferring discovery and defendant has failed
to demonstrate that it will be prejudiced, much less unfairly.
The court also concluded that deferring discovery only on the
"expected or intended" defense is not an answer because the
substantial amount of discovery that would proceed defeats the
purpose for deferring discovery in the first instance.

"[P]laintiffs' motion is granted and all discovery will be stayed
pending further order of the court," ruled Judge Miller. "The
court will hold a telephonic status conference on June 26, 2015 at
10:00 a.m. CDT to discuss: (1) the status of the underlying
litigation; (2) whether the stay of discovery should be lifted or
continued; (3) the setting of new pretrial deadlines and a new
trial date, if necessary; and (4) whether an early ADR effort
would be beneficial.


AMERICAN CAPITAL: Court Issued Show Cause Order
-----------------------------------------------
LYLE BREHM, on behalf of Willard F. Brehm, Gladys M. Brehm, the
Willard F. Brehm Revocable Trust and the Gladys M. Brehm Revocable
Trust, REX WELDON, on behalf of Nancy Weldon, Robert Clark Weldon
and the Robert Clark Weldon and Nancy Weldon Trust, JILL
SCHUNEMAN, on behalf of herself and the Jill Schuneman Living
Trust, and DAVID BUCKLEY, on behalf of himself, the Robert L.
McKissick Irrevocable Trust and the Brenda L. Buckley Revocable
Trust, collectively on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. REBECCA ENGLE, BRIAN SCHUSTER,
ENGLE & SCHUSTER FINANCIAL, INC.; AMERICAN CAPITAL CORPORATION;
ROYAL PALM CAPITAL GROUP, INC.; GERALD PARKER, LIANA DOBARGANES
HARRINGTON, in her capacity as sole heir or putative personal
representative of the Estate of Patrick Harrington, deceased;
Defendants, NO. 8:07CV254, (D. Neb.) is before the court after a
review of the court file and pursuant to NECivR 41.2, which states
in pertinent part: "At any time, a case not being prosecuted with
reasonable diligence may be dismissed for lack of prosecution."
Further, on July 29, 2014, the court entered an order requiring
the plaintiffs to file a status report or a motion for final
approval of class action settlement within 180 days of the order.
The plaintiffs have not filed any documents since the order.

In an order entered April 10, 2015, a copy of which is available
at http://bit.ly/1zsVHCmfrom Leagle.com, Magistrate Judge Thomas
D. Thalken ordered that the plaintiffs had until the close of
business on April 24, 2015, to comply with the court's July 29,
2014, Order or show cause why this case should not be dismissed as
against the defendants for failure to prosecute.


AMERICAN REALTY: Court Tosses Bid to Remand Wunsch Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge J. Frederick Motz entered a memorandum on April 14,
2015, in the case GARY WUNSCH v. AMERICAN REALTY CAPITAL
PROPERTIES, ET AL., CIVIL NO. JFM-14-4007, (D. Md.) denying
plaintiff's motion to remand and transferring this action to the
Southern District of New York, where it can be consolidated with
"the seven suits that are presently pending there."

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

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

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

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


ANTHEM LIFE: Removes "Smilow" Class Suit to E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Y. Michael Smilow, and Jessica Katz,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Anthem Life & Disability Insurance Company, Empire HealthChoice
Assurance, Inc., and Empire Health Choice HMO, Inc., Case No.
503895/2015, was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, County of Kings, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York. The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:15-cv-02380-SLT-SMG to the proceeding.

The Complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. The Plaintiffs
assert that the Defendants failed to control access to the
consumers' Personal Health Information and Personally Identifiable
Information in a manner consistent with the HIPAA regulations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Harry Weiss, Esq.
      Joshua M. Rubin, 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

The Defendant is represented by:

      Lisa Fried, Esq.
      HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
      875 Third Avenue
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 918-3000
      Facsimile: (212) 918-3100
      E-mail: lisa.fried@hoganlovells.com


AOL INC: May 29 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss "Derby" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Ronald M. Whyte signed on April 16, 2015, a
stipulation and order extending the briefing schedule on
defendant's motion to dismiss and to reschedule motion hearing in
the case captioned NICHOLAS DERBY, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. AOL, INC.,
a Delaware corporation, Defendant, CIVIL CASE NO. 5:15-CV-00452-
RMW, (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff filed his Class Action Complaint on February 2,
2015.  On April 3, 2015, the Defendant filed its Motion to
Dismiss.  The hearing on Defendant's Motion is currently set for
May 8, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. Plaintiff's opposition to the Motion is
currently due on April 17, 2015, and Defendant's reply brief is
currently due on April 24, 2015.

The Parties agreed that, in light of the amount of time necessary
to thoroughly address the issues presented in Defendant's Motion,
and in light of the schedules of counsel, good cause exists to
continue the hearing on Defendant's Motion and good cause exists
for an extension of time for Plaintiff to properly respond to
Defendant's Motion and for Defendant to properly reply.

Consequently, the parties agreed to: (i) extend the deadline for
Plaintiff to file his response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss by
21 days to May 8, 2015; (ii) extend the deadline for Defendant to
file its reply in support of the Motion to Dismiss by seven days
to May 22, 2015; and (iii) rescheduling the hearing on Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss to May 29, 2015, or any date thereafter in
accordance with the Court's calendar.

A copy of the court-approved stipulation is available at
http://is.gd/3Q0E0Pfrom Leagle.com.

Simon J. Frankel -- sfrankel@cov.com -- COVINGTON & BURLING LLP,
San Francisco, CA. Eric C. Bosset -- ebosset@cov.com -- (admitted
pro hac vice) COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Washington, D.C. Attorneys
for Defendant AOL, INC.

David C. Parisi -- dcparisi@parisihavens.com -- Suzanne Havens
Beckman -- shavens@parisihavens.com -- PARISI & HAVENS LLP, Santa
Monica, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff NICHOLAS DERBY.


ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS: No Ruling Yet on Case Dismissal Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the District Court
has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss a class action.

The Company said, "On October 10, 2013, October 17, 2013, December
3, 2013 and December 6, 2013, purported shareholder class actions,
styled Jimmy Wang v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., James L.
Burch v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Greater Pennsylvania
Carpenters' Pension Fund v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al,
and Nabil Elmachtoub v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al,
respectively, were filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts (the District Court), naming us and
certain of our officers as defendants. The lawsuits allege that we
made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact
regarding clinical and safety data for Iclusig in our public
disclosures during the period from December 12, 2011 through
October 8, 2013 or October 17, 2013, in violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On January 9,
2014, the District Court consolidated the actions and appointed
lead plaintiffs. On February 18, 2014, the lead plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint as contemplated by the order of the District
Court. The amended complaint extends the class period for the
Securities Exchange Act claims through October 30, 2013. In
addition, plaintiffs allege that certain of our officers, present
and former directors and certain underwriters made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact regarding
clinical and safety data for Iclusig in connection with our
January 24, 2013 follow-on public offering of common stock in
violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages on
behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses,
including attorney's fees. On April 14, 2014, the defendants and
the underwriters filed separate motions to dismiss the amended
complaint. On June 10, 2014, the District Court heard oral
argument on the motion to dismiss. The court has not yet ruled on
the motion."


AT&T SERVICES: Faces "Meador" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Meador and Christine Tokarski, on behalf of themselves and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AT&T Services, Inc.,
Case No. 8:15-cv-01005 (M.D. Fla., April 27, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

AT&T Services is an American multinational telecommunications
corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Donna V. Smith, Esq.
      WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
      Suite 300, 1110 N Florida Ave
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 224-0431
      Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
      E-mail: dsmith@wfclaw.com


AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Removes "Voronov" Suit to D. New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Voronov, et al. v. Avalonbay
Communities, Inc., Case No. BER-L-001045-15, was removed from the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County-Law Division, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02740-JLL-JAD to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts fraud-related claims.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Aaron Louis Peskin, Esq.
          FERRARA LAW GROUP, P.C.
          224 W. State St.
          Trenton, NJ 08608
          Telephone: (609) 375-2192
          Facsimile: (609) 228-5451
          E-mail: aaron@ferraralawgp.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ronald A. Giller, Esq.
          GORDON & REES LLP
          18 Columbia Turnpike, Suite 220
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Telephone: (973) 549-2500
          Facsimile: (973) 377-1911
          E-mail: rgiller@gordonrees.com


BAYER: Class Seeks Riceland Gross Recovery in Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Andrew D. Carpenter, Esq. -- acarpenter@shb.com -- of Shook Hardy
& Bacon LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that in a very
meta turn, Riceland Foods, Inc. found itself on the receiving end
of a class action composed of class action firms and plaintiffs
from the GMO Rice MDL overseen by Judge Catherine D. Perry of the
USDC of the Eastern District of Missouri.  Riceland had been a co-
defendant along with defendant Bayer in that litigation and had
then cross-claimed Bayer and settled for $92 million.  Following
the District Court's orders awarding common benefit expenses and
fees, three law firms that had incurred legal fees and expenses
while performing class benefit work sought to certify a class
representing not only other law firms but also clients who had
paid for common benefit services and expenses.  The proposed class
brought claims of unjust enrichment and quantum meruit against
Riceland on the basis that Riceland had benefitted from the
putative class's common benefit work in obtaining a judgment
against Bayer, and sought ten per-cent of Riceland's gross
recovery against Bayer.

The District Court certified a 23(b) class in a March 19
Memorandum and Order.  Before delving into the 23(b) requirements,
the District Court performed a limited choice of law analysis to
determine which state's laws would govern the unjust enrichment
and quantum meruit claims of the multi-state putative class.
Using Missouri's "Significant Relationship Test," the District
Court found that Missouri had the most significant relationship to
the unjust enrichment claim and the quantum meruit claim,
primarily because the claims arose from an MDL venued in Missouri.
Other important contacts, such as where a benefit was conferred or
received, or the location of the parties, were dismissed out of
hand as either of "little significance" or "too taxing" to
determine individually.  This begs the question of why such
contacts would be disregarded rather than considered as creating
individualized choice of law issues potentially compromising the
superiority or manageability of a (b)(3) class, as well as the
wisdom of basing choice of law considerations of happenstance as
variable as the predilection of the JPML.

The District Court also concluded that common questions of law and
fact predominated over individual ones, and rejected Riceland's
assertion that each plaintiff must first identify each attorney
that created each piece of work product utilized by Riceland in
its cross-claim against Bayer and then identify which particular
class member paid for each piece of work in order to determine at
whose expense Riceland was unjustly enriched or which party
conferred a benefit on Riceland.  The District Court specifically
distinguished the facts of this case from prior cases denying the
certification of such claims on the basis that because the
putative class members undertook to "pool their resources" in the
MDL as part of a "collective effort," they need not show which
client or counsel paid for specific items, only that the class
jointly incurred expenses to provide a benefit on Riceland.  This
is an interesting distinction, and it will be instructive to see
if the members of the class agree that they all jointly agreed to
pool their efforts regardless of which client or counsel undertook
those efforts when it comes time to divide the common benefit pie
amongst them.


BLOOMINGDALES INC: Faces "Ashkenazi" Class Suit in New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Ashkenazi, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Bloomingdales, Inc. v. John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:15-
cv-02705-PGS-DEA (D.N.J., April 16, 2015) is brought under the
federal Communications Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BROOKSAMERICA MORTGAGE: Final Judgment Entered in "Peel" Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court having granted final approval of the class action
settlement between Class Representatives Timothy R. Peel and
Cheryl G. Peel ("Class Representatives"), on behalf of themselves
and a class of persons, and Defendants Washington Mutual Mortgage
Securities Corp. ("WMMSC") and WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp.
("WAAC"), District Judge Josephine L. Staton issued on April 21,
2015, a judgment, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/OzomgPfrom Leagle.com, holding, among other things,
that:

1. All claims of the Class Representatives and the Settlement
Class, as defined in the Settlement Agreement and as certified in
this Court's Order Preliminarily Approving Amended Class Action
Settlement, Approving Class Notice Plan and Setting Final Approval
Hearing dated November 13, 2014, against WMMSC and WAAC are
dismissed with prejudice;

2. All members of the Settlement Class, as defined in the
Settlement Agreement and as certified in the Court's Preliminary
Approval Order, (except those who are Successful Opt-Outs), and
Gonzalo and Guadalupe Parra, and Wilfredo A. Golez are permanently
enjoined and barred from commencing or prosecuting any action
asserting any matter within the scope of the Release set forth in
the Amended Settlement Agreement, either directly,
representatively, derivatively, or in any other capacity, whether
by a complaint, counterclaim, defense, or otherwise, in any local,
state, or federal court, or in any agency or other authority or
forum wherever located.

The case is TIMOTHY R. PEEL AND CHERYL G. PEEL, RUSS BEBOUT,
MICHAEL SANFORD AND MARILYN SANFORD and DESIREE MCILRATH on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
BROOKSAMERICA MORTGAGE CORPORATION, a California Corporation;
WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP., formerly sued as DOE
1; WAMU ASSET ACCEPTANCE CORP., formerly sued as DOE 2;
RESIDENTIAL FUNDING COMPANY, LLC, formerly sued as DOE 3; and DOES
4 through 200 inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. SACV 11-00079-JLS
(RNBX), (C.D. Cal.).


C&R DOWNHOLE: Faces "Blackford" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler Blackford, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. C&R Downhole Drilling, LLC, Case No. 2:15-
cv-00556-NBF (W.D. Pa., April 27, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in
excess of 40 in a single work week.

C&R Downhole Drilling, LLC is an oilfield service company offering
a wide ride range of services to the oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
      GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
      3634 California Ave
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Telephone: (412) 766-1455
      Facsimile: (412) 766-0300
      E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com


CALIFORNIA: "Dupree" Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Anthony W. Ishii issued an order on April 9,
2015, a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1bFK9jXfrom
Leagle.com, denying an application for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, and dismissing without prejudice the action captioned
RICHARD JOSE DUPREE, JR. et al., Plaintiffs, v. PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 1:15-CV-00512-
AWI-SAB(PC), (E.D. Cal.).

Mr. Dupree is a state prisoner proceeding pro se.  The Plaintiff
stated that this is a class action on behalf of himself and
Luciano Galindo Lopez.  The Plaintiff's complaint alleges
violations based upon his prosecution, trial, and conviction. The
Plaintiff also alleges that he is being falsely imprisoned and
harmed by satellites that are being utilized to steal his
intellectual property.

According to Judge Ishii, a plaintiff, who is not an attorney, may
not represent anyone but himself in court. The Plaintiff also
alleges no facts supporting a finding that he is under imminent
danger of serious physical injury. Hence, he is ineligible to
proceed in forma pauperis in this action, Judge Ishii concluded.

The action is dismissed, without prejudice, to refiling with the
submission of the $400.00 filing fee in full.

The Court directed the Clerk of the Court to close this action.

Richard Jose Dupree, Jr, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Luciano Galindo Lopez, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


CAPITAL ONE: Settles Car Repo Class Action for $4.4 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Y. Peter Kang and Lance Duroni, writing for Law360, report that
Capital One NA has agreed to pay $4.4 million to resolve a
proposed class action lawsuit alleging that borrowers who had
vehicles repossessed and sold at auction were given deficient
notices regarding the sales in violation of Maryland law,
according to documents filed in Maryland federal court on
March 30.

Under terms of the proposed settlement, Capital One will waive all
outstanding balances owed by class members and will dismiss any
pending lawsuits based on those outstanding balances.  In
addition, Capital One agreed to tell the major credit reporting
agencies the borrowers paid their debts in full.

"The proposed classwide settlement in this case is believed by
class counsel to be a favorable and reasonable settlement based
upon the claims and upon the defenses available to Capital One,"
the plaintiff wrote in a brief supporting preliminary approval of
the settlement.  "Named plaintiff's counsel respectfully submits
that the settlement is favorable for the plaintiff class and most
certainly in 'the range of possible approval.'"

The deal will resolve a lawsuit brought by Dorothy Gales in 2013
on behalf of about 7,400 customers alleging that Capital One
violated Maryland's Credit Grantor Closed End Credit Provisions,
or CLEC, when it told borrowers that their cars would be sold at
public auction when they were actually sold at private sales.

Capital One also failed to provide details regarding winning bids
and failed to provide a statement about the condition of the
vehicle at the time of the sale, Gales alleges.

"Capital One's use of deficient form presale and post-sale notices
which omit material information required by Maryland law makes
this case particularly suitable for resolution through a class
action lawsuit," according to the first amended complaint.

Last year, Capital One settled a proposed class action brought on
behalf of around 2,200 Maryland car buyers whose financing
included so-called "GAP agreements" that purportedly required
Capital One to scratch the remaining loan balance in the event the
car was totaled and insurance failed to cover the amount
outstanding on the loan.

In that case, Capital One agreed to pay $3 million to resolve the
proposed class action over "phony" debt cancellation agreements
included in car loans that allegedly ran afoul of Maryland's CLEC
law.

Ms. Gales is represented by Cory L. Zajdel of Z Law LLC.

Capital One is represented by Jessica Erin Morrison, Bryan A.
Fratkin and Phillip C. Chang of McGuireWoods LLP.

The case is Dorothy Gales v. Capital One NA, case number 8:13-cv-
01624, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.


CARBONITE INC: Fails to Backup Consumers Computer Data, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sherry Orson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Carbonite, Inc., and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, and
each of them, Case No. 2:15-cv-03097 (C.D. Cal., April 24, 2015),
arises out of the Defendant's wrongful business practice of
failing to disclose to consumers that its computer backup services
and software fails to back up their consumers' computer data
thereby resulting in consumers' loss of computer data and payment
for nonfunctional services.

Carbonite, Inc. is in the business of providing online computer
backup service for documents, electronic mail, music, photos and
the like to more than 1.5 million customers, including 50,000
small business Customers nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John P. Kristensen, Esq.
      David L. Weisberg, Esq.
      KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP
      12304 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 100
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone: (310) 507-7924
      Facsimile: (310) 507-7906
      E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com
              david@kristensenlaw.com


CENTURY ALUMINUM: Retiree Medical Benefits Case Trial Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Century Aluminum Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the case in chief
related to Ravenswood Retiree Medical Benefits changes is
currently proceeding in the trial court.

In November 2009, Century Aluminum of West Virginia, Inc. ("CAWV")
filed a class action complaint for declaratory judgment against
the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing,
Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union
("USWA"), the USWA's local and certain CAWV retirees, individually
and as class representatives, seeking a declaration of CAWV's
rights to modify/terminate retiree medical benefits.  Later in
November 2009, the USWA and representatives of a retiree class
filed a separate suit against CAWV, Century Aluminum Company,
Century Aluminum Master Welfare Benefit Plan, and various John
Does with respect to the foregoing.  These actions, entitled
Dewhurst, et al. v. Century Aluminum Co., et al., and Century
Aluminum of West Virginia, Inc. v. United Steel, Paper and
Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and
Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC, et al., have
been consolidated and venue has been set in the District Court for
the Southern District of West Virginia.

In January 2010, the USWA filed a motion for preliminary
injunction to prevent the Company from implementing any
modifications to the retiree medical benefits while these lawsuits
are pending, which was dismissed by the trial court, and affirmed
upon appeal. CAWV has filed a motion for summary judgment of these
actions. The case in chief is currently proceeding in the trial
court, subject to the court's ruling on the motion for summary
judgment.


CHAPEI LLC: "Wang" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Weigang Wang and Hailong Yu, on behalf of themselves and all other
persons similarly situated v. Chapei LLC d/b/a Wok Empire,
Cha Lee Lo, and John Does #1-10, Case No. 3:15-cv-02950-MAS-DEA
(D.N.J., April 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Chapei LLC is a New Jersey limited liability company with a
principal place of business at 400 Foothill Road, Bridgewater, New
Jersey. Chapei owns and operates a group of Asian restaurants
located in various ShopRite supermarkets in New Jersey, including
those located at 1 South Davenport St., Somerville, New Jersey,
318 Lloyd Road, Matawan, New Jersey; and Route 35 & Harmony Road,
Middletown, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Stein, Esq.
      SAMUEL & STEIN
      38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
      New York, NY 10001
      Telephone: (212) 563-9884
      E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: To Defend Against "Masters" Action
------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the
Company intends to vigorously defend the action, Masters v. The
Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al.

On November 26, 2014, a former restaurant hourly employee filed a
class action lawsuit in the San Diego County Superior Court
alleging that the Company violated the California Labor Code and
California Business and Professions Code, by failing to pay
overtime, to permit required rest breaks, and to provide accurate
wage statements, among other claims. (Masters v. The Cheesecake
Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al; Case No 37-2014-00040278).  The
lawsuit seeks unspecified amounts of fees, penalties and other
monetary payments on behalf of the plaintiff and other purported
class members.

"We intend to vigorously defend this action.  Based on the current
status of this matter, we have not reserved for any potential
future payments," the Company said.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: To Defend Against "Garcia" Action
-----------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the
Company intends to vigorously defend the action, Garcia v. v. The
Cheesecake Factory Incorporated, et al.

On January 14, 2015, a former restaurant hourly employee filed a
class action lawsuit in the San Diego County Superior Court
alleging that the Company violated the California Labor Code and
California Business and Professions Code, by failing to permit
required meal and rest breaks, and to provide accurate wage
statements, among other claims. (Garcia v. The Cheesecake Factory
Incorporated, et al; Case No 37-2015-00001408).  The lawsuit seeks
unspecified amounts of fees, penalties and other monetary payments
on behalf of the plaintiff and other purported class members.

"We intend to vigorously defend this action.  Based on the current
status of this matter, we have not reserved for any potential
future payments," the Company said.


CLEAN HARBORS: Fairness Hearing Anticipated to Occur in May 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------
Clean Harbors, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the settlement in the
Fee Class Action must be approved by the court in a fairness
hearing, which is anticipated to occur in May 2015.

In October 2010, two customers filed a complaint, individually and
on behalf of all similarly situated customers in the State of
Alabama, alleging that Safety-Kleen improperly assessed fuel
surcharges and extended area service fees. In 2012, similar
lawsuits were filed by the same law firm in California and
Missouri. On January 15, 2015, the Company reached a tentative
settlement of the pending class action lawsuits, which were
broadened to include similar claims on behalf of customers in
Florida, West Virginia and Arkansas. The settlement must be
approved by the court in a fairness hearing, which is anticipated
to occur in May 2015. The exact settlement cost is not yet
determinable, but it is not expected to be material.


CLEAN HARBORS: 17 Product Liability Claims Settled or Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Clean Harbors, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that from January 1, 2014 to
December 31, 2014, 17 product liability claims were settled or
dismissed.

Safety-Kleen is named as a defendant in various lawsuits that are
currently pending in various courts and jurisdictions throughout
the United States, including approximately 59 proceedings
(excluding cases which have been settled but not formally
dismissed) as of December 31, 2014, wherein persons claim personal
injury resulting from the use of Safety-Kleen's parts cleaning
equipment or cleaning products. These proceedings typically
involve allegations that the solvent used in Safety-Kleen's parts
cleaning equipment contains contaminants and/or that Safety-
Kleen's recycling process does not effectively remove the
contaminants that become entrained in the solvent during their
use. In addition, certain claimants assert that Safety-Kleen
failed to warn adequately the product user of potential risks,
including an historic failure to warn that solvent contains trace
amounts of toxic or hazardous substances such as benzene. Safety-
Kleen maintains insurance that it believes will provide coverage
for these claims (over amounts accrued for self-insured retentions
and deductibles in certain limited cases), except for punitive
damages to the extent not insurable under state law or excluded
from insurance coverage. Safety-Kleen believes that these claims
lack merit and has historically vigorously defended, and intends
to continue to vigorously defend, itself and the safety of its
products against all of these claims. Such matters are subject to
many uncertainties and outcomes are not predictable with
assurance. Consequently, Safety-Kleen is unable to ascertain the
ultimate aggregate amount of monetary liability or financial
impact with respect to these matters as of December 31, 2014.

From January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014, 17 product liability
claims were settled or dismissed. Due to the nature of these
claims and the related insurance, the Company did not incur any
expense as Safety-Kleen's insurance provided coverage in full for
all such claims. Safety-Kleen may be named in similar, additional
lawsuits in the future, including claims for which insurance
coverage may not be available.


CRST VAN: 9th Cir. Reverses Dist. Court Ruling in "Cole" Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
In JAMES COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CRST VAN EXPEDITED, INC., an
Iowa Corporation, FKA CRST, Inc., Defendant-Appellee, NO. 13-
55507, James Cole appealed a district court's grant of judgment on
the pleadings, dismissing his class action claim against CRST Van
Expedited, Inc. alleging violations of California's meal and rest
break laws, Cal. Lab. Code Sections 226.7, 512, and Cal. Code
Regs. tit. 8, Section 11090.

Cole argued that the district court erred in dismissing his meal
and rest break claim on the basis that the Federal Aviation
Administration Authorization Act of 1994 preempts California's
meal and rest break laws.

"We recently held in Dilts v. Penske Logistics, LLC, 769 F.3d 637,
647-50 (9th Cir. 2014), that California's meal and rest break laws
are not "related to" prices, routes or services and therefore are
not preempted by the FAAAA. In light of our holding in Dilts, the
district court erred by granting CSRT's motion for judgment on the
pleadings on the basis of FAAAA preemption. Accordingly, we
reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with Dilts,"
ruled the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, in an
opinion entered April 14, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/riw5icfrom Leagle.com.


D'ARCY BUICK: Faces "Salcedo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julio Salcedo, on behalf of himself, and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown v. D'arcy Buick GMC, Inc.,
a/k/a D'arcy Olds VW GMC Trucks, Case No. 1:15-cv-03677 (N.D.
Ill., April 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate an automotive dealership in the
Chicago.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Meghan A. Vanleuwen, Esq.
      John William Billhorn, Esq.
      BILLHORN LAW FIRM
      53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 840
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Telephone: (312) 853-1450
      E-mail: mvanleuwen@billhornlaw.com
              jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com


DIRECTV: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Marketing Tactics
------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Nolan, writing for The Connecticut Law Tribune, reports
that litigation is popping up across the country against DirecTV.
Earlier in March, the Federal Trade Commission got in on the
action, lodging a complaint for deceptive marketing tactics.

Then in late March, a lawsuit seeking class action status and $5
million in damages was filed in federal court in Connecticut
accusing DirecTV of misleading billing.

"By unfairly and deceptively hiding the true price of DirecTV's
goods and services to Connecticut residents, DirecTV has taken
steps to unfairly trick Connecticut customers into selecting
DirecTV services so that they become trapped into a deceptive and
onerous long-term contract," said the complaint filed by John
Horvack Jr. -- jhorvack@carmodylaw.com -- David Hardy --
dhardy@carmodylaw.com -- and John Cordani Jr. --
jlcordani@carmodylaw.com -- of Carmody Torrance Sandak & Hennessey
in New Haven.

The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Connecticut was
brought by Jonathan Ferrie, a Prospect resident who signed up for
DirecTV in July 2013.

Mr. Ferrie was quoted a price that he believed would be his
monthly bill.  He was even provided a sample bill that states:
"This amount reflects the total package and programming costs you
can expect to see on your first month's bill statement."  However,
when he got his bill, it was higher than he anticipated.

According to the complaint, Mr. Ferrie was forced to pay an
additional tax he did not expect that Connecticut charges DirecTV
for doing business in the state.  The line item on his bill was
called "a gross earnings tax reimbursement."  The tax was
typically around $5 or 5 percent of his monthly bill.

The lawsuit said Mr. Ferrie was "tricked into believing that the
surcharge was an additional tax imposed by the state of
Connecticut."  The item is listed under the heading "taxes" and
right underneath the item "sales tax."

"In so doing, DirecTV intends to cause Connecticut customers to
wrongly believe that the State of Connecticut has imposed the
surcharge upon them (like the sales tax), when in fact DirecTV has
imposed the surcharge upon them," reads the complaint.

The lawsuit seeks class action status on behalf of all Connecticut
residents who purchased satellite television from DirecTV since
March 19, 2012, to the present.  It is expected to cover thousands
of Connecticut consumers who have done business with DirecTV.

The lawsuit also points out that DirecTV does not reveal the tax
to consumers until after they have entered long-term contracts and
invested substantial time and effort into the installation of
DirecTV's equipment.  The lawsuit said breaking the contract
requires "onerous cancellation charges."

The cancellation charges are part of the allegations made by the
FTC in its recently filed complaint.  The FTC claims that DirecTV
deceptively advertises its discounted 12-month programming package
because it fails to clearly disclose that the package requires a
two-year contract.

Additionally, the FTC says the nation's largest satellite provider
does not clearly disclose that the cost of the package will
increase by up to $45 more per month in the second year, and that
early cancellation fees of up to $480 apply if consumers cancel
the package before the end of the two-year period.

DirecTV also fails to disclose that its offer of free premium
channels for three months is in fact a continuity plan that
requires consumers to proactively cancel to avoid automatic
charges on their credit or debit cards after the three months are
up, the FTC alleges.

"DirecTV misled consumers about the cost of its satellite
television services and cancellation fees," said FTC Chairwoman
Edith Ramirez in a statement.  "DirecTV sought to lock customers
into longer and more expensive contracts and premium packages that
were not adequately disclosed.  It's a bedrock principle that the
key terms of an offer to a consumer must be clear and conspicuous,
not hidden in fine print."

In filing its complaint, the FTC is seeking a court order that
permanently bars DirecTV from engaging in the allegedly illegal
conduct, as well as a monetary judgment that could be used to
provide refunds to affected consumers.

Based in El Segundo, California, with more than 20 million
subscribers across the country, DirecTV typically requires
subscribers to agree to a 24-month contract that includes a
programming package, satellite dish, other necessary equipment,
and installation and support services.

A spokesman for the company did not respond to repeated requests
for comment.  An attorney has not yet filed an appearance in the
Connecticut lawsuit on behalf of DirecTV.

DirecTV was also in the when the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to
review an appellate court ruling out of California.  The
plaintiffs, who allege that DirecTV's cancellation fees violated
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, were allowed to proceed
with the case despite clauses in their contracts with DirecTV that
required them to arbitrate disputes individually.

DirecTV's petition asserted that the California decision
contradicted the Supreme Court's 2011 ruling in AT&T Mobility v.
Concepcion.  In Concepcion, the justices held that AT&T could
enforce mandatory arbitration clauses in its customer agreements,
concluding that the Federal Arbitration Act pre-empted a
California law cracking down on class action waivers.

Anthony Minchella, of Minchella & Associates in Middlebury,
specializes in defending unfair trade practices cases.
Mr. Minchella said he would not be surprised to see DirecTV make a
similar argument in Connecticut as it will make to the U.S.
Supreme Court "if its contract has an arbitration clause and a
class action waiver, which I believe in the Second Circuit, are
enforceable."

Mr. Minchella believes the Connecticut plaintiffs do make an
interesting case.

"I think the plaintiff's complaint has merit on its face, and
would seem to be fit for a class action," said Mr. Minchella.
"However, DirecTV may argue that there is nothing wrong with
passing along a cost of doing business to a customer and simply
not calling it the right name does not harm consumers.  I'd like
to know whether or not the lead plaintiff seriously would not have
signed up with DirecTV had the additional tax been disclosed as a
tax not on him, but on DirecTV."


DR WELL: Faces "Kirk" Suit in Pa. Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Kirk, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. DR Well Site Services, LLC, Case No. 1:15-
cv-00116-BR (W.D. Pa., April 24, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in
excess of 40 in a single work week.

DR Well Site Services, LLC is a Pennsylvania company offering a
wide ride range of services to the oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
      GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
      3634 California Ave
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Telephone: (412) 766-1455
      Facsimile: (412) 766-0300
      E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com


EASY ACCESS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Blotzer' Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Casey Blotzer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Easy Access Capital LLC, Case No. 8:15-cv-00664 (C.D.
Cal., April 27, 2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendant's
practice of making unsolicited calls using an automatic telephone
dialing system.

Easy Access Capital LLC is in the business of offering consumers
and business owners' business loans.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EOG RESOURCES: Faces "Boudreaux" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin J. Boudreaux, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. EOG Resources, Inc. f/k/a Enron Oil And Gas Company,
Case No. 4:15-cv-01099 (S.D. Tex., April 27, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

EOG Resources, Inc. is a Delaware oil and gas company with
principal place of business located at 1111 Bagby Street, Sky
Lobby 2, Houston, Texas 77002.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Allen Ryan Vaught, Esq.
      BARON BUDD PC
      3102 Oak Lawn Ave, Ste 1100
      Dallas, TX 75214
      Telephone: (214) 521-3605
      E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com


FEDERAL FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Hussin" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tammy Hussin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Federal Financial Group, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-00923 -
MMA-NLS (S.D. Cal., April 27, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's
practice of making telemarketing calls using an automatic
telephone dialing system.

Federal Financial Group, LLC is in the business of offering
financial planning services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FOOD MANAGEMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Termination Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Roseann Barnett, Gary Bowles, Onesimo Cantoran, Sabino Gonzales,
Adriana Macias, Marcos Miranda, Angel Ortiz, Maria Ramirez,
Violeta Ramirez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Food Management
Partners, Inc. and Catalina Restaurant Group, Inc., and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-03140 (C.D. Cal., April
27, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid 60 days' compensation and
penalties that the Defendants failed to pay in connection with the
recent closing of over 75 Coco's Bakery and Carrows restaurants.

Food Management Partners, Inc. is a Texas corporation with its
principle place of business in Hollywood Park, Texas. Food
recently acquired Catalina Restaurant Group.

Catalina Restaurant Group, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that
operates and manages Coco's Bakery and Carrows restaurant chains.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aashish Y. Desai, Esq.
      DESAI LAW FIRM, P.C.
      3200 Bristol Street, Ste. 650
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (949) 614-5830
      Facsimile: (949) 271-4190
      E-mail: aashish@desai-law.com

         - and -

       Angie M. Kwik, Esq.
       LAW OFFICES OF ANGIE M. KWIK
       9891 Irvine Center Drive, #200
       Irvine, CA 92618
       Telephone: (949) 398-8218
       Facsimile: (949) 333-8000
       E-mail: angie@amkwiklaw.com


FORCEFIELD ENERGY: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Rosales and Nirav Shah, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly Situtated v. Forcefield Energy Inc., David Natan,
Jason Williams, and Richard St-Julien, Case No. 1:15-cv-03279
(S.D.N.Y., April 27, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false
and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.

Forcefield Energy Inc. is a designer, distributor and licensee of
alternative energy products and solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Peter Guglielmo, Esq.
      Thomas Livezey Laughlin, Esq.
      Joseph V. Halloran, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      The Chrysler Building
      405 Lexington A venue, 40th Floor
      New York, NY 10174
      Telephone: (212) 223-6444
      Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
      E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
              tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
              jhalloran@scott-scott.com

         - and -

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


FORD MOTOR: 3rd Cir. Upholds Dist. Court Ruling in Bayshore Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit affirmed a
district court judgment in BAYSHORE FORD TRUCK SALES INC., a
Delaware corporation; MOTOR CITY TRUCKS, INC., a Delaware
corporation; COLONY FORD TRUCK CENTER, INC., a Rhode Island
corporation, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY Allegheny Ford Truck Sales; All-
State Truck Sales; Atlantic Ford Truck; Bedford Ford; Bi-State
Ford; Ford Truck Sales; Bondy's Ford; Bridgehaven Ford Truck
Sales; Broadway Ford Truck Sales; Carl Beasley Ford; Central Ford
Truck Sales; Chesapeake Ford Sales Truck; Country Ford Trucks;
Cresent Ford Trucks; Crossroads Ford; Dave Syverson Ford; Don
Sanderson Ford; Don's Truck Sales; Elliot-Wilson Capitol Truck;
Freedom Ford Truck Center; Friend Motor Sales; Gabrielli Ford;
Gateway Motors; Gator Ford; Golden State Ford; Graham Ford; Harr
Ford; Heintzelman's Trucks; Hubco Ford Truck Sales; Interstate
Ford Truck; Kayser Ford; Keystone Ford Truck Sales; L&S Truck
Sales; La Crosse Truck Center; Lee Smith Ford; Leif Johnson Ford
Truck City; LJL Truck Center; Manderbach Ford; Merle Kelly Ford;
Mid Tenn Ford Truck Sales; Miramar Ford Truck Sales; Mission
Valley Ford Truck Sales; Mountain State Ford Truck Sales; Murray's
Ford; Orange Motor Co.; Palmetto Ford Truck Sales; Peck Road Ford
Truck Sales; Piedmont Ford Trucks; Prestige Ford; River City Ford
Truck Sales; Salinas Valley Ford Sales; Southland Truck Center;
Sunbury Motor Company; Treadwell Ford; Tri-Point Ford Truck Sales;
Tri-State Ford Trucks; Truck Center; V&H; Valley Ford Truck Sales;
Wabash Ford Truck Sales; Wolverine Ford Trucks Sales, Appellants,
NO. 14-1070.

Seventy-four dealers sued Ford in federal court for breach of a
Heavy Truck Sales and Service Agreement (SSA). Because each dealer
had effectively the same SSA with Ford Motor Company, the District
Court certified the dealers as a class for determination of Ford's
liability for alleged breach of the SSA. The court held Ford
breached the SSA and entered partial summary judgment for the
seventy-four class member dealers on the issue of liability.
Finding plaintiffs' expert's damages model produced intra-class
conflicts, the court later decertified the class as to damages.
The liability class, however, remained intact at all times. In a
single bellwether trial, a jury then awarded eleven members of the
liability class -- the three class representatives and eight other
class members (the "bellwether" dealers) -- $29 million in
damages. Expecting the bellwether appeal would facilitate the
resolution of the remaining sixty-three dealers' claims, the court
subsequently entered final judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 54(b) in favor of the eleven bellwether dealers.
Ford appealed the denial of its motion for summary judgment on the
issue of liability and the jury's damages award.

In a nonprecedential opinion in Bayshore Ford Truck Sales, Inc. v.
Ford Motor Co., 540 F. App'x 113 (3d Cir. 2013) (Bayshore I), the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held Ford had
not breached the SSA; reversed the District Court's grant of
summary judgment on the issue of liability; and remanded with
instructions to enter judgment on liability in Ford's favor. On
remand, the District Court entered a judgment holding Ford not
liable with regard to the entire class. The remaining sixty-three
members of the liability class then moved for relief from judgment
under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60. The court denied
their motion on the ground that all class members were bound by
Bayshore I's resolution of liability in favor of Ford. On appeal,
the sixty-three dealers contend they are not bound by Bayshore I
because the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction over them in that
case.

"The sixty-three dealers asked the Third Circuit to determine that
Ford breached the SSA even though Bayshore I resolved this exact
same issue on the exact same facts against the three named class
representatives and the eight other dealers. But a core principle
of issue preclusion is that "later courts should honor the first
actual decision of a matter that has been actually litigated," 18
Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller et al., Federal Practice and
Procedure Sec. 4416 (2d ed. Sept. 2014). The sixty-three dealers
were adequately represented by fellow class members in Bayshore I
for our determination of the very same issue of liability, and we
are bound by that decision," ruled the Third Circuit in its April
14, 2015 opinion, a copy of which is available at
http://bit.ly/1GyxOGxfrom Leagle.com.

Counsel for Appellants:

     Eric L. Chase, Esq.
     BRESSLER, AMERY & ROSS
     325 Columbia Turnpike, Suite 301
     Florham Park, NJ 07932

          - and -

     Steven M. Klepper, Esq.
     James P. Ulwick, Esq.
     KRAMON & GRAHAM
     One South Street, Suite 2600
     Commerce Place
     Baltimore, MD 21202

Counsel for Appellees:

     Paul J. Halasz, Esq.
     Dennis LaFiura, Esq.
     DAY PITNEY
     One Jefferson Road
     Parsippany, NJ 07054

          - and -

     Sean M. Marotta, Esq.
     Dominic F. Perella, Esq.
     HOGAN LOVELLS US
     555 Thirteenth Street
     N.W. Columbia Square
     Washington, DC 20004


FORT COLLINS, CO: Reveals Panhandling Settlement Details
--------------------------------------------------------
Coloradoan reports that the City of Fort Collins as part of an
out-of-court settlement will pay more than $80,000 to the Colorado
arm of the American Civil Liberties Union and will no longer
enforce rules against people who engage in passive panhandling.

Details of the settlement were announced on March 30, just days
after it was revealed the two parties were working to stave off a
court battle challenging the legality of certain parts of the
city's panhandling enforcement.  As part of the agreement, the
city will pay the ACLU $82,500 in legal fees, $100 to each of the
three homeless people seeking damages, and it will be required to
give the civil liberties union written notice before City Council
considers adoption of any new panhandling ordinances.

"The City is pleased to be able to settle this case in a prudent
manner at this time," said City Attorney Carrie Daggett in a
written statement.  "The City will continue to address
panhandling-related issues as needed in the future in order to
best serve all of Fort Collins' residents and businesses."

Under the agreement, "passive panhandling" refers to people who
sit or stand with a sign seeking donations "without addressing
their solicitations to any specific person, other than in response
to an inquiry by that person."

The ACLU of Colorado on Feb. 10 sued the city on behalf of four
homeless individuals on the grounds that police were infringing
upon free-speech rights by warning individuals about solicitation
or citing people for some forms of panhandling.  The 29-page
document also included allegations from Greenpeace, Inc., that
Fort Collins police have started targeting the environmental
group's canvassing procedures in Old Town.


GALILEE MEMORIAL: Lawyers Get Access to Cemetery Grounds
--------------------------------------------------------
Clay Bailey, writing for Commercial Appeal, reports that attorneys
representing parties in the Galilee Memorial Gardens case were
given access to the troubled cemetery on March 30 -- the first
time many of them had been inside the grounds since a court order
locked the gates 14 months ago.

David Kustoff, the former U.S. attorney who is the local
representative of the state in matters regarding Galilee, said the
state "agreed upon an inspection for the lawyers representing the
different parties" in the civil litigation regarding the cemetery
on Ellis Road in Bartlett.  Jemar Lambert, owner of Galilee,
pleaded guilty earlier in March to charges in connection with the
operation of the cemetery.  Mr. Lambert received a 10-year
suspended sentence in the case and was placed on probation for
those 10 years, avoiding jail time.

The sunny afternoon on March 30 provided a view of the grounds,
previously only visible from the locked gates on Ellis.  There was
the washed out area where Mr. Lambert reportedly had removed the
pavement from a road in hopes of gaining more burial spaces.
There were dozens of monuments near the small office in the
southwest corner of the property.  Nearby, a tent used over
gravesites during ceremonies was bent, near collapsing.

The ground over one grave where the person died more than 10 years
ago was humped as if it was a recent burial.  Another from 2013
was sunken below ground level.  Many spots sunken in the shape of
what seemed to be a grave had no tombstone or marking.

"Not to be too dramatic about it, but it's like walking through a
thousand people's nightmares," said Jason Yasinsky, an attorney
with Nahon, Saharovich and Trotz, which represents about 100
families in a class-action lawsuit in Circuit Court.  He later
added: "It's amazing.  It doesn't look like a cemetery.  Some
spots look more like a construction zone."

In some places, headstones adjacent to each other face opposite
directions.  Others seem to be tossed haphazardly in a spot with
no connection to a grid of burial plots.  Marble and brass
headstones are cracked in the middle -- a result, some say, from a
backhoe rolling over the marker.

Allegations regarding operation of the cemetery included employees
using a backhoe wheel to roll over caskets, crushing them while
pushing them deeper into the ground to make room for coffins to be
stacked on top of each other.  There also were a number of claims
that poor record-keeping and operation of the cemetery led to lost
bodies and reports of employees opening previously buried caskets
to see if they could identify the remains of a lost corpse.

Howard Manis, an attorney for another of the class action lawsuits
against Galilee and funeral homes who worked with the cemetery,
said the March 30 access provided a firsthand look for the lawyers
involved to see not only the look of the grounds, but a glimpse
into what may have happened there.

"I think it is a good example to all of the lawyers, the magnitude
of the issues that went on out here," Mr. Manis said.  "I hope
that it sends a message loud and clear that the funeral directors
should have known something.

"I don't think there's any question as to the practices out here.
You look at the conditions of a lot of the headstones, the way
things are laid out, there's too many red flags."

Al McLean, an attorney representing defendant Christian Funeral
Directors, was among those walking the grounds gathering
information about Galilee.  He noted the graves that were beyond
the property line -- burials on adjacent land owned by a trust
that led to the charge of theft over $60,000 against Lambert --
and the condition of the grounds.  He said it looked like "an
older cemetery."

Mr. McLean disagreed that the funeral homes should be a party to
the class action lawsuits.

"We think it is the cemetery's obligation to properly inter the
loved ones, and that the funeral home's obligations specifically
exclude the interment part of the process," Mr. McLean said.
"That seems to be what's at issue: Whether their loved ones were
interred properly, and whether the graves were maintained after
they were interred."

Several said they weren't necessarily surprised by the condition,
but still taken aback by what happened to the grounds.

"There's no rhyme or reason to any of the places, dates, times,
anything," Mr. Manis said.

"Seeing it now, it's a wasteland.  It really is," Mr. Yasinsky
said.


GENERAL CABLE: Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion Due
---------------------------------------------------------------
General Cable Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that defendants' opposition
to the plaintiff's motion to alter or amend a judgment and for
leave to file the proposed amended complaint, is due on March 17,
2015.

The Company said, "Two civil complaints were filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
October 21, 2013 and December 4, 2013 by named plaintiffs, on
behalf of purported classes of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired our publicly traded securities, against us, Gregory
Kenny, our President and Chief Executive Officer, and Brian
Robinson, our Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer. On our motion, the complaints were transferred to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky,
the actions were consolidated, and a consolidated complaint was
filed in that Court on May 20, 2014 by City of Livonia Employees
Retirement System, as lead plaintiff on behalf of a purported
class of all persons or entities who purchased our securities
between November 3, 2010 and October 14, 2013 (the "City of
Livonia Complaint"). The City of Livonia Complaint alleged claims
under the antifraud and controlling person liability provisions of
the Exchange Act, alleging generally, among other assertions, that
we employed inadequate internal financial reporting controls that
resulted in, among other things, improper revenue recognition,
understated cost of sales, overstated operating income, net income
and earnings per share, and the failure to detect inventory lost
through theft; that we issued materially false financial results
that had to be restated on two occasions; and that statements of
Messrs. Kenny and Robinson that they had tested and found
effective our internal controls over financial reporting and
disclosure were false. The City of Livonia Complaint alleged that
as a result of the foregoing, our stock price was artificially
inflated and the plaintiffs suffered damages in connection with
their purchase of our stock. The City of Livonia Complaint seeked
damages in an unspecified amount; reasonable costs and expenses,
including counsel and experts fees; and such equitable injunctive
or other relief as the Court deems just and proper."

"On July 18, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the City
of Livonia Complaint based on plaintiff's failure to state a claim
upon which relief could be granted. After oral argument on January
7, 2015, the Court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice on
January 27, 2015. On February 24, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion
to alter or amend the January 27, 2015 judgment and for leave to
file the proposed amended complaint. Under the Local Rules,
defendants' opposition to the motion is due on March 17, 2015."


GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Faces Suit Alleging Zofran-Related Injuries
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kim Duong v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-11627 (D.
Mass., April 17, 2015) is brought by the Plaintiff relating to
alleged injuries arising from her prenatal use of the prescription
drug ondansetron, sold by the Defendant under the name Zofran(R).

Zofran is a powerful drug developed by GSK to treat only those
patients, who were afflicted with the most severe nausea, which
includes nausea associated with cancer treatment like radiation or
chemotherapy.

Ms. Duong, a resident of Norfolk County, Massachusetts, alleges
that the use of Zofran by women, who are pregnant, increases the
risk of birth defects.

GSK is a Delaware limited liability company headquartered in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  GSK's sole member is GlaxoSmithKline
Holdings, Inc., which is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Wilmington, Delaware.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald A. Dardeno, Esq.
          Alexander D. Wall, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF FRANK N. DARDENO, LLP
          424 Broadway
          Somerville, MA 02145
          Telephone: (617) 666-2600
          Facsimile: (617) 666-2794
          E-mail: rdardeno@dardeno.com
                  awall@dardeno.com

               - and -

          Robert J. Bonsignore, Esq.
          Richard Kirchner, Esq.
          Kevin Barry, Esq.
          BONSIGNORE TRIAL LAWYERS, PLLC
          23 Forest Street
          Medford, MA 02155
          Telephone: (781) 350-0000
          E-mail: rbonsignore@classactions.us


GOOGLE INC: Court Wants Documents in Privacy Suit to be Sealed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Paul s. Grewal issued an order in IN RE GOOGLE,
INC. PRIVACY POLICY LITIGATION, CASE NO. 5:12-CV-01382-PSG, (N.D.
Cal.) on an administrative motion to seal several documents.

According to Mag. Judge Grewal's April 9, 2015 Order, a copy of
which is available at http://bit.ly/1JU8ptXfrom Leagle.com:

Document to be Sealed     Result       Reason/Explanation to Seal
---------------------     ------       --------------------------
Exhibit B to the           DENIED       No declaration in
Declaration of James J.                 support filed with the
Sabella                                 court as required by Civ.
                                        L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

Exhibit D to the           DENIED       No declaration in
Declaration of James J.                 support filed with the
Sabella                                 court as required by Civ.
                                        L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

Exhibit J to the           SEALED       Narrowly tailored to
Declaration of James J.                 personal information.
Sabella

Exhibit K to the           SEALED       Narrowly tailored to
Declaration of James J.                 personal information.
Sabella

Exhibit L to the           SEALED       Narrowly tailored to
Declaration of James J.                 personal information.
Sabella

Opposition to              DENIED       No declaration in
Defendant Google, Inc.'s                support filed with the
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'           court as required by
Consolidated Third                      Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1)
Amended Class Action Complaint
or in the Alternative for
Summary Judgment


HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Not Yet Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HealthSouth Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a hearing on the
Company's motion to dismiss a class action has not yet been set.

"We have been named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed March 28,
2003 by several individual stockholders in the Circuit Court of
Jefferson County, Alabama, captioned Nichols v. HealthSouth
Corp.," the Company said. "The plaintiffs allege that we, some of
our former officers, and our former investment bank engaged in a
scheme to overstate and misrepresent our earnings and financial
position. The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive
damages. This case was consolidated with the Tucker case for
discovery and other pretrial purposes and was stayed in the
Circuit Court on August 8, 2005. The plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on November 9, 2010 to which we responded with a motion
to dismiss filed on December 22, 2010."

"During a hearing on February 24, 2012, plaintiffs' counsel
indicated his intent to dismiss certain claims against us.
Instead, on March 9, 2012, the plaintiffs amended their complaint
to include additional securities fraud claims against HealthSouth
and add several former officers to the lawsuit. On September 12,
2012, the plaintiffs further amended their complaint to request
certification as a class action. One of those named officers has
repeatedly attempted to remove the case to federal district court,
most recently on December 11, 2012. We filed our latest motion to
remand the case back to state court on January 10, 2013.

"On September 27, 2013, the federal court remanded the case back
to state court. On November 25, 2014, the plaintiffs filed another
amended complaint to assert new allegations relating to the time
period of 1997 to 2002. On December 10, 2014, we filed a motion to
dismiss on the grounds the plaintiffs lack standing because their
claims are derivative in nature, and the claims are time-barred by
the statute of limitations. A hearing on our motion has not yet
been set."


HOMEWARD RESIDENTIAL: Kings' First Amended Class Action Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Brian S. Miller entered an order on April 13,
2015, in the case captioned SAVOIL KING and DOROTHY KING for
themselves and all Arkansas residents similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. HOMEWARD RESIDENTIAL, INC., et al., Defendants,
CASE NO. 3:14CV00183 BSM, (E.D. Ark.).

Judge Miller held that based on the record and the representations
made during the conference of March 13, 2015, plaintiffs Savoil
and Dorothy King's first amended class action complaint is
dismissed and the Kings' motions to certify class and to appoint
interim counsel are denied. The Kings' motion for relief is also
denied.

"The Kings acknowledge that their mortgage contract, which is
assigned to a third-party REMIC trust, created Homeward's right to
purchase force-placed insurance . . . Although there is no
contract between the Kings and Homeward, the uncontested mortgage
contract between the Kings and the REMIC trust precludes the
Kings' unjust enrichment claims against all defendants . . .
Therefore, there is nothing to be tried in this court and
dismissal is appropriate," ruled Judge Miller.

A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/DpXz6Ffrom
Leagle.com.


INTERTHINX INC: Obtains Final Judgment on "Shaw" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
A final judgment was entered on April 22, 2015, in CELESTE SHAW;
JUDITH VERHEECKE; SHABNAM SHEILA DEHDASHTIAN; MEDHAT GAREEB; AND
DEJAN NAGL on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. INTERTHINX, INC., a California
Corporation; and VERISK ANALYTICS, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-CV-01229-REB-NYW, (D. Col.), a
copy of which is available at http://is.gd/3vRy1Mfrom Leagle.com.

The court held that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate to the Class Members and meets the prerequisites for a
class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and a collective action
under 29 U.S.C. Section 216.

The Settlement Classes are finally certified for settlement
purposes only.

Class Counsel are awarded attorney fees in the requested amount of
$2,000,000 and litigation expenses in the requested amount of
$62,388.58.

Named Plaintiffs are awarded incentive payments in the requested
amount of $10,000 each and Deposed Opt-in Plaintiffs are awarded
incentive payments in the requested amount of $2,500.

The Court directed Defendants to deposit the settlement funds into
an interest-bearing account, through the settlement administrator,
within 15 business days.

Interested parties have 30 days to file an appeal of the Order,
and if no appeal is timely filed, the settlement administrator
will transmit class counsel's attorney fees and costs to each
class counsel in the amount agreed on by them as soon as
practicable, but no later than 14 calendar days, after the period
to timely appeal expires.

That final judgment is entered with respect to all released claims
of the class members. That without affecting the finality of this
judgment in any way, the Court retains jurisdiction over (a)
implementation of the Settlement; (b) distribution of the
Settlement proceeds, the incentive awards, and the attorneys' fees
and expenses; and (c) all other proceedings related to the
implementation and interpretation.

On Defendants' payment of the entire Settlement amount to the
Settlement Administrator or within 30 days after the date of the
Order, whichever is earlier, the case will be dismissed with
prejudice with each party to bear its own costs and attorney fees,
except as otherwise provided in the Order.


INTUIT INC: Faces "Knoch" Suit Over Illegal Tax Return Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carol Knoch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Intuit, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-03650 (N.D. Ill., April
24, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide
security measures to protect third party non-customers from filing
fraudulent tax returns.

Intuit, Inc.is an American software company that develops
financial and tax preparation software and related services for
small businesses, accountants and individuals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
      Michael L. Silverman
      SIPRUT PC
      17 N. State Street, Suite 1600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 236-0000
      E-mail: www.siprut.com
              jsiprut@siprut.com
              msilverman@siprut.com


JACO OIL: De Santos Gets OK to File First Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to a stipulation signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L.
Thurston on April 8, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://bit.ly/1bheLb2from Leagle.com, the parties to the case
captioned LINDA DE SANTOS an individual, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JACO OIL COMPANY, a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, CASE NO. 1:14-CV-00738-JLT, (E.D. Cal.) has agreed
that Ms. De Santos may file her first amended complaint. The
Defendants' answer to the first amended complaint will be filed no
later than five court days thereafter.

The Plaintiff filed this class action on May 16, 2014, based on
Defendant JACO's alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1681, et seq. (FCRA), and the Investigative
Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, California Civil Code Section
1786, et seq. (ICRAA).

Ross E. Shanberg -- rshanberg@ssfirm.com -- Shane C. Stafford --
sstafford@ssfirm.com -- Aaron A. Bartz -- abartz@ssfirm.com --
SHANBERG, STAFFORD & BARTZ, LLP, Irvine, California, Attorneys for
Plaintiff LINDA DE SANTOS and all others similarly situated.

KLEIN, DENATALE, GOLDNER, COOPER, ROSENLIEB & KIMBALL LLP David J.
Cooper -- dcooper@kleinlaw.com -- Connie M. Parker --
cparker@kleinlaw.com -- Attorneys for Defendant JACO OIL COMPANY.


JAGUAR ENERGY: Removes "Combs" Suit to Colorado District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Combs v. Jaguar Energy
Services, LLC, Case No. 2015cv30342, was removed from the Adams
County District Court to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado (Denver).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:15-cv-00815 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Erich L. Bethke, Esq.
          SENN VISCIANO CANGES, P.C.
          1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 4500
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: (303) 298-1122
          Facsimile: (303) 296-9101
          E-mail: ebethke@sennlaw.com


JB HUNT: "Wheat" Suit Transferred From N.D. to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Wheat v. J.B. Hunt Transport,
Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-05431, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Western
Division - Los Angeles).  The Central District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02849-MWF-AS to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Sophia Behnia, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          650 California Street, 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 433-1940
          Facsimile: (415) 399-8490
          E-mail: sbehnia@littler.com

               - and -

          Keith A. Jacoby, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107
          Telephone: (310) 553-0308
          Facsimile: (310) 553-5583
          E-mail: kjacoby@littler.com


K&L GATES: Hearing on "Siegal" Suit Settlement Moved to May 21
--------------------------------------------------------------
In an order entered March 23, 2015, a copy of which is available
at http://is.gd/V9aJhXfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Richard
Seeborg continued from March 26, 2015 to May 21, 2015 at 1:30
p.m., the hearing on plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval
of a class action settlement in STEVEN SIEGAL, JAMES RYBICKI,
DAVID GROBLEBE, individually and as General Partner of GROBCO II,
and CHRISTIAN WIPF, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL INDIVIDUALS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. G. THOMAS GAMBLE, LOREN J.
MILLER, HENRY LOWENSTEIN, PAUL W. BATEMAN, EDWARD M. GABRIEL,
JAMES S. MAYER, BEHROOZ SARAFRAZ, LYNN BLYSTONE, ALFRED LOPEZ,
MASTON CUNNINGHAM, JOHN DURBIN, GREG BILLINGER, K&L GATES LLP,
CHARLES A. DALE III, JOSHUA LANE, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100,
INCLUSIVE, Defendants, CASE NO. 13 CIV. 3570-RS, (N.D. Cal.).

Defendants K&L Gates LLP, Charles A. Dale III, and Joshua Lane
filed the motion to continue the hearing.

Joseph P. McMonigle -- jmcmonigle@longlevit.com -- John B.
Sullivan -- jsullivan@longlevit.com -- Kate Kimberlin --
kkimberlin@longlevit.com -- LONG & LEVIT LLP, San Francisco,
California, Attorneys for Defendants K&L GATES LLP, CHARLES DALE,
III and JOSHUA LANE.


KENT'S MEATS: Duckworth to Amend Case to Omit Wage/Hour Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Troy L. Nunley signed on April 9, 2015, an order, a
copy of which is available at http://is.gd/vLcGipfrom Leagle.com,
approving a stipulation between the parties in the case captioned
THERESA DUCKWORTH, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public, and as an "aggrieved employee"
on behalf of other "aggrieved employees" under the Labor Code
Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Plaintiff, v. KENT'S MEATS
& GROCERIES, INC., a California corporation; KENT W. PFRIMMER, an
individual; JERRY WOBBE, an individual; and DOES 1 through 10,
Defendant(s), CASE NO. 2:15-CV-00292-TLN-CMK, (E.D. Cal.).

On March 25, 2015, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
Plaintiff's wage and hour class claims (Claims for Relief 10
through 16). Defendants argued that the Court lacks supplemental
jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state wage and hour claims under 28
U.S.C. Section 1367(a).  The Plaintiff does not concede to
Defendants' arguments for lack of supplemental jurisdiction over
the disputed claims.

Pursuant to the order entered by Judge Nunley:

A. Plaintiff will file an amended complaint that omits Claims for
Relief 10 through 16.

B. Plaintiff will file the dismissed claims in the Superior Court
of California, County of Shasta.

C. Any tolling of Plaintiff's statute of limitations for the
dismissed claims is governed by federal and/or state law.

D. Immediately after filing of this stipulation, Defendants will
withdraw their motion to dismiss Plaintiff's state claims.

David Spivak -- david@spivaklaw.com -- Caroline Tahmassian --
caroline@spivaklaw.com --  THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM, Beverly Hills, CA,
Attorneys for Plaintiff, THERESA DUCKWORTH.

Dennis C. Huie -- dhuie@rjo.com -- Aaron M. Scolari --
ascolari@rjo.com -- ROGERS JOSEPH O'DONNELL, San Francisco,
California, Attorneys for Defendants Kent's Meats & Groceries,
Inc. and Kent W. Pfrimmer.


KEYCORP: Renewed Bid to Dismiss Overdraft Litigation Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
KeyCorp said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014, that the District Court denied KeyBank's Second
Renewed Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss the Complaint in
the Checking Account Overdraft Litigation.

KeyBank was named a defendant in a putative class action seeking
to represent a national class of KeyBank customers allegedly
harmed by KeyBank's overdraft practices. The case was transferred
and consolidated for purposes of pretrial discovery and motion
proceedings to a multidistrict proceeding styled In Re: Checking
Account Overdraft Litigation pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida (the "District Court").
KeyBank filed a notice of appeal in regard to the denial by the
District Court of a motion to compel arbitration.

In August 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit (the "Eleventh Circuit") vacated the District
Court's order denying KeyBank's motion to compel arbitration and
remanded the case for further consideration. In June 2013, KeyBank
filed with the District Court its renewed motion to compel
arbitration and stay or dismiss litigation. The District Court
granted KeyBank's renewed motion to compel arbitration and
dismissed the case. The plaintiff appealed. On June 18, 2014, the
Eleventh Circuit vacated the District Court's order granting
KeyBank's renewed motion to compel arbitration and remanded the
case to the District Court to address the issue of the
enforceability of KeyBank's arbitration provision. On February 3,
2015, the District Court denied KeyBank's Second Renewed Motion to
Compel Arbitration and Dismiss the Complaint. KeyBank expects to
file an appeal.


KING DIGITAL: Faces Securities Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on March 30
disclosed that an investor of King Digital Entertainment plc has
filed a federal securities fraud class action complaint in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Francisco.  The complaint alleges that the company and certain of
its officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of
1933 in connection with the company's March 26, 2014 initial
public stock offering.  King Digital produces and distributes
digital games on multiple platforms internationally.

King Digital Misrepresents Its Business Practices

Since the company's March 27, 2014 IPO, King Digital stock has
dropped from $22.50 per share, to as low as $11.25 per share on
October 14, 2014.  According to the complaint, King Digital knew
and failed to disclose certain material financial information in
the company's registration statement issued in connection with the
IPO.  King Digital's registration statement highlighted the
longevity of its Candy Crush game and the growth in monthly active
users.  In reality, a significant number of individuals paying to
play Candy Crush Saga, which in the fourth quarter of 2013
accounted for 78% of the company's gross bookings and was thus the
primary source of the company's revenue, were no longer playing
the game.  As a result of this decline in use, Candy Crush Saga
became a weight on King Digital that hampered the company's
financial results.

King Digital Shareholders Have Legal Options

Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their
rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Darnell R.
Donahue at (800) 350-6003, DDonahue@robbinsarroyo.com or via the
shareholder information form on the firm's website.

Robbins Arroyo LLP -- http://www.robbinsarroyo.com-- is a
shareholder rights law firm.  The firm represents individual and
institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities
class action lawsuits, and has helped its clients realize more
than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in which
they have invested.


KPMG: Settles PIF Class Action for Up to $30 Million
----------------------------------------------------
Lisa Allen, writing for The Australian, reports that auditing and
accounting giant KPMG has settled a long-running class action for
up to $30 million -- enabling thousands of retiree unitholders,
mainly from NSW and southeast Queensland, to reap 1.5c per unit
down from their $1 purchase price.

Some of the more than 10,000 unitholders in the Premium Income
Fund were involved in the class action against KPMG, which acted
as compliance auditor for the fund that invested heavily in real
estate during the 2006 real estate boom.

PIF is an offshoot of Gold Coast-based finance, property and
tourism group MFS, also known as Octaviar, which collapsed in 2008
owing investors billions of dollars.

Federal Court judge Nye Perram said in the judgment, handed down
late on March 27, that KPMG would probably have won the case if it
had gone to trial, but sources said the class action had put the
accountancy firm under enormous pressure in the past five years
and it wanted to mitigate any further damage.

"The proceedings were most likely to end in a heavy defeat,"
Justice Perram said.

"Far from being not enough, the settlement was as good as it was
going to get."

The unitholders brought the class action against KPMG over its
role in auditing the Premium Income Fund's compliance plan.

The judgment found that PIF entered into a large number of loss-
making transactions which were not in accordance with the
compliance plan.

"The most prominent allegation is that the auditor failed to
detect that a number of the loss-making transactions were with
related parties."

PIF's manager, Wellington Capital managing director Jenny Hutson,
said on March 30 she was happy with the outcome of the long-
running class action.

"We are pleased for the 2008 unitholders that we have achieved
what the judge said was the best possible outcome," said
Ms. Hutson, who took over PIF in October 2008.

Under the terms of the settlement, KPMG agreed to pay $7.871
million in fees to lawyers, including Johnson Winter Slatter and
Carneys.  Litigation funder Bentham IMF will take up to $10
million of the settlement while unitholders will take the balance.


LATSHAW DRILLING: "Meadows 1" Suit Moved From W.D. to N.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Meadows v. Latshaw Drilling
Company LLC, Case No. 7:15-cv-00030, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas).  The
Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-01173-P to
the proceeding.

The case is brought pursuant to the federal Fair Labor Standards
Act and the federal Portal-to-Portal Pay Act for the Defendant's
alleged failure to pay the Plaintiff time and one-half his regular
rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 during each seven-day
workweek.  The Plaintiff alleges that he was not paid all overtime
wages owed because the Defendant failed to include all
remuneration required by the FLSA in calculating his regular rate
of pay.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kevin M. Duddlesten, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          2000 McKinney Avenue, Suite 1400
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 932-6419
          Facsimile: (214) 273-7484
          E-mail: kduddlesten@mcguirewoods.com


LATSHAW DRILLING: "Meadows 2" Suit Moved From W.D. to N.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Meadows v. Latshaw Drilling
Company, LLC, Case No. 7:15-cv-00031, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas).  The
Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-01174-D to
the proceeding.

The action is brought pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act of 1988 for the Defendant's alleged
failure to give the required WARN Act written notice to the
Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals in connection with a
recent mass layoff and plant closing at the Defendant's single
site of employment/operational units within which the Plaintiff
and the Class Members were employed during the relevant time
period.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kevin M. Duddlesten, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          2000 McKinney Avenue, Suite 1400
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 932-6419
          Facsimile: (214) 273-7484
          E-mail: kduddlesten@mcguirewoods.com


LIGHTHOUSE INSURANCE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Alan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lighthouse Insurance Group, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-
00665 (C.D. Cal., April 27, 2015), seeks to put an end on the
Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls using an
automatic telephone dialing system.

Lighthouse Insurance Group, Inc. is in the business of generating
and providing leads for health insurance companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LITESPEED ELECTRIC: Fires Worker Who Cried Race Bias, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Vega v. Litespeed Electric, Inc., and Clinton Brown,
Individually, Case No. 1:15-cv-02993-ER (S.D.N.Y., April 17, 2015)
seeks damages to redress the injuries the Plaintiff allegedly
suffered as a result of being discriminated against on the basis
of his race {Hispanic), and then retaliated against and terminated
by his employer solely for complaining of discrimination.

Litespeed Electric, Inc. is a New York domestic business
corporation headquartered in New York City.  Clinton Brown was an
employee of Litespeed, holding the position of "General Foreman."
He was the Plaintiff's supervisor.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alex Umansky, Esq.
          PHILLIPS & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          45 Broadway, Suite 620
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 248-7431
          E-mail: aumansky@tpglaws.com


LONGUEUIL, CANADA: Group of Residents Opposes Tainted-Water Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
CJAD News reports that a group of Longueuil residents are mounting
opposition to a class-action lawsuit filed against the city of
Longueuil over the tainted-water crisis last January -- suggesting
any money residents get would be taken away in municipal taxes
down the road.

Yves Theriault is spearheading the opposition against the $29
million suit, starting with a web site and Facebook page called
Recours Imbuvable (roughly translated: Undrinkable Lawsuit), and a
legal letter demanding to be heard when the case reaches the
courtroom in Longueuil on April 15.

Mr. Theriault has also lined up a lawyer who has agreed to work
pro bono on the case.

"We're not talking about a tsunami or an earthquake. I haven't
heard of anyone being hospitalized because of that problem,"
Mr. Theriault says.  "Sure, there was an inconvenience.  Sure, the
city mismanaged the thing, especially on a communication level.
But it's not worth a class action, and it's like suing ourselves."

On Jan. 14, thousands of litres of diesel fuel spilled into the
St. Lawrence River from a water treatment plant on Ile Charron,
sparking an order for residents of four communities not to consume
the water.  It took nearly two days for the order to be lifted.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Chavez" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
-----------------------------------------------------------
Valerie Chavez, Anthony Chavez, Jewelia Chavez, by and through her
Guardian ad Litem, Valerie Chavez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 4:15-cv-01887-KAW (N.D. Cal., April 27, 2015), alleges
that the Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese
Flooring that fails to comply with relevant and applicable
formaldehyde standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses
excessive levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known
human carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program
and the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dario de Ghetaldi, Esq.
      Amanda L. Riddle, Esq.
      Clare Capaccioli Velasquez, Esq.
      COREY, LUZAICH, DE GHETALDI, NASTARI&RIDDLE LLP
      700 El Camino Real
      P.O. Box 669
      Millbrae, CA 94030-0669
      Telephone: (650) 871-5666
      Facsimile: (650) 871-4144
      E-mail: deg@coreylaw.com
              alr@coreylaw.com
              ccv@coreylaw.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Removes "Loup" Class Suit to E.D. Louisiana
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Loup, et al. v. Lumber
Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No. 742719, Division "M," was
removed from the 24th Judicial District Court for the Parish of
Jefferson, State of Louisiana, to the U. S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans).  The Eastern District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-01207-EEF-MBN to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiffs allege that the putative class consists of all
persons in Louisiana, who purchased flooring from Lumber
Liquidators that was unfit for its intended or ordinary use.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jennifer N. Willis, Esq.
          WILLIS & BUCKLEY, APC
          3723 Canal Street
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 488-6301
          Facsimile: (504) 488-6302
          E-mail: jenniferwblaw@bellsouth.net

               - and -

          Gary Joseph Gambel, Esq.
          MURPHY, ROGERS, SLOSS & GAMBEL
          One Shell Square
          701 Poydras St., Suite 400
          New Orleans, LA 70139
          Telephone: (504) 523-0400
          E-mail: ggambel@mrsnola.com

Defendant Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is represented by:

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

Defendant Boucher Construction and Renovation, L.L.C. is
represented by:

          Leonard A. Davis, Esq.
          HERMAN, HERMAN & KATZ, LLC
          820 O'Keefe Avenue
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Telephone: (504) 581-4892
          E-mail: ldavis@hhklawfirm.com


MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Faces Class Suit Over Game Packages
----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel B. Kline, writing for The Motley Fool, reports that cable
companies have come under fire in recent years for forcing
customers to buy packages of channels rather than allowing them to
pick just the ones they want on an a la carte basis.  This method,
consumers argue, forces them to pay for things they don't want and
drives bills up.

Sports leagues haven't come under the same scrutiny, yet they're
doing the same thing with digital and out-of-market game packages.
These offers, which include DirecTV's NFL Sunday Ticket, Major
League Baseball's Extra Innings, and the National Hockey League's
Center Ice, all sell fans the right to watch pretty much all out-
of-market games.

What these packages don't offer is the ability to pick only the
team or teams you care about and pay a lower price for access to
just their games.  That could change, as a federal judge in
Manhattan is considering whether to allow a lawsuit brought by a
number of fans against MLB and the NHL to receive class action
status.  Depending on how the suit is resolved, it could determine
whether all sports leagues (not just baseball and hockey) are
allowed to force fans to buy all the games, rather than just the
ones they want.

What's being argued

The fans bringing the lawsuit want MLB and the NHL to stop using
forced bundling.  They want people to be allowed to buy packages
for individual teams at a lower price than what is currently
charged for the current packages, which offer more or less every
out-of-market game.

The leagues say that forcing them to offer a la carte or team-
based packages would drive overall costs up.  The plaintiffs in
the case say that's not true, reported the Associated Press.  They
argue that prices should drop as more fans buy access to only the
teams or games they're interested in.

The lawsuit challenges "the territorial restraints, the systems
that prevent the individual teams from broadcasting their games
nationwide," said Edward A. Diver, a lawyer for the plaintiffs,
the AP reported.  It also takes issue with whether the leagues
have a legal right to use all-team packages to monopolize the out-
of-market distribution of games.

The leagues, as you might imagine, disagree, saying that for the
lawsuit to deserve class action status, the plaintiffs must show
"the kind of common injuries that would qualify large groups of
people as a class," according to the AP.

A big hurdle

While the plaintiffs have a point, the sports leagues don't
operate under the same rules as other businesses.

The Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 exempts all four major
professional sports leagues from antitrust violations for
negotiating television contracts, according to John Vrooman, a
Vanderbilt economics professor.

"The reasoning of Congress in passing the SBA was that collective
negotiations and even revenue distributions would lead to
increased competitive balance in the Big Four sports leagues," the
AP reported him as saying.  He added, "The classic behavior of a
sports league cartel is to charge half as many fans twice as
much."

What this all means

While only MLB and the NHL are named in this case, if U.S.
District Judge Shira Scheindlin decides the class action suit can
move forward, it has the potential to set a precedent for all
sports packages, including the incredibly lucrative NFL Sunday
Ticket. Of course, this is only the first step in what could be a
long battle.

If Judge Scheindlin does rule that the lawsuit deserves class
action status, for example, that simply means it moves forward.
It doesn't guarantee an end to the forced packaging of games.

No matter what the judge decides, this could be a case where the
genie has gotten out of the bottle and the leagues will struggle
to put it back in.  Fans want the right to buy just their team's
games without having to pay for content they don't want.

It might make sense for the major sports leagues to find ways to
deliver that to their audiences before the courts force them to do
so.  That might give them more ability to set prices that make
individual team packages possible, but perhaps less financially
attractive than buying all the games.


MARINE SPILL: Wilson May Amend BELO Complaint to Demand Jury
------------------------------------------------------------
In In re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf
of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, SECTION "J". Applies to: No. 12-968
BELO No. 14-2730, NO. MDL 2179, (E.D. La.), before the Court is
BP's motion to strike plaintiff's demand for a jury trial,
responses by Class Counsel and individual class member LeRoy G.
Wilson, and BP's reply. At issue is whether Wilson is entitled to
a jury trial in his Back-End Litigation Option ("BELO") lawsuit.
As the Magistrate Judge recognized in his scheduling order, the
resolution of this issue may have widespread application to all
BELO cases. After considering the parties' arguments, the
applicable law, and the relevant record, the Court has decided to
resolve this issue in an abbreviated fashion.

According to District Judge Carl Barbier's April 27, 2015 order, a
copy of which is available at http://is.gd/wEjcuVfrom Leagle.com,
nowhere does the the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class
Action Settlement Agreement ("Medical Settlement") state that a
BELO lawsuit must be tried to the bench. The Medical Settlement
does state that a BELO lawsuit must be filed in the Eastern
District of Louisiana Court (though it may be transferred
subsequently to another venue), but it does not say that it must
be tried to the bench.  However, the Court sees no valid reason,
why a BELO plaintiff should be precluded from invoking a non-
admiralty basis of jurisdiction and demanding a jury. The Court
holds that a BELO plaintiff who properly invokes diversity
jurisdiction and timely demands a jury is entitled to a jury trial
in his or her BELO lawsuit. To be entitled to a jury, the BELO
complaint should not invoke admiralty as an alternative basis or
otherwise make ambiguous its jurisdictional election and jury
demand.

BP's motion to strike plaintiff's demand for a jury trial is,
therefore, denied. However, LeRoy G. Wilson is granted leave to
amend his BELO complaint to assert diversity jurisdiction, remove
references to admiralty jurisdiction, and demand a jury. Wilson
must file his amended BELO complaint no later than Monday, May 18,
2015, Judge Barbier ruled.


MARRIOTT INT'L: Bid to Supplement Record in "Bond" Case Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Walter Bond and Michael P. Steigman filed a class action
complaint against Marriott International, Inc. and Marriott
International, Inc. Stock and Cash Incentive seeking unpaid
retirement benefits. The Court issued a final judgment in this
matter on January 20, 2015, and Plaintiffs filed their Notice of
Appeal on February 13, 2015. The record has been transmitted to
the Court of Appeals, and Plaintiffs now move to supplement the
record with the PowerPoint presentations that both parties gave in
open court during the January 12, 2015 oral argument on the
motions for summary judgment filed by each side.

District Judge Roger W. Titus, in a memorandum opinion and order
entered April 9, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://bit.ly/1I0srpufrom Leagle.com, denied the request saying
Plaintiffs failed to show that supplementation of the record with
the PowerPoint presentations used at the summary judgment oral
argument would be appropriate.

The case is DENNIS WALTER BOND, SR., et al., Plaintiffs, v.
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. RWT 10-
CV-1256, (D. Md.).

Dennis Walter Bond, Sr., Plaintiff, represented by George A Zelcs,
Korein Tillery LLC, Jay Paul Holland, Joseph Greenwald and Laake
PA, Michael E Klenov, Korein Tillery LLC, Stephen M Tillery,
Korein Tillery Swansea, Steven Arthur Katz, Korein Tillery LLC,
Timothy Francis Maloney, Joseph Greenwald and Laake PA, William
Herbert Bode, Bode and Grenier LLP & William R Cowden, Bode and
Grenier LLP.

Michael P Steigman, Plaintiff, represented by Michael E Klenov,
Korein Tillery LLC, Jay Paul Holland, Joseph Greenwald and Laake
PA, Timothy Francis Maloney, Joseph Greenwald and Laake PA,
William R Cowden, Bode and Grenier LLP & William Herbert Bode,
Bode and Grenier LLP.

Marriott International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jennifer
Kathryn Squillario, DLA Piper US LLP, Juliya Ben-Zev, DLA Piper US
LLP, April Nelson Ross, Crowell and Moring LLP, Aryeh S Portnoy,
Crowell and Moring LLP, Charles P Scheeler, DLA Piper US LLP, Ian
Cameron Taylor, DLA Piper US LLP, Jeffrey A Kahntroff, DLA Piper
US LLP, Jeffrey L Poston, Crowell and Moring LLP & Mark Muedeking,
DLA Piper LLP US.

Marriott International, Inc. Stock and Cash Incentive Plan,
Defendant, represented by Jennifer Kathryn Squillario, DLA Piper
US LLP, Juliya Ben-Zev, DLA Piper US LLP, April Nelson Ross,
Crowell and Moring LLP, Aryeh S Portnoy, Crowell and Moring LLP,
Charles P Scheeler, DLA Piper US LLP, Ian Cameron Taylor, DLA
Piper US LLP, Jeffrey A Kahntroff, DLA Piper US LLP, Jeffrey L
Poston, Crowell and Moring LLP & Mark Muedeking, DLA Piper LLP US.
Host Hotels & Resorts, Inc., Movant, represented by Elizabeth Anne
Reidy, Nystrom Beckman and Paris LLP & Gary S Thompson, Reed Smith
LLP.

Host Hotels & Resorts 1009 Comprehensive Stock and Cash Incentive
Plan, Movant, represented by Elizabeth Anne Reidy, Nystrom Beckman
and Paris LLP & Gary S Thompson, Reed Smith LLP.


MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE: Securities Class Action Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
The court has entered an order of dismissal of the Securities
Class Action against Meadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc., the
Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014.

In August and October 2013, two putative class action complaints
were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company, Robert Cubbin and Karen
Spaun. The cases were subsequently consolidated and on April 25,
2014, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint naming the same defendants, on behalf of a putative
class consisting of all persons who purchased the Company's stock
between February 17, 2009 and February 21, 2014 (the "Class
Period"). The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleged that during
the purported Class Period, the defendants made materially false
and misleading statements relating to the Company's reserves and
reported goodwill. The plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint
in response to our motion to dismiss. On November 5, 2014, the
defendants filed another motion to dismiss seeking a dismissal of
the Second Amended Complaint. On December 5, 2014 the plaintiffs
filed a stipulation of voluntarily dismissal with prejudice of the
Second Amended Complaint, pursuant to which the plaintiffs and
defendants each agreed not to pursue the other party for costs or
attorney fees. On December 8, 2014, the court entered an order of
dismissal.


MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE: "Steinberg" Lawsuit in Preliminary Stage
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit Steinberg v. Meadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc., et al.
is in a preliminary stage, the Company said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

In connection with the proposed merger of the Company with Fosun,
certain putative class action lawsuits have been filed on behalf
of a purported class of the Company's shareholders. On January 7,
2015, a purported shareholder of Meadowbrook filed a putative
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, captioned Steinberg v. Meadowbrook
Insurance Group, Inc., et al. (Case No. 2:15-cv-10057-JCO-MJH).

The Company said, "The lawsuit names Meadowbrook, each of our
current directors, former director Herbert Tyner, Fosun, and
Fosun's merger vehicles as defendants. The lawsuit alleges that
the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by,
among other things, failing to take appropriate steps to maximize
the value of Meadowbrook to its shareholders, failing to value
Meadowbrook properly, and ignoring or not protecting against
directors' alleged conflicts of interest in connection with the
merger. The lawsuit also alleges that Meadowbrook, Fosun, and
Fosun's merger vehicles aided and abetted those alleged breaches
of fiduciary duties by the individual defendants. The lawsuit
seeks, among other relief, injunctive relief enjoining the merger
and directing the defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties to
obtain a transaction that is in the best interests of the
shareholders and that will obtain the best possible consideration.
The lawsuit also purports to seek recovery of the costs of the
action, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees. The
lawsuit is in a preliminary stage."


MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE: Klein v. Cubbin Case in Preliminary Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------
The re-filed lawsuit Klein v. Cubbin, et al. is in a preliminary
stage, Meadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc., said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

On January 9, 2015, and January 12, 2015, two additional lawsuits,
captioned Raul v. Cubbin, et al. (Case No. 2015-144933-CB), and
Klein v. Meadowbrook Insurance Group, et al. (Case No. 2015-
144948-CB), were filed in the Circuit Court of Oakland County,
Michigan. These lawsuits asserted similar claims and allegations
to those in the Steinberg lawsuit, on behalf of the same putative
class. On February 2, 2015, upon stipulation by all parties, both
the Raul and the Klein lawsuits were dismissed without prejudice.
On February 6, 2015, the Klein and Raul plaintiffs jointly re-
filed an action in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, captioned Klein v. Cubbin, et al.
(Case No. 2:15-cv-10497-JCO-RSW). The lawsuit asserts similar
claims and allegations to those in the Steinberg lawsuit, against
the same defendants and on behalf of the same putative class of
shareholders. The lawsuit seeks, among other relief, injunctive
relief enjoining the merger. It also purports to seek recovery of
the costs of the action, including reasonable attorneys' and
experts' fees. The lawsuit is in a preliminary stage.


MGM RESORTS: Class Action Parties Agreed to Extend Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------------
MGM Resorts International said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Plaintiffs and
defendants agreed to extend deadlines for answers and objections
and responses to plaintiffs' document requests until April 7,
2015, to allow the Company and Bank of America to pursue amendment
of the credit agreement in the second quarter of 2015 in a manner
that will moot the action.

Adolf Stumpf and RoseMarie Stumpf as trustees for the Christine
Stumpf Trust v. MGM Resorts International, et al. (Case No. 10262,
filed October 21, 2014, Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware), and Pontiac General Employees Retirement System v.
Robert H. Baldwin, et al. (Case No. 10290, filed October 28, 2014,
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware).  The Stumpf action
names as defendants the Company, members of its Board of
Directors, and Bank of America Corporation ("Bank of America").
The Pontiac General action names members of the Company's Board of
Directors and Bank of America as defendants.  Plaintiffs in both
actions allege that they are Company stockholders and that they
are each acting on behalf of a class including all other Company
stockholders.  In the alternative, plaintiff in the Pontiac
General action alleges that it claims derivatively on behalf of
the Company.  Plaintiffs in both actions allege that the Company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties by unjustifiably
approving the Company's Amended and Restated Credit Agreement
dated as of December 20, 2012 (the "Credit Agreement" or
"Agreement"), which contains what plaintiffs call a "Dead Hand
Proxy Put" change of control provision.

Plaintiffs in both actions assert that this provision permits Bank
of America, as administrative agent under the Credit Agreement, to
declare a default, and accelerate payment of all outstanding debt
and interest thereunder, in the event of a change of control
(i.e., replacement of a majority of the directors by an actual or
threatened proxy fight or consent solicitation) under
circumstances specified in the Agreement. Plaintiffs in both
actions claim that this provision has a coercive effect on
stockholder voting for change on the board of directors, and
entrenches the Company's incumbent directors.  Both complaints
further allege that Bank of America aided and abetted the
defendant directors in their alleged breach of fiduciary duties.
The Pontiac General complaint seeks a declaration that demands the
Board of Directors to invalidate the challenged change of control
provision would be futile.  Both complaints seek a declaratory
judgment that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary
duties, that Bank of America aided and abetted this breach, and
that the challenged change of control provision is invalid,
unenforceable, and severable; a permanent injunction against
enforcement of the challenged provision by Bank of America; and
attorneys' fees and other costs.

Both of these actions were consolidated under the caption In re
MGM Resorts International Litigation (Case No. 10290).  Plaintiffs
designated the complaint in the Pontiac General action as their
operative complaint and agreed to a voluntary dismissal of three
directors named in the Stumpf complaint but not the Pontiac
General complaint -- Mary Chris Gay, William W. Grounds and
Gregory M. Spierkel.   Plaintiffs and defendants agreed to extend
deadlines for answers and objections and responses to plaintiffs'
document requests until April 7, 2015, to allow the Company and
Bank of America to pursue amendment of the credit agreement in the
second quarter of 2015 in a manner that will moot the action.
Plaintiffs informed the Company's counsel that in the event their
claims are mooted plaintiffs will seek an award of attorneys'
fees.


MGM RESORTS: No Trial Date Set in MGM MIRAGE Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
MGM Resorts International said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that no trial date has been
set in the case MGM MIRAGE Securities Litigation.

In re MGM MIRAGE Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:09-cv-01558-
GMN-LRL.  In November 2009, the U.S. District Court for Nevada
consolidated the Robert Lowinger v. MGM MIRAGE, et al. (Case No.
2:09-cv-01558-RCL-LRL, filed August 19, 2009) and Khachatur
Hovhannisyan v. MGM MIRAGE, et al. (Case No. 2:09-cv-02011-LRH-
RJJ, filed October 19, 2009) putative class actions under the
caption "In re MGM MIRAGE Securities Litigation."  The cases name
the Company and certain former and current directors and officers
as defendants and allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange
Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  After transfer of
the cases in 2010 to the Honorable Gloria M. Navarro, the court
appointed several employee retirement benefits funds as co-lead
plaintiffs and their counsel as co-lead and co-liaison counsel.
In January 2011, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, alleging that between August 2, 2007 and March 5, 2009,
the Company, its directors and certain of its officers violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
thereunder.

In September 2013, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' amended complaint.  Defendants answered the amended
complaint, the court entered a scheduling order and discovery is
proceeding.  Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in
November 2014.  Defendants filed their opposition to class
certification in February 2015.  Hearing on the motion after
completion of briefing has not been set.  No trial date has been
set in this case.


MICHAELS STORES: "Gettings" Suit Transferred From N.Y. to N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Gettings, et al. v. Michaels
Stores, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01641, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark).  The
New Jersey District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02729-
KM-SCM to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.  The
lawsuit arises from the Defendant's alleged acquisition and use of
consumer or investigative consumer reports to conduct background
checks on the Plaintiffs and other prospective, current and former
employees.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey H. Squire, Esq.
          Lawrence P. Eagel, Esq.
          David Jay Stone, Esq.
          BRAGAR, EAGEL & SQUIRE P.C.
          885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 308-5858
          Facsimile: (212) 486-0462
          E-mail: squire@bespc.com
                  eagel@bespc.com
                  stone@bespc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Pamela Q. Devata, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          131 South Dearborn Street, Suite 2400
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 460-5000
          Facsimile: (312) 460-7882
          E-mail: pdevata@seyfarth.com


MIDWEST SPORTING: Faces "Gaines" Suit Alleging Job Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler Gaines, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Midwest Sporting Goods Distributors Inc., Midwest Racquetball
and Sporting Good Distributors Inc. and John H. Lassiter, Case No.
5:15-cv-00414-C (W.D. Okla., April 17, 2015) arises from alleged
employment discrimination.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amber L. Hurst, Esq.
          HAMMONS GOWENS HURST & ASSOCIATES
          325 Dean A McGee Ave.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 235-6100
          Facsimile: (405) 235-6111
          E-mail: amberh@hammonslaw.com


MISSISSIPPI: Judge Hears Arguments in MDOC Prisoner Safety Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Le Coz, writing for The Clarion-Ledger, reports that the
American Civil Liberties Union and others was set to argue at a
federal court hearing on April 1 in Jackson that the Mississippi
Department of Corrections fails to protect prisoners at the
privately run Walnut Grove Correctional Facility despite promising
three years ago to reduce the facility's violent atmosphere.

U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves was set to hear testimony from
prisoners, a corrections expert and the corporate vice president
of Utah-based Management and Training Corp., which has a
multimillion-dollar contract to run the prison.

"MTC has failed to implement fundamental security measures to
ensure prisoner safety, which resulted in two major riots last
year that left 25 prisoners seriously injured," read a joint press
release by the ACLU National Prison Project, Southern Poverty Law
Center and the Jackson-based law firm McDuff and Byrd.

The ACLU and SPLC claim the state thus has violated its 2012
settlement agreement to a federal class-action lawsuit the groups
had filed two years prior.  That lawsuit alleged that Walnut Grove
staff promoted a culture of violence and routinely beat and
sexually assaulted inmates, most of whom were juveniles.

A subsequent investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice
confirmed many of the claims and called the sexual misconduct at
Walnut Grove "among the worst that we have seen at any facility
anywhere in the nation."

As a result, the state agreed to remove juveniles from Walnut
Grove and take measures to reduce violence there.

But defendants filed a motion earlier in March to terminate the
consent decree binding them to the conditions of the settlement
agreement.  They claim MTC is in "substantial compliance." They
also asked Reeves to stop the hearing.

"When prison officials file a motion to terminate a consent
decree, the plaintiff has to prove there's a constant, ongoing
constitutional violation," said Margaret Winter, associate
director of the ACLU's National Prison Project.

"We said, 'fine, we're going to prove they're violating the Eighth
Amendment rights of all prisoners by not protecting them from
excessive violence."


MONSTER BEVERAGE: District Court Granted Final Approval of Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Monster Beverage Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the District Court
has granted final approval of the settlement in the Securities
Litigation and entered a final judgment dismissing the action with
prejudice.

On September 11, 2008, a federal securities class action complaint
styled Cunha v. Hansen Natural Corp., et al. was filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California (the "District Court"). On September 17, 2008, a second
federal securities class action complaint styled Brown v. Hansen
Natural Corp., et al. was also filed in the District Court. After
the District Court consolidated the two actions and appointed the
Structural Ironworkers Local Union #1 Pension Fund as lead
plaintiff, a Consolidated Complaint for Violations of Federal
Securities Laws was filed on August 28, 2009 (the "Consolidated
Class Action Complaint").

The Consolidated Class Action Complaint purported to be brought on
behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's stock during the
period November 9, 2006 through November 8, 2007 (the "Class
Period"). It named as defendants the Company, Rodney C. Sacks,
Hilton H. Schlosberg, and Thomas J. Kelly. Plaintiff principally
alleged that, during the Class Period, the defendants made false
and misleading statements relating to the Company's distribution
coordination agreements with Anheuser-Busch, Inc. ("AB") and its
sales of "Allied" energy drink lines, and engaged in sales of
shares in the Company on the basis of material non-public
information. Plaintiff also alleged that the Company's financial
statements for the second quarter of 2007 did not include certain
promotional expenses. The Consolidated Class Action Complaint
alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and sought an unspecified amount of
damages.

The District Court dismissed the Consolidated Class Action
Complaint, with leave to amend, on July 12, 2010. Plaintiff
thereafter filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for
Violations of Federal Securities Laws on August 27, 2010 (the
"Amended Class Action Complaint"). While similar in many respects
to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, the Amended Class
Action Complaint dropped certain of the allegations set forth in
the Consolidated Class Action Complaint and made certain new
allegations, including that the Company engaged in "channel
stuffing" during the Class Period that rendered false or
misleading the Company's reported sales results and certain other
statements made by the defendants. In addition, it no longer named
Thomas J. Kelly as a defendant.

On September 4, 2012, the District Court dismissed certain of the
claims in the Amended Class Action Complaint, including
plaintiff's allegations relating to promotional expenses, but
denied defendants' motion to dismiss with regard to the majority
of plaintiff's claims, including plaintiff's channel stuffing
allegations. Plaintiff filed a motion seeking class certification
on December 6, 2012, which the court denied, without prejudice, on
January 17, 2014.

Following a mediation conducted by an independent mediator, the
Company entered into a Stipulation of Settlement on April 16, 2014
to resolve the litigation.  Following a fairness hearing, on
January 29, 2015, the District Court granted final approval of the
settlement and entered a final judgment dismissing the action with
prejudice.

Under the terms of the settlement, certain of the Company's
insurance carriers paid $16.25 million into an escrow account for
distribution to a settlement class, certified by the District
Court for settlement purposes only and consisting of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock during the
Class Period (with certain exclusions as specified in the
settlement agreement).  Under the settlement, defendants and
various of their related persons and entities received a full
release of all claims that were or could have been brought in the
action as well as all claims that arise out of, are based upon or
relate to the allegations, transactions, facts, representations,
omissions or other matters involved in the complaints filed in the
action or any statement communicated to the public during the
Class Period, and the purchase, acquisition or sale of the
Company's stock during the Class Period.

The settlement contained no admission of any liability or
wrongdoing on the part of the defendants, each of whom continues
to deny all of the allegations against them and believes that the
claims were without merit.  Because the full amount of the
settlement was paid by the Company's insurance carriers, the
settlement did not have an effect on the Company's results of
operations.


MORGAN STANLEY: 2nd Cir. Affirmed Dismissal of "Stratte-McClure"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of
the class action filed by Joel Stratte-McClure, et al.

On February 12, 2008, a purported class action, styled Joel
Stratte-McClure, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al., was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York ("SDNY") against the Company and certain present and former
executives asserting claims on behalf of a purported class of
persons and entities who purchased shares of the Company's common
stock during the period June 20, 2007 to December 19, 2007 and who
suffered damages as a result of such purchases. The allegations in
the amended complaint related in large part to the Company's
subprime and other mortgage related losses, and also included
allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal
controls, accounting and other matters. On August 8, 2011,
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint,
which was granted on January 18, 2013. On May 29, 2013, the
plaintiffs filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit"). On January 12,
2015, the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the action.


MORGAN STANLEY: July 2 Final Approval Hearing on Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the final approval
hearing of the settlement of the class action filed by Ge Dandong,
et al. is scheduled for July 2, 2015.

On October 25, 2010, the Company, certain affiliates and Pinnacle
Performance Limited, a special purpose vehicle ("SPV"), were named
as defendants in a purported class action related to securities
issued by the SPV in Singapore, commonly referred to as Pinnacle
Notes. The case is styled Ge Dandong, et al. v. Pinnacle
Performance Ltd., et al. and is pending in the SDNY. The court
granted class certification on October 17, 2013. The second
amended complaint, filed on January 31, 2014, alleges that the
defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to defraud investors by
structuring the Pinnacle Notes to fail and benefited subsequently
from the securities' failure, that the securities' offering
materials contained material misstatements or omissions regarding
the securities' underlying assets and alleged conflicts of
interest between the defendants and the investors, and asserts
common law claims of fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, fraudulent
inducement, aiding and abetting fraudulent inducement, and breach
of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs
seek damages of approximately $138.7 million, rescission, punitive
damages, and interest. On July 17, 2014, the parties reached an
agreement in principle to settle the litigation, which received
preliminary court approval December 2, 2014. The final approval
hearing is scheduled for July 2, 2015.


MORGAN STANLEY: Plaintiffs' Time to Pursue Appeal Expired
---------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the time for plaintiffs
to pursue a further appeal expired in the class actions In re
Morgan Stanley ERISA Litigation and Coulter v. Morgan Stanley &
Co. Incorporated et al.

In re Morgan Stanley ERISA Litigation and Coulter v. Morgan
Stanley & Co. Incorporated et al were purported class action
complaints asserting claims on behalf of participants in the
Company's 401(k) plan and employee stock ownership plan against
the Company and other parties, including certain present and
former directors and officers, under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") relating to the Company's
subprime and other mortgage related losses. Both cases were
dismissed by the SDNY and their dismissal affirmed by the Second
Circuit. On December 3, 2014, the time for plaintiffs to pursue a
further appeal expired.


MORGAN STANLEY: Deal in Pass-Through Certs. Case Has Final Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the the parties'
agreement to settle the Morgan Stanley Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates litigation has received final court approval.

In re Morgan Stanley Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates
Litigation, which had been pending in the SDNY, was a putative
class action involving allegations that, among other things, the
registration statements and offering documents related to the
offerings of certain mortgage pass-through certificates in 2006
and 2007 contained false and misleading information concerning the
pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations. On
December 18, 2014, the parties' agreement to settle the litigation
received final court approval, and on December 19, 2014, the court
entered an order dismissing the action.


MORGAN STANLEY: IndyMac Case Settlement Has Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the court has issued its
final approval of the parties' agreement to settle the IndyMac
Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation.

In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation, which had
been pending in the SDNY, was a class action involving allegations
that, among other things, the registration statements and offering
documents related to the offerings of certain mortgage pass-
through certificates contained false and misleading information
concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these
securitizations. On February 3, 2015, the court issued its final
approval of the parties' agreement to settle the litigation and on
February 23, 2015, the court entered a final judgment dismissing
the action.


MORGAN STANLEY: Parties Agreed to Settle Allstate Insurance Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Allstate Insurance
Company, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al., which had been pending
in the Supreme Court of NY, involved allegations that defendants
made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to
plaintiff of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by
securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. On
January 16, 2015, the parties reached an agreement to settle the
litigation.


MORTGAGE GUARANTY: Faces "Arencibia" Class Suit in M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ariel Arencibia and Jose Ayala, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Mortgage Guaranty Insurance
Corporation, a Wisconsin corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-00248-SPC-
CM (M.D. Fla., April 17, 2015) alleges violations of the Equal
Credit Opportunity Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Carmen Dellutri, Esq.
          David W. Fineman, Esq.
          THE DELLUTRI LAW GROUP, PA
          1436 Royal Palm Square Blvd.
          Ft. Myers, FL 33919-1049
          Telephone: (239) 939-0900
          Facsimile: (239) 939-0588
          E-mail: cdellutri@dellutrilawgroup.com
                  dfineman@dellutrilawgroup.com


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Judge Seeks Dismissal of Academic Scandal Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Berkowitz, writing for USA TODAY Sports, reports that the
NCAA and the University of North Carolina on March 30 asked a
federal judge in North Carolina to dismiss a lawsuit connected to
the academic scandal involving Tar Heels athletes.

In late January, lawyers representing two former UNC athletes sued
in North Carolina state court.  They alleged breach of contract
against UNC for a failure to provide "academically sound classes
with legitimate educational instruction."

The suit, which seeks to become a class action, also accused the
NCAA of negligence because: "Although the NCAA's rules prohibit
academic fraud, the NCAA knew of dozens of instances of academic
fraud in its member schools' athletic programs over the last
century, and it nevertheless refused to implement adequate
monitoring systems to detect and prevent these occurrences at its
member institutions."

In late February, the NCAA had the case removed to federal court
under a variety of procedural grounds.

On March 30, the NCAA said the case should be thrown out, in part,
because it did not owe the plaintiffs a duty to prevent academic
fraud at UNC.

The NCAA argued that even though "it supplies and enforces rules
and guidelines for various aspects of intercollegiate athletics,"
it is not "subject to liability for the independent actions of its
member institutions."

In addition to claiming that the case is barred by the 11th
Amendment, which limits suits against state governments in state
courts, the university said the case was brought after expiration
of the state's three-year limit for the filing of a breach-of-
contract claim.

The suit was filed on behalf of behalf of women's basketball
player Rashanda McCants and football player Devon Ramsay by
lawyers from Hausfeld LLP, the same firm that is pursuing the Ed
O'Bannon antitrust case against the NCAA concerning the use of
college athletes' names, images and likenesses.

On April 1, the Hausfeld firm issued a statement in which it
acerbically juxtaposed a position on education that the NCAA took
in the O'Bannon case with its position in the March 30 filing.

In the O'Bannon case, the NCAA contended that the prospect of
allowing athletes increased compensation for the use of their
names, images and likenesses would jeopardize the integration of
education and athletics -- and that the need to preserve this
integration justifies the association's limits on what athletes
can receive while playing sports.

"This startling inconsistency is unfortunately all too symptomatic
of the NCAA's shifting rhetoric and faltering commitment to its
college athletes," Hausfeld said in the statement.  "NCAA
President Mark Emmert has repeatedly proposed that '[w]hat we live
for is the education of our athletes,' but the NCAA's record tells
a far different story.  On the eve of the Final Four, we call on
the NCAA and its member schools to commit, finally, to
safeguarding a meaningful education for all college athletes,
particularly those in revenue sports in Division I that present
soaring time demands and a host of priorities outside of the
academic sphere."

McCants attended UNC from 2005 to 2009.  Mr. Ramsay attended the
school from 2007 to 2012, but allegedly participated in an
irregular class in 2007.

The plaintiffs argued in their complaint that the time limit for
filing the suit should not apply because of UNC's "fraudulent
concealment of material facts regarding the academically unsound
nature" of various classes.

In the March 30 filing, lawyers for the university responded:

"Plaintiffs offer no explanation for how or why they were unaware
of what transpired in the three . . . courses they took between
themselves while students at the University.  Nobody is better
positioned to know these facts than Plaintiffs, yet their
Complaint offers no explanation for their lack of knowledge --
within the limitations period -- of whether the  . . . classes
they took required class attendance and included faculty
involvement. Indeed, Plaintiffs unquestionably would have been
aware at the time they took the courses that they were enrolled
'paper classes' that they were not required to attend, required
little to no work, were not taught by a faculty member, and
involved no interaction with a faculty member."

The NCAA acknowledged that the type of alleged academic fraud that
is the subject of the suit "is without question a serious concern
for all students."

But it also argued that that plaintiffs were attempting to hold
the association accountable for "conduct the NCAA did not and
could not control."

" . . . The NCAA did not assume a duty to ensure the quality of
education student-athletes received at member institutions or to
protect student-athletes from the independent, voluntary acts of
those institutions or their employees," the association wrote.

It added that "it was no secret that the NCAA did not review the
substance of college courses."

In addition, the NCAA argued that what the plaintiffs are seeking
through the suit -- the formation of an independent commission to
oversee academic integrity in NCAA schools' athletics programs --
is "overbroad."

"Plaintiffs seek relief that would extended to all NCAA member
institutions, but their allegations are tied solely to events at
UNC . . . Plaintiffs effectively ask the Court not to remedy the
particular harms they allege, but to dictate broad policy changes
to the NCAA.  That is not the proper function of injunctive
relief, nor even more broadly of the court system."


NEW JERSEY: Did Not Violate Medicaid Law, Supreme Court Rules
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brent Johnson, writing for NJ.com, reports that the state Supreme
Court ruled on March 30 that New Jersey did not break the law when
it eliminated state-funded Medicaid benefits for legal immigrants
who have been in the country for fewer than five years.

In a 4-2 decision, the state's highest court agreed with a state
appellate court that New Jersey did not violate the U.S. or state
constitutions when it altered residency requirements to NJ Family
Care -- a state-funded program that provides subsidized Medicaid
benefits to low-income residents -- amid a budget crisis in 2010.

The state's move ended coverage for thousands of legal immigrants
and blocked applications for thousands more.

Jennifer B. Condon, the attorney representing the group of
immigrants that filed a class-action lawsuit against the state,
call the ruling "tragic."

"It's a surprising decision that essentially sanctions
discrimination against immigrants," said Mr. Condon, an associate
law professor at the Seton Hall University School of Law Center
for Social Justice.  "This is a case with devastating consequences
for immigrants in New Jersey."

Condon added that she and her clients are considering petitioning
the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.

At the center of the issue is the federal Personal Responsibility
and Work Opportunity Act, which Congress enacted in 1996 to reduce
the impact of "aliens applying for and receiving public benefits
from federal, state, and local governments at increasing rates."
The act prevents legal immigrants from receiving any federal
benefit for five years after entering the U.S.

States, though, were still allowed to offer Medicaid to those
immigrants with their own money -- which New Jersey did from 2005
to 2010, in an effort to cut down on costs for emergency hospital
charity care.

But in 2010, with New Jersey facing a massive budget shortfall,
the state Senate voted to prohibit legal immigrants who did not
meet the five-year residency requirement to be eliminated from NJ
FamilyCare.  The requirement remains in place today.

In 2011, a group of immigrants filed a class-action lawsuit that
claims the state's action violated the equal protection they are
guaranteed under the U.S. and state constitutions.

A state appellate panel voted 2-1 in 2013 that New Jersey didn't
break the law because under the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Act, New Jersey is allowed to decide whether it can
afford to shoulder the cost of state-subsidized benefits.

"We conclude that when Congress, in the exercise of its
constitutional power over immigration, cuts off Medicaid funding
for a group of aliens, the states cannot be required to restore
that coverage using solely state funds," the panel wrote.

Judge Jonathan N. Harris dissented, saying he feared the decision
would create separate classes of poor immigrants: those who have
been here for fewer than five years and those who have been here
longer.

"Equal treatment requires at the very least that government be as
fair to all poor noncitizens as it is to all poor citizens in the
provision of affordable health care opportunities," Judge Harris
wrote.  "Both groups contribute to the taxes that pay for NJ
FamilyCare and the record does not establish a principled
distinction between the two groups to justify the five-year
waiting period visited upon greenhorn aliens."

The state Supreme Court on March 30 did not write a detailed
opinion on the case.  Instead, the justices said they simply
agreed with the appellate panel's reasoning.

Chief Justice Stuart Rabner and Justice Barry Albin said they
dissented for the same reasons Harris did in the appellate
decision.

A spokeswoman for the state Department of Human Services did not
immediately return a message seeking comment.


NEXTEL COMMS: 2nd Cir. Addresses Punitive Damages Questions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Evan M. Tager, Esq. -- etager@mayerbrown.com -- of Mayer Brown
LLP, in an article for International Law Office, reports that some
of the most important unanswered questions in the law of punitive
damages relate to the procedures governing the imposition of
punitive damages in a class action.  The Second Circuit addressed
one such question in Johnson v Nextel Communications Inc.

Facts

The plaintiffs in the case are 587 individuals who had filed
discrimination claims against their employer, Nextel.  Nextel
entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs' law firm to set up
a dispute resolution process to resolve the claims without
litigation.  After most of the claims settled, a few plaintiffs
brought a class action against Nextel and the law firm alleging
various causes of action. Much procedural wrangling (including an
appeal to the Second Circuit) followed.  Ultimately, however, the
district court granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class
and adopted a three-phase trial plan.  In Phase I a jury would
decide the ostensibly common liability issues.  In Phase II the
same jury would set the compensatory damages for the named
plaintiffs, determine whether the defendant was liable for
punitive damages and if so "determine a punitive-to-compensatory
damages 'ratio' based on defendants' conduct toward the entire
class".  In Phase III mini-trials would be held before multiple
juries to determine compensatory damages for each class member and
resolve any individualized defenses.  The court would then
mechanically apply the ratio established in Phase II to the
damages awarded in Phase III to determine the amount of punitive
damages to be received by each class member, "while retaining the
discretion to make an independent assessment of whether the total
award was inappropriate for any particular class member".  Both
defendants appealed, but the law firm settled and dismissed its
appeal, leaving Nextel as the sole appellant.

Decision

The Second Circuit agreed with Nextel that the district court had
abused its discretion in certifying a class.  The court then went
on to address the propriety of the trial plan, holding that:

"under the specific facts of this case and the trial plan proposed
here, determining a punitive damages ratio without any grounding
in a compensatory damages award is impracticable and fails to give
the jury an adequate basis for determining what measure of
punitive damages is appropriate."

The court explained that under the US Supreme Court's decision in
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co v Campbell:

"the propriety of the ratio can be meaningfully assessed only when
comparing the ratio to the amount of compensatory damages awarded.
A larger punitive-to-compensatory ratio may be appropriate where
'a particularly egregious act has resulted in only a small amount
of economic damages,' and similarly, '[w]hen compensatory damages
are substantial, then a lesser ratio, perhaps only equal to
compensatory damages, can reach the outermost limit of the due
process guarantee."

However, under the trial plan adopted by the district court, the
Phase II jury would be tasked with:

"determin[ing] a punitive damages ratio based on an amalgam of the
actual damages to only the named plaintiffs and defendants'
conduct toward the entire class.  Whatever considerations would go
into developing the punitive damages ratio in [the] trial plan,
the Phase II jury would lack any conception of the actual damages
to the members of the class to whom the ratio would subsequently
be applied."

Comment

This ruling effectively ends -- in the courts of the Second
Circuit at least -- the threat presented by trial plans that seek
to obtain a once-and-for-all ratio of punitive to compensatory
damages before the total amount of compensatory damages is known.
That is a real benefit for defendants because a ratio that may
seem reasonable in the abstract in the context of a single case
(eg, 4:1) may turn out to be grossly excessive when the entire
amount of compensatory damages owed to the class is taken into
account.  This is especially so given the Supreme Court's
admonition in State Farm that punitive damages should be awarded
only when the compensatory damages fail to satisfy the state's
interest in deterrence and punishment.


NOVA BENEFIT: Court Enters Show Cause Order in "Dix" Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in Mark Dix, et al. v. Nova Benefit Plans, LLC, et al.,
NO. CV 14-08678-AB (FFMX), (C.D. Cal.) brought their putative
class action on November 7, 2014, and served Defendants on
December 22, 2014. The parties filed their Joint Rule 26(f) Report
on April 13, 2015, which proposed a deadline of January 11, 2016
to file a motion for class certification.

Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was due no later than
March 22, 2015 (90 days after Plaintiff served the operative
complaint "purporting to commence a class action other than an
action subject to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act" on
Defendants).  However, Plaintiffs neither moved for class
certification on or before March 22, 2015, nor sought leave from
the Court to continue their deadline to move for class
certification on or before that date.

Since the Plaintiffs failed to comply with the mandatory filing
deadline set forth in Civil Local Rule 23-3, District Judge Andre
Birotte, Jr., ordered the Plaintiffs to show cause why the Court
should not strike Plaintiffs' class action allegations pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f)(1) as immaterial in light of
Plaintiffs' failure to timely move for class certification or to
timely seek an extension of time to file for class certification.

Because the question of class certification significantly impacts
the appropriate schedule in this matter, the Court continued the
scheduling conference previously scheduled for April 27, 2015 to
May 11, 2015.

A copy of the Court's April 16, 2015 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/qome6Mfrom Leagle.com.

Mark Dix, an individually and on behalf of other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bryan Scott Owens, Callahan
Thompson Sherman & Caudill LLP & Robert Walter Thompson, Callahan
Thompson Sherman and Caudill LLP.

Pamela Dix, an individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bryan Scott Owens,
Callahan Thompson Sherman & Caudill LLP & Robert Walter Thompson,
Callahan Thompson Sherman and Caudill LLP.

SCI Inc, a California corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Bryan
Scott Owens -- BOwens@ctsclaw.com -- Callahan Thompson Sherman &
Caudill LLP & Robert Walter Thompson -- RThompson@ctsclaw.com --
Callahan Thompson Sherman and Caudill LLP.

Nova Benefit Plans LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Defendant, represented by Manuel Saldana, Gordon and Rees LLP &
Margret G Parke, Gordon and Rees LLP.

Sickness Accident Disability Indemnity Plan & Trust, Defendant,
represented by Manuel Saldana -- msaldana@gordonrees.com -- Gordon
and Rees LLP & Margret G Parke -- mparke@gordonrees.com -- Gordon
and Rees LLP.

Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP, a Delaware limited liability
partnership formerly known as Edwards & Angell LLP, Defendant,
represented by Joel E Boxer -- jeb@nullbirdmarella.com -- Bird
Marella Boxer Wolpert Nessim Drooks Lincenberg & Rhow, Douglas A
Fretty -- daf@nullbirdmarella.com -- Bird Marella Boxer Wolpert
Nessim Drooks Lincenberg and Rhow & Mark T Drooks --
mtd@nullbirdmarella.com -- Bird Marella Boxer Wolpert Nessim
Drooks Lincenberg & Rhow.


NY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT: Accused of Discrimination & Retaliation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aida E. Domenech v. New York City Employees' Retirement System,
Case No. 1:15-cv-02991-JGK (S.D.N.Y., April 17, 2015) is brought
pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990.

Ms. Domenech is a resident of the County of Kings, New York, and
was a full-time employee of NYCERS.  She seeks damages to redress
the injuries she allegedly suffered as a result of being
retaliated against by her employer for complaining of
discrimination.  She adds that she was denied a reasonable
accommodation for her disability (severe anxiety disorder), and
denied a Religious accommodation for a religious observance.

New York City Employees' Retirement System is a department
subdivision of the City of New York and is a municipal entity duly
existing pursuant to the laws of the state of New York.
Headquartered in Brooklyn, is the largest municipal public
employee retirement system in the United States with over 300,000
active members and retirees.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alex Umansky, Esq.
          PHILLIPS & ASSOCIATES, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, PLLC
          45 Broadway, Suite 620
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 248-7431
          E-mail: aumansky@tpglaws.com


OCEAN DETAILING: "Lovinsky" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nelson Lovinsky, Mario Saint Fort, Jacques Bien-Aime, Wilkent
Duclos, Celord Barbier, and all other similarly situated v.
Ocean Detailing USA Management Inc., and Russell C. Grande, Case
No. 9:15-cv-80537-DMM (S.D. Fla., April 27, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate an auto repair shop in Palm Beach
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Helana Elise Balkin, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF HELANA BALKIN, P.A.
      2020 North Bayshore Drive
      2404 Suite 3500
      Miami, FL 33137
      Telephone: (305) 985-0330
      E-mail: helana.balkin@balkinlegal.com


OCWEN LOAN: Has Until May 15 to Respond to "Nemerovsky" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Before the Court in DAWN NEMEROVSKY, individually, and on behalf
of all other similarly situated Plaintiff, v. OCWEN LOAN
SERVICING, LLC, Defendant, CASE NO. 2:15-CV-171-FTM-29CM, (M.D.
Fla.) is defendant's agreed motion for enlargement of time to
respond to complaint, meet and file agreed case management report,
and designation as a track three case and supporting memorandum of
law, filed on April 20, 2015.

Defendant requests a 25-day extension of time to answer, respond,
or otherwise move in response to Plaintiff's Complaint, and a 30-
day extension to meet and submit to the Court a Case Management
Report.  As grounds for the motion, the Defendant states that the
parties are engaging in settlement negotiations, and the
extensions may be helpful in possibly reaching a resolution.

The Defendant also requests that the Court change the current
Track Two designation to Track Three saying this matter is a
complex class action alleging violations of the Fair Debt
Collections Practices Act and due to the nature, extent, and
expense of engaging in class action discovery, Defendant requests
that this matter be designated as a Track Three case.

Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando, in an order entered April 23,
2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/zCcEtMfrom
Leagle.com, ruled that:

1. Defendant's agreed motion for enlargement of time to respond to
complaint, meet and file agreed case management report, and
designation as a track three case and supporting memorandum of law
is granted.

2. Defendant have up to and including May 15, 2015, to answer,
respond, or otherwise move in response to Plaintiff's Complaint.

3. The parties have up to and including May 20, 2015, to meet and
file their Case Management Report.

4. The Clerk is directed to change the designation of this case
from Track Two to Track Three.

Dawn Nemerovsky, individually, and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria Alaimo --
maria@vilesandbeckman.com -- Viles & Beckman, LLC.

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian
Pantaleo -- bpantaleo@edwardswildman.com -- Edwards Wildman, LLP,
Simon A. Fleischmann -- sfleischmann@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord,
LLP & Thomas J. Cunningham -- tcunningham@lockelord.com -- Locke
Lord, LLP.


OLD REPUBLIC: Class Not Certified in 2 Class Action Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International Corporation said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a class
has not been certified in two class action lawsuits.

On December 30, 2011 and on January 4, 2013, purported class
action suits alleging Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
("RESPA") violations were filed in the Federal District Court, for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania targeting RMIC, other
mortgage guaranty insurance companies, PNC Financial Services
Group (as successor to National City Bank) and HSBC Bank USA,
N.A., and their wholly-owned captive insurance subsidiaries.
(White, Hightower, et al. v. PNC Financial Services Group (as
successor to National City Bank) et al.), (Ba, Chip, et al. v.
HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al.).

The lawsuits are two of twelve against various lenders, their
captive reinsurers and the mortgage insurers, filed by the same
law firms, all of which were substantially identical in alleging
that the mortgage guaranty insurers had reinsurance arrangements
with the defendant banks' captive insurance subsidiaries under
which payments were made in violation of the anti-kickback and fee
splitting prohibitions of Sections 8(a) and 8(b) of RESPA.

Ten of the twelve suits have been dismissed. The remaining suits
seek unspecified damages, costs, fees and the return of the
allegedly improper payments. A class has not been certified in
either suit and Republic Mortgage Insurance Company and Republic
Mortgage Insurance Company of North Carolina (together "RMIC") has
filed motions to dismiss the cases.


ONE ABINGDON: "Lazo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Lazo, Humberto Garcia, and Felipe Mendoza, on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated employees v. One Abingdon
Square Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a One Abingdon Market, and Hyoung
Paek, Case No. 1:15-cv-03285-KBF (S.D.N.Y., April 27, 2015), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a 24-hour market in New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Giustino Cilenti, Esq.
      Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, P.L.L.C.
      708 Third Avenue, 6th Flr
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 209-3933
      Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
      E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com
              pcooper@jcpclaw.com


PARAMOUNT PICTURES: Judge Dismisses Credit Check Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dominic Patten, writing for Deadline, reports that just under
three months after Michael Peikoff first went after the Viacom-
owned studio in federal court for violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, the case is over.  Judge Vince Chhabria ruled that
while Paramount Pictures may have not been totally upfront in its
intention to run credit report checks on potential employment
seekers like Mr. Peikoff, it didn't disregard federal law
requirements.  "Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is granted,"
the U.S. District judge wrote on March 25.  "And because any
amendment would be futile, the dismissal is with prejudice."

Filed by Mr. Peikoff in early January, the class action-seeking
compliant alleged that "Defendant Paramount had in fact procured
and/or caused to be procured a 'consumer report' regarding him for
employment purposes based on the illegal disclosure and
authorization form" when the plaintiff had applied for a gig there
in February 2011.  Technically, that disclosure about a potential
employer seeking a credit report needed to be its own release form
and not in the application form itself, said the lawsuit, and
hence the potential FRCA violation.

Mr. Peikoff said in the filing seeking a jury trial that he had
only learned about this in the years since seeking the unnamed job
at Paramount.  Claiming an estimated class membership of more than
500, the complaint was aiming for statutory damages from
$100-$1,000 for each FCRA violation as well as punitive damages
and legal fees.

Nope said the judge.

"Even if inclusion of the certification in Paramount's disclosure
form did not comply with a strict reading of . . . requirement
that the document consist solely of the disclosure and the
authorization, it is not plausible that Paramount acted in
reckless disregard of the requirements of the FCRA by using this
language," Judge Chhabria noted in his order.  "Nor is it
plausible that Paramount violated the FCRA by obtaining the credit
checks pursuant to the release found elsewhere in its employment
application, rather than its FCRA disclosure and authorization
form," he added.  "The Clerk of Court is directed to close the
case," Judge Chhabria said in a separate judgment handing the
legal win to Paramount.

While Mr. Peikoff's case is seemingly over unless he tries some
sort of appeal, others have proven more successful in the courts
with similar FCRA violations.  In 2014, Publix supermarket chain
paid out more than $6.8 million in a settlement over a similar
case.

Richard Kendall -- rkendall@kbkfirm.com -- and Nicole Phillis --
nphillis@kbkfirm.com -- of L.A.'s Kendall Brill & Klieger LLP
represented Paramount in the matter.  Woodland Hills' Peter Dion-
Kindem represented Peikoff in the case along with Lonnie Blanchard
of LA's Blanchard Law Group.


PF CHANG'S: Judge Tosses Data Breach Class Action in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Field, writing for Law360, reports that a Washington federal
judge on March 27 tossed a proposed class action alleging P.F.
Chang's China Bistro Inc. failed to prevent a data breach that
compromised customers' personal financial data, saying there's no
indication the plaintiff has yet suffered any harm, following the
nixing of a similar suit in Illinois.

Plaintiff Daniel Lovell claimed that, as a result of P.F. Chang's
negligent failure to use industry-standard cybersecurity
practices, he was harmed because he overpaid for P.F. Chang's
food, he now has to protect himself from unauthorized charges on
his credit card, and he might be stalked or harassed as a result
of the data breach.

However, U.S. District Judge Robert S. Lasnik ruled that Lovell
didn't explain how the alleged negligence lowered the value of the
meal he ordered at P.F. Chang's or made him go to the restaurant
when he wouldn't have otherwise.  The judge found Mr. Lovell
didn't allege he was anxious or provide facts that would lead to
the conclusion that he is reasonably afraid of being harassed or
stalked in the future.

"Millions of people have had their credit and/or debit information
stolen from retailers in the past year, yet plaintiff provides no
examples of harassment or stalking related to those thefts," the
judge said.  "Anxiety is compensable only if plaintiff were able
to show 'with reasonable probability that he will actually' suffer
the feared harm."

The judge also found that Mr. Lovell's claim for credit monitoring
services was "unclear," since he didn't claim he paid for those
services or lost money because of the alleged negligence.
Instead, Mr. Lovell claimed he had to add himself to credit fraud
watch lists and make sure his credit card company doesn't hold him
accountable for unauthorized charges, according to the opinion.

"There is no indication that plaintiff has, as yet, suffered any
appreciable harm as a consequence of the alleged negligence," the
judge said.

On March 20, P.F. Chang's China Bistro Inc. asked the Seventh
Circuit to uphold a lower court's dismissal of a proposed class
action stemming from a data breach at the restaurant chain,
arguing the plaintiffs weren't damaged by the attacks since their
debit card numbers weren't stolen.  An Illinois federal judge in
December concluded that plaintiffs hadn't alleged actual harm.

Judge Lasnik also dismissed with prejudice Mr. Lovell's breach of
fiduciary duty and strict liability claims, saying Mr. Lovell
cannot establish a fiduciary relationship under these
circumstances and strict liability isn't triggered in such
circumstances under Washington state law.

"Plaintiff alleges that defendant had superior knowledge of its
cybersecurity practices and that plaintiff was induced to share
his confidential financial information in reliance on that
superior knowledge," the judge said.  "While this argument uses
all of the right words, the facts of this case are not similar to
those in which a fiduciary relationship was found to exist under
Washington law."

The judge also dismissed claims for breach of implied contract,
negligent misrepresentation and violations of the Arizona
Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Judge Lasnik said that Mr. Lovell didn't claim that the public is
clamoring to know about retailers' cybersecurity practices or that
he wants to be notified every time a retailer "falls short on the
cybersecurity front."

"Recent disclosures of cybersecurity problems -- such as those
involving Target, Sony and/or Home Depot -- suggest that, while
the breaches make headlines, they do not have much effect on
consumer activities," the judge said.

Mr. Lovell filed suit in July, after the restaurant announced in
June that it had learned of the data breach.  The suit claimed
that the same cyberattackers behind the Target breach were
responsible for the attack on P.F. Chang's.

Joel Fleming -- joel@blockesq.com -- of Block & Leviton LLP,
counsel for Mr. Lovell, told Law360 on March 30 that they are
reviewing the decision and considering options.

P.F. Chang's is represented by Jon P. Kardassakis --
Jon.Kardassakis@lewisbrisbois.com -- and Kathleen Nelson --
Kathleen.Nelson@lewisbrisbois.com -- of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith LLP.

Mr. Lovell is represented by Dan Drachler -- ddrachler@zsz.com --
of Zwerling Schachter & Zwerling LLP and Joel Fleming and Jason
Leviton -- jason@blockesq.com -- of Block & Leviton LLP.

The case is Lovell v. PF Chang's China Bistro Inc, case number
2:14-cv-01152, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Washington.


POPULAR INC: "Valle" Class Action Has Been Stayed Pending Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Josefina Valle, et
al. v. Popular Community Bank has been stayed pending a ruling on
motions.

On November 21, 2012, Banco Popular North America ("BPNA") was
served with a putative class action complaint captioned Josefina
Valle, et al. v. Popular Community Bank, filed in the New York
State Supreme Court (New York County). Plaintiffs, existing BPNA
customers, allege among other things that BPNA has engaged in
unfair and deceptive acts and trade practices in connection with
the assessment of overdraft fees and payment processing on
consumer deposit accounts. The complaint further alleges that BPNA
improperly disclosed its consumer overdraft policies and,
additionally, that the overdraft rates and fees assessed by BPNA
violate New York's usury laws. The complaint seeks unspecified
damages, including punitive damages, interest, disbursements, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

BPNA removed the case to federal court (S.D.N.Y.) and plaintiffs
subsequently filed a motion to remand the action to state court,
which the Court granted on August 6, 2013. A motion to dismiss was
filed on September 9, 2013. On October 25, 2013, plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint seeking to limit the putative class to New
York account holders. A motion to dismiss the amended complaint
was filed in February 2014. In August 2014, the Court entered an
order granting in part BPNA's motion to dismiss. The sole
surviving claim relates to BPNA's item processing policy. On
September 10, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a
second amended complaint to correct certain deficiencies noted in
the court's decision and order. BPNA subsequently filed a motion
in opposition to plaintiff's motion for leave to amend and further
sought to compel arbitration. The matter has been stayed pending a
ruling on such motions.


POPULAR INC: Quiles Case Wins Conditional Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court granted
plaintiffs' request for conditional certification of the FLSA
action filed by Neysha Quiles.

Between December 2013 and January 2014, Banco Popular de Puerto
Rico ("BPPR") and Banco Popular North America ("BPNA") and
Popular, Inc., along with two executive officers, were served with
a putative class action complaint captioned Neysha Quiles et al.
v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico et al. Plaintiffs essentially
alleged that they and others, who have been employed by the
Defendants as "bank tellers" and other similarly titled positions,
were generally paid only for scheduled work time, rather than time
actually worked. The Complaint sought to maintain a collective
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") on behalf of
all individuals who were employed or were currently employed by
the Defendants in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, New York, New
Jersey, Florida, California, and Illinois as hourly paid, non-
exempt, bank tellers or other similarly titled positions at any
time during the past three years and alleged the following claims
under the FLSA against all Defendants: (i) failure to pay overtime
premiums; and (ii) that the failure to pay was willful. Similar
claims were brought under Puerto Rico law on behalf of all
individuals who were employed or are currently employed by BPPR in
Puerto Rico as hourly paid, non-exempt, bank tellers or other
similarly titled positions at any time during the past three
years. On January 31, 2014, the Popular defendants filed an answer
to the complaint. On February 24, 2014, the parties reached an
agreement to dismiss the complaint against BPNA and the named BPNA
executive officer without prejudice. On January 9, 2015,
plaintiffs submitted a motion for conditional class certification,
which BPPR opposed. On February 18, 2015, the Court entered an
order whereby it granted plaintiffs' request for conditional
certification of the FLSA action.


POPULAR INC: Motion to Transfer Fernandez Case Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the motion to
transfer the case filed by Nora Fernandez remains pending to date.

On May 5, 2014, a putative class action captioned Nora Fernandez,
et al. v. UBS, et al. was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors
in 23 Puerto Rico closed-end investment companies against various
UBS entities, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico ("BPPR") and Popular
Securities. UBS Financial Services Incorporated of Puerto Rico is
the sponsor and co-sponsor of all 23 funds, while BPPR was co-
sponsor, together with UBS, of nine (9) of those funds. The
plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting
breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract against all
defendants. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, including
disgorgement of fees and attorneys' fees.

On May 30, 2014, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their class
action in the SDNY and on that same date, they filed a virtually
identical complaint in the US District Court for the District of
Puerto Rico (USDC-PR) and requested that the case be consolidated
with the matter of In re: UBS Financial Services Securities
Litigation, a class action currently pending before the USDC-PR in
which neither BPPR nor Popular Securities are parties. The UBS
defendants filed an opposition to the consolidation request and
moved to transfer the case back to the SDNY on the ground that the
relevant agreements between the parties contain a choice of forum
clause, with New York as the selected forum. The Popular
defendants joined this motion. By order dated January 30, 2015,
the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate. The motion
to transfer remains pending to date.


POPULAR INC: Settlement Terms Being Negotiated in Alvarez Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that settlement terms are
currently being negotiated in the case filed by David Alvarez.

On May 6, 2014, a putative class action captioned David Alvarez,
et al. v. Banco Popular North America was filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles.
Plaintiffs generally assert that Banco Popular North America
("BPNA") has engaged in purported violations of Sec.2954.8(a) of
the California Civil Code and Sec.17200 et seq. of the California
Business Professions Code, which allegedly require financial
institutions that make loans secured by certain types of real
property located within the state of California to pay interest to
borrowers on impound account deposits at a statutory rate of not
less than two percent (2%).

Plaintiffs maintain that BPNA has not paid interest on such
deposits and demand that BPNA be enjoined from engaging in further
violations of these provisions and pay an unspecified amount of
damages sufficient to repay the unpaid interest on these deposits.
PHH Corporation, which acquired the loans at issue in this
complaint, has tentatively agreed to indemnify and tender a
defense on behalf of BPNA. The court recently entered an order
staying all substantive activity, including any responsive
pleading, until the initial conference scheduled for August 22,
2014. The parties have subsequently reached an agreement in
principle. The settlement terms -- which do not contemplate a
payment by BPNA -- are currently being negotiated.


POPULAR INC: Plaintiffs in "Valle" Filed Notice of Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on October 7, 2014,
Banco Popular North America ("BPNA") was served with a putative
class action complaint captioned Josefina Valle, et al. v. BPNA,
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The complaint names the same plaintiffs who
filed the above-described overdraft fee class action suit.
Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that BPNA engages in unfair
and deceptive acts and trade practices relative to the assessment
of ATM fees on ATM transactions initialed at Allpoint branded
ATMs. The complaint further alleges that BPNA is in violation of
the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E with respect to
ATM fees. On December 2, 2014, BPNA filed a motion to compel
arbitration, which plaintiffs opposed. On February 2, 2015, the
court entered an opinion and order granting defendant's motion to
compel arbitration. On February 23, 2015, plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit demanding that the court reverse the district
court's ruling.


POPULAR INC: Settled Suit by 2 Former Assistant Branch Managers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on October 3, 2014,
Banco Popular North America ("BPNA") received notice of a
potential class action submitted by two former assistant branch
managers. The purported action alleges various wage and hour
violations arising from what they contend is an improper job
classification under the FLSA and applicable state law
equivalents. In December 2014, BPNA accepted plaintiffs' offer to
mediate this dispute, and mediation took place on February 19,
2015. As a result of the mediation, the parties entered into an
agreement in principle to settle this claim. Under the terms of
the agreement in principle, subject to certain customary
conditions including court approval of a final settlement
agreement in consideration for the full settlement and release of
all defendants, defendant will pay the amount of $800,000.


PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Astengo" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Astengo and July Astengo, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Premera Blue Cross, Case No. 2:15-cv-
00654 (W.D. Wash., April 27, 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


PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Lynch" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Lynch, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. Premera Blue Cross, Case No. 2:15-cv-00658 (W.D.
Wash., April 27, 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:

      Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
      TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC
      936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
      Seattle, WA 98103-8869
      Telephone: (206) 816-6603
      Facsimile: (206) 350-3528
      E-mail: bterrell@tmdwlaw.com

         - and -

      Ariana J. Tadler, Esq.
      Andrei V. Rado, Esq.
      John Seredynski, Esq.
      Adam Bobkin, Esq.
      MILBERG LLP
      One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
      New York, NY 10119
      Telephone: (212) 594-5300
      Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
      E-mail: atadler@milberg.com
              arado@milberg.com
              jseredynski@milberg.com
              abobkin@milberg.com


RADIAN GROUP: "White" Case Stayed Pending "Cunningham" Decision
---------------------------------------------------------------
Radian Group Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the case White v. PNC
Financial Services Group is currently stayed pending a decision by
the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in the case Cunningham v. M&T
Bank Corp.

On December 30, 2011, a putative class action under Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 titled White v. PNC Financial
Services Group (the "White Case") was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On September 29,
2012, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On November 26, 2012,
Radian Guaranty filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims
as barred by the statute of limitations. On June 20, 2013, the
court granted Radian Guaranty's motion and dismissed plaintiffs'
claims, but granted plaintiffs leave to file a second amended
complaint. Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on July
5, 2013, reasserting a putative claim under RESPA on substantially
the same allegations. Radian Guaranty filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' second amended complaint on July 22, 2013. The court
denied Radian Guaranty's motion on August 18, 2014, without
prejudice to Radian Guaranty's ability to raise the statute of
limitations bar on a motion for summary judgment. On January 20,
2015, plaintiffs in the White Case filed a motion to strike
certain of the affirmative defenses, but not the statute of
limitations defense, that had been asserted by Radian Guaranty in
its answer to plaintiffs' second amended complaint. The parties
are continuing to file procedural motions in this litigation.
However, the White Case is currently stayed pending a decision by
the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in the case Cunningham v. M&T
Bank Corp., which is another putative class action under RESPA in
which Radian Guaranty is not a party.


RADIAN GROUP: "Menichino" Case Stayed Pending "Cunningham" Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Radian Group Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the case Menichino, et
al. v. Citibank, N.A., et al. is currently stayed pending a
decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in the case
Cunningham v. M&T Bank Corp.

On January 13, 2012, a putative class action under RESPA titled
Menichino, et al. v. Citibank, N.A., et al. (the "Menichino
Case"), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania. Radian Guaranty was not named as a
defendant in the original complaint. On December 4, 2012,
plaintiffs amended their complaint to add Radian Guaranty as an
additional defendant. On February 4, 2013, Radian Guaranty filed a
motion to dismiss the claims against it as barred by the statute
of limitations. On July 19, 2013, the court granted Radian
Guaranty's motion and dismissed plaintiffs' claims, but granted
plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiffs
filed their second amended complaint on August 16, 2013,
reasserting a putative claim under RESPA on substantially the same
allegations. Radian Guaranty filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
second amended complaint on September 17, 2013. The court denied
Radian Guaranty's motion on February 4, 2014, without prejudice to
Radian Guaranty's ability to raise the statute of limitations bar
on a motion for summary judgment. The Menichino Case is currently
stayed pending a decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in
the case Cunningham v. M&T Bank Corp., which is another putative
class action under RESPA in which Radian Guaranty is not a party.


RADIAN GROUP: "Manners" Case Stayed Pending "Cunningham" Decision
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Radian Group Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the case Manners, et al.
v. Fifth Third Bank, et al. is currently stayed pending a decision
by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in the case Cunningham v.
M&T Bank Corp.

On April 5, 2012, a putative class action under RESPA titled
Manners, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank, et al (the "Manners Case")
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania. On November 28, 2012, Radian Guaranty moved to
dismiss plaintiffs' claims as barred by the statute of
limitations. On July 19, 2013, the court granted Radian Guaranty's
motion and dismissed plaintiffs' claims, but granted plaintiffs
leave to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed their
second amended complaint on August 16, 2013, reasserting a
putative claim under RESPA on substantially the same allegations.
Radian Guaranty filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' second
amended complaint on September 17, 2013. The court denied Radian
Guaranty's motion on February 5, 2014, without prejudice to Radian
Guaranty's ability to raise the statute of limitations bar on a
motion for summary judgment. The Manners Case is currently stayed
pending a decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in the
case Cunningham v. M&T Bank Corp., which is another putative class
action under RESPA in which Radian Guaranty is not a party.


RANBAXY LABORATORIES: Must Face Glass-Tainted Pill Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Van Acker and Jeff Overley, writing for Law360, report that a
New Jersey federal judge on March 27 denied Ranbaxy Laboratories
Ltd.'s motion to dismiss a proposed class action brought by
consumers claiming they're entitled to refunds because some
batches of the company's generic version of the cholesterol drug
Lipitor contained pieces of glass.

U.S. District Judge Peter G. Sheridan denied Ranbaxy's motion to
dismiss the plaintiffs' third amended complaint, which accused the
pharmaceutical company of failing to warn consumers that their
pills may have contained small pieces of glass and later failing
to address refunds or replacement products with a limited recall.

The November 2012 recall of atorvastatin calcium tablets was
classified as a "class II" recall under U.S. Food and Drug
Administration regulations, meaning the pills were only recalled
from retailers and not consumers, according to Ranbaxy's motion.

Ranbaxy's motion said that it pulled 41 lots of 10 mg, 20 mg and
40 mg doses of the generic drug as a precautionary measure and
compared the glass particles to "grains of sand," arguing that
they didn't pose a health risk due to their small size.

The pharmaceutical company also said that the five named
plaintiffs had improperly attempted to enforce the Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act, a power exclusively reserved for the federal
government.

That argument echoed statements made in a 2013 motion to dismiss
this suit filed by Express Scripts Inc., but the matter was left
unresolved when the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims
against the pharmacy chain shortly after motion was filed.

The plaintiffs countered Ranbaxy's argument by claiming that they
just wanted a refund for the pills, which they had said met the
FDCA's definition of "adulterated" and were therefore below
commercial standards.

The plaintiffs said their complaint simply referenced the FDCA and
its standards to show that they had received a flawed product.

Ranbaxy's motion also said that the pills weren't unfit for their
intended use because they still contained atorvastatin and
provided cholesterol-lowering benefits, which the plaintiffs
rejected.

"If the defendants honestly believe that the quality standard for
generic drugs is that low, it should be a real concern to
Americans because the defendants still sell millions of generic
pills to consumers," the plaintiffs said.

The plaintiffs also defended their renewed claim for an injunction
despite having been denied one earlier in the case, arguing that
the affected pills should all be returned to Ranbaxy and either be
destroyed or barred from being resold.

Counsel for the Ranbaxy didn't immediately respond to requests for
comment on March 30 and a representative for the plaintiffs
declined to comment.

Ranbaxy is represented by Michael E. Patunas --
mpatunas@litedepalma.com -- and Mayra V. Tarantino --
mtarantino@litedepalma.com -- of Lite DePalma Greenberg LLC, as
well as Jay P. Lefkowitz -- lefkowitz@kirkland.com -- Matthew F.
Dexter -- matthew.dexter@kirkland.com -- and Steven J. Menashi --
steven.menashi@kirkland.com -- of Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

The plaintiffs are represented by Barry J. Gainey --
bgainey@gme-law.com -- of Gainey McKenna & Egleston.

The case is Fenwick v. Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals Inc., case no.
3:12-cv-07354 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.


ROBERT'S ASPHALT: "Tew" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Tew and Dennis Derby, Individually and on behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. Robert's Asphalt Company, Inc.,
Rosemar Contracting, Inc., Rosemar Construction, Inc., Patrick
Tew, Jeffrey Tew, Colleen Tew and Robert Garone, Case No. 2:15-cv-
02379 (E.D.N.Y., April 27, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a residential and commercial
asphalt paving company with its principle place of business at
1981 Montauk Hwy, Shirley, NY 11967.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
      PELTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
      111 Broadway, Suite 1503
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (212) 385-9700
      Facsimile: (212) 385-0800
      E-mail: pelton@peltonlaw.com


ROMANTIX INC: Faces "Kolias" Suit for Sending Spam Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Kolias, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Romantix, Inc., A Colorado Corporation, Case No. 3:15-
cv-00936-JM-BLM (S.D. Cal., April 28, 2015), seeks to stop the
Defendants practice of sending unsolicited text messages in the
form of bulk spam text messaging.

Romantix, Inc. a Colorado corporation that is a premier adult toy
retailer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. (SBN: 225557)
      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

         - and -

      Andrei Armas, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ANDREI ARMAS
      245 Fischer Ave, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (858) 336-2518
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523


RPM DINING: Faces "Ramirez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Ramirez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. RPM Dining, LLC d/b/a The Yellow Rose Men's
Cabaret, and Jon Persinger, Case No. 1:15-cv-00336 (W.D. Tex.,
April 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages for hours worked over 40 each week.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SAN FRANCISCO: Management Conference in Class Suit on July 16
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton issued an order on April 9,
2015, a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1P9sb6jfrom
Leagle.com, setting a case management conference in the case
captioned SAN FRANCISCO APARTMENT ASSOCIATION, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant, CASE NO. 15-CV-
01545-PJH, (N.D. Cal.).

The Case Management Conference will be held on July 16, 2015, at
2:00 p.m., in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Federal Building, 1301 Clay
Street, Oakland, California.

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

San Francisco Apartment Association, Plaintiff, represented by
James Richard Parrinello, Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross &
Leoni LLP, Christopher Elliott Skinnell, Nielsen Merksamer
Parrinello Gross & Leoni, LLP & James Warren Carson, Nielsen
Merksamer Parrinello Gross and Leoni LLP.

Coalition for Better Housing, Plaintiff, represented by James
Richard Parrinello, Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross & Leoni
LLP, Christopher Elliott Skinnell, Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello
Gross & Leoni, LLP & James Warren Carson, Nielsen Merksamer
Parrinello Gross and Leoni LLP.

Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute, Plaintiff,
represented by James Richard Parrinello, Nielsen Merksamer
Parrinello Gross & Leoni LLP, Christopher Elliott Skinnell,
Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross & Leoni, LLP & James Warren
Carson, Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross and Leoni LLP.

San Francisco Association of Realtors, Plaintiff, represented by
James Richard Parrinello, Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross &
Leoni LLP, Christopher Elliott Skinnell, Nielsen Merksamer
Parrinello Gross & Leoni, LLP & James Warren Carson, Nielsen
Merksamer Parrinello Gross and Leoni LLP.

Norman T. Larson, Plaintiff, represented by James Richard
Parrinello, Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross & Leoni LLP,
Christopher Elliott Skinnell, Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross &
Leoni, LLP & James Warren Carson, Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello
Gross and Leoni LLP.

City and County of San Francisco, Defendant, represented by Jeremy
Michael Goldman, San Francisco City Attorney's Office.


SANDISK CORP: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on March 30 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against SanDisk Corporation and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Northern District of California, and docketed under 15-cv-
01455, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased SanDisk securities between October 16, 2014
and March 25, 2015, inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover
damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased SanDisk securities during
the Class Period, you have until May 29, 2015 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

SanDisk designs, develops, manufactures, and markets data storage
solutions in the United States and internationally.  The Company
offers removable cards, which are used in various applications and
consumer devices, including digital cameras, camcorders,
smartphones, tablets, and eReaders under the SanDisk Ultra,
SanDisk Extreme, and SanDisk Extreme PRO brands; and embedded
products that are used in mobile phones, tablets, notebooks, and
other portable and wearable devices, as well as in automotive and
connected home applications under the brand name iNAND.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding quality
control within the corporate organizational structure.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was experiencing
certain production qualification delays on certain of its key
products; (2) the Company was experiencing lower than expected
sales of enterprise products; (3) the Company was vulnerable to
lower pricing in some areas of the business; and (4) as a result
of the foregoing, the Company would be forced to announce
drastically lower first quarter revenue estimates compared to
prior forecasts, and withdraw 2015 forecasts for the Company's
financial results in their entirety.

On March 26, 2015, before the market opened, the Company issued a
press release announcing that it expects revenue for the fiscal
first quarter "to be approximately $1.3 billion, depending on
final sell-through results, compared to the previously forecasted
revenue range of $1.40 billion to $1.45 billion."  As the Company
disclosed, this reduction in guidance was "primarily due to
certain product qualification delays, lower than expected sales of
enterprise products and lower pricing in some areas of the
business."  Moreover, the Company announced that it expects
continued impact to its 2015 financial results from these factors
as well as the previously identified supply challenges, and now
forecasts 2015 revenue to be lower than the previously forecast.

On this news, shares of SanDisk declined $14.98 per share, or
18.45%, to close on March 26, 2015, at $66.20 per share, on
unusually heavy volume.

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


SEADRILL LTD: May 29 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor-rights firm, on March 30
disclosed that class action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of:
(1) purchasers of the American Depository Receipts ("ADRs") of
SeaDrill between July 10, 2014 and November 25, 2014, inclusive;
(2) persons and entities who purchased or acquired ADRs of
SeaDrill between May 28, 2014 and November 25, 2014, inclusive;
and (3) those who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities
of SeaDrill between May 28, 2014 and November 25, 2014, inclusive,
including (3a) purchasers of SeaDrill ADRs; (3b) purchasers of
SeaDrill's call options; and (3c) sellers of SeaDrill's put
options.  If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move
the Court no later than May 29, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party directing and overseeing the litigation.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

To join the SeaDrill class action, go to the website
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-458.htmlor call Jonathan Horne,
Esq. or Phillip Kim toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or jhorne@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

The lawsuit claims that statements about the strength of
SeaDrill's business and prospects issued by defendants was
materially false and misleading.  Additionally, SeaDrill has
historically paid a large dividend, which it raised twice in early
2014 resulting in the Company paying a $1 per share quarterly
dividend during the last two quarters of 2014.  Defendants
maintained that due to the Company's strong backlog and the
strength of its balance sheet, despite any turbulence in the oil
industry, the Company would not cut its $4 per share annual
dividend.  As a result of defendants' statements, SeaDrill ADRs
traded at artificially inflated prices, reaching a high of over
$38 per ADR in July 2014.

On November 26, 2014, before the markets opened, SeaDrill reported
disappointing third quarter 2014 financial results (for the period
ended September 30, 2014), announcing that it had missed its
profit targets.  In addition, the Company disclosed that it was
indefinitely suspending its dividend, citing the Company's need to
pay down its debt to strengthen its balance sheet.  The Company
also disclosed that its Board of Directors had authorized the
repurchase of up to 10% of its outstanding shares.  On this news,
the price of SeaDrill ADRs fell from $20.71 per ADR to $15.99 per
ADR on extremely heavy trading volume, a 58% decline from the
ADRs' high of over $38 per ADR.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
May 29, 2015.  If you wish to join the class action go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-458.htmlor to discuss your rights
or interests regarding this class action, please contact, Phillip
Kim, Esq. or Jonathan Horne, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free
at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
jhorne@rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Gaab" Suit in S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Gaab, Roci Bollmann and Paul Danner, individually and on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Seaworld
Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00842-JAH-MDD (S.D. Cal.,
April 16, 2015) is brought over personal injury-related claims.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
          HAGENS, BERMAN, SOBOL & SHAPIRO, LLP
          301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 203
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (213) 330-7150
          Facsimile: (213) 330-7152
          E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com


SOTHEBY'S: Defending Appeal in "Graham" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Sotheby's said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that there are meritorious defenses to
the appeal in the class action, Estate of Robert Graham, et al. v.
Sotheby's, Inc.

Estate of Robert Graham, et al. v. Sotheby's, Inc. is a purported
class action commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California in October 2011 on behalf of U.S. artists
(and their estates) whose artworks were sold by Sotheby's in the
State of California or at auction by California sellers and for
which a royalty was allegedly due under the California Resale
Royalties Act (the "Resale Royalties Act"). Plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages, punitive damages and injunctive relief for
alleged violations of the Resale Royalties Act and the California
Unfair Competition Law.

In January 2012, Sotheby's filed a motion to dismiss the action on
the grounds, among others, that the Resale Royalties Act violates
the U.S. Constitution and is preempted by the U.S. Copyright Act
of 1976. In February 2012, the plaintiffs filed their response to
Sotheby's motion to dismiss. The court heard oral arguments on the
motion to dismiss on March 12, 2012. On May 17, 2012, the court
issued an order dismissing the action on the ground that the
Resale Royalties Act violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S.
Constitution. The plaintiffs have appealed this ruling. Sotheby's
believes that there are meritorious defenses to the appeal.


SOTHEBY'S: Court Entered Stipulation in St. Louis Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Sotheby's said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that the Court entered a stipulation
agreed to by the parties and an order regarding dismissal of the
Stockholder Actions and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses
in the case The Employees Retirement System of the City of St.
Louis v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil Action No. 9497-VCP (Del. Ch.
2014).

On April 1, 2014, the Employees Retirement System of the City of
St. Louis, the plaintiff, on behalf of a putative class of
Sotheby's stockholders, filed a verified class action complaint
against the Directors and nominal defendant Sotheby's. The
plaintiff alleged in two counts that the Directors breached their
fiduciary duties in adopting the Rights Plan and by including so-
called "proxy puts" in certain Sotheby's credit agreements. The
plaintiff alleged that the Rights Plan was discriminatory, was
designed to entrench current board members, and undermined the
proxy contest that was being conducted by Third Point. In
addition, the plaintiff alleged that the Directors endorsed credit
agreements containing "proxy put" provisions that were
unnecessary, preemptive defensive measures designed to insulate
Directors from proxy contests. The plaintiff sought judgment
preliminarily and permanently enjoining the Rights Plan, judgment
preliminarily enjoining the Directors from using any proxies
solicited before they "approve" the Third Point nominees for
directorships, and a declaration that the Rights Plan was
unenforceable and that the Directors breached their fiduciary
duties to the putative class.

On April 10, 2014, the Court ordered partial coordination of this
action and Louisiana Municipal Employees Retirement System v.
Ruprecht, et al., Civil Action No. --9508-VCP with the prior
pending action in Third Point LLC v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil
Action No. 9469-VCP. On May 2, 2014, following briefing and
argument on plaintiffs' motions for preliminary injunctions in the
coordinated actions, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion denying
the motion. Specifically, the Court found that plaintiffs failed
to show a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims.

On June 4, 2014, the plaintiffs in this action and in the
Louisiana Municipal Employees Retirement System action jointly
filed a motion for an order dismissing the Stockholder Actions as
moot and for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in the
amount of $3.5 million. On July 25, 2014, Sotheby's filed a brief
in opposition to the plaintiffs' motion. A hearing on the motion
was held on August 14, 2014. Prior to the Court's resolution of
the motion, the parties agreed to a settlement.

On January 15, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation agreed to by
the parties and an order regarding dismissal of the Stockholder
Actions and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses (the
"Order"). As required by the Order, Sotheby's is notifying
stockholders that the Stockholder Actions are moot and that
defendants, through their insurer, have paid to plaintiffs'
counsel $1.6 million in full satisfaction of their application for
attorneys' fees and expenses in the Stockholder Actions. As
Sotheby's directors and officers insurance carrier funded the full
$1.6 million payment, the resolution of the Stockholder Actions
did not result in any cost to Sotheby's. The Order further
provides that the Stockholder Actions will be dismissed as moot
without further action of the Court unless another stockholder of
Sotheby's submits a written objection to the Court within thirty
days of this notice.

Louisiana Municipal Employees Retirement System v. Ruprecht, et
al., Civil Action No.--9508-VCP (Del. Ch. 2014).  On April 3,
2014, Louisiana Municipal Employees Retirement System, the
plaintiff, on behalf of a putative class of Sotheby's
stockholders, filed a verified class action complaint against the
Directors and nominal defendant Sotheby's. The plaintiff alleged
in two counts that the Directors breached their fiduciary duties
in adopting the Rights Plan and by including so-called "proxy
puts" in certain Sotheby's credit agreements. The plaintiff
alleged that the Rights Plan was discriminatory, was designed to
entrench current board members, and undermined the proxy contest
that was being conducted by Third Point. In addition, the
plaintiff alleged that the Directors endorsed credit agreements
containing "proxy put" provisions that were unnecessary,
preemptive defensive measures designed to insulate Directors from
proxy contests. The plaintiff sought judgment preliminarily and
permanently enjoining the Rights Plan, judgment preliminarily
enjoining the Directors from using any proxies solicited before
they "approve" the Third Point nominees for directorships, and a
declaration that the Rights Plan was unenforceable and that the
Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the putative class.

On April 10, 2014, the Court ordered partial coordination of this
action and The Employees Retirement System of the City of St.
Louis v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil Action No. 9497-VCP with the
prior pending action in Third Point LLC v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil
Action No. 9469-VCP. On May 2, 2014, following briefing and
argument on plaintiffs' motions for preliminary injunctions in the
coordinated actions, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion denying
the motions. Specifically, the Court found that plaintiffs failed
to show a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims.


STANFORD INT'L: US Government Not Liable to Ponzi Scheme Victims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal
appeals court said on March 30 the United States is not liable to
victims of Allen Stanford's fraud who claimed that the Securities
and Exchange Commission was incompetent for having taken too long
to uncover the swindler's $7.2 billion Ponzi scheme.

A panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Miami said
the government is entitled to sovereign immunity.

Stanford's victims accused the SEC of negligence for having waited
until 2009 to uncover the Ponzi scheme, despite having had
evidence of it as early as 1997.

But the court said the SEC had discretion to decide how to enforce
securities laws, and could not be liable for certain
misrepresentations.  It said this justified shielding it from
claims raised by the victims under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

"We reach no conclusions as to the SEC's conduct, or whether the
latter's actions deserve plaintiffs' condemnation," Circuit Judge
Julie Carnes wrote for a three-judge panel.  "We do, however,
conclude that the United States is shielded from liability for the
SEC's alleged negligence."

Victims claimed that the SEC thought Stanford's business was a
fraud after each of four examinations between 1997 and 2004, but
failed to advise the Securities Investor Protection Corp, which
compensates victims of failed brokerages.

The plaintiffs were led by Carlos Zelaya and George Glantz, who
claimed to lose a combined $1.65 million, and sought class-action
status.  The March 30 decision upheld rulings in 2013 by U.S.
District Judge Robert Scola in Miami.

Gaytri Kachroo, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, did not immediately
respond to requests for comment.

The U.S. Department of Justice, which represented the SEC in the
appeal, did not immediately respond to similar requests.

In 2013, federal appeals courts in New York, Philadelphia and
Pasadena, California, dismissed lawsuits accusing the SEC of
incompetence in investigating Bernard Madoff.

Stanford, 65, is appealing his March 2012 conviction and 110-year
prison term for what prosecutors called a scam centered on his
sale of fraudulent high-yielding certificates of deposit through
his Antigua-based Stanford International Bank.

The SEC's inspector general in 2010 criticized the regulator for
being too slow to uncover Stanford's fraud.

The case is Zelaya et al. v. U.S., 11th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals, No. 13-14780.


STERICYCLE INC: MDL Action in Early Stages of Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------
Stericycle, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that MDL action is in the
early stages of discovery.

"We were served on March 12, 2013 with a class action complaint
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania by an individual plaintiff for itself and on behalf
of all other "similarly situated" customers of ours," the Company.
"The complaint alleges, among other things, that we imposed
unauthorized or excessive price increases and other charges on our
customers in breach of our contracts and in violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The
complaint sought certification of the lawsuit as a class action
and the award to class members of appropriate damages and
injunctive relief."

"The Pennsylvania class action complaint was filed in the wake of
a settlement with the State of New York of an investigation under
the New York False Claims Act (which the class action complaint
describes at some length). The New York investigation arose out of
a qui tam (or "whistle blower") complaint under the federal False
Claims Act and comparable state statutes which was filed under
seal in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois in April 2008 by a former employee of ours. The qui tam
complaint was filed on behalf of the United States and 14 states
and the District of Columbia. On September 4, 2013, we filed our
answer to Plaintiff-Relator's Second Amended Complaint, generally
denying the allegations therein.

"Also, Tennessee, Massachusetts, Virginia and North Carolina have
issued civil investigative demands to explore the allegations made
on their behalf in the qui tam complaint but have not yet decided
whether to join the Illinois action. The qui tam case is in the
early stages of discovery.

"Following the filing of the Pennsylvania class action complaint,
we were served with class action complaints filed in federal court
in California, Florida, Illinois, Mississippi and Utah and in
state court in California. These complaints asserted claims and
allegations substantially similar to those made in the
Pennsylvania class action complaint. All of these cases appear to
be follow-on litigation to our settlement with the State of New
York. On August 9, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation ("MDL") granted our Motion to Transfer these related
actions to the Northern District of Illinois for centralized
pretrial proceedings. On December 10, 2013, we filed our answer to
the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint in the MDL action,
generally denying the allegations therein. The MDL action is in
the early stages of discovery.

"We believe that we have operated in accordance with the terms of
our customer contracts and that these complaints are without
merit. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against each of
these lawsuits."


STERICYCLE INC: Discovery Is Proceeding in Junk Fax Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stericycle, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that discovery is proceeding
in the Junk Fax Lawsuit.

"On April 2, 2014, we were served with a class action complaint
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois (Case 1:14-cv-02070) by an individual plaintiff for
himself and on behalf of all other "similarly situated" persons,"
the Company said.  The complaint alleges, among other things, that
we sent facsimile transmissions of unsolicited advertisements to
plaintiff and others similarly situated in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk
Fax Prevention Act of 2005 (the "TCPA"). The complaint seeks
certification of the lawsuit as a class action and the award to
class members of the greater of actual damages or the sum of $500
for each violation and injunctive and other relief. Under the
TCPA, the statutory remedy of $500 per violation may be trebled if
the Court finds the violations to be willful or knowing.

"On May 22, 2014, we filed our answer to the complaint, generally
denying the allegations therein. Discovery in the case is
proceeding," the Company said.


STRATEGIC DELIVERY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christian Zambrano, Luz Durango, Moira Riveros, and Rigoberto
Romero on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. Strategic Delivery Solutions, LLC, David Kronick, Andrew
Kronick, and Mike Ruccio, Case No. 1:15-cv-02373 (E.D.N.Y., April
27, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Strategic Delivery Solutions, LLC is a transportation and
logistics provider for Health Care companies in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
      JOSEPH HERZFELD HESTER & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
      233 Broadway, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10279
      Telephone: (212) 688-5640
      Facsimile: (212) 688-2548
      E-mail: maimon@jhllp.com


SUNEDISON INC: Updates on Jerry Jones Case
------------------------------------------
SunEdison, Inc., in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, provided updates on the case Jerry Jones
v. SunEdison, Inc., et al.

On December 26, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri by
plaintiff, Jerry Jones, purportedly on behalf of all participants
in and beneficiaries of SunEdison's 401(k) Savings Plan (the
"Plan") between September 4, 2007 and December 26, 2008,
inclusive. The complaint asserted claims against SunEdison and
certain of its directors, employees and/or other unnamed
fiduciaries of the Plan. The complaint alleges that the defendants
breached certain fiduciary duties owed under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, generally asserting that the
defendants failed to make full disclosure to the Plan's
participants of the risks of investing in SunEdison's stock and
that the company's stock should not have been made available as an
investment alternative in the Plan. The complaint also alleges
that SunEdison failed to disclose certain material facts regarding
SunEdison's operations and performance, which had the effect of
artificially inflating SunEdison's stock price.

On June 1, 2009, an amended class action complaint was filed by
Mr. Jones and another purported participant of the Plan, Manuel
Acosta, which raises substantially the same claims and is based on
substantially the same allegations as the original complaint.
However, the amended complaint changes the period of time covered
by the action, purporting to be brought on behalf of beneficiaries
of and/or participants in the Plan from June 13, 2008 through the
present, inclusive. The amended complaint seeks unspecified
monetary damages, including losses the participants and
beneficiaries of the Plan allegedly experienced due to their
investment through the Plan in SunEdison's stock, equitable relief
and an award of attorney's fees. No class has been certified and
discovery has not begun. The company and the named directors and
employees filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was fully
briefed by the parties as of October 9, 2009. The parties each
subsequently filed notices of supplemental authority and
corresponding responses. On March 17, 2010, the court denied the
motion to dismiss. The SunEdison defendants filed a motion for
reconsideration or, in the alternative, certification for
interlocutory appeal, which was fully briefed by the parties as of
June 16, 2010. The parties each subsequently filed notices of
supplemental authority and corresponding responses. On October 18,
2010, the court granted the SunEdison defendants' motion for
reconsideration, vacated its order denying the SunEdison
defendants' motion to dismiss, and stated that it will revisit the
issues raised in the motion to dismiss after the parties
supplement their arguments relating thereto. Both parties filed
briefs supplementing their arguments on November 1, 2010. On June
28, 2011, plaintiff Jerry Jones filed a notice of voluntary
withdrawal from the action. On June 29, 2011, the Court entered an
order withdrawing Jones as one of the plaintiffs in this action.
The parties each have continued to file additional notices of
supplemental authority and responses thereto. On September 27,
2012, the SunEdison defendants moved for oral argument on their
pending motion to dismiss; plaintiff Manuel Acosta joined in the
SunEdison defendants' motion for oral argument on October 9, 2012.

On March 24, 2014, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss but the plaintiffs filed, and the court in April 2014
granted, a motion to stay entry of final judgment pending a
Supreme Court decision in a case that could have implications in
this matter. That Supreme Court case was decided in June 2014, and
the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration with the
district court, based on that Supreme Court decision.

"We believe that we continue to have good reason for a dismissal
and intend to vigorously defend this motion," the Company said.

"SunEdison believes the above class action is without merit, and
we will assert a vigorous defense. Due to the inherent
uncertainties of litigation, we cannot predict the ultimate
outcome or resolution of the foregoing class action proceedings or
estimate the amounts of, or potential range of, loss with respect
to these proceedings. An unfavorable outcome is not expected to
have a material adverse impact on our business, results of
operations and financial condition. We have indemnification
agreements with each of our present and former directors and
officers, under which we are generally required to indemnify each
such director or officer against expenses, including attorney's
fees, judgments, fines and settlements, arising from actions such
as the lawsuits described (subject to certain exceptions, as
described in the indemnification agreements)."


TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Restraints Trade of ACTOS Meds, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Sales Company, LLC v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. et
al, Case No. 1:15-cv-03278-UA (S.D.N.Y., April 27, 2015), arises
out of the alleged anticompetitive scheme by the Defendant and
several of its ostensible generic competitors to allocate, and
delay competition in the market for pioglitazone hydrochloride
tablets (sold under the brand name ACTOS) and the fixed dose
combination product containing both pioglitazone hydrochloride and
metformin (sold under the brand name ACTOp/us met).

Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. is a Japanese pharmaceutical
company with US headquarters located at 767 Third Avenue, New
York, New York 10017.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David S. Nalven, Esq.
      Thomas Matthew Sobol, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      One Main Street, 4th Floor
      Cambridge, MA 02142
      Telephone: (617) 482-3700
      Facsimile: (617) 482-3003
      E-mail: davidn@hbsslaw.com
              tom@hbsslaw.com


TCP INTERNATIONAL: Scott+Scott Files Class Action Over 2014 IPO
---------------------------------------------------------------
On March 27, 2015, Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP filed a
class action lawsuit against TCP International Holdings Ltd. and
certain of its executives and directors and each of the investment
banks that acted as underwriters in connection with TCPI's June
26, 2014 Initial Public Offering ("IPO").  The class action, filed
in the Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, alleges that
TCPI's Registration Statement contained materially incorrect or
misleading statements and/or omitted material information that was
required to be disclosed.

The Complaint alleges that: (1) the Company misrepresented that
certain of its products had received important industry
certifications, when they in fact had not been tested and did not
meet the certification criteria; (2) the Company's Chief Executive
Officer, Ellis Yan, exerted undue influence and prevented the
Company's internal controls and processes from functioning
properly; and (3) the Company regularly disregarded its own
internal policies and procedures.

On February 26, 2015, Laura Hauser, TCPI's General Counsel,
Secretary, and Chief Compliance Officer, filed a lawsuit against
TCPI, its subsidiary, Technical Consumer Products Inc., and Yan.
In her lawsuit, Hauser detailed several specific situations where
she alleged TCPI and Yan violated the Company's own internal
policies, as well as federal and state law.  On this news, the
Company's shares fell sharply, closing at just $2.74 on
February 27, 2015, down $3.67 from its previous closing price,
representing a one day drop of over 57%.

What You Can Do

If you are a TCPI shareholder and you wish to discuss this action,
or have questions about this notice or your legal rights, please
contact attorney Joseph Halloran at (646) 582-0121 or via email at
jhalloran@scott-scott.com

           About Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States.  The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide.


TELOMERASE ACTIVATION: Class Cert. Bid Denial in Egan Case Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, on April 28, 2015, entered an opinion in the case
captioned BRIAN T. EGAN, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
TELOMERASE ACTIVATION SCIENCES, INC., ET AL., Defendants-
Respondents, 652533/12, 14967, 14966. 2015 NY Slip Op 03484.

The Supreme Court, New York County previously entered on September
17, 2014, an order which, upon reargument, denied on the merits
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

According to the New York Supreme Court's Appellate Division's
opinon, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/Y3HHJUfrom
Leagle.com, in this action asserting claims under General Business
Law Section 349, plaintiffs failed to make the required showing
for class certification under CPLR 901. In order to state a claim
under section 349, the transactions at issue must have occurred in
New York. Because plaintiffs failed to show that any other
putative class members made the relevant transactions in New York,
they failed to meet the numerosity requirement for class
certification. Plaintiffs also failed to show that common issues
would predominate, because they could not point to any specific
advertisement or public pronouncement by defendants seen by all
putative class members. Nor are the claims of the individual
plaintiffs typical of those of the putative class. Plaintiff Egan
never purchased the product, but ingested it at work while
employed by defendants. Plaintiff Murray never saw any statement
by defendant, but simply purchased a bottle of the product upon
the recommendation of a friend. Moreover, the individual
plaintiffs are not adequate representatives of the proposed class.
Egan previously sued defendants for their alleged discrimination,
and he is subject to a defamation counterclaim in this action.
Murray appears to be involved in this action only because Egan is
his friend. This raises questions as to whether they would pursue
their own agenda, contrary to the interests of the class. There is
no basis to conclude that a class action is a superior method of
proceeding, given that none of the other prerequisites under CPLR
901 have been satisfied. Nor is it necessary to consider the
factors set forth in CPLR 902 or the viability of plaintiffs'
claims.

Blau Leonard Law Group, LLC, Huntington (Steven Bennett Blau --
sbblaw@msn.com -- of counsel), for appellants.

Mauro Lilling Naparty LLP, Woodbury (Anthony F. DeStefano --
adestefano@mlnappeals.com -- of counsel), for respondents.


TEXAS BRINE: Sinkhole Settlement Recipients Raise Concerns
----------------------------------------------------------
David J. Mitchell, writing for The Advocate, reports that a former
Bayou Corne resident says he and some of his former neighbors who
were plaintiffs in a federal class-action lawsuit over the
Assumption Parish sinkhole were manipulated by their attorneys and
the special master overseeing the case.

Michael Schaff, 65, now of Pierre Part, wrote U.S. District Judge
Jay C. Zainey earlier in March about those concerns and asked for
a private meeting.

"What we wish to discuss with you is the way we were mistreated
and manipulated by Class (Counsel) and the Special Master,"
Mr. Schaff wrote to the judge in New Orleans.

Mr. Schaff told Judge Zainey he was asked by "several former
members of our community" to seek the meeting and "gain some
closure in our lives on this horrific event."

Judge Zainey granted them a hearing on April 8 but will hold it in
public.  He is requiring attendance by all lawyers on the
plaintiffs' steering committee, as well as the special master.
Texas Brine representatives and all class members also were
invited.

Michael Schaff correspondence to U.S. District Judge Jay C. Zainey
In the letter, Mr. Schaff told Judge Zainey he and five other
former residents of Bayou Corne or nearby Grand Bayou would attend
the meeting.

Mr. Schaff declined to elaborate on his concerns in an interview.

Larry Centola III, one of the class counsel lawyers, said the
attorneys are ready to clear up any misconceptions at the public
hearing.

Mr. Schaff and the other plaintiffs sued Texas Brine Co. over the
formation of the sinkhole, which appeared in a nearby swamp around
Aug. 3, 2012.  The plaintiffs alleged a Texas Brine salt dome
cavern broke open and sparked the sinkhole's formation and the
release of dangerous methane gas, which, state officials say,
still threatens the area.

The suit was settled in April 2014 right before it was headed to
six bellwether damages trials. Texas Brine and its insurers agreed
to the $48.1 million lump-sum award to buy out residents from
their homes, pay them other damages for pain and suffering, and
pay attorney fees and costs.

Mr. Schaff's letter comes after the buyout process has ended --
checks went out late last year and in January -- and Judge Zainey
is now being asked by the plaintiffs' attorneys to approve how
their fees should be split and to certify payment of upfront
costs.  Judge Zainey already agreed earlier in March that the
attorneys will receive a 25 percent cut of the $48.1 million
settlement.

Texas Brine officials, who declined comment, have not raised
objections to the fees and costs with the court, but a longtime
critic of Louisiana's civil courts, and in particular of trial
lawyers, claims the $12.3 million in fees and costs are out of
line.  That critic also claims a conflict of interest exists
between at least one of the class counsel lawyers and the special
master.  The master has played a key role in recommending how the
attorney's fees are divvied up and establishing the plaintiffs'
damages.

Melissa Landry, executive director of the nonprofit Louisiana
Lawsuit Abuse Watch, charged that the $12 million in fees are
unreasonable and work out to $1,300 per hour based on the
approximately 8,900 hours that the attorneys said they spent on
the case.

"I think it's excessive and particularly offensive since it comes
at the expense of individuals who lost their homes," Ms. Landry
said.

Mr. Centola said that under the law, the court must consider a
variety of issues in setting attorneys' fees, known as Johnson
factors, not just hours.

"There are rumors and misinformation that is being put out by
special interests with an ulterior motive," he said.

Mr. Centola added that the 25 percent fee is far lower than what
several clients who joined the class action had originally agreed
to pay when they first hired private lawyers.  He said class
counsel later agreed attorneys' fees would be set at the lower 25
percent share of the settlement for all 16 law firms involved and
delivered an unusually quick result.

"That is unheard of," Mr. Centola said.  "Over $30 million in the
hands of clients within 21/2 years of the date of the incident --
it just doesn't happen."

Some outside legal experts have said the 25 percent attorneys'
fees are reasonable for the size, complexity and risk of the
sinkhole litigation, noting that fees in other cases of that type
can run 33 percent or more.

Mr. Landry said the speed with which the case was finished
suggested the case was not as complex or risky as the attorneys
say.

But the case is not completely resolved.  A stack of lawsuits and
unresolved claims remain over the sinkhole from large landowners,
pipeline companies, state government and more than 40 residents
and businesses that opted out or were excluded from the residents'
class action.

Mr. Centola noted that the class-action clients were notified more
than a year ago that the attorneys would be seeking 25 percent of
the settlement in fees.

Earlier in the case, Judge Zainey set aside 28 percent of the
settlement for possible fees and costs.  While 25 percent ended up
going toward fees, the remaining 3 percentage points of the set-
aside -- $1.4 million -- will cover costs, Mr. Centola said.

The class counsel is requesting $291,566 in common benefit costs
for the litigation.  Mr. Centola said the special master's hourly
fee will come out of the 3 percent as well and whatever is left
will be distributed back to the clients.

Separately, Landry has charged that plaintiffs' attorney
Calvin Fayard Jr., a prominent trial lawyer in Louisiana, is the
second cousin of special master A. Shelby Easterly III.
Mr. Landry also pointed to 2005 litigation in which Easterly
represented Mr. Fayard and his law firm.

"I certainly think the fact that they had a pre-existing
relationship at the very least creates a perception of a conflict
of interest and at the very worst is something much more than
that," Mr. Landry said.

In an email and court papers, Messrs. Fayard and Easterly disputed
any conflict existed but did not dispute that they are distantly
related.  Mr. Fayard noted that Easterly does not represent him,
anyone in his firm, other class counsel firms or anyone in those
firms.

"Under the federal rules that govern the appointment of special
masters, we maintain that legal representation which occurred
before an appointment -- in years-old matters not related to the
current litigation -- does not create a conflict of interest,"
Mr. Fayard wrote in the email.

Mr. Easterly, who is a member of the Academy of Court Appointed
Special Masters, filed a disclosure in the class-action on
March 27 saying he is not aware of any conflict in the case but
that he represented Mr. Fayard and his law partner in a civil
matter that ended nine years ago.  Mr. Easterly also has acted as
their notary and possibly they for him.

Under federal rules of civil procedure, special masters fall under
requirements that apply to judges for disqualification.

N. Gregory Smith, an LSU Law School ethics professor, said the law
says a judge shall disqualify himself when "his impartiality might
be reasonably be questioned."

Mr. Smith added the law notes specific instances in which judges
must disqualify themselves. One happens when judges or their
spouses are related to an attorney or litigant within the third
degree.

Mr. Smith said a separate code of conduct for federal judges does
not include second cousins as relations within the third degree.


TOLEDO, OH: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over 2006 Flooding
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tom Henry, writing for The Blade, reports that a class-action
lawsuit that two residents of the Shantee Creek District filed
against the city of Toledo seven years ago over flooding from a
massive 2006 downpour has been dismissed by Judge Gary G. Cook of
Lucas County Common Pleas Court.

The judge dismissed remaining claims by residents Kelly Morelli
and Bonnie Kalka, who lived on West Crawford Avenue when the case
was filed in 2008.  Efforts to contact them by phone were
unsuccessful; their attorney, Phillip Bazzo of Troy, Mich., said
they were forced to relocate because of the flooding.

The case had 172 plaintiffs, but some of them dismissed their
claims in 2011, according to Judge Cook's 30-page ruling.

The filing centered around a series of storms that flooded
Crawford and other streets in West Toledo and South Toledo between
June 21 and July 12, 2006. Toledo was in the midst of a $3 million
effort to widen Shantee Creek then.

Residents complained of raw sewage causing harmful bacteria and
mold, claiming the city's failure to capture the rainwater before
it entered their homes amounted to a government taking of their
property.

But Judge Cook said in his ruling that evidence from the
plaintiffs "demonstrates the city's efforts in preventing a repeat
of the flooding" and said it "is clear that plaintiffs present no
genuine issues of fact regarding their claim of a government
taking."

Adam Loukx, Toledo law director, said the city considered the
flooding an "act of God," not a breakdown in its stormwater
management.

"We believe it was a correct decision," Mr. Loukx said.

Mr. Bazzo said the plaintiffs are reviewing their options. The
attorney told The Blade several times on March 30 that he still
believes the city is guilty of operational negligence because it
had ample opportunity to curb flooding by stacking sandbags at the
Jackman Road culvert near Bowman Park, but didn't.

"That is an operational problem, not a design problem," Mr. Bazzo
said. "They could have operationally stopped the flow with
sandbags. They didn't do it."

Millions of dollars of damage resulted to many area homes, some of
which became uninhabitable because of high water, mold, and wall
collapses, Mr. Bazzo said.  "We can say there was massive damage
of property."


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Faces "Panes" Suit Over False Fin'l Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Panes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and
James E. Perry, Case No. 3:15-cv-01316-N (N.D. Tex., April 28,
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.

Trinity Industries, Inc. is a diversified industrial company that
owns a variety of businesses providing products and services to
the energy, transportation, chemical, and construction sectors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joe Kendall, Esq.
      Jamie J. McKey, Esq.
      THE KENDALL LAW GROUP, LLP
      3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700
      Dallas, TX 75204
      Telephone: (214) 744-3000
      Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
      E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
              jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com

         - and -

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


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Faces White Suit Over Deceptive Fin'l Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The White Family Trust, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R.
Wallace, and James E. Perry, Case No. 3:15-cv-01304-K (N.D. Tex.,
April 27, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.

Trinity Industries, Inc. manufactures transportation,
construction, and industrial products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sammy Ford IV, Esq.
      ABRAHAM, WATKINS, NICHOLS, SORRELS, AGOSTO & FRIEND
      800 Commerce Street
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 226-5157
      Facsimile: (713) 225-0827
      E-mail: sford@abrahamwatkins.com

         - and -

      Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com

         - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross
      One N LaSalle St, Suite 2225
      Chicago, IL 60602-3908
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181


TYSON FOODS: Class Action Obtains Preliminary Court Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew McIntyre, writing for Law360, reports that a Kansas federal
judge on March 30 gave preliminary approval of a proposed more
than $730,000 settlement of a years-long employment class-action
suit that has pitted current and former Tyson Foods Inc. workers
against the company.

U.S. District Judge J. Thomas Marten on March 30 gave initial
approval of the proposed $730,548.35 settlement, roughly half of
which would be paid by Tyson Foods to cover attorney's fees,
according to court filings earlier in March.


UNITED STATES: Court Tosses Suit vs. Social Security Admin.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in HENRY GRAJALES, JR. v. CAROLYN COLVIN, ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, CIVIL NO. -
JFM-14-3822, (D. Md.) seeks to have the Commissioner of Social
Security change his name on Social Security records. Defendants
filed a motion to dismiss.

District Judge J. Frederick Motz ruled that the motion will be
granted saying, "At the outset, it is to be noted that initially
it appeared that plaintiff was seeking to institute a class
action. However, in his responsive memorandum, that claim has been
abandoned. In accordance with statute, regulations, and internal
policy, the Social Security Administration requires that in order
for a name change to be effected on the records of Social
Security, it is necessary that a person have his person legally
changed pursuant to state law. Maryland law does provide a means
for plaintiff to change his name. Under these circumstances it
would be inappropriate for the Social Security Administration to
use a name in its records that does not comply with state law and
its own governing statute, regulations, and policy."

A copy of the court's April 9, 2015 memorandum is available at
http://bit.ly/1JCJjmCfrom Leagle.com.

Henry GraJales, Jr., Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Carolyn W. Colvin, Defendant, represented by Thomas H Barnard,
Office of the US Attorney.


VAN'S INT'L: "Frei" Suit Transferred From Colorado to California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Frei v. Van's International Foods,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00209, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California (San Francisco).  The
California District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-01723-
JCS to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven Lezell Woodrow, Esq.
          WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
          3900 E Mexico Ave., Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80210
          Telephone: (720) 213-0675
          E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christopher Larry Ottele, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
          1700 Lincoln Street
          Wells Fargo Center, Suite 4700
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: (303) 749-7200
          Facsimile: (303) 749-7272
          E-mail: chris.ottele@huschblackwell.com


VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Faces "Cummins" Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on
February 20, 2015, a putative class action complaint alleging
violation of the federal securities laws was filed by an
individual shareholder against the Company and certain of the
Company's current officers in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York. The complaint was purportedly
filed on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock
between May 28, 2013 and December 22, 2014, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the
defendants disseminated materially false and misleading statements
and concealed material adverse facts relating to certain funds
subadvised by F-Squared Investments. The complaint alleges claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5. The plaintiff seeks to recover
unspecified damages on behalf of the class members. The Company
believes that the suit is without merit and intends to defend it
vigorously.


WAFFLE & WOLF: "Tococh" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ramiro Coj Tococh, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. Waffle & Wolf, Daniel Richardson and Arman
Sen, Case No. 1:15-cv-02377 (E.D.N.Y., April 27, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

Waffle & Wolf is a New York corporation with a principal place of
business at 413 Graham Avenue, Brooklyn, New York. Waffle owns and
operates a restaurant in Brooklyn.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Stein, Esq.
      SAMUEL & STEIN
      38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
      New York, NY 10001
      Telephone: (212) 563-9884
      E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com


WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Owens" Suit Over Product Misbranding
------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Owens, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01870 (N.D.
Cal., April 24, 2015), alleges that the Defendant's Spring Valley
herbal supplements: Gingko Biloba, St. John's Wort, Ginseng,
Garlic, Echinacea, and Saw Palmetto, did not contain the promised
herbs or plant materials indicated on the packaging but rather
contain certain contaminants such as allium, pine, wheat/grass,
rice mustard, citrus, dracaena (houseplant), and cassava (tropical
tree root).

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
headquarters located at 702 SW 8th Street, Bentonville, AR 72716.
Wal-Mart is a multinational corporation and one of the largest
retailers in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack W. Lee, Esq.
      Aron Liang, Esq.
      Sean Tamura-Sato, Esq.
      MINAMI TAMAKI, LLP
      360 Post Street, 8th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94108
      Telephone: (415) 788-9000
      Facsimile: (415) 398-3887
      E-mail: jlee@MinamiTamaki.com
              aliang@MinamiTamaki.com
              seant@MinamiTamaki.com


YOUKU TUDOU: May 26 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan & Morgan on March 30 disclosed that class action lawsuits
were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York and the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of all persons or
entities that purchased the common stock of Youku Tudou, Inc.
between February 27, 2014 and March 19, 2015, inclusive, alleging
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the
Company and certain of its officers.

If you purchased Youku stock during the Class Period, you may, no
later than May 26, 2015, request that the Court appoint you lead
plaintiff of the proposed class.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party that acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation.  Any member of the purported class may
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.

If you want more information about the Youku Tudou Class Action,
contact Morgan & Morgan at 1(800) 732-5200 or email
info@morgansecuritieslaw.com

The complaints allege that throughout the Class Period, Youku and
certain of its officers violated the federal securities laws by
disseminating false and misleading statements to the investing
public.  Specifically, the complaints allege that Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) the Company recognized revenue improperly for multi-element
arrangements; (2) the Company improperly recorded certain
nonmonetary transactions to exchange online broadcasting rights of
video content with other online video broadcasting companies at
the carrying values of the broadcasting rights transacted, instead
of the properly-accounted fair value; (3) the Company improperly
accounted for its licensed content as long-lived assets; (4) the
Company lacked adequate internal controls over financial
reporting; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
financial statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

According to the complaints, on March 19, 2015, the Company
announced fourth quarter results and reported a net loss of $51.3
million, compared to $4 million in the same quarter of 2013.  In
addition, Youku disclosed that the SEC is investigating certain
aspects of the Company's past accounting practices relating to
revenue recognition for multi-part deals, accounting of "non-
monetary exchanges of licensed content" and the classification of
licensed content as long-lived assets.  The Company also announced
that it is now "evaluating the impact to its 2014 and historical
financial statements."

Following this news, Youku's stock price dropped nearly 11%, from
a March 19, 2015 closing price of $15.15 per share, to close at
$13.50 on March 20, 2015.

                     About Morgan & Morgan

Morgan & Morgan is one of the nation's largest 200 law firms.  In
addition to shareholder rights, the firm also practices in the
areas of antitrust, personal injury, consumer protection,
overtime, and product liability.


* Accounting Fraud Class Actions Up 47% in 2014, Cornerstone Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Rapoport, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports
that the number of securities class-action lawsuits alleging
accounting fraud jumped 47% in 2014, even as the overall number of
securities class actions was little changed, according to a new
report from Cornerstone Research issued on March 31.

The increase stems partly from a similar jump in accounting-fraud
enforcement cases brought by the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Cornerstone said, as the SEC renewed its focus on
financial-reporting and disclosure issues in 2014 after several
years of focusing on other matters.

The numbers compiled by Cornerstone, a financial-consulting firm
that focuses on litigation and regulatory proceedings, show 69 new
securities cases with accounting allegations filed in 2014, up
from 47 in 2013.  There were 170 total new securities class action
filings in 2014, up only slightly from 166 the previous year.

The jump in accounting lawsuits mirrors a 46% increase in SEC
accounting-fraud enforcement actions in the fiscal year that ended
last Sept. 30, the first year-over-year increase in SEC accounting
cases since 2007.  The agency has said publicly over the past year
or two that it's paying more attention to accounting fraud, after
several years of concentrating on misconduct related to the
financial crisis.

The accounting class-action increase "appears to be, at least in
part, a result of the SEC's heightened focus on accounting-related
fraud," Elaine Harwood, head of Cornerstone's accounting practice,
said in a statement.  More than one in four of the new accounting
cases referred to an SEC inquiry or action, the highest level
since Cornerstone began tracking that question in 2010.

Accounting lawsuit filings involving restatements of financial
statements hit a seven--year high, at 42% of accounting cases.
Cornerstone noted that the severity of stock-price drops
surrounding restatements also increased in 2014, potentially
encouraging investors to file such cases.

Of the securities class-action settlements reached during the
year, 70% were in cases involving accounting allegations,
according to the report, the highest level since 2010.


* Investors Warned About Publicly Traded Marijuana Companies
------------------------------------------------------------
Hilary Bricken, writing for Above The Law, reports that in Spring
2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission suspended trading in
several publicly traded marijuana companies, including
FusionPharm, Inc., Cannabusiness Group, Inc., GrowLife, Inc.,
Advanced Cannabis Solutions, Inc., and Petrotech Oil and Gas, Inc.
In addition to those suspensions, the SEC issued a warning
regarding investments in publicly traded marijuana-related stocks.
Though Above The Law has no opinions about these specific
marijuana companies, it does have an opinion regarding publicly
traded pot stocks in general: BE CAREFUL.

According to the SEC, it "suspended trading in these companies
because of questions regarding the accuracy of publicly-available
information about these companies' operations.  For two of the
companies, the trading suspensions were also based on potential
illegal activity (unlawful sales of securities and market
manipulation)."  The SEC actually filed federal charges for market
manipulation against four of GrowLife's promoters and a securities
fraud class action lawsuit by GrowLife investors followed soon
thereafter.

Whenever there is a change in laws like what we have seen in
Washington and Colorado (and to a lesser extent in Oregon and
Alaska), the vultures begin to circle and the stock market is no
exception.  The Feds are having a field day targeting marijuana
companies because these companies have shown a predilection for
making incomplete or misleading disclosures.  As early as August
2013, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority began commenting
on marijuana penny stock pump and dump scams and "instances of
firms being run by people with criminal records."

Despite the fact that the bubble has already arguably burst for
marijuana stocks, there are still many publicly traded "pot
companies" trading at frothy levels even though they are generally
not well positioned to compete in the marijuana marketplace.  In
fact, it would not be an exaggeration to say that for every one
publicly traded marijuana stock, there are ten far more advanced
and economically sound privately held companies.  The Seattle
Times just yesterday wrote an interesting story about Diego
Pellicer, a Seattle-based, over-the-counter pot company that just
issued its first regulatory filing.  The Seattle Times put it
best:

Too many publicly traded companies are more focused on pumping
their share prices up than on competing in the marijuana
marketplace, and the herd mentality of investors seems to
encourage this.  The basic logic is that marijuana is booming so
therefore any and all marijuana businesses must be booming as
well.  Investors that aren't very familiar with the industry will
buy shares in the most visible publicly traded companies because
that is the only relatively easy way to cash in on the boom.

Not a good idea.

Just because a company is listed over-the-counter does not
necessarily mean that it is up to no good.  But companies trading
over-the-counter are not subject to the strict reporting and
transparency requirements of stock exchanges like NASDAQ or NYSE,
and there is no denying that the over-the-counter market has been
a breeding ground for fraudulent pot companies.


* Labor Depreciation Class Actions Spread Across US
---------------------------------------------------
Wystan Ackerman, Esq. -- wackerman@rc.com -- of Robinson & Cole
LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that class action
litigation is spreading across the country involving the
application of depreciation in calculating the actual cash value
of property damage under homeowners and commercial property
insurance policies.

The Issue: For decades, insurers have been using replacement-cost-
less-depreciation as a method (where appropriate) for calculating
actual cash value.  That method typically takes the entire
estimated replacement cost of an item of property (which includes
the materials, labor and sometimes other components) and
depreciates that item based on factors such as age, condition and
obsolescence. Software programs such as Xactimate are often used
in performing these calculations.  Recently, putative class action
cases in various jurisdictions have asserted that depreciation
should be applied only to the materials component of the
replacement cost, and not to the labor component.  For example, if
the cost of replacing a roof is $10,000 and $7,000 of that is
labor and $3,000 is materials, then only the $3,000 should be
depreciated, according to these plaintiffs.

Here is the status of the litigation in the jurisdictions where
the issue is being litigated.  There are also some jurisdictions
where insurance department regulations have addressed the issue,
such as California and Montana.

Arkansas: In 2013, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that "the cost
of labor may not be depreciated when determining the actual cash
value of a covered loss under an indemnity insurance policy that
does not define the term 'actual cash value.'" Adams v. Cameron
Mutual Insurance Company, 430 S.W.3d 675, 679 (Ark. 2013). The
court concluded that the term "actual cash value" was ambiguous,
and that labor was not "logically depreciable" because it does not
wear out over time.  The court relied on a dissenting opinion in
Redcorn v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 55 P.3d 1017 (Okla. 2002).
In that case, the majority of the Oklahoma Supreme Court had ruled
in favor of the insurer's position, explaining that under the
"broad evidence rule" applied in Oklahoma and many other
jurisdictions in determining actual cash value, it was appropriate
to consider all relevant evidence in determining actual cash
value. And the actual cash value of a roof, for example, would
take into account the entire value of the roof as a completed
product, not just the materials component thereof.  This ruling
led to numerous class actions being filed in Arkansas on this
issue, some of which have resulted in class action settlements.
There has been no ruling on class certification in Arkansas to my
knowledge.

Kentucky: In in Bailey v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, Civ.
A. No. 14-53-HRW, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37568 (E.D. Ky. Mar. 25,
2015), another putative class action on this issue, a Kentucky
federal district court denied State Farm's motion to dismiss.  The
court noted that a Kentucky regulation provides for actual cash
value to be calculated as replacement cost less depreciation, but
does not address how depreciation should be calculated. Id. at
*11-12 (citing 806 KAR 12:095(9)).  The court cited Kentucky law
applying the principle of indemnity under which an insured
receiving actual cash value payment should be "put back in the
position he or she enjoyed before the loss," without a benefit or
detriment. Id. at *13.  While the Oklahoma Supreme Court majority
found that this principle supported the insurer's position because
depreciating only a portion of the value of an item would not
yield its true actual cash value, the Kentucky federal district
court disagreed.  It wrote that "labor is not subject to wear and
tear" because, for example, "the cost of labor to install a new
garage would be the same as installing a garage with 10 year old
materials." Id. at *14-15.  But is that the right question to ask?
If the garage was for sale the day before the loss occurred, would
a reasonable buyer pay the depreciated value of the garage in its
entirety, or the depreciated value of the materials together with
full labor costs? It would obviously be the former.  The Kentucky
court, however, agreed with the Arkansas Supreme Court decision,
and the dissent in the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

Minnesota: In Wilcox v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, Civ.
No. 14-2798 (RHK/FLN) (D. Minn. Mar. 4, 2015), a Minnesota federal
district court recently decided to certify to the Minnesota
Supreme Court the following question: "May an insurer, in
determining the 'actual cash value' of a covered loss under an
indemnity insurance policy, depreciate the costs of labor when the
term 'actual cash value' is not defined in the policy?" The court
directed the parties to submit proposed statements of facts to
accompany the certified question.

Alabama: In Baldwin Mutual Insurance Company v. McCain, 2015 Ala.
LEXIS 22 (Ala. Feb. 20, 2015), the Alabama Supreme Court recently
reversed the certification of a class, on procedural grounds, in a
case involving a labor depreciation issue.  The insured alleged
that it was improper to depreciate labor costs associated with the
removal of damaged materials (some insurers do not apply
depreciation to these costs), but apparently the insured did not
challenge the depreciation of the labor costs associated with
installing materials.  The insurer's summary judgment motion was
denied by the trial court, and a class was certified. The Alabama
Supreme Court reversed the certification of the class on
procedural grounds.  This was because the plaintiff, in a brief
filed after the class certification hearing, sought to expand the
scope of the class to include policyholders who had replacement
cost policies, in addition to those who had actual cash value
policies.  The trial court had adopted this new class definition.
The supreme court held that it was improper for the trial court to
certify the class without giving the insurer the opportunity to
oppose certification of this newly-framed class at a new
evidentiary hearing.  The Alabama Supreme Court did not address
the merits of the issue presented or the merits of certification.
So this decision is not likely to have impact elsewhere.

Missouri: There are several putative class actions where the labor
depreciation issue has been raised in Missouri, but no ruling on
the merits or class certification has been reached yet: Riggins v.
Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., Case No.: 2:14-cv-04171-NKL (W.D. Mo.);
McLaughlin v. Fire Ins. Exch., No. 1316-CV11140 (Mo. Cir. Ct.,
Jackson Cty.); Bellamy v. Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co., No. 1516-
CV06346 (Mo. Circ. Ct., Jackson Cty.).


* Oklahoma Oil Cos. Sued Over Increased Earthquake Activity
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joleen Chaney, writing for News9, reports that a class action
lawsuit took aim at Oklahoma oil companies.  The suit specifically
blamed wastewater injection wells for increased earthquake
activity.  The Oklahoma Corporation Commission is the only state
agency that regulates the oil and gas industry.

"Everybody in Oklahoma admits that the oil and gas industry is the
lifeblood of our state," Attorney Billy Coyle said.  "No one wants
to see that go away.  We also don't want our homes to come
crumbling down."

However, a class action lawsuit filed in Lincoln County claimed
earthquakes caused by operations of wastewater disposal or
injection wells damaged homes.  It was filed on behalf of
homeowners living in Lincoln, Payne, Logan, Oklahoma Cleveland,
Pottawatomie, Seminole, Okfuskee and Creek Counties.

"All residents that have had a direct impact that in other words
the epicenter of this earthquake was where damage was caused,"
Coyle said.

The corporation commission just issued a letter to well operators.
It said disposal well operators in areas of interest that inject
into the Arbuckle Formation have until April 18 to prove that the
disposal well is not disposing below the formation.

The Arbuckle Formation is the states deepest formation, and the
areas of interest have had at least two quakes.

That letter goes on to state, "There is a broad agreement among
seismologists that disposal below the Arbuckle poses a potential
risk of causing earthquakes."

"If they are admitting or if they are coming to the conclusion
that these disposal wells are responsible for the earthquakes,
that would have a major impact on if they're going to shut down a
couple of then," Mr. Coyle said.  "Then I think all Oklahoma
citizens out there should be asking the question why only shut
down a couple? Why not shut down all of them until we figure out
if this is really causing the earthquakes?"

This applies to 347 of the approximately 900 Arbuckle disposal
wells in Oklahoma.  The corporation commission has taken action on
a number of wells as part of a risk management system supported by
research.  They say their approach is on risk management and not
causes.


                             *********

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  * * *