---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, May 12, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 94


                             Headlines


359 DELI: Faces "Alvarez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: 7th Cir. Revives RICO Claims Over Depakote
ADECCO USA: Compelled by Court to Arbitrate Claims in Class Suit
ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL: All Remaining Claims Have Been Paid
AERIE PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports

AIR CANADA: Sends Checks to Flight 624 Passengers
ALERE INC: AHM's Motion to Dismiss Class Action Granted In Part
ALLIANCE ONE: Illegally Collect Debt, "Beneli" Suit Claims
ANTHEM INC: Faces "McGill" Suit in Ind. Over Alleged Data Breach
ANTHEM INC: Sends Letter to Maine Members Affected by Breach

ANZ: Suits Over Bank Fees in New Zealand Put on Hold
ARUBA NETWORKS: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action
BANK OF NEW YORK: Appeal in Securities Class Action Dismissed
BASIC RESEARCH: Must Face Diet Pill False Advertising Class Suit
BELO CORP: June 1 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

BERRY PETROLEUM: Court Dismissed Royalty Class Action
BITCASA INC: Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismissed "Romack" Class Suit
BLOCKHEAD'S BURRITOS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
C&J ENERGY: Faces "Moore" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CALIFORNIA: Highway Patrol Sued Over Noncompliant Helmets

CARMINE'S BROADWAY: Faces "Pichardo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CATAMARAN CORP: Being Sold for Too Little, Shareholders Claim
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Investigation Ongoing in Ford Class Action
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Deal Executed in Ford and Rodriguez Case
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Responded to Conditional Certification Bid

CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Investigation Ongoing in Sinohui Class Action
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Discovery Be Completed by May 2015
CELLULAR DYNAMICS: Shareholders Sue Over Fujifilm Acquisition
CIGNA HEALTH: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over HIV/AIDS Medicines
COMCAST CORP: Court Awards $158K to Class of Business Sales Reps

COMPREHENSIVE PAIN: Faces "Son" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
COOPER VISION: Faces "Dizon-Ikei" Suit Over Alleged Price Fixing
DEL MONTE: Court Won't Give Unlimited FB Access in Dog Treat Suit
DIAMOND FOODS: Final Settlement Approval Sought in Labeling Case
DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Settlement Hearing Held in Class Action

DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: To Defend Lawsuits Filed Arkansas
DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: To Defend Class Action Filed in Garland
DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Amended Suit
ENCORE CAPITAL: Sued in E.D. Mich. Over Post-Charge Off Interest
ENTERGY OPERATIONS: Faces Class Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

ESPAR INC: Faces Trailer Suit Over Parking Heater-Price Fixing
EZ BAIL: "Reyes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
FARMERS GROUP: Sued in Cal. Over Alleged Discriminatory Policies
FEDERAL NATIONAL: Faces "Jackson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
FERNDALE, CA: Settles Suit Over Water Bills for $4.25 Million

FINISAR CORPORATION: Appeal on Class Action Dismissal Pending
GALENA BIOPHARMA: To Seek Resolution to Class Action Claims
GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Dashboard Cracks in Silverado, Escalade
GENERAL MOTORS: Ducks Majority of Suits on Faulty Ignition Switch
GOOGLE INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Google Wallet Privacy Suit

H&R BLOCK: RAL and RAC Litigation Stayed Pending Arbitration
H&R BLOCK: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Lopez Case Still Pending
H&R BLOCK: Appeal in "Perras" Fee Litigation Remains Pending
H&R BLOCK: Form 8863 Litigation Cases Remain Stayed
HAKUYA SUSHI: Faces "Kim" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

HMSHOST CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Suit Claims
HUBSPOT INC: Settled McCormack Class Action Complaint
HUDSON PACIFIC: Court Denied Injunction of Special Meeting
HULU LLC: Dismissal of Privacy Class Suit Appealed to 9th Circuit
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Suit Over Defective Connecting Rod Bearings

IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action in N.Y.
IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Facing Harry Rothenberg Class Action
INDECO FINISHES: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Lopez" Suit Says
INTERNATIONAL CULINARY: Faces Class Action Over Fraudulent Scheme
ISAACS ROOFING: "Pineda" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

JOONG-ANG DAILY: Faces "Seong" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
KRAFT FOODS: Faces "Leitz" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
LACE ENTERTAINMENT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Employees Overtime
LIBERTY TAX: Incurred $4.1MM Costs Related Class Action
LINKEDIN CORP: Ducks "Sweet" Suit Over Credit Reporting Violation

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Hagens Berman Files Flooring Class Action
MAJORS SECURITY: Faces "Stoots" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MARICOPA, AZ: Court-Ordered Reforms for Sheriff Arpaio Upheld
MONTEREY, CA: Has 60 Days to Improve Salinas Jail Conditions
NASSAU, NY: Bond Not Necessary to Appeal Strip-Search Suit

NCO FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Spagnola" Suit Claims
NOPI ENTERPRISES: "Cruz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
NOPI ENTERPRISES: Faces "De La Rosa" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
OIL STATES ENERGY: "Frost" Suit Moved From Colorado to S.D. Texas
OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE: More Workers Could Join Unpaid Wages Suit

OZARK MOUNTAIN: Faces "Cross" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
PARRILLA ARGENTINA: "Ambiela" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
POWER RACING: Faces "McQueen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
QUICK-CATCH: "Garcia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
QUIKSILVER INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action

RHODE ISLAND, USA: Settles Issues Over Retirement System Changes
RITE AID: Faces "Stephan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ROYAL BANK: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit
SNCF: Faces Class Suit in Illinois for Looting Holocaust Victims
SUPERSTAR SNOW: Faces "Tzep" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

SYSCO CORP: Accused of Forcing Truck Drivers to Work for Free
TATA CONSULTANCY: Accused of Bias in Hiring American Workers
THEDACARE INC: "Miller" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
TINDER INC: Falsely Marketed Services, "Manapol" Suit Claims
TOP RANK: Faces Class Action Over Pacquiao's Undisclosed Injury

TORQUED-UP: Faces "Smith" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Moldy Camrys
TRANSURBAN USA: Accused of Assessing Illegal Penalties in DC Area
TROPICAL SHIPPING: Manipulates LCL Shipping Market, Suit Claims
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: E-Hail Service Is Dangerous, N.Y. Suit Claims

UNITED STATES: Ordered to Release List of Tea Party Groups
UNITED STATES: Wash. Court Certifies Class of Jailed Immigrants
UNIVERSAL MUSIC: To Pay $14.8MM to Settle Digital Royalties Suit
WAL-MART STORES: Sued in Cal. for Double-Billing Vision Customers
WEST BANCORPORATION: Class Action Appeal Should Be Decided in 2015

WINNETKA, IL: Resident Files Class Action Over Storm Water Fee
YOUKU TUDOU: Faces "Jahm" Class Suit Alleging Securities Fraud
ZALE DELAWARE: Ex-Employee Seeks Class Cert. in Wage Class Action

* State Liquor Control Board Won't Pull Out Wines Despite Suits


                            *********


359 DELI: Faces "Alvarez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Catalino Alvarez, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. 359 Deli Grocery, Ltd. d/b/a 359 Deli & Grocery a/k/a
Graham Garden, and Suk J. Park, Case No. 1:15-cv-02404-ARR-RLM
(E.D.N.Y., April 28, 2015), asserts claims for 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 restaurant located at 359 Graham
Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11211.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 209-3933
      Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
      E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: 7th Cir. Revives RICO Claims Over Depakote
---------------------------------------------------------------
Originally dismissed as untimely, the 7th Circuit has revived RICO
claims against Abbott Labs for promoting anti-seizure drug
Depakote for off-label uses, reports Lorraine Bailey at Courthouse
News Service.

Abbott Laboratories agreed to pay $1.6 billion in 2012 after
dozens of state and federal authorities sued over its off-label
promotion of Depakote.

The appellate case is Sidney Hillman Health Center of Rochester,
et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., and
AbbVie, Inc., Defendants-Appellees, Case Nos. 14-2282 and 14-2909,
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
The District Court case is Sidney Hillman Health Center of
Rochester, et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., and AbbVie, Inc.,
Case No. 1:13-cv-05865, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.


ADECCO USA: Compelled by Court to Arbitrate Claims in Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge April 13
compelled arbitration in a class action against Adecco USA, a temp
staffing company, which assigned the lead plaintiff to Google.


ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL: All Remaining Claims Have Been Paid
-----------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Environmental Recycling Technologies, Inc. said in its
Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on March 5, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that at December 31, 2014, all remaining claims in the class
action lawsuit settlement associated with the accrual have been
paid.

The U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington (Seattle
Division) approved a class action settlement in January 2009
related to a purported class action lawsuit seeking to recover on
behalf of purchasers of ChoiceDek(R) composite decking for damages
allegedly caused by mold and mildew stains on their decks. The
settlement includes decking material purchased from January 1,
2004 through December 31, 2007, along with decking material
purchased after December 31, 2007 that was manufactured before
October 1, 2006, the date a mold inhibitor was introduced into the
manufacturing process.

In 2008, the Company accrued an estimated $2.9 million for
resolving claims. In the third quarter of 2009, the Company
increased its estimate of costs to be incurred in resolving claims
under the settlement by $5.1 million. The estimate was revised due
to events that occurred and information that became available
after the second quarter of 2009 concerning primarily the number
of claims received. The deadline for submitting new claims has now
passed. The claim resolution process has an annual net cost
limitation to the Company of $2.0 million until the claim
resolution process is completed.

At December 31, 2013, the Company had a total remaining balance in
accrued expenses of $0.1 million associated with the settlement of
the class action lawsuit. At December 31, 2014, all remaining
claims associated with the accrual have been paid.


AERIE PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
Henry A. Kelley and Wilma Kelley, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Aerie Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
Vicente Anido, Jr., Thomas A. Mitro, Richard J. Rubino, Brian Levy
and Anand Mehra, Case No. 3:15-cv-03007-AET-LHG (D.N.J., April 29,
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.

Aerie Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a clinical-stage pharmaceutical
company focused on the discovery, development and
commercialization of therapies for the treatment of patients with
glaucoma and other diseases of the eye. It maintains its clinical
operations at 135 U.S. Highway 206, Bedminster, Somerset County,
New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter S. Pearlman, Esq.
      COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN HERRMANN & KNOPF LLP
      Park 80 West - Plaza One
      250 Pehle Avenue, Suite 401
      Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
      Telephone: (201) 845-9600
      Facsimile: (201) 845-9423
      E-mail: psp@njlawfirm.com

         - and -

      David C. Walton, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101-8498
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
      E-mail: dwalton@rgrdlaw.com


AIR CANADA: Sends Checks to Flight 624 Passengers
-------------------------------------------------
Passengers from Air Canada Flight 624 confirmed to CBC News on
April 2 that the airline has been sending out letters and checks
to those who were on board when the plane crash landed at Halifax
Stanfield International Airport on March 29.

One passenger, who did not want to be named, said she received a
check for $5,000 on April 1.  The woman said it was couriered to
her.

Another passenger who was sent a check said he has consulted with
a lawyer to find out if he can cash the check and still be part of
a class action lawsuit.  He said he's still waiting for legal
advice.

Personal injury lawyer Ray Wagner, whose office is in Halifax,
said he has read about five of the letters.

"The $5,000 is not an admission of liability, it is a payment for
their expenses and inconvenience," he said.  "If there is a
settlement, at the end of the day, for that individual, then that
$5,000 will be deducted from it."

He said passengers from Flight 624 that get checks can cash them,
but should be cautious.

"They should have it looked at by a lawyer before they do so, just
to make sure there's no changes in the text [of the letter]."

In a copy of the letter provided to CBC News, Air Canada refers to
the crash as an "unfortunate experience" and says "we certainly
understand the events were disturbing to you."  It also gives
passengers a 1-800 number to call to deal with any losses or
expenses related to the crash.

Air Canada spokesperson Angela Mah said the airline continues to
deal directly with passengers with any matters they may have.

"Contrary to statements by third parties, there is no requirement
for our customers to sign any commitment," she said.

Mr. Wagner is one of the lawyers pursuing a class action lawsuit
against Air Canada and said he has been contacted by passengers
with far more serious physical injuries than the airline first led
people to believe.

'Deep psychological injuries'

He said some passengers have "deep psychological injuries."

"That $5,000 certainly doesn't cover anywhere close to the
losses," he said.  He also wonders about the airline's motivation.

"I think they are certainly trying to pacify passengers and also
to appear responsible in the press," he said.  "They may have
other motivations, but I'd be concerned that it was anything to do
with trying to gut the class, in other words, trying to discourage
people from participating in the broader class action that will be
going ahead."

The president and CEO of Halifax International Airport Authority
also had an update on April 2 on the status of operations at the
airport.

Joyce Carter said work continues to get runway 05/23, the main
runway, back in service.  She said the airport is assessing the
condition of the surface, inspecting damage to lighting and any
impact on the neighboring environment.

Once the runway has been declared safe, Carter said it will be
reopened.

On March 31, Air Canada removed the wreckage of the crashed Air
Canada plane from the runway.

Ms. Carter said the secondary runway at the airport can handle all
scheduled traffic, as long as weather conditions are favorable.
She said the terminal building's backup generators were also
tested on April 2 with no problems and no indication why they
unexpectedly shut down after the March 29 crash.


ALERE INC: AHM's Motion to Dismiss Class Action Granted In Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alere Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that Alere Home Monitoring, or AHM's
motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit related to theft of
laptop was granted in part, but denied as to the plaintiffs'
amended CMIA claims.

In September 2012, a password-protected laptop containing
personally identifiable information of approximately 116,000
patients was stolen from an employee of Alere Home Monitoring, or
AHM. On January 24, 2013, a class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against AHM, asserting claims for damages and other relief under
California state law, including under California's Confidentiality
of Medical Information Act, or CMIA, arising out of this theft. On
October 7, 2014, the class action was dismissed with leave to
amend the complaint. On October 28, 2014, an amended complaint was
filed, and on November 17, 2014 AHM responded by filing another
motion to dismiss. On February 23, 2015, AHM's motion to dismiss
was granted in part, but denied as to the plaintiffs' amended CMIA
claims.


ALLIANCE ONE: Illegally Collect Debt, "Beneli" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Tali Beneli, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Alliance One Receivables Management, Inc. and John
Does 1-25, Case No. 3:15-cv-03006-MAS-DEA (D.N.J., April 29,
2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of using an unfair
and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Alliance One Receivables Management, Inc. is a collection agency
with its principal office located at 4850 Street Rd., Suite 300,
Festerville-Trevose, Pennsylvania 19053.

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


ANTHEM INC: Faces "McGill" Suit in Ind. Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew McGill, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Anthem, Inc. et al, Case No. 4:15-cv-00050-RLY-WGH
(S.D. Ind., April 28, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to provide adequate security and protection for its
computer systems containing patient's personally identifiable
information and personal health information.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alex Davis, Esq.
      Jasper Ward, Esq.
      JONES WARD PLC
      Marion E. Taylor Building
      312 South Fourth Street, Sixth Floor
      Louisville, KY 40202
      Telephone: (502) 882-6000
      Facsimile: (502) 587-2007
      E-mail: jasper@jonesward.com
              alex@jonesward.com


ANTHEM INC: Sends Letter to Maine Members Affected by Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Chrisos, writing for Bangor Daily News, reports that Anthem
says it has mailed letters to all current and former members
affected by a massive data breach, which Anthem says it learned
about Jan. 29 and disclosed Feb. 4.

A spokesman for Anthem told Portland television station WGME,
CBS 13, that 531,000 people, just in Maine, were impacted by the
cyberattack, a much greater number than previously reported.

A previous report suggested the breach affected about 300,000
Mainers.

Anthem has been sending letters to affected customers across the
country.  The last batch of letters reportedly was mailed March 30
and sent to current and former Anthem members dating back to 2004.

Hackers stole names, dates of birth, social security numbers,
addresses and other private and personal information.  The breach
did not appear to involve medical information or financial
details, such as credit card or bank account numbers, Anthem has
said.

Victims are responding. CBS 13's investigation found more than 75
class-action lawsuits filed in federal court.  One is a $5 million
suit filed by a Brunswick man.  The suits generally claim Anthem
failed to safeguard personal information and challenge Anthem's
data security practices.

Anthem is not commenting on the pending lawsuits.

The company is offering free identity protection services through
AllClearID.  You can get additional protection with credit
monitoring services.

"If you were a member of an affected plan at any time since 2004,
you are eligible to sign up for the credit monitoring and credit
ID repair services," Anthem's Rory Sheehan wrote in an email to
CBS 13.


ANZ: Suits Over Bank Fees in New Zealand Put on Hold
----------------------------------------------------
Tamsyn Parker, writing for NZ Herald, reports that a legal fight
over bank fees has been put on hold to await the outcome of a
similar court case in Australia.

Lawyer Andrew Hooker launched a campaign targeting penalty fees at
the end of 2013 announcing plans to file action against the ANZ,
Kiwibank, Westpac, BNZ and the ASB.

Thousands of customers came forward and signed up to try and claw
back the penalty fees charged for unarranged overdrafts, bounced
checks and late and over-limit credit cards.

But on April 2, Mr. Hooker said all parties had agreed to put a
stay on proceedings to await a decision from the Australian
Federal Court regarding a case against the ANZ in Australia.

The ANZ is the parent company of ANZ in New Zealand.

In February last year a judge ruled that late payment fees charged
by the ANZ in Australia on credit cards were exorbitant.

The class action was taken on behalf of more than 43,000 customers
who claimed they had been charged excessive fees for years.

In some cases the fees were 70 times the cost to the bank of
administering late payments.

But the judge also ruled in ANZ's favor by dismissing claims that
other types of bank fees were illegal penalties.

The case has since been appealed.

Hooker said he expected a decision to be made by the Australian
Federal Court soon but there was no specific timeframe.

"These sorts of decisions take a while."

Until then the New Zealand cases had been stayed.

Hooker said the outcome of the Australian case would not
necessarily determine what happened in New Zealand as New Zealand
had its own laws and court process.  But it made sense to wait.

Hooker said he had yet to file court documents against the ASB but
he planned to do so once he had enough resources in place to
gather the information together.

The banks have previously said they would vigorously defend any
action taken.


ARUBA NETWORKS: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on April 2
disclosed that it filed a class action lawsuit on April 1, 2015,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division on behalf of the shareholders of
Aruba Networks, Inc. against Aruba and its Board of Directors for,
among other things, violations of sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder.

Aruba Is Accused of Disseminating a False and Misleading Proxy
Statement

The complaint arises out of a March 2, 2015 press release
announcing that Aruba had entered into a definitive merger
agreement with Hewlett-Packard Company pursuant to which Aruba
shareholders would receive $24.67 per share in cash.  The
complaint seeks injunctive relief on behalf of the named plaintiff
and all other similarly situated shareholders of Aruba.  The named
plaintiff is represented by Robbins Arroyo LLP.

The complaint alleges that, in an attempt to secure shareholder
approval of the Proposed Transaction, the defendants filed a
materially false and misleading Definitive Proxy Statement with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in violation of the
Exchange Act.  The omitted and/or misrepresented information is
believed to be material to Aruba shareholders' ability to make an
informed decision whether to approve the Proposed Transaction.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Aruba stock prior to the
announcement of the Proposed Transaction on March 2, 2015, and
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than sixty days from April 2, 2015.  If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights
or interests, please contact attorney Darnell R. Donahue of
Robbins Arroyo LLP at 800-350-6003, via the shareholder
information form on our website, or by e-mail at
info@robbinsarroyo.com

Any member of the 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.

Robbins Arroyo LLP -- http://www.robbinsarroyo.com-- concentrates
its practice in the area of shareholder rights litigation,
representing individual and institutional investors in securities
class action lawsuits and shareholder derivative actions.


BANK OF NEW YORK: Appeal in Securities Class Action Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Recorder reports that the court of appeals dismissed an appeal
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  The court held that
Class Action Fairness Act removal did not apply pursuant to the
Act's securities exception where a bondholder asserted class
securities claims against a bank that served as successor to the
indenture trustee on public-project revenue bonds.

Eminence Investors, L.L.L.P., sued The Bank of New York Mellon in
California trial court.  The Bank was successor to the indenture
trustee regarding administration of revenue bonds on a publicly-
financed project.  Some two years later, Eminence amended its
complaint to add class allegations and a request for compensatory
damages in excess of $10 million for each of four causes of
action.  The complaint maintained that Eminence and other class
members had a common interest as holders of the bonds against the
Bank as their fiduciary.

The Bank removed the action to federal court pursuant to the Class
Action Fairness Act's (CAFA) removal provision in 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1453(b).  Eminence moved to remand, contending in pertinent part
that subject matter jurisdiction was absent under the CAFA
securities exception of Sec. 1453(d)(3).

The court of appeals dismissed the appeal, holding that CAFA's
securities exception to removal applied.

Construction of the CAFA securities exception was an issue of
first impression in the circuit.  By its statutory language, the
securities exception applies where all of the claims in a class
action have a particular kind of relationship with a security.
Specifically, each claim "must relate to certain rights, duties,
or obligations; those rights, duties, or obligations must be
related to or created by or pursuant to a security; and that
security must meet the definition established in 15 U.S.C. Sec.
77b(a)(1) 'and the regulations issued thereunder.'"  When that is
the case, the CAFA's removal provision does not apply.

It was undisputed that the bonds at issue fell within the
definition of "security" for purposes of the CAFA securities
exception.  Nor was it disputed that the issuance of the bonds
gave rise to rights, duties, and obligations between the holders
of the bonds, the borrower, and the indenture trustee.  The
dispute centered solely upon whether all of the claims in
Eminence's complaint related to the rights, duties, and
obligations relating to or created by or pursuant to the bonds.

Eminence asserted three claims for breach of fiduciary duty, one
claim for gross negligence, and one claim for "injunctive relief."
All of the claims, the court said, arose out of the Bank's
position as indenture trustee and Eminence's position as holder of
the bonds.  It mattered not that Eminence's causes of action
relied on varying sources of law that were outside the bonds or
their administrative indenture.  Any cause of action relating to
the duties created by a security necessarily had to invoke law
outside the security itself.

Thus, the court said, under any plausible interpretation of the
statutory language, all of the causes of action in the complaint
"relate[] to the rights, duties . . ., and obligations relating to
or created by or pursuant to" the bonds, so the securities
exception had to apply.

The court noted that its conclusion comported with decisions and
reasoning of the Second Circuit, and it joined the Second Circuit
in that regard.  Avoiding intercircuit conflicts was especially
important regarding securities issues, which span state
boundaries.  In addition, the legislative history as well as the
logic behind CAFA dictated that a nationwide rule was of great
significance.

Because the underlying causes of action here were covered by the
CAFA securities exception, the court dismissed the appeal.


BASIC RESEARCH: Must Face Diet Pill False Advertising Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Van Acker and Jeff Sistrunk, writing for Law360, report that a
New York federal judge on March 31 refused to dismiss a proposed
class action over allegedly unsafe and ineffective diet pills made
by Basic Research LLC and hawked by "Jersey Shore" star Nicole
"Snooki" Polizzi, but agreed to trim claims from the suit.

U.S. District Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein threw out some Maryland
and New York state law claims alleging misrepresentations against
Basic Research, its executives and Ms. Polizzi because the
packaging for the Zantrex brand products never said the diet pills
were "safe," while denying attempts by two of the company's
executives, Dennis W. Gay and Mitchell K. Friedlander, to show the
court lacked jurisdiction over them.

The judge also denied the defendants' motion to strike statements
from the complaint detailing how Mr. Friedlander, referred to in
the complaint as Basic Research's "marketing guru," was previously
ordered by the U.S. Postal Service to stop making misleading
statements about breast enlargement products that are not at issue
in this suit.

"The allegations have bearing on this case because the nature of
the false advertising claims for which Friedlander was censured,
i.e., weight loss and breast enhancement, are virtually identical
to the FAC's allegations concerning Friedlander's weight loss
claims with respect to Zantrex," the judge said.  "Although
permitting the allegations to stand may result in prejudice to
Friedlander, their probative value outweighs any prejudice."

The plaintiffs sued in December 2013, claiming the Zantrex
products aren't safe or effective for weight control or appetite
suppression and accused Ms. Polizzi of deceiving consumers into
buying them.

Judge Feuerstein said the court had jurisdiction over Gay because
he was ultimately responsible for the allegedly deceptive ads
being put into the stream of commerce.  The judge also said
Friedlander received Zantrex royalties in New York, where he
managed advertising for the products.

However, the judge dismissed claims against Daniel B. Mowrey,
identified in the complaint as the "director of scientific
affairs" for Basic Research, in light of the fact that the had
sold his stake in the company in 2004.

Ms. Polizzi was able to dismiss claims brought by one plaintiff
who had purchased the products before the former reality star
began marketing them, but she couldn't escape other allegations
that she violated state and federal warranty laws.

The court found that the plaintiff accusing M.s Polizzi of
violating the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and Maryland warranty law
had relied on an ad featuring the star in Life & Style Magazine
and "Snooki's Dirty Little Secret" in choosing to purchase the
diet pills, which allegedly gave her heart palpitations.

In addition to throwing out fraud and negligent misrepresentation
claims under Maryland and New York laws because the company had
never represented the Zantrex products as being safe, the judge
dismissed the plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim since they had
received the product they paid for.

Judge Feuerstein also denied the plaintiffs' motion to amend their
complaint, stating that the claims that were dismissed were either
barred or not actionable, so repleading wouldn't make a
difference.

The plaintiffs are represented by Scott A. Bursor, Neal J Deckant,
Yitzchak Kopel and Joseph Ignatius Marchese of Bursor & Fisher PA
and Shane T. Rowley of Levi & Korsinsky LLP.

The defendants are represented by Gerald Arth, Ryan Becker,
Stephanie Resnick and Daniel Adam Schnapp of Fox Rothschild LLP,
Jason Kerr and Ronald F. Price of Price Parkinson & Kerr PLLC and
Henninger Simons Bullock of Mayer Brown LLP.

The case is Ashley Brady v. Basic Research LLC et al., case number
2:13-cv-07169, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York.


BELO CORP: June 1 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on April 2 issued a statement
regarding the Belo Corp. Securities Litigation:

JACOB HULSEBUS, IBEW LOCAL 363
PENSION TRUST FUND, IBEW LOCAL 363
MONEY PURCHASE PENSION PLAN and
PLYMOUTH COUNTY RETIREMENT
SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated,

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
Plaintiffs,

v.


BELO CORP., GANNETT CO., INC.,
ROBERT W. DECHERD, DUNIA A. SHIVE,
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
WAYNE R. SANDERS, JAMES M.
MORONEY III, HENRY P. BECTON, JR., M.
ANNE SZOSTAK, JUDITH L. CRAVEN,
LLOYD D. WARD, DEALEY D. HERNDON,
McHENRY T. TICHENOR, JR. and PETER A.
68TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
ALTABEF,

Defendants

CAUSE NO. DC-13-06601-C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
68TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

SUMMARY NOTICE
IF YOU HELD SHARES OF COMMON STOCK IN BELO CORP. AND RECEIVED
CONSIDERATION FOR YOUR SHARES IN THE ACQUISITION OF BELO BY
GANNETT CO., INC. AT THE PRICE OF $13.75 PER SHARE, YOUR RIGHTS
MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF A CLASS ACTION.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the District
Court of Dallas County, Texas, 68th Judicial District, that a
hearing will be held on June 1, 2015, at 3:30 p.m., at the 68th
District Court for the County of Dallas, Texas, George L. Allen,
Sr. Courts Building, 600 Commerce Street, 5th Floor New Tower,
Dallas, Texas 75202, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether
the proposed settlement of the claims in the class action entitled
Hulsebus, et al. v. Belo Corp., et al., Cause No. DC-13-06601-C
for the sum of $4,500,000.00 in cash plus accrued interest should
be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2)
whether the Court should enter a final judgment in the Action on
the merits against the named Plaintiffs and the class as set forth
in the Stipulation of Settlement dated January 7, 2015; (3)
whether the proposed plan of allocation of settlement proceeds is
fair, reasonable, and adequate and therefore should be approved;
and (4) whether the application of Plaintiffs' Counsel for an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved.

If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and
Settlement of Class Action and Hearing on Proposed Settlement and
a copy of a proof of claim and release form, you may obtain copies
by writing to Belo Shareholder Litigation, Claims Administrator,
c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 990, Corte Madera, CA 94976-0990,
or you can download a copy at www.beloshareholderlitigation.com

If you are a member of the class, you must submit a completed
proof of claim and release form postmarked no later than July 1,
2015, in order to share in the proceeds of the settlement.  You
will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action whether or
not you make a claim.

If you desire to be excluded from the class, you must submit a
request for exclusion postmarked by May 13, 2015, in the manner
and form explained in the Notice referred to above.  All members
of the class who have not requested exclusion from the class will
be bound by any judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the
Stipulation, regardless of whether or not a proof of claim and
release form is submitted.

Any objection to the settlement, the plan of allocation or
Plaintiffs' Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses must be filed with the Court at the address below and
served by hand or first-class mail on counsel listed below such
that it is received no later than May 18, 2015:

The Court:

Office of the Clerk
68TH DISTRICT COURT
George L. Allen, Sr. Courts Building
600 Commerce Street
Box 540
Dallas, TX 75202

Plaintiffs' Settlement Counsel:

Ellen Gusikoff Stewart

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101

Defendants' Counsel

Robert C. Walters
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
2100 McKinney Avenue, Suite 1100
Dallas, TX 75201

T. Ray Guy
WEIL, GOTSCHAL & MANGES LLP
200 Crescent Court, Suite 300
Dallas, TX 75201

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

DATED: February 27, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT
OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
68TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT


BERRY PETROLEUM: Court Dismissed Royalty Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Berry Petroleum Company, LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company is a
defendant in a certain statewide royalty class action case. The
parties entered into a settlement agreement to settle past claims
for approximately $2.4 million, which the Court approved on
October 29, 2014. On December 17, 2014, the Company made a one-
time lump sum payment of $2.4 million for damages related to
production through April 30, 2014. On December 29, 2014, the Court
issued an Order dismissing the matter with prejudice. Per the
parties' settlement agreement, the Company has agreed to a new
methodology for calculating royalty payments beginning May 1,
2014.


BITCASA INC: Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismissed "Romack" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiff in a proposed class action against Bitcasa, a
cloud-storage service that ended its unlimited data storage plan
last year, voluntarily dismissed his lawsuit April 15, reports
Arvin Temkar at Courthouse News Service.

Shawn Romack sued the California-based company in November 2013,
less than a month after it announced it would end its "Infinite"
storage plan.  Romack claimed Bitcasa required Infinite storage
customers to accept a new, more expensive plan or to remove all of
their data, which would be deleted if customers didn't accept a
new plan.  Romack sought an injunction, saying he had about 8
terabytes to remove from the cloud.

In his stipulation of dismissal, Romack said he has medical
problems that leave him "insufficient time and energy to pursue
this case."  Neither he nor his attorney, Michael Sobol with Lieff
Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein in San Francisco, will receive
compensation.

Soon after Romack filed his lawsuit last year, a federal judge
gave him individual relief from Bitcasa's data deletion, but only
if he paid another $99 for a one-month extension under a new data
plan.

Romack's attorneys did not respond to requests for comment.
Attorneys for Bitcasa declined to comment.


BLOCKHEAD'S BURRITOS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fernando Martinez and Efrain Gonzalez Severiano, on behalf of
themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, v.
Blockhead's Burritos, Inc. d/b/a Blockheads, Case No. 1:15-cv-
03294-KPF (S.D.N.Y., April 28, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Blockhead's Burritos, Inc. operates a chain of restaurants in New
York under the trade name Blockheads, Benny's Burritos and Mother
Burger.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


C&J ENERGY: Faces "Moore" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dustin Moore, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. C&J Energy Services, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-01136
(S.D. Tex., April 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per
week.

C&J Energy Services, Inc. is a global company providing wireline
logging, pipe recovery, perforating, pressure pumping, and well
site make-up and pressure testing services to a the oil and gas
industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Clifton Alexander, Esq.
      SICO WHITE HOELSCHER & BRAUGH LLP
      900 Frost Bank Plaza
      802 N Carancahua Ste 900
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Telephone: (361) 653-3300
      Facsimile: (361) 653-3333
      E-mail: calexander@swhhb.com

         - and -

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP
      1150 Bissonnet Street
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com


CALIFORNIA: Highway Patrol Sued Over Noncompliant Helmets
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
the California Highway Patrol cites motorcyclists for having
noncompliant helmets, though the helmets were certified as
compliant when they bought them.


CARMINE'S BROADWAY: Faces "Pichardo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Raul Pichardo, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Carmine's Broadway Feast Inc. and Alicart, Inc. d/b/a The
Alicart Restaurant Group, Case No. 1:15-cv-03312-RA (S.D.N.Y.,
April 28, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 2450
Broadway, New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Blit, Esq.
      LEVINE & BLIT, PLLC
      Empire State Builidng
      350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6902
      New York, NY 10118
      Telephone: (212) 967-3000
      Facsimile: (212) 967-3010
      E-mail: mblit@levineblit.com


CATAMARAN CORP: Being Sold for Too Little, Shareholders Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling
Catamaran Corp. (pharmacy benefits) too cheaply through an unfair
process to UnitedHealth, for $61.50 a share or $12 billion,
shareholders claim in Cook County Court.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Investigation Ongoing in Ford Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company's
investigation is ongoing in the class action lawsuit filed by
former store employee Franchesca Ford.

On January 27, 2014, former store employee Franchesca Ford filed a
purported class action lawsuit against the Company in San
Francisco County Superior Court, California (the "Ford
Litigation"). The plaintiff claims to represent other similarly-
situated hourly non-exempt employees and former employees of the
Company in California who were employed during the period January
27, 2010 to the present. She alleges violations of California
state wage and hour laws governing vacation pay, meal and rest
period pay, wages due upon termination, and waiting time
penalties, and seeks an unspecified amount in damages. On March
27, 2014, the Company removed the Ford Litigation to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division. On April 25, 2014, the plaintiff petitioned
the court to remand the Ford Litigation to California state court;
on July 10, 2014, that motion was denied, so the case will proceed
in federal court. The parties have exchanged formal discovery. The
Company's investigation is ongoing.

"We believe the Company has meritorious defenses to this lawsuit
and we intend to vigorously defend it. While no assurance can be
given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter, we currently
believe that the final resolution of this action will not have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial
position, liquidity or capital resources," the Company said.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Deal Executed in Ford and Rodriguez Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the parties executed a
written settlement agreement in the class action lawsuit filed by
Franchesca Ford and Isabel Rodriguez.

On March 24, 2014, Franchesca Ford and Isabel Rodriguez filed a
purported class action lawsuit against the Company in the U.S.
District Court, Southern District of California, San Diego
Division. The plaintiffs claim to represent other similarly-
situated applicants who were subject to pre-employment background
checks with the Company in California and across the United States
from March 24, 2012 to the present. The lawsuit alleges violations
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the California Consumer
Credit Reporting and Investigative Reporting Agencies Act. On May
21, 2014, the Company filed an answer to the complaint. On
September 23, 2014, the Company reached an agreement to settle the
lawsuit on a class-wide basis. The settlement would result in the
plaintiffs' dismissal of all claims asserted in the action, as
well as certain related but unasserted claims, and grant of
complete releases, in exchange for the Company's settlement
payment of up to $1,750,000 (a substantial portion of which would
be covered by the Company's insurance carrier). On January 16,
2015, the parties executed a written settlement agreement, which
will be submitted to the Court for approval.

"We currently believe that the final resolution of this action
will not have a material adverse effect on our results of
operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources,"
the Company said.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Responded to Conditional Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company filed its
response to plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of
the putative class of employees in the Wiley Wright class action.

On October 17, 2014, former store employee Wiley Wright filed a
purported class action lawsuit against the Company in the United
States District Court, Eastern District of New York, claiming to
represent other similarly-situated salaried exempt current and
former employees of the Company in the United States during the
period October 17, 2011 to the present. The lawsuit alleges
current and former Assistant Managers and Senior Assistant
Managers were unlawfully classified as exempt from overtime
protections and worked more than 40 hours a week without overtime
premium pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New
York Labor Law. The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount in
damages. On December 12, 2014, plaintiff moved for conditional
certification of the putative class of employees; the Company
filed its response to this motion on January 19, 2015.

"We believe the Company has meritorious defenses to this lawsuit
and we intend to vigorously defend it. While no assurance can be
given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter, we currently
believe that the final resolution of this action will not have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial
position, liquidity or capital resources," the Company said.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Investigation Ongoing in Sinohui Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company's
investigation is ongoing in the class action lawsuit filed by
former store General Manager Richard Sinohui.

On October 10, 2014, former store General Manager Richard Sinohui
filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company in the
Superior Court of California, Riverside County (the "Sinohui
Litigation"), claiming to represent other similarly-situated
current and former General Managers of the Company in California
during the period October 10, 2010 to the present. The lawsuit
alleges current and former California General Managers were
unlawfully classified as exempt from overtime protections and
worked more than 40 hours a week without overtime premium pay,
paid rest periods and paid meal periods, in violation of the
California Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code,
and the applicable Wage Order issued by the California Industrial
Welfare Commission. The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount in
damages. On December 5, 2012, the Company removed the Sinohui
Litigation to the U.S. District Court, Central District of
California, Southern Division. On December 30, 2014, the plaintiff
petitioned the court to remand the Sinohui Litigation to
California state court. On January 21, 2015, the Company issued a
formal written demand to the plaintiff to dismiss his motion to
remand based on recent case law. If the plaintiff does not
voluntarily dismiss the Motion to Remand, the Court will hear the
motion at a hearing currently scheduled for February 27, 2015. The
Company's investigation is ongoing.

"While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of
this matter, we currently believe that the final resolution of
this action will not have a material adverse effect on our results
of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital
resources," the Company said.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Discovery Be Completed by May 2015
-----------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that discovery will
substantially be completed by May 2015 in the putative shareholder
class actions.

Following the January 16, 2014 announcement that the Company had
entered into the Merger Agreement, four putative shareholder class
actions were filed in the District Court of Shawnee County,
Kansas, on behalf of purported stockholders of the Company against
the Company, its directors, Apollo, Parent and Merger Sub, in
connection with the Merger Agreement and the transactions
contemplated thereby. The first purported class action, styled
Hilary Coyne v. Richard M. Frank et al. (the "Coyne Action"), was
filed on January 21, 2014. The second, styled John Solak v. CEC
Entertainment, Inc. et al. (the "Solak Action"), was filed on
January 22, 2014. The third, styled Irene Dixon v. CEC
Entertainment, Inc. et al. (the "Dixon Action"), was filed on
January 24, 2014, and additionally names as defendants Apollo
Management VIII, L.P. and the AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. The
fourth, styled Louisiana Municipal Public Employees' Retirement
System v. Frank, et al. (the "LMPERS Action"), was filed on
January 31, 2014, and additionally names as defendants, Apollo
Management VIII, L.P. and AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P.
(Collectively, Coyne, Solak, and Dixon Actions shall be referred
to as the "Shareholder Actions").

Each of the Shareholder Actions alleges that the Company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's
stockholders in connection with their consideration and approval
of the Merger Agreement by, among other things, agreeing to an
inadequate tender price, the adoption on January 15, 2014 of the
Rights Agreement, and certain provisions in the Merger Agreement
that allegedly made it less likely that the Board would be able to
consider alternative acquisition proposals. The Coyne, Dixon and
LMPERS Actions further allege that the Board was advised by a
conflicted financial advisor. The Solak, Dixon and LMPERS Actions
further allege that the Board was subject to material conflicts of
interest in approving the Merger Agreement and that the Board
breached its fiduciary duties in allowing allegedly conflicted
members of management to negotiate the transaction. The Dixon and
LMPERS Actions further allege that the Board breached its
fiduciary duties in approving the Solicitation/Recommendation
Statement on Schedule 14D-9 (together with the exhibits and
annexes thereto, as it may be amended or supplemented, the
"Statement") filed with the SEC on January 22, 2014, which
allegedly contained material misrepresentations and omissions.

Each of the Shareholder Actions allege that Apollo aided and
abetted the Board's breaches of fiduciary duties. The Solak and
Dixon Actions allege that CEC also aided and abetted such
breaches, and the Solak and LMPERS Actions further allege that
Parent and the Merger Sub aided and abetted such actions. The
LMPERS Action further alleges that Apollo Management VIII, L.P.
and AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. aided and abetted such actions.
The Shareholder Actions seek, among other things, rescission of
the transactions, damages, attorneys' and experts' fees and costs,
and other unspecified relief.

On January 24, 2014, the plaintiff in the Coyne Action filed an
amended complaint (the "Coyne Amended Complaint"), and on January
30, 2014, the plaintiff in the Solak Action filed an amended
complaint (the "Solak Amended Complaint") (together, the "Amended
Complaints"). The Amended Complaints incorporate all of the
allegations in the original complaints and add allegations that
the Board-approved Statement omitted certain material information,
in further violation of the Board's fiduciary duties, and request
an order directing the Board to disclose such allegedly-omitted
material information. The Solak Amended Complaint also adds
allegations that the Board breached its fiduciary duties in
allowing an allegedly conflicted financial advisor and management
to lead the sales process.

On March 7, 2014, the Coyne, Solak, Dixon and LMPERS Actions were
consolidated into one action. The Company has accrued for all
probable and reasonably estimable losses associated with this
claim. The Company believes the consolidated lawsuit is without
merit and intends to defend it vigorously. While no assurance can
be given as to the ultimate outcome of the consolidated matter, we
currently believe that the final resolution of the action will not
have a material adverse effect on our results of operations,
financial position, liquidity or capital resources.

On June 10, 2014, Magnetar Global Event Driven Fund Ltd., Spectrum
Opportunities Master Fund, Ltd., Magnetar Capital Master Fund,
Ltd., and Blackwell Partners LLC, as the purported beneficial
owners of shares held as of record by the nominal petitioner Cede
& Co., (the "Appraisal Petitioners"), filed an action for
statutory appraisal under Kansas state law against the Company in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. The Appraisal
Petitioners seek appraisal of 750,000 shares of common stock. The
Company has answered the complaint and filed a verified list of
stockholders, as required under Kansas law. On September 3, 2014,
the court entered a scheduling order that contemplates that
discovery will commence in the fall of 2014 and will substantially
be completed by May 2015. Following discovery, the scheduling
order contemplates dispositive motion practice followed,
potentially, by a trial on the merits of the Appraisal
Petitioners' claims thereafter.

"The Company has accrued for all probable and reasonably estimable
losses associated with this claim. The Company believes the
lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously.
While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of this
matter, we currently believe that the final resolution of this
action will not have a material adverse effect on our results of
operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources,"
the Company said.


CELLULAR DYNAMICS: Shareholders Sue Over Fujifilm Acquisition
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Treleven, writing for Wisconsin State Journal, reports that a
class-action lawsuit filed on April 1 on behalf of Cellular
Dynamics International shareholders is asking that a Dane County
judge quash a proposed $307 million purchase of the Madison firm
by a Japanese company, claiming that shareholders are being
shortchanged by the deal.

The lawsuit, filed by shareholder Michael Kahl of Oregon on behalf
of other shareholders, calls the proposed acquisition of Cellular
Dynamics by Fujifilm Holdings Corp. "the product of a hopelessly
flawed process" that preferentially benefits members of the
company's board of directors and other insiders at the expense of
stockholders like Kahl.

CDI creates induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) that can be
reprogrammed into virtually any cell type in the body.  The
company specializes in heart, kidney and nerve cells, and it
develops customized cell lines.

Its clients include 18 of the top 20 biopharmaceutical companies
worldwide.

On March 30, CDI announced it was being purchased by Fujifilm for
$307 million in a cash deal in which Fujifilm will buy CDI's
publicly traded stock for $16.50 per share.

CDI will become a Fujifilm subsidiary and continue to run its
headquarters in Madison and a branch in Novato, California.

But the lawsuit claims that the deal is lopsided in favor of the
CDI board and senior management, who control about 23.7 percent of
company shares and will receive more than $69 million in cash
alone from the deal.  The lawsuit claims that at least one analyst
put CDI's target price at $24.07 per share.

The company's stock price was $16.47 per share at the end of the
day on April 1.

The lawsuit also alleges that the deal is designed to preclude any
competing bids for CDI.

With a built-in short timeline for completing the acquisition, the
lawsuit states, "judicial intervention is warranted here to
rectify existing and future irreparable harm to the company's
shareholders."

Named as defendants in the lawsuit are CDI, Fujifilm, Badger
Acquisition Corp., CDI founders Robert and Thomas Palay, Craig
January and James Thomson, along with board members Sheli
Rosenberg, Kenneth Hunt, Michael Van Handel, Susan Willetts and
Stanley Rose.


CIGNA HEALTH: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over HIV/AIDS Medicines
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Doe, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Cigna Health And Life Insurance Company, Tel-Drug, Inc., Tel-
Drug of Pennsylvania, L.L.C, Case No. 0:15-cv-60894-DPG (S.D.
Fla., April 27, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the consumers
enrolled in the health plans offered by the Defendants and are
prescribed with specialty medications for the prevention or
treatment of HIV/AIDS, which face a threat on their privacy as a
result of the Defendants' discriminatory practices that require
HIV/AIDS patients to purchase their specialty medications
exclusively from the mail-order pharmacy.

The Defendants are foreign corporations organized under the laws
of the States of Connecticut, South Dakota and Pennsylvania. They
are in the business of providing health plans throughout the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Prieto, Esq.
      Aaron S. Podhurst, Esq.
      John Gravante III, Esq.
      Matthew Weinshall, Esq.
      PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
      25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 358-2800
      Facsimile: (305) 358-2382
      E-mail: pprieto@podhurst.com
              apodhurst@podhurst.com
              jgravante@podhurst.com
              mweinshall@podhurst.com

         - and -

      Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq.
      Edith M. Kallas, Esq.
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
      1180 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 447-7060
      Facsimile: (800) 922-4851
      E-mail: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com
              ekallas@whatleykallas.com

         - and -

      Alan M. Mansfield, Esq.
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
      10200 Willow Creek Road, Suite 160
      San Diego, CA 92131
      Telephone: (619) 308-5034
      Facsimile: (855) 274-1888
      E-mail: amansfield@whatleykallas.com

         - and -

      Jerry Flanagan, Esq.
      CONSUMER WATCHDOG
      2701 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 112
      Santa Monica, CA 90405
      Telephone: (310) 392-0522
      E-mail: jerry@consumerwatchdog.org


COMCAST CORP: Court Awards $158K to Class of Business Sales Reps
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge awarded more
than $158,000 to a class who successfully settled labor claims on
behalf Comcast business sales representatives.


COMPREHENSIVE PAIN: Faces "Son" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kwang Hoon Son, and Pyong Uk Kim, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated known and unknown v. Comprehensive Pain &
Rehabilitation Center, Ltd. and David Y. Kim, Case No. 1:15-cv-
03758 (N.D. Ill., April 29, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a chiropractic clinic in Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan J. Kim, Esq.
      INSEED LAW PC
      2454 E. Dempster St., Suite 301
      Des Plaines, IL 60016
      Telephone: (847) 905-6262
      E-mail: ryan@inseedlaw.com


COOPER VISION: Faces "Dizon-Ikei" Suit Over Alleged Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Racquel Dizon-Ikei, Stacie Ikei, Sally Weinstein, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Alcon
Laboratories, Inc., Bausch + Lomb, Incorporated, Johnson &
Johnson Vision Care, Inc., Cooper Vision, Inc., and ABB Optical
Group, Case No. 3:15-cv-01898-JCS (N.D. Cal., April 28, 2015),
alleges that the Defendants entered into a conspiracy to impose
minimum resale prices on certain contact lens lines by subjecting
them to so called Unilateral Pricing Policies (UPPs) and eliminate
price competition on those products by big box stores, buying
clubs, and internet-based retailers that prevent them from
discounting those products.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
      John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
      Jennifer J. Scott, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      707 Broadway, Suite 1000
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 233-4565
      Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
      E-mail: cburke@scott-scott.com
              jjasnoch@scott-scott.com
              jscott@scott-scott.com

         - and -

      Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
      Thomas K. Boardman, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      The Chrysler Building
      405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
      New York, NY 10174-4099
      Telephone: (212) 223-6444
      Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
      E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
              tboardman@scott-scott.com

         - and -

      E. Kirk Wood, Esq.
      WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC
      P. O. Box 382434
      Birmingham, AL 35238-2434
      Telephone: (205) 908-4906
      Facsimile: (866) 747-3905
      E-mail: ekirkwood1@bellsouth.net

         - and -

      Lawrence W. Cohn, Esq.
      LAWRENCE W. COHN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      75-109 Lolo Lane
      Kailua Kona, HI 96740
      Telephone: (808) 324-1611
      Facsimile: (808) 322-6168
      E-mail: elcohnhead@hawaii.rr.com

         - and -

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


DEL MONTE: Court Won't Give Unlimited FB Access in Dog Treat Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Erin McAuley at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge refused to give Del Monte unlimited access to the Facebook
page of a woman accusing it of killing her pet with poisonous dog
treats.

In a 2012 class action, Lisa Mazur says her otherwise healthy 7-
year-old dog, Riley Rae, developed kidney failure and had to be
euthanized after occasionally being given Chinese-made dog treats
for about one month.  The lawsuit alleges that Del Monte, a
national producer and distributor of pet products and foods,
refused to recall the dangerous products or place warnings on the
packages despite receiving a warning from the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration about its subsidiary, Milo's Kitchen Dog Treats.

The company was one of a dozen manufacturers in a $24 million
settlement in 2011 for wet pet food contaminated with melamine and
cyanuric acid.

In discovery for Mazur's case, Del Monte claimed that it is
entitled to a complete production of Mazur's entire Facebook data
file because at some point before she filed the suit, while her
account was public, she made a post that blamed Nestle/Purina's
Waggin Train Chicken Jerky, rather than Del Monte's products, for
the harm to her dog.

Citing Mazur's denials that she had purchased any treats other
than Milo's treats, Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Maureen Kelly
agreed with Del Monte on April 14 that Mazur's Facebook entry is
"highly relevant."

These facts do not, however, entitle Del Monte to limitless
Facebook access, along with Mazur's user username and password,
according to the ruling.

"Notwithstanding the fact that defendants' request had no
limitations whatsoever, even as to date, and thus were objected to
by plaintiff as inherently overbroad, plaintiff nevertheless
responded to the request," Kelly wrote.

The judge notes that Mazur has already produced 648 pages of
Facebook data.

Mazur admittedly left out "irrelevant" portions of her account,
but she already included data indicating that she "likely
purchased a jerky treat product other than the one at issue in
this litigation;" "texts of various Facebook entries;"
"conversations between [Mazur] and a third-party (Kristyn
Corcoran) regarding the instant suit;" and "a significant number
of comments with respect to chicken jerky," the ruling states.

"Because defendants are only entitled to discover information that
is relevant to any parties' claim or defenses, the court finds
nothing improper about Plaintiff's redaction of . . . immaterial
portions of her Facebook data," Kelly wrote.

Del Monte and Milo's Kitchen argued against Mazur being able to
"unilaterally decide what should be redacted" and complained that
the location of certain redactions were "suspect."  They claimed
that any objections to producing the entire Facebook file were
unfounded, given the court's protective order.  As to Mazur's
claims that attorney-client privilege justified the redaction of
communications between herself and possible fellow class member
Corcoran, Del Monte noted that the class had not yet been
certified.

Citing an "abundance of caution," Kelly directed Mazur to produce
the Corcoran communications from Facebook for an inspection in
chambers.

Though "Facebook accounts are always subject to unrestricted
access once a threshold showing of relevance has been made," Kelly
said the facts of this case "do not require the limitless access
to plaintiff's Facebook account data."

"Indeed," Kelly wrote, "it appears that counsel for plaintiff not
only took pains to include even borderline entries and un-redacted
certain data in an effort to show the absence of materiality, but
he has represented, and the court has no reason to doubt, that the
redactions were made in good faith and that the information that
remains redacted has nothing to do with the claims or defenses
raised in this case."

Kelly added: "Under these circumstances, the court finds not only
that unfettered access to plaintiff's Facebook data, particularly
her access information, is not warranted but that defendants have
received all the discovery relative to plaintiff's Facebook
account to which they are entitled, with perhaps one exception."


DIAMOND FOODS: Final Settlement Approval Sought in Labeling Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2015, that the plaintiffs in
labeling class action cases filed a motion for final approval of
the settlement.

On January 3, 2014, Deena Klacko first filed a putative class
action against Diamond in the Southern District of Florida,
alleging that certain ingredients contained in the Company's TIAS
tortilla chip product were not natural and seeking damages and
injunctive relief. The lawsuit alleged five causes of actions
alleging violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act, negligent misrepresentation, breach of implied
warranty for particular purpose, breach of express warranty and
the Magnuson-Warranty Act. The complaint seeks to certify a class
of Florida consumers who purchased TIAS tortilla chips since
January 3, 2010.

On January 9, 2014, Dominika Surzyn brought a similar class action
against Diamond relating to our TIAS tortilla chips in federal
court for the Northern District of California. Surzyn purports to
represent a class of California consumers who purchased said
Kettle TIAS products since January 9, 2010.

On April 2, 2014, Richard Hall filed a putative class action
against the Company in San Francisco Superior Court, alleging that
certain ingredients contained in the Company's Kettle Brand chips
and TIAS Tortilla Chips are not natural and seeking damages and
injunctive relief. The complaint purports to assert seven causes
of action for alleged violations of California's Business and
Profession's Code, California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act and
for restitution based on quasi-contract/unjust enrichment.
Plaintiff purports to bring this action on his own behalf, as well
as on behalf of all consumers in the United States, or
alternatively, California, who purchased certain of Diamond's
Kettle Brand Chips or Kettle Brand TIAS tortilla chips within 4
years of the filing of the complaint.

The Company denies all allegations in these cases. Following
mediation and settlement discussions among plaintiffs' counsel in
Klacko, Surzyn and Hall, the parties entered into a settlement
agreement preliminarily approved by the court, and it is expected
that they will resolve all claims on a nationwide basis and
include: Diamond to take certain injunctive relief measures to
confirm labeling compliance matters; establishment of a $3.0
million common fund for claims made available to the class and for
the payment of class administration and attorneys' fees; and any
funds unclaimed by the class to be provided cy pres to a charity
as a food donation. The Company recognized the related settlement
charges within the consolidated financial statements for fiscal
2014. On October 30, 2014, the court granted preliminary approval
of the settlement. On February 23, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a
motion for final approval of the settlement. The settlement is
subject to final court approval. The Company cannot predict with
certainty the ultimate resolution of these lawsuits, and an
unfavorable outcome in excess of amounts recognized as of July 31,
2014, with respect to one or more of these proceedings could have
a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations
for the periods in which a loss is recognized.


DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Settlement Hearing Held in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the
settlement hearing was scheduled for April 7, 2015, in a purported
stockholder class action complaint.

In November 2012, a purported stockholder class action complaint
was filed in the Chancery Court for Williamson County, Tennessee
(21st Judicial District) against the Company's Board of Directors.
This action alleges that the Board of Directors breached its
fiduciary duties to stockholders related to its response to
certain expressions of interest in a potential strategic
transaction from Covington Investments, LLC ("Covington"). The
complaint asserts that the Board failed to negotiate or otherwise
appropriately consider Covington's proposals. Plaintiff has filed
a motion seeking to certify the action as a class action, which is
not currently set for hearing. On May 23, 2014, the plaintiff and
defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding outlining
the terms of a settlement subject to the execution of definitive
documentation and court approval. The agreement provides that the
Company will adopt and maintain certain corporate governance
procedures for a period of at least three years. This settlement
has not yet been approved by the court. The settlement hearing was
scheduled for April 7, 2015.


DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: To Defend Lawsuits Filed Arkansas
---------------------------------------------------------
Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the
Company intends to defend the lawsuits filed in the U.S. District
Court for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Arkansas.

The Company said, "In June 2012, a collective action complaint was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Arkansas against us and certain of our
subsidiaries.  The complaint alleges that the defendants violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and seeks unpaid overtime
wages as well as liquidated damages.  The Court conditionally
certified a nationwide class of all of the Company's hourly
employees, but recently decertified the class.  After the class
was decertified, the law firm initiating the action filed two new
separate actions in federal court in Tennessee and Texas, naming
as plaintiffs many of the individuals who had filed claims in the
original Arkansas action. The new actions assert the same claim as
was asserted in the original Arkansas action. The Company intends
to defend these lawsuits vigorously."


DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: To Defend Class Action Filed in Garland
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the
Company intends to defend the class action complaint filed in the
Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas.

In January 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas against the Company
and certain of its subsidiaries and Garland Nursing &
Rehabilitation Center (the "Facility"). The complaint alleges that
the defendants breached their statutory and contractual
obligations to the patients of the Facility over the five-year
period prior to the filing of the complaints. The lawsuit remains
in its early stages and has not yet been certified by the court as
a class action. The Company intends to defend the lawsuit
vigorously.


DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Amended Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dynavax Technologies Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court
granted the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint with
respect to some of the alleged misrepresentations and omissions
made by the Company or certain named defendants as well as some of
the insider trading claims against certain insiders and denied the
motion to dismiss with respect to other alleged misrepresentations
and omissions and insider trading claims.

On June 18, 2013, the first of two substantially similar
securities class action complaints was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California against the Company
and certain of its former executive officers. The second was filed
on June 26, 2013. On August 22, 2013, these two complaints and all
related actions that subsequently may be filed in, or transferred
to, the District Court were consolidated into a single case
entitled In re Dynavax Technologies Securities Litigation. On
September 27, 2013, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel. On November 12, 2013, lead plaintiff filed his
consolidated class action complaint (the "consolidated
complaint"), which named a former director of the Company as a
defendant in addition to the Company and the former executive
officers identified in the two prior complaints (collectively, the
"defendants"). The consolidated complaint alleged that between
April 26, 2012 and June 10, 2013, the Company and certain of its
executive officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, in connection with statements related to the Company's
product, HEPLISAV-B, an investigational adult hepatitis B vaccine.
The consolidated complaint sought unspecified damages, interest,
attorneys' fees, and other costs. On January 10, 2014, defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.

On March 10, 2014, plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint. The opposition introduced a
new theory of the case, so defendants permitted plaintiffs to
amend their complaint. On April 7, 2014, plaintiffs filed an
amended consolidated complaint ("ACC"). The ACC added a new
plaintiff and several new defendants, and alleged that, between
April 26, 2012 and June 10, 2013, the Company, certain of its
executive officers and directors, and entities related to certain
of its directors, violated Sections 10(b), 20A, and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder in connection with statements related to our product
candidate, HEPLISAV-B. Specifically, the ACC alleged that the
Company made fraudulent misrepresentations or omissions regarding
the manufacture of HEPLISAV-B and that certain insiders unlawfully
profited from such misrepresentations or omissions. The ACC sought
unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs.
On June 6, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the ACC. On
August 8, 2014, plaintiffs filed their Opposition to that motion.

On September 10, 2014, plaintiffs filed the second amended
complaint ("SAC") to remove or correct erroneous statements
attributed to confidential witnesses. The SAC retains all
allegations asserted in the ACC. On October 10, 2014 defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the SAC. On November 10, 2014,
plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss
the SAC. The Company filed its reply in support of the motion on
December 1, 2014.

A hearing on the motion to dismiss the SAC occurred on February
20, 2015. The Court granted the motion with respect to some of the
alleged misrepresentations and omissions made by the Company or
certain named defendants as well as some of the insider trading
claims against certain insiders and denied the motion to dismiss
with respect to other alleged misrepresentations and omissions and
insider trading claims.


ENCORE CAPITAL: Sued in E.D. Mich. Over Post-Charge Off Interest
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob J. Danley, intervening Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated v. Encore Capital Group, Inc., Midland
Credit Management, Inc. and Midland Funding, LLC, Case No. 2:15-
cv-11535-MOB-MJH (E.D. Mich., April 28, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for collecting post-charge off interest for credit
card debt balance.

Encore Capital Group, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that
purchases portfolios of defaulted consumer receivables at deep
discounts to face value.

Midland Credit Management, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Encore and has its principal place of business in San Diego,
California.

Midland Funding, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Encore with
its principal place of business in San Diego, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Scott Parnell, Esq.
      THE PARNELL FIRM, PLLC
      21929 E. Nine Mile Road
      Saint Clair Shores, MI 48080
      Telephone: (586) 445-0110
      Facsimile: (586) 445-2399
      E-mail: David@ParnellFirm.com

         - and -

      Sean R. O'Mara, Esq.
      O'MARA LAW FIRM PC
      21929 E. Nine Mile Road
      St. Clair Shores, MI 48080
      Telephone: (586) 200-6404
      Facsimile: (586) 445-2399
      E-mail: seanrob3@gmail.com

         - and -

      Michelle E. Vocht, Eq.
      ROY, SHECTER & VOCHT, P.C.
      707 S. Eton St.
      Birmingham, MI 48009
      Telephone: (248) 540-7660
      Facsimile: (248) 540-0321
      E-mail: vocht@rsmv.com


ENTERGY OPERATIONS: Faces Class Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Entergy stiffs security shift
supervisors for overtime at its Arkansas nuclear power plant,
workers claim in a federal class action in Arkansas.


ESPAR INC: Faces Trailer Suit Over Parking Heater-Price Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trailer Craft Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. Espar Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-02411 (E.D.N.Y.,
April 28, 2015), arises out of the alleged conspiracy to set a
floor price for parking heater kits for commercial vehicles sold
to aftermarket customers.

Espar Inc. is an Illinois corporation with headquarters in Novi,
Michigan. Espar is one of the leading suppliers of parking heaters
in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey A. Klafter, Esq.
      KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
      Two International Drive, Suite 350
      Rye Brook, NY 10573
      Telephone: (914) 934-9200
      E-mail: jak@klafterolsen.com

         - and -

      Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
      Louis A. Kessler, Esq.
      CERA LLP
      595 Market Street, Suite 2300
      San Francisco, CA 94105
      Telephone: (415) 777-2230
      E-mail: scera@cerallp.com
              lakessler@cerallp.com


EZ BAIL: "Reyes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elise Reyes, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons v. Michelle So-Young Lee, individually and d/b/a Ez Bail
Bonds and d/b/a Okay Bail Bonds, and as Independent Executrix of
the Estate of Sun Mo Lee, Case No. 4:15-cv-01128 (S.D. Tex., April
29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a Bail Bonds Services company in
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josef Franz Buenker, Esq.
      2030 North Loop W, Suite 120
      Houston, TX 77018
      Telephone: (713) 868-3388
      Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
      E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com


FARMERS GROUP: Sued in Cal. Over Alleged Discriminatory Policies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lynne Coates, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated and aggrieved v. Farmers Group, Inc., Farmers Insurance
Exchange, and Farmers Insurance Company, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-
01913-LHK (N.D. Cal., April 29, 2015), is a class action lawsuit
on behalf of similarly-situated female attorneys to seek redress
for the Defendant's discriminatory policies and practices.
Specifically for failing to take appropriate measures to ensure
that its female employees are paid fairly.

The Defendants own and operate a personal property and casualty
insurance company with its principal place of business located in
Los Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lori J. Costanzo, Esq.
      Gabrielle Korte, Esq.
      COSTANZO LAW FIRM
      111 North Market Street, #910
      San Jose, CA 95113
      Telephone: (408) 993-8493
      Facsimile: (408) 993-8496
      E-mail: lori@costanzo-law.com
              gabrielle@costanzo-law.com

         - and -

      Lori E. Andrus, Esq.
      ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP
      155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 986-1400
      Facsimile: (415) 986-1474
      E-mail: lori@andrusanderson.com


FEDERAL NATIONAL: Faces "Jackson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Casssie Jackson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Federal National Mortgage Association d/b/a Fannie
Mae, and Open Systems, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01411-AT (N.D. Ga.,
April 28, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Federal National Mortgage Association is a mortgage loan company
with Atlanta, Georgia office located at 950 East Paces Ferry Road,
N.E. Atlanta, Georgia 30326.

Open Systems, Inc. is a staffing company doing business in
Atlanta, Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amanda A. Farahany, Esq.
      Victor Severin Roberts, Esq.
      BARRETT & FARAHANY, LLP
      1100 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 500
      Atlanta, GA 30309
      Telephone: (404) 214-0120
      Facsimile: (404) 214-0125
      E-mail: amanda@bf-llp.com
              vsroberts@bf-llp.com

         - and -

      Jerilyn Elaine Gardner, Esq.
      FRIED & BONDER, LLC
      Suite 305, 1170 Howell Mill Road, NW
      Atlanta, GA 30318
      Telephone: (404) 995-8808
      Facsimile: (404) 995-8899
      E-mail: jgardner@friedbonder.com


FERNDALE, CA: Settles Suit Over Water Bills for $4.25 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Gordon, writing for C&G Newspapers, reports that Ferndale
residents may be eligible for a partial refund of water bills from
the past seven years after a case involving two fees on the water
bills was settled at the end of February in Oakland County Circuit
Court.

The city of Ferndale was sued by Ferndale businessman Laurence
Wolf, who was the representative for the class action lawsuit,
regarding fees added to residents' water bills to cover stormwater
disposal charges and debt service charges for the city's portion
of recent upgrades made to the George W. Kuhn Drainage District
treatment facility.

The argument was that the two charges constituted new taxes and
were not approved by voters, which violated the state's Headlee
Amendment.

Ultimately, the city decided to settle for $4.25 million, with
roughly 13,000 residents who paid water bills from January 2008 to
December 2014 getting a refund for the user fees paid during that
time.

"When you pay your water bill, you pay for how much water you take
out of the tap, but Ferndale added the cost of paying for
stormwater that doesn't come out of your tap," attorney
Gregory Hanley, who represented Wolf and the class action, said.
"In other words, how much stormwater that runs off your property
has nothing to do with how much water you use out of your tap."

The Kuhn Drainage District serves 14 communities.  Upgrades were
made in 2006 to the treatment facility, with each contributing
community responsible for paying a portion of the cost.  According
to the lawsuit, the city of Ferndale brought in about $800,000 a
year from the user fee related to the treatment facility.

The stormwater charge totaled about $2.5 million a year from the
user fee.

"The question is how the city passes those costs on to residents,
and historically, the city has passed it through water rates,"
Acting City Manager Joseph Gacioch said.  "We considered it that
because the city has a combined sewer system, so it all runs
through the same pipes.  The city considered it a water fee, but
the question is what is the appropriate venue to pass on those
charges."

Mr. Gacioch said the city had to weigh what was the best route to
take with the lawsuit.

A similar lawsuit was filed against the city of Jackson recently,
and with the courts finding Jackson in violation of the Headlee
Amendment, Mr. Gacioch said the city determined it was best to
settle.

"If we took this through the litigation process, we wouldn't know
the outcome and don't know the risk associated with the final
agreement that would be reached," he said.  "Whether we maintain
we are correct is less of a factor in this case because recent
court decisions for the city of Jackson set the precedent for how
judges may be ruling on this.

"We maintain by settling we have more control of what kind of
settlement payout would be involved and ensure a majority of funds
will be returned back to the people who participate in our water
system."

As part of the settlement, the city can replace the two user fees
with two new drain assessments on residents' 2016 winter tax bills
under the Michigan Drain Code of 1956.  Both assessments are
estimated at approximately 2 mills each, meaning that a resident
with a $100,000 taxable-value home will pay $200 each for the
assessments, or $400 total.

The millages will run from Jan. 1, 2016, through Dec. 31, 2020,
according to the settlement, and the city can increase the mills
if rates for services rise.

"It is not a question of if we pay these fees -- they have to be
paid, as they are real charges that stem from services and debts
the city owes for using the water treatment facility," Mr. Gacioch
said.  "We are obligated to pay, and it is important for residents
to understand. Now it will be a special assessment on your
property, so how much you pay depends on your property value."

As for the water bill refunds, Mr. Hanley said each resident may
receive around $250, but it ultimately depends on how much they
paid during the seven-year period.  Mr. Hanley and his associates
at the Kickham Hanley law firm will use city records to determine
the amount.

"There is no typical person, as someone who lived there for six
months and used little water will get a whole lot less than
someone who lived there all seven years," he said.  "We have the
city records we are using to write notices to people of the class
action and get them their money."

Mr. Gacioch said the case came down to the definition of a tax
versus a user fee, but he feels residents will lose some control
over how much they pay for the two charges.

"It is a complex issue and is a case of moving from the water
bucket to the tax bucket," he said.  "Residents lose a bit of
control, because it is no longer based off consumption, but value
of your home."

For more information on the settlement, visit
www.ferndalemi.gov/services/utilities or
www.kickhamhanley.com/class-action


FINISAR CORPORATION: Appeal on Class Action Dismissal Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Finisar Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended January 25, 2015, that the appeal of the
lead plaintiff on the dismissal of the class action is pending.

Several securities class action lawsuits related to the Company's
March 8, 2011 earnings announcement alleging claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, have been filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of a purported class
of persons who purchased stock between December 1 or 2, 2010
through March 8, 2011. The named defendants are the Company and
its Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer. To date, no specific amount of damages has been
alleged. The cases were consolidated, lead plaintiffs were
appointed and a consolidated complaint was filed. The Company
filed a motion to dismiss the case. On January 16, 2013, the
District Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss and granted
the lead plaintiffs leave to amend the consolidated complaint. An
amended consolidated complaint was filed on February 6, 2013.
Thereafter, the Company filed a renewed motion to dismiss the
case. On September 30, 2013, the District Court granted the
Company's motion and dismissed the case with prejudice. On October
25, 2013, the lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the
District Court's dismissal ruling, and the appeal is pending.


GALENA BIOPHARMA: To Seek Resolution to Class Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Galena Biopharma, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company intends to
vigorously defend against and seek resolution to the claims in the
purported securities class action complaints.

The Company said, "five purported securities class action
complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon have been consolidated into a single action, In re Galena
Biopharma, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 3:14-cv-367-SI (D.
Or.), and a lead plaintiff has been appointed. On October 31,
2014, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint,
which alleges, among other things, that our company and certain of
our officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by
making materially false and misleading statements and omissions in
press releases and in filings with the SEC arising out of the same
circumstances that are the subject of the derivative actions
described above, and which alleges that certain of our officers
and directors sold company stock while in possession of material
non-public information."

"We intend to vigorously defend against and seek resolution to the
foregoing claims. At December 31, 2014, we have not recorded any
liabilities with respect to the claims in our consolidated
financial statements. We believe that claims are covered under our
liability insurance, and we have notified our insurance carriers
of the claims. The insurers have responded by requesting
additional information and by reserving their rights under the
policies, including the rights to deny coverage under various
policy exclusions. Subject to their reservation of rights, we are
being reimbursed by our insurer for substantially all legal fees
relating to our defense of the claims."


GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Dashboard Cracks in Silverado, Escalade
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Jeff D. Gorman reports that
seven series of General Motors trucks, including the Silverado and
Escalade, are prone to dashboard cracks that could interfere with
airbag deployment, a class claims in Federal Court.

Greg Mross and 19 others, hailing from 11 different states,
brought the April 13 complaint against GM in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

The lawsuit covers the model years 2009-14 for trucks in the
GMT900 series.


GENERAL MOTORS: Ducks Majority of Suits on Faulty Ignition Switch
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The sale of General Motors to its new corporate owner six years
ago may help the company escape billions in liability for the
ignition switch debacle that spawned nationwide litigation,
reports Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal
bankruptcy court ruling.

In 2009, GM's former company sold its assets to the current
limited liability company that owns it under an agreement that
also shields the new owner from successor-liability claims.

That clause spawned controversy last year amid revelations that
ignition switch defects in GM vehicles caused accidents that
killed at least 35 people, though an independent report
commissioned by Center for Auto Safety says the death toll could
be as high as 300.

GM tried to fend off more than 60 class action lawsuits filed
against it across the United States by turning to federal
bankruptcy court for the enforcement of the sale order.  The
company had expected to face between $7 and $10 billion in
liability.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Gerber noted that there were 850
objections to this order, the "most serious" of which related to
the "free and clear" provision as applied to the ignition
litigation.

"After lengthy analysis, the court overruled those objections,"
Gerber wrote in a 138-page opinion issued April 15.

Introducing the summary of conclusions, the opinion stated: "New
GM is right when it says that most of the claims now asserted
against it are proscribed under the sale order."

Gerber continued: "But that is only the start, and not the end, of
the relevant inquiry.  And assuming, as the plaintiffs argue, that
old GM's and then new GM's delay in announcing the ignition switch
defect to the driving public was unforgiveable, that too is only
the start, and not the end of the relevant inquiry."

Only cases related to accidents that took place before July 10,
2009 will be allowed to proceed under certain circumstances,
according to the ruling.

GM's sales reporting manager James Cain praised the decision in a
statement.

"Judge Gerber properly concluded that claims based on old GM's
conduct are barred, and that the sale order and injunction will be
enforced for such purposes," he wrote.  "With respect to any
claims that were not expressly barred, Judge Gerber's decision
doesn't establish any liability against GM and the plaintiffs
still must prove the merits of their claims in the multi-district
litigation proceeding."

A lawyer for the victims of accidents before GM's sale did not
respond to a request for comment by press time.


GOOGLE INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Google Wallet Privacy Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal
judge has rejected Google Inc's request to dismiss a lawsuit
accusing the technology company of invading the privacy of users
of its Google Wallet electronic payment service by sharing their
personal information with outside app developers.

In a decision on April 1, U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman
in San Jose, California said Google must face claims it breached
users' contracts, violated the federal Stored Communications Act
which limits disclosure of electronic records, and violated a
California consumer protection law.  She also dismissed two other
claims.

Judge Freeman said Google Wallet users may try to show that Google
"frustrated" the purpose of its own privacy policy by allowing
"blanket, universal disclosure" of their personal information to
app developers whenever they bought apps in Google's Play Store.

The lead plaintiff is Alice Svenson, an Illinois resident who said
Google sent unnecessary personal information about her to YCDroid
when she paid that developer $1.77 for an email app.  She said
Google raised the risk of identity theft by routinely sending
information about Google Wallet users such as addresses and zip
codes, phone numbers and email addresses to app developers.

Ms. Svenson said the Mountain View, California-based company
ceased the practice soon after the lawsuit was filed in Sept.
2013. Her lawsuit seeks class-action status, damages of $1,000 per
violation, punitive damages and other remedies.

Launched in 2011, Google Wallet stores credit and debit card
information, and lets shoppers pay for goods by tapping their
phones against special terminals at store checkout counters.

To boost U.S. demand, Google in February partnered with AT&T
Mobility, T-Mobile USA and Verizon Wireless to pre-install Google
Wallet on Android smartphones.

In October, rival Apple Inc said it would include its Apple Pay
mobile payment service in its iPhone 6 line.

The case is Svenson et al v. Google Inc et al, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California, No. 13-04080.


H&R BLOCK: RAL and RAC Litigation Stayed Pending Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2015, that class action
lawsuits concerning the refund anticipation loan (RAL) and refund
anticipation check (RAC) products remain stayed pending
arbitration.

The Company said, "A series of putative class action lawsuits were
filed against us in various federal courts beginning on November
17, 2011 concerning the refund anticipation loan (RAL) and refund
anticipation check (RAC) products. The plaintiffs generally allege
we engaged in unfair, deceptive or fraudulent acts in violation of
various state consumer protection laws by facilitating RALs that
were accompanied by allegedly inaccurate TILA disclosures, and by
offering RACs without any TILA disclosures. Certain plaintiffs
also allege violation of disclosure requirements of various state
statutes expressly governing RALs and provisions of those statutes
prohibiting tax preparers from charging or retaining certain fees.
Collectively, the plaintiffs seek to represent clients who
purchased RAL or RAC products in up to forty-two states and the
District of Columbia during timeframes ranging from 2007 to the
present. The plaintiffs seek equitable relief, disgorgement of
profits, compensatory and statutory damages, restitution, civil
penalties, attorneys' fees and costs. These cases were
consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois for coordinated pretrial proceedings, in a matter styled
IN RE: H&R Block Refund Anticipation Loan Litigation (MDL No.
2373/No: 1:12-CV-02973-JBG ).

"On July 23, 2014, the MDL court granted our motion to compel
arbitration of the claims of the named plaintiffs and stayed the
cases pending arbitration. The MDL court certified its arbitration
order for interlocutory appeal. Plaintiffs filed a petition for
permission to appeal with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals,
which was denied on January 30, 2015. The cases remain stayed
pending arbitration. We have not concluded that a loss related to
this matter is probable, nor have we accrued a loss contingency
related to this matter," the Company said.


H&R BLOCK: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Lopez Case Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2015, that the Company's motion
to compel arbitration in the class action case filed by Manuel H.
Lopez III remains pending.

The Company said, "On April 16, 2012, a putative class action
lawsuit was filed against us in the Circuit Court of Jackson
County, Missouri styled Manuel H. Lopez III v. H&R Block, Inc., et
al. (Case # 1216CV12290) concerning a compliance fee charged to
retail tax clients in the 2011 and 2012 tax seasons. The plaintiff
seeks to represent all Missouri citizens who were charged the
compliance fee, and asserts claims of violation of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act, money had and received, and unjust
enrichment. We filed a motion to compel arbitration of the 2011
claims. The court denied the motion. We filed an appeal. On May 6,
2014, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, reversed
the ruling of the trial court and remanded the case for further
consideration of the motion, which remains pending. We have not
concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable, nor have
we accrued a loss contingency related to this matter."


H&R BLOCK: Appeal in "Perras" Fee Litigation Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2015, that an appeal of the
denial of class certification in the Compliance Fee Litigation by
Ronald Perras to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals remains
pending.

"On April 19, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against us in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Missouri styled Ronald Perras v. H&R Block, Inc., et
al. (Case No. 4:12-cv-00450-DGK) concerning a compliance fee
charged to retail tax clients in the 2011 and 2012 tax seasons.
The plaintiff seeks to represent all persons nationwide (excluding
citizens of Missouri) who were charged the compliance fee, and
asserts claims of violation of various state consumer laws, money
had and received, and unjust enrichment. In November 2013, the
court compelled arbitration of the 2011 claims and stayed all
proceedings with respect to those claims. On June 20, 2014, the
court denied class certification of the remaining 2012 claims.
Plaintiff filed an appeal of the denial of class certification to
the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which remains pending. We
have not concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable,
nor have we accrued a loss contingency related to this matter."


H&R BLOCK: Form 8863 Litigation Cases Remain Stayed
---------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2015, that the Form 8863
Litigation cases remain stayed with respect to the individual
plaintiffs who agreed to arbitration.

The Company said, "A series of putative class action lawsuits were
filed against us in various federal courts and one state court
beginning on March 13, 2013. Taken together, the plaintiffs in
these lawsuits purport to represent certain clients nationwide who
filed Form 8863 during tax season 2013 through an H&R Block office
or using H&R Block At Home(R) online tax services or tax
preparation software, and allege breach of contract, negligence
and violation of state consumer laws in connection with
transmission of the form. The plaintiffs seek damages, pre-
judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs. In August 2013, the
plaintiff in the state court action voluntarily dismissed her case
without prejudice. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
subsequently granted our petition to consolidate the remaining
federal lawsuits for coordinated pretrial proceedings in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri
in a proceeding styled IN RE: H&R BLOCK IRS FORM 8863 LITIGATION
(MDL No. 2474/Case No. 4:13-MD-02474-FJG)."

"On July 11, 2014, the MDL court granted our motion to compel
arbitration for those named plaintiffs who agreed to arbitrate
their claims. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint in October 2014. We filed a motion to strike the class
allegations relating to those clients who agreed to arbitration,
which the court granted on January 7, 2015. The cases remain
stayed with respect to the individual plaintiffs who agreed to
arbitration. We have not concluded that a loss related to this
matter is probable, nor have we accrued a liability related to
this matter."


HAKUYA SUSHI: Faces "Kim" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Young Chol Kim, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated known and unknown v. Hakuya Sushi, Inc. and Chul Kim,
Case No. 1:15-cv-03747 (N.D. Ill., April 29, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours per week.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan J. Kim, Esq.
      INSEED LAW PC
      2454 E. Dempster St., Suite 301
      Des Plaines, IL 60016
      Telephone: (847) 905-6262
      E-mail: ryan@inseedlaw.com


HMSHOST CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Vranek and Guven Erguven v. HMSHost Corporation and host
International, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00504 (E.D. Wis., April 29,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

HMSHost Corporation -- through its wholly owned subsidiary,
Defendant Host International, Inc. -- manages and oversees the
operations of food and beverage concessions at numerous United
States airports and other travel facilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bradley I. Berger, Esq.
      BERGER & ASSOCIATES
      321 Broadway
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 571-1900

         - and -

      Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
      Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
      KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
      2 International Dr-Ste 350
      Rye Brook, NY 10573
      Telephone: (914) 934-9200

         - and -

      Jeffrey A. Klafter, Esq.
      KLAFTER & OLSEN LLP
      1311 Mamaroneck Ave-Ste 220
      White Plains, NY 10602
      Telephone: (914) 997-5656

         - and -

      Timothy P. Maynard, Esq.
      Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
      HAWKS QUINDEL SC
      222 E Erie St-Ste 210, PO Box 442
      Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
      Telephone: (414) 271-8650
      Facsimile: (414) 271-8442
      E-mail: tmaynard@hq-law.com
              ljohnson@hq-law.com


HUBSPOT INC: Settled McCormack Class Action Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------
HubSpot, Inc. has settled the Albert McCormack class action
complaint for an immaterial amount and the complaint was
dismissed, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

The Company said, "On November 13, 2013, a putative class action
complaint was filed in the Middlesex County Superior Court in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, entitled Albert McCormack v.
HubSpot, Inc. The complaint alleged that we maintained a policy of
not paying overtime to our business development representatives
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The complaint
sought unpaid wages, multiple damages, injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees and costs. We settled this matter for an
immaterial amount and the complaint was dismissed on November 3,
2014.


HUDSON PACIFIC: Court Denied Injunction of Special Meeting
----------------------------------------------------------
Hudson Pacific Properties, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Current
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
5, 2015, that following the December 8, 2014 announcement that the
Registrant and the Operating Partnership had entered into the
Purchase Agreement, and after the filing of the Definitive Proxy
Statement, a putative class action lawsuit was filed on January
22, 2015 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of San Francisco, captioned Fundamental Partners v. Hudson Pacific
Properties, Inc. et al., Case No. CGC-15-543775. The complaint
named as defendants, among other parties, the Registrant and the
members of the Registrant's Board of Directors, and alleged, among
other claims, that the Registrant's directors breached their
fiduciary duties by "effectively" selling control to The
Blackstone Group L.P. and by failing to disclose purportedly
material information to shareholders in connection with the
Purchase Agreement. The complaint sought, among other things, an
order enjoining or rescinding the Purchase Agreement and an award
of attorneys' fees and other costs. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a
motion for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the Special
Meeting.

A hearing on plaintiff's motion was held on March 3 and March 4,
2015 at which the court denied the requested injunction of the
Special Meeting in its entirety on multiple grounds. Accordingly,
the Special Meeting was held on March 5, 2015 at 8:00 a.m.
(Pacific time) as originally scheduled.


HULU LLC: Dismissal of Privacy Class Suit Appealed to 9th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that consumers, who
claim Hulu shared their private information with Facebook appealed
their proposed class action to the 9th Circuit after a federal
judge tossed the privacy lawsuit.

The proposed class in 2011 claimed Hulu "repurposed" its browser
cache so market analysts could store their private data.  Hulu
consistently disputed the claims that it used the market analysts,
or that it used Facebook "like" buttons to store users' data.
Much of the litigation has focused on the Video Privacy Protection
Act (VPPA), which Congress enacted in 1988 after a newspaper
published the video-rental history of Supreme Court nominee Robert
Bork.

The case has been whittled down, and the remaining issue is the
transmission of Facebook "likes."

U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler ruled in late March that the
proposed class couldn't prove a connection between a "c_user"
browser cookie sent to Facebook and the identity of a Hulu user.

In granting summary judgment to Hulu, Beeler said the case did not
seem similar to the case that gave rise to the VPAA.

"In that type of case, the connection between a specific user and
the material that he 'requested or obtained' is obvious.  If I
hand someone a slip of paper with John Doe's name above a list of
recently rented videotapes, the connection between the two will
generally be apparent.  This is all the more so because the
information is passed between humans in a natural language. The
recipient can immediately read the note and see the connection,"
Beeler wrote in March.

"This case is different.  The user's identity and that of the
video material were transmitted separately (albeit
simultaneously).  By sending those two items Hulu did not thereby
connect them in a manner akin to connecting Judge Bork to his
video-rental history."

Five plaintiffs on the third week of April gave notice that they
will appeal to the 9th Circuit.

They are represented by attorneys from Kamberlaw in New York City,
Strange & Carpenter in Los Angeles, and Parisi & Havens in Santa
Monica.


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Suit Over Defective Connecting Rod Bearings
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Hyundai's Theta II engines in
the 2011-12 Sonatas have defective connecting rod bearings and
insufficient channels of engine lubrication, a class action claims
in California Federal Court.


IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of iDreamSky
Technology Limited on April 2 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of a class comprising
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired iDreamSky American
Depositary Shares ("ADSs"): (1) pursuant and/or traceable to the
Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with the Company's initial public offering on or about
August 7, 2014 (the "IPO" or the "Offering"); and/or (2) on the
open market between August 8, 2014 and March 13, 2015, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the Company had
overstated its ability to monetize its user base and effectively
integrate its distribution channels; (2) that, as a result, the
Company had to lower its earnings guidance; and (3) that, as a
result of the foregoing, the Company's statements about its
business, operations, and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On March 13, 2015, after the market closed, the Company lowered
its revenue guidance for the fourth quarter of 2014 to be between
USD $52.7 million and $53.0 million, as compared to the previously
announced revenue guidance of between $62.9 million and $66.1
million.  According to the Company, the revised guidance reflected
the delay of a popular game, launched on one of the Company
distribution platforms, and lower than expected revenues from
another game being launched simultaneously as other hit games on
the same distribution platform.  On this news, ADS of iDreamSky
declined $3.60 per share, over 33%, during to close on March 16,
2015 at $7.22 per share, on unusually heavy volume.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later than June 1, 2015, to serve as lead plaintiff, if
you meet certain legal requirements.  To be a member of the Class
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of
the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you
have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Casey
Sadler or Lesley Portnoy of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1925
Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, at
(310) 201-9150, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit
our website at http://www.glancylaw.com

If you inquire by email, please include your mailing address,
telephone number and number of shares purchased.


IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Facing Harry Rothenberg Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Imperial Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a purported shareholder
of the Company filed on January 20, 2015, a putative class action
complaint against the Company, and the individual members of the
Board of Directors, in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial
Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County, entitled Harry Rothenberg
v. Imperial Holdings, Inc., et al. ("Rothenberg Complaint"), The
Rothenberg Complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties of due
care and seeks to invalidate the bylaw amendment adopted by the
Board of Directors on October 30, 2014, which requires current and
former shareholders who wish to file a class or derivative action
against the Company, its directors or its officers to first obtain
written consent from other shareholders beneficially owning at
least 3% of the outstanding shares of the Company. The Company has
not established any provision for losses in respect of this
matter.


INDECO FINISHES: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Lopez" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Pablo Lopez and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b) v. Indeco Finishes of Florida, LLC, Oswaldo A.
Ramos, Case No. 1:15-cv-21601-JEM (S.D. Fla., April 28, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INTERNATIONAL CULINARY: Faces Class Action Over Fraudulent Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Khushbu Shah, writing for Eater, reports that the lawsuit against
the International Culinary Center by a group of former students is
getting heated.  Last summer, Larry Grabovan and Daniel Oglander
filed a class action lawsuit against the school alleging that it
engages in an "ongoing fraudulent scheme" to convince students to
attend.  The plaintiffs claimed that ICC presented them with
"false and misleading" facts about the top-level jobs that would
be available to them upon graduation and the high salaries they
would be able to earn.  Instead, they are both thousands of
dollars in debt and have only been able to land entry-level jobs,
a plight common amongst culinary students.

Now, the ICC is claiming that the class action suit "has
unraveled."  An emailed statement from a PR representative for the
school notes that attorneys for the plaintiffs are not going to go
after a class action lawsuit, and instead the two individuals will
be given shorter summary judgment motions on their individual
claims. If the two plaintiffs are successful in their claims, the
ICC notes that "it fully intends to pursue [the] plaintiffs to
recover the cost ICC has incurred."

ICC founder Dorothy Hamilton says that the claims against the
school are "baseless": "We have spent thirty years building a
reputation as an exemplary culinary school."  And if the
plaintiffs' attorney decides to pursue another case against ICC
with other graduates, Hamilton says she is "absolutely confident
that these cases will also be defeated."

Ray E. Gallo, an attorney for the plaintiffs says in an e-mail to
Eater that the ICC's claims that the lawsuit has "unraveled" are
false.  Instead the format of the suit has merely transformed:

"The court has made no ruling. ICC knew from the outset, as did
we, that class certification was unlikely here and that we might
elect not to pursue it at all.  They knew (we said) that we might
find individual actions superior, for reasons discussed briefly.

We have notified ICC that we anticipate proceeding on a mass
rather than a class basis by filing roughly 50 individual lawsuits
(or rather one lawsuit with about fifty claims) today or tomorrow.
Still more may follow.

ICC now claims it's a victory to be sued by 50 people instead of
2, with the possibility of more to come.  Really? The truth is
they lost their motion to dismiss the two Gravovan v. ICC
individual claims on the merits months ago, and now scores more
are being filed."


ISAACS ROOFING: "Pineda" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jaime Baires Pineda v. Isaacs Roofing & Insulation Corporation,
Isaias Del Sol, and Alain I. Gonzalez, Case No. 1:15-cv-21588-KMW
(S.D. Fla., April 28, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees
and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Isaacs Roofing & Insulation Corporation is a Florida corporation
that is in business of installing and repairing industrial,
commercial and residential roofing systems.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jorge A. Calil, Esq.
      CALILI LAW
      Biscayne Building-Suite 301
      19 W Flagler Street
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 373-5529
      Facsimile: (305) 373-3307
      E-mail: jorge@jcalillaw.com

         - and -

      Paul Fernandez Penichet, Esq.
      PENICHET LAW
      9655 South Dixie Highway, Suite 310
      Miami, FL 33156
      Telephone: (305) 373-8809
      Facsimile: 373-8809
      E-mail: ecm@penichetlaw.com


JOONG-ANG DAILY: Faces "Seong" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eun Kyeong Seong, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated known and unknown v. The Joong-Ang Daily News, Inc. and
Hyun Kee Kwon, Case No. 1:15-cv-03761 (N.D. Ill., April 29, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a newspaper publication company in
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan J. Kim, Esq.
      INSEED LAW PC
      2454 E. Dempster St., Suite 301
      Des Plaines, IL 60016
      Telephone: (847) 905-6262
      E-mail: ryan@inseedlaw.com


KRAFT FOODS: Faces "Leitz" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven E. Leitz, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Kraft Foods Group, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:15-cv-00262-HEH (E.D. Va., April 27, 2015), alleges that the
Defendants made false and misleading Registration Statement that
omits material information concerning the sales process for the
Company, the management's financial projections, and the data and
inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that purport to
support the fairness opinion provided by the Company's financial
advisor.

Kraft Foods Group, Inc. is a Virginia corporation with its
principal executive offices located at Three Lakes Drive,
Northfield, Illinois 60093. It is engaged in the business of
manufacturing and processing consumer packaged food and beverages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert O. Wilson, Esq.
      L. Kendall Satterfield, Esq.
      Rosalee B.C. Thomas, Esq.
      FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
      1077 30th Street NW, Suite 150
      Washington, DC 20007
      Telephone: (202)337-1050
      Facsimile: (202) 337-8090
      E-mail: rwilson@finkelsteinthompson.com
              ksatterfield@finkelsteinthompson.com
              rbcthomas@finkelsteinthompson.com

         - and -

      Brian C. Kerr, Esq.
      BROWER PIVEN
      475 Park Avenue South, 33rd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 501-9000
      Facsimile: (212) 501-0300
      E-mail: kerr@browerpiven.com


LACE ENTERTAINMENT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Employees Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Gomez and Yashira Carrasco, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Lace Entertainment, Inc.,
d/b/a Lace Gentlemen's Club, MLB Enterprises, Corp., d/b/a Lace
Gentlemen's Club, MLB Enterprises, Corp., Anthony Capeci and Glen
Orecchio, Case No. 1:15-cv-03326-CM (S.D.N.Y., April 29, 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 adult entertainment club located
at 725 7th Avenue, New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles Gershbaum, Esq.
      David A. Roth, Esq.
      Marc Scott Hepworth, Esq.
      HEPWORTH, GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC
      192 Lexington Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 385-2121
      E-mail: Charles@hgrlawyers.com
              droth@hgrlawyers.com
              marc@hgrlawyers.com


LIBERTY TAX: Incurred $4.1MM Costs Related Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Tax, Inc. said an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2015, that
dring the three months ended January 31, 2015, the Company also
incurred $4.1 million in costs, including costs related to a
potential loss on one of the Company's class action lawsuits, net
of recovery from a vendor involved in one of the Company's cases.


LINKEDIN CORP: Ducks "Sweet" Suit Over Credit Reporting Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Professional networking site LinkedIn dodged class action claims
that it gives consumer reports of prospective employees to paid
users in violation of federal credit-reporting laws, reports Julie
Baker-Dennis, writing for Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiffs Tracee Sweet, Lisa Jaramillo, James Ralston, and
Tiffany Thomas filed their class action against LinkedIn in
California Federal Court.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, 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

               - and -

          James L. Davidson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON PLLC
          5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: jdavidson@mgjdlaw.com

The case is Tracee Sweet, Lisa Jaramillo, James Ralston, and
Tiffany Thomas, on Behalf of Themselves and Others Similarly
Situated v. LinkedIn Corporation, Case No. 5:14-cv-04531-PSG, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Hagens Berman Files Flooring Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Virginia Gazette reports that a national consumer rights law
firm has filed a class action lawsuit against Lumber Liquidators
over the safety of its Chinese-made laminate flooring.

Hagens Berman, which has nine offices nationwide, filed suit in
San Francisco alleging, among other items, that the home testing
kits Lumber Liquidators offered customers who were worried about
excess formaldehyde fumes from their flooring, were "bogus."

"Our main focus is to represent plaintiffs/victims in securities
and investment fraud, product liability, tort, antitrust, consumer
fraud, employment, whistle blower, intellectual property,
environmental, and employee pension protection cases," according
the firm's website.

In a statement announcing its first quarter financial results on
April 2, Lumber Liquidators reported that 10,000 customers had
requested the test kits.

Hagens Berman's release accused Lumber Liquidators of conducting a
"campaign of misinformation" and said the kits are not compliant
with California Air Resources Board (CARB) standards.

According to the lawsuit, the free home-testing kits Lumber
Liquidators has offered to customers are "inherently unreliable"
and "designed to under-report" levels of formaldehyde in the
composite flooring.  The suit also charges that the third party
providing the home testing kits is not independent, but is being
paid by Lumber Liquidators.

Lumber Liquidators responded on April 2.

"Lumber Liquidators is committed to providing our customers with
safe, high-quality products. To reassure our customers, we have
implemented an air quality testing program that includes testing
by a third-party laboratory at no cost to the customer. We intend
to defend ourselves vigorously against the claims asserted in this
suit," the company said in a statement released in response to a
request for comment on the new suit.

The suit, filed March 31, in the Northern District of California,
represents consumers from California, Florida and Michigan.

In its financial announcement, Lumber Liquidators reported first
quarter financial results which were decent, despite the ongoing
controversy over the safety of its flooring, put in the spotlight
by a story on CBS's "60 Minutes" in March.  Net sales in the first
quarter of 2015 were $260.0 million, the company reported, an
increase of 5.6% from the first quarter of 2014.  However, the "60
Minutes" piece had an impact, net sales in the month of March were
$89.4 million, a decrease of 12.8% in comparison to March 2014.

"Consistent with company's expectations as discussed in its
March 12, 2015 business update, net sales in March 2015 were
significantly weaker than trends in January and February, as net
sales were negatively impacted by unfavorable allegations
surrounding the product quality of the company's laminates sourced
from China," the statement said.


MAJORS SECURITY: Faces "Stoots" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Keith Stoots v. Majors Security Corporation, Case No. 3:15-
cv-00187 (E.D. Tenn., April 29, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours per week.

Majors Security Corporation owns and operates a financial service
company with its principal office located at 5444 Hilton
Industrial Way, Knoxville, Tennessee, 37921.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua J. Bond, Esq.
      HODGES, DOUGHTY & CARSON PLLC
      617 Main Street, PO Box 869
      Knoxville, TN 37901-0869
      Telephone: (865) 546-9611
      Facsimile: (865) 292-2321
      E-mail: jbond@hdclaw.com


MARICOPA, AZ: Court-Ordered Reforms for Sheriff Arpaio Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------
The 9th Circuit on April 15 upheld court-ordered reforms for
Arizona's Maricopa County Sheriff's Office after a class of
drivers prevailed in their claim that the sheriff and his deputies
racially profile Latinos during immigration patrols and traffic
stops, reports Katherine Proctor at Courthouse News Service.

Five people and the organization Somos America sued Sheriff Joseph
Arpaio and the MCSO in a 2007 class action, after the individual
plaintiffs claimed the sheriff's deputies racially profiled and
detained them during crime suppression sweeps.

A federal judge concluded after a bench trial in 2013 that the
defendants "employed an unconstitutional policy of considering
race as a factor in determining where to conduct patrol
operations, in deciding whom to stop and investigate for civil
immigration violations, and in prolonging the detentions of
Latinos while their immigration status was confirmed," according
to the circuit's 24-page opinion.


MONTEREY, CA: Has 60 Days to Improve Salinas Jail Conditions
------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge gave Monterey County 60 days to come up with a
plan to improve conditions at its Salinas jail, reports Elizabeth
Warmerdam, writing for Courthouse News Service.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal on April 14 sided with inmates
who claimed the county jail was unconstitutionally unsafe,
overcrowded and understaffed.

Lead plaintiff Jesse Hernandez and 20 other named inmates say the
jail houses 1,100 prisoners -- more than 33 percent above its
rated capacity.  They said the jail's safety infrastructure,
medical and mental health care and disability accommodations were
inadequate.

Grewal in January certified the class as "all adult men and women
who are now, or will be in the future, incarcerated in Monterey
County Jail."

The parties cooperated in the midst of litigation by agreeing to
retain four neutral experts to evaluate whether jail inmates are
adequately protected from injury and violence, and whether the
jail's system of medical care is adequate.

The experts identified several deficiencies and hazards, including
an inadequate tuberculosis screening program, conditions that put
inmates at unacceptable risk of suicide, and exclusion of inmates
from exercise, religious and other programs based on physical
disability.

The parties could not agree when it came to implementing the
experts' proposed solutions, prompting the inmates to seek a
preliminary injunction targeting the conditions identified by the
experts.

Although Grewal was reluctant to inject the court "into decisions
made in running a public facility that has served the people of
Monterey County for decades," he could not deny that the inmates
and pretrial detainees have shown that their claims are likely to
succeed on the merits.  He also found that the inmates are likely
to suffer irreparable harm without court intervention.

"Absent an injunction, plaintiffs will continue to suffer serious
risks from defendants' inadequate healthcare practices: They will
remain at heightened risk of contracting TB, or of their TB not
being timely detected and treated.  Those housed in segregation
will remain at unnecessary risk of committing suicide or harming
themselves.  Those booked into the jail on medications are at
unreasonable risk of having those medications stopped and not
restarted for weeks and months," Grewal wrote in a 44-page ruling.

"Mobility impaired inmates will continue to be denied fresh air
and exercise, as well as access to vital programs that could
shorten their jail stays, for no reason other than they have a
disability.  And inmates who use sign language as their primary
method of communication will continue to be discriminated against
every time they need to communicate with staff at the jail," the
judge wrote.

He ordered the county to devise a plan to bring its policies in
line with state prison guidelines, professional health care
standards, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the
constitutional practices of jails and prisons around the country.

Among other things, jail officials must update the tuberculosis
screening program, remove hanging points from segregation units,
update detoxification monitoring, and make all programs accessible
to disabled inmates.

The financial concerns the jail may face do not outweigh the
serious risk of harm to the inmates and pretrial detainees, Grewal
said.

Monterey County Sheriff Steve Bernal said that most of the 16
specific issues the injunction asks the county to remedy, "have
already been addressed and are in place and others are various
stages of implementation."

County Counsel Charles McKee said that the order acknowledges the
changes and improvements already made, which will be included in
the implementation plan.

"The county proposed the neutral experts who evaluated conditions
in the jail and is already on record as proposing their
recommendations to be implemented," McKee said.

In a separate order April 14, Grewal struck California Forensic
Medical Group's nine affirmative defenses and the county's 16
affirmative defenses.  He also denied the county's request for a
jury trial.

"Plaintiffs do not seek monetary damages, period.  Because
plaintiffs seek only equitable relief in the form of a permanent
injunction and declaratory relief, a jury trial simply is not
available," Grewal said.

Eric Balaban, senior staff counsel with the ACLU National Prison
Project, said, "We are very pleased on behalf of our clients and
think that this order will lead to long overdue changes to
critical areas in operations of the jail.

"Grewal addressed many of the problems and we hope that the county
will follow through on the judge's order and produce a remedial
plan that will address the problems.  That will go a long way to
reducing the threats to safety and health to both prisoners and
staff."

Monterey County Counsel Charles McKee was unable to immediately
return a request for comment.


NASSAU, NY: Bond Not Necessary to Appeal Strip-Search Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that with the
U.S. Supreme Court upholding a New Jersey county's blanket strip-
search policy, Nassau County secured a victory in its effort to
appeal the multimillion judgment it faces for a similar policy.

The claims against Nassau were filed in 1999 by men and women
strip searched after being arrested for misdemeanors.

Disheartened by a Second Circuit decision in a different case two
years later, Nassau County conceded that the searches violated the
Fourth Amendment.

The parties entered into a settlement that allowed the possibility
of class-action litigation to continue if the plaintiffs succeeded
on appeal.

Though Nassau County's loss in a 2010 bench trial seemingly
brought the case to an end, the Supreme Court shook things up two
years later with the decision Florence v. Board of Chosen
Freeholders, which eliminated the need for individualized
suspicion to conduct strip searches.

In light of that decision, U.S. District Judge Denis Hurley
shelved the federal constitutional violations and upheld the state
law claim to calculate the final judgment at $11.5 million on
April 11, 2014.

Hurley stayed the enforcement of that decision to allow both
parties to pursue an appeal, but he gave Nassau County a deadline
of 180 days to post a bond.

The 2nd Circuit gave the county a break April 17, however, saying
it need not post a bond to appeal.

County attorney Carnell Foskey applauded the decision by Judges
Peter Hall, Denny Chin and Christopher Droney.

"We are pleased that the court agreed with our arguments that a
bond is not necessary," Foskey said.  "This will avoid wasting
county resources on matters that we may prevail on appeal.  In
addition, please note that the search policy regarding new
admission inmates was revised in 1999."


NCO FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Spagnola" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Spagnola, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. NCO Financial Services Inc., and John Does 1-25, Case
No. 3:15-cv-02974-FLW-DEA (D.N.J., April 28, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act. Specifically by, using unfair or unconscionable
means to collect any debt and using language and symbols on
envelopes mailed to consumers that reveal information other than
the debt collector's address.

NCO Financial Services Inc. is a foreign corporation with offices
located at 507 Prudential Road, Horsham, Pennsylvania 19044. NCO
is a company that uses the mail, telephone, and facsimile and
regularly engages in business the principal purpose of which is to
attempt to collect debts alleged to be due another.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
      375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
      Fairfield, NJ 07004
      Telephone: (973) 227-5900
      Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
      E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com

         - and -

      Benjamin J. Wolf, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
      375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
      Fairfield, NJ 07004
      Telephone: (973) 227-5900
      Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
      E-mail: bwolf@legaljones.com


NOPI ENTERPRISES: "Cruz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ruth N. Cruz and other similarly-situated individuals v. Nopi
Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Pizza Rustica, Joseph Piroso, and Susan
Tiffany, Case No. 1:15-cv-21615-JLK (S.D. Fla., April 29, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate Pizza Rustica restaurants in Miami-
Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
      ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
      3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202
      Miami, FL 33133
      Telephone: (305) 446-1500
      Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
      E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


NOPI ENTERPRISES: Faces "De La Rosa" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro De La Rosa, and other similarly-situated individuals v.
Nopi Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Pizza Rustica, Joseph Piroso, and
Susan Tiffany, Case No. 1:15-cv-21612-MGC (S.D. Fla., April 29,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate Pizza Rustica restaurants in Miami-
Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
      ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
      3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202
      Miami, FL 33133
      Telephone: (305) 446-1500
      Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
      E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


OIL STATES ENERGY: "Frost" Suit Moved From Colorado to S.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Bradley Frost v. Oil States
Energy Services, L.L.C., Case No. 1:14-cv-02663 U.S. District
Court District of Colorado to the U.S. District Court Southern
District of Texas (Houston). The Texas District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-01100 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts causes of action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.  The Plaintiff contends that Oil States violated
state law by failing to overtime wages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard Jennings Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
      E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

         - and -

      Michael Andrew Josephson, Esq.
      FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
      1150 Bissonnet
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Nicholas Anthony Murray, Esq.
      JACKSON LEWIS, P.C.
      950 17th Street, Suite 2600
      Denver, CO 80202
      Telephone: (303) 892-0404
      Facsimile: (303) 892-5575
      E-mail: Murray@jacksonlewis.com

         - and -

      William Louis Davis, Esq.
      JACKSON LEWIS, P.C.
      500 North Akard, Suite 2500
      Dallas, TX 75201
      Telephone: (214) 520-2400
      Facsimile: (214) 520-2008
      E-mail: Davis@jacksonlewis.com

         - and -

      William Robinson Stukenberg, Esq.
      JACKSON LEWIS, P.C.
      Wedge International Tower
      Suite 3325, 1415 Louisiana
      Houston, TX 77002-7332
      Telephone: (713) 650-0404
      Facsimile: (713) 650-0405
      E-mail: Stukenberg@jacksonlewis.com


OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE: More Workers Could Join Unpaid Wages Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Heuer, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that with
135,338 current and former workers already part of a class action
against it, Outback Steakhouse has provided the names of another
4,131 who could join the federal lawsuit for unpaid wages.

The restaurant chain notified the plaintiff class of the
additional current and former workers who qualify for the class
action, and U.S. District Judge Jennifer Dorsey on April 10 gave
the new potential class members until July 20 to join.

The restaurant chain will spend $3,621 to mail consent forms in
English and Spanish to the potential new class members.  If all
potential members join, the class action would have 139,469
members seeking reimbursement for all hours worked and overtime
wages.

Lead plaintiff Brooke Cardoza sued in October 2013, claiming the
restaurant chain forced workers to start work 10 to 15 minutes
early without clocking in and did not allow them to take mandated
paid and unpaid work breaks.  Nor did it pay workers for overtime,
mandated training, testing or company meetings and events, Cardoza
claimed.

The class includes all hourly Outback Steakhouse workers who were
employed from three years before the October 2013 filing.

Australian-themed Outback Steakhouse had 769 restaurants
throughout the United States as of 2013.

The restaurant chain's owner, Bloomin' Brands, is a Fortune 1000
company that generated more than $3.9 billion in revenue in 2012,
according to the complaint.

The class seeks compensation for unpaid wages and overtime,
liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorney's
fees and costs.

Named as defendants are Bloomin' Brands, OSI Restaurant Partners,
Outback Steakhouse of Florida and OS Restaurant Services.

Outback Steakhouse officials could not be reached for comment
April 15.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Don Springmeyer, Esq.
          WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO, SCHULMAN & RABKIN LLP
          3556 East Russell Road, Second Floor
          Las Vegas, NV 89120
          Telephone: (702) 341-5200
          Facsimile: (702) 341-5300
          E-mail: dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com


OZARK MOUNTAIN: Faces "Cross" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shereka Cross, Shony Penister, each individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Ozark Mountain Poultry, Inc. d/b/a
Forester Farmer's Market, Forester Farmers Market, Forester
Farmers' Market, OMP, Edward O. Fryar, Jr., Case No. 1:15-cv-01029
(W.D. Ark., April 29, 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 facilities in Warren, Rogers, and
Van Buren, Arkansas, which produce poultry products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Cheslee Denise Mahan, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM PLLC
      P.O. Box 39
      Russellville, AR 72811
      Telephone: (479) 88-00088
      E-mail: cheslee@sanfordlawfirm.com

         - and -

      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM PLLC
      One Financial Center
      650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
      Little Rock, AR 72211
      Telephone: (501) 221-0088
      Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
      E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


PARRILLA ARGENTINA: "Ambiela" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amilcar Ambiela and on behalf of all others similarly-situated
individuals v. Parrilla Argentina BBQ and Cafeteria # 2 Inc.,
Graziano's at Brickell, LLC, Graziano's Groumet at Weston LLC, and
Leo Graziano, Case No. 1:15-cv-21626 (S.D. Fla., April 29, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate several restaurants in Miami-Dade
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
      ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
      3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202
      Miami, FL 33133
      Telephone: (305) 446-1500
      Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
      E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


POWER RACING: Faces "McQueen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Myron McQueen and George DiRaimondo, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Power Racing, LLC and Jason
Alden, Case No. 9:15-cv-80550-KAM (S.D. Fla., April 29, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Power Racing, LLC is a Florida limited liability company with its
principal address located in Palm Beach County, Florida. Power
offers after-market motorcycle and automotive parts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam S. Chotiner, Esq.
      SHAPIRO BLASI WASSERMAN & GORA PA
      7777 Glades Road, Suite 400
      Boca Raton, FL 33434
      Telephone: (561) 477-7800
      Facsimile: (561) 477-7722
      E-mail: aschotiner@sbwlawfirm.com


QUICK-CATCH: "Garcia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arturo Macias Garcia, John Oliver Robinson, and all others
similarly situated v. Quick-Catch Trucking, Inc., Brian Anthony
Barker, and Debra Rice Barker, Case No. 4:15-cv-01109 (S.D. Tex.,
April 28, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, attorney's fees, all costs of the action, and
post-judgment interest under the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a trucking company located at 270
County Road 4867, Dayton, Texas 77535-6043.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Salar Ali Ahmed, Esq.
      ALI S. AHMED, P.C.
      One Arena Place
      7322 Southwest Frwy, Suite 1920
      Houston, TX 77074
      Telephone: (713) 223-1300
      Facsimile: (713) 255-0013
      E-mail: aahmedlaw@gmail.com


QUIKSILVER INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights firm, on April 2
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Quiksilver Inc. securities between June 6, 2014 and
March 26, 2015. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Quiksilver investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Quiksilver class action, go to the website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-536.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.  The suit is pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.

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.

The lawsuit alleges that Quiksilver made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company lacked
adequate internal controls over financial reporting; and (2) as a
result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the suit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
June 1, 2015.  If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-536.htmlor to discuss your rights
or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip
Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com

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


RHODE ISLAND, USA: Settles Issues Over Retirement System Changes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Public school teachers and other Rhode Island public employees
have settled years-long litigation over retirement-system changes,
reports Marimer Matos, writing for Courthouse News Service.

The state employees went to court after the state passed two laws
in 2009 and 2010 that added three years to the retirement age for
vested workers, reduced the total maximum benefits achievable for
some employees and eliminated retirement based solely on years of
service.

Rhode Island Public Employees' Retiree Coalition and others filed
on the second week of April a complaint in superior court to
implement an April 2 settlement with the state.

The action notes that in 2011 the state wrongfully eliminated
COLA, short for Cost-of-Living Adjustment, benefits, which offered
automatic annual 3 percent increase to base pension benefits.

A judge should find, according to the complaint, that the recent
changes to the state retirement system "contravenes the due
process, contract and taking clauses of the Rhode Island
Constitution," and are unconstitutional.

The state employees also seek two injunctions: one for preventing
the state from applying the 2009 and 2010 changes in the state
retirement system to employees with at least 10 years of service
or who are already retired, and the other to reinstate COLA
benefits to employees who had them in 2011.

Aside from equitable relief, the plaintiffs also seek an award for
the cost of the suit.

Barrington, Middletown and South Kingstown are the three towns
listed as defendants, along with the governor, the state treasurer
and the Employee's Retirement System of the State of Rhode Island.

The coalition was joined as a plaintiff by individuals including
retired teachers and firefighters, and their unions, including the
National Education Association, AFSCME and the SEIU.

The class is represented by:

          Lynette Labinger, Esq.
          RONEY & LABINGER, LLP
          344 Wickenden St.
          Providence, RI 02903


RITE AID: Faces "Stephan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Roger Stephan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Rite Aid Corporation, Case No. 5:15-cv-00841-SJO-PJW
(C.D. Cal., April 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime to in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Rite Aid Corporation is a Delaware corporation that owns and
operates Rite Aid drugstores throughout the United States and is
one of the nation's largest chains of drugstores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David C. Parisi, Esq.
      Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq.
      PARISI & HAVENS LLP
      212 Marine Street, Suite 100
      Santa Monica, CA 90405
      Telephone: (818) 990-1299
      Facsimile: (818) 501-7852
      E-mail: dcparisi@parisihavens.com
              shavens@parisihavens.com

         - and -

      Sergio Rodriguez, Esq.
      SRG LAW GROUP, APLC
      8241 White Oak Avenue
      Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
      Telephone: (909) 466-1661
      E-mail: srodriguez@srglawgroup.com

         - and -

      Mark Bulgarelli, Esq.
      Ilan Chorowsky, Esq.
      PROGRESSIVE LAW GROUP LLC
      140 S. Dearborn Street, Suite 315
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone (312) 787-2717
      E-mail: markb@progressivelaw.com
              ilan@progressivelaw.com


ROYAL BANK: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Second Circuit on April 15 refused to revive a class action
against Royal Bank of Scotland accusing its top executives of
misleading investors about the value of mortgage-backed
securities, reports Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service.

One of the world's largest banks, RBS is said to have grown
rapidly by repackaging subprime mortgages between 2001 and 2006,
the year the housing bubble burst.


SNCF: Faces Class Suit in Illinois for Looting Holocaust Victims
----------------------------------------------------------------
France's national railway must pay up for looting the Holocaust
victims Nazis loaded onto cattle cars destined for death camps, a
federal class action says, reports Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse
News Service.

"The victims were on their way to the death camps, but even as
they were being sent to Auschwitz and Buchenwald, their property
was confiscated by the same train company that shoved them into
cattle cars and then got paid," the April 16 complaint begins.

Karen Scalin, Josiane Piquard and Roland Cherrier, all of whom
lost relatives at Auschwitz, filed brought the class action
against Societe Nationale des Chemins de Fer Francais (SNCF).

SNCF, the French national railway wholly owned by the French
government, allegedly operated the trains that deported 75,000
Jews and tens of thousands of other "undesirables" from France to
Nazi death camps where less than 3 percent survived.

Scalin is a U.S. citizen, while Piquard and Cherrier are French
citizens.  All three plaintiffs' grandparents were deported on
SNCF trains.

"SNCF billed the Nazis per head, per kilometer at standard, third
class rates," the complaint states.  "However, SNCF provided,
literally, cattle-car service, stuffing the victims into rail cars
that were normally used to transport cattle.

"The deportees were generally allowed to bring one suitcase or
parcel with them when they were herded onto the SNCF trains.
Those packages contained the most dear, and the most valuable,
possessions of the victims.  Once the victims were on the trains,
SNCF confiscated the suitcases and other valuables, telling the
Plaintiffs that the property would be returned, yet knowing full
well that it would not be.  Instead, SNCF either converted the
property to its own benefit, or turned it over to the Nazis in
exchange for other property.

"Thus was a mutually beneficial relationship established between
SNCF and the Nazis.  The Nazis received the human fodder for their
Final Solution, as well as the victims' Property, all through the
collaboration of SNCF," the complaint states.

The rail company's collaboration with the Nazis allowed SNCF to
profit handsomely during the war, keep its corporate structure
intact, and survive the war with a healthy operating capital,
largely gained by the sale of stolen Jews' property, plaintiffs
claim.

Plaintiffs say U.S. courts properly have jurisdiction over SNCF's
violations of international law because claims brought against
SNCF in France have been dismissed by the country's highest court,
foreclosing all actions against SNCF for the restitution of
property or payment of reparations.

France has established public benefit programs for Holocaust
victims, but none of these programs compensate the victims' heirs
for property taken on the trains, according to the complaint.

The complaint also asserts that its claims are timely because
information about SNCF's participation in the deportation of the
Jews has come to light only recently when the company agreed in
2012 to open some of its archives to the public.

Plaintiffs seek punitive damages for violations of international
law, conversion, and unjust enrichment.

They are represented by Steven Blonder with Much Shelist.

The firm noted in a statement that it filed the complaint on
International Holocaust Remembrance Day.

"My grandparents were transported in SNCF cattle cars to their
deaths at Auschwitz in 1942, and their belongings were seized by
railroad officials," plaintiff Scalin said, according to Much
Shelist's release.  "No compensation has ever been made to my
family and the thousands of other victims of these coercive acts."

While attorney Blonder noted that "restitution is long overdue,"
co-counsel Harriet Tamen called it "a travesty that the SNCF
continues to operate profitably -- including selling rail tickets
in the United States -- without being forced to compensate these
families for their irreparable losses."


SUPERSTAR SNOW: Faces "Tzep" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Melchor Tzep, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Superstar Snow Ice Inc. and Chi Kuo Sha, Case No. 4:15-cv-01113
(S.D. Tex., April 28, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a Chinese restaurant in Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David I. Moulton, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
      8 Greenway Plaza, Ste 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      E-mail: dmoulton@brucknerburch.com


SYSCO CORP: Accused of Forcing Truck Drivers to Work for Free
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Sysco Corp. forces truck
drivers and others to work for free during their lunch breaks, a
class claims in Sacramento Superior Court.


TATA CONSULTANCY: Accused of Bias in Hiring American Workers
------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that Tata
Consultancy Services, one of the largest IT employers in the
world, hires South Asians on visas for 95% of its U.S. workforce,
a class action claims in Federal Court.

"Tata has engaged in a systematic, company-wide pattern and
practice of discriminating in favor of South Asians and against
individuals who are not South Asians in hiring, job placement, and
termination," Steven Heldt says in his April 14 complaint.  Tata
is the only defendant.

Heldt accuses it of threefold discrimination: hiring 95% of its
workers, most of them from India, on H-1B, L-1 and B-1 visas;
hiring a disproportionate number of local South Asian workers; and
discriminating against non-South Asians in promotions and firings.

Heldt says that Tata made more than $13 billion last fiscal year,
more than half of it from North America, and the "vast majority"
from the United States.  Heldt, an Army veteran, claims that
throughout his tenure with Tata, 99 percent of its employees were
South Asian; they were assigned more substantive work than he and
were allowed to transfer to jobs in different business units, or
"verticals."

Within a week of starting work as a project manager providing IT
services to Kaiser Permanente in 2012, he was removed from his job
position and given one with lesser duties, Heldt says.  A few
months later, he says, was taken off the Kaiser account and given
no more client work.  He claims that his Indian supervisor, Mohan
Reddy, told him it would be difficult for him to find Heldt a new
position because he is American.

After a brief stint with Tata in Louisville, Heldt returned to
California with moving expenses of more than $21,000. He claims
Tata's HR manager refused to reimburse him for the full amount,
saying, "'Americans need to start getting in line [with Tata] and
stop being so selfish and demanding.'"

The complaint continues: "He also stated that Americans demand too
much and do not do their jobs correctly.  He also criticized
Americans for trying to 'exercise their rights.'  During this
conversation, Mr. Malladi also stated, 'This is why I don't like
dealing with Americans.'"

In 2013, Heldt says, he had a conversation with manager Saikat
Gosh, who was looking to fill an open position in his group but
"was waiting for a South Asian employee to become available to
fill the position."  Gosh told him, "Tata was not even looking for
Americans to fill the position," Heldt says.

Eventually, he was given a job as an IT project manager for
Farmers Insurance Group.  "This position did not involve work
commensurate with Mr. Heldt's advanced skill and experience.  Of
the approximately 100 Tata employees assigned to Farmers
Insurance, Mr. Heldt was the only non-South Asian.  Mr. Heldt was
stripped of his position in December 2013 and again benched," the
complaint states.

Heldt says he was fired in March 2014, "as he had been on the
bench for 3 months."

Heldt's attorney Daniel Kotchen told Courthouse News that Tata's
discrimination was "certainly manifested in how Mr. Heldt was
treated and the data in their employee hires."

"We expect that our claims that Tata has discriminated based on
race and national origin will be supported by the evidence,
including available statistics indicating that Tata
disproportionately hires and retains South Asians.  We look
forward to presenting the facts to a jury, and are hopeful that
this lawsuit will help prevent discrimination going forward."

Tata spokesman Ben Trounson said in an email: "TCS is confident
that Mr. Heldt's allegations are baseless, and plans to vigorously
defend itself against his claims."  He added: "TCS is among the
top job creators in the US within the IT services industry, and in
the last year alone actively recruited more than 2,600 U.S. hires,
many of whom are working on technologies and systems that support
critical client needs and help to drive America's innovation
economy."

Heldt seeks class certification, a permanent injunction, back pay
and damages and punitive damages for civil rights violations and
discrimination. "We would hope that's he's able to help deter
discrimination going forward at Tata," Kotchen said.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


THEDACARE INC: "Miller" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Juelaine Miller, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Thedacare, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00506
(E.D. Wis., April 29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Thedacare, Inc. is a Wisconsin company with its principal place of
business in Appleton, Wisconsin. ThedaCare is a community health
system consisting of seven hospitals, numerous clinics and related
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TINDER INC: Falsely Marketed Services, "Manapol" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Manapol, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Tinder, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-03175 (C.D.
Cal., April 28, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's false
advertising scheme, by enlisting a massive user base under the
guise of a free service, and then profiting off of their
subsequent necessary purchase of subscription services.

Tinder, Inc. is a California corporation with its principal place
of business at 8800 Sunset Boulevard, West Hollywood, California
90069. Tinder operates a dating application for mobile phones.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TOP RANK: Faces Class Action Over Pacquiao's Undisclosed Injury
---------------------------------------------------------------
Darren Rovell, ESPN.com Sports Business, reports that a class-
action lawsuit was filed on May 5 on behalf of two Las Vegas
residents seeking more than $5 million from Manny Pacquiao, his
manager and his promoters for fraudulently concealing his injury
before his fight against Floyd Mayweather.

The suit alleges that Pacquiao and his manager Michael Koncz, his
promotional company Top Rank, its chairman Bob Arum and its
president Todd duBoef, admitted that they knew of his shoulder
injury after the fight, but failed to disclose it to the Nevada
Athletic Commission as required by law.  They also kept it a
secret from fans who bought tickets to the fight, purchased the
fight on pay-per-view and bet on the fight.

"Defendants prior to and at the time the plaintiffs and the class
decided to purchase tickets; purchase pay per view showings or
wagered on the event the defendants knew and had full knowledge
and information that defendant Pacquiao had been seriously injured
and was suffering from a torn rotator cuff," the lawsuit reads.
"Defendants further know that such injury would severely affect
his performance."

It is estimated that pay-per-view revenues could top $300 million,
and wagers in the state of Nevada alone on the fight could surpass
$60 million.  Ticket revenues from the fight were expected to
generate $72 million, though only roughly 500 tickets were sold to
the public.

Although the May 3 fight lasted the full 12 rounds, with
Mayweather winning by a unanimous decision, the question is
whether the fight -- advertised as "The Fight of the Century" --
was properly promoted or whether it was a fair contest from the
start.  The plaintiffs argue that it was not and violated the
Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

"The allegations in this lawsuit are demonstrably false," said
attorney Daniel Petrocelli, who represents Top Rank.  "There are
documents that explicitly show the medications that Manny was
using to treat his shoulder and it was fully disclosed with USADA,
which we contracted for this fight."

Mr. Petrocelli said that Pacquiao was examined by doctors before
the fight and was proved to be physically able, but re-injured his
shoulder during the bout.  That the public was unaware of
Pacquiao's original injury is immaterial, Mr. Petrocelli said.

"This is a frivolous lawsuit and we are confident it will be
dismissed," he said.

The lawyer for the plaintiffs, Brandon McDonald, said he did not
have a further comment on the suit.

During an interview on the Rich Eisen Show, HBO boxing commentator
Jim Lampley said he feels "terrible" for people who bought the
pay-per-view, and said it wasn't fair to the public for Pacquiao
to hide his injury.

"I feel terrible [for those] who spent four figures on a ticket, I
feel bad for people who spent 89, 90, 100 dollars on pay-per-view
who were not given proper information in advance on what it was
they were seeing," he said.  "I think there may be a constituency
of people who think it's in some way noble and brave for Pacquiao
to go ahead and enter the ring with an injury and try to perform,
but I think that the only way that would wash is if the public had
known in advance, and to have gone ahead with the enterprise when
one of the fighters turns out to be damaged goods."

News of the class-action filing comes a day after Nevada Athletic
Chairman Francisco Aguilar said that the attorney general's office
would look into why Pacquiao checked "no" on a form asking whether
he had a shoulder injury one day before the fight.  Pacquiao could
face a fine or suspension for not answering the question
accurately.

Orthopedic surgeon Dr. Neal ElAttrache told ESPN.com's Dan Rafael
on May 4 that Pacquiao will undergo surgery to repair a rotator
cuff tear that could put him out of action for at least nine
months.


TORQUED-UP: Faces "Smith" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leonard Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Torqued-Up Energy Services, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
00574 (E.D. Tex., April 29, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in  violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Torqued-Up Energy Services, Inc. is a Delaware corporation doing
business in the state of Texas. Torqued-Up is in the fluid
pressure pumping and coil tubing business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William S Hommel Jr., Esq.
      WILLIAM S. HOMMEL, JR. PC
      1404 Rice Road, Ste 200
      Tyler, TX 75703
      Telephone: (903) 596-7100
      Facsimile: (469) 533-1618
      E-mail: bhommel@hommelfirm.com


TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Moldy Camrys
--------------------------------------------------
Lisa Ryan, writing for Law360, reports that Toyota Motor Sales USA
Inc. was recently slapped with a putative class action in Los
Angeles court, alleging the company knew of a defect in its Camry
models that causes the cars' air conditioning system to become
ineffective, leading to mold buildup and foul odors that can cause
health problems in drivers.

The lead plaintiffs claimed in their March 30 complaint that the
automaker's 2012 Camry models have a "uniform and widespread
defect" in the heating, ventilating and air conditioning systems
that causes emissions of noxious and foul odors from the growth of
mold in the system.  The automaker knew about the defect prior to
the sale of the vehicles, the suit said.

"Defendant has actively concealed and failed to disclose this
defect to plaintiff and class members at the time of their
purchase or lease of the class vehicles and thereafter," the
complaint said.

The affected Camry models' HVAC system contains one or more design
or manufacturing defect that causes the emissions of the bad odors
from the mold, according to the suit.  Exposure to mold and its
related smells is "extremely dangerous" and can lead to sickness,
nasal stuffiness, eye irritation, wheezing and other health
problems, the suit said.

The complaint claimed the mold emanating from the HVAC system in
the 2012 Camry vehicles grows on a part known as the evaporator,
which is located inside the car dashboard.  When cold refrigerant
passes into the evaporator, it absorbs heat from the air in the
passenger compartment and collects moisture from condensation,
which creates a favorable growing condition for mold, the suit
alleged.

When a consumer complains of the mold build-up in his or her
Camry, Toyota "merely replaces" the defective HVAC components with
the very same components, and doesn't repair the defect, in
violation of warranty, according to the suit.

Toyota knew, or should have known, about the defect as early as
1997, but instead, the automaker "actively concealed" the defect
and didn't inform consumers, the complaint said.

Toyota had "already offered" previous model year Camry vehicles
that had similar HVAC systems and acknowledged the defects as
early as 1997 and as recently as 2009, the suit alleged.

The complaint asked the court to certify a class of California
purchasers of 2012 Camry vehicles.

The plaintiffs are represented by Jordan L. Lurie, Robert Friedl,
Tarek H. Zohdy and Cody R. Padgett of Capstone Law APC.

The suit is Forsley et al v. Toyota Motors Sales USA Inc. et al,
case number BC577240, in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles.


TRANSURBAN USA: Accused of Assessing Illegal Penalties in DC Area
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The operators of toll roads in the D.C. metro area assess illegal
penalties against drivers over misfiring E-Z passes, reports
Amanda Loviza-Vickery at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal
class action.

Jo-Ann Brown and Mary Pizarro, both of Virginia, filed the
complaint April 15 along with Maryland resident Michele Osborne
against the corporations that operate the 95 Express Lanes and 495
Express Lanes, high-occupancy toll lanes that commuters use to
avoid traffic congestion along the Capital Beltway.

Claiming that the express lanes have not been as financially
successful as projected, the women say that Transurban USA and
others are attempting to buoy profits by maliciously charging
excessive fees when commuters miss payments.

Brown, Pizarro and Osborne each got hit with thousands of dollars
of administrative and late fees for missing toll amounts of
between $5 and $20, according to the 49-page complaint.

In addition to challenging the fees as excessive relative to the
negligible cost of the tolls, the lawsuit says the infractions
should never have occurred because each woman had her E-Z Pass
properly installed in her vehicle but the express lanes failed to
register the transponders.

Instead of delivering a timely notice of purported toll
violations, Transurban and its affiliates "turn minor toll
violations into huge, crippling fines and penalties," the suit
says.

Transurban's collections agents then sue drivers to collect the
"inflated and illegal" fines and fees, according to the complaint.

In addition to Transurban, the complaint names as defendants Fluor
Enterprises Inc., Capital Beltway Express LLC, 95 Express Lanes
LLC, Faneuil Inc. and Law Enforcement Systems LLC.

Transurban allegedly owes its toll concession contract to
Virginia's Public-Private Transportation Act of 1995.

The class notes that the PPTA regulates how a toll-lane operator
can assess and collect fees -- capping administrative fees for
unpaid tolls at $100 per violation.

Drivers allegedly cannot be assessed a civil penalty until a
"court of competent jurisdiction" finds the vehicle owner to have
violated the toll, the law says.

The class says many toll violations occur through no fault of the
drivers because Transurban's equipment routinely fails to read
valid E-Z passes.

A tinted window or dead batter can also interfere with E-Z use,
according to the complaint.

Since a driver whose E-Z pass is in the vehicle but not working
can often go through multiple tolls in a short period of time,
they would face a succession of toll violations, the class says.

Transurban and its affiliates wait until several violations have
occurred before they "illegally seek additional fines and
penalties based on their own delay," according to the complaint.

Drivers who know they missed a toll can pay a $1.50 fee on
Transurban's website within five days, but that fee jumps to
$12.50 for later in the month and $100 after 30 days, according to
the complaint.

The class calls the increasing fee illegal since it does not
reflect Transurban's actual costs for collecting payments.

Transurban allegedly assesses civil penalties separately if a
driver has not paid after two invoices have been sent.

The penalty starts at $50 for one purportedly missed toll, and
increases to $250, $500 and then $1,000, for each successive
violation, according to the complaint.

Brown says she faced a summons for $3,413.75 over five missed
tolls that should have totaled $4.15.

Pizarro and Osborne had $20.50 and $16.75 in toll violations,
respectively, and were assessed fees and penalties of $9,440 and
$2,293.30, according to the complaint.  Pizarro settled her case
for $413.90, while Brown and Osborne each have court dates in
June, the complaint states.

In violation fair debt collection practices, the class notes that
Transurban omits full disclosures in collection notices, delays
summonses and does not sign summonses manually, the class says.

The tactics allegedly pressure consumers to settle debts and not
dispute the validity of the violations or the charges.

Alleging tortious interference, violations of the Eighth and 14th
Amendments and other claims, the class seeks restitution, punitive
damages and an injunction against the unconscionable fee and
penalty practices.

Attempts to contact the defendants by press time were not
successful.

The class is represented by:

          Bernard J. DiMuro, Esq.
          DIMUROGINSBERG PC
          1101 King Street, Suite 610
          Alexandria, VA 22314
          Telephone: (703) 684-4333
          Facsimile: (703) 548-3181
          E-mail: bdimuro@dimuro.com


TROPICAL SHIPPING: Manipulates LCL Shipping Market, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leroy Danielson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Tropical Shipping, Inc. and VI Cargo Services, LLC.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00032-WAL-GWC (D.V.I., April 28, 2015), ) is an
action for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs as a result of the
Defendants' alleged monopolization of the less-than-a-container
(LCL) cargo shipping market between St. Croix and Florida.

Tropical Shipping, Inc.is a Florida based shipping company with
its principal place of business in Rivera Beach, Florida.

VI Cargo Services, LLC is a Virgin Islands corporation and a
wholly owned subsidiary.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Vincent A. Colianni II, Esq.
      COLIANNI & COLIANNI
      1138 King Street
      St Croix, VI 00820
      Telephone: (340) 719-1766
      Facsimile: (340) 719-1770
      E-mail: vinny@colianni.com

         - and -

      Timothy S. Tomasik, Esq.
      TOMASIK KOTIN KASSERMAN, LLC
      10 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2920
      Chicago, Illinois 60603
      Telephone: (312) 605-8800
      Facsimile: (312) 605-8808
      E-mail: tim@tkklawfirm.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: E-Hail Service Is Dangerous, N.Y. Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Nick Divito reports that the
oft-sued app-based car service Uber fosters unsafe driving because
it requires drivers to check their phones to get clients, two
driving services claim in Kings County Supreme Court.

XYZ Two Way Radio Service Inc. and Elite Limousine Plus Inc., a
pair of colloquially known "black-car" services in the city, sued
Uber Technologies Inc. on April 15.  They say the new "e-hail"
service of getting a car service is dangerous.

"The driver must log in to Uber's technology platform via the
Internet using a mobile phone," according to the complaint.  Once
the e-hail is made, an Uber driver has 15 seconds to respond "or
they will lose the job to another job, increasing stress,
distraction and the potential for accidents," according to the
complaint.

The whole process forces drivers to "focus on their mobile phones
as they desperately seek the next fare in competition with their
fellow Uber drivers," according to the complaint.

But New York law prohibits drivers from using their cell phones
while driving.

Uber drivers are then forced to act like "predatory drivers racing
to win fares with their eyes on their phones instead of the road,"
according to the complaint.

The lawsuit also claims Uber's screening of its drivers are lax.

"Defendants' background check process is highly vulnerable to
error and gives consumers little protection from drivers that may
pose a threat to their safety," the lawsuit states.

Yellow-cab and black-car drivers, meanwhile, are required to meet
several requirements that include passing a drug test, getting a
doctor's note certifying their medical aptness, and a criminal
background check.

Plaintiff XYZ also says Uber poaches its drivers.

"Defendants do not employ drivers or own, lease or operate any
commercial vehicles," according to the complaint.  "Instead,
defendants intentionally seek out, recruit and entice drivers who
are already affiliated with other ground transportation companies
(such as plaintiffs) to provide services for defendants because it
is cheaper than providing training, licensing, and vehicles for
new drivers."

Uber has been sued 32 times this year; seven of them were class-
action lawsuits.

"While we are still in the process of reviewing the matter and
have not yet been served, Uber will vigorously defend the rights
of riders and drivers to have choice and competition," an Uber
representative said.  "These special interests should spend more
time supporting the interests of New York riders and drivers than
protecting their profits."

Also sued were Weiter LLC; Hinter LLC; Grun LLC; Unter LLC;
Schmecken LLC; and Danach-NY LLC.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lisa Solbakken, Esq.
          ARKIN SOLBAKKEN LLP
          590 Madison Avenue, 35th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 333-0200
          Facsimile: (212) 333-2350
          E-mail: lsolbakken@arkin-law.com


UNITED STATES: Ordered to Release List of Tea Party Groups
----------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Dinan, writing for The Washington Times, reports that a
federal judge ordered the IRS to turn over the list of 298 groups
it targeted for intrusive scrutiny as the agency defends against a
potential class-action lawsuit by tea party groups who claim their
constitutional rights were violated.

The IRS had argued it shouldn't have to release the names because
doing so would violate privacy laws, but Judge Susan J. Dlott, who
sits in the Southern District of Ohio, rejected that claim and
ordered the tax agency to turn over any lists or spreadsheets
detailing the groups that were targeted and when they filed their
applications.

Judge Dlott also ordered the IRS to say whether a partial list of
targeted groups reported by USA Today is authentic as a number of
tea party groups try to win certification for a class action
lawsuit against the IRS.

"The return information sought is directly related to the issue of
class certification in this federal court proceeding," the judge
said.  "The names of the putative class member organizations and
their control dates -- the date which the putative class member
organizations submitted their applications for tax exempt status
to the IRS -- are directly related to the issue of class
certification."

The judge has not yet certified the tea party groups as a class,
and the information that they've obtained so far through
depositions remains under seal.  But backers say if they can be
certified, then they will begin to try to pry loose some of the
key information about how the IRS chose which groups it went after
in its targeting.

"We're at the precipice," said Mark Meckler, a member of one of
the tea party groups suing, and also president of Citizens for
Self-Governance, which is funding the litigation.

The Ohio lawsuit is the only major legal jeopardy still remaining
in the courts for the IRS -- though the agency is still facing an
FBI investigation, according to documents obtained by True the
Vote, a tea party group, under the Freedom of Information Act.

The deporting U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C. informed House
Speaker John A. Boehner he would not prosecute Lois G. Lerner, the
former senior executive who's at the center of the targeting
scandal, for contempt of Congress.  The prosecutor said Ms. Lerner
didn't waiver her Fifth Amendment rights against self-
incrimination when she delivered an opening statement at a
congressional hearing but then refused follow-up questions.

The scandal developed after the IRS acknowledged it singled out
tea party groups for special scrutiny, and asked intrusive
questions that agency executives later said were inappropriate.
The IRS's inspector general concluded that 298 groups were
targeted, with all but a handful of them leaning toward the
conservative side.

But the IRS has resisted releasing the official list, arguing that
is private information.

"The Internal Revenue Service cannot disclose the identities of
the potential class members because that is return information
protected," the administration said in its court filings.

The judge disagreed, saying exemptions in law apply to a case like
this.

Several other cases had been filed in Washington, D.C., by tea
party groups trying to force a judge to proactively halt any
future targeting.  The judge tossed those cases, saying that the
IRS insists the targeting has ended, so there is no further action
needed.

But some groups are still awaiting approval, including one that's
been pending for more than five years, which their lawyers argue
means the IRS is still targeting despite its insistence that its
program has ended.

Commissioner John Koskinen has said groups that are still waiting
could take a deal, promising to limit their political activities
to 40 percent of their business, but the groups argue that would
mean giving up rights since they believe under current law
politicking can be almost 50 percent of their activities.


UNITED STATES: Wash. Court Certifies Class of Jailed Immigrants
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge April 13 certified a class of immigrants who were jailed
because they cannot post bonds, and ordered immigration judges in
Seattle and Tacoma to consider conditional parole rather than
bonds.

Honduras native Maria Sandra Rivera was jailed in an immigration
prison last year.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matt Adams, Esq.
          NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT
          615 2nd Avenue, Suite 400
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 587-4009
          Facsimile: (206) 587-4025
          E-mail: matt@nwirp.org

               - and -

          Elizabeth Benki, Esq.
          NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT
          1331 G Street NW, Suite 200
          Tacoma, WA 98402
          Telephone: (206) 957-8653
          Facsimile: (206) 383-0111
          E-mail: elizabeth@nwirp.org

               - and -

          Judy Rabinovitz, Esq.
          Michael K.T. Tan, Esq.
          ACLU IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT
          125 Broad St., 18th floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 549-2618
          Facsimile: (212) 549-2654
          E-mail: jrabinovitz@aclu.org
                  mtan@aclu.org

               - and -

          Sarah Dunne, Esq.
          Margaret Chen, Esq.
          ACLU OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION
          901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 630
          Seattle, WA 98164
          Telephone: (206) 624-2184
          E-mail: dunne@aclu-wa.org
                  mchen@aclu-wa.org

The case is Maria Sandra Rivera, on behalf of herself as an
individual and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Eric H.
Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, et al., Case
No. 2:14-cv-01597, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington.


UNIVERSAL MUSIC: To Pay $14.8MM to Settle Digital Royalties Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Universal Music Group will pay $11.5 million plus $3.3 million in
legal costs to settle a class action over royalties from digital
music downloads, reports Mike Heuer, writing for Courthouse News
Service.

The Estate of Rick James, Chuck D (of Public Enemy) and others
sued UMG in 2011 on behalf of artists with UMG or Capitol Records
contracts from 1965 through April 30, 2004.

UMG must pay up to $11.5 million in supplemental royalties for
past digital downloads and increase future download royalties by
10 percent to class members who submit claims.  It also must pay
$2.9 million in attorney's fees, $450,000 in legal costs and
additional compensation for expert witnesses.

The settlement, proposed on April 14, must be approved by a
federal judge.

UMG did not admit guilt and continues to deny wrongdoing.

"Although we are confident we appropriately paid royalties on
digital downloads and adhered to the terms of contracts, we are
pleased to amicably resolve this matter and avoid continued legal
costs," UMG said in a statement April 14.

The musicians say UMG underpaid them by calling digital downloads
"sales" instead of "licensing agreements" when people bought
permanent downloads and ringtones for cell phones.

Sales royalties are smaller than licensing royalties.

"This settlement is a fair resolution of this controversy over how
to compensate artists for their valuable work in a new medium
which we believe was not contemplated by their contracts, many
drafted in the 1970s or 1980s.  And it compensates these artists
now, rather than after additional years of litigation and
uncertainty," class attorney Len Simon said in a statement.

UMG owns a slew of major labels, including Motown, Capitol, A&M,
Blue Note, Def Jam, Decca, EMI, Geffen, Virgin and many more.

Class attorney Simon did not return a call seeking additional
comment April 16.

UMG representatives were not available for comment.

The Class is represented by:

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


WAL-MART STORES: Sued in Cal. for Double-Billing Vision Customers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart and optical-retail giant National Vision charges
customers and insurance companies for the same goods and services,
a class claims in federal court, according to Courthouse News
Service.

Elizabeth Vancleave, of Shasta Lake, Calif., filed the April 10
complaint in Eureka.  She claims to have visited a Wal-Mart in
Redding on Feb. 14, 2014, with the knowledge that its Vision
Center "was an in-network provider" for her insurance through
EyeMed Vision Care.

EyeMed is not a party to the action.

Vancleave says she bought lenses, frames and a product-protection
plan, for a subtotal of "$358.00 before defendants applied
plaintiff's plan discount and insurance."

"After plaintiff's insurance benefits were purportedly applied,
defendants charged plaintiff $177.00," the complaint states.

Vancleave paid that amount with a debit card the same day but soon
received a notice from her insurer about the transaction.

Wal-Mart allegedly submitted a claim of $358, and Vancleave says
her insurer said it covered $256 of that amount.

With the insurer paying $169 to Wal-Mart and National Vision,
which maintains its optical retail store, on Feb. 20, EyeMed said
Vancleave's "responsibility for the transaction was $102,"
according to the complaint.

"Accordingly, defendants overcharged plaintiff $75.00 by failing
to fully credit her insurance benefits in their invoice on
February 14, 2015," the complaint states.

Vancleave says she then "compared the Explanation of Benefits for
her past purchases at Wal-Mart Vision Centers with the receipts
for these transactions for previous years."

"Plaintiff then discovered other occasions where it appears that
defendants engaged in the same practice of misrepresenting
plaintiff's insurance benefits, overcharging plaintiff for her eye
care and services, and also billing her insurance carrier for the
same charges," the complaint continues.

Vancleave notes that Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart Stores has
Vision Centers and Sam's Club Optical Stores in all 50 states.

Georgia-based National Vision "touts itself as one of the largest
optical retailers in the United States, operating over 800 retail
locations in 43 states plus the District of Columbia and Puerto
Rico," according to the complaint.

The class seeks damages, an injunction and restitution for
violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
conversion and unfair business practices.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David C. Parisi, Esq.
          PARISI & HAVENS LLP
          212 Marine Street, Suite 100
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: (818) 990-1299
          Facsimile: (818) 501-7852
          E-mail: dcparisi@parisihavens.com


WEST BANCORPORATION: Class Action Appeal Should Be Decided in 2015
------------------------------------------------------------------
West Bancorporation, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that West Bank's appeal of
adverse rulings in a class action lawsuit should be decided
sometime in 2015.

On September 29, 2010, West Bank was sued in a class action
lawsuit that, as amended, asserts that nonsufficient funds fees
charged by West Bank to Iowa resident customers on debit card
transactions are usurious under the Iowa Consumer Credit Code,
rather than allowable fees, and that the sequence in which West
Bank formerly posted debit card transactions for payment violated
various alleged duties of good faith and ordinary care. Plaintiffs
are seeking alternative remedies that include injunctive relief,
damages (including treble damages), punitive damages, refund of
fees and attorney fees. West Bank believes it has substantial
defenses and is vigorously defending the action. The trial court
entered orders on preliminary motions on March 4, 2014. It
dismissed one of the Plaintiffs' claims and found that factual
disputes precluded summary judgment in West Bank's favor on the
remaining claims. In addition, the court certified two classes for
further proceedings. West Bank appealed the adverse rulings. The
appeals should be decided sometime in 2015.

"The amount of potential loss, if any, cannot be reasonably
estimated now because of the unresolved legal issues and because,
among other things, the multiple alternative claims involve
different time periods, burdens of proof, defenses and potential
remedies," the Company said.


WINNETKA, IL: Resident Files Class Action Over Storm Water Fee
--------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Ann Cullotta, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that when
Winnetka officials voted unanimously to pay for the village's $41
million flood control program by creating a stormwater utility
fee, they bet the new concept would be more palatable to residents
than hiking property taxes.

While the stormwater fee in Winnetka has raised more than a few
eyebrows -- and prompted a resident to file a class action lawsuit
against the village -- the occasional bumps in the road haven't
stopped other suburban leaders from considering this type of
program a success in their own communities, nor has it discouraged
other towns from pursuing something similar.

In Park Ridge, where officials also are seeking solutions to the
town's chronic flooding woes, leaders recently paid an engineering
consultant $58,000 for a study to explore the idea of a stormwater
utility fee and how it would impact local residents.

And Downers Grove officials said they believe that the inception
of the village's first stormwater utility fee in 2013 will provide
a more reliable funding mechanism than solely relying on property
taxes to pay for costly flood control projects.

"There are still some residents who are of the mindset that they
don't like the stormwater utility fee concept because they're
already paying enough in property taxes, and they can't use the
fee as a tax deduction," said Downers Grove Mayor Martin Tully,
who is seeking re-election on April 7.

"Over the long run, residents will still come out ahead with a
stormwater utility fee-based program.  But it does have its
political hills to climb," Mr. Tully said.

Though towns have long relied upon creating special service areas
where only residents living in a specific neighborhood pay extra
fees to pay for projects ranging from sidewalk improvements to
street repairs, officials say that worsening flooding problems
across the Chicago suburbs in recent years demands a new, steady
stream of revenue that can best be obtained from a stormwater
utility fee.

As embraced by scores of municipalities across the U.S. looking
for a funding stream outside of property taxes, stormwater utility
fees are typically based upon the amount of impervious surface on
a property: in short, areas that do not absorb rainfall, including
building foundations, patios, sidewalks and driveways, all of
which contribute to stormwater runoff that burdens the sewer
system.

While proponents of the fees say they are a more equitable way for
residents to pay for stormwater improvements -- as theoretically,
the more a property impacts flooding, the more one pays -- local
officials acknowledge that the programs do have their share of
detractors.

After hearing about the success of the financing method in other
communities, officials in Downers Grove created a stormwater
utility fee in 2013 to pay for a $25 million bond issue that is
funding the village's flood control projects.

"We knew what kind of stormwater management projects we needed and
the cost, and the annual property tax levy just wasn't going to be
able to do it," Mr. Tully said.

While some Downers Grove residents have complained that unlike
property taxes, the stormwater utility fee is not tax-deductible,
Mr. Tully said the program is a fairer way to pay for
improvements.

Nonetheless, relying on stormwater utility fees as a method of
funding construction and maintenance of capital projects has been
criticized by some taxpayers, including Winnetka resident
Mark Green, who recently filed a class action lawsuit against the
village.

According to the complaint, building Winnetka's proposed
stormwater tunnel "must be funded via a property tax" because the
project would be a "capital (improvement) . . . for the community
as a whole."

Winnetka officials have said the new stormwater utility fee, which
includes roughly 4,300 accounts, will cost residents about $260
each the first year, topping out at roughly $360 annually after
all the bonds needed to fund the project are issued.

"The council's decision to operate the village's stormwater system
as a municipal utility funded through user fees was finalized only
after extensive analysis and public comment and debate," Winnetka
Village President Gene Greable said in a statement last month.

Back in Downers Grove, a group of church leaders recently
succeeded in their campaign to exempt nonprofit organizations --
including churches, schools and other organizations -- from the
village's stormwater utility fee.

Churches, schools and other non-profit organizations are not
required to pay property taxes, but are billed for utility fees,
officials said.

"I think our driving force was the (belief) that the fee was a
thinly-veiled tax," said Mike Ryan, parish administrator at
St. Mary of Gostyn Catholic Church in Downers Grove, where
officials paid roughly $4,000 in 2014 for the stormwater fee, the
last year before the non-profit exemption was passed.

"I understand the village needs money, and we have a very amicable
relationship with them, but all the churches in town just banded
together on this," Mr. Ryan said.


YOUKU TUDOU: Faces "Jahm" Class Suit Alleging Securities Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
Internet broadcaster Youku Tudou takes its name from the Chinese
phrase for "what's best and what's cool," but the Beijing-based
company's accounting practices do not live up to its motto, a
federal class action alleges, according to Adam Klasfeld at
Courthouse News Service.

Rashid Jahm claims to represent "hundreds of thousands" of people
who bought Youku stock between May 15, 2013, and March 19, 2015.
The April 14 federal securities fraud complaint also names as
defendants Youku executives Victor Wing Cheung Koo and Michael Ge
Xu.

Youku Tudou formed three years ago through a more than $1 billion
merger that created a company controlling about a third of China's
video-advertising market, The New York Times reported.

The timeline of the class-action complaint begins a little more
than a year after this acquisition, with the company's announcing
of its first-quarter financial results from 2013.

Since that time, Youku Tudou put out multiple statements revealed
to have been "materially false and misleading" when the company
first disclosed a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation
on March 19, 2015, the lawsuit claims.

The next day, the stock price "plummeted" 9 percent, from $15.15
to $13.50, according to the complaint.

"The potentially improper accounting as questioned by the SEC has
resulted in a loss of over $365 million in market value to Youku
investors," the complaint states.

Only the company's "fraud" is to blame for the dip, Jahm claims.

"The decline in Youku's share price was a direct result of the
nature and extent of defendants' fraud finally being revealed to
investors and the market," his complaint states.  "The timing and
magnitude of the common stock price decline negates any inference
that the loss suffered by plaintiff and other members of the class
was caused by changed market conditions, macroeconomic or industry
factors or company-specific facts unrelated to the defendants'
fraudulent conduct."

The class seeks damages for two alleged securities violations.

Youku Tudou did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew Guiney, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telecopier: (212) 545-4653
          E-mail: guiney@whafh.com


ZALE DELAWARE: Ex-Employee Seeks Class Cert. in Wage Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aebra Coe, writing for Law360, reports that a former employee
suing jewelry giant Zale Delaware Inc. asked a California federal
court on April 1 to certify a class of nearly 20,000 U.S. workers
who she said have been underpaid because the company shaves time
off of its employees' timecards.

Naomi Tapia told the court her complaint accusing the retail
chain, commonly known as Zales, of violating the Fair Labor
Standards Act and California labor laws would be most efficiently
litigated as a class action because the company applies a uniform
policy for paying its employees nationwide, which she said means
more than 19,000 workers are owed back pay and overtime.

"Zale used . . . point-of-sale systems which 'time shave' in the
exact same way for all instore nonexempt employees in the United
States for the full three-year FLSA statute of limitations,"
Ms. Tapia's April 1 motion for class certification said.  "Thus,
all putative nationwide class members experienced minimum wage and
overtime violations due to the exact same compensation policies
and are similarly situated."

According to her complaint, Ms. Tapia was hired as a jewelry
consultant at a Zales store in California in May 2012 and was
fired later that year.  She claimed her timecard was altered
before she was paid to show she didn't work as long as she
actually did.  For instance, if she worked nine hours and three
minutes, the company's payroll system would deduct the three
minutes and record nine hours, the complaint said.

Additionally, Ms. Tapia alleged that in a week during which she
worked 40.75 hours, she did not receive overtime pay, in violation
of labor laws.  She added that a full 30-minute lunch break was
regularly reported on her timecard whether or not she took the
entire break.

The suit said that in addition to Zales underpaying its employees,
the payroll documents the company provides its employees are
insufficient because they do not use hours and minutes to show how
long an employee has worked. For example, Zales will represent
hours worked as 40.75 hours, rather than 40 hours and 45 minutes.

"Zale has a single payroll department.  All non-exempt employees
use the same time-keeping system, and all are paid via a single,
standard system.  The Zale time-keeping system 'shaves' minutes
from employees' recorded work-time, prior to paying the
employees," the April 1 motion said.

Zales spokesman David A. Bouffard told Law360 on April 2 that the
company doesn't believe it has broken any labor laws.

"Zale believes it has complied with all applicable California and
federal labor laws and will continue to defend the allegations
vigorously," Mr. Bouffard said.

Ms. Tapia is represented by Eric K. Yaeckel, Lara A. Prodanovich
and Clint S. Engleson of Sullivan Law Group LLP.

Zale is represented by Holger C. Grossman Besch, Brian P. Long,
Kristen M. Agnew and Michael F. Marino III of Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

The case is Tapia v. Zale Delaware Inc. et al, case number 3:13-
cv-01565, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California.


* State Liquor Control Board Won't Pull Out Wines Despite Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Tierney, writing for TribLive, reports that State Liquor
Control Board officials say they have no plans to pull any wine
off the shelves based on a highly publicized class-action lawsuit
filed in California claiming some popular lower-priced wines
contain "dangerously" high levels of arsenic.

The suit filed in Los Angeles alleges three independent
laboratories found 83 types of wine from 28 wineries with levels
of arsenic three to five times higher than the federal standards
set for drinking water.

The mostly lower-priced wines ranging from about $6 a bottle to
the $15 range include popular brands such as Sutter Home, Menage A
Trois, Beringer and Almaden.

LCB spokeswoman Stacy Kriedeman said the board is "monitoring the
situation," but has not seen reason for concern.

"If there comes a point when federal authorities provide direction
to retailers to stop selling specific products or a vendor recalls
a product or products, we will act quickly to remove the products
from our shelves," Ms. Kriedeman said.

She said monitoring the safety of alcoholic beverages is the job
of the federal government, not the state.

To date, the federal Food and Drug Administration has not taken a
position on the issue, said FDA spokeswoman Lauren Sucher.
The U.S. Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau routinely
analyzes alcoholic beverages for safety, she said.  Officials from
that agency did not return repeated phone calls seeking comment.
Meanwhile, The Wine Institute, an advocacy association for
California winemakers, said in a statement that the lawsuit is an
"irresponsible publicity stunt."

It is unfair to compare arsenic levels in wine with federal
restrictions on drinking water, according the institute.
People drink water much more frequently than wine, and the
federally set arsenic limits for drinking water take this into
account, the institute said.  The levels of arsenic found in the
study are still well below the limitations set for wine in Canada
and the European Union, according to the institute.

"We believe this allegation is false and misleading, and that all
wines being sold in the U.S. marketplace are safe," the institute
statement read.

Long-term exposure to high levels of arsenic can cause cancer and
other health problems, according to information on the FDA
website, but small amounts are common in many foods and beverages.
"Arsenic occurs naturally in the environment, and some amount can
be present in the wine, regardless of agricultural practices,"
Ms. Sucher said.

The government does not limit the amount of arsenic that can be in
wine, she said.

A statement from BeverageGrades, one of the labs that tested the
wines, offered no advice for wine consumers.

"We are not the authority on whether it is safe. We can only tell
what is in it," the statement said.

Among those buying wines at local Wine and Spirits stores, news of
the lawsuit drew mixed reactions.

Greensburg resident Marguerite Le, 35, saw a few brands she
recognized as she looked over the list of wines named in the
lawsuit.

"I'll be sure to stay away from that," she said.  "I am very
cautious about what ingredients are in what."

Jolene Hill of Youngwood said she is less concerned by the study
for two reasons.  She usually buys wine from local wineries, and
she knows there are often small, harmless amounts of harmful
substances in many common foods.

"There are bits of bad things in everything," she said.  "I guess
just check everything you eat."


                             *********

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  * * *