CAR_Public/150514.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, May 14, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 96


                            Headlines


45-53 WEST: Faces "Colon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
90 MILES: Faces "Jaramillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ABCZ CORP: Strip Workers Get Conditional Cert. in FLSA Suit
ACCOUNT CONTROL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
ADVANCE PLASTICS: Moves "Padilla" Suit to Florida District Court

ADVANCED FOREST: Faces "Rathie" Suit Alleging Injury From Mulcher
ALLIANCE ONE: Sued in N.J. for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
APPLE INC: Falsely Marketed Devices Storage Capacity, Suit Says
ARCAMED LLC: Accused by Ex-Worker of Unfair Pay, False Detention
ARUBA NETWORKS: Mazzafero Filed Notice of Appeal

ARUBA NETWORKS: Defending Against Ballester Action
BANK OF AMERICA: California Appeals Court Reinstates Class Action
BIG CITY GOURMET: Faces "Juarez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wage
BOBCAT COMPANY: Faces "Johnson" Product Liability Suit in Minn.
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Class Cert. Bid Granted in Securities Case

BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Facing Zamir Class Action
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Continues to Defend Guzman Class Action
CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
CLIMATEMASTER INC: Sued Over Defective Thermal Expansion Valves
CONAGRA FOODS: Faces "Lam" Suit Over Packaging of Slim Jim(R)

DAIRY FARMERS: Supreme Court Denies Petition for Certiorari
DIAZ GROUP: "Perez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
DUKE ENERGY: Judge Has Yet to Decide on Bid to Halt Spill Suit
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Judge Dismisses Shareholder Class Action
FACEBOOK INC: Taps Morgan Lewis to Defend Gender Bias Suit

FALONI & ASSOCIATES: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
FFI HOLDING: Sued in Florida Over Use of Telephone Equipment
FIRST ACCEPTANCE: Lykins Action in Early Stages of Discovery
FURMANITE AMERICA: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
GENERAL MILLS: Faces "Backus" Suit Over Misleading Product Label

GENERAL ORGANICS: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Guzman" Suit Says
GLOBAL TEL*LINK: Accused of Violating TCPA in E.D. Pennsylvania
GMRI INC: Faces "Tyczynski" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
GOLD'S GYM: Transferred "Tate" Suit from S.D. Ill. to N.D. Texas
GUY M. TURNER: Sued in Raleigh Over March Train Derailment

HI-TECH INSPECTION: Refuses to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
INCLAN PAINTING: Sued in Fla. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
JE ROBERT: Faces "Boyd" Class Suit Alleging RICO Act Violations
JLW KEY: Faces "Galvez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
JP MORGAN: Illegally Deducts Undisclosed Charges, Action Claims

KOKO & PALENKI: "Diodati" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
MALVAES SOLUTIONS: Faces "Najera" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
MORGAN STANLEY: "Hix" Suit Transferred From New York to Maryland
NEIMAN MARCUS: To Contest Motion to Recover Attorneys' Fees

NEIMAN MARCUS: Rubenstein Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Due
NEIMAN MARCUS: Defending Against Cyber-Attack Class Actions
NESTLE USA: Faces "Backus" Suit Over Misleading Product Label
NOMI: Faces FTC Complaint Over Consumer Data Gathering
NEW YORK, NY: Must Pay Interest Portion of Firefighters' Pension

NORTH DAKOTA DEVELOPMENTS: Sued Over Alleged Illegal Fraud Scheme
NORTHLAND GROUP: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
NOVATEL WIRELESS: No Further Liabilities Related to Class Action
PATTERSON-UTI: Sued in Tex. Over Failure to Provide Layoff Notice
PAUL'S UPHOLSTERY: Faces "Resendez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

PHOEBE PUTNEY: Sued Over Alleged Breach of Fiduciary Duty
PROSKAUER ROSE: Appellate Court Upholds Fraud Claims
REMY COINTREAU: "Alston" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
RISOTTERIA LLC: N.Y. Suit Seeks Compliance With Disabilities Act
ROC SERVICE: Settles Overtime Class Action for $1.25 Million

RUBICON TECHNOLOGY: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
RUSH UNIVERSITY: Faces "Daniels" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
SANDERS FARMS: Sued in S.D. Ga. Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
SCHWEBEL BAKING: "Boyd" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

SPOKEO INC: Supreme Court Takes FCRA Class Action
SPRINT ENERGY: Faces "Bergeron" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
STEAK N SHAKE: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "West" Suit Says
TOTAL TRANSPORTATION: Faces Wrongful Death Suit Over Collision
TRIPLE S: Transferred Galactic Funk Suit to N.D. Alabama

URBAN DECAY: Falsely Marketed Lush Lash Products, Action Claims
WAL-MART STORES: Rana Plaza Factory Collapse Victims File Suit
ZAGG INC: Tenth Circuit Has Not Yet Entered Decision on Appeal

* Damage Remedy for Breach of Exclusive Forum Selection Needed
* Lawyers Contend Lead Generator Marketing Fuels Bogus Claims


                            *********


45-53 WEST: Faces "Colon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Edwin Colon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. 45-53 West 110 Street Housing Development Fund
Corporation, All Area Realty Services, Inc., and Ernedis Jesus
Certuche, Kalitchi Figueroa, and Glenna Meeks, Case No. 1:15-cv-
03382-GHW (S.D.N.Y., April 30, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

45-53 West 110 Street Housing Development Fund Corporation is a
cooperative corporation, run by a Board, which is organized under
Article XI of the Private Housing Finance Law and is the owner of
the Building located at 45-53 West 110th Street, New York, New
York.

All Area Realty Services, Inc. owns and operates a property
management company in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander Todd Coleman, Esq.
      Michael John Borrelli, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES
      1010 Northern Blvd., St. 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com
              mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com

         - and -

      Christopher Berlingieri, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES PLLC
      1010 Northern Blvd
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: cjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com


90 MILES: Faces "Jaramillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Obed Jaramillo, on behalf of himself and all other employees
similarly situated v. 90 Miles Cuban Cafe II, Inc. and Alberto
Gonzales, Case No. 1:15-cv-03887 (N.D. Ill., May 3, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ABCZ CORP: Strip Workers Get Conditional Cert. in FLSA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that a
federal judge has granted certification for a collective action to
strip club disc jockeys and dancers who claim violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Southern District Judge Analisa Torres said conditional
certification was warranted on claims that the VIP Club on 20th
Street in Manhattan improperly classified name plaintiff DJ
Sheldon Romero and others as independent contractors and did not
pay wages at all.

Mr. Romero, a DJ at the club between 2008 and 2014, alleged that
he and three other disc jockeys and 113 dancers at VIP were
compensated only in tips per company policy.

The club had argued that Mr. Romero and his fellow DJs were not
similarly situated to the dancers, who were, in fact, compensated
differently, so that Mr. Romero's claims should be litigated on an
individual basis.

But Judge Torres disagreed, saying, "In sum, because plaintiff has
made the requisite factual showing that he and potential opt-in
plaintiffs 'together were victims of a common policy or plan that
violated'" the FLSA, Romero's motion for conditional collective
action certification is granted.

The case is Romero v. ABCZ Corp., 14 civ. 3653.


ACCOUNT CONTROL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Everton Mullings, on behalf of himself and other similarly
situated consumers v. Account Control Systems, Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-02849-SRC-CLW (D.N.J., April 22, 2015) is brought over
alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew Taylor Sheffield, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL LUPOLOVER
          120 Sylvan Avenue, Suite 300
          Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
          Telephone: (201) 461-0059
          E-mail: matthew@lupoloverlaw.com


ADVANCE PLASTICS: Moves "Padilla" Suit to Florida District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Padilla v. Advance Plastics
Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 15-004583-CA-01, was removed
from the 11th Judicial Circuit in Miami-Dade County, Florida, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
(Miami).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-
21521-JAL to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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: agp@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeffrey Ira Jacobs, Esq.
          MALCA & JACOBS
          Sunset Station Plaza
          5975 Sunset Drive, Suite 801
          South Miami, FL 33143
          Telephone: (305) 662-5500
          E-mail: jjacobs@malcaandjacobs.com


ADVANCED FOREST: Faces "Rathie" Suit Alleging Injury From Mulcher
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Randall D. Rathie v. Advanced Forest Equipment Mfg., Inc., Case
No. 2:15-cv-00538 (E.D. Tex., April 22, 2015) involves the
Defendant's SS Extreme Mulcher attachment for Skid Steers.

On July 31, 2014, Mr. Rathie, a resident of Quitman, in Wood
County, Texas, was injured while using his 299D XHP Skid Steer
with SS EXT attachment.  He contends that the Skid Steer SS EXT
mulching attachment manufactured by the Defendant was defectively
designed and marketed by the Defendant.

Advanced Forest Equipment Mfg., Inc. is a foreign corporation
organized under the laws of the state of Idaho.  AFE is doing
business in the state of Texas in that its products have been sold
to and used by Texas residents.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarom Tefteller, Esq.
          TEFTELLER LAW, PLLC
          403 West Tyler Street
          Gilmer, TX 75644
          Telephone: (903) 843-5678
          Facsimile: (903) 680-2310
          E-mail: jt@teftellerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Lee Fletcher, Esq.
          FLETCHER LAW FIRM, LLP
          P.O. Box 447
          101 S. Main
          Quitman, TX 75783
          Telephone: (903) 763-3370

               - and -

          Ronald W. Armstrong, II, Esq.
          THE ARMSTRONG FIRM, PLLC
          110 Broadway, Suite 444
          San Antonio, TX 78205
          Telephone: (210) 277-0542
          Facsimile: (210) 277-0548
          E-mail: rwaii@armstrong-firm.com


ALLIANCE ONE: Sued in N.J. for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hyun Soon Chung, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
v. Alliance One Receivables Management, Inc., and John Does 1 to
10, Case No. 2:15-cv-02905-MCA-JBC (D.N.J., April 23, 2015) is
brought over alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Ave., 2nd Floor
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273-7117
          Facsimile: (201) 273-7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com


APPLE INC: Falsely Marketed Devices Storage Capacity, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allen Moure, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Apple, Inc. and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. 5:15-cv-01952-HRL (N.D. Cal., April 30, 2015), alleges that
the Defendants has engaged in false, deceptive, and misleading
advertising and trade practices with respect to the promotion and
sale of its 8GB and 16GB iPhones, iPads and iPods to Florida
consumers and to the general public.

During the relevant time period, the Defendant fails to disclose
that the Devices contain up to 23.1% less storage space than
advertised.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John H. Donboli, Esq.
      DEL MAR LAW GROUP, LLP
      12250 El Camino Real, Suite 120
      San Diego, CA 92130
      Telephone: (858) 793-6244
      Facsimile: (858) 793-6005
      E-mail: jdonboli@delmarlawgroup.com

         - and -

      Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
      Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
      Stephanie A. Bartone, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      733 Summer Street, Suite 304
      Stamford, CT 06901
      Telephone: (212) 363-7500
      Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
      E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com
              nkulesa@zlk.com
              sbartone@zlk.com


ARCAMED LLC: Accused by Ex-Worker of Unfair Pay, False Detention
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Rodela v. Arcamed, LLC, and Kashif Qasim, individually,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00658-SEB-MJD (S.D. Ind., April 22, 2015) alleges
that the Plaintiff was paid at a lower rate of pay and salary than
similarly situated male employees at Arcamed.

Ms. Rodela was an employee of Arcamed from August 11, 2014, until
April 22, 2015.  She also alleges that on April 22, after
notifying her that her employment had been terminated, Mr. Qasim
willfully detained her in her office, and refused to permit her to
leave.

Arcamed is a Indiana domestic limited liability corporation
headquartered in Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana.  Mr. Qasim
is an executive level employee of Arcamed.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kathleen A. DeLaney, Esq.
          Mark J. Plantan, Esq.
          DELANEY & DELANEY LLC
          3646 Washington Blvd.
          Indianapolis, IN 46205
          Telephone: (317) 920-0400
          Facsimile: (317) 920-0404
          E-mail: kathleen@delaneylaw.net
                  mplantan@delaneylaw.net


ARUBA NETWORKS: Mazzafero Filed Notice of Appeal
------------------------------------------------
Aruba Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2015, that Mazzafero filed a
notice of appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit appealing the decision of the district court in the
U.S. Federal Court Class Action Litigation.

On May 23, 2013, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit
captioned Mazzafero v. Aruba Networks, Inc., et al., was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Company and certain of its officers. The
purported class action alleges claims for violations of the
federal securities laws, and seeks unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief. On August 1, 2014, the Court dismissed
the case but granted leave to amend. On September 26, 2014, the
purported class filed an amended complaint which made allegations
similar in nature to those in the original complaint. On October
27, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On February 2, 2015, the Court granted Company's motion
to dismiss and entered judgment in favor of the Company. On
February 23, 2015, Mazzafero filed a notice of appeal in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit appealing the
decision of the district court. The Company believes it has
meritorious defenses to these claims and will defend this
litigation vigorously.


ARUBA NETWORKS: Defending Against Ballester Action
--------------------------------------------------
Aruba Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2015, that on March 9, 2015, a
shareholder class action complaint was filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Ballester v. Aruba
Networks, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10765 (Del. Ch. filed March 9,
2015), on behalf of a purported class of Aruba shareholders and
naming as defendants Aruba, Aruba's Board of Directors, Hewlett-
Packard Company, and Aspen Acquisition Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Hewlett-Packard Company.


BANK OF AMERICA: California Appeals Court Reinstates Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a California appeals court has reinstated a class action
filed on behalf of thousands of child actors and other young
performers alleging Bank of America Corp. illegally charged
monthly fees on trust accounts that protect their earnings.

California's Coogan Law, named for Jackie Coogan, a child actor in
silent films who sued his mother and stepfather for spending all
his money, requires that employers set aside 15 percent of a
minor's gross earnings for "artistic or creative services" until
he or she turns 18 years old.

The lawsuit was filed by the parents of two children, Alex
Gonzales and Jadon I. Monroe, who worked as extras.  The complaint
says that the class could total more than 5,000 individuals.
The ruling on April 28 by the Second District Court of Appeal
found that banks weren't excluded from the law's requirement that
withdrawals from so-called Coogan accounts "by the beneficiary or
any other individual, individuals, entity, or entities" must get
court approval.

"The policy of the Coogan Law is to preserve a portion of the
money the child actors earns," said plaintiffs attorney Daria
Carlson -- dcarlson@mzclaw.com -- a partner at Markun Zusman
Freniere Compton, who brought the case in 2012 on behalf of the
parents.

"Bank service fees take away child actors' hard-earned money.  The
court of appeal held the bank service fees violated the law."
Bank of America spokesman Bill Halldin and the bank's attorney,
James Martin -- jcmartin@reedsmith.com -- a partner at Reed Smith,
declined to comment.

The ruling highlights the recurring problem in Hollywood of
parents who spend money made by their children.  Just this month,
actress Mischa Barton, who starred in "The O.C.," sued her mother
for stealing money and kicking her out of a $7.8 million home paid
for by her acting revenues.

In 2013, California's legislature amended the Coogan Law to
exclude extras and background performers, many of whom earn small
paychecks that end up incurring bank charges because they fall
below an account's minimum balance.  The earnings often end up in
the hands of the Actors Fund of America, which has served as
trustee of any unclaimed Coogan funds since 2003.

"There are lots of child actors who appear in commercials, and
they get SAG minimum," said Bruce Sires -- bds@vrmlaw.com -- a
trusts and estates partner at Los Angeles-based Valensi Rose,
referring to entertainment union SAG-AFTRA.  A paycheck for that
kind of work, he said, could result in only $40 being set aside --
hardly enough for a trust account.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge John Shepard Wiley
dismissed the class action in 2013 after concluding that service
charges weren't "withdrawals."  But the appellate panel reversed,
finding that "when a bank debits an account, it necessarily
withdraws money from that account."

The panel also found, however, that the bank could get court
approval or charge fees on the remaining 85 percent of a child
actor's earnings.


BIG CITY GOURMET: Faces "Juarez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Davila Juarez, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Big City Gourmet Inc. d/b/a big city
Gourmet, Maria Gisondi, and James Gounaris, Case No. 1:15-cv-03386
(S.D.N.Y., 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 a restaurant located at 140 Grand
Street, White Plains, New York 10601.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. 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


BOBCAT COMPANY: Faces "Johnson" Product Liability Suit in Minn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Johnson, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals v. Bobcat Company, a Delaware Corporation,
Doosan Infracore Bobcat Holdings Co., Ltd., and Doosan Infracore
Co., Ltd., Case No. 0:15-cv-02097-JRT-HB (D. Minn., April 23,
2015) asserts product liability claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick R. Burns, Esq.
          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
          100 Washington Ave S, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401-2179
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: prburns@locklaw.com
                  rkshelquist@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
          ANDERSON HELGEN DAVIS & NISSEN PA
          150 South Fifth, Suite 3100
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 435-6363
          E-mail: RAP@AndersonHelgen.com


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Class Cert. Bid Granted in Securities Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a motion for class
certification was granted by the Court in a Consolidated
Securities Class Action.

On July 13, 2012, a securities class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California by
Donald K. Franke naming the Company, Andrew Clark, Daniel Devine
and Jane McAuliffe as defendants for allegedly making false and
materially misleading statements regarding the Company's business
and financial results, specifically the concealment of
accreditation problems at Ashford University. The complaint
asserts a putative class period stemming from May 3, 2011 to July
6, 2012. A substantially similar complaint was also filed in the
same court by Luke Sacharczyk on July 17, 2012 making similar
allegations against the Company, Andrew Clark and Daniel Devine.
The Sacharczyk complaint asserts a putative class period stemming
from May 3, 2011 to July 12, 2012. On July 26, 2012, another
purported securities class action complaint was filed in the same
court by David Stein against the same defendants based upon the
same general set of allegations and class period. The complaints
allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seek unspecified monetary relief,
interest, and attorneys' fees.

On October 22, 2012, the Sacharczyk and Stein actions were
consolidated with the Franke action and the Court appointed the
City of Atlanta General Employees Pension Fund and the Teamsters
Local 677 Health Services & Insurance Plan as lead plaintiffs. A
consolidated complaint was filed on December 21, 2012 and the
Company filed a motion to dismiss on February 19, 2013. On
September 13, 2013, the Court granted the motion to dismiss with
leave to amend for alleged misrepresentations relating to Ashford
University's quality of education, the WSCUC accreditation process
and the Company's financial forecasts. The Court denied the motion
to dismiss for alleged misrepresentations concerning Ashford
University's persistence rates. The plaintiff did not file an
amended complaint by the October 31, 2013 deadline and therefore
the case is now proceeding to discovery. On August 6, 2014, the
plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, which was
granted by the Court on January 15, 2015.

"The outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point
because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise. At
present, the Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss
for this action based on the information available to the Company.
Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any liability associated
with this action," the Company said.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Facing Zamir Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company is
facing the class action Zamir v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc., et
al.

On February 24, 2015, a securities class action complaint was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California by Nelda Zamir naming the Company, Andrew Clark and
Daniel Devine as defendants. The complaint asserts violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, claiming that the defendants made false
and materially misleading statements and failed to disclose
material adverse facts regarding the Company's business,
operations and prospects, specifically regarding the Company's
improper application of revenue recognition methodology to assess
collectibility of funds owed by students. The complaint asserts a
putative class period stemming from August 7, 2012 to May 30,
2014. The complaint has not yet been served.

The Company is evaluating the complaint and intends to vigorously
defend against it. However, because of the many questions of fact
and law that may arise, the outcome of the legal proceeding is
uncertain at this point. Based on information available to the
Company at present, it cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss
and accordingly has not accrued any liability associated with this
action.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Continues to Defend Guzman Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company
continues to defend the class action Guzman v. Bridgepoint
Education, Inc.

In January 2011, Betty Guzman filed a class action lawsuit against
the Company, Ashford University and University of the Rockies in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
The complaint is entitled Guzman v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc.,
et al., and alleges that the defendants engaged in
misrepresentation and other unlawful behavior in their efforts to
recruit and retain students. The complaint asserts a putative
class period of March 1, 2005 through the present. In March 2011,
the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was
granted by the Court with leave to amend in October 2011.

In January 2012, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint
asserting similar claims and the same class period, and the
defendants filed another motion to dismiss. In May 2012, the Court
granted University of the Rockies' motion to dismiss and granted
in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss filed by the
Company and Ashford University. The Court also granted the
plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint.

In August 2012, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint
asserting similar claims and the same class period. The second
amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary relief, disgorgement
of all profits, various other equitable relief, and attorneys'
fees. The defendants filed a motion to strike portions of the
second amended complaint, which was granted in part and denied in
part.

On March 14, 2013, the Company filed a motion to deny class
certification for students enrolled on or after May 2007 when
Ashford University adopted a binding arbitration policy. On August
23, 2013, the Court denied the motion finding that although "some"
absent class members in this case may have signed an enforceable
arbitration agreement, this does not demonstrate an overbroad or
unascertainable class that forecloses certification at this stage
of the proceedings. On September 23, 2013, the Court entered an
order bifurcating discovery and permitting only class
certification discovery to take place until the plaintiff's motion
for class certification, which was filed on April 30, 2014, is
decided.

"The outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point
because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise. At
present, the Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss
for this action based on the information available to the Company.
Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any liability associated
with this action," the Company said.


CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lara Robertson, individually and on Behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Centene Management Company LLC and Sunshine State
Health Plan, Inc. d/b/a Sunshine Health, Case No. 1:15-cv-00086-
MW-GRJ (N.D. Fla., May 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Centene Management Corporation LLC is a Wisconsin corporation that
operates a multi-line healthcare enterprise that provides programs
and related services to a number of under-insured and uninsured
individuals.

Sunshine State Health Plan, Inc. Florida for-profit corporation
with its corporate headquarters located at 7700 Forsyth
Boulevard, Suite 800, St. Louis, Missouri. Sunshine is wholly
owned by the Centene Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremiah J. Talbott, Esq.
      JEREMIAH J. TALBOTT, P.A.
      900 East Moreno Street
      Pensacola, FL 32503
      Telephone: (850) 437-9600
      Facsimile: (850) 437-0906
      E-mail: jjtalbott@talbottlawfirm.com

         - and -

      Sean Culliton, Esq.
      Sean Culliton, Esq., LLC
      150 John Knox Road
      Tallahassee, FL 32303
      Telephone: (850) 385-9455
      Facsimile: (850) 906-9455
      E-mail: Sean.Culliton@gmail.com

         - and -

      John C. Davis, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. DAVIS
      623 Beard Street
      Tallahassee, FL, 32303
      Telephone: (850) 222-4770
      Facsimile: (850) 222-3119
      E-mail: john@johndavislaw.net


CLIMATEMASTER INC: Sued Over Defective Thermal Expansion Valves
---------------------------------------------------------------
Travis Emmert and John Ronafalvy, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Climatemaster, Inc., Case No. 5:15-
cv-00458-R (W.D. Okla., April 30, 2015), is a lawsuit that seeks
to recover damages sustained by consumers and contractors arising
from a manufacturing defect that has caused widespread failures of
Thermal Expansion Valves (TXVs) used in air conditioning and heat
pump equipment manufactured by the Defendant.

Climatemaster, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Oklahoma City. ClimateMaster is the world's largest manufacturer
of American Made residential geothermal heating and cooling
systems.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Sill, Esq.
      Katie Griffin, Esq.
      SILL LAW GROUP
      14005 N. Eastern Avenue
      Edmond, OK 73013
      Telephone: (405) 509-6300
      E-mail: matt@sill-law.com
              Katie@sill-law.com

         - and -

      Timothy N. Mathews, Esq.
      Christina Donato Saler, Esq.
      CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
      One Haverford Centre
      361 West Lancaster Avenue
      Haverford, PA 19041
      Telephone: (610) 642-8500
      E-mail: tnm@chimicles.com
              cds@chimicles.com


CONAGRA FOODS: Faces "Lam" Suit Over Packaging of Slim Jim(R)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jaime Lam, Richard A. Rizzu, Freddie Escobar, David Myers, John
Doe (New Jersey), John Doe (Michigan), John Doe (Florida) and John
Does 1-100, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated
v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02334-MKB-RML (E.D.N.Y.,
April 23, 2015) seeks redress for a deceptive and otherwise
improper business practice that the Defendant engages in with
respect to the packaging of its "Slim Jim(R)" products.

The Slim Jim(R) products are dried sausage snack products that are
marketed and categorized as "meat sticks" and come in a variety of
flavors.  The Plaintiffs allege that the Slim Jim(R) Products are
packaged in containers made, formed or filled as to be misleading
and contain non-functional slack-fill in violation of the Federal
Food Drug & Cosmetic Act.  The Plaintiffs add that the size of the
box in comparison to the actual Product makes it appear that the
consumer is buying more than what is actually being sold.

ConAgra is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Omaha,
Nebraska.  ConAgra manufactured, advertised, marketed and sold
Slim Jim(R) Products and other food products to millions of
consumers nationwide, including in New York, California, and
Illinois.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


DAIRY FARMERS: Supreme Court Denies Petition for Certiorari
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for Law.com, reports that the U.S. Supreme
Court on April 27 declined to wade into four-year-old antitrust
litigation targeting major players in the nationwide dairy
industry, rebuffing claims that a California federal judge
improperly certified the massive case as a class action.

The high court denied a petition for certiorari filed by Eimer
Stahl's Nathan Eimer -- neimer@eimerstahl.com -- who represents
defendant Land O'Lakes Inc. along with lawyers at Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher.  Defendants Dairy Farmers of America Inc. (represented
by Williams & Connolly), the National Milk Producers Federation
(Steptoe & Johnson), Dairylea Cooperative Inc. (Bond Schoeneck &
King) and Agri-Mark Inc. (Shipman & Goodwin) also joined the
petition, seeking to derail class allegations that they conspired
to drive up the price of milk.

The lawsuit accuses the milk companies of agreeing to an unlawful,
"herd-thinning" scheme, in which they killed more than 500,000
cows to reduce supply and increase nationwide milk prices.  The
Supreme Court's order leaves in place a September 2014 ruling on
class certification by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White in
Oakland.

Siding with plaintiffs lawyers, led by Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro's Steve Berman, White granted class status to consumers
from 14 states, plus the District of Columbia, who purchased milk
and other dairy products starting in 2003.

The dairy producers originally turned to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, asking it to hear an interlocutory appeal
of White's ruling.  The defense lawyers argued that White hadn't
taken a close enough look at testimony from the plaintiffs'
damages expert, who maintained that there was a way to calculate
how herd-thinning led to increased prices at the farm level that
were then passed on to consumers.

According to the plaintiffs' expert, potential damages in the case
range from about $2.4 billion to $4 billion after trebling under
antitrust law.  In their brief to the Ninth Circuit, the defense
lawyers argued that allowing the case proceed as a class action
created "death-knell situation that may defeat end-of-case
review."

The plaintiffs countered that the milk producers had made "no
showing that the potential liability overwhelms the vast resources
of the largest dairy cooperatives in the country."

The Ninth Circuit declined to hear the appeal in December, sending
the defendants on their detour to the Supreme Court.

In their cert petition, the milk producers maintained that by
certifying a class of more than 100 million consumers, the
district judge disregarded the Supreme Court's rulings on class
certification in Wal-Mart v. Dukes and Comcast v. Behrend.

"Far from conducting the 'rigorous analysis' demanded by
Wal-Mart . . . the district court accepted the class expert's
impact and damages model without any scrutiny," Mr. Eimer wrote in
the petition.  "The district court held that it would not and need
not consider any of the defendants' uncontroverted evidence
showing that injury and damages were not susceptible to common
proof."

Mr. Berman, who's leading the plaintiffs' legal team, didn't
respond to a request for comment on April 27.  The plaintiffs
waived their right to respond to the milk producers' cert
petition.

Defense lawyers, including Eimer and Williams & Connolly's
Steven Kuney -- skuney@wc.com -- weren't immediately available for
comment.


DIAZ GROUP: "Perez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Guillermo Perez and other similarly-situated individuals v. Diaz
Group Construction, LLC, Antonio M. Diaz and Elizabeth M. Diaz,
Case No. 1:15-cv-21653-JLK (S.D. Fla., April 30, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

Diaz Group Construction, LLC is a full service general contractor
specialized in commercial and residential projects.

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


DUKE ENERGY: Judge Has Yet to Decide on Bid to Halt Spill Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Randall Chase, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
Delaware judge is considering Duke Energy's request for a six-
month halt of a shareholder lawsuit prompted by a massive coal ash
spill in North Carolina while the company tries to resolve related
lawsuits and finalize a $102 million settlement of a federal
criminal investigation.

After hearing arguments on May 5, Vice Chancellor John Noble of
Delaware's chancery court, which specializes in business disputes,
declined to rule immediately.  He said he would await the outcome
of a hearing in North Carolina next week in the U.S. Department of
Justice criminal case, which involves nine alleged misdemeanor
violations of the Clean Water Act from the 2014 spill.

"We hope and expect that the DOJ matter will be resolved soon,"
said Kenneth Nachbar, an attorney for Duke Energy.

Duke Energy agreed in February to settle the criminal case for $68
million in fines and restitution and $34 million in community
services and mitigation, paid by shareholders.

Mr. Noble also said that before deciding whether to halt the
shareholder case, he'll await the results of a status hearing next
week involving several enforcement actions brought by North
Carolina environmental regulators.

The shareholder plaintiffs accuse current and former Duke Energy
officers and directors of breaching their fiduciary duties.
Specifically, they claim Duke Energy officials knowingly allowed
the company to repeatedly violate state and federal environmental
laws, exposing it to hundreds of millions of dollars in fines,
penalties and cleanup costs.

Plaintiffs attorney Robert Hoffman argued that the case should
proceed with document exchange and with briefing on Duke Energy's
motion to dismiss, and that no delay was warranted.

"It will delay a recovery for Duke and its stockholders," he said.

As shareholders, the plaintiffs filed a "derivative" action on
behalf of the company, seeking restitution from the individual
defendants.

Mr. Nachbar argued that if the plaintiffs were truly acting in the
company's best interests, it made no sense for them to pursue
allegations that Duke Energy officials willfully violated
environmental laws when the company was trying to defend itself
from similar allegations in other lawsuits.

"It doesn't do the company any good to have purported champions of
the company arguing in court that the company committed
intentional violations of the law," Mr. Nachbar said.

In a similar vein, Mr. Noble stopped Mr. Hoffman in mid-sentence
as he rattled off a list of alleged violations by Duke Energy.

"How does reciting these facts benefit Duke Energy shareholders?"
asked the judge, who also wondered whether it made more sense for
the case to proceed once the cost from related lawsuits is known.

"Doesn't it make sense to know what the total bill is?" he asked.

Mr. Hoffman noted that the company already has incurred concrete
and actual damages, including the proposed $102 million DOJ
settlement and $24 million to date in cleanup costs, and that
there's little dispute that it is responsible for the coal ash
spill.

"We're not rooting for some major liability to be incurred by
Duke," he added.

The lawsuits by regulators and environmentalists were prompted by
a spill in February 2014 at a Duke Energy power plant near Eden,
North Carolina, when a corrugated metal pipe below a containment
pond failed.  The spill coated 70 miles of the Dan River in toxic
sludge and prompted concerns about the safety of more than 60
other Duke Energy coal ash dumps in five states, including 32 in
North Carolina.

A Duke Energy spokesman, Dave Scanzoni in Charlotte, North
Carolina, said in an email on May 5 that many of the issues raised
by the suit were being litigated in other court cases.  "Duke
Energy believes that it's important to resolve those other cases
before proceeding with the shareholders suit," he wrote.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Judge Dismisses Shareholder Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Scott Graham, writing for The Recorder, reports that Electronic
Arts' Battlefield 4 video game may have been riddled with bugs
during its 2013 launch, but its defense of an ensuing class action
has been airtight.

For the second time, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston on April 30
dismissed a shareholder action against the company that accused EA
executives of falsely claiming to have "derisked" the launch of
Battlefield 4.  Investors bid up the company's stock, allowing
executives to cash out, before a disastrous roll-out caused the
stock price to crater, alleged attorneys with Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd.

Judge Illston rejected the complaint last fall, saying assurances
of "derisking" were vague corporate puffery akin to calling a
product "high-quality" or "improved."  Robbins Geller filed an
amended complaint arguing that "derisk" has a specific meaning in
the video game industry, but Illston again demurred.

Rather than promising "a panacea for technological glitches,
defendants used the term 'derisk' to signify reduced operating
costs, increased efficiency, and higher profit margins stemming
from the use of a common technology engine across current and
next-generation platforms," Judge Illston wrote in Kelly v.
Electronic Arts.

An Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe team of partners Robert Varian
-- rvarian@orrick.com -- and James Kramer -- jkramer@orrick.com --
and associate Alexander Talarides -- atalarides@orrick.com --
represented EA.

The Battlefield series is one EA's most popular titles.  According
to the complaint, Battlefield 3 generated 11 percent of EA
revenues in fiscal year 2012.  Battlefield 4 was designed for a
new generation of gaming consoles, Sony's PlayStation 4 and
Microsoft's Xbox One.

Electronic Arts had some history of difficult transitions to new
platforms.  According to the complaint, throughout 2013 EA CEO
Andrew Wilson and other executives assured investors that those
difficulties had been solved.  "I think that our launch software
this time is head and shoulders above where we were last time,"
Mr. Wilson said in an October 2013 earnings call.

"The technology side or the engine side of this transition has
largely been derisked," EA vice president Frank Gibeau said in a
May 2013 earnings call.

Mr. Wilson, Mr. Gibeau and EA president Peter Moore sold 701,959
shares of EA stock for a total of $17 million during the second
half of 2013, the complaint alleged.  But when the company
released Battlefield 4 in November, disaster struck.  Bugs
rendered the game unplayable for many buyers, and Wilson later
admitted that "the situation we had was unacceptable."  The stock
price dropped some 25 percent during the fall of 2013.

Robbins Geller partner Shawn Williams -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com --
argued in his amended complaint that "derisk" -- a term used
repeatedly by EA executives -- specifically meant making the game
safer.  He also cited an interview in which Wilson said
Battlefield 4 was built "on an unfinished platform with unfinished
software."

That did not persuade Judge Illston, the Northern District of
California judge.  "Derisk" is a vague term that can also refer to
cost, efficiency, and investments, she wrote.  And Mr. Wilson's
"unfinished" statement referred to the next-generation gaming
consoles -- not EA's own development platform.

"The court continues to find that each of the defendants'
statements represents an inactionable vague statement of corporate
puffery," she concluded.


FACEBOOK INC: Taps Morgan Lewis to Defend Gender Bias Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that Facebook
Inc. has tapped Morgan, Lewis & Bockius partner Melinda Riechert
-- mriechert@morganlewis.com -- to defend the company against
gender discrimination and harassment claims brought by a former
employee.

Ms. Riechert filed Facebook's first response to the allegations on
April 24, claiming the company fired plaintiff Chia Hong in 2013
in "just and proper exercise of managerial discretion, undertaken
for fair and honest reasons."

The filing sets the stage for a showdown between Ms. Riechert and
Hong's attorneys at Lawless & Lawless, who last month wrapped up a
high-profile gender bias trial against Silicon Valley firm Kleiner
Perkins Caufield & Byers.  Therese Lawless lost that case on
behalf of former junior partner Ellen Pao, but the trial placed a
spotlight on the low numbers of women in the venture-capital and
tech industries.

Ms. Lawless and her sister, Barbara Lawless, sued Facebook in San
Mateo Superior Court in the midst of the Kleiner Perkins trial.
They claim Ms. Hong's supervisor belittled her at work, asking why
she did not just stay home and take care of her child, ordering
her to serve drinks to male colleagues, and ignoring her input
during meetings.

Ms. Hong's claims echo Ms. Pao's allegations that she was denied
promotions and fired because she is a woman.  Ms. Pao had claimed
supervisors told her and another female colleague to take notes
during a meeting, and forced the women to sit at the back during a
conference.

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe partner Lynne Hermle --
lchermle@orrick.com -- who represented Kleiner Perkins in that
case, is defending Twitter Inc. in a similar suit filed last
month.  Plaintiff Tina Huang, a former Twitter software engineer,
brought a potential class action claiming the company failed to
promote qualified female employees.


FALONI & ASSOCIATES: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alfredo Maldonado, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated v. Law Offices of Faloni & Associates, LLC, LVNV Funding
LLC and John Does 1 to 10, Case No. 2:15-cv-02859-SRC-CLW (D.N.J.,
April 22, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Ave., 2nd Floor
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273-7117
          Facsimile: (201) 273-7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com


FFI HOLDING: Sued in Florida Over Use of Telephone Equipment
------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Ramos, an individual on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. FFI Holding Florida, Inc., d/b/a La Familia
Pawn and Jewelry, and CDYNE Corp., Case No. 6:15-cv-00647-GKS-GJK
(M.D. Fla., April 23, 2015) arises from restrictions on use of
telephone equipment.


FIRST ACCEPTANCE: Lykins Action in Early Stages of Discovery
------------------------------------------------------------
First Acceptance Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the class action
lawsuit styled Lykins, et al. v. First Acceptance Corporation, et
al. is still in its early stages of discovery.

In January 2014, one current and three former employees filed a
class action lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The case is styled
Lykins, et al. v. First Acceptance Corporation, et al. The suit
alleges the Company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by
misclassifying its insurance agents as exempt employees.
Plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, overtime, attorneys' fees and costs.
The Company answered the plaintiffs' Complaint and denied all of
the allegations contained therein. In April 2014, the case was
conditionally certified as a class action, and a notice regarding
the case was sent to all potential class members. Approximately
200 individuals chose to participate in the case during the opt-in
period which closed on July 15, 2014. The Company strongly
disagrees with the allegations and will put forth a vigorous
defense. The case is still in its early stages of discovery. This
litigation will likely have a lengthy duration. Therefore, an
estimate of the ultimate impact of this litigation on the Company,
if any, cannot be made at this time.


FURMANITE AMERICA: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Christian, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Furmanite America, Incorporated, Case
No. 2:15-cv-00946-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal., April 30, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Furmanite America, Incorporated is a Virginia Corporation doing
business in the County of Solano, California. Furmanite is a large
industrial company that provides a variety of products and
services in the machining, piping, and customer engineering
fields.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GENERAL MILLS: Faces "Backus" Suit Over Misleading Product Label
----------------------------------------------------------------
Troy Backus, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. General Mills, Inc. and General Mills Sales, Inc.,
Case No. 3:15-cv-01964 (N.D. Cal., April 30, 2015), arises out of
the Defendant's unlawful conduct of marketing and selling the
Trans Fat Baking Mixes using a false and unauthorized nutrient
content claim "0g trans-fat".

General Mills' baking mix products contains partially hydrogenated
oil (PHO), a food additive banned in many parts of the world
because it contains artificial trans-fat, a toxic carcinogen for
which there are many safe and commercially acceptable substitutes.

The Defendants are Delaware corporations that manufacture and
market branded consumer food products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory S. Weston, Esq.
      Paul K. Joseph, Esq.
      THE WESTON FIRM
      1405 Morena Blvd., Suite 201
      San Diego, CA 92110
      Telephone: (619) 798-2006
      Facsimile: (480) 247-4553


GENERAL ORGANICS: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Guzman" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Martiniano Reza Guzman, on behalf of himself and all other
employees similarly situated v. General Organics, Inc. and Siraj
Sabri, Case No. 1:15-cv-03884 (N.D. Ill., May 3, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate an Environmental Services company
located in 2309 S Keeler Ave, Chicago, Illinois, United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GLOBAL TEL*LINK: Accused of Violating TCPA in E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
Earl Reese, Walter Chruby, Stephen Orosz, Jr., Michael Veon, Larry
Bageant, Luann Bouvier, Wesley Harper, Robert Holmes, Stephen
Orosz, Emily Orosz, Carl Peterkin, Stephanie Veon and Lewis
Brooks, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-02197-
MAM (E.D. Pa., April 23, 2015) alleges violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT & BENDESKY
          1650 Market St., 52nd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 575-3895
          E-mail: phoward@smbb.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.
2:15-cv-00949-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal., May 1, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate restaurants 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: Robert.Drexler@capstonelawyers.com
              Matthew.Theriault@Capstonelawyers.com
              Stan.Karas@capstonelawyers.com
              Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com
              Jonathan.Lee@CapstoneLawyers.com


GOLD'S GYM: Transferred "Tate" Suit from S.D. Ill. to N.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned David Tate and Jeffrey Mason v.
Gold's Gym International, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-00861, was
transferred in from U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Illinois to the U.S. District Court Northern District of Texas
(Dallas). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-
01374-L to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts causes of action under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act. The Plaintiff contends that Gold's
Gym violated the state law by failing to provide Consolidated
Omnibus Reconciliation Act (COBRA) Notice of Rights in a timely
fashion.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher B. Daniels, Esq.
      DANIELS LAW FIRM PC
      106 Cross Creek Blvd
      Salem, IL 62881
      Telephone: (618) 548-6500
      Facsimile: (618) 548-6573
      E-mail: chris.daniels@danielslawoffice.net

         - and -

      D. Eric Sowers, Esq.
      Ferne P. Wolf, Esq.
      Joshua M. Pierson, Esq.
      SOWERS & WOLF LLC
      530 Maryville Centre Drive, Suite 460
      St. Louis, MO 63141
      Telephone: (314) 744-4010
      Facsimile: (314) 744-4026
      E-mail: es@sowerswolf.com
              fw@sowerswolf.com
              jp@sowerswolf.com

         - and -

      J D Graham Jr., Esq.
      J.D. GRAHAM PC
      1103 Frontage Road
      O'Fallon, IL 62269
      Telephone: (618) 235-9800
      Facsimile: (618) 235-9805
      E-mail: jd@jdgrahamlaw.com


GUY M. TURNER: Sued in Raleigh Over March Train Derailment
----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Drew, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
lawsuit filed on May 1 by Amtrak and CSX alleges that a trucking
company caused a March train derailment that injured 55 people by
failing to take safety precautions or warn that the track was
blocked.

The lawsuit in a Raleigh federal court blames Guy M. Turner Inc.
of Greensboro for the March 9 crash in which an Amtrak passenger
train collided with an oversized tractor-trailer.  The lawsuit
says the driver blocked the crossing in disregard of safety signs
and failed to notify CSX, which owns the track, or Amtrak that the
railway was blocked.  It also says that the trucking company's
Turner Transfer division failed to take reasonable safety
precautions.

"Turner Transfer knew or should have known that its activities
were inherently dangerous, but nevertheless failed to take
reasonable precautions to avoid injury or ensure that such
precautions were taken," the lawsuit says.

The oversized truck carrying electrical equipment was attempting
to make a left turn when it got stuck at the railway crossing in
Halifax, North Carolina.  The shipment was bound from North
Carolina to New Jersey.

Witnesses have said that the driver of the truck spent between 15
and 20 minutes fussing over the load and then moving back and
forth in the crossing before the railroad warning arms came down.
He jumped out just before impact.

The lawsuit doesn't specify an amount of damages being sought but
says it would be more than $75,000 for each company.

CSX and Amtrak also expect to face personal injury claims from
people in the crash, but the trucking company should bear
financial responsibility for those claims because it caused the
crash, according to the lawsuit.

Spokeswomen for CSX and Amtrak said the companies couldn't comment
on pending litigation, and a spokeswoman for the trucking company
didn't immediately return a message left late on May 1.

The lawsuit says the trucking company is responsible for the
actions of the truck driver and two civilian escort drivers.  It
also says the company was negligent for employing a driver with a
history of safety violations.


HI-TECH INSPECTION: Refuses to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Sierra, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216
(b) v. Hi-Tech Inspection Services, Inc., and Michael Hilburn,
Case No. 3:15-cv-01237-P (N.D. Tex., April 23, 2015) alleges that
the Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay the
Plaintiff's overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Hi-Tech Inspection Services Inc. is a corporation that regularly
transacts business within Dallas County.  Michael Hilburn is a
corporate officer, owner or manager of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          Robert L. Manteuffel, Esq.
          Joshua A. Petersen, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.C.
          6310 LBJ Freeway, Suite 112
          Dallas, TX 75240
          Telephone: (972) 233-2264
          Facsimile: (972) 386-7610
          E-mail: zabogado@aol.com
                  rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net
                  josh.a.petersen@gmail.com


INCLAN PAINTING: Sued in Fla. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Sanchez Rodriguez, and others similarly-situated v. Inclan
Painting and Waterproofing, Corp. and Luis Inclan, Case No. 1:15-
cv-21659-MGC (S.D. Fla., May 1, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a painting company with its
principal place of business located at 12252 SW 128th Street,
Miami, Florida 33186.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
      DANIEL T FELD P.A.
      20801 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 403
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (786) 923-5899
      E-mail: DanielFeld.Esq@Gmail.com

         - and -

      Isaac Jackie Mamane, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ISAAC MAMANE
      1150 Kane Concourse, Floor 2
      Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
      Telephone: (305) 448-9292
      Facsimile: (305) 448-9477
      E-mail: Mamane@gmail.com


JE ROBERT: Faces "Boyd" Class Suit Alleging RICO Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joan Grant Boyd, Sybil Taylor and Tonya Warters, On behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated v. J.E. Robert C.O.,
Inc., JER Revenue Services, LLC, NYCTL 1996-1 Trust, NYCTL 1998-1
Trust, NYCTL 1999-1 Trust and NYCTL 1999-1 Trust, Case No. 1:15-
cv-02302-BMC (E.D.N.Y., April 22, 2015) alleges violations of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul Grobman, Esq.
          555 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-5880
          Facsimile: (212) 682-7060
          E-mail: grobtown@aol.com


JLW KEY: Faces "Galvez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Uriel A. Galvez and other similarly-situated individuals v. JLW
Key West 1, LLC d/b/a/ Comfort Inn Key West, Case No. 4:15-cv-
10066-JLK (S.D. Fla., April 30, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

JLW Key West 1, LLC owns and operates a Hotel located at 3820
North Roosevelt Blvd., Key West FL 33040. 4441 Collins Avenue,
Miami Beach, 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


JP MORGAN: Illegally Deducts Undisclosed Charges, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Michael Merryman, et al. v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
Case No. 5:15-cv-05100 (W.D. Ark., May 1, 2015), is a class action
injunctive relief and to recover damages on behalf of the
Plaintiffs and proposed Class members for harm suffered as a
result of the Defendants' unlawful practice of systematically
deducting undisclosed and unreasonable charges from dividend and
cash distributions issued by foreign companies and rightfully
owned to the American Depositary Receipts (ADR) holders.

JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.is one of the world's leading investment
and depositary banks.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amy C. Martin, Esq.
      EVERETT, WALES & COMSTOCK
      1944 East Joyce Blvd.
      P.O. Box 8370
      Fayetteville, AR 72703
      Telephone: (479) 443-0292
      Facsimile: (479) 443-0564
      E-mail: amy@everettfirm.com

         - and -

      G. Chadd Mason, Esq.
      MASON LAW FIRM, PLC
      P. O. Box 1265
      6220 East Mission
      Fayetteville, AR 72703
      Telephone: (479) 442-6464
      Facsimile: (479) 841-3770
      E-mail: chaddmason@aol.com

         - and -

      Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
      Sharan Nirmul, Esq.
      Jonathan Neumann, Esq.
      KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
      280 King of Prussia Road,
      Radnor, PA 19087
      Telephone: (610) 667-7706
      Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
      E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
              snirmul@ktmc.com
              jneumann@ktmc.com


KOKO & PALENKI: "Diodati" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maria R. Diodati v. Koko & Palenki, Inc., Pamela A. Garcia and
Justin J. Garcia, Case No. 1:15-cv-21650-WJZ (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 high end fashion boutique with
locations in at least three of the most expensive retail
properties in at Miami, specializing in the sale of an extensive
selection of luxury brand designers.

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


MALVAES SOLUTIONS: Faces "Najera" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Najera, on behalf of himself and all other employees
similarly situated v. Malvaes Solutions Incorporated and Jesse
Malvaes, Case No. 1:15-cv-03886 (N.D. Ill., May 3, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald F. Weilert and Ann M. Weilert, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company, Case No. 1:15-cv-03375-UA (S.D.N.Y., April 30, 2015),
alleges that the Defendant made false and misleading statements
with respect to its overall financial strength by using parental
guarantees in shadow insurance transaction agreements with captive
reinsurers.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a New York life insurance
company with headquarters located at 200 Park Avenue, New York.
New York 10166.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
      Joseph Howard Meltzer, Esq.
      Naumon A. Amjed, Esq.
      KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
      280 King of Prussia Road
      Radnor, PA 19087
      Telephone: (610) 667-7706
      Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
      E-mail: eciolko@ktmc.com
              jmeltzer@ktmc.com
              namjed@ktmc.com


MORGAN STANLEY: "Hix" Suit Transferred From New York to Maryland
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Shelley Hix v. Morgan Stanley &
Co., LLC, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00217, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (Baltimore).  The
Maryland District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01157-MJG
to the proceeding.

Pursuant to Morgan Stanley's policy, pattern or practice, the
Plaintiff regularly performed work as an Operations Associate for
Morgan Stanley's benefit without proper compensation, according to
the complaint.  The complaint adds that Morgan Stanley did not pay
the Plaintiff proper overtime premium for all hours worked, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey A. Klafter, Esq.
          Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
          Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
          Jason Conway, Esq.
          KLAFTER, OLSEN & LESSER, LLP
          Two International Drive, Suite 350
          Rye Brook, NY 10573
          Telephone: (914) 934-9200
          Facsimile: (914) 934-9220
          E-mail: jak@klafterolsen.com
                  SLesser@klafterolsen.com
                  frudich@klafterolsen.com
                  jconway@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Paolo Meireles, Esq.
          Susan H. Stern, Esq.
          Michael J. Palitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          1515 South Federal Highway, Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
                  pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com
                  sstern@shavitzlaw.com
                  mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Sam Scott Shaulson, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          101 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10178
          Telephone: (212) 309-6718
          Facsimile: (212) 309-6273
          E-mail: sshaulson@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Thomas Anton Linthorst, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          502 Carnegie Center
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (609) 919-6642
          Facsimile: (609) 919-6701
          E-mail: tlinthorst@morganlewis.com


NEIMAN MARCUS: To Contest Motion to Recover Attorneys' Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended January 31, 2015, that the Company will
contest a motion seeking to recover catalyst attorneys' fees from
the Company.

On April 30, 2010, a Class Action Complaint for Injunction and
Equitable Relief was filed against the Company, Newton Holding,
LLC, TPG Capital, L.P. and Warburg Pincus LLC in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California by Sheila
Monjazeb, individually and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated. On July 12, 2010, all
defendants except for the Company were dismissed without
prejudice, and on August 20, 2010, this case was dismissed by Ms.
Monjazeb and refiled in the Superior Court of California for San
Francisco County. This complaint, along with a similar class
action lawsuit originally filed by Bernadette Tanguilig in 2007,
alleges that the Company has engaged in various violations of the
California Labor Code and Business and Professions Code, including
without limitation, by (1) asking employees to work "off the
clock," (2) failing to provide meal and rest breaks to its
employees, (3) improperly calculating deductions on paychecks
delivered to its employees and (4) failing to provide a chair or
allow employees to sit during shifts. The Monjazeb and Tanguilig
class actions were deemed "related" cases and were then brought
before the same trial court judge.  On October 24, 2011, the court
granted the Company's motion to compel Ms. Monjazeb and Juan
Carlos Pinela (a co-plaintiff in the Tanguilig case) to arbitrate
their individual claims in accordance with the Company's Mandatory
Arbitration Agreement, foreclosing their ability to pursue a class
action in court. However, the court's order compelling arbitration
did not apply to Ms. Tanguilig because she is not bound by the
Mandatory Arbitration Agreement.  Further, the court determined
that Ms. Tanguilig could not be a class representative of
employees who are subject to the Mandatory Arbitration Agreement,
thereby limiting the putative class action to those associates who
were employed between December 2003 and July 15, 2007 (the
effective date of our Mandatory Arbitration Agreement).  Following
the court's order, Ms. Monjazeb and Mr. Pinela filed demands for
arbitration with the American Arbitration Association (AAA)
seeking to arbitrate not only their individual claims, but also
class claims, which the Company asserted violated the class action
waiver in the Mandatory Arbitration Agreement. This led to further
proceedings in the trial court, a stay of the arbitrations, and a
decision by the trial court, on its own motion, to reconsider its
order compelling arbitration. The trial court ultimately decided
to vacate its order compelling arbitration due to a recent
California appellate court decision.  Following this ruling, the
Company timely filed two separate appeals, one with respect to Mr.
Pinela and one with respect to Ms. Monjazeb, with the Court of
Appeal, asserting that the trial court did not have jurisdiction
to change its earlier determination of the enforceability of the
arbitration agreement. The appeal with respect to Mr. Pinela has
been fully briefed and awaits the setting of a date for oral
argument. The appeal with respect to Ms. Monjazeb was dismissed
since final approval of the class action settlement granted.

Notwithstanding the appeal, the trial court decided to set certain
civil penalty claims asserted by Ms. Tanguilig for trial on April
1, 2014. In these claims, Ms. Tanguilig sought civil penalties
under the Private Attorneys General Act based on the Company's
alleged failure to provide employees with meal periods and rest
breaks in compliance with California law. On December 10, 2013,
the Company filed a motion to dismiss all of Ms. Tanguilig's
claims, including the civil penalty claims, based on her failure
to bring her claims to trial within five years as required by
California law. After several hearings, on February 28, 2014, the
court dismissed all of Ms. Tanguilig's claims in the case and
vacated the April 1, 2014 trial date. The court has awarded the
Company its costs of suit in connection with the defense of Ms.
Tanguilig's claims, but denied its request of an attorneys' fees
award from Ms. Tanguilig. Ms. Tanguilig filed a notice of appeal
from the dismissal of all her claims, as well as a second notice
of appeal from the award of costs, both of which are pending
before the Court of Appeal. Should the Court of Appeal reverse the
trial court's dismissal of all of Ms. Tanguilig's claims, the
litigation will resume, and Ms. Tanguilig will seek class
certification of the claims asserted in her Third Amended
Complaint. If this occurs, the scope of her class claims will
likely be reduced by the class action settlement and release in
the Monjazeb case; however, that settlement does not cover claims
asserted by Ms. Tanguilig for alleged Labor Code violations from
approximately December 19, 2003 to August 20, 2006 (the beginning
of the settlement class period in the Monjazeb case). Briefing on
the appeals is underway, but no date has been set for oral
argument.

In Ms. Monjazeb's class action, a settlement was reached at a
mediation held on January 25, 2014. After several hearings, the
trial court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on May
6, 2014 and directed that notice of settlement be given to the
settlement class. The deadline for class members to opt out of the
settlement was August 11, 2014. The final approval hearing was
held on September 18, 2014. The court granted final approval and
issued a judgment approving the settlement. The settlement funds
have been paid by the Company and have been disbursed by the
claims administrator in accordance with the settlement.

Notwithstanding the settlement of the Monjazeb class action, Ms.
Tanguilig filed a motion on January 26, 2015 seeking to recover
catalyst attorneys' fees from the Company. A hearing was held on
February 24, 2015, and the court issued an order on February 25,
2015 allowing Ms. Tanguilig to proceed with her motion to recover
catalyst attorneys' fees related to the Monjazeb settlement.

"We will vigorously contest this motion," the Company said.

"Based upon the settlement agreement with respect to Ms.
Monjazeb's class action claims, we recorded our currently
estimable liabilities with respect to both Ms. Monjazeb's and Ms.
Tanguilig's employment class actions litigation claims in fiscal
year 2014, which amount was not material to our financial
condition or results of operations. We will continue to evaluate
these matters, and our recorded reserves for such matters, based
on subsequent events, new information and future circumstances."


NEIMAN MARCUS: Rubenstein Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Due
--------------------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended January 31, 2015, that Linda
Rubenstein's deadline for filing a new motion for class
certification was May 4, 2015.

On August 7, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed
against The Neiman Marcus Group LLC in Los Angeles County Superior
Court by a customer, Linda Rubenstein, in connection with the
Company's Last Call stores in California. Ms. Rubenstein alleges
that the Company has violated various California consumer
protection statutes by implementing a marketing and pricing
strategy that suggests that clothing sold at Last Call stores in
California was originally offered for sale at full-line Neiman
Marcus stores when allegedly, it was not, and is allegedly of
inferior quality to clothing sold at the full-line stores. On
September 12, 2014, we removed the case to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California. On October
17, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which the
court granted on December 12, 2014. In its order dismissing the
complaint, the court granted Ms. Rubenstein leave to file an
amended complaint. Ms. Rubenstein filed her first amended
complaint on December 22, 2014. On January 6, 2015, we filed a
motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, which the court
granted on March 2, 2015. In its order dismissing the first
amended complaint, the court granted Ms. Rubenstein leave to file
a second amended complaint by March 20, 2015. Additionally, on
November 12, 2014, Ms. Rubenstein filed a motion for class
certification, which she subsequently withdrew. Ms. Rubenstein's
deadline for filing a new motion for class certification is May 4,
2015.


NEIMAN MARCUS: Defending Against Cyber-Attack Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended January 31, 2015, that the Company is
defending against Cyber-Attack Class Actions Litigation.

Three class actions relating to the Cyber-Attack were filed in
January 2014 and later voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs
between February and April 2014. The plaintiffs had alleged
negligence and other claims in connection with their purchases by
payment cards. Melissa Frank v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, et
al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on January 13, 2014 but was voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiff on April 15, 2014, without prejudice to
her right to re-file a complaint. Donna Clark v. Neiman Marcus
Group LTD LLC was filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia on January 27, 2014 but was
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on March 11, 2014, without
prejudice to her right to re-file a complaint. Christina Wong v.
The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, et al., was filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
January 29, 2014, but was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff
on February 10, 2014, without prejudice to her right to re-file a
complaint. Three new putative class actions relating to the Cyber-
Attack were filed in March and April 2014, also alleging
negligence and other claims in connection with plaintiffs'
purchases by payment cards. Two of the cases, Katerina Chau v.
Neiman Marcus Group LTD, Inc., filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California on March 14, 2014,
and Michael Shields v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California on April 1, 2014, were voluntarily dismissed, with
prejudice as to Chau and without prejudice as to Shields. The
third case, Hilary Remijas v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, was
filed on March 12, 2014 in the Northern District of Illinois. On
June 2, 2014, an amended complaint in the Remijas case was filed,
which added three plaintiffs (Debbie Farnoush and Joanne Kao,
California residents; and Melissa Frank, a New York resident) and
asserted claims for negligence, implied contract, unjust
enrichment, violation of various consumer protection statutes,
invasion of privacy and violation of state data breach laws. The
Company moved to dismiss the Remijas amended complaint on July 2,
2014. On September 16, 2014, the court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the Remijas case on the grounds that the
plaintiffs lacked standing due to their failure to demonstrate an
actionable injury. On September 25, 2014, plaintiffs appealed the
district court's order dismissing the case to the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals. Oral argument was held on January 23, 2015, and
a decision is pending. Andrew McClease v. The Neiman Marcus Group,
LLC was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina on December 30, 2014, alleging
negligence and other claims in connection with Mr. McClease's
purchase by payment card.

"We will vigorously defend our interests in this matter," the
Company said.


NESTLE USA: Faces "Backus" Suit Over Misleading Product Label
-------------------------------------------------------------
Troy Backus, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Nestle USA Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01963 (N.D. Cal.,
April 30, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's unlawful conduct of
marketing and selling the Trans Fat Creamers using a false and
unauthorized nutrient content claim "0g trans-fat".

Nestle's line of coffee creamer products contains partially
hydrogenated oil (PHO), a food additive banned in many parts of
the world because it contains artificial trans-fat, a toxic
carcinogen for which there are many safe and commercially
acceptable substitutes.

Nestle USA Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business in California. Nestle is the world's leading
nutrition, health and wellness company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory S. Weston, Esq.
      Paul K. Joseph, Esq.
      THE WESTON FIRM
      1405 Morena Blvd., Suite 201
      San Diego, CA 92110
      Telephone: (619) 798-2006
      Facsimile: (480) 247-4553
      E-mail: greg@westonfirm.com
              paul@westonfirm.com


NOMI: Faces FTC Complaint Over Consumer Data Gathering
------------------------------------------------------
Marlisse Silver Sweeney, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports
that there's knowing your customers and then there's knowing your
customers, according to John Feldman -- jfeldman@reedsmith.com --
of Reed Smith in a recent post.  Recently a technology company got
into trouble with the Federal Trade Commission for having too
intimate a portrait of its clientele's lives.

Nomi is a company whose products help retailers track customers'
movements in their stores.  But it may have gone further than
that.  "The complaint alleged that Nomi tracked consumers both
inside and outside their clients' stores," Mr. Feldman says.  The
company then gave retailers such information as how many people
passed by the store instead of entering, how long they stayed
inside and when they visited another location if it was a chain.

There was a way to opt out of this information gathering, but
Feldman notes that it wasn't made readily available, and the FTC
said consumers weren't warned about all the tracking at the
stores.  Nomi has settled with the FTC, representing the
commission's first case against a retail tracking company.  "With
consumers more and more predictably connected to the Internet by
means of their handheld devices, the technological options
available to retailers to learn about potential and actual
customer behavior in and around their stores is exploding," he
explains, as are the consequences when this technology goes too
far.


NEW YORK, NY: Must Pay Interest Portion of Firefighters' Pension
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
New York City must pay back the employee interest portion of
firefighter pension contributions as part of compensation to
minority firefighters hired in the settlement of a class action
alleging discrimination, a federal judge has ruled.

Eastern District Judge Nicholas Garaufis said the city is liable
for the interest on minimum employee pension contributions to
"make whole" those firefighters hired in the long-running and
contentious fight over minority hiring at the New York City Fire
Department in the Title VII case of United States v. The City of
New York, 07-CV-2067.

"The 'savings' to the city is, in the court's view, less important
to the determination at hand than Title VII's 'make whole
principle'," Judge Garaufis said.  "However, the court does
recognize that another purpose of the Title VII remedy is to force
employers to internalize the cost of their past discrimination in
order to encourage compliance."

The city, which has suffered a number of adverse rulings from
Judge Garaufis and even succeeded in having the Second Circuit
remove him from part of the case, had argued it was unfair to make
the city "pay the interest on 'buy backs' regardless of the
cause."

"Thus, the United States' proposal that the city subsidize
claimants' pension contributions by paying the employee interest
portion of these member contributions would saddle New York City
taxpayers with an unjustified financial burden, and would increase
the settlement amount of this case beyond what the parties
negotiated," attorneys with the city's Law Department argued in
their memorandum submitted to the court.

The lawsuit was brought by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2007
to remedy what was alleged to be a long history of discrimination
in hiring at the Fire Department.  The suit challenged two written
exams as having an unlawful disparate impact on black and Hispanic
entry-level applicants.

The Vulcan Society, an association of black firefighters,
intervened and, in 2009, Judge Garaufis granted summary judgment
for the federal government and the plaintiff-intervenors on their
Title VII disparate impact claims.

Then, in 2010, Judge Garaufis granted summary judgment on
disparate treatment claims, and the city appealed to the Second
Circuit, asking the court to reverse and remove the judge from the
case for bias and citing what it said were a number of intemperate
remarks from the bench and in written opinions.

The circuit reversed on the disparate treatment ruling in 2013
and, while saying Judge Garaufis was "entirely fair-minded,"
nonetheless removed him from handling its remand for a new bench
trial on the city's liability for disparate treatment.

But Judge Garaufis remained on the portion of the case dealing
with disparate impact (NYLJ, May 15, 2013).  The incoming DeBlasio
administration later elected to settle the disparate treatment
case and the parties then agreed that the entire case should be
returned to Judge Garaufis for implementation of the settlement.

Judge Garaufis' remedy was to order injunctive relief to ensure
future compliance with Title VII and individual "make whole"
relief for the victims of disparate impact.  In 2012, he awarded
retroactive seniority relief both for competitive seniority and
benefits, including pension benefits, to all delayed-hire and non-
hire claimants appointed as priority hires at the FDNY as part of
the "make-whole" relief.

The parties settled on back pay and fringe benefits, including
interest on those benefits, in 2014.

The city then said it was up to the claimants to pay the 8.25
percent statutory interest rate on their own minimum
contributions.  The federal government disagreed in its memo and
the claimants voiced their support for that position in a memo
submitted by Richard Levy of Levy Ratner and Darius Charney of the
Center for Constitutional Rights.

The city claimed that New York City Administrative Code Sec.13-
327(a)(2) requires the claimants to pay the interest.  But Judge
Garaufis in his opinion said that, in that section, "as a matter
of plain language, there is nothing to suggest, much less mandate,
that an employee pay back interest on any owed employee
contributions."

While a city actuary stated that the FDNY pension fund's board of
trustees holds that employees who fail to make a required
contribution to the fund must make interest payments to address
the deficiency, a position Judge Garaufis called "not entirely
unreasonable," the judge said that does not apply here, where
"claimants have not yet commenced making contributions to the
plan."

"Moreover, in the court's view, claimants receiving retroactivity
seniority have neither failed to make a payment nor delayed
payment of their required contributions, since they were never
given the opportunity to make such payments, having not been hired
by the city due to discriminatory exams," he said.

The judge said the purpose of "make whole" relief -- "that the
court should unwind events and place the victims of unlawful
discrimination, if at all possible, in the situation, (financial
and otherwise) that they would have occupied at present if the
discrimination had never occurred" requires that the city pay the
interest.

Assistant Corporation Counsels Eric Eichenholtz, the division
chief of the labor and employment section, Donald Sullivan, Keith
Snow and Yuval Rubinstein represent the city.  Mr. Eichenholtz
said in a statement "we appreciate the judge clarifying this
aspect of the settlement. The city will comply with the ruling."
Jennifer Swedish, senior trial attorney with the Justice
Department's Civil Rights Division and Assistant U.S. Attorney
Elliot Schachner represent the federal government.


NORTH DAKOTA DEVELOPMENTS: Sued Over Alleged Illegal Fraud Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Kolpack, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
company that sold investments in housing developments for workers
in the North Dakota oil patch ran an illegal fraud scheme that
bilked investors out of millions of dollars, state and federal
authorities said May 5.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed a lawsuit in
federal court in North Dakota against North Dakota Developments
LLC and its owners, Robert Gavin and Daniel Hogan, accusing them
of raising more than $62 million in a Ponzi-like scheme that
centered on stakes in so-called "man camps."  The suit seeks to
recoup money from the alleged scheme and impose fines against the
defendants.

In addition, North Dakota Securities Commissioner Karen Tyler on
May 5 ordered the defendants to stop doing business.  She said in
a statement that the state's oil development and economic growth
is getting attention around the world and some people are trying
to take advantage of that.

"It's important to remember that con artists follow the headlines
looking for their next exploitation opportunity," Ms. Tyler said.

North Dakota is the No. 2 oil producer behind Texas.  Its
unprecedented oil bonanza began less than a decade ago and has
brought waves of workers from outside the state.  But housing
development lagged behind the rapid population growth, and prices
quickly jumped. Some workers turned to sharing apartments, living
in tiny campers and temporary mobile homes, or sleeping in cars.

Federal court documents do not list lawyers for Messrs. Gavin or
Hogan.  The lawsuit says Mr. Gavin is a resident of Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia, and Hogan lives in the United Kingdom.

The company didn't immediately return a message seeking comment
left with an answering service after hours on May 5.

Court documents show there were 980 stakeholders from 66 countries
who invested in six different camps in western North Dakota and
eastern Montana.  The suit says that only one project, Great
American Lodge Watford West, was operational and it has performed
poorly because of "multiple project delays, cost overruns and
mismanagement."

Investors were allegedly told to expect returns as high as 42
percent in the first year and guaranteed buy-back of their
investment within three years.  Ms. Tyler says the defendants used
the money for their own real estate projects and personal expenses
such as meals, alcohol and entertainment.

Ms. Tyler said the company broke state laws by selling
unregistered securities, acting as an unregistered broker-dealer
and engaging in unregistered agent activity.

Investors should do their homework when pitched an investment in a
private transaction, Ms. Tyler said, especially when it includes
"the promise of high returns, low risk and guaranteed exit."


NORTHLAND GROUP: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Embury, Kenneth Meale and Bonnie Meale, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Northland Group,
Inc., LVNV Funding, LLC, Pinnacle Credit Services, LLC, and Galaxy
International Purchasing, LLC, Case No. 8:15-cv-00969-JDW-EAJ
(M.D. Fla., April 23, 2015) accuses the Defendants of violating
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ian Richard Leavengood, Esq.
          J. Andrew Meyer, Esq.
          LEAVENGOOD, DAUVAL, BOYLE & MEYER PA
          3900 First St. N, Suite 100
          St. Petersburg, FL 33703-6109
          Telephone: (727) 327-3328
          Facsimile: (727) 327-3305
          E-mail: ileavengood@leavenlaw.com
                  ameyer@leavenlaw.com


NOVATEL WIRELESS: No Further Liabilities Related to Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Novatel Wireless, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of December 31, 2014,
there were no further liabilities accrued in connection with the
securities class action lawsuits.

On September 15, 2008 and September 18, 2008, two putative
securities class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California (the "Court") on
behalf of alleged stockholders of the Company. On December 11,
2008, these lawsuits were consolidated into a single action and in
May 2010, the consolidated lawsuits were captioned the case In re
Novatel Wireless Securities Litigation (the "Litigation"). The
Litigation was filed on behalf of persons who purchased the
Company's common stock between February 27, 2007 and September 15,
2008.

On June 23, 2014, the Court entered its judgment approving a final
settlement agreement with respect to the Litigation. The
settlement agreement does not admit any liability, and the Company
and the individual defendants continue to deny any and all
liability. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the
plaintiff class agreed to settle all claims asserted in the
Litigation and granted the defendants and released parties a full
and complete release in exchange for (i) a cash payment of $6.0
million to the plaintiff's class, approximately $1.7 million of
which was to be funded by the Company's insurers, (ii) the
issuance of unrestricted and freely tradable shares of the
Company's stock with an aggregate value of $5.0 million and (iii)
the issuance of a $5.0 million secured promissory note, which such
note shall having a 30-month maturity, carrying interest at 5% per
annum, payable quarterly, and being secured by the accounts
receivable of the Company.

On July 1, 2014, the Company and the individual defendants filed a
motion to amend the judgment entered on June 23, 2014,
specifically requesting the Court to amend the effective date of
such judgment to June 20, 2014 - the date the court held the final
approval hearing. The Court granted this motion on July 8, 2014,
and the judgment date was deemed entered on June 20, 2014.
On July 8, 2014, the Company funded the cash portion of the
settlement with $4.3 million of Company cash and $1.7 million
previously funded into escrow by the Company's insurers. On July
17, 2014, the Company issued 2,407,318 unrestricted shares of the
Company's common stock to the class members in satisfaction of the
$5.0 million stock payment. The Company also issued a $5.0 million
secured promissory note on July 8, 2014, which was paid off by the
Company during the fourth quarter of 2014.

On November 17, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion to
enforce the Settlement and the Court agreed with the Plaintiffs to
use an intra-day trading price of the Company's stock for
valuation purposes and not the closing price, and accordingly, the
Company owed $789,600 which was paid by the Company on December
16, 2014.

As of December 31, 2014, there were no further liabilities accrued
in connection with the Litigation.


PATTERSON-UTI: Sued in Tex. Over Failure to Provide Layoff Notice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Phillips, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Patterson-UTI Drilling Company LLC, Case No.
2:15-cv-00582 (E.D. Tex., May 1, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act for failing to provide the Plaintiff
and the Class Members, 60 days advance written notice in
connection with recent Mass Layoffs and Plant Closing.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PAUL'S UPHOLSTERY: Faces "Resendez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Resendez, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Paul's Upholstery, Inc. and Ron Baio, Case
No. 1:15-cv-03885 (N.D. Ill., May 3, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PHOEBE PUTNEY: Sued Over Alleged Breach of Fiduciary Duty
---------------------------------------------------------
Brandi Edwards and All Others Similarly Situated v. Phoebe Putney
Health System Inc. and Phoebe Putney Health System Summary Of
Benefits Medical And Prescription, Case No. 1:15-cv-00075-LJA
(M.D. Ga., April 30, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
breach of their fiduciary duty by failing to pick the most
prudent and cost effective network provider for the Plan.

The Defendants own and operate a not-for-profit healthcare
facility in Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Del Percilla Jr. Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF DEL PERCILLA JR
      6065 Roswell Rd Ne Ste 410
      Atlanta, GA 30328
      Telephone: (770) 390-7548
      E-mail: delp@percillalaw.com

         - and -

      Edward G. Connette, Esq.
      Norris A. Adams II, Esq.
      ESSEX RICHARDS PA
      1701 SOUTH BLVD
      CHARLOTTE, NC 28203-4727
      Telephone: (704) 377-4300
      Facsimile: (704) 372-1357
      E-mail: NAdams@essexrichards.com
              Woody@essexrichards.com

         - and -

      Robert M. Beauchamp, Esq.
      ROBERT M. BEAUCHAMP ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC
      PO Box 287
      Albany, GA 31702
      Telephone: (229) 435-5681
      E-mail: maryjane@beauchamplaw.com


PROSKAUER ROSE: Appellate Court Upholds Fraud Claims
----------------------------------------------------
Ben Bedell, New York Law Journal, reports that fraud claims
against Proskauer Rose stemming from a tax shelter scheme it
helped sell to the heirs of the Johnson & Johnson fortune will
survive a motion to dismiss, the Appellate Division, First
Department, ruled on April 30.

A unanimous panel, in an opinion written by Justice Angela
Mazzarelli, affirmed a ruling by Manhattan Commercial Division
Acting Justice Lawrence Marks, who dismissed legal malpractice
claims against Proskauer on statute of limitations grounds but
allowed the fraud and punitive damages claims to proceed.

The case is Johnson v. Proskauer Rose, 652075/11.

Lead plaintiff John Seward Johnson Jr., grandson of the
pharmaceutical giant's founder, claims he and his relatives lost
$40 million after taking Proskauer's advice, and in 2001 sold
holdings of Johnson & Johnson stock in a transaction that avoided
capital gains taxes.

Proskauer had recommended the transaction, which was structured by
tax consulting firm The Diversified Group, with whom Proskauer had
a fee-sharing agreement.

The IRS and state tax authorities challenged the transaction and
assessed $18.3 million in back taxes, interest and penalties, the
complaint said.  The Johnsons also claim an additional $23 million
in damages stemming from lost gains and dividends on the stock,
had they retained it, plus $1.3 million in fees paid to
Diversified, which then paid over $425,000 to Proskauer.

Proskauer, which is representing itself in the case, argued that
the fraud claim was duplicative of the malpractice claim and thus
time-barred as well.

The panel disagreed, holding that the Johnsons allege "not only
that defendants failed to adequately advise them with respect to
the tax strategy," but also claim that "Proskauer pressured them
into the scheme because, at the outset, Proskauer's paramount
concern was preserving its lucrative arrangement with
[Diversified], which presumably intended to continue to work with
Proskauer to sell the scheme to other high net worth individuals
and entities."

Justice Mazzarelli wrote that Marks had been correct when he
"found the fraud claim alleged independent, intentionally tortious
conduct," and that such conduct "gave rise to separate and
distinct damages from the malpractice claim."

Proskauer, relying on Shalam v. KPMG LLP, 89 AD3d 155 (1st Dept.,
2011), also argued that the Johnson's status as wealthy and
sophisticated investors meant they should have known the scheme
was risky, and they thus failed to meet the detrimental reliance
prerequisite for a fraud claim.

Justice Mazzarelli said that argument does not apply when the
defendant is a law firm.  Proskauer was "required to place
plaintiffs' interests above all else, without regard to [the
Johnson's] perceived pedigrees, fortunes or business savvy," she
said.

Moreover, "one of the things a sophisticated investor is presumed
to know to do before entering a transaction is to consult with its
attorney," she said.  "That is precisely what plaintiffs did, and
they were entitled to rely on defendants' advice."

The panel also sustained the Johnson's claim for punitive damages.
Proskauer allegedly marketed the scheme to at least 380 other
clients, the opinion notes.

The complaint "sufficiently alleges that intentional and malicious
treatment of those clients as well as a wanton dishonesty as to
imply a criminal indifference to civil obligations" was shown,
Justice Mazzarelli said.

"Indeed, although we offer no opinion regarding whether the
particular scheme at issue was criminal in its manipulation of the
tax laws, plaintiffs have demonstrated that similar tax avoidance
schemes resulted in the indictments of some of their promoters,"
the panel said.

The complaint also names as defendants former Proskauer partner
Ira Akselrad, chief of its tax department at the time the scheme
was being offered, and trusts and estate tax partner Jay
Waxenberg.

Proskauer has brought a third-party claim against the Johnson
family's personal tax advisor, Robert Matthews, a certified public
accountant and trustee for the family trusts, alleging that
Matthews' longtime tax planning advice to the plaintiffs renders
him solely responsible for covering any damages in the Johnson
suit.

Joining Mazzarelli in the opinion were Presiding Justice Luis
Gonzalez, Rolando Acosta, Karla Moskowitz and Leland DeGrasse.
Proskauer partner David Lederkramer, who is representing the firm,
said the firm welcomed the panel's dismissal of the malpractice
claims.  "We will continue to seek dismissal of the remaining
claims and are confident we will prevail," he said.

Retired New Jersey judge Gary Stein, special counsel at
Hackensack's Pashman Stein, argued for the plaintiffs.

"We are pleased that the Appellate Division recognized and upheld
the essence of the allegations in the case that Proskauer
defrauded not just our clients, but a lot of other clients," said
Pashman Stein member Sean Mack, who is co-counsel on the case.


REMY COINTREAU: "Alston" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Monique Alston, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Remy Cointreau USA, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-03374-LGS
(S.D.N.Y., April 30, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Base in New York Remy, Cointreau USA, Inc. is an alcoholic
beverage company that produces and imports cognacs, liqueurs,
whiskies, and other distilled spirits and wines.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth J. Katz, Esq.
      Yesenia Francisco Capalbo, Esq.
      KATZ MELINGER PLLC
      280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 460-0047
      Facsimile: (212) 428-6811
      E-mail: kjkatz@katzmelinger.com
              yfcapalbo@katzmelinger.com


RISOTTERIA LLC: N.Y. Suit Seeks Compliance With Disabilities Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fredkiey Hurley, individually v. Risotteria, LLC d/b/a Risotteria
Restaurant, a New York for profit corporation and 270 Bleecker
Street, LLC a New York for profit limited liability company, Case
No. 1:15-cv-03266-PAE (S.D.N.Y., April 23, 2015) seeks relief
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, which entitles
the Plaintiff to all attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and
costs incurred in pursuing an action to enforce and obtain
compliance with provisions of the ADA.

Mr. Hurley is permanently disabled and confined to a wheelchair.

The noncompliant property is located in New York County, New York
at 27 Bleecker Street.  Defendant 270 Bleecker Street, LLC is the
documented owner of the Property.  The Property is being operated
as a food service establishment by Defendant Risotieria, LLC,
doing business as Risotieria Restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tara Demetriades, Esq.
          ADA ACCESSIBILITY ASSOCIATES
          2076 Wolver Hollow Road
          Oyster Bay, NY 11771
          Telephone: (516) 595-5009
          E-mail: TDemetriades@Aol.com


ROC SERVICE: Settles Overtime Class Action for $1.25 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that an oil-and-gas drilling support services company has settled
a class action suit alleging that it failed to pay overtime for
$1.25 million.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Cynthia R. Eddy of the Western District of
Pennsylvania gave preliminary approval to the deal this week.

Kipp Smiley and Aaron Sapp, who each worked as flowback hands
testing wells on fracking sites in Pennsylvania, brought the suit
late last year against ROC Service Co., which is based in Texas
but operates in several states that have oil and gas concerns.

The settlement was reached earlier this month after a mediation
session was held in February, according to court documents.
Smiley and Sapp brought the suit under the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act, alleging they would routinely work more than 80
hours a week without being paid overtime, as did their co-workers.

"The putative class members also worked similar hours and were
denied overtime as a result of the same illegal pay practice,"
Smiley and Sapp argued in their complaint.  "The putative class
members were generally scheduled to work 84 hours per workweek,
but often worked more.  Instead of paying them overtime, defendant
paid the putative class members a salary with a per diem and day
bonus.  Defendant denied the putative class members overtime for
any and all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single
workweek."

Since the manual-labor type of duties that they performed would be
non-exempt work under the FLSA, ROC owes the workers for overtime
pay, they argued.

The $1.25 million settlement fund includes attorney fees, costs,
and enhanced payments for Messrs. Smiley and Sapp, as lead
plaintiffs.  The attorney fees could be up to 33 1/3 percent of
the total, plus $15,000 for fees and costs, and $7,500 for each
Messrs. Smiley and Sapp, according to the settlement.  The rest
would go into the net settlement fund from which class members
would draw.

"NSA payments to class members will be on a 'claims-made' basis;
that is, class members must submit a valid and timely class member
claim form in order to participate in the settlement and be paid
from the NSA.  After deduction of the amounts described above from
the settlement fund, each class member who does not opt out of the
settlement and who submits a valid and timely class member claim
form will receive a payment from the settlement equal to his/her
percentage of total unpaid overtime pay calculated for
participating class members using the information provided by
defendant.  For example, if a class member's unpaid overtime is
$10,000, and the total unpaid overtime calculated for all
participating class members is $1 million, that class member would
receive 1 percent of the NSA," according to the settlement.

A fairness hearing on the deal is scheduled for Sept. 22 in
Pittsburgh.

Andrew Dunlap of Fibich, Leebron, Copeland, Briggs & Josephson in
Houston and Richard Burch of Bruckner Burch in Houston were
appointed as class counsel for the plaintiffs in the case.
Neither could be reached for comment.

James Urban -- jsurban@jonesday.com -- and Brandon Lester --
blester@jonesday.com -- of Jones Day in Pittsburgh represented
ROC.  Mr. Lester declined to comment.


RUBICON TECHNOLOGY: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------
Firerock Global Opportunity Fund LP, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Rubicon Technology, Inc., Raja M.
Parvez, William F. Weissman, Don N. Aquilano, Donald R. Caldwell,
Michael E. Mikolajczyk, Raymond J. Spencer, Canaccord Genuity Inc.
and D.A. Davidson & Co., Case No. 1:15-cv-03813 (N.D. Ill., 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.

Rubicon Technology, Inc.is a vertically integrated, advanced
electronic materials provider specializing in monocrystalline
sapphire.

Canaccord Genuity Inc. and D.A. Davidson & Co. served as the
underwriters for the March 2014 Offering.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James E. Barz, Esq.
      Frank Richter, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      200 South Wacker Drive, 31st Floor
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 674-4674
      Facsimile: (312) 674-4676
      E-mail: jbarz@rgrdlaw.com
              frichter@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 367-7100
      Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
      E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

     Jack G. Fruchter, Esq.
     ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY LLP
     One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
     New York, NY 10119
     Telephone: (212) 279-5050
     Facsimile: (212) 279-3655
     E-mail: jfruchter@aftlaw.com


RUSH UNIVERSITY: Faces "Daniels" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Raziya Daniels and Karen Kostecki, individually and on behalf of
all similarly-situated persons v. Rush University Medical Center
and Vyridian Revenue Management LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-03882 (N.D.
Ill., May 1, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Rush University Medical Center is an Illinois non-profit
corporation that operates a 676-bed academic medical center and
hospital facilities for adults and children.

Vyridian Revenue Management LLC operates as a division of Rush,
providing medical coding and billing services to Rush, including
but not limited to its doctors, hospital, and clinical services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robin Potter, Esq.
      M. Nieves Bolanos, Esq.
      Patrick Cowlin, Esq.
      ROBIN POTTER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2600
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 861-1800
      Facsimile: (312) 861-3009
      E-mail: robin@potterlaw.org
              nieves@potterlaw.org
              patrick@potterlaw.org


SANDERS FARMS: Sued in S.D. Ga. Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Oswaldo Cruz-Vasquez, Lazaro Faustino Cruz-Alday, Jorge Cruz-Rios,
Victor Manuel Gonzalez-Bartolon, David Lopez-Lopez, Zenon Jose
Monteslopez, Esteban Ortiz-Vasquez, Rogelio Sandoval Aparicio, and
Heriberto Vasquez-Ortiz v. Sanders Farms, Inc.,  Sanders Brothers,
LLC, and Bartolo L. Hernandez, Case No. 6:15-cv-00048-BAE-GRS
(S.D. Ga., May 1, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act by failing to pay each
Plaintiff and other similarly situated workers at least the
required average minimum hourly wage for every compensable hour of
labor performed in a workweek.

The Defendants operate as an integrated agricultural enterprise
and maintain their principal place of business at 3414 Georgia
Highway 147, Lyons, Georgia 30436.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dawson Morton, Esq.
      Lisa J. Krisher, Esq.
      GEORGIA LEGAL SERVICES
      104 Marietta St., NW
      Suite 250
      Atlanta, GA 30303
      Telephone: (404) 463-1633
      Facsimile: (404) 463-1623
      E-mail: dmorton@glsp.org
              lkrisher@glsp.org


SCHWEBEL BAKING: "Boyd" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Boyd and Terry L. Vukich, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. Schwebel Baking Company, Case No. 4:15-cv-
00871 (N.D. Ohio, May 3, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Schwebel Baking Company is an Ohio corporation that is in the
business of baking and distributing various bread products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
      NILGES DRAHER
      Ste. 201
      4580 Stephen Circle, NW
      Canton, OH 44718
      Telephone: (330) 354-8967
      Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
      E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com


SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Feron McGee, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Southwest Credit Systems, L.P. and John Does 1-25,
Case No. 3:15-cv-02829-PGS-LHG (D.N.J., April 22, 2015) accuses
the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SPOKEO INC: Supreme Court Takes FCRA Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Marcia Coyle and Tony Mauro, writing for Law.com, report that the
U.S. Supreme Court on April 27 said it would decide next term
whether consumers may sue websites and firms that publish
inaccurate personal information even if they suffer no injuries.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Facebook Inc., Google Inc., the
Consumer Data Industry Association and others had urged the
justices to take the case, Spokeo v. Robins, which involves the
federal Fair Credit Reporting Act.  The solicitor general of the
United States had recommended denial of review because, he said,
the lower appellate court ruling was correct and there was no
conflict among the circuit courts.  It was business as usual in
the high court even as an ever growing line of spectators formed
outside for the April 28 same-sex marriage arguments.

Besides the Spokeo case, the justices vacated a decision by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Michigan Catholic
Conference v. Burwell.  The circuit court had rejected the
Catholic Conference's challenge to the government's procedure for
opting out of providing contraception health insurance.  The high
court sent the case back to the circuit court with instructions to
look again in light of the justices' 2014 decision in Burwell v.
Hobby Lobby Stores.

"The government keeps making the same bad arguments and the
Supreme Court keeps rejecting them -- every single time.  This is
because the government can obviously come up with ways to
distribute contraceptives without the forced involvement of
Catholic ministries," said Mark Rienzi, senior counsel to the
Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which filed an amicus brief in
the case.

"As with the Supreme Court's decisions in Little Sisters of the
Poor and Hobby Lobby, this is a strong signal that the Supreme
Court will ultimately reject the government's narrow view of
religious liberty.  And it makes it less likely that lower courts
will accept arguments the Supreme Court has rejected over and over
and over again."

The court also denied review in Sai v. U.S. Postal Service, a
challenge to the practice of requiring indigent plaintiffs to make
public disclosure of personal financial matters to establish
eligibility for legal help under the Criminal Justice Act.

Sai -- his full legal name -- brought the suit in connection with
a Freedom of Information Act case against the postal service.  To
proceed in forma pauperis, he agreed to submit personal financial
data, but asked that the information be kept under seal to protect
his privacy.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
denied the request, citing the public status of court documents
generally.

A petition for Mr. Sai filed by Tillman Breckenridge of Reed Smith
with the College of William and Mary Marshall-Wythe School of Law
appellate and Supreme Court clinic pointed out a circuit split on
the issue, but the high court did not take up the case.

"Unfortunately, I do not have $400 to spare to continue to pursue
a case which I filed only because I believed it was in the
public's interest," Mr. Sai said.  "I am also not willing to
sacrifice my privacy, and put myself at risk of identity fraud, by
making public all of my finances.  My case dies with this denial."

The Spokeo case stems from a class action filed by Thomas Robins,
who alleged that false information published by Spokeo Inc. --
which publishes reports on consumers' wealth, education and more -
- injured his job prospects and caused him financial and emotional
harm.  Mr. Robins also claimed that Spokeo violated five
requirements under the federal reporting act by not making
required disclosures and not following procedures designed to
ensure the accuracy of its information.

A federal district court dismissed the lawsuit, finding that
Robins had suffered no concrete harm that would give the courts
jurisdiction over his claims. But the Ninth Circuit reversed.  It
said, "The facts that Robins pled make it plausible that Spokeo
acted in reckless disregard of [its] statutory duty" to ensure the
accuracy of the information it published.

Spokeo, represented by Mayer Brown's Andrew Pincus --
apincus@mayerbrown.com -- contends the lower courts are divided
over whether violation of a statutory right is sufficient injury
to establish standing to sue, or whether consumers must also
demonstrate actual harm.

"The need to resolve the conflict is especially acute because this
fundamental question of Article III jurisdiction has significant
implications for class action litigation under a statute that
generates dozens of class actions in the federal courts every
year," Mr. Pincus wrote.

Business' "hypothetical class-action horror stories" are
exaggerated, countered Mr. Robins' counsel, Deepak Gupta --
deepak@guptabeck.com -- of Gupta Beck.  "Damages for the invasion
of legal rights have long been a mainstay of our legal system, for
everything from contract to copyright," he wrote.  "Using Article
III to bar these claims, by contrast, would have significant
consequences -- including a shift of many class actions to state
courts, in tension with recent congressional policy."

The Fair Credit Reporting Act includes a damages provision
granting "not less than $100 and not more than $1,000" to
consumers who are the victims of willful violations of the act.


SPRINT ENERGY: Faces "Bergeron" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Bergeron, individually and for others similarly situated
v. Sprint Energy Services, LP, Case No. 4:15-cv-01166 (S.D. Tex.,
May 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime premium for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.

Sprint Energy Services, LP owns and operates an oil field service
company that provides comprehensive fluid management,
environmental compliance, personnel safety, and well-site
management services to its customers.

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


STEAK N SHAKE: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "West" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brandi West, on her own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Steak N Shake Operations, Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-
00697-RBD-DAB (M.D. Fla., May 1, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Steak N Shake Operations, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant
located in Lake Mary, Seminole County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TOTAL TRANSPORTATION: Faces Wrongful Death Suit Over Collision
--------------------------------------------------------------
Russ Bynum, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
mother of one of five nursing students killed in a Georgia highway
crash has sued the trucking company that employed the driver
suspected of causing the fiery collision.

A wrongful death lawsuit filed in Bryan County State Court seeks
monetary damages against Total Transportation of Mississippi and
its parent company, Tennessee-based U.S. Xpress Enterprises, for
the death of 21-year-old Abbie Deloach of Savannah.  The civil
suit was filed on April 28 on behalf of her mother, Kim Deloach
McQuaig.

"She's a compassionate, forgiving person," Ms. McQuaig's attorney,
Mark Tate, said on April 30.  "This is not about revenge.  This
not about an eye for an eye.  This is about the appropriate way to
resolve problems between parties."

Deloach and four fellow nursing students from Georgia Southern
University in Statesboro were traveling to Savannah, where they
were wrapping up clinical training for the school year, when they
died April 22 in a chain-reaction crash on Interstate 16.

The Georgia State Patrol has said a tractor-trailer failed to slow
down for stop-and-go traffic backed up by an unrelated wreck.  The
big truck smashed into two vehicles in which the nursing students
were carpooling, causing one of the cars to burst into flames.
Seven total vehicles were damaged in the crash.

The tractor-trailer was registered to Total Transportation.  The
driver has not been charged, and he was not named as a defendant
in Ms. McQuaig's civil lawsuit.

"If we thought there were criminal actions -- that he was under
the influence or texting or driving for an excessive number of
hours -- we would have named him" in the lawsuit, Tate said.
"It's not really for me to get completely into, but I know that he
is absolutely, deeply remorseful."

Total Transportation CEO John Stomps declined to comment on
April 30 on the lawsuit.  He said the company is cooperating with
State Patrol investigators.

"Our thoughts and our prayers are still with these victims and
these families as well as the Georgia Southern community,"
Mr. Stomps said.

The State Patrol has said it could take several months to finish
its investigation of the crash and decide whether to bring
criminal charges against the tractor-trailer driver.  The agency's
initial incident report was still not available on April 30, eight
days after the collision.

In addition to Deloach, the crash also killed Emily E. Clark, 20,
of Powder Springs; Morgan J. Bass, 20, of Leesburg; Catherine M.
Pittman, 21, of Alpharetta; and Caitlyn N. Baggett, 21, of Millen.
Georgia Southern officials said all were nursing students in their
junior year.


TRIPLE S: Transferred Galactic Funk Suit to N.D. Alabama
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Galactic Funk Touring, Inc.,
American Electric Motor Services, Inc., CB Roofing, LLC; Linda
Mills; Frank Curtis, Judy Sheridan, Jennifer Ray Davidson,
Lawrence W. Cohn, AAL, ALC, Saccoccio & Lopez, Monika Bhuta,
Michael E. Stark, G&S Trailer Repair Inc., Renee E. Allie, John G.
Thompson, Harry M. McCumber, Gaston CPA Firm, Jeffrey S. Garner,
Erik Barstow, GC/AAA Fences, Inc., Keith O. Cerven,  Teresa M.
Cerven, SHGI Corp., Kathryn Schelle, Iron Gate Technology, Inc.,
Nancy Thomas, Pioneer Farm Equipment, Inc., Danny J. Curlin,
Amedius, LLC, and Brett Watts v. Triple S Salud, Case Number 3:15-
cv-01348, was transferred in from District of Puerto Rico to the
U.S. District Court Northern District of Alabama (Southern). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-00701-RDP (N.D.
Ala., April 30, 2015).

The Plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of all the subscribers of
the Individual Blue Plans. The Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the
alleged ongoing conspiracy between and among BCBS-Puerto, the
other Individual Blue Plans and BCBSA to allocate geographic
markets in violation of the prohibitions of the Sherman Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John F. Nevares, Esq.
      JOHN F NEVARES & ASSOC PSC
      P.O. Box 13667
      San Juan, PR 00908-3667
      Telephone: (787) 722-9333
      Facsimile: (787) 721-8820
      E-mail: jfnevares@nevareslaw.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

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


URBAN DECAY: Falsely Marketed Lush Lash Products, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sonia Severino, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Urban Decay Cosmetics, LLC and L'Oreal USA, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-03416-LGS (S.D.N.Y., May 1, 2015), seeks to end the
Defendants' deceptive practices of the marketing, advertising, and
promotion of their Urban Decay Lush Lash System.

The Defendants claim that the Lush Lash System is able to grow
lashes by 25% in two weeks, 40% in four weeks, and 63% in six
weeks because it contains a "growth accelerating serum." However,
nothing in the Lush Lash System is demonstrated to actually make
eye lashes grow, particularly at the rates claimed by Defendants.

Urban Decay Cosmetics, LLC and L'Oreal USA, Inc. are Delaware
corporations that develop and manufacture cosmetic products for
consumer and professional markets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Timothy Gordon Blood, Esq.
      BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON LLP
      600 B Street Suite 1550
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 338-1100
      Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
      E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com


WAL-MART STORES: Rana Plaza Factory Collapse Victims File Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zoe Tillman, writing for Legal Times, reports that an eight-story
building that housed garment factories in Savar, Bangladesh,
collapsed on April 24, 2013, killing more than 1,000 people and
injuring many more.  The victims and their families filed a
lawsuit in federal court in Washington against Wal-Mart Stores
Inc. and other retailers that allegedly sourced products from
those factories.

The retailers and the Bangladeshi government, which is also named
as a defendant, knew the building was unsafe, the plaintiffs
claim.  They accuse the defendants of being negligent and reckless
in not ensuring a safe working environment.

The case is one of several that victims of the Rana Plaza collapse
are pursuing around the world, according to Jonathan Greenbaum --
jg@coburngreenbaum.com -- of Coburn & Greenbaum, a lawyer for the
plaintiffs in Washington.

Representatives of Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and the two other
retailers named in the lawsuit, J.C. Penney Co. Inc. and The
Children's Place Inc., did not immediately return a request for
comment.  A representative of Bangladesh's embassy in Washington
also could not immediately be reached.

Cracks were detected in the Rana Plaza the day before it collapsed
and an engineer declared the structure unsafe, according to the
complaint, but managers required workers to come in the next day.
According to the plaintiffs, the Rana Plaza "was built without
observing proper building standards or Bangladesh regulations."

Wal-Mart, J.C. Penney and The Children's Place sold items that
were manufactured in the Rana Plaza, the plaintiffs said.  The
retailers, the plaintiffs allege, knew "that Bangladesh factories
had an extremely poor record of workplace safety standards and
industrial building standards, including garment factories."
Mr. Greenbaum said the plaintiffs' legal team brought the case in
Washington because there was a chance they might amend the
complaint to add a claim under D.C. consumer protection laws.

Also, Mr. Greenbaum said, his firm's office is there.  They also
considered bringing the case in California, which has a similar
consumer protection law to Washington, he said.

The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson.


ZAGG INC: Tenth Circuit Has Not Yet Entered Decision on Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zagg Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that the U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth
Circuit, has not yet entered a decision on the appeal in a class
action lawsuit.

James H. Apple, et al. v. ZAGG Inc, et al., U.S. District Court,
District of Utah, 2:12-cv-00852; Ryan Draayer, et al. v. Zagg Inc,
et al., U.S. District Court, District of Utah, 2:12-cv-00859.  On
September 6 and 10, 2012, two putative class action lawsuits were
filed by purported Company shareholders against the Company,
Randall Hales, Brandon O'Brien, and Cheryl Larabee, as well as
Robert G. Pedersen II, the Company's former Chairman and CEO, and
Edward Ekstrom and Shuichiro Ueyama, former members of the
Company's Board of Directors. These lawsuits were subsequently
amended by a complaint filed on May 6, 2013. The plaintiffs seek
certification of a class of purchasers of the Company's stock
between October 15, 2010 and August 17, 2012. The plaintiffs claim
that as a result of Mr. Pedersen's alleged December 2011 margin
account sales, the defendants initiated a succession plan to
replace Mr. Pedersen as the Company's CEO with Mr. Hales, but
failed to disclose either the succession plan or Mr. Pedersen's
margin account sales, in violation of Sections 10(b), 14(a), and
20(a), and SEC Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9, under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). On March 7, 2013, the
U.S. District Court for the District of Utah (the "Court")
consolidated the Apple and Draayer actions and assigned the
caption In re: Zagg, Inc. Securities Litigation, and on May 6,
2013, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. On July 5, 2013,
the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On
February 7, 2014, the Court entered an order granting the
Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On
February 25, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the
U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit. On June 17, 2014, plaintiffs
filed their opening appellate brief appealing the Courts decision
with respect to some of their claims. The Tenth Circuit heard oral
argument on the appeal on January 22, 2015. The U.S. Court of
Appeals, Tenth Circuit, has not yet entered a decision on the
appeal.


* Damage Remedy for Breach of Exclusive Forum Selection Needed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence B. Friedman, writing for Law.com, reports that New York
courts have disagreed about the availability under New York law of
a damage remedy for breach of a contractual exclusive forum
selection clause.  But such breaches are common -- one contracting
party simply needs to sue the other in a forum other than the one
to which the parties agreed.  Further, the absence of a damage
remedy may encourage breach and leave the non-breaching party
uncompensated, even if it wins specific performance in the form of
the dismissal of a lawsuit filed in the wrong forum.

This article urges that a damage remedy should be available in
this context, to discourage forum shopping, vindicate contractual
expectations and compensate the victim of a breach.  It is worth
noting that this concerns an issue of substantive contract law,
and therefore would be governed by state law, both in state court
and in a federal diversity suit.

New York Precedents

The New York Court of Appeals has not addressed whether a party
may recover attorney fees and litigation expenses as damages for
the breach of an exclusive forum selection clause, but this
question has been addressed by other courts in New York, with
conflicting results.

On the one hand, two courts ruled that the breaching party was
liable for the expenses the other party sustained in the
litigation that the breaching party had filed in the wrong forum,
and that such an award does not contravene the so-called "American
Rule" against cost-shifting in litigation. See Allendale v. Excess
Ins., 992 F.Supp. 278, 286 (SDNY 1998); Indosuez v. Nat'l Reserve
Bank, 304 A.D.2d 429, 431, 758 N.Y.S.2d 308, 311 (2003).  This
approach has been endorsed more recently in dictum in Counsel Fin.
Servs. v. Leibowitz, 09-CV-1025S, 2012 WL 1057311, at *3 n.8 (WDNY
March 27, 2012).

On the other hand, two courts have reached the opposite
conclusion, at least in part. In Versatile Housewares v. Thill
Logistics, 819 F.Supp.2d 230, 237, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71444
(SDNY 2011), the court acknowledged that, while any breach of
contract entitles the non-breaching party to recover at least
nominal damages, despite the rulings in Allendale and Indosuez:

there appears to be no support in the decisions of the New York
Court of Appeals for the proposition that the American Rule gives
way in situations like the one in this case, in which attorneys'
fees are the measure of a party's foreseeable contract damages.
(Id. at 244).

Nevertheless, the court specified that the American Rule precludes
only the recovery of attorney fees, not other costs, and thus the
non-breaching party may recover the latter. Id. at 247.  Another
recent Southern District opinion holds that a damage remedy would
contravene the American Rule and the plaintiff's claim for such a
remedy thus failed as a matter of law. Brown Rudnick v. Surgical
Orthomedics, No. 13-CV-4348 (JMF), 2014 WL 3439620 (SDNY, July 15,
2014).  The court also noted, as did the Versatile court, that the
American Rule serves as a default rule, and thus the parties could
have expressly provided in their agreement for the recovery of
attorney fees and other litigation expenses in the event of a
breach, in which event that damage remedy would be available. Id.
at 45.

Other U.S. Precedents
The inconsistency among the New York precedents cited above
reflects the different approaches adopted by other U.S. courts.
Indeed, there is no general consensus as to whether a damage
remedy is available in this context.

Some courts have ruled such a remedy should be available to
restore the non-breaching party to the position it would have
occupied if the contract had been fully performed. See, e.g.,
Digimarc v. Verance, CIV. 10-1489-JE, 2011 WL 7077315, at *12 (D.
Or. Sept. 19, 2011) report and recommendation adopted, 10-CV-1489-
BR, 2012 WL 183425 (D. Or. Jan. 23, 2012).

Other courts have ruled that such a remedy is precluded by the
American Rule. See, e.g., Westlake Vinyls v. Goodrich, 2014 WL
2816070, at 4 (W.D.Ky., July 23, 2014).  These courts also found
that the absence of supporting precedent suggests this remedy
should not be available. See, e.g., Monsanto v. Baumgardner, 2005
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45647, 36 (E.D. Mo. March 29, 2005).

Delaware courts, like courts in New York, have split on this
issue. See, e.g.: Cornerstone Brands v. O'Steen, CIV.A. 1501-N,
2006 WL 2788414, at *4 (Del. Ch. Sept. 20, 2006); Carlyle Inv.
Mgmt. v. Nat'l Indus. Grp., CIV.A. 5527-CS, 2012 WL 4847089 (Del.
Ch. Oct. 11, 2012) aff'd, 67 A.3d 373 (Del. 2013).

Grounds for Damage Remedy
There are a number of reasons why courts should allow a damage
remedy for breach of a contractual exclusive forum selection
clause.

Agreements Must Be Honored (Pacta Sunt Servanda). The first reason
is to vindicate the contractual expectations of the parties.
Every party is bound by the undertakings it voluntarily assumes,
and should indemnify the other party if it breaches those
undertakings.  In this respect, the consequences of a breach of a
forum selection clause should not differ from those arising from
the breach of any other contractual provision, and thus should
give rise to a damage claim against the breaching party.

Deterrence of Breaches. The second reason is to deter breaches of
exclusive forum selection clauses.  Unless the breaching plaintiff
is required to reimburse the non-breaching defendant for (at
least) its legal fees and expenses, there will be no incentive for
a party to honor its promise and sue only in the agreed-upon
forum.

Discourage Forum Shopping.  Enforcing exclusive forum selection
clauses with damage awards would also discourage forum shopping,
and help to eliminate uncertainty as to the forum in which a claim
will be heard.

Compensate the Non-Breaching Party. The absence of a damage remedy
may also leave the non-breaching party uncompensated and out-of-
pocket as the result of the breach.  An anti-suit injunction
and/or the dismissal of a lawsuit filed in the wrong forum will
not always fully compensate a party for the breach.  At a minimum,
the victim of the breach will have borne the expense of seeking
the dismissal of the lawsuit that has been filed in the wrong
forum.

Courts could vary the quantum of the award to suit the
circumstances of each particular case; on the other hand, should
strong reasons exist for the continuation of the proceedings in
the non-agreed upon forum, courts could award damages even without
enforcing the clause.

Analogy to Arbitration Clauses. Arbitration agreements were
historically not susceptible to specific performance, and the
traditional remedy for breach of an arbitration clause was to
award damages.  Today, arbitration agreements are routinely
specifically enforced pursuant to state and federal statutes.
Moreover, courts in New York consistently award the attorney fees
and costs that a party to an arbitration agreement incurred in
order to have this agreement enforced against the other party,
especially when compelling the latter to arbitrate.  By analogy, a
damage remedy should also be available with respect to forum
selection clauses.

A Damage Remedy Does Not Contravene the American Rule. As some
courts have already held, an award of damages for breach of an
exclusive forum selection clause would not overturn the
prohibition against fee-shifting, but rather would restore the
injured party to the position it would have occupied had the forum
selection clause not been breached.  As this award is merely aimed
at remedying a contractual breach, it is compatible with the
American Rule.

Other Countries
The availability of a damage remedy for breach of an exclusive
forum selection clause has also been considered by courts outside
the Unites States.

Among common law jurisdictions, the solution adopted by the courts
of the United Kingdom is particularly noteworthy.  The country's
highest judicial authorities, the House of Lords and the Supreme
Court, have both agreed that this remedy must be available to the
non-breaching party. Moreover, U.K. case law has addressed in
detail the elements of such a claim for damages.

These elements can be summarized as follows: (1) the requesting
party seeks recovery of fees and costs incurred as a defendant in
foreign proceedings; (2) the foreign proceeding was brought in
breach of an exclusive forum selection clause; (3) the foreign
court did not rule on the issue of costs and fees;10 (4) the U.K.
is the contractually agreed upon forum;11 and (5) the award for
damages does not contradict the decision of the foreign forum
(i.e., the requesting party prevailed in the foreign forum).  At
least one U.K. court has also held that the non-breaching party is
entitled to recover not only the costs and expenses it has
sustained, but also "any future costs and expenses incurred
hereafter" in the proceedings commenced in breach of the exclusive
forum selection clause.

As for civil law jurisdictions, a case decided in 2009 by the
Spanish Tribunal Supremo seems to be the only precedent that
addresses the issue.13 The court held that exclusive forum
selection clauses are contractual provisions whose breach should
give rise to a claim for damages under the ordinary rules of
contractual remedies. It therefore ordered the breaching party to
compensate the non-breaching party for the fees and costs the
latter suffered in a litigation that the former had brought in a
forum different from the one to which the parties had agreed.

Conclusion

There are a number of compelling reasons why New York courts
should permit the recovery of damages for breaches of exclusive
forum selection clauses, including, at least, costs and attorney
fees sustained by the non-breaching party in securing the
dismissal of a lawsuit filed in the wrong forum.  However, until
New York courts agree as to the availability of this remedy, or
the New York Court of Appeals addresses this subject, parties to
an exclusive forum selection clause would be well-advised to
reinforce their choice of an exclusive forum with a provision
expressly allowing for recovery of costs and attorney fees in case
of a breach.  As recognized by the courts in Versatile and Brown
Rudnick, this provision will overcome objections and uncertainties
arising from the current disagreement concerning the availability
of this remedy among New York courts.


* Lawyers Contend Lead Generator Marketing Fuels Bogus Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that attorneys representing the makers of medical devices and
pharmaceutical drugs are turning to the courts to combat what they
claim are questionable lawsuits driven by an influx of aggressive
advertising.

A new crop of companies called lead generators, which refer
clients to plaintiffs law firms, are fueling an increase in
spending on advertising.  And defense lawyers are joining the
refrain of tort reform advocates and their own clients by turning
complaints about ads into legal arguments.

In cases involving the blood-thinner Xarelto and pelvic mesh
devices, ads targeting potential plaintiffs have prompted defense
attorneys to seek the court's help in staving off large numbers of
allegedly meritless lawsuits.

"Many of these cases turn out to be not very well investigated
and, in many instances, shouldn't have been filed at all," said
John Beisner -- john.beisner@skadden.com -- a partner in Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom's Washington office.  "It's just this
feeding frenzy that gets started of advertising."

The dollars spent on advertising aimed at pharmaceuticals and
medical devices are on the rise.  Between 2012 and 2014, about
$407 million was spent on 1.6 million TV ads, according to The
Silverstein Group, a Washington crisis-management and
communications firm.   Last year, money spent on ads jumped to
$162 million, compared with $113 million in 2013.

Of the top five TV mass tort advertisers in 2014, two were lead
generators, said Rustin Silverstein, president of the firm, whose
data defense counsel cite frequently in court papers.  Lead-
generation firms are big business, selling client referrals to
lawyers for $500 to $10,000 a piece, said Mr. Silverstein, a
former associate at Steptoe & Johnson LLP.

The ads are commonplace on television, often using trumped-up news
headlines and listing a host of alarming side effects from using a
product.  The defense bar also cites such ads in emails, text
messages and websites.  Unlike attorneys, lead-generation firms
don't have the same ethical constraints in targeting potential
clients.

Plaintiffs attorneys say their law firms are doing nothing wrong
and note that it's the lead generators -- not plaintiffs lawyers
-- who are behind many of the ads.  But they also insist that
advertising is necessary to combat what they say is an increase in
defective medical products.

Calls for comment to iLawsuit Helpline and Lead Generation
Technologies' The Relion Group, the lead-generation firms cited by
The Silverstein Group as the top buyers of ads last year, were not
returned.

ADVERTISING'S HIGH IMPACT

The fight initiated by the defense bar demonstrates the impact
that ads have had on mass tort litigation, particularly in recent
years.  Ads usually go up soon after a significant event, like a
big settlement, verdict or FDA warning, Silverstein said.

In February, for instance, spending on TV ads featuring
prescription drug Zofran jumped by 8,211 percent in one month, to
$2 million, according to The Silverstein Group's latest report.
The ads followed the first lawsuits alleging that the anti-nausea
drug had been linked to birth defects.

"More than a nuisance, these ads are a key component in driving a
lot of the litigation -- in particular, both in building up cases,
rounding up clients, spreading the word about potential harms from
drugs and devices and creating fear in the public that might not
have been there otherwise," Mr. Silverstein said.

And the defense bar says it's gone too far. On Oct. 31, for
example, Bayer Corp. lawyer Tripp Haston -- thaston@babc.com -- a
partner at Bradley Arant Boult Cummings in Birmingham, wrote in a
motion before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation,
which decides whether mass torts should be coordinated into MDLs,
that "lawsuits involving Xarelto resulted only from plaintiffs'
lawyers' aggressive marketing tactics in the wake of a massive
payday."  By September, he wrote, Xarelto had become the "top ad
target" among mass tort plaintiffs firms, generating $7.4 million
in TV ads, according to The Silverstein Group.  Mr. Haston
declined to comment.

Plaintiffs attorney Roger Denton, senior partner at St. Louis-
based Schlichter Bogard & Denton, was co-lead counsel in the $650
million settlement last year involving Pradaxa, a similar drug.
He countered that Bayer and Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., a unit
of Johnson & Johnson, had themselves spent $11 million in 2013 to
advertise Xarelto.  The defense argument, he said, was an attempt
to "distract the panel" from the issue at hand: whether to
coordinate the lawsuits into an MDL, which Bayer and Janssen
opposed. Denton did not return a call for comment.

The same defense arguments emerged in a similar argument Cook
Medical Inc. made in 2013 and 2014 against coordinating MDLs over
two of its products.

Plaintiffs lawyers don't quarrel with the statistics showing an
increase in ad spending, but they insist that attorneys in
leadership positions over mass torts having nothing to do with
most of the ads and, for the most part, don't hire lead-generation
firms.

Exactly how many lead-generation ads result in connecting clients
with plaintiffs firms is not known.  Harry Bell of The Bell Law
Firm in Charleston, West Virginia, liaison counsel for the
plaintiffs in litigation over pelvic mesh products, said
plaintiffs lawyers are experimenting with them.  Some have met
success, while others haven't.

"There are lawyers who pay these entities and think of them as a
sophisticated targeted ad agency," he said.  "Sometimes, what you
get in return is not what they sold you."

Plaintiffs lawyers also say that the defense bar's complaints
about ads are red herrings.  "It generates more plaintiffs and
ultimately more money they have to spend," said C. Gibson Vance --
gibson.vance@beasleyallen.com -- a principal at Montgomery's
Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles and past president
of the American Association for Justice.

So far, the defense arguments presented to the MDL panel have not
shown success.  In 2013 and 2014, the panel coordinated actions in
the Cook Medical and Xarelto cases and punted the advertising
debate to the judges later assigned to handle the litigation.  In
one of the Cook Medical orders, former MDL Panel chairman John
Heyburn wrote on Oct. 15 that "if defendants believe plaintiffs'
counsel are filing frivolous claims, it is incumbent upon defense
counsel to bring that concern to the attention of the transferee
court."

Johnson & Johnson did just that earlier this year in lawsuits
coordinated over subsidiary Ethicon Inc.'s pelvic mesh products,
which are implanted in women to treat urinary incontinence and
pelvic organ prolapse.  On Jan. 14, the company filed court papers
seeking to investigate an uptick in solicitations of women that
were behind numerous "baseless lawsuits."  Attorney Christy Jones
-- christy.jones@butlersnow.com -- of Butler Snow in Ridgeland,
Mississippi, wrote that the cold calls corresponded with an
estimated $45 million in TV ads for mesh litigation in 2014.

The American Tort Reform Association immediately called for a
government investigation of the claims.

On Feb. 10, however, Johnson & Johnson abruptly withdrew its
request.  In an emailed statement, spokesman Matthew Johnson
confirmed that the company withdrew the motion following an
unspecified agreement with plaintiffs attorneys.


                            *********

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  * * *