CAR_Public/150513.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, May 13, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 95


                            Headlines


AARON'S INC: "Byrd" Spyware Suit Fit for Class, 3rd Circuit Rules
ACME ENERGY: Faces "Haynes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ALMA LASERS: Ill. Court Denies Class Action in "Fax Blast" Suit
APPLE HOSPITALITY: Dismissal of Claims in Apple REITS Case Sought
APPLE HOSPITALITY: Class Action Claims in DCG&T Case Dismissed

APPLE HOSPITALITY: To Defend Against "Moses" Case
APPLE HOSPITALITY: "Wenzel" Case Plaintiff Filed Amended Complaint
ARIZONA: "Parsons" Prisoners Suit Inspires 9th Cir. Dissent
ASSOCIATED ESTATES: Sued Over Alleged Breach of Fiduciary Duties
ATEECO INC: Faces "Steinberg" Suit Over Product Misbranding

AUDIENCE INC: Class Action Trial Scheduled for September 15
AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Intends to Defend Against 2 Class Actions
AVON PRODUCTS: Court Certifies Class of District Sales Managers
BABOLAT VS NORTH: Judgment Entered on "Ahdoot" Suit Settlement
BAKER HUGHES: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

BAYOU WELL: Doesn't Pay Operator Properly, "Bittner" Suit Says
BETTER FAMILIES: "Tarrago" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
BIOLASE INC: Settlement Subject to Negotiation of Definitive Deal
BLUE WORLD: Removed "Roberts" Class Suit to W.D. Kentucky
CAB LOGISTICS: Faces "Travis" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

CARNE CHOP: "Yucha" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
CEPHALON INC: Judge Dismisses Unjust Enrichment Class Action
CHERRY CONCRETE: "Johnson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
CHICO'S FAS: Class Action Settlement Preliminarily Approved
CHIQUITA BRANDS: Pesticide Showers Poison Villagers, Suit Says

CIMAREX ENERGY: Administration of Settlement Ongoing
CINEMARK USA: Joseph Amey Case in Pretrial Discovery
CIRQUE DU SOLEIL: Waiters File Class Action Over Tip Policy
CITIGROUP INC: Faces "Korenblum" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CLUB EXPLORIA: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Miller" Suit Claims

COLONIAL FINANCIAL: Faces Action Related to Cape Bancorp Merger
CROSS COUNTRY HEALTHCARE: Paid $0.8 Million to Plaintiff
DENDREON CORPORATION: Settlement Approval Hearing Held
DEUTSCHE BANK: Court Tosses Lorenz's Renewed Motion for TRO
DOMEX USA: "Abreu" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Rayner Suit Stayed Pending PFOF Action Rulings
ENERGY RECOVERY: Faces "Sabatino" and "Mowdy" Actions
EPIC WIRELINE: Faces "Herrera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
FALCON SKYCAP: Faces "Fisch" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
FORMFACTOR INC: Mediation Did Not Result in Settlement

FURMANITE AMERICA: Faces "Christian" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
GENTIVA HEALTH: Settles Investor Class Action for $6.5 Million
GIGA LTD: Faces "Cardona" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
GMRI INC: Faces "Tyczynski" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
GOOGLE INC: Plaintiffs Drop Android Monopoly Class Action

GOOGLE INC: Judge Tosses Class Action Over In-App Purchases
GREAT LAKES DREDGE: Parties Reached Deal in Securities Class Suit
HIGHER ONE: Consumer Class Action Settlement Becomes Final
HIGHER ONE: Deadline to Respond to Securities Action Due
HUGOTON ROYALTY: No Updates in Roderick Trust Action

HUGOTON ROYALTY: No Updates in Chieftain Royalty Action
HYBRID CONCRETE: Faces "Bello" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
IBEX GLOBAL: Call Center Workers File Class Action in Tennessee
INFORMATICA CORP: Being Sold for Too Little to Italics, Suit Says
INNERWORKINGS INC: Motion to Dismiss Van Noppen Complaint Pending

INTERNATIONAL INTERACTIVE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Says
INTUIT INC: Faces "Diaz" Class Suit Over Lax Security at TurboTax
K&K ASSISTED: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
KRAFT FOODS: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Market Manipulation
LIBERTY TAX: ERC Class Action in Early Procedural Stage

LIBERTY TAX: TCPA Case Settlement Subject to Final Negotiations
MACHINE ZONE: Faces "Mason" Class Suit Over Loss in Game of War
MARICOPA, AZ: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Faces Civil Contempt Hearing
MEDI-WHEELS: "Balde" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
MEDTRONIC INC: MiniMed Insulin Pump Blamed for Death of NJ Man

MONSANTO CO: Falsely Advertised Roundup Weed-Killer, Suit Claims
MULTICARE HEALTH: Sued Over Excessive Medical Record Fees
NATIONAL SECURITIES: NY Sup. Court Dismisses "Vasquez" Action
NEWARK, NJ: Judge Stays Class Action v. Watershed Agency
OMIMEX CANADA: 9th Cir. Upholds Judgment in S Bar Branch Case

OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: June Final Settlement Approval Hearing
ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Hotel Booking Antitrust Case Officially Ended
ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Facing Delaware Actions Relating Expedia Deals
PVH CORP: Faces Class Action Over Unrequested Text Messages
QUIKSILVER INC: Faces Securities Class Action in California

RANDSTAD US: Blumenthal, Nordrehuag & Bhomik Files Class Action
RAYONIER ADVANCED: Sued in Fla. Over Misleading Financial Reports
RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT: "Mosquea" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
REXFORD INDUSTRIAL: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Pending
SAKS & CO: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Return Policy Class Action

SIMPLEXGRINNELL LP: Wins Prelim. Certification of Labor Class
SKY BAR: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Awaits Judge's Decision on Motion to Dismiss
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Cherokee Suit Over Actos(R) Drugs
TEXTURA CORPORATION: Deadline to File Motion to Dismiss Due

TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Directed by Court to Pay $798,000 in Legal Fees
VICTORY PLANNING: Has Sent Unsolicited Fax Ads, Sabon Suit Says
WALT DISNEY: Judge Dismisses Anti-Poaching Class Action
WASHINGTON HOSPITAL: Claim for "Uniform Maintenance" Work Tossed
WELLS FARGO: Accused of Breaching Deal in "Pick-a-Payment" Suit

XENCOR INC: Defendant in "DePinto v. John S. Stafford" Class Suit
YELP INC: Court Dismisses Suit Alleging Manipulation of Reviews

* Fla. Sup. Court Sides with Smokers in Jury Instructions Dispute


                            *********


AARON'S INC: "Byrd" Spyware Suit Fit for Class, 3rd Circuit Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A couple's spyware claims against computer-rental company Aaron's
are enough to warrant class certification, reports Andrew Thompson
at Courthouse News Service, citing a 3rd Circuit ruling.

The couple in question, Brian and Crystal Byrd of Wyoming, say
that a franchisee of Aaron's used spyware software installed on
its computers to log Brian's keystrokes and web traffic on a
product he rented.  The spyware even allegedly took pictures of
Brian using the computer's webcam.

Evidence showed that the franchisee, Aspen Way, accessed the
Byrd's computer 347 times over 11 days.

The Byrds seek to represent a class of customers "who leased
and/or purchased one or more computers from Aaron's, Inc., and
their household members, on whose computers DesignerWare's
Detective Mode [the spyware] was installed and activated without
such person's consent on or after January 1, 2007."

Alternatively, they proposed to include customers "who leased
and/or purchased one or more computers from Aaron's, Inc. or an
Aaron's, Inc. franchisee, and their household members, on whose
computers DesignerWare's Detective Mode was installed and
activated without such person's consent on or after January 1,
2007."

The case faced an appellate hearing of the 3rd Circuit earlier
this year after a federal judge handling the case in Pittsburgh
shot down the motion for class certification, based on a
magistrate's finding that the class was defined too broadly and
that its members were not "ascertainable," or objectively
identifiable.

A three-judge panel reversed on April 16, finding that the lower
court misapplied precedent.

"First, the District Court abused its discretion by misstating the
rule governing ascertainability," Judge D. Brooks Smith wrote for
the panel.  "Second, the District Court engrafted an
'underinclusive' requirement that is foreign to our
ascertainability standard. Third, the District Court made an
errant conclusion of law in finding that an 'overly broad' class
was not ascertainable.  And fourth, the District Court improperly
applied the legal principles from Carrera to the issue of whether
'household members' could be ascertainable."

Published in 2013, Carrera v. Bayer Corp. expanded on some of the
concerns relating to a defendant's "due process right to challenge
the proof used to demonstrate class membership."

Smith emphasized that objective records exist for the plaintiffs
to "readily identify" members of owner or lessee classes.

The District Court itself explained that "Aaron's own records
reveal the computers upon which Detective Mode was activated, as
well as the full identity of the customer who leased or purchased
each of those computers," according to the 45-page lead opinion.


ACME ENERGY: Faces "Haynes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kerry S. Haynes, James Thompson, & Robert Subia, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. Acme Energy Services,
Inc. d/b/a Big Dog Drilling, Case No. 1:15-cv-00349 (W.D. Tex.,
April 30, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Headquartered in Midland, Texas Acme Energy Services, Inc. is in
the business of drilling for oil.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Wayne Cowan, Esq.
      AILEY PEAVY BAILEY PLLC
      440 Louisiana Street, Suite 2100
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 425-7100
      Facsimile: (713) 425-7101
      E-mail: rcowan@bpblaw.com


ALMA LASERS: Ill. Court Denies Class Action in "Fax Blast" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Review reports that a court in the Northern
District of Illinois recently denied class certification in a "fax
blast" case because the plaintiff failed to meet its burden of
proof in showing that the putative class was ascertainable where
there was no evidence identifying the recipients of the faxes.
Physicians Healthsource, Inc. v. Alma Lasers, Inc., et al., No.
12-4978, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41339 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2015).

From the perspective of defense counsel, this case is a reminder
of the importance of holding plaintiffs to their burden proof in
showing that all of Rule 23's requirements are satisfied when
opposing a motion for class certification.  Plaintiffs face a
hurdle in showing a class is ascertainable where there is no
objective criteria establishing the identities of recipients of a
particular communication.

According to the court's opinion, Defendant Alma Lasers, Inc.
("Alma") is a manufacturer of laser devices used in noninvasive,
aesthetic medical procedures such as hair removal and leg vein
treatment.  To promote its products, Alma schedules seminars for
medical professionals throughout the country.

In generating potential clients to attend its seminars, Alma
purchased contact lists of medical professionals from BrightPath
Marketing Services, LLC ("BrightPath"), and it entered that
contact information into its general customer list.  To promote
its seminars, it then contracted with another third party,
WestFax, Inc. ("WestFax"), to fax flyers to individuals on its
contact list.  It did not, however, send the contact lists
generated by BrightPath directly to WestFax, so there was never a
specific list used for the sole purpose of contacting potential
customers by fax.  In addition, Alma did not maintain the lists of
customers contacted for particular seminars, and the invoices from
WestFax only included aggregate data, listing the total number of
faxes sent but not the particular numbers to which they were sent.

In a putative class action complaint alleging a violation of the
TCPA, Plaintiff Physicians Healthsource, Inc. ("Physicians")
claimed that it received three identical faxes in July and August
2008 promoting an Alma seminar taking place in Columbus, Ohio, in
October 2008.  The faxes' headers included the name of M. Raza
Khan, M.D., a doctor who had left Physicians a year earlier, but
the headers did not include the name of Physicians or its fax
number.  The faxes had a manual date stamp that Physician said it
applied when it received the faxes, but Physicians did not have
any other record of an incoming fax from Alma or WestFax.  Alma
also did not have any contact information for Physicians or Dr.
Khan in its marketing database or other records.

Alma argued that the putative class was not ascertainable because
Physicians did not provide an objective way of determining which
Alma customers received the faxes.  Noting that Alma did not
maintain a list of individuals who were contacted solely by fax,
the court found that, "[a]bsent a 'master list' of fax numbers,
there is no evidence in the record that establishes which
customers were sent Alma seminar faxes."  Physicians also could
not overcome the fact that it was not included on any list of fax
numbers possessed by Alma, WestFax, or BrightPath.

Alma also argued that Physicians did not have standing to pursue
its TCPA claim, because there was insufficient evidence that it
had received the fax.  The court agreed: "Although the physical
possession of Alma's advertisement suggests the receipt of an Alma
fax, the exact recipient of the fax remains in question despite
Physicians' possession of the three faxes."  The fact that there
was no record of the fax transmission led the court to conclude
that Physicians failed to establish that it had suffered an injury
under the TCPA.


APPLE HOSPITALITY: Dismissal of Claims in Apple REITS Case Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that following remand,
defendants have moved to dismiss plaintiffs' remaining claims in
the Apple REITS Litigation.

On December 13, 2011, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York ordered that three putative class
actions, Kronberg, et al. v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et
al., Kowalski v. Apple REIT Ten, Inc., et al., and Leff v. Apple
REIT Ten, Inc., et al., be consolidated and amended the caption of
the consolidated matter to be In re Apple REITs Litigation. The
District Court also appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for
the consolidated action and ordered lead plaintiffs to file and
serve a consolidated complaint by February 17, 2012. The Company
was previously named as a party in all three of the class action
lawsuits.

On February 17, 2012, lead plaintiffs and lead counsel in the In
re Apple REITs Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-02919-KAM-JO,
filed an amended consolidated complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the
Company, ASRG, Apple Eight Advisors, Inc., A9A, A10A, AFM, Apple
Six, Apple Seven, Apple Eight and Apple Ten, their directors and
certain officers, and David Lerner Associates, Inc. and David
Lerner. The consolidated complaint, which was dismissed in April
2013, was purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of units
in the Company and the other Apple REIT Entities, or those who
otherwise acquired these units that were offered and sold to them
by David Lerner Associates, Inc., or its affiliates and on behalf
of subclasses of shareholders in New Jersey, New York, Connecticut
and Florida, and alleged that the Apple REIT Entities
"misrepresented the investment objectives of the Apple REITs, the
dividend payment policy of the Apple REITs, and the value of their
Apple REIT investments." The consolidated complaint asserted
claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
as well as claims for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and unjust
enrichment, and claims for violation of the securities laws of
Connecticut and Florida. The complaint sought, among other things,
certification of a putative nationwide class and the state
subclasses, damages, rescission of share purchases and other costs
and expenses.

On April 18, 2012, the Company and the other defendants moved to
dismiss the consolidated complaint in the In re Apple REITs
Litigation. By Order entered on March 31, 2013 and opinion issued
on April 3, 2013, the Court dismissed the consolidated complaint
in its entirety with prejudice and without leave to amend.
Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals on April 12, 2013, and filed their Brief for Plaintiffs-
Appellants on July 26, 2013. Defendants-Appellees filed their
Briefs on October 25, 2013. In response to the Defendants-
Appellees Briefs, the Plaintiffs-Appellants filed a Reply Brief
with the court on November 15, 2013.

On April 23, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit") entered a summary order in
the consolidated class action referred to in the In re Apple REITs
Litigation matter. In the summary order, the Second Circuit
affirmed the dismissal by the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York (the "District Court") of the
plaintiffs' state and federal securities law claims and the unjust
enrichment claim. The Second Circuit also noted that the District
Court dismissed the plaintiffs' remaining state common law claims
based on its finding that the complaint did not allege any losses
suffered by the plaintiff class, and held that, to the extent that
the District Court relied on this rationale, its dismissal of the
plaintiffs' state law breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and
abetting a breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence claims is
vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the
summary order. Following remand, on June 6, 2014, defendants moved
to dismiss plaintiffs' remaining claims.

The Company will defend against the claims remanded to the
District Court vigorously. At this time, the Company cannot
reasonably predict the outcome of these proceedings or provide a
reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of loss due to
these proceedings, if any.


APPLE HOSPITALITY: Class Action Claims in DCG&T Case Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the court dismissed
each of Plaintiffs' class action claims in the case DCG&T et al.
v. Knight, et al.

On January 31, 2014, two shareholders of the Company commenced a
purported class action against the Company and its directors (the
"Defendants") in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia (DCG&T, et al. v. Knight, et al., No.
3:14cv67, E.D. Va.). An amended complaint was filed on March 24,
2014. The amended complaint alleges (i) that the A7 and A8 mergers
are unfair to the Company's shareholders, (ii) various breaches of
fiduciary duty by the Company's directors in connection with the
A7 and A8 mergers, (iii) that the A7 and A8 mergers provide a
financial windfall to insiders, and (iv) that the Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus mailed to the Company's shareholders in
connection with the A7 and A8 mergers contains false and
misleading disclosures about certain matters, and adds as parties
certain Company management employees.

The amended complaint demands (i) an order stating that the action
may be maintained as a class action, certifying plaintiffs as
class representatives, and that the action may be maintained as a
derivative action, (ii) that the merger and the conversion of
common and preferred shares be rescinded, (iii) an award of
damages, and (iv) reimbursement of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and
other costs.

On May 5, 2014, the Defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint and filed an answer.

On December 18, 2014, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia issued an order granting the
Defendants' motion to dismiss in part and denying it in part.
Specifically, the court dismissed each of Plaintiffs' class action
claims, but held that Plaintiffs could bring derivative claims for
breach of fiduciary duties of care and loyalty and for conflicts
of interest.

The Company believes that plaintiffs' claims are without merit and
intends to defend these cases vigorously. At this time, the
Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these proceedings
or provide a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of
loss due to these proceedings, if any.


APPLE HOSPITALITY: To Defend Against "Moses" Case
-------------------------------------------------
Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company intends
to defend the case Moses, et al. v. Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc.,
et al.

On April 22, 2014, Plaintiff Susan Moses, purportedly a
shareholder of Apple Seven and Apple Eight, now part of the
Company, filed a class action against the Company and several
individual directors on behalf of all then-existing shareholders
and former shareholders of Apple Seven and Apple Eight, now part
of the Company, who purchased additional shares under the Apple
REITs' Dividend Reinvestment Plans ("DRIP") between July 17, 2007
and February 12, 2014 (Susan Moses, et al. v. Apple Hospitality
REIT, Inc., et al., No. 503487/2014, N.Y. Sup. (Kings County)).
Plaintiff brought suit in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York in Kings County (Brooklyn) and alleged claims under Virginia
law for breach of fiduciary duty against the individual directors,
and constructive trust and unjust enrichment claims against the
Company. Plaintiff alleges that the prices at which Plaintiff and
the purported class members purchased additional shares through
the DRIP were artificially inflated and not indicative of the true
value of units in Apple Seven and Apple Eight.

On May 19, 2014, defendants removed the action to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
Following the filing of defendants' motion to dismiss and strike
on June 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 27,
2014 adding a claim for breach of contract.

On July 14, 2014, defendants moved to dismiss and strike
Plaintiff's amended complaint.

The Company believes that Plaintiff's claims are without merit and
intends to defend this case vigorously. At this time, the Company
cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these proceedings or
provide a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of
loss due to these proceedings, if any.


APPLE HOSPITALITY: "Wenzel" Case Plaintiff Filed Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Plaintiff in the
case Wenzel v. Knight et al. has filed an amended complaint.

On June 16, 2014, Plaintiff Dorothy Wenzel, purportedly a
shareholder of Apple Seven and Apple Eight, now part of the
Company, filed a class action against Apple Seven Advisors, Inc.,
Apple Eight Advisors, Inc., AFM and several officers and directors
of the Company on behalf of all then-existing shareholders and
former shareholders of Apple Seven and Apple Eight, now part of
the Company, who purchased additional shares under the Apple
REITs' Dividend Reinvestment Plans ("DRIP") between July 17, 2007
and June 30, 2013 (Wenzel v. Knight, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-
00432-REP, E.D. Va.). Plaintiff brought suit in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and alleged
claims under Virginia law for breach of fiduciary duty against the
individual directors, as well as aiding and abetting a breach of
fiduciary duty and negligence against Apple Seven Advisors, Inc.,
Apple Eight Advisors, Inc., and AFM. Plaintiff alleges that the
prices at which Plaintiff and the purported class members
purchased additional shares through the DRIP were artificially
inflated and not indicative of the true value of units in Apple
Seven and Apple Eight.

On July 18, 2014, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint or to
transfer the action to the Eastern District of New York to be
consolidated with the Moses action.

On January 14, 2015, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia denied defendants' motions to
transfer and consolidate.

Also on January 14, 2015, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia issued an order granting the
defendants' motion to dismiss each count alleged by the Plaintiff.
Specifically, the court dismissed each of Plaintiffs' class action
claims, but granted Plaintiff leave to amend its complaint to
bring derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duties of care and
loyalty and for conflicts of interest.  The court also dismissed
Plaintiff's claims against Apple Seven for lack of standing.

On February 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against
the Company, Apple Eight Advisors, Inc., AFM, and several officers
and directors of the Company alleging breach of contract, tortious
interference with contract, fraud, negligence and violation of the
Virginia Securities Act.

The Company believes that Plaintiff's claims are without merit and
intends to defend this case vigorously. At this time, the Company
cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these proceedings or
provide a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of
loss due to these proceedings, if any.


ARIZONA: "Parsons" Prisoners Suit Inspires 9th Cir. Dissent
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that in declining to
reconsider a class action by 33,000 Arizona prison inmates, the
9th Circuit has let stand "serious misinterpretations" of federal
law, a dissent warns April 21.

The plaintiffs in Parsons v. Ryan claimed in 2012 that critically
inadequate medical, dental and mental health care in Arizona's
prisons had exposed them to "preventable injury, amputation,
disfigurement, and death," in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

In addition to delaying or denying emergency treatment and other
medical care, Arizona allegedly made it difficult for inmates to
secure medications and medical devices, and provided substandard
dental care that focused largely on extracting rather than healing
offending teeth.

Arizona complained to the 9th Circuit that the inmates had failed
to demonstrate the "commonality and typicality" required for class
certification, but a three-judge panel sided with the inmates last
year, finding evidence of "the existence of the statewide ADC
policies and practices that allegedly expose all members of the
putative class to a substantial risk of serious harm."

The state asked the federal appeals court to reconsider the issue
before an 11-judge, en banc panel, but the parties reached a
settlement just before the case went to trial.  The agreement
requires the Arizona Corrections Department to, among other
things, request more funding from the Arizona Legislature -- funds
it must use to better staff medical and mental health positions,
an ongoing problem for the ADC.

The 9th Circuit denied the state's motion to vacate the opinion in
February, and, on April 21, refused to reconsider the issue en
banc.

In a long dissent, Judge Sandra Ikuta, joined by Judges Alex
Kozinski, Diarmuid O'Scannlain, Consuelo Callahan, Carlos Bea and
Milan Smith, argued that the denial violates "two straightforward
principles" established by the U.S. Supreme Court.

"First, before certifying a class, a court must ensure that all
members of the potential class have the same sort of claim, and
that the claim is susceptible to classwide resolution," she wrote.
"Second, a prisoner does not have an Eighth Amendment claim merely
because the prisoner is incarcerated in a prison with a defective
medical system."

Ikuta argued that, "because the proposed class here includes
healthy prisoners who do not have an Eighth Amendment claim (or a
nonexistent institutional reform Eighth Amendment claim)," the
action does not meet the "commonality requirement."

Mootness issues aside, Ikuta said the court should vacate class
certification in the case to "avoid having the panel's serious
misinterpretations of Supreme Court Eighth Amendment and class
action jurisprudence become the law of our circuit."


ASSOCIATED ESTATES: Sued Over Alleged Breach of Fiduciary Duties
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Cutler, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, and derivatively on behalf of other Associated Estates
Realty Corporation v. Associated Estates Realty Corporation, et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00857-DCN (N.D. Ohio, April 30, 2015), is a
class action brought to enjoin the Defendants from further
breaching their fiduciary duties in connection with the sale of
the Company under pressure from an activist investor and through
an unfair price.

Associated Estates Realty Corporation is an Ohio corporation with
its principal offices located at 1 AEC Parkway, Richmond Heights,
Ohio. Associated Estates is a real investment trust with a
portfolio of 56 apartment communities containing 15,004 units.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew S. Goldwasser, Esq.
      CIANO & GOLDWASSER
      1610 Midland Bldg.
      101 Prospect Avenue, W
      Cleveland, OH 44115
      Telephone: (216) 658-9900
      Facsimile: (216) 658-9902
      E-mail: asg@c-g-law.com

         - and -

      Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
      Edward B. Gerard, Esq.
      Justin D. Rieger, Esq.
      ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
      600 B. Street, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 525-3990
      Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
      E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
              soddo@robbinsarroyo.com
              egerard@robbinsarroyo.com
              jrieger@robbinsarroyo.com


ATEECO INC: Faces "Steinberg" Suit Over Product Misbranding
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amy Steinberg, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Ateeco, Inc., Case No. 0:15-cv-60912-WJZ (S.D. Fla.,
April 29, 2015), alleges that the Defendant made
misrepresentations on the labels of Mrs. T's Pierogies products,
specifically by understating the actual amount of calories, fat,
and sodium contained in the Products.

Ateeco, Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation based in 600 East
Centre Street, Shenandoah, Pennsylvania 17976. Ateeco promotes,
markets, distributes, and sells Pierogies throughout the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nathan C. Zipperian, Esq.
      SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
      1640 Town Center Circle
      Suite 216
      Weston, FL 33326
      Telephone: (954) 515-0123
      Facsimile: (866) 515-0124
      E-mail: nzipperian@sfmslaw.com

         - and -

      Scott R. Shepherd, Esq.
      James C. Shah, Esq.
      SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
      35 E. State Street
      Media, PA 19063
      Telephone: (610) 891-9880
      Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
      E-mail: sshepherd@sfmslaw.com
              jshah@sfmslaw.com


AUDIENCE INC: Class Action Trial Scheduled for September 15
-----------------------------------------------------------
Audience, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that trial has been scheduled
for September 15, 2015, in a class action complaint.

The Company said, "On September 13, 2012, a purported shareholder
filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State
of California for Santa Clara County against us, the members of
our board of directors, two of our executive officers and the
underwriters of our IPO. An amended complaint was filed on
February 25, 2013, which purports to be brought on behalf of a
class of purchasers of our common stock issued in or traceable to
the IPO. On April 3, 2013, the outside members of the board of
directors and the underwriters were dismissed without prejudice.
The amended complaint added additional shareholder plaintiffs and
contains claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act.
The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages,
rescission and attorney's fees and costs. On March 1, 2013,
defendants responded to the amended complaint by filing a demurrer
moving to dismiss the amended complaint on the ground that the
court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The court overruled that
demurrer. On March 27, 2013, defendants filed a demurrer moving to
dismiss the amended complaint on other grounds. The Court denied
the demurrer on September 4, 2013. On January 16, 2015, the court
granted plaintiff's motion to certify a class. A trial has been
scheduled for September 15, 2015."

"We believe that the allegations in the complaint are without
merit and intend to vigorously contest the action. However, there
can be no assurance that we will be successful in our defense and
we cannot currently estimate a range of any possible losses we may
experience in connection with this case. Accordingly, we are
unable at this time to estimate the effects of this complaint on
our business, financial condition, operating results or cash
flows."


AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Intends to Defend Against 2 Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company intends to
vigorously defend against two class action lawsuits.

Two class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company and
certain present and former officers and members of the Company's
board of directors, (Tuan Ha-Ngoc, David N. Johnston, William
Slichenmyer and Ronald DePinho), in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, one captioned Paul
Sanders v. Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-11157-
JLT, filed on May 9, 2013, and the other captioned Christine
Krause v. AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-11320-
JLT, filed on May 31, 2013. On December 4, 2013, the District
Court consolidated the complaints as In re AVEO Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. Securities Litigation et al., No. 1:13-cv-11157-DJC, and an
amended complaint was filed on February 3, 2014. The amended
complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the Company's common stock between January 3, 2012 and
May 1, 2013. The amended complaint generally alleges that the
Company and certain of its present and former officers and
directors violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning the
phase 3 trial design and results for our TIVO-1 study in an effort
to lead investors to believe that the drug would receive approval
from the FDA. The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs. On April 4, 2014, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class action
complaint with prejudice. Lead plaintiffs filed an opposition to
the motion to dismiss on June 10, 2014, and the Company filed a
reply to the opposition on July 10, 2014. The Court heard oral
argument on the Company's motion to dismiss on July 22, 2014.

The Company denies any allegations of wrongdoing and intends to
vigorously defend against this lawsuit. However, there is no
assurance that the Company will be successful in our defense or
that insurance will be available or adequate to fund any
settlement or judgment or the litigation costs of the action.
Moreover, the Company is unable to predict the outcome or
reasonably estimate a range of possible loss at this time.


AVON PRODUCTS: Court Certifies Class of District Sales Managers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge certified a
class of Avon district sales managers, who claim they've been
stiffed for overtime since April 2009.


BABOLAT VS NORTH: Judgment Entered on "Ahdoot" Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Virginia A. Phillips entered on April 29, 2015, a
judgment with respect the stipulation and settlement agreement
in the case captioned PAYAM AHDOOT, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, v.
BABOLAT VS NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Colorado Corporation and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants. BRANDON CLARK, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, and the general public,
Plaintiff, v. BABOLAT VS NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Colorado
Corporation and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO.
CV13-02823 VAP, CONSOLIDATED WITH NO. CV13-7898 VAP, (C.D. Cal.).

The judgment, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/bftmbX
from Leagle.com, provides, among other things, that Defendant
Babolat VS North America, Inc. will pay $4,500,000 in total
settlement funds into the Gross Settlement Fund (with credit for
funds previously paid into the Gross Settlement Fund by Babolat)
pursuant to the procedure and timing set forth in the Settlement
Agreement after which Babolat and the Babolat Releasees will have
no further liability for costs, expenses, interest, attorney's
fees, or for any other charge, expense, or liability for the
Released Claims.

The Court approved these payments to be made by the Settlement
Administrator pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement
and the Final Approval Order:

  Plaintiffs' Attorneys Fees: $1,125,000
  Plaintiffs' Litigation Costs: $78,134.65
  Plaintiffs' Incentive Awards: $5,000 to Plaintiff Ahdoot
                                $5,000 to Plaintiff Clark
  Settlement Administration Costs: $194,524.78

After which the remainder of the Gross Settlement Fund (the "Net
Settlement Fund") will be paid to Settlement Class Members with
respect to Valid Claims, and to the extent settlement funds remain
in the Net Settlement Fund after full payment to Settlement Class
Members, the remainder, if any, distributed cy pres fifty percent
(50%) to St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital and fifty percent
(50%) to USTA Serves.

The payments to be made by the Settlement Administrator will be
made (unless stayed by Appeal) in respect of:

  Settlement Administration Costs: As incurred;

  Plaintiffs' Attorneys Fees, Plaintiffs' Litigation Costs and
  Plaintiffs' Incentive Awards: Within 7 business days after the
  60th calendar day after entry of this judgment;

  Payments to Settlement Class Members: Within 81 calendar days
  after entry of this judgment; and

  Cy Pres Distribution: As soon as practical after the Settlement
  Administrator determines that the period for Settlement Class
  Members to negotiate their checks has ended and the sum
  remaining in the Net Settlement Account can be accurately
  ascertained.

The Complaint is dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice.

Payam Ahdoot, Plaintiff, represented by Amy Tai Wootton --
awootton@hamnerlaw.com -- Hamner Law Offices APC, Christopher J
Hamner -- chamner@hamnerlaw.com -- Hamner Law Offices APC, Chad B
Wootton -- chadwootton@woottonlawgroup.com -- Wootton Law Group
LLP & Christopher Alexander Olsen -- caolsen@caolsenlawoffices.com
-- Olsen Law Offices.

Brandon Clark, Plaintiff, represented by Amy Tai Wootton, Hamner
Law Offices APC, Christopher J Hamner, Hamner Law Offices APC,
Chad B Wootton, Wootton Law Group LLP & Christopher Alexander
Olsen, Olsen Law Offices.

Babolat VS North America Inc, Defendant, represented by Brent E
Johnson -- bjohnson@hollandhart.com -- Holland and Hart LLP.


BAKER HUGHES: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan G. Williams, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc., Case
No. 1:15-cv-00049-CSM (D.N.D., April 30, 2015), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work more than
40 hours in a workweek.

Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. is an oilfield services
company that designs, manufactures, and supplies wellbore-related
products and services for drilling, formation evaluation,
completion and production, and reservoir technology.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven A. Smith, Esq.
      Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
      Carl F. Engstrom, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
      4600 IDS Center
      80 South 8th Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 256-3200
      E-mail: smith@nka.com
              lukas@nka.com
              cengstrom@nka.com


BAYOU WELL: Doesn't Pay Operator Properly, "Bittner" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Bittner, Matthew Reynolds Jr. and Royce Wheatley Jr., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Bayou
Well Services, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-01142 (S.D. Tex., April 30,
2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay its
Equipment Operators proper overtime wages as required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Bayou Well Services, LLC is a Texas limited liability company with
its principal place of business in Houston, Harris County, Texas.
Bayou provides Frac Crew services to oilfield owners and operators
in Texas, Louisiana, Colorado, Wyoming and North Dakota.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BETTER FAMILIES: "Tarrago" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elio Tarrago, Eugenia Tarrago and other similarly situated
individuals v. Better Families Through Tae Kwon Do, Inc., Mary
Beth Klock-Perez, Diego Perez, and Karen E. Klock-Perez, Case No.
1:15-cv-21645 (S.D. Fla., April 30, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Defendants own and operate a martial arts school in Miami Dade
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anaeli Caridad Petisco, Esq.
      Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      Court House Tower
      Suite 2200, 44 West Flagler Street
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: apetisco@rgpattorneys.com
              agp@rgpattorneys.com


BIOLASE INC: Settlement Subject to Negotiation of Definitive Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Biolase, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the settlement in a
class action lawsuit is subject to the negotiation of a definitive
settlement agreement and preliminary and final approval of the
court.

On August 23, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit entitled
Brady Adams v. Biolase, Inc., et al., Case No. 13-CV-1300 JST
(FFMx) was filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California against BIOLASE and its then Chief
Executive Officer, Federico Pignatelli, and its then Chief
Financial Officer, Frederick D. Furry. On August 26, 2013, a
purported class action lawsuit entitled Ralph Divizio v. Biolase,
Inc., et al., Case No. 13-CV-1317 DMG (MRWx) was filed in the same
court against BIOLASE, Messrs. Pignatelli and Furry, and its then
President and Chief Operating Officer, Alexander K. Arrow. Each of
the lawsuits alleges violations of the federal securities laws and
asserts causes of action against the defendants under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. In accordance with the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, on December 10,
2013, the court entered an order consolidating the lawsuits,
appointing a lead plaintiff and approving the lead plaintiff's
selection of lead counsel. On February 24, 2014, the lead
plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint against BIOLASE and
Messrs. Pignatelli, Furry, and Arrow, alleging violations of the
federal securities laws and asserting causes of action against the
defendants under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The Company said, "On November 19, 2013, our Board received a
letter from attorneys for purported shareholder David T. Long,
demanding that our Board investigate, institute litigation, and
take measures to redress and prevent alleged wrongdoing concerning
the dissemination of certain allegedly false and misleading public
disclosures made by BIOLASE between January 2013 and August 2013."

"We believe that the claims contained in the lawsuits are without
merit and we intend to vigorously defend against the claims.
During the year ended December 31, 2013, we paid $250,000 for
legal costs incurred in connection with these matters. No legal
costs were incurred by us in connection with these matters during
the year ended December 31, 2014.

"The parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle the
consolidated securities class action lawsuit, which is subject to
the negotiation of a definitive settlement agreement and
preliminary and final approval of the court. Although there can be
no assurance that such agreement will be finalized, as of the date
of the filing of this Form 10-K, management does not expect the
Company to incur additional expenses related to this matter due to
certain insurance coverage in place."


BLUE WORLD: Removed "Roberts" Class Suit to W.D. Kentucky
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Andrew Roberts, Stephanie Roberts,
Leroy Brown, and Linda Brown, individually and on behalf of
classes similarly situated persons v. Blue World Pools, Inc., Case
No. 15-CI-01630, was removed from Jefferson County Circuit Court,
Division 4 of Louisville, Kentucky to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Kentucky, Louisville Division.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-00335-TBR to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought under the Truth in Lending Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aaron J. Bentley, Esq.
      James Robert Craig, Esq.
      CRAIG HENRY PLC
      239 S. Fifth Street, Suite 1400
      Louisville, KY 40202
      Telephone: (502) 614-5962 x3
      Facsimile: (502) 614-5968
      E-mail: abentley@craighenrylaw.com
              jcraig@craighenrylaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Gregory E. Mayes Jr., Esq.
      STEPTOE & JOHNSON, PLLC
      700 N. Hurstbourne Parkway, Suite 115
      Louisville, KY 40222
      Telephone: (502) 423-2061
      Facsimile: (502) 423-2001
      E-mail: gregory.mayes@steptoe-johnson.com

         - and -

      Nora C. Currens, Esq.
      STEPTOE & JOHNSON, PLLC
      2525 Harrodsburg Road, Suite 300
      Lexington, KY 40504
      Telephone: (859) 255-7080
      Facsimile: (859) 255-6903
      E-mail: norrie.currens@steptoe-johnson.com


CAB LOGISTICS: Faces "Travis" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
William Travis, individually and for others similarly situated v.
Cab Logistics, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-00351 (W.D. Tex., April 30,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

Cab Logistics, Inc. owns and operates an oil field services
company doing business in Texas and New Mexico.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard J. 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


CARNE CHOP: "Yucha" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Annette Yucha, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Carne Chop House, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-
01038-EAK-TGW (M.D. Fla., April 30, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

Carne Chop House, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
      Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
      WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
      Suite 300, 1110 N Florida Ave
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 224-0431
      Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
      E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
              lcabassa@wfclaw.com


CEPHALON INC: Judge Dismisses Unjust Enrichment Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
William B. Freeman, Esq. of Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, in an
article for The National Law Review, reports that the US District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently denied
class certification to a proposed class of third-party payors of
prescription drugs.  The plaintiffs brought a class action for
unjust enrichment, claiming that Cephalon, Inc. improperly
marketed a drug with limited approval by the US Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), resulting in excessive payments for drugs
that should not have been prescribed to the plaintiffs' members.

Cephalon, a pharmaceutical company, purchased drug developer
Anesta Corporation in 2000. One of the drugs Anesta developed was
Actiq, a pain-reliever for cancer patients.  Actiq was approved by
the FDA, but only under Subpart H, a special categorization for
effective but risky drugs, and only for certain cancer patients
not effectively treated by other drugs.  Manufacturers of Subpart
H drugs are required to follow a Risk Management Program (RiskMAP)
designed to ensure compliance with the limited approval.

When Cephalon bought Anesta it amended the marketing plan for
Actiq, which an internal audit by Cephalon determined was contrary
to the RiskMAP (Cephalon later pleaded guilty to off-label
promotion).  The plaintiffs allege that by marketing outside what
was allowed by the RiskMAP, Cephalon caused doctors to
overprescribe Actiq, even though more effective and/or less
expensive alternatives were available.  Third-party payor
plaintiffs sued Cephalon in 2007 alleging unjust enrichment.

The District Court held that the plaintiffs' class of third-party
payors could not be certified because individualized issues
predominate for two reasons.  First, the court determined that the
unjust enrichment law of each plaintiffs' home state would apply,
and not all states apply the same law to unjust enrichment claims.
Second, the court held that the determination of unjust enrichment
is, by nature, a fact-sensitive question because, under an unjust
enrichment theory, all facts and circumstances of the case must be
considered.

Although the plaintiffs could allege certain elements commonly,
they could not allege that each payment was unjust absent specific
individualized facts. Because of differences in each physician's
familiarity with Cephalon's marketing, physician judgment, patient
response, and plaintiff decision-making, individual issues of fact
predominated, and the plaintiffs' motion to certify the class was
denied.

In re Actiq Sales and Mktg. Practices Litig., Civil Action No. 07-
4492 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 23, 2015)


CHERRY CONCRETE: "Johnson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marcus Johnson and Stephen Pipersburgh, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Cherry Concrete Removal,
Ltd., and Cherry Companies Management, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-
01134 (S.D. Tex., April 29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and
costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a trucking business in Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
      ANDERSON2X, PLLC
      819 N. Upper Broadway
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Telephone: (361) 452-1279
      Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
      E-mail: austin@a2xlaw.com


CHICO'S FAS: Class Action Settlement Preliminarily Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that the Company was named as
a defendant in a putative class action filed in February 2014 in
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Sacramento: Toni Delfierro, et al, v. White House Black Market,
Inc. The Complaint alleges numerous violations of California law
related to wages, meal periods, rest periods, wage statements, and
failure to reimburse business expenses, among other things. The
Company denies the material allegations of the Complaint and
believes that its policies and procedures for paying its employees
comply with all applicable California laws. In mid-October, the
Company and the plaintiffs agreed to settle this matter. The
settlement has been preliminarily approved by the Court but is
still subject to the review and final approval of the Court, which
is not expected to occur until approximately mid-fiscal 2015. If
finally approved by the Court, the settlement amount will not have
a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial
condition or results of operations.


CHIQUITA BRANDS: Pesticide Showers Poison Villagers, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Chiquita continues to poison
Guatemalan villages with "pesticide showers" and environmental
destruction despite corporate claims that the company has become
environmentally responsible, a customer claims in a federal class
action.

Tania Campbell sued Chiquita Brands International on April 17 in
Federal Court.  She seeks punitive damages for fraud by
concealment, unjust enrichment, unfair competition and consumer
law violations.

Campbell claims that Chiquita advertises its bananas with a well-
known blue Chiquita sticker, and advertises its "corporate social
responsibility" and "code of conduct," through a slew of
misrepresentations, among them:

"We will protect natural ecosystems, including water, soil and
air, by implementing sound and safe operating practices;"

We will also work with suppliers to ensure that they adopt
environmental practices when providing goods or services, and will
incorporate environmental considerations into our purchase
decisions;"

"Planting tree 'screens' to help to keep agrichemicals where they
need to be and away from people;"

"Reforesting any land not used for banana production to eliminate
soil erosion;"

"We have discontinued routine, blanket applications, and we now
apply pesticides only when and where necessary;"

"We apply pesticides in ways that protect the health, safety, and
well-being of our workers and the environment;"

"We apply fertilizers only in small amounts."

Campbell disputes all these claims, and others.  She claims that
in 2012 alone, Chiquita bought 639 million lbs. of bananas from
the Guatemalan company COBIGUA -- approximately 95 percent of all
the bananas COBIGUA sold that year.

Her 39-page complaint names five Guatemalan villages, or
"communities" that allegedly "suffer from water pollution and
airborne exposure to toxic chemicals that are the result of
defendant's production practices."

She claims that "COBIGUA contaminates rivers and drinking water in
the affected area with fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides, and
organic matter;"

That "COBIGUA mixes fertilizers into its irrigation system every
14 to 21 days and aerial fumigates its banana fields every 6 to 8
days using toxic chemicals like dithane, paraquat (gramoxone), and
mocap (ethoprop);"

She claims that "COBIGUA uses no buffer zone for aerial fumigation
of plants that border schools and homes."

In fact, Campbell says, COBIGUA's aerial fumigation and failure to
respect buffer zones "results in toxic chemical residues visibly
seen on the communities' school's roof and playground," that the
airborne toxic chemicals have given children nausea, dizziness,
vomiting, skin rashes, and other health problems, and that one
study reported that "60 percent of those interviewed in the
communities stated they have received an actual 'pesticide shower'
during aerial fumigation with visible indication of white
particulates on their arms and legs."

She seeks class certification and punitive damages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elaine Byszewski, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          301 North Lake Ave., Suite 203
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (213) 330-7149
          Facsimile: (213) 330-7152
          E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com


CIMAREX ENERGY: Administration of Settlement Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Cimarex Energy Co. said in its Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that administration of
the settlement is ongoing in the case, Hitch Enterprises, Inc. et
al. v. Cimarex Energy Co.

On December 11, 2012, Cimarex entered into a preliminary
resolution of the Hitch Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. Cimarex
Energy Co., et al.  (Hitch) litigation matter for $16.4 million.
Hitch is a statewide royalty class action pending in the Federal
District Court in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The settlement was
reached at a mediation, which occurred after the parties began to
exchange information, including damage analyses, on November 16,
2012. On July 2, 2013, the Court entered a judgment approving the
parties' settlement. The judgment became final and unappealable on
August 2, 2013. Cimarex distributed the settlement proceeds
pursuant to the Court's order in September 2013 and the
administration of the settlement is ongoing. In the fourth quarter
of 2012, we accrued $16.4 million for this matter.


CINEMARK USA: Joseph Amey Case in Pretrial Discovery
----------------------------------------------------
Cinemark USA, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the case Joseph Amey, et
al. v. Cinemark USA, Inc., Case No. 3:13cv05669, In the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division, is in pretrial discovery and no class action
has been certified.

The case presents putative class action claims for damages and
attorney's fees arising from employee wage and hour claims under
California law for alleged meal period, rest break, reporting time
pay, unpaid wages, pay upon termination, and wage statements
violations. The claims are also asserted as a representative
action under the California Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA").

"We deny the claims, deny that class certification is appropriate
and deny that a PAGA representative action is appropriate, and are
vigorously defending against the claims," the Company said. "The
case is in pretrial discovery, no class action has been certified,
and no representative action has been quantified or recognized. We
deny any violation of law and plan to vigorously defend against
all claims. We are unable to predict the outcome of the litigation
or the range of potential loss, if any; however, we believe that
our potential liability with respect to such proceeding is not
material in the aggregate to our financial position, results of
operations and cash flows. Accordingly, we have not established a
reserve for loss in connection with this proceeding."


CIRQUE DU SOLEIL: Waiters File Class Action Over Tip Policy
-----------------------------------------------------------
Julia Marsh, writing for New York Post, reports that around 40
waiters are suing Cirque du Soleil, claiming the performance
company has stiffed them on tips at catered events.

The lead plaintiff in the proposed class-action suit,
Marshall Maor, says Cirque has relied on a "policy of unlawfully
retaining employees gratuities" since 2009.

The company charges customers a 7 to 20 percent mandatory fee for
functions and then pockets the money, the suit says.

But it doesn't use a disclaimer notifying customers that the
service charge is not a gratuity for staff, according to the legal
filing.

"A reasonable customer would believe that the service charge was
in fact a gratuity for [Maor] and [other] employees," according to
the new Manhattan Supreme Court suit.

Mr. Maor, who worked at Cirque's Randall's Island location in
2009, only made $11 an hour and didn't see a dime of gratuity, the
suit says.  The 33-year-old Bronx man primarily served food for
the entertainment company for only one month, according to court
papers.

The case is for unspecified damages. The lawyers in the class
action say they are still trying to find other servers, bussers,
bartenders, food runners and hosts to join the case.  A
spokeswoman for Cirque du Soleil did not immediately comment.

Cirque is also fending off a federal lawsuit filed last year in
California by billionaire Alki David, who claims the company
ripped off his hologram patent for the show "Michael Jackson:
One."

In 2004, Cirque paid an HIV-positive acrobat $600,000 after he
filed a case claiming he was booted from the circus for fear the
disease would spread to other performers.  The gymnast,
Matthew Cusick, said he had notified his employer he was HIV
positive and rehearsed for months before getting canned.


CITIGROUP INC: Faces "Korenblum" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Paulina Korenblum, Fredy Giron, and Kenneth M. Webb, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Citigroup, Inc.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-03383-JMF (S.D.N.Y., April 30, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work
more than 40 hours per week.

Citigroup, Inc. is a Delaware banking and financial services
corporation with its headquarters located in New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam T. Klein, Esq.
      Christopher McNerney, Esq.
      Molly Anne Brooks, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN, LLP
      3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 245-1000
      Facsimile: (212) 977-4005
      E-mail: atk@outtengolden.com
              cmcnerney@outtengolden.com
              mbrooks@outtengolden.com

         - and -

      David J. Cohen, Esq.
      KOLMAN ELY PC
      414 Hulmeville Ave
      Penndel, PA 19047
      Telephone: (215) 750-3134
      Facsimile: (215) 750-3138
      E-mail: dcohen@kolmanlaw.net

         - and -

      Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
      STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP
      205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 233-1550
      Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
      E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com


CLUB EXPLORIA: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Miller" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mitchell Miller, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Club Exploria, LLC, d/b/a Exploria Resorts,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00965-AJB-NLS (S.D. Cal., April 30, 2015), seeks
to put an end on the Defendant's practice of placing unsolicited
calls on the Plaintiff's cellular telephone using an automatic
telephone dialing system, without prior written express consent.

Club Exploria, LLC owns and operates a hotel-resort located at 25
Town Center Boulevard, Suite C, Clermont, Orlando, Florida, 34714.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108-3551
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


COLONIAL FINANCIAL: Faces Action Related to Cape Bancorp Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colonial Financial Services, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9,
2015, that on February 24, 2015, a complaint was filed against the
Company and the members of its Board of Directors in the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Cumberland County, seeking
class action status and asserting that the Company and the members
of its Board had violated their duties to the Company's
shareholders in connection with the proposed merger with Cape
Bancorp, Inc. Cape Bancorp, Inc. was also sued, for supposedly
aiding and abetting these alleged fiduciary breaches. On or about
February 27, 2015, the complaint was supplemented to seek a
temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction prohibiting
consummation of the merger. The litigation is in its very early
stages, and the Company's time to answer has not yet run. The
Company believes the complaint and other applications are without
merit, and intends to vigorously defend them.


CROSS COUNTRY HEALTHCARE: Paid $0.8 Million to Plaintiff
--------------------------------------------------------
Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company paid
$0.8 million to the plaintiff.

On December 4, 2012, the Company's subsidiary, CC Staffing, Inc.
(now known as Travel Staff, LLC) became the subject of a purported
class action lawsuit (Alice Ogues, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. CC Staffing, Inc., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants) filed
in the United States District Court, Northern District of
California. Plaintiff alleged that traveling employees were denied
meal periods and rest breaks, that they should have been paid
overtime on reimbursement amounts, various other wage and hour
claims, and that they are entitled to associated penalties. In
2013, the parties agreed to settle this lawsuit for $0.8 million
with the understanding that such settlement is not an admission by
the Company of any liability, negligence or wrong doing. The Court
granted final approval of the settlement in September 2014 and
during the fourth quarter of 2014 the Company paid $0.8 million to
the plaintiff.


DENDREON CORPORATION: Settlement Approval Hearing Held
------------------------------------------------------
Dendreon Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Delaware Court of
Chancery entered an order that, among other things, scheduled a
hearing on the proposed settlement for March 30, 2015 at 2:00 p.m.
in Wilmington, Delaware and directed that notice of that hearing
be given to stockholders.

On November 6, 2014, Dendreon Corporation (the "Company") entered
into a stipulation to settle certain stockholder class action and
derivative litigation, subject to court approval. On January 16,
2015, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered an order that, among
other things, scheduled a hearing on the proposed settlement for
March 30, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. in Wilmington, Delaware and directed
that notice of that hearing be given to stockholders, including by
the filing of a Current Report on Form 8-K ("Form 8-K"). On
January 22, 2015, the Company filed a Form 8-K reporting those
developments, but the Form 8-K failed to attach the Notice of
Pendency of Settlement of Action (the "Notice").

A copy of the Stipulation of Settlement, and its exhibits is
available on the Company's website at: http://is.gd/ClIcwA


DEUTSCHE BANK: Court Tosses Lorenz's Renewed Motion for TRO
-----------------------------------------------------------
In CINDY KAY LORENZ and DAVID BRYAN LORENZ, Plaintiffs, v.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee for MORGAN
STANLEY ABS CAPITAL INC. TRUST 2006-HE4, et al., Defendants, CASE
NO. 3:15-CV-00680-SI, (D. Ore.), the Court has reviewed
Plaintiffs' Notice of Appeal for Relief from Stay Regarding
Bankruptcy Appeal; Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint;
Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Temporary Restraining Order;
Defendant Deutsche Bank's Objection to Plaintiff's Motion for TRO;
and the Declaration of Robert E. Maloney in Support of Deutsche
Bank's Objection. The Court construes Plaintiffs' Notice of Appeal
for Relief from Stay Regarding Bankruptcy Appeal as seeking, in
essence, the same relief that is sought in Plaintiffs' Renewed
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, and the Court said it will
consider them together.

In addition, in Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order, the Plaintiffs asked the Court to consider
their request in light of the putative class action lawsuit in the
case of Paulson v. Fairway America Corp., et al., Case No. 1:14-
cv-1544-CL (D. Or.), which is currently on appeal before the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Court has done so.
Specifically, the Court has read U.S. District Judge Panner's
Order dated February 11, 2015, adopting the Report and
Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Clarke and dismissing Mr.
Paulson's lawsuit with prejudice. The Court noted that the Ninth
Circuit has not yet issued its decision in that appeal.

Concerning Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order, in order to show that a plaintiff is entitled to a
temporary restraining order or other preliminary injunctive
relief, a plaintiff must show, among other things, either that he
or she is likely to succeed on the merits, Winter v. Natural
Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008), or,
alternatively, that there are serious questions going to the
merits.

"Based on the record herein, Plaintiffs have failed to make either
showing," ruled District Judge Michael H. Simon in an order dated
May 4, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/LsZi9n
from Leagle.com.

Judge Simon held that Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order is denied. To the extent that Plaintiffs' Notice
of Appeal for Relief from Stay Regarding Bankruptcy Appeal is
properly considered to be a motion for immediate relief, it is
denied for the same reasons, he added.

Cindy Kay Lorenz, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

David Bryan Lorenz, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Defendant, represented by
Robert E. Maloney, Jr. -- maloneyr@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell,
PC & Skyler M. Tanner -- tanners@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell,
PC.


DOMEX USA: "Abreu" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge L. Abreu and other similarly-situated individuals v.
Domex USA LLC and Roberto Lebron, Case No. 1:15-cv-21654-CMA (S.D.
Fla., April 30, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a courier service company doing
business 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


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Rayner Suit Stayed Pending PFOF Action Rulings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Ronald M. Whyte signed a stipulation on May 4,
2015, staying the case captioned TY RAYNER, on Behalf of Himself
and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. E*TRADE FINANCIAL
CORPORATION and E*TRADE SECURITIES LLC, Defendant, CASE NO. 15-CV-
01384-RMW, (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff filed his Complaint on March 25, 2015.  These cases
(which were brought by different plaintiffs against different
defendants than the Parties) contain allegations with respect to
payment for order flow: Zola v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., D. Neb.,
8:14-cv-288; Verdieck v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., D. Neb., 8:14-cv-
289; Lerner v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., D. Neb., 8:14-cv-325;
Sarbacker v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation; D. Neb., 8:14-cv-
341; Lewis v. Scottrade, Inc., S.D. Cal. 3:14-cv-02926
(collectively, the "PFOF Actions").

Motions to dismiss are pending in each of the PFOF Actions.

The court-approved stipulation, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/InucBGfrom Leagle.com, provides that neither Party
will be prejudiced by a stay pending resolution of the motions to
dismiss in the PFOF Actions.

The action will be stayed until decisions on the motions to
dismiss are entered in each of the PFOF Actions. Defendants need
not answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint during the
pendency of the motions to dismiss in the PFOF Actions. Defendants
will have 20 days to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's
Complaint following the issuance of decisions on the motions to
dismiss in the PFOF Actions. The Parties will jointly advise the
Court of the issuance of decisions on the motions to dismiss in
the PFOF Actions within 5 days of the written decisions.

The Case Management Conference currently set for July 14, 2015, is
also vacated until the stay is lifted.

TIMOTHY G. BLOOD -- tblood@bholaw.com -- THOMAS J. O'REARDON II --
toreardon@bholaw.com -- BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP, San Diego,
CA.

BRIAN J. ROBBINS -- brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com -- KEVIN A. SEELY
-- kseely@robbinsarroyo.com -- ASHLEY P. PALMER --
apalmer@robbinsarroyo.com -- LEONID KANDINOV --
lkandinov@robbinsarroyo.com -- ROBBINS ARROYO LLP, San Diego, CA.

JOHN K. LANDAY, MALCOLM B. ROBERTS, LANDAY ROBERTS LLP, San Diego,
CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff.

Faith Gay -- faithgay@quinnemanuel.com -- (Pro Hac Vice Appl.
Pending), Marc Greenwald -- marcgreenwald@quinnemanuel.com -- R.
Corey Worcester -- coreyworcester@quinnemanuel.com -- (Pro Hac
Vice Appl. Pending), Julia Beskin -- juliabeskin@quinnemanuel.com
-- (Pro Hac Vice Appl. To Be Filed), QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP,
New York, New York.

Patrick Doolittle -- patrickdoolittle@quinnemanuel.com -- QUINN
EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP, San Francisco, California,
Attorneys for Defendants.


ENERGY RECOVERY: Faces "Sabatino" and "Mowdy" Actions
-----------------------------------------------------
Energy Recovery, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in January 2015, two
stockholder class action complaints were filed against the Company
in the Northern District of California, on behalf of Energy
Recovery stockholders under the captions, Joseph Sabatino v.
Energy Recovery, Inc. et al. and Thomas C. Mowdy v. Energy
Recovery, Inc. et al. The complaints allege violations of Section
10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and seek the recovery of unspecified monetary damages.

"We are not able to estimate the loss, if any, due to the early
state of this matter and the Company has not been served with
these complaints," the Company said.


EPIC WIRELINE: Faces "Herrera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Herrera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Epic Wireline Services, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-00346
(W.D. Tex., April 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages for the hours worked in excess of 40
in a single workweek.

Epic Wireline Services, LLC owns and operates a wireline services
company that serves exploration and production companies
throughout the Permian and Eagle Ford Shale regions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FALCON SKYCAP: Faces "Fisch" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rolando J. Fisch, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated v. Falcon Skycap Services Corp., Case No. 6:15-cv-00687
(M.D. Fla., April 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Falcon Skycap Services Corp. is a Florida corporation that is in
the business of handling passengers' luggage at the airport.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq.
      Christina Jean Thomas, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      Ste 1600,20 N Orange Ave
      Orlando, FL 32802-4979
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
      E-mail: bmazaheri@forthepeople.com
              cthomas@forthepeople.com


FORMFACTOR INC: Mediation Did Not Result in Settlement
------------------------------------------------------
FormFactor, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that parties in a class
action lawsuit participated in a mediation during the third
quarter of fiscal 2014, which did not result in a settlement.

In August 2013, a former employee ("Plaintiff") filed a class
action lawsuit against the Company in the Superior Court of
California, alleging violations of California's wage and hour laws
and unfair business practices on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated current and former employees at the Company's
Livermore facilities from August 21, 2009 to the present. In
February 2014, the Court granted the Company's motion to strike
portions of Plaintiff's first amended complaint, clarifying the
scope of the putative class. A second amended complaint has also
been filed. Procedurally, the case is in the early stages of
litigation and no defined class has been certified. The parties
participated in a mediation during the third quarter of fiscal
2014, which did not result in a settlement. The Company currently
believes that any settlement reached would be in an amount that is
not material to the Company's financial statements. The Company
denies the allegations contained in the lawsuit and, based on
available information, believes it has significant defenses to the
allegations of the lawsuit. If the matter is not settled, the
Company could incur material attorneys' fees in defending the
lawsuit.


FURMANITE AMERICA: Faces "Christian" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Christian, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Furmanite America, Incorporated, Case No. 2:15-at-
00524 (E.D. Cal., April 30, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Furmanite America, Incorporated is a Virginia Corporation that
provides a variety of products and services in the machining,
piping, and customer engineering fields.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Lion Tracy, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL TRACY
      2030 Main Street, Suite 1300
      Irvine, CA 92614
      Telephone: (949) 260-9171
      Facsimile: (866) 365-3051
      E-mail: mtracy@michaeltracylaw.com


GENTIVA HEALTH: Settles Investor Class Action for $6.5 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lipkin, writing for Law360, reports that home care company
Gentiva Health Services Inc. agreed on April 3 to pay $6.5 million
to settle a proposed investor class action accusing its executives
of inflating Gentiva stock prices by overbilling Medicare, more
than a year after a New York federal judge dismissed all but one
defendant.

The Los Angeles City Employees' Retirement System, the lead
plaintiff, asked the court to preliminarily approve the
settlement, which would free Gentiva and top former executives
from liability.


GIGA LTD: Faces "Cardona" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Cardona, on behalf of himself and all those similarly
situated v. Giga Ltd. d/b/a Ciao Bella  Ristorante, Case No. 2:15-
cv-00170 (N.D. Ind., April 30, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 1514 U.S.
41, Schererville, IN 46375.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert A. Hicks, Esq.
      MACEY SWANSON AND ALLMAN
      445 N Pennsylvania St Suite 401
      Indianapolis, IN 46204-1800
      Telephone: (317) 637-2345
      Facsimile: (317) 637-2369
      E-mail: rhicks@maceylaw.com


GMRI INC: Faces "Tyczynski" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Karol Tyczynski, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated v. GMRI, Inc., d/b/a Red
Lobster, Darden Restaurants, Inc., and Does 1 through 10, Case No.
1:15-at-00354 (E.D. Cal., April 30, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate several restaurants in California
and throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert J. Drexler Jr., Esq.
      Matthew T. Theriault, Esq.
      Stan Karas, Esq.
      Bevin Pike, Esq.
      Jonathan LEE, Esq.
      CAPSTONE LAW APC
      1840 Century Park East, Suite 450
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 556-4811
      Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
      E-mail: Drexler@capstonelawyers.com
              Matthew.Theriault@Capstonelawyers.com
              Stan.Karas@capstonelawyers.com
              Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com
              Jonathan.Lee@CapstoneLawyers.com


GOOGLE INC: Plaintiffs Drop Android Monopoly Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Mikey Campbell, writing for Apple Insider, reports that plaintiffs
in a class-action lawsuit against Google voluntarily dropped
allegations that the company illegally created an Internet and
mobile search monopoly through Android terms of use agreements.

Law firm Hagens Berman filed notice with the Northern California
District Court on April 3, announcing plaintiffs have withdrawn
their antitrust suit against Google without prejudice.

The original complaint dates back to May 2014, when two Android
device owners sued Google over claims that its "secret" Mobile
Application Distribution Agreements (MADA) restrictions
artificially inflated smartphone costs by stifling competition.
These distribution agreements were highly confidential and meant
only to be viewed by attorneys.

Further, MADA terms impeded growth in the U.S. search industry by
snuffing out competing technologies, plaintiffs argued.  Google
allegedly forced manufacturers to bundle built-in Android apps
like YouTube and GooglePlay under strict "all-or-nothing"
conditions.

The suit sought injunctive relief and damages under violation of
both federal and state antitrust laws, including the Sherman Act,
the Clayton Antitrust Act, California Cartwright Act and the
California Unfair Competition Law.

In February, however, Google successfully mounted arguments to
dismiss an amended version of the complaint, a move that likely
led to the April 3 voluntary withdrawal.  An order handed down by
Judge Beth Labson Freeman at the time agreed with Google's
assertion the plaintiffs' claims were deficient on multiple
counts, including a distinct lack of evidence supporting the
theory that MADAs restricted consumer choice and hindered
innovation.

"For one, accepting Plaintiffs' argument would permit any consumer
of Internet search to have standing to sue for injunctive relief,
as the proposed class of Android OS device consumers is no
different from the Apple device user or the computer search user
when it comes to innovation and choice in the market for Internet
search products," Judge Freeman wrote, adding later in her
decision, "Defendant uses the MADAs to capitalize on the
preference of consumers (like Plaintiffs) for the status quo, but
this does not victimize them or restrict their ability to 'mak[e]
free choices between market alternatives.'"

After Google's motion to dismiss was granted, plaintiffs were left
to rework claims under narrow constraints addressing only the
Sherman Act and California's Unfair Competition Law.  April 3 was
the prescribed due date to file a second amended complaint.


GOOGLE INC: Judge Tosses Class Action Over In-App Purchases
-----------------------------------------------------------
Y. Peter Kang, Joe Van Acker and Allison Grande, writing for
Law360, report that a California federal judge on April 3 refused
to certify a proposed class action accusing Google Inc. of
enticing kids into making in-app purchases without their parents'
permission, ruling that plaintiffs failed to show that a class
action was the best way to resolve their claims.

Google had argued the putative class action brought by
Ilana Imber-Gluck in March 2014 should be denied certification
because relief through the tech giant's settlement with the U.S.
Federal Trade Commission was already available and pursuit of a
class action would likely result in a reduced recovery because of
administrative costs and attorneys' fees.

The plaintiffs argued in March that while some potential class
members would receive a full refund from Google under the FTC deal
and would therefore be ineligible for compensatory damages, that
shouldn't affect members who weren't part of the settlement.

U.S. District Judge Ronald M. Whyte sided with Google, saying the
company's arguments were more persuasive.

"Because the FTC settlement provides nearly all, if not all, of
the possible relief sought in the [first amended complaint],
maintaining a class action for those class members who opt-out of
the FTC refunds in order to pursue the possibility of punitive
damages is not 'superior to other available methods for fairly and
efficiently adjudicating the controversy,'" the judge wrote in the
seven-page order.

The April 3 ruling effectively brings an end to a suit that Google
said was filed well after the FTC had already launched an
industrywide investigation and months after Apple Inc. reached a
$32.5 million settlement with the agency over the same issues
raised in this case.

Google had suggested that the plaintiffs simply copied the FTC's
allegations and said its "comprehensive" settlement with the
government already provides full restitution to consumers whose
children made unauthorized purchases through Google Play.

The company had also argued that the Ninth Circuit 's 1975 ruling
in Kamm v. California City Development Co. established that the
proposed class shouldn't be certified because a "prolonged and
expensive" class action isn't a better means of resolving their
claims than its settlement.

The plaintiffs countered that Google's interpretation of the case
was overreaching and claimed that discovery is necessary to
determine whether the company's conduct warrants punitive damages.

On April 3 Judge Whyte said plaintiffs did not present any
argument as to why Kamm shouldn't be applied in this case.

"The only factor plaintiffs do quibble with is the 'expense to
defendants,'" the judge wrote.  "The court finds that it is
appropriate to consider the duplicative cost to Google of
defending against this class action in addition to the FTC
investigation, as explicitly directed by the Ninth Circuit."

Google is represented by John E. Schmidtlein and James H.
Weingarten -- jweingarten@wc.com -- of Williams & Connolly LLP and
Corey W. Roush -- corey.roush@hoganlovells.com -- J. Robert
Robertson -- robby.robertson@hoganlovells.com -- Logan M. Breed
and Megan Dixon of Hogan Lovells.

The plaintiffs are represented by Todd D. Carpenter of Carpenter
Law Group, James R. Patterson of Patterson Law Group, Benjamin J.
Sweet and Edwin J. Kilpela Jr. of Carson Lynch Ltd., and Shannon
J. Carson -- scarson@bm.net -- and Patrick F. Madden --
pmadden@bm.net -- of Berger & Montague PC.

The case is Imber-Gluck et al. v. Google Inc., case number 5:14-
cv-01070, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


GREAT LAKES DREDGE: Parties Reached Deal in Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that parties
have reached an agreement in principle to settle a securities
class action.

On March 19, 2013, the Company and three of its current and former
executives were sued in a securities class action in the Northern
District of Illinois captioned United Union of Roofers,
Waterproofers & Allied Workers Local Union No. 8 v. Great Lakes
Dredge & Dock Corporation et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-02115. The
lawsuit, which was brought on behalf of all purchasers of the
Company's securities between August 7, 2012 and March 14, 2013,
primarily alleges that the defendants made false and misleading
statements regarding the recognition of revenue in the demolition
segment and with regard to the Company's internal control over
financial reporting. This suit was filed following the Company's
announcement on March 14, 2013 that it would restate its second
and third quarter 2012 financial statements.

Two additional, similar lawsuits captioned Boozer v. Great Lakes
Dredge & Dock Corporation et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-02339, and
Connors v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation et al., Case No.
1:13-cv-02450, were filed in the Northern District of Illinois on
March 28, 2013, and April 2, 2013, respectively. These three
actions were consolidated and recaptioned In re Great Lakes Dredge
& Dock Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:13-cv-02115,
on June 10, 2013.

The plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint on August
9, 2013, which the defendants moved to dismiss on October 8, 2013.
After briefing and oral argument by the parties, the court entered
an order on October 21, 2014 denying that motion to dismiss. The
parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle this
action. Once finalized, the settlement will be presented to the
court for preliminary approval. The settlement is expected to be
paid by insurance.


HIGHER ONE: Consumer Class Action Settlement Becomes Final
----------------------------------------------------------
Higher One Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that no appeals of the Court
judgement were filed and the settlement has now become final in
the Consumer Class Action.

HOI and HOH were defendants in a series of putative class action
lawsuits filed in 2012. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation transferred all of these cases to the District of
Connecticut for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
The proceedings are referred to as the "In re Higher One
OneAccount Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation" or the "MDL."
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in the MDL that
generally alleged, among other things, violations of state
consumer protection statutes (predicated, in part, on alleged
violations of ED rules and violations of the federal Electronic
Funds Transfer Act) and various common law claims.

The Company said, "On April 22, 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss
the case, which the court denied as moot on March 11, 2014 in
light of the parties' settlement."

"In October 2013, we reached an agreement in principle on the key
terms of a settlement that would resolve all of the above class
action litigation that was filed against us in 2012. In February
2014, we executed a settlement agreement, the terms of which
included a payment of $15.0 million to a settlement fund, an
agreement to pay the cost of notice to the class, and an agreement
to make and/or maintain certain practice changes. We made the
payment of $15.0 million to the settlement fund in February 2014.
On June 2, 2014, the court issued an order preliminarily approving
the settlement, directing that notice of the settlement be sent to
the class, setting relevant filing deadlines, and scheduling a
final fairness hearing for November 24, 2014. On December 15,
2014, the Court granted final approval of the settlement. The
Court also entered judgment on that day. No appeals of the
judgment were filed, and the settlement has now become final.

"During the year ended December 31, 2013, we recorded an accrual
of $16.3 million to reflect the estimated cost of the resolution,
inclusive of additional legal and other administrative costs,
based on the agreement in principle. This estimate is consistent
with our current cost estimate based on the final, approved
settlement agreement."


HIGHER ONE: Deadline to Respond to Securities Action Due
--------------------------------------------------------
Higher One Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that deadline to respond to
the Securities Class Action was March 20, 2015.

On May 27, 2014, a putative class action captioned Brian Perez v.
Higher One Holdings, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-755-AWT, was filed by HOH
shareholder Brian Perez in the United States District Court for
the District of Connecticut. On December 17, 2014, Mr. Perez was
appointed lead plaintiff. On January 20, 2015, Mr. Perez filed an
amended complaint. HOH former shareholder Robert Lee was added as
a named plaintiff in the amended complaint. HOH and certain
employees and board members have been named as defendants. Mr.
Perez and Mr. Lee generally allege that HOH and the other named
defendants made certain misrepresentations in public filings and
other public statements in violation of the federal securities
laws and seek an unspecified amount of damages. Mr. Perez and Mr.
Lee seek to represent a class of any person who purchased HOH
securities between August 7, 2012 and August 6, 2014. For each
defendant that has been served the deadline to respond to the
complaint currently is March 20, 2015. HOH intends to vigorously
defend itself against these allegations. HOH is currently unable
to predict the outcome of this lawsuit and therefore cannot
determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible
loss.


HUGOTON ROYALTY: No Updates in Roderick Trust Action
----------------------------------------------------
In September 2008, a royalty class action lawsuit was filed
against XTO Energy styled Wallace B. Roderick Revocable Living
Trust, et al. v. XTO Energy Inc. in the District Court of Kearny
County, Kansas. The case was removed to federal court in Wichita,
Kansas. The plaintiffs allege that XTO Energy has improperly taken
post production costs from royalties paid to the plaintiffs from
wells located in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Colorado; later reduced to
Kansas. The case was certified as a class action in March 2012.
XTO Energy filed an appeal of the class certification to the 10th
Circuit Court of Appeals on April 11, 2012 which was granted on
June 26, 2012. The court reversed the certification of the class
and remanded the case back to the trial court for further
proceedings. In its pleadings, the plaintiff has alleged damages
in excess of $42.5 million.

No updates were provided in Hugoton Royalty Trust's Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
6, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.


HUGOTON ROYALTY: No Updates in Chieftain Royalty Action
-------------------------------------------------------
In December 2010, a royalty class action lawsuit was filed against
XTO Energy styled Chieftain Royalty Company v. XTO Energy Inc. in
Coal County District Court, Oklahoma. XTO Energy removed the case
to federal court in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The
plaintiffs allege that XTO Energy wrongfully deducted fees from
royalty payments on Oklahoma wells, failed to make diligent
efforts to secure the best terms available for the sale of gas and
its constituents, and demand an accounting to determine whether
they have been fully and fairly paid gas royalty interests. The
case was certified as a class action in April 2012. XTO Energy
filed an appeal of the class certification to the 10th Circuit
Court of Appeals on April 26, 2012 which was granted on June 26,
2012. The court reversed the certification of the class and
remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.

No updates were provided in Hugoton Royalty Trust's Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
6, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.


HYBRID CONCRETE: Faces "Bello" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Antonio Jarquin Bello, Cesar Augosto Matute, and all others
similarly situated v. Hybrid Concrete Structures, LLC, Gerry P.
Harkins, Case No. 1:15-cv-21629 (S.D. Fla., April 29, 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, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


IBEX GLOBAL: Call Center Workers File Class Action in Tennessee
---------------------------------------------------------------
Torsten Ove, writing for Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reports that
several thousand people who work or used to work at a call center
in Moon operated by Washington, D.C.-based IBEX Global could be
eligible for money as part of a federal class-action suit in
Tennessee.

Workers at the marketing company's call center in Spring Hill,
Tenn., sued IBEX in October, alleging that the company made them
work extra time without being paid.

The suit has been designated a nationwide class-action since IBEX
has call centers around the country and some 20,000 workers could
be part of the class, said David Garrison, a Nashville attorney
representing the plaintiffs.

Mailings were sent to them in March to ask if they wanted to join
the suit.

Mr. Garrison said the center in Pittsburgh is one of the largest
in the company and the affected class is about 4,000 former and
current employees.  Call centers typically have high turnover, so
many of those who might join the suit likely worked there for a
short time.

Those eligible had to have worked at IBEX from Oct. 9, 2011, to
now.

The original complaint was filed on behalf of Mary Andrews,
Earvin Kyles and others against TRG Customer Solutions, which was
IBEX's earlier name.

The workers said IBEX had a companywide policy that forced them to
come in 15 minutes early to boot up computers and check emails,
but they weren't paid for that time.

Making the employees work without paying them violates the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938, according to the suit.

The plaintiffs are seeking unpaid wages and damages, and the
parties are in talks.

"Hopefully the company will be willing to negotiate a settlement,"
Mr. Garrison said.

Nashville lawyer Andrew Naylor, who represents IBEX, said his
client doesn't discuss pending litigation.

In court papers, the company argued that it has paid all of its
employees fairly for all time worked.


INFORMATICA CORP: Being Sold for Too Little to Italics, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling
Informatica too cheaply through an unfair process to Italics Inc.,
for $48.75 a share or $5.3 billion, shareholders claim in Delaware
Chancery Court.


INNERWORKINGS INC: Motion to Dismiss Van Noppen Complaint Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
InnerWorkings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the motion to dismiss
the Van Noppen complaint for failure to state a claim is currently
pending.

In February 2014, following the Company's February 2014
announcement of its intention to restate certain historical
financial statements, an individual filed a putative securities
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois entitled Van Noppen v. InnerWorkings
et al. The complaint, as amended in July 2014, alleges that the
Company and certain executive officers violated federal securities
laws by making materially false or misleading statements or
omissions, and by engaging in a scheme to defraud purchasers of
securities, relating to the Company's financial results and
prospects. The purported misstatements and scheme relate to the
Company's inside sales initiative and the Productions Graphics
business based in France. The complaint seeks unspecified damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and other costs. The Company and
individual defendants dispute the claims and intend to vigorously
defend the matter. On September 29, 2014, the Company and
individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for
failure to state a claim, and this motion is currently pending.


INTERNATIONAL INTERACTIVE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mitchell Miller, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. International Interactive Group, Inc. d/b/a
Travel IIG, Case No. 3:15-cv-00966-LAB-JLB (S.D. Cal., April 30,
2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendant's practice of placing
unsolicited calls on the Plaintiff's cellular telephone using an
automatic telephone dialing system, without prior written express
consent.

International Interactive Group, Inc. is a Florida Corporation
with a headquarters at 2013 Kensington Run Drive. International
provides promotional vacation packages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108-3551
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


INTUIT INC: Faces "Diaz" Class Suit Over Lax Security at TurboTax
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arvin Temkar at Courthouse News Service reports that TurboTax
maker Intuit may have allowed cybercriminals to file "thousands of
fraudulent tax returns" for "billions of dollars" by hacking into
efilings, a class action claims in California Federal Court.

Lead plaintiffs Christine Diaz and Michelle Fugatt claim Intuit
did not take reasonable security measures to prevent criminals
from filing fake tax returns using stolen information.

According to the April 20 complaint, the IRS paid $5.8 billion in
tax refunds in 2013 that it later discovered were filed
fraudulently.

The plaintiffs claim security experts for years called upon Intuit
to enhance its security features by implementing a two-step
authentication process, but the company didn't do so until
February this year, when a spike in fraudulent e-filings forced
TurboTax to halt transmission of state tax returns for 24 hours.
They claim Intuit did not implement cyber security measures to
combat data breaches into its own systems, despite the publicity
of recent hacks to other companies.

One of the plaintiffs' attorneys, David Wright with McCuneWright
in Redlands, said it's not yet clear whether any fraudulent
filings stemmed from hacks into Intuit's system.

But the plaintiffs cite whistleblower reports that "the company
had made millions of dollars in knowingly processing state and
federal tax refunds" filed by thieves.

"Further, in March 2015, Intuit announced that it had also
received inquiries from the U.S. Department of Justice and Federal
Tax Commission regarding the sudden surge in fraudulent filings
submitted through TurboTax," according to the complaint.

The plaintiffs seek damages for unfair competition, violation of
California's Customer Records Act, aiding and abetting fraud,
negligent enablement of third-party imposter fraud, negligence and
breach of contract.

An Intuit spokeswoman said the company does not comment on pending
litigation.


K&K ASSISTED: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Williams, George Ruffin, and Wanda Turner, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. K&K Assisted
Living LLC, K&K Assisted Living #1 LLC, K&K Assisted Living #2
LLC, and K&K Assisted Living #6 LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-1156-GAD-EAS
(E.D. Mich., April 30, 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 multiple group homes where mentally
disabled individuals live and receive 24-hour care.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Philip J. Goodman, Esq.
      PHILIP J. GOODMAN, PC
      280 N. Old Woodward Avenue
      Suite 407
      Birmingham, MI 48009-5394
      Telephone: (248) 647-9300
      Facsimile: (248) 647-8481
      E-mail: pjgoodman1@aol.com


KRAFT FOODS: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Market Manipulation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Beeson, writing for Law360, reports that Kraft Foods Group Inc.
and Mondelez Global LLC on April 2 were hit with a class action
claim accusing the global food giants of harming futures traders
through an alleged market manipulation scheme spelled out in a
recent U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission lawsuit.

In a complaint filed in Chicago federal court, plaintiff
Harry Ploss of Addison, Texas, says he is suing Kraft and
Mondelez, and is seeking to represent others who are similarly
situated, over their alleged scheme to manipulate the price of
wheat commodities and futures in late 2011, during a period when
the grain was commanding high market prices.

As first detailed in a CFTC suit filed on April 1, officials at
Kraft and Mondelez -- then a single company called Kraft Foods
Inc. -- allegedly engineered a scheme aimed at driving down the
cash price for a variety of soft red winter wheat while widening
the spreads between futures contracts expiring in December 2011
and March 2012.

The alleged scheme involved Kraft taking a $90 million long
position on wheat futures expiring December 2011, despite the fact
that it did not have the capacity to take delivery of such
quantities of wheat and despite the fact that only the wheat
available in the cash market met the company's strict
manufacturing and transportation standards, Mr. Ploss said in his
complaint.

"In stark contrast to its prior history and to commercially sound
conduct, defendants plunged into the December 2011 futures
contract and took substantial deliveries," attorneys for Mr. Ploss
wrote in their complaint.  "As defendants well knew, the
deliveries they took on the December 2011 wheat futures contracts
would not and did not provide Kraft with the right wheat, at the
right time, in the right place."

But, according to the CFTC and Mr. Ploss, the strategy nonetheless
worked, as it enabled Kraft to earn profits or see savings worth
$5.4 million.

On the flipside, Mr. Ploss claims he lost some $12,250 because of
Kraft and Mondelez's alleged misconduct, which involved the wheat
variety used in the manufacture of products such as Oreos, Ritz
crackers and Wheat Thins.

Mr. Ploss claims that on Nov. 29, 2011, when Kraft's long position
on wheat futures had reached its "zenith" and had "seriously
distorted prices," he himself closed out a spread position by
buying up 20 wheat futures contracts for December 2011 delivery
and selling 20 contracts for March 2012 delivery.

"That is, plaintiff's small spread position was the opposite of
defendants' huge spread position, and plaintiff liquidated just as
defendants' opposite position reached its greatest size,"
Mr. Ploss wrote.  "Defendants' unlawful conduct proximately caused
injury and actual damages to plaintiff and class members."

Mr. Ploss alleges Kraft and Mondelez violated Commodity Exchange
Act rules against market manipulation and unjustly enriched
themselves.  He says he believes there may be hundreds, if not
thousands or more members of the potential class, and that he is
seeking class certification, plus damages and prejudgment interest
for their alleged violations of the law and unjust enrichment, as
well as attorney fees.

Representatives for Kraft and Mondelez declined to comment on the
lawsuit.  Kraft Foods split into two in October 2012, spinning off
its snack food lines into the newly formed Mondelez.  In a
February U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing, the
company said it expects to bear the vast majority of any financial
sanction the CFTC may impose in its case.

Mr. Ploss is represented by Marvin A. Miller of Miller Law LLC and
Christopher Lovell -- CLovell@lshllp.com -- Christopher M. McGrath
-- CMcGrath@lshllp.com -- and Amanda N. Miller of Lovell Stewart
Halebian Jacobson LLP.

The case is Harry Ploss v. Kraft Foods Group Inc. et al, case
number 1:15-cv-02937, in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois Eastern Division.


LIBERTY TAX: ERC Class Action in Early Procedural Stage
-------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Tax, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2015, the ERC class action
litigation is at an early procedural stage.

The Company was sued in November 2011 in federal courts in
Arkansas, California, Florida, and Illinois, and additional
lawsuits were filed in federal courts in January 2012 in Maryland
and North Carolina, in February 2012 in Wisconsin, and in May 2012
in New York and Minnesota. In April 2012, a motion to consolidate
all of the then-pending cases before a single judge in federal
court in the Northern District of Illinois was granted, and in
June 2012, the plaintiffs filed a new complaint in the
consolidated action.

The Company said, "The consolidated complaint alleges that our
refund transfer products formerly called electronic refund checks
("ERC") represent a form of refund anticipation loan ("RAL")
because the taxpayer is "loaned" the tax preparation fee, and that
the refund transfer product is, therefore, subject to federal
truth-in-lending disclosure and state law requirements regulating
RALs. The plaintiffs also allege disclosure violations related to
the ERC fees paid by RAL customers. The plaintiffs, therefore,
allege violations of state-specific RAL and other consumer
statutes. The lawsuit purports to be a class action, and the
plaintiffs allege potential damages in excess of $5.0 million, but
the Company may seek damages from one of the providers of
financial products that designed the programs and related
disclosures that are the subject of the active claims that have
not been found subject to arbitration."

"The Company is aware that virtually identical lawsuits have been
filed against several of its competitors. The Company has
concluded that a loss related to this case is probable and, as
such, it has accrued a loss contingency related to this matter.
The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims in
this case and intends to defend the case vigorously, but there can
be no assurances as to the outcome or the impact on the Company's
consolidated financial position, results of operations, and cash
flows. The case is at an early procedural stage, and the Company
is presently appealing a ruling related to the ability to
arbitrate certain of the claims. The parties are presently engaged
in mediation as part of the process required by the appellate
court."


LIBERTY TAX: TCPA Case Settlement Subject to Final Negotiations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Tax, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2015, that the settlement in
the TCPA class action litigation remains subject to the final
negotiation of a settlement agreement.

The Company was sued in September 2013 in federal court in
Illinois in connection with alleged violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff alleges that the Company
inappropriately made auto dialed telephone calls to cellular
telephones, seeks the certification of a nationwide class action,
and claims statutory damages of $500-$1,500 per violation. The
Company tendered the defense of this litigation to a third party
entity that had contracted with the Company to solicit potential
franchisees, and that third party entity acknowledged its defense
and indemnification obligations to the Company. However, because
the third party contractor may not have the financial resources to
satisfy its defense and indemnity obligations, the Company
concluded that it could not rely fully upon the fulfillment of
those obligations.

In September 2014, the parties reached a tentative settlement of
this litigation for $3.0 million, but that settlement remains
subject to the final negotiation of a settlement agreement,
approval of the court, and other conditions typical in a class
action. The Company believes that the net impact of the settlement
will be reduced by payments made and expected to be made by
principals of the third party contractor.


MACHINE ZONE: Faces "Mason" Class Suit Over Loss in Game of War
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thousands of video game players have lost millions of dollars in a
casino component of Machine Zone's popular mobile-device app "Game
of War," a federal class action alleges, reports Daniel W. Staples
at Courthouse News Service.

Though the app is "free-to-play" on Android and Apple mobile
devices, it has generated more than $600 million in revenue for
Delaware-based Machine Zone.

Lead plaintiff Mia Mason, a Maryland resident, claims to have
downloaded the game early last year.  By January 2015, she "lost
more than $100 wagering at defendant's casino," the complaint
states.

Other players get soaked for more, Mason says, pointing to a
report that says one child "lost over 25,000 (approximately
$27,000) of his parents' money by playing 'Game of War' and
wagering at the Casino."  The "casino" is a game of chance in
which players can wager "gold" and "chips" that are purchased at a
starting price of $4.99, Mason says.  Though "players can use gold
to improve their virtual towns and hasten their advancement in the
game, these benign uses of gold merely obfuscate the unlawful game
of chance Machine Zone operates," the complaint alleges.

"Players routinely wager hundreds of dollars for the chance of
winning valuable prizes," Mason adds.

Prizes allegedly "vary in value from 'resources' that can be used
to advance game play (e.g., wood or stone) to high-value items
such as additional casino chips or gold."  Once a player wins
something of value in the casino, he can "cash out" by listing his
"Game of War" accounts on eBay, PlayerAuctions.com or another
secondary market, according to the complaint.

Mason says many "Game of War" accounts are selling there for
hundreds or even thousands of dollars.

"Free-to-play" games of chance allow app developers like Machine
Zone to exploit "the same psychological triggers as casino
operators," the complaint states.

Mason points to an article on Badgeronline.com that says, "games
may influence 'feelings of pleasure and reward' . . . similar to
that which you could develop in casinos and betting shops."

Like casinos, "the free-to-play developers rely on a small portion
of their players to provide the majority of their profits," the
complaint states.  "These 'whales,' as they're known in casino
parlance, account for just '0.15 percent of players,'" but provide
"over 50 percent of mobile game revenue."

Mason notes that one member of the Belgian Gaming Commission
"recently decried 'Game of War's' Casino as illegal gambling,
stating that Machine Zone was targeting underage consumers and
encouraging them to gamble due to the 'casino elements' within the
game."

"Unfortunately, such games have eluded regulation in the United
States," the complaint continues.  "As a result, . . . defendant's
'Game of War' Casino has thrived and thousands of consumers have
lost millions of dollars by unwittingly gambling in defendant's
unlawful game of chance."

Mason notes that "free-to-play games" encourage consumers to
download and play games for free while selling many low-cost items
within the game itself.

"Developers aim to recoup their costs (and make a profit) by
selling thousands of 'in-game' items that start at $0.99
(purchases known as 'micro-transactions') instead of charging an
up-front fee," the complaint states.

"In 2012, free-to-play games of chance generated over $1.6 billion
in worldwide revenue and are expected to grow to over $2.4 billion
by the end of 2015."

Alleging unfair competition, unjust enrichment and other claims,
the class seeks to recover ill-gotten gains, damages and losses.

The class's attorney did not return a call seeking comment.

Machine Zone also did not return a request for comment.

The class is represented by:

          Maria Simon, Esq.
          GELLER LAW GROUP
          4000 Legato Road, Suite 1100
          Fairfax, VA 22033
          Telephone: (703) 687-6188
          Facsimile: (703) 259-8584
          E-mail: rgeller@thegellerlawgroup.com


MARICOPA, AZ: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Faces Civil Contempt Hearing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service reports that Sheriff Joe
Arpaio faces a civil contempt hearing on the week of April 20 on
allegations that "America's Toughest Sheriff" violated a court
order requiring him to stop racially profiling Latinos.

The hearings were to examine whether Maricopa County Sheriff Joe
Arpaio and four of his officers misrepresented the content of the
court order, which required the Sheriff's Office to turn over data
from traffic stops and to train deputies not to make
unconstitutional stops.

In 2007, five Latinos and the organization Somos America filed a
class action against Arpaio and the Sheriff's Office after five
people said they were racially profiled by deputies and detained
during traffic stops or crime suppression sweeps.

U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow agreed, finding in 2013 that
Arpaio and the agency's actions violated the plaintiffs' Fourth
Amendment rights.

"The MCSO did not understand [racial profiling], in an immigration
context, to prohibit the use of race as a factor among others in
making a law enforcement decision," Snow wrote.  "Thus, MCSO
deputies could consider race as one factor in stopping a vehicle
or initiating an investigation so long as race was not the sole
basis on which deputies made that decision."

A court-appointed monitor, Robert Warshaw, was ordered to work
with the plaintiffs and the Sheriff's Office to bring it into
compliance with Snow's order.

The agency's practices were questioned again when Chief Deputy
Jerry Sheridan was videotaped during an October 2013 training
session for deputies "where he referred to this court's order as
'ludicrous' and 'crap,' and incorrectly stated that this court had
found only a small number of officers had unconstitutionally used
race as a factor in traffic stops," Snow wrote in an order to show
cause why the hearing should not be held.  The recording, which
did not surface until 2014, also showed Sheridan and Arpaio
"directing deputies not to take seriously the court's requirement
that they track the race and ethnicity of individuals whom they
stop."

Also uncovered in 2014 was information that former deputy Ramon
"Charley" Armendariz secretly recorded thousands of traffic stops
and confiscated identification cards, drugs and license plates
from the stops, which he then stored in his home.

Warshaw found that the Sheriff's Office's investigation of
Armendariz was flawed because it did not track what deputies had
body cameras or track all of the evidence found in Armendariz's
home after he hanged himself in May 2014.

"As a result, witnesses were subject to secondary interviews and
the cataloging of evidence has remained in constant turmoil,"
Warshaw wrote in an October filing.  "The turmoil has caused
extensive investigatory delays in attempts to correlate multiple
items of seized evidence with individuals, property and audio
and/or video recordings."

Armendariz testified in the racial profiling trial in 2013 after
two plaintiffs -- Velia Meraz and Manuel Nieto Jr. -- said
deputies followed them to their family business after Armendariz
threatened to charge them with disorderly conduct for refusing to
leave a gas station.

The hearing will also look into Arpaio's statement to The
Associated Press on a 2008 immigration raid in Guadalupe, Ariz.
that "with the same circumstances, I'd do it all over again."

In a report issued April 16, Warshaw found that the Sheriff's
Office lacked competent leadership, especially in the upper ranks
of the organization.

"Incumbents in command positions are quick to blame their
predecessors for misdeeds, be they acts of commission or
omission," Warshaw wrote.  "This is done while completely ignoring
their own complicity during the events which led to this
litigation and throughout the duration of the court proceedings."

Arpaio and Sheridan admitted violating Snow's order in an attempt
to cancel the hearing.

"Defendants acknowledge and appreciate that they have violated the
court's orders and that there are consequences for these
violations," Arpaio and Sheridan said in a March filing with the
court.  "There is nothing defendants can do to change what has
already been done, but through the entry of an order finding them
in civil contempt and by implementing remedies discussed herein,
defendants can express sincere remorse to the court and to
plaintiffs, begin to make amends to those who have been injured
and take affirmative steps to ensure nothing like this occurs in
the future."

Three other current and former Arpaio officers also are accused of
violating the order, but deny the allegations.

The plaintiffs did not find the admission to be enough to stop the
hearing, however, and Snow agreed.

"(T)he motion should be denied because defendants have not yet
provided full discovery on why and how they violated the court's
orders," wrote Cecillia Wang of the ACLU Foundation Immigration
Rights Project.  "Material issues of fact, crucial for determining
the proper remedies for defendants' contempt of this court's
orders, remain unresolved, and therefore the process set by the
court for discovery and an evidentiary hearing should go forward."

The 9th Circuit on the third week of April upheld Snow's reforms
for the Sheriff's Office, finding that defendants' policy of
racial profiling "applied across-the-board to all law enforcement
decisions."

The court found that while Warshaw should have authority related
to constitutional violations, he should not have the discretion to
consider disciplinary outcomes for any violations.

"Sheriff Joe Arpaio has continually tried to dodge responsibility
for his unconstitutional actions, and once again the courts have
rebuffed his attempts," Wang said in a statement.  "It's time for
Sheriff Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office to face
the facts and accept responsibility for violating the Constitution
and the public trust.  They should focus now on fixing the serious
problems that fostered this illegal and discriminatory conduct."

If Snow finds Arpaio in civil contempt, he may face criminal
contempt charges.  Attorneys for the Maricopa County Sheriff's
Office declined to comment until after the hearing.


MEDI-WHEELS: "Balde" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Getro Balde, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v.
Medi-Wheels Of The Palm Beaches, Inc. and Maria Vega-Herklotz,
Case No. 9:15-cv-80553-DMM (S.D. Fla., April 30, 2015), seeks to
recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and costs and
reasonable attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate an ambulance service company in
Palm Beach County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Camar Ricardo Jones, Esq.
      THE SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
      1515 South Federal Hwy., Suite 404
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 447-8888
      Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
      E-mail: cjones@shavitzlaw.com


MEDTRONIC INC: MiniMed Insulin Pump Blamed for Death of NJ Man
--------------------------------------------------------------
A New Jersey man who relied on a Medtronic device to administer
the proper dose of insulin while he slept slipped into a fatal
diabetic attack, his estate claims in court, reports Julie Baker-
Dennis, writing for Courthouse News Service.

Diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes mellitus in the 1970s, Charles
Slack Jr. had always been conscientious about monitoring his diet,
visiting his doctor on a regular basis and keeping careful control
over his insulin levels, according to the federal complaint filed
April 20.

For the last several years of his life, Slack had relied on tried
Medtronic's products to control his diabetes, his estate claims.

On April 15, 2013, Slack suffered a diabetic attack while he slept
because "failed to receive the correct dose of insulin," the
complaint states.  Though Slack had been correctly using the
MiniMed insulin pump and the MiniMed Paradigm Quick-Set Infusion
Sets in the days before that attack, his estate says "the pump,
set and reservoir failed to take the necessary, expected and
warranted steps to alert [Slack] of the failure."

The attack allegedly caused Slack's "body and mind to slowly and
through intense agony, crawl into unconsciousness, with a lack of
responsiveness and with a complete loss of control over his body."
Slack "was found, lying in his urine drenched bed, in a state of
unconsciousness and unresponsiveness, yet alive," the complaint
states.

The 57-year-old allegedly spent the next several weeks
hospitalized in a coma but died on April 30.

Joann Hassan, as executrix of Slack's estate notes that the
decedent's specific insulin pump was the "MiniMed Paradigm Real-
Time Revel 523 System."

Medtronic touts its infusion sets as able to regulate the blood-
sugar levels of diabetic consumers with accurate doses of insulin
in "a steady trickle," according to the complaint.

The product is said to weigh only a few ounces and can be worn on
a belt since the pump is about the size of a deck of cards.

Medtronic's purported integrity flies in the face, however, of
criticism it received in 2009 from the Food and Drug
Administration, for not reporting an insulin pump malfunction that
caused an individual to be hospitalize, Hassan says.

The FDA also investigated and cited Medtronic for many problems at
its manufacturing facility in Puerto Rico, including issues with
its product testing, according to the complaint.

Hassan says Medtronic had been relying on individuals with high
school educations and "some in-house training" to conduct such
testing, and they were not adhering the necessary stringent
testing procedures to determine product reliability.

Medtronic issuing its first Class 1 recall in June 2009 at the
FDA's insistence, according to the complaint, but it issued more
recalls over the next two years since there continued to be
problems with the insulin-pump products that had the likelihood to
cause serious injury or death if consumers continued to use the
pumps.

Along with Medtronic Inc., Hassan's complaint names as defendants
Medtronic Mini Med Inc., Unomedical Devices SA de CV, Unomedical
A/S and Convatec Inc.

Hassan seeks punitive damages for breach of warranty, negligence,
wrongful death and other claims.

She is represented by Daniel Baurkot with Pinczewski & Baurkot of
Easton, Pa.


MONSANTO CO: Falsely Advertised Roundup Weed-Killer, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims in
California Superior Court that Monsanto falsely advertised that
Roundup (glyphosate), the world's most popular weed-killer,
targets an enzyme not found in humans.


MULTICARE HEALTH: Sued Over Excessive Medical Record Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
Adam Lynn, writing for The News Tribune, reports that lawyers for
a Pierce County woman contend in a lawsuit that MultiCare Health
System is employing a vendor that charges illegal and excessive
fees for providing patients with copies of their medical records.

The lawsuit filed on behalf of Pauline Dickman asks a judge to
stop MultiCare and its vender, IOD Inc., from continuing the
practice and also seeks unspecified monetary damages.

Ms. Dickman's attorneys, Ashton Dennis and Loren Cochran, also
filed notice with the court that they hope to have the lawsuit
declared a class action.

"It is believed that there are hundreds of individuals who have
requested medical bills, health information, records and
(protected health information) from IOD via the federal
regulations . . ., and it has blatantly disregarded those
regulations and continued to charge excess amounts for the records
to 'deliver a competitive advantage' for its client, MultiCare
. . .," the lawsuit states.

MultiCare spokeswoman Maura Hallam provided a written statement on
April 3.

"The Dickman lawsuit concerns how much plaintiffs' lawyers are
required to pay for medical records," the statement reads.  "The
question turns on the interpretation of a federal regulation.  We
will ask the federal court to decide whose interpretation is
correct.  At the same time, we will be reviewing all of our
procedures to confirm that we are in complete compliance with all
applicable regulations."

Efforts to reach an attorney for IOD were unsuccessful on April 3.

The lawsuit was filed in February in Pierce County Superior Court.
It was moved to U.S. District Court at the request of MultiCare
and IOD on April 1.

Ms. Dickman's lawsuit contends that federal regulations prohibit
health care providers from charging a per-page fee for copying and
providing a person his or her medical records.

A health care provider is allowed to charge a fee, but it can
include only "the cost of copying (including supplies and labor)
and postage if the patient requests that the copy be mailed," the
lawsuit states.  "The fee may not include costs associated with
searching for and retrieving the requested information."

Ms. Dickman, through her attorneys, requested copies of her
records in November after receiving treatment at a MultiCare
facility.

IOD, which handles requests for records made by MultiCare
patients, sent her a letter quoting her a $500 charge to produce
her 503 pages of records, according to documents filed as part of
her lawsuit.  That charge included a basic fee of $24, a copying
charge of $1.09 per page for the first 30 pages and 82 cents per
page for the rest.  Shipping was estimated at $12.35 and sales tax
at $43.41.

Ms. Dickman complained, but IOD later notified her that the final
bill would be $488.93 for the compact disc containing her records.

Her lawsuit contends that IOD knows it is not allowed to charge a
per-page fee but "continually does so in an attempt to increase
profits for itself and for MultiCare."

Wisconsin-based IOD faces a similar lawsuit in the state of New
York, according to federal records.  IOD lawyers have made a
motion to dismiss that action, which was filed in October.


NATIONAL SECURITIES: NY Sup. Court Dismisses "Vasquez" Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
In CHRISTOPHER VASQUEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHER
PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED WHO WERE EMPLOYED BY NATIONAL
SECURITIES CORPORATION, AND/OR ANY OTHER ENTITIES AFFILIATED WITH
OR CONTROLLED BY NATIONAL SECURITIES CORPORATION AND/OR MARK
GOLDWASSER, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL SECURITIES CORPORATION, MARK
GOLDWASSER, AND/OR ANY OTHER ENTITIES AFFILIATED WITH OR
CONTROLLED BY NATIONAL SECURITIES CORPORATION AND/OR MARK
GOLDWASSER, Defendants, 155613/2014. 2015 NY Slip Op 25143,
Defendants National Securities Corporation (NSC) and Mark
Goldwasser moved to dismiss the putative class action for lack of
standing on the ground that Mr. Vazquez has been paid the entire
amount of his individual claim.  The Plaintiff does not oppose
dismissal, but contends that notice to the putative class must be
given pursuant to CPLR 908. The Plaintiff also moved for approval
of his proposed class notice. Defendants opposed on the ground
that notice under CPLR 908 is not required.

Judge Shirley Werner Kornreich of the Supreme Court of New York
County, granted in part and denied in part the motions, in an
opinion entered May 1, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/PWC48cfrom Leagle.com.

The motion by defendants National Securities Corporation and Mark
Goldwasser to dismiss the complaint is granted, without
opposition.

The Plaintiff's motion to compel notice to the class is granted,
but the court reserves judgment on the manner and substance of the
notice.

Judge Kornreich directed the parties to meet and confer to (1)
reach an agreement on the language to be included in the notice;
and (2) ensure that a means to electronically notify the class,
such as by email, is feasible.

A telephone conference will be held on May 18, 2015, at 4:30 pm,
at which time the parties will report the outcome of the meet and
confer.

The Clerk will not be directed to enter judgment and this action
will not be marked disposed until after the class notice is
issued.

Virginia & Ambinder LLP, for plaintiff.

Baker & Hostetler LLP, for defendants.


NEWARK, NJ: Judge Stays Class Action v. Watershed Agency
--------------------------------------------------------
Bill Wichert, writing for NJ.com, reports that a class-action
lawsuit filed by two former employees of the Newark Watershed
Conservation and Development Corp. cannot move forward while the
agency's bankruptcy process is underway, a judge has ruled.

The employees filed the lawsuit last year to recover money
allegedly stolen from the now-defunct agency, which has been
dogged by allegations of criminal wrongdoing and misappropriation
of city funds.

But U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Vincent F. Papalia said on March 31 that
he would not partially lift the stay placed on the lawsuit after
the agency's trustees filed for bankruptcy in January.

Since money was allegedly stolen from the corporation, the judge
decided the agency should be the entity to pursue any litigation,
not the former employees, according to attorneys involved in the
matter.

Daniel Stolz, an attorney representing the agency in the
bankruptcy case, said the judge's decision was based on applicable
law that holds that if there is "direct harm" to a company in
bankruptcy, that company should be the only one to pursue
litigation.

The trustees and their attorneys are "the best qualified people to
pursue the claim," Mr. Stolz said.

The litigation pursued by the agency would include negligence
claims against law firms that had represented the agency and
claims against people who wrongfully took money from the
corporation, according to Mr. Stolz.

"We're certainly not going to drag our feet," said Mr. Stolz,
referring to the pending litigation, adding that "we understand
that this is an issue that needs to be addressed."

The corporation had treated and delivered water for 500,000
customers in northern New Jersey until its watershed operations
were transferred to city control in 2013.

After a separate legal battle, city and agency officials reached
an agreement late last year on moving forward with shutting down
the corporation.

The class-action lawsuit was initially filed on July 9 in New
Jersey Superior Court in Essex County. Named as defendants were
various individuals, law firms and other companies associated with
the agency.

The lawsuit involves two main components -- a claim on behalf of
Newark residents to recover the allegedly stolen funds, and a
claim on behalf of former agency employees to receive their
benefits, including money for their pensions, severance pay and
unused sick and vacation time, according to David Hoffman, the
attorney representing the former employees.

While the employees' claim would remain part of the bankruptcy
case, Mr. Hoffman said he was looking to remove the stay in regard
to the residents' claim and move forward with that part of the
lawsuit.

Mr. Hoffman said "my contention was that the theft was essentially
from Newark, even though it was through the NWCDC."

In light of the judge's ruling, Mr. Hoffman said he doesn't know
how or when he could pursue his lawsuit.  "It means I'm in limbo,"
Hoffman said. "I'm not sure what'll happen."

The lawsuit was based in large part on a scathing report issued in
February 2014 by the New Jersey Comptroller's Office, alleging
rampant mismanagement, corruption and abusive spending practices
at the agency.

At the center of those allegations is the agency's former
executive director, Linda Watkins-Brashear, who received more than
$600,000 in severance packages, and wrote more than $200,000 in
unauthorized checks to herself, the investigation found.

The report also asserts that Ms. Watkins-Brashear awarded millions
of dollars' worth of no-bid contracts to her ex-husband, close
personal associates and agency employees.

One of the agency employees who allegedly received those no-bid
contracts -- Donald Bernard Sr. -- and a contractor, Giacomo
"Jack" DeRosa, are now facing federal criminal charges for
allegedly participating in a kickback scheme at the agency.
Bernard is accused of accepting at least $730,000 in kickbacks
from DeRosa and other contractors, authorities said.

Another former contractor, James Porter, pleaded guilty in January
to his role in the scheme.


OMIMEX CANADA: 9th Cir. Upholds Judgment in S Bar Branch Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit affirmed a
district court judgment entered in S BAR BRANCH, a Montana
corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OMIMEX CANADA, Ltd., a
Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellee, NO. 13-35466.

S Bar B Ranch appealed the judgment in favor of Omimex Canada,
Ltd., which followed the district court's grant of summary
judgment on the contract and fraud based claims brought by S Bar
B.  S Bar B had sought to recover damages from Omimex on the basis
that Omimex had improperly determined the royalty amount that it
was required to pay to S Bar B for natural gas obtained from wells
on S Bar B's property. S Bar B also sought class action
certification for itself and others similarly situated.

According to the Ninth Circuit, the law of the State of Montana
applies in this diversity action. At the district court, S Bar B
conceded that its claims failed if Montana applies the "at the
well" rule to determine the royalties rather than the "first
marketable product" rule. The district court determined that
Montana applied the "at the well" rule.  The Ninth Circuit agrees.

As the Montana Supreme Court has said, "[t]he price to be paid is
not to be an arbitrary price fixed by the lessee but the price
actually given in current market dealings."  The court explained,
"lessor should receive no less and lessee pay no more than the
current selling price of the gas."  Moreover, it declared,
"[w]here no market exists in the field, . . . royalty may be
computed upon receipts from the marketing outlet for the products,
less the costs and expenses of marketing and transportation."
Those statements, especially when taken with others in the court's
discussion, show that the court adopted the "at the well" rule,
held the Ninth Circuit. It does not appear that the Montana courts
have applied a different rule over the ensuing years. As the
parties have acknowledged, that disposes of this case; thus the
Ninth Circuit says it need not and do not address the other issues
raised before it on appeal.

Omimex is awarded its costs on appeal.

A copy of the Ninth Circuit's May 4, 2015 memorandum is available
at http://is.gd/DrYNkgfrom Leagle.com.


OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: June Final Settlement Approval Hearing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Omnivision Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended January 31, 2015, the court scheduled a
June 2015 hearing regarding final approval of the settlement in a
class action.

On October 26, 2011, the first of several putative class action
complaints was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company and three of
its executives, one of whom is a director. All of the complaints
alleged that the defendants violated the federal securities laws
by making misleading statements or omissions regarding the
Company's business and financial results, in particular regarding
the use of its imaging sensors in Apple Inc.'s iPhone. These
actions have been consolidated as In re OmniVision Technologies,
Inc. Litigation, Case No. 11-CV-5235 (RMW) (the "Securities
Case"). On April 23, 2012, plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between August 27, 2010 and November 6,
2011, seeking unspecified damages. On March 29, 2013, the court
denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. On December 30, 2014,
the parties entered into a stipulation and agreement of settlement
to resolve the litigation, which was then submitted to the court
for preliminary approval. The stipulation and agreement of
settlement provides for a payment of $12.5 million to the
plaintiff class, which is funded solely by the Company's insurance
carriers. The Company also entered into a mutual release agreement
with one of its insurance carriers. In March 2015, the court
entered an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement
and ordering notice to the putative plaintiff class. The court
also scheduled a June 2015 hearing regarding final approval of the
settlement.

With the execution of the stipulation agreement and the release
agreement, the Company believes that ultimate settlement is
probable, at the currently estimated amount. Consequently, as of
January 31, 2015, on the condensed consolidated balance sheet, the
Company recorded $12.5 million in Recoverable insurance proceeds
within Total current assets, and $12.5 million in Litigation
settlement accrual within Total current liabilities. Notice of the
settlement must be provided to the putative shareholder class, and
the court must grant final approval of the settlement. There is no
assurance that the court will grant such approval, or that the
settlement will become final. If the settlement does not occur and
litigation against the Company continues, the Company believes
that it has meritorious defenses and intends to defend the case
vigorously.


ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Hotel Booking Antitrust Case Officially Ended
---------------------------------------------------------------
Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Plaintiffs in the On-
Line Travel Company Hotel Booking Antitrust Litigation did not
file a notice of appeal, thereby officially ending the case.

On August 20, 2012, a putative consumer class action was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against certain hotel chains and the major OTCs,
including Orbitz. The complaint alleged that the hotel chains and
several major OTCs, including Orbitz, violated the antitrust and
consumer protection laws by entering into agreements in which OTCs
agree not to facilitate the reservation of hotel rooms at prices
that are less than what the hotel chain offers on its own website.
Following the filing of the initial complaint, several dozen
additional putative consumer class action complaints were filed in
federal courts across the country. On December 11, 2012, the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order
consolidating these cases in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas. On May 1, 2013, the plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended complaint. On July 1, 2013, the
defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint. On December 17, 2013,
the District Court heard oral argument on Defendants' motion to
dismiss. On February 16, 2014, the District Court granted the
Defendants' motion to dismiss on all claims without prejudice. On
October 27, 2014, the District Court denied Plaintiffs leave to
amend their complaint. Plaintiffs did not file a notice of appeal,
thereby officially ending the case.


ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Facing Delaware Actions Relating Expedia Deals
----------------------------------------------------------------
Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company is facing
Delaware Actions relating to Expedia transaction.

Since the announcement of the merger on February 12, 2015, six
putative shareholder class action lawsuits have been filed against
Orbitz and its directors, among other parties, in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware. The specific cases are: (i)
Irving Feldbaum v. Barney Harford, et al., No. 10692, filed on
February 19, 2015; (ii) Tonya Diamond v. Orbitz Worldwide, Inc.,
et al., No. 10703, filed on February 23, 2015; (iii) Jonathan
Shiller v. Orbitz Worldwide, Inc., et al., No. 10704, filed on
February 23, 2015; (iv) Suresh Rijhwani v. Barney Harford, et al.,
No. 10711, filed on February 24, 2015; Mathew Sciababucch v.
Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. et al, No. 10726, filed on February 26,
2015; and (vi) Douglas Carlson v. Barney Harford, et al, No.
10736, filed on March 3, 2015.

In the Delaware Actions, plaintiffs allege that the individual
director defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Orbitz
shareholders in negotiating and approving the merger agreement,
that the merger consideration negotiated in the merger agreement
undervalues Orbitz, that Orbitz shareholders will not receive fair
value for their Orbitz common stock in the merger, and that the
terms of the merger agreement impose improper deal-protection
devices that purportedly preclude competing offers. The complaints
further allege that Orbitz, Expedia and Merger Sub aided and
abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the Orbitz
directors. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, including enjoining
or rescinding the merger, an award of unspecified attorneys' fees,
and other relief.

The outcome of the Delaware Actions cannot be predicted with
certainty. A preliminary injunction could delay or jeopardize the
completion of the merger, and an adverse judgment granting
permanent injunctive relief could indefinitely enjoin completion
of the merger. Additional lawsuits arising out of or relating to
the merger agreement or the merger may be filed in the future.
Defendants intend to vigorously defend against these lawsuits


PVH CORP: Faces Class Action Over Unrequested Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joe Van Acker and Allison Grande, writing for Law360, report that
PVH Corp., better known as Tommy Hilfiger, violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act by sending thousands of unrequested text
messages promoting sales and discounts, according to a proposed
class action filed in California federal court on April 2.

James Nelson's complaint said the clothing retailer sent him
several SMS text messages without ever obtaining his written
consent and claimed the messages, which he had to pay his cellular
service provider to receive, were sent through an automatic
telephone dialing system.

"By sending such SMS text messages to consumers, defendant has
caused consumers actual harm, including the aggravation and
privacy invasion that accompanies receiving unsolicited text
messages," the complaint said.

Aside from the financial cost of receiving the calls, Mr. Nelson
said the company's messages drained his battery and took up data
storage space on his phone.

Tommy Hilfiger sent its mass text messages using a five- or six-
digit number called a "short code" instead of a standard 10-digit
phone number, the complaint said.

The short codes are provided by Neustar Inc., which is not a party
in the suit.

According to the complaint, Mr. Nelson received seven messages
from Tommy Hilfiger from September through November of 2014.

Mr. Nelson proposed a nationwide class of all people who received
phone calls or text messages from the company from Oct. 16, 2013,
until notice is mailed to the class.

The class is estimated to include "tens of thousands" of members,
according to the complaint.

Mr. Nelson said he's seeking $500 for each TCPA violation, which
the complaint said could number in the thousands, but asked the
court to award greater damages if it finds Tommy Hilfiger
"willfully" violated the law.

Marketers who have felt "stymied" by federal and state laws are
increasingly relying on text messages to reach consumers, and said
SMS marketing has become a "billion-dollar industry," the
complaint said.

On April 1, a U.S. Federal Communications Commission official
urged the agency to address a backlog of TCPA petitions to clarify
its regulations to advertisers.

FCC Commissioner Michael O'Reilly said the agency shouldn't treat
every call from a private company as "a form of harassment," and
said some businesses avoid contacting their customers even when
they simply want to provide helpful information.

Mr. Nelson is represented by Gregory H. D. Alumit of Howard Law PC
and David M. Arbogast of Arbogast Law PC.

The case is Nelson v. PVH CORP., D/B/A Tommy Hilfiger et al., case
no. 8:15-cv-00512 in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.


QUIKSILVER INC: Faces Securities Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Beth Winegarner, writing for Law360, reports that Quiksilver Inc.
was hit with a securities class action in California federal court
on April 2 accusing the surf clothing maker of hiding revenue
reporting problems from investors, leading to sharp stock losses
when the truth was revealed and followed by the abrupt departure
of its CEO and CFO.

The lawsuit, filed by lead plaintiff Leiland Stevens, claimed
Quiksilver's stock lost more than 15 percent of its value in late
March when the company came clean about the fact that it was
investigating a "revenue cut-off issue."


RANDSTAD US: Blumenthal, Nordrehuag & Bhomik Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Blumenthal, Nordrehuag & Bhomik on April 3 disclosed that a
proposed class action lawsuit was filed on February 13, 2015,
against Randstad US, L.P. by the San Francisco employment law
attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.  The complaint
alleges that Randstad US, L.P. failed to provide their security
guard employees with the legally required thirty minute
uninterrupted meal periods.  The Randstad US, L.P. class action
lawsuit, Case No. RG15758487, is currently pending in the Alameda
County Superior Court for the State of California.

The Complaint claims that Randstad US, L.P. failed to provide
their California Security Guards paid on an hourly basis the
legally required meal and rest breaks.  California law requires
employers to provide their non-exempt employees paid on an hourly
basis with thirty minute meal periods before the employee works
five hours.  The penalty for failing to provide adequate meal
breaks is one hour of pay under the California Labor Code.  As a
result, the class action lawsuit alleges that the company's
employees forfeited meal and rest periods without additional
compensation.

Furthermore, the complaint alleges that Randstad US, L.P. did not
reimburse their Security Guards for required business expenses
incurred while discharging their job duties.  The Complaint claims
that during the course of their employment, Randstad US, L.P.
required its employees to travel between job sites as a result of
and in furtherance of their job duties but failed to reimburse
these employees for the costs associated with traveling to these
job sites.  The California Labor Code Section 2802 requires all
employers to idemnify their employees for all expenses incurred
during the scope and course of their employment.

For more information about the class action lawsuit against
Randstad US, L.P. call (866) 771-7099.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is a San Francisco employment law
firm that represents employees in California who have been
wrongfully terminated, denied proper overtime pay, denied payment
of earned commission wages, and also employees who have been
improperly denied their meal and rest breaks.


RAYONIER ADVANCED: Sued in Fla. Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement Systems, Individually
and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated v. Rayonier
Advanced Materials, Inc. et al, Case No. 3:15-cv-00546 (M.D. Fla.,
April 30, 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.

Rayonier Advanced Materials, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with
its principal place of business located at 1301 Riverplace
Boulevard, Suite 2300, Jacksonville, Florida, 32207. Rayonier is a
producer of specialty cellulose fibers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph E. White III, Esq.
      Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
      SAXENA WHITE, PA
      5200 Town Center Cir. Ste 601
      Boca Raton, FL 33486-1033
      Telephone: (561) 394-3399
      Facsimile: (561) 394-3382
      E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com
              lhooker@saxenawhite.com

         - and -

      Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq.
      James J. Sabella, Esq.
      GRANT & EISENHIFER, P.A
      485 Lexington Avenue
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (646) 722-8500
      Facsimile: (646) 722-8501
      E-mail: jeisenhofer@gelaw.com
              jsabella@gelaw.com


RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT: "Mosquea" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Victoriano Mosquea and Abel Nunez, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Residential Management (NY), Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-03342-PAE (S.D.N.Y., April 29, 2015), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

Residential Management (NY), Inc. owns and operates a property
management business with its principal place of business located
at 1651 Coney Island Ave, 4th Floor, Brooklyn, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Francisco Castillo, Esq.
      CASTILLO STEPHENS LLP
      305 Broadway, Ste 1400
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (646) 434-0049
      Facsimile: (212) 214-0301
      E-mail: cslawyers@attomey1.com


REXFORD INDUSTRIAL: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Rexford Industrial Realty, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Defendants' motion
to dismiss a class action lawsuit is pending before the court.

On October 3, 2013, two pre-IPO investors filed a putative class
action purportedly brought on behalf of the investors in Rexford
Industrial Fund III ("RIF III") in the Los Angeles County Superior
Court. On February 14, 2014, a First Amended Complaint was filed
adding an additional individual pre-IPO investor and putative
class claims on behalf of investors in Rexford Industrial Fund IV,
LLC ("RIF IV").  This complaint also alleged that the
communication of the proposed accommodation (in which Messrs.
Schwimmer, Frankel and Ziman, together with certain other pre-IPO
owners of the pre-IPO management companies agreed to return up to
$32.1 million that they received in connection with our IPO and
formation transactions) was materially misleading by not including
disclosures regarding the lawsuit and claims asserted by
plaintiffs.  On July 15, 2014, a Second Amended Complaint was
filed withdrawing the class action allegations and the allegations
concerning communication of the accommodation, and adding four
additional plaintiff investors.  During the third quarter of 2014,
the Company entered into settlement agreements with three of these
four additional plaintiffs.  The aggregate amount paid by the
Company in these settlements was not material.   Plaintiffs assert
claims against the Company, RIF III, RIF IV, Rexford Industrial,
LLC and Messrs. Schwimmer, Frankel and Ziman for breach of
fiduciary duty, violation of certain California securities laws,
negligent misrepresentation, and fraud. Plaintiffs allege, among
other things, that the terms of the Company's formation
transactions were unfair to investors in RIF III and RIF IV, that
the consideration received by investors in RIF III and RIF IV in
the formation transactions was inadequate, that the pre-IPO
management companies were allocated unfair value in the formation
transactions and that the disclosure documents related to the
formation transactions were materially misleading.  Plaintiffs
also request to inspect the books and records of RIF III and RIF
IV, which entities no longer exist, and further seek declaratory
relief, unspecified recessionary damages, disgorgement,
compensatory, punitive and exemplary damages, an accounting for
unjust enrichment, and an award of costs including pre-judgment
interest, attorneys' and experts' fees, and other unspecified
relief. Defendants have answered the Second Amended Complaint
denying all allegations and asserting affirmative defenses.
Defendants have also filed a motion to dismiss the case for forum
non conveniens or, in the alternative, to compel the action to
judicial reference, which the plaintiffs have opposed.
Defendants' motion is pending before the court.

The Company said, "While we believe that the action is without
merit and intend to defend the litigation vigorously, we expect to
incur costs associated with defending the action. At this early
stage of the litigation, the ultimate outcome of the action is
uncertain and we cannot reasonably assess the timing or outcome,
or estimate the amount of loss, if any, or its effect, if any, on
our financial statements."


SAKS & CO: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Return Policy Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aebra Coe and Jonathan Randles, writing for Law360, report that
Saks & Co. on April 2 beat a proposed class action in California
after a federal judge found that a customer who sued the retailer
hadn't shown she was damaged when her return privileges were cut
off for buying more than $150,000 worth of merchandise and
returning nearly all of it.

U.S. District Judge Andre Birotte Jr. dismissed the suit with
prejudice, saying plaintiff Jennifer Shaouli hadn't even claimed
to attempt to return anything after Saks sent her a letter in
February telling her she'd abused the return policy and wouldn't
be allowed to return any more merchandise.  As a result, Judge
Birotte has not alleged she has been damaged, the judge concluded.

"Shaouli has no standing . . .  because she has not suffered any
'lost money or property' as a result of Saks' alleged unlawful
acts," Judge Birotte said.

Ms. Shaouli filed her proposed class action in December accusing
the retailer of violating California unfair competition laws and
the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, negligent
misrepresentation and breach of quasi-contract.

According to the complaint, Ms. Shaouli purchased shoes at a Saks
located in Beverly Hills in January 2014.  Ms. Shaouli claims that
Saks' return policy was not posted at the entrance to the store.

A month later, Saks sent a letter to Ms. Shaouli informing her
that it would no longer accept her returns because her account had
a high return rate.

"In the last 12 months you have made purchases of $161,151 and you
have returned $149,245," the letter said.  The company's policy is
to restrict returns if it finds based on a customer's shopping
history an "unreasonable return pattern."

Ms. Shaouli filed the proposed class action in December.  She
sought to represent a nationwide class of Saks shoppers and a
separate class of California shoppers. The company filed its
motion to dismiss Ms. Shaouli's complaint in February.

Her proposed class definition suffers from the same flaw that
dooms each of her individual claims, Judge Birotte found.

"Because Shaouli concedes that she never attempted to return any
unreturned merchandise purchased before or after the Feb. 25
effective date for the return restrictions on her account, any
amendment . . . would be futile," the order dismissing the suit
with prejudice said.

"This point is underscored by Shaouli's proposed class
definitions, which include customers whose accounts were placed in
'negative status' without regard to whether those customers were
denied an attempt to return unreturned merchandise before they
were put on notice of return restrictions associated with their
accounts," it said.

"We're pleased with the result.  We think the court correctly
recognized that Saks' return policy is fair," Saks counsel
Ken Kronstadt of Kelley Drye & Warren LLP told Law360 on April 3.

Ms. Shaouli is represented by L. Paul Mankin of The Law Office of
L. Paul Mankin IV and Arvin Ratanavongse of the The Law Offices of
Todd M Friedman PC .

Saks is represented by David Fink -- dfink@kelleydrye.com -- and
Ken Kronstadt -- kkronstadt@kelleydrye.com -- of Kelley Drye &
Warren LLP.

The case is Jennifer Shaouli v. Saks Fifth Avenue Inc., case
number 2:14-cv-09590, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.


SIMPLEXGRINNELL LP: Wins Prelim. Certification of Labor Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge April 22
preliminarily certified a labor class action from California
workers for SimplexGrinnell.


SKY BAR: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marcial Flores, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Sky Bar Times Square Inc. d/b/a Sky Room & Bar,
Norbert Gehr, Alfred M. Somekh and David Lifschitz, Case No. 1:15-
cv-03387-RJS (S.D.N.Y., April 30, 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 bar located at 330 W. 40th
Street, New York, New York 10018.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Awaits Judge's Decision on Motion to Dismiss
----------------------------------------------------------------
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K/A
Amendment No. 1 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on March 6, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that the parties are currently awaiting a decision by the district
judge on the motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit.

On June 3, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was commenced
against the Company, Jeffrey L. Turner, and Philip D. Anderson in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. The court-
appointed lead plaintiffs - two pension funds that claim to
represent a class of investors in the Company's stock - filed an
amended complaint on April 7, 2014, naming as additional
defendants Spirit's Vice President of the B787 Program Terry J.
George and former Senior Vice President of Oklahoma Operations
Alexander K. Kummant. The amended complaint alleges that
defendants engaged in a scheme to artificially inflate the market
price of the Company's stock by making false statements and
omissions about certain programs' performance and costs. It
contends that the alleged scheme was revealed by the Company's
accrual of $590.0 million in forward loss charges on October 25,
2012. The lead plaintiffs seek certification of a class of all
persons other than defendants who purchased Holdings securities
between May 5, 2011 and October 24, 2012, and seek an unspecified
amount of damages on behalf of the putative class. In June 2014,
the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the claims set forth in
the Amended Complaint. The parties have fully briefed the
defendants' motion, presented oral arguments before the court on
February 6, 2015 and are currently awaiting a decision by the
district judge.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against these
allegations, and management believes the resolution of this matter
will not materially affect the Company's financial position,
results of operations or liquidity.


TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Cherokee Suit Over Actos(R) Drugs
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Cherokee Nation, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. f/k/a
Takeda Pharmaceutical North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:15-
cv-01485 (W.D. La., April 30, 2015), is an action for damages
suffered by the Plaintiffs as a proximate result of the
Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the designing, developing, manufacturing, distributing,
labeling, advertising, marketing, promoting, and selling of
Actos(R) (pioglitazone Hcl).

Actos(R) is a prescription medication used to improve blood sugar
(glucose) control in adults with Type II diabetes.

The Cherokee Nation is a federally recognized Indian tribe that
operates the largest tribally running health care system in the
United States.

Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. Delaware Corporation with its
principal place of business located at One Takeda Parkway,
Deerfield, Illinois 60015. Takeda is involved in the research,
development, sales and marketing of pharmaceutical products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Curtis "Muskrat" Bruehl, Esq.
      THE BRUEHL LAW FIRM
      14005 N. Eastern Ave.
      Edmond, OK 73013
      Telephone: (405) 509-6300;
      Facsimile: (405) 509-6268
      E-mail: curtbrue@gmail.com

         - and -

      Tracy D. Rezvani, Esq.
      REZVANI VOLIN P.C.
      1050 Connecticut Ave, N.W., 10th Floor
      Washington, D.C. 20036
      Telephone: (202) 350-4270 x 101
      Facsimile: (202) 351-0544
      E-mail: trezvani@rezvanivolin.com


TEXTURA CORPORATION: Deadline to File Motion to Dismiss Due
-----------------------------------------------------------
Textura Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company had until
April 27, 2015 to file a motion to dismiss.

The Company said, "On October 7, 2014, a putative class action
lawsuit alleging violations of federal securities laws was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
naming as defendants us and certain of our executive officers. An
amended complaint was filed on February 17, 2015. The amended
complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act  of
1934 by us and our executive officers for making allegedly
materially false and misleading statements and by failing to
disclose allegedly material facts regarding our business and
operations between June 7, 2013 and September 29, 2014. The
plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. We
believe the lawsuit is without merit and intend to defend the case
vigorously. We have until April 27, 2015 to file a motion to
dismiss."


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Directed by Court to Pay $798,000 in Legal Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Trump's profit-seeking business college must pay $798,000
in legal fees to a former student, for filing an anti-SLAPP suit,
reports Rebekah Kearn at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal
court ruling.

Tarla Makaeff sued Trump University and Donald Trump in 2010, in a
proposed class action alleging deceptive business practices.
Makaeff claimed she shelled out $60,000 for a real estate program
that consisted of seminars that were little better than
infomercials.

Trump University countersued, accusing Makaeff of defaming it in
online postings and elsewhere.

Makaeff moved to strike the counterclaim under California's anti-
SLAPP law.

U.S. District Judge Irma Gonzalez denied the motion, but the 9th
Circuit reversed in 2013.

After the district court granted Makaeff's motion to strike in
June 2014, she asked for $1.3 million in attorneys' fees and
costs.  Her attorneys claimed they'd spent 2,226 hours on the
case, a number Trump's attorneys disputed.

The case is no longer a class action and Donald Trump himself no
longer is a defendant.

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel on April 9 awarded Makaeff
$798,779.24 in fees and costs.

Makaeff's attorneys sought hourly rates of $250 to $440 for
associates and $600 to $825 for partners, citing a 2007 survey in
the National Law Journal and their experience handling class
actions.

Trump's attorneys called these rates unreasonable and pushed for a
blended hourly rate of $300 on the grounds that Makaeff's
attorneys had no anti-SLAPP litigation experience and assigned too
many partners to a "simple motion."

Curiel found the rate requests for associates and partners
reasonable, but denied Makaeff's request for staff attorney and
paralegal fees because she did not provide enough evidence to
support the requested hourly rates or give enough background
information to enable the court to determine an appropriate
prevailing rate.

Trump University argued that the hours submitted by Makaeff's
attorneys should be reduced because they often lumped together
multiple tasks, duplicated hours by appointing more than one
partner to a task and committed staffing improprieties.

Curiel scaled back the number of hours expended on most of the
plaintiffs' 25 proceedings by 20 percent, others by 50 percent and
some he declined entirely, reducing the fees award by $542,920.85
to $790,083.40.

The judge also cut $513.46 in requested costs for an award of
$8,695.81.

Curiel denied Makaeff's motion to apply an upward multiplier to
offset any reduction in fees because he said she "has not met her
burden that a contingency fee enhancement is appropriate here."

The Trump Organization told Courthouse News it will appeal.

"Despite Trump University being rated as 'excellent' by 98% of its
students and having an 'A' rating with the BBB [Better Business
Bureau], Tarla Makaeff engaged in a campaign to defame it in her
quest to obtain an unjustified refund.  As a result, we believe
that the court's most recent ruling was in error and plan to
appeal," Trump's assistant general counsel Jill Martin said.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron M. Olsen, Esq.
          Amber Lee Yeck, Esq.
          ZELDES, HAEGGQUIST & ECK LLP
          625 Broadway Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 342-8000
          Facsimile: (619) 342-7878
          E-mail: aarono@zhlaw.com
                  ambere@zhlaw.com


VICTORY PLANNING: Has Sent Unsolicited Fax Ads, Sabon Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sabon, Inc., a Florida corporation, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. Victory
Planning, Inc., Alian Moreno, Barbara Ianet Moreno and John Does
1-10, Case No. 0:15-cv-60917-BB (S.D. Fla., April 30, 2015), seeks
to stop the Defendant's practice of sending unsolicited fax
advertisements.

Victory Planning, Inc. is a Nevada corporation that operates a
financial service company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan Michael Kelly, Esq.
      ANDERSON WANCA
      3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
      Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
      Telephone: (847) 368-1500
      Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
      E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com


WALT DISNEY: Judge Dismisses Anti-Poaching Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lipkin, Kurt Orzeck and Allissa Wickham, writing for
Law360, report that a California federal judge on April 3 ruled
that animators from The Walt Disney Co., Pixar Animation Studios
Inc. and other studios had filed too late in a consolidated class
action accusing the studios of conspiring to keep down wages,
despite the plaintiffs' comparison to a price-fixing conspiracy.

U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh granted a motion to dismiss from
Disney, DreamWorks Animation SKG Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC and
others after finding the four-year statute of limitations on the
artists and production engineers' claims meant the allegations
needed to cover activity after September 2010.  The plaintiffs
have 30 days to file an amended complaint.

The plaintiffs argued that continuing violations from the studios
extended their filing window, advancing a "novel theory" that
because they entered employment agreements and received
artificially depressed pay, they suffered new injuries for each
paycheck received, according to the ruling.  The injuries were no
different than those suffered by consumers who pay artificially
high prices for something due to a price-fixing conspiracy, they
claimed.

But Judge Koh found the reasoning unpersuasive, holding that the
unique angle ignored the requirement for an overt act in order for
the paychecks to be a continuing violation.  There were no
allegations the animation studios continued to enforce their
alleged scheme after 2010, she held, adding the suit conspicuously
lacked any specific dates for later conduct.

"Plaintiffs have failed to allege any facts showing that their
compensation was at all impacted at any point after September 8,
2010," Judge Koh wrote.  "This is unsurprising in light of
plaintiffs' failure to allege any wrongful conduct post-2009."

The first suit in the consolidated class action was filed in
September by Robert A. Nitsch Jr., a former character effects
artist at DreamWorks and technical director at Sony Pictures
Imageworks Inc.  Mr. Nitsch claimed that the studios agreed not to
actively solicit each others' employees and schemed to fix
employee wages, as part of a conspiracy to suppress compensation.

Roughly two weeks later, Judge Koh agreed to hear Mr. Nitsch's
suit, finding it was related to an antitrust class action claiming
Google Inc., Apple Inc. and other tech companies illegally agreed
not to poach each other's engineers.  Judge Koh recently approved
a $415 million settlement in that case.

The alleged anti-competitive practice at the heart of the lawsuit
came to light after the U.S. Department of Justice launched a
probe into the hiring practices of Silicon Valley businesses,
including defendant Pixar Animation Studios Inc.

In the April 3 ruling, Judge Koh held that the plaintiffs' claims
began to accrue at the time of their injury, not when they
discovered the alleged scheme, citing the Ninth Circuit's rulings
since 1950.  The plaintiffs were right in a "hypertechnical sense"
that the appeals court never explicitly rejected using the
discovery rule for Sherman Act claims, but that it made no
difference.

"In light of that established assumption, there has been no need
for the Ninth Circuit to explain why a different accrual rule does
not apply," Judge Koh wrote.

Based on the complaint, the defendants also did not fraudulently
conceal their actions, Judge Koh wrote, ruling that there were no
allegations the studios took affirmative steps to mislead their
employees.  While they allegedly avoided writing terms of their
deals down and attempted to keep their scheme a secret, that type
of passive concealment was not enough, according to the ruling.

The plaintiffs are represented by Daniel A. Small --
dsmall@cohenmilstein.com -- Brent W. Johnson --
bjohnson@cohenmilstein.com -- and Jeffrey B. Dubner of Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Jeff D. Friedman, Shana E. Scarlett
-- shanas@hbsslaw.com -- Steve W. Berman and Ashley A. Bede of
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, and Marc M. Seltzer --
mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com -- Steven G. Sklaver --
ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com -- Matthew R. Berry, Jordan Talge and
John E. Schlitz of Susman Godfrey LLP.

Walt Disney, Lucasfilm, Pixar, ImageMovers and Two Pic MC LLC are
represented by Emily Johnson Henn -- ehenn@cov.com -- of Covington
& Burling LLP. DreamWorks Animation is represented by Rod J. Stone
-- rstone@gibsondunn.com -- of Gibson Dunn.  Sony Pictures
Animation and Sony Pictures Imageworks are represented by Stephen
V. Bomse -- sbomse@orrick.com -- of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe
LLP.  Blue Sky Studios is represented by John E. Schmidtlein --
jschmidtlein@wc.com -- of Williams & Connolly LLP and William
Faulkner -- wfaulkner@mcmanislaw.com -- of McManis Faulkner.

The case is In Re Animation Workers Antitrust Litigation, case
number 5:14-cv-04062, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


WASHINGTON HOSPITAL: Claim for "Uniform Maintenance" Work Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Employees cannot sue a hospital for not paying them for time spent
disinfecting their uniforms, a federal judge in Washington ruled,
reports Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service.

Peggy Dinkel, Valarie Gadson, and Deidre Beckford sued their
employer Washington Hospital Center and its parent, MedStar Health
Inc., in federal court in 2011.

The plaintiffs claim the defendants didn't pay them for "meal
break" and "uniform maintenance" work, in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the District of Columbia Minimum Wage Act.

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly conditionally certified
the case as a collective action of two classes of non-exempt
hourly employees in July 2012.

The uniform maintenance class includes all those who worked at any
of nine identified MedStar hospitals from May 26, 2008 to July 29,
2012 -- some 455 members as of Jan. 9, 2013.  The meal break class
includes those who have worked in Washington Hospital Center's
emergency department or medical cardiology unit from May 26, 2008
to present.  Ultimately, 292 employees opted in to the uniform
maintenance class, and 15 opted in to the meal break class as of
July 2013, though several were dismissed about a year later for
failing to appear for deposition.

The hospital recently filed a renewed motion for summary judgment,
arguing that time used by hospital workers to maintain their
uniforms is not compensable in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's
recent ruling in Integrity Staffing Solutions Inc. v. Busk.

In that case, the high court ruled that Amazon warehouse workers
do not deserve payment for time spent waiting daily in long lines
to undergo mandatory metal-detector scans.

Relying on that ruling, Kollar-Kotelly partially granted Medstar's
motion on April 16.

"The test for a principal activity is whether a person is employed
for the purpose of accomplishing a certain activity," Kollar-
Kotelly wrote.  "It is for this reason that the security screening
in Integrity Staffing Solutions was not a principal activity even
though those employees were required to participate in the
screening.  Because plaintiffs are not employed for the purpose of
maintaining their own uniforms -- regardless of whether uniform
maintenance activities are required by defendants -- those
activities do not qualify as principal activities."

The judge also relied on Steiner v. Mitchell, in which the Supreme
Court ruled in 1956 that the time battery-plant employees spent
showering and changing clothes was compensable because "the
chemicals in the plant were 'toxic to human beings,'" the ruling
states.

"For the battery-plant employees, they themselves had to shower
and change immediately at their workplace upon completing their
other work," Kollar-Kotelly wrote.  "By contrast, the parties do
not dispute that plaintiffs conduct their uniform maintenance
activities in a wide variety of ways-from the employees completing
all cleaning activities themselves to sharing uniform maintenance
responsibilities with family members to taking certain items to
professional cleaners.  Minimizing infection -- even accepting
plaintiffs' experts' testimony regarding the importance of
infection control -- does not reach the level of importance to
plaintiffs' principal activities as the showering and changing of
the battery-plant employees."

The court denied the defendant's motion with respect to the
Minimum Wage Act, however, finding that this question needs
further briefing, and declined to rule on the hospital's request
to exclude testimony of the plaintiffs' witnesses at this time.

Neither the hospital nor its parent company had responded to
requests for comment at press time.


WELLS FARGO: Accused of Breaching Deal in "Pick-a-Payment" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo breached a class-action settlement agreement on "Pick-
a-Payment" mortgage loan modifications, reports Philip A. Janquart
at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling.

Borrowers sued Wachovia Mortgage in 2009, alleging violation of
state and federal law for failing to adequately disclose terms of
Pick-a-Payment mortgage loans offered from 2003 to 2008.

The loans allowed minimum payments for a limited time, under
certain conditions.  But Wachovia, a subsidiary of Wells Fargo,
did not tell borrowers the minimum payments would not be enough to
cover interest, which was tacked on to the loan balance, resulting
in negative amortization, they claimed.

Wachovia agreed to a $50 million settlement in February 2011,
though it denied wrongdoing.

Under the settlement, borrowers who still had Pick-a-Payment loans
but were not yet in default were prospectively entitled to loan
modification if they later defaulted on their loans or could
demonstrate that they were at "imminent risk" of default.

Wells Fargo, as the loan servicer, has discretion to determine
which borrowers are eligible for one of two loan modification
programs: the federal government's Home Affordable Mortgage
Program (HAMP) and Wells Fargo's "MAP2R" program.

Wells Fargo's determination on which borrowers are likely to
default is based, in part, on guidance under the federal HAMP
program.

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg ruled on April 15 that his
previous enforcement orders do not "delineate the precise extent
to which HAMP guidance must bear on Wells Fargo's imminent default
analysis" and that Wells Fargo has taken too much liberty in
deciding when, and to what extent, it should apply the guidance.

"It is true that the generous terms of the agreement ... imbue
Wells Fargo with discretion to develop the exact contours of its
imminent default test.  But, again, its discretion is clearly
cabined by the requirement that it arrive at standards 'in
accordance with applicable HAMP guidance, as necessary.'  That
language does not confer upon Wells Fargo license to choose when
reliance on HAMP guidance is necessary and, when necessary, the
degree of such reliance," Seeborg wrote.

He added: "Wells Fargo is not permitted to determine unilaterally
when reliance on HAMP guidance is 'necessary'; the bounds of
necessity are supplied by the terms of the federal guidelines
themselves."

Seeborg said Wells Fargo breached the settlement agreement in two
ways.

"First, it violated the agreement by failing to establish and
apply equally across the class uniform written standards for its
'major change of circumstance' test.  Second, it breached the
agreement by applying the DTI (Debt to Income) threshold based on
borrowers' monthly minimum payments in evaluating MAP2R applicants
for imminent default."


XENCOR INC: Defendant in "DePinto v. John S. Stafford" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Xencor, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2015, that on March 3, 2015, a
complaint, captioned DePinto v. John S. Stafford, et al., C.A. No.
10742, was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
against certain of the company's current and former directors on
behalf of certain minority holders of the company's convertible
preferred stock before its initial public offering ("IPO").  In
general, the complaint alleges that the directors breached their
fiduciary duties to these minority stockholders in connection with
a recapitalization of the company that took place prior to its
IPO.  The complaint also claims that certain director and
stockholder written consents connected with the recapitalization
are invalid.  The complaint has been brought as a purported class
action and seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief.
The company believes that the class action lawsuit is without
merit and intends to vigorously defend the action.


YELP INC: Court Dismisses Suit Alleging Manipulation of Reviews
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge dismissed a class action accusing Yelp of
manipulating businesses' reviews for money, reports Arvin Temkar,
writing for Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiff Joseph Curry sued Yelp and its executives in August
2014 for securities violations, claiming Yelp goosed its stock
price through "false denials of the company's extortionlike
practices."

Curry claimed Yelp often did not screen or remove fake reviews of
businesses that didn't advertise with Yelp, to coerce them into
buying ads.

U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar dismissed the case April 21, finding
the consolidated class action "fails to satisfy the requirements
for a securities fraud claim."

The plaintiffs have 30 days to file an amended complaint.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          Post Montgomery Center
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545
          Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
          E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gilbert Serota, Esq.
          ARNOLD AND PORTER LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, 10th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4024
          Telephone: (415) 471-3100
          Facsimile: (415) 471-3400
          E-mail: Gilbert.Serota@aporter.com


* Fla. Sup. Court Sides with Smokers in Jury Instructions Dispute
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daily Business Review reports that the Florida Supreme Court sided
on April 2 with smokers suing leading cigarette makers in a
pivotal dispute over jury instructions.

The court sided with the Third District Court of Appeal in Miami
and against the Fourth District Court of Appeal in West Palm
Beach, which review cases from the busiest trial courts hearing
smoker cases.

The decision written by Justice Peggy Quince resolves a key
question that left both sides in the litigation wondering what
kinds of jury questions would pass appellate muster when applying
the fraud statute of repose.

"This is a landmark decision.  It's a major decision.  It settles
for good issues that have been raised in every" Florida smoker
case, said winning attorney Philip Gerson.

The unanimous court rejected jury instructions sought by Philip
Morris USA Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., ruling their
wording would have kept juries from considering evidence of
reliance on tobacco industry pronouncements before the 12-year
repose period.

In the case of Tina Russo, who pursued a lawsuit after the death
of her mother Phyllis Frazier, that period ran from 1982 to 1994.
While reports from the U.S. surgeon general's office warned of the
health dangers of smoking since the 1960s, tobacco industry
executives did not admit any health risks until 1999.

"There just is no statute of repose issue at all," said Mr. Gerson
of Gerson & Schwartz in Miami.  Plaintiffs attorneys argued the
statute of repose didn't kick in until the industry conspiracy
ended, and he said the Florida Supreme Court agrees.

The court sided with the Third DCA, which faulted the trial court
for entering judgment in favor of the companies after denying
Ms. Frazier's motion for directed verdict.

About 4,000 individual smoker cases were filed on behalf of
smokers in state courts after the Florida Supreme Court in 2006
disbanded a statewide class action named for a Miami Beach
pediatrician, Dr. Howard Engle.

The decision instantly excited the tobacco plaintiffs bar.
"There's emails flying around just in the time I've been talking
to you," Mr. Gerson said.  "There's been 20 of them that came up
on my screen."


                             *********

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  * * *