CAR_Public/150518.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Monday, May 18, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 98


                            Headlines


ALABAMA: Probate Judge Wants Same-Sex Marriage Ban Suit Nixed
ALICIA'S MEXICAN: Faces "Medina" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
AMERICAN TRAFFIC: Court Consolidates Redlight Camera Cases
AOL INC: Seeks Dismissal of TCPA Class Action in California
APOTEX INC: Recalls APO-Candesartan 16 mg Tablets

AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES: Delaware Case Over PLX Acquisition On-going
AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES: Appeal in LSI Lawsuits Dismissed
AVENTURA FINEST: "Barnes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
BABY'S DREAM: Recalls Cribs & Furniture Due to Lead Content
BANK OF AMERICA: Defending Against Telexfree Class Action

BBVA COMPASS: To Defend Against Lawsuit by Cheryl Deaver
BDJVEGAN1 INC: Faces "Rosas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BILBOA REST: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CAPITOL VIEW: D.C. Home Health Workers File Wage Class Action
CARPENTER TECHNOLOGY: Faces "Kieffer" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

CENTENE COMPANY: Faces "Walther" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CHARLESTON GAS: Recalls Outdoor Gas Lightning Fixtures
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Supreme Court Won't Revive Class Action
CIVIA CYCLES: Recalls Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard
CREST FOAM: Settles Polyurethane Foam Price Fixing Class Action

DOLLAR THRIFTY: Balks at Class Cert. Bid in Add-On Fees Suit
DUNCAN BURCH: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over Improper Practices
EBAY INC: Faces Class Action Over Final Value Fees
ENTERPRISE DRILLING: Faces "Willis" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

ENTERPRISE DRILLING: Faces "Willis" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
EZAKI GLICO: Pretz Recalled in Canada Due to Undeclared Milk
FACEBOOK INC: Privacy Class Action Begins in Vienna
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Tag Suggestions Feature
FLOWER FOODS: Faces class Action Over Independent Contractors

FLY & FORM: Faces "Obando" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
FRAC TECH: Sued in Texas Over Failure to Provide Layoff Notice
FRANKLIN CORPORATION: Recalls Reclining Furniture
FREDDYS ON U: Faces "Calderon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
FREEMAN BEAUTY: Faces Class Action Over Skin Care Product

FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Focus Vehicle Warranty
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Faces Class Action Following Louisville Fire
GOLD BUYER: Faces "Stover" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
GOLDEN HARMONY: Faces "Armendariz" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
GOLDEN KRUST: Recalls Shrimp and Soya Patties Due to Eggs

GOOGLE INC: Can't Dismiss App Users' Privacy Class Action
GRADY COUNTY, GA: Settles Class Action; Sept. 12 Hearing Set
HONOKA'A HIGH: Teachers' Union Files Class Action v. Principal
HORIZON HEALTHCARE: Judge Tosses Data Breach Class Action
IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports

IKEA CANADA: Recalls Sultan Crib Mattresses
INSULET CORPORATION: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
INVIVO THERAPEUTICS: Judge Tosses Securities Class Action
JBRE GA: Faces "Kobelt" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
KEHE DISTRIBUTORS: Supreme Court Declines to Review FLSA Case

KRAFT FOODS: Consumers Seek to Certify False Ad Action
LENOVO INC: Faces Wu et al Class Action Over Superfish Software
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Condra" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Peterman" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
MEMPHIS, TN: More Women Join Class Action Over Untested Rape Kits

MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Must Face Leaky AC Class Action, Judge Rules
NEWMAR: Recalls Multiple Motorhome Models
NORTEK INC: Recalls Cleaning Products Due to Non-compliance
NORTEK INC: Recalls Aqua-Tek Mega Clean Products
O'RYAN PRODUCTION: Faces "Haynes" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

PACIFIC COAST: Scott+Scott Files Amended IPO Class Action
PAINTING SPECIALIST: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Proceedings Over NIS 343MM Claim Resumed
PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs in Contract Breach Suit Appeal
PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: NIS405MM Claim Not Yet Certified as Class

PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Accessories Case Plaintiffs File Appeal
PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Back Up Service Plaintiff Files Appeal
PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: PWDs Claim in Preliminary Stage
PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: No Discounts Case in Preliminary Stage
PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Increased Tariffs Case in Initial Stage

PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Case Over Refunds in Preliminary Stage
PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Internet Service Case in Initial Stage
PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Cellular Operators Suit in Initial Stage
PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Revised Deal Filed in Call Charges Suit
PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Revised Deal in Calling Cards Case Okayed

PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Revised Deal in Telephony Case Approved
PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Claim Over Incorrect Charges Dismissed
PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: VAT Charges Plaintiff Files Appeal
PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Appeal in Rounding Up Charges Case Nixed
PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Unified Tariff Case in Preliminary Stage

PURINA: Beneful Dog Food Contains Toxins, Scientist Says
RETROPHIN INC: Initial Pretrial Conference Scheduled in April
RJ REYNOLDS: Ruling Setback to Florida Tobacco Plaintiffs
RUI CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Mejia" Suit Claims
SAXON MORTGAGE: Homeowners Seek Approval for Class Action

SCOUT DOWNHOLE: "Thompson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
SIMPLE SIMON: Recalls Lobster Mac-n-Cheese Due to Eggs
SNOW PEAK: Recalls Japanese Axes Due to Laceration Hazard
SONUS NETWORKS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
SONUS NETWORKS: To Defend Shareholder Class Action Vigorously

SONY CORP: June 29 PlayStation Settlement Claims Filing Deadline
SPRINT CORP: Settles Securities Class Action for $131MM
SUN RICH: Recalls Sliced Apple Products Due to Listeria
SUN RICH: Issues Corrected Recall Notice
TAM ENTERPRISES: Faces "Duncan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

TEVA PARENTERAL: Recalls Adrucil(R) Injections Due to Silicone
TOP RANK: Faces "Gomez" Suit in Illinois Over Pacquiao's Injury
TOP RANK: Faces Mahoney Suit in C.D. Cal. Over Pacquiao's Injury
TOP RANK: Faces "Sirota" Suit in Illinois Over Pacquiao's Injury
TOP RANK: Faces "Vanel" Suit in Illinois Over Pacquiao's Injury

UNIFIED SCHOOL: Faces "Arroyo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
UNION PACIFIC: Illegally Uses Railroad Subsurface, Action Says
UNITED STATES: Employees File FLSA Class Action Over Shutdown
UNITED STATES: Faces Class Suit Over Delayed Veterans' Benefits
UNITED STATES: Class Certification in Foreign Service Suit Upheld

US STEEL: Attorney Seeks Residents for Home Toxins Testing


                            *********


ALABAMA: Probate Judge Wants Same-Sex Marriage Ban Suit Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scottie Thomaston, writing for Equality on Trial, reports that
Mobile County's probate judge, Don Davis, has filed a motion to
dismiss in Strawser, the potential class-action challenge to
Alabama's same-sex marriage ban. The ruling on whether the case
will proceed as a class-action across all Alabama counties is
still pending.

Judge Davis wants the case dismissed in its entirety, arguing,
among other things, that the Supreme Court will resolve the issue
in late June anyway.


ALICIA'S MEXICAN: Faces "Medina" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Martha Medina, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated employees and former employees of Defendants v. Alicia's
Mexican Grille Inc., Alicia's Mexican Grille #2 Inc., Alicia's
Mexican Grille 3 Inc., and Alicia's Mexican Grille 4 Inc., Case
No. 4:15-cv-01192 (S.D. Tex., May 5, 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 Alicia's Mexican Grille restaurants
in Houston, Harris County, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Wilson Reed
      LAW OFFICE OF G SCOTT FIDDLER PC
      1004 Congress, Ste 200
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 228-0070
      Facsimile: (713) 228-0078
      E-mail: areed@fiddlerlaw.com


AMERICAN TRAFFIC: Court Consolidates Redlight Camera Cases
----------------------------------------------------------
TheNewspaper.com reports that the US District Court for the
Southern District of Florida consolidated cases against eighty-one
towns and photo ticketing operators American Traffic Solutions,
Xerox and Gatso of The Netherlands.

Lead plaintiff Christopher L. Parker, a motorist who received a
ticket from the town of Davie, has a simple argument.  The state
Court of Appeal ruled that private vendors cannot do all the work
of reviewing automated citations (view the Hollywood v. Arem
decision).  Mr. Parker and fellow plaintiffs want compensation not
only for the tickets that were unlawfully issued before the
ruling, but also to stop the ticketing still going on in many
jurisdictions.

"The highly comprehensive services these vendors have provided to
Florida counties and municipalities have extracted almost complete
control from them in the monitoring and enforcement of red-light
violations," the plaintiff's legal team, headed by Theodore J.
Leopold and Stephen F. Rosenthal, wrote.  "The vendors' employees
-- and not local law enforcement officers -- control almost the
entire law enforcement process."

Under the appellate precedent, only a government employee known as
a traffic infraction enforcement officer (TIEO) can issue the $158
citations.

"Defendant city of Miami contracted with ATS to perform virtually
all of the red light camera traffic enforcement functions that
Florida law authorizes only the city to perform," the suit
alleges.  "Specifically, ATS, and not a TIEO or other duly
authorized officer, determines whether a violation has occurred,
and ATS issues the citations."

The suit accuses the seventy cities that use ATS, five that use
Xerox (formerly Affiliated Computer Services) and six that use
Gatso of unlawful delegation of police powers.  It also accuses
the vendors of unjust enrichment and of employing deceptive trade
practices.  The suit seeks a permanent injunction that would end
photo ticketing statewide.


AOL INC: Seeks Dismissal of TCPA Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joe Van Acker, writing for Law360, reports that a proposed class
action accusing AOL Inc. of violating the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act by sending unsolicited text messages should be
dismissed because the company can't be held responsible for one
person's misdialed numbers, AOL said in California federal court
on April 3.

The company attributed three messages that plaintiff Nicholas
Derby allegedly received on his cellphone through the company's
AOL Instant Messenger service to a user dialing the wrong number,
and said that the TCPA doesn't cover messages sent through "human
action.


APOTEX INC: Recalls APO-Candesartan 16 mg Tablets
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 1, 2015
Posting date: May 4, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Drugs
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-53251

Apotex initiated recall of one additional lot of APO-Candesartan
due to out of specification results during stability testing for
CAD-II impurity.

Depth of distribution: Wholesalers

A. APO-Candesartan 16 mg
   DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
   DIN 02365367
   Dosage form: Tablet
   Strength: Candesartan cilexetil 16 mg
   Lot or serial number: KW0445

Recalling Firm: Apotex Inc.
                150 Signet Drive
                Toronto
                M9L 1T9
                Ontario
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Apotex Inc.
                                150 Signet Drive
                                Toronto
                                M9L 1T9
                                Ontario
                                CANADA


AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES: Delaware Case Over PLX Acquisition On-going
---------------------------------------------------------------
Avago Technologies Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended February 1, 2015, the Delaware class
litigation relating to the acquisition of PLX Technology Inc. is
on-going.

In June and July 2014, four lawsuits were filed in the Superior
Court for the State of California, County of Santa Clara
challenging our acquisition of PLX. On July 22, 2014, the court
consolidated these California actions under the caption In re PLX
Technology, Inc. S'holder Litig., Lead Case No. 1-14-CV-267079
(Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara) and appointed lead counsel. That
same day, the court also stayed the consolidated action, pending
resolution of related actions filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery.

Also in June and July 2014, five similar lawsuits were filed in
the Delaware Court of Chancery. On July 21, 2014, the court
consolidated these Delaware actions under the caption In re PLX
Technology, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 9880-
VCL (Del. Ch.), appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, and
designated an operative complaint for the consolidated action. On
July 31, 2014, counsel for lead plaintiffs in Delaware informed
the court that they would not seek a preliminary injunction, but
intend to seek damages and pursue monetary remedies through post-
closing litigation.  The Company's acquisition of PLX closed on
August 12, 2014.

On October 31, 2014, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint. This complaint alleges, among other things, that PLX's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to PLX's stockholders by
seeking to sell PLX for an inadequate price, pursuant to an unfair
process, and by agreeing to preclusive deal protections in the
merger agreement. Plaintiffs also allege that Potomac Capital
Partners II, L.P., Deutsche Bank Securities, Avago Technologies
Wireless (U.S.A.) Manufacturing, Inc. and the acquisition
subsidiary aided and abetted the alleged fiduciary breaches.
Plaintiffs also allege that PLX's 14D-9 recommendation statement
contained false and misleading statements and/or omitted material
information necessary to inform the shareholder vote. The
complaint seeks, among other things, monetary damages and
attorneys' fees and costs. On November 26, 2014, defendants filed
motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim as a
matter of law.  The motions was slated to be fully briefed on
March 13, 2015.  The Delaware class litigation is on-going.


AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES: Appeal in LSI Lawsuits Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------
Avago Technologies Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended February 1, 2015, the appeal in the
lawsuits relating to the acquisition of LSI was dismissed with
prejudice.

The Company said, "Fifteen purported class action complaints have
been filed by alleged former stockholders of LSI against us. Eight
of those lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery,
and the other seven lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Santa Clara on behalf of the
same putative class as the Delaware actions, or the California
Actions. On January 17, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery
entered an order consolidating the Delaware actions into a single
action, or the Delaware Action. These actions generally alleged
that we aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duty by the
members of LSI's board of directors in connection with the merger
because the merger was not in the best interest of LSI, the merger
consideration is unfair and certain other terms of the merger
agreement were unfair. Among other remedies, the lawsuits sought
to rescind the merger or obtain unspecified money damages, costs
and attorneys' fees."

On March 7, 2014, the parties to the Delaware Action reached an
agreement in principle to settle the Delaware Action on a class
wide basis, and negotiated a stipulation of settlement that was
presented to the Delaware Court of Chancery on March 10, 2014. On
March 12, 2014, the parties to the California Actions entered into
a stipulation staying the California Actions pending resolution of
the Delaware Action. On May 16, 2014, the plaintiffs in the
Delaware Action filed a motion for final approval of the proposed
settlement and award of attorneys' fees and expenses with the
Delaware Court of Chancery. On June 10, 2014, the Delaware court
approved the settlement, including the payment of $2 million to
counsel for the stockholders, entered final judgment and dismissed
the case, or the Order and Final Judgment. On July 10, 2014, a
class member of the Delaware Action filed a notice of appeal from
the Order and Final Judgment. On February 5, 2015, the appeal was
dismissed with prejudice.


AVENTURA FINEST: "Barnes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Barnes and other similarly situated individuals v.
Aventura Finest Carwash and Service at the Mall, Inc., Aventura
Finest Carwash And Service, Inc., Guillermo Freile, and Emilio G.
Lourdes, Case No. 1:15-cv-21699-KMM (S.D. Fla., May 5, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a car wash and detailing service
company, having their main place of business in Miami-Dade County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ruben Martin Saenz, Esq.
      SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
      20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Suite 800
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (305) 503-5131
      Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
      E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


BABY'S DREAM: Recalls Cribs & Furniture Due to Lead Content
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Baby's Dream Furniture Inc., of Buena Vista, Ga., announced a
voluntary recall of about 4,600 Cribs, furniture and accessories
with vintage grey paint finish. Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The vintage grey paint on the cribs, furniture, and accessories
exceeds federal lead limits. If ingested, lead can cause adverse
health effects.

This recall involves Baby's Dream full-size cribs, furniture and
accessories sold in a vintage grey paint finish under the Brie,
Braxton, Heritage, Everything Nice and Legendary collections.
Cribs and furniture included in this recall were manufactured
between March 2014 and March 2015 in Chile. A label affixed to the
bottom of the crib's back frame and the back panel of the
furniture lists the product name, date and location of
manufacture, model number and purchase order number (PO#). Model
numbers included in the recall are:

EVERYTHING NICE COLLECTION
  PRODUCT          MODEL        PO#
  -------          -----        ---
  Spice Crib       SPCRPVG      4812-2, 4816-2, 4820-1
  Sugar Crib       SUCRPVG      4812-3, 4815-1, 4817-2, 4820-2
  Hutch            EVHUPVG      4814-7, 4822-6
  Double Dresser   EVDDPVG      4812-7, 4814-6, 4817-4, 4821-5
  Single Dresser   EVSDPVG      4817-5, 4823-6
  5-Drawer Chest   EV5CPVG      4813-6
  Bookcase         EVBCPVG      4816-7
  Nightstand       EVNSPVG      4814-12, 4818-11, 4822-12

LEGENDARY COLLECTION
  PRODUCT          MODEL        PO#
  -------          -----        ---
  Panel Flat Crib  LGSPFPVG     4814-4, 4820-6
  Stationary Crib  LGCRFPVG     4813-5
  (Flat Top)
  Safety-Gate Crib LGSGFPVG     4814-3, 4818-5
  (Flat Top)
  Stationary Crib  LGCRCPVG     4815-5, 4822-4
  (Curve Top)
  Safety-Gate Crib LGSGCPVG     4815-4, 4819-2
  (Curve Top)
  Hutch            LGHUPVG      4814-11, 4819-6
  Double Dresser   LGDDPVG      4813-8, 4815-10, 4817-8, 4819-5
  Single Dresser   LGDRPVG      4815-11
  5-Drawer Chest   LG5CPVG      4815-9, 4818-8
  Bookcase         LGBCPVG      4823-8
  Nightstand       LGNSPVG      4812-16, 4815-13
  Legendary Guard  LGGRPVG      4814-16, 4822-13
  Rail
  Caps & Short     LGSGCSPVG    4814-17
  Post

BRIE & BRAXTON COLLECTION & HERITAGE SINGLE DRESSER
  PRODUCT          MODEL         PO#
  -------          -----         ---
  Brie Crib        BECRPVG       4813-1, 4816-1, 4818-1
  Braxton Crib     BXCRPVG       4812-1, 4817-1, 4819-1
  Heritage Single  HGSDPVG       4815-8, 4817-7, 4818-7
  Dresser

ACCESSORIES
  PRODUCT          MODEL         PO#
  -------          -----         ---
  Baby's Dream     BDCTPVG      4812-15, 4816-11, 4821-10
   Changer Tray
  Universal Guard  BDGRPVG      4819-9, 4813-12, 4815-15
  Rail
  Universal Full   BDARPVG      4811-18, 4812-18, 4814-15,
  Bed Adult Rails               4815-14, 4818-13, 4821-11
  Universal Queen  BDQRPVG      4812-20, 4816-13, 4821-12
  Bed Adult Rails

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/HOVk80

The recalled products were manufactured in Chile and sold at
specialty furniture stores nationwide and online at BabysDream.com
from March 2014 through March 2015 for between $350 and $900 for
the cribs, and between $450 and $1,000 for the dressers, hutches,
nightstands, bookcases and chests. Additional accessories were
sold for between $100 and $300.

Consumers should immediately contact Baby's Dream to arrange for
an exchange.


BANK OF AMERICA: Defending Against Telexfree Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Beth Healy, writing for Boston Globe, reports that a lawyer
representing victims of the alleged TelexFree Inc. fraud in a
class-action lawsuit has named numerous defendants in the case,
including Bank of America Corp. and the audit firm
PricewaterhouseCoopers.

According to the lawsuit, which consolidated the civil complaints
of at least 780,000 alleged victims, Bank of America and
PricewaterhouseCoopers did business with TelexFree even after
learning the company had been shut down in Brazil under
allegations it was conducting a pyramid scheme.

TelexFree purported to be a seller of cheap long-distance phone
service, out of an office in Marlborough.  But prosecutors allege
that in reality, the company took in more than $1 billion from
participants in 18 months by promising them quick investment
returns in exchange for promoting the company.

The company's two US principals are facing criminal charges and
allegations by securities regulators that they defrauded as many
as 1 million people around the globe.  It is believed to be the
largest fraud in history in terms of the number of victims.

Robert Bonsignore, a Belmont, N.H., lawyer who is lead counsel in
the civil case, alleged that TelexFree and its principals and top
promoters "knowingly, maliciously, and willfully conspired to
perpetrate, and did perpetrate, the TelexFree pyramid Scheme with
full awareness of its unfair, deceptive, and unlawful nature."

In addition, the 200-page complaint alleges that a number of
service providers, including banks and accountants, "were
negligent or reckless in providing advice, directly participated
in," or provided "essential substantial assistance" to TelexFree,
despite knowing it was an illegal pyramid scheme.

Lawyers for TelexFree and its Massachusetts principals,
James Merrill of Ashland and Carlos Wanzeler, formerly of
Northborough, have denied wrongdoing. Both men face up to 20 years
in prison if found guilty.

Mr. Merrill is at home awaiting trial.  Mr. Wanzeler fled to his
native Brazil last April, just after TelexFree filed for
bankruptcy protection and as agents from Homeland Security
Investigations and the FBI raided its office.

Among the numerous service companies named in the complaint, Bank
of America and PricewaterhouseCoopers are the largest.  According
to the complaint, TelexFree affiliates urged recruits to make
walk-in deposits at a Bank of America branch in Shrewsbury in
early 2013.

In the spring of that year, Bank of America questioned TelexFree
about its business, according to the complaint.  It also "had
exchanges with TelexFree about terminating their relationship and
discontinuing the service of their accounts, but never did," the
complaint says.

The complaint, filed in federal court in Worcester, says
PricewaterhouseCoopers "negligently provided accounting and
consulting services" to TelexFree during the scheme.  It alleges
that TelexFree hired PricewaterhouseCoopers in January 2014,
several months after the company had been shut down in Brazil.

The complaint also alleges that PricewaterhouseCoopers
"negligently advised" TelexFree to prepare inaccurate and unfair
1099 tax forms to participants who had in fact lost money with the
company.

Massachusetts Secretary of State William F. Galvin last year
secured a $3.5 million settlement with Fidelity Bank of Fitchburg
for allegedly allowing TelexFree to open accounts without
thoroughly vetting its business.

Fidelity Bank, which is run by Mr. Merrill's brother, John
Merrill, neither admitted to nor denied the allegations.


BBVA COMPASS: To Defend Against Lawsuit by Cheryl Deaver
--------------------------------------------------------
BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. intends to defend vigorously a
putative class action lawsuit filed by Cheryl Deaver, BBVA said in
its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 11, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2014.

In November 2012, the Company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Alameda, Cheryl Deaver, on behalf
of herself and others so situated v. Compass Bank, wherein the
plaintiff alleges the Company failed to provide lawful meal
periods or wages in lieu thereof, full compensation for hours
worked, or timely wages due at termination (the plaintiff had
previously filed a similar lawsuit in May 2011 which was dismissed
without prejudice when the plaintiff failed to meet certain filing
deadlines). The plaintiff further alleges that the Company did not
comply with wage statement requirements. The plaintiff seeks
unspecified monetary relief. The Company believes there are
substantial defenses to these claims and intends to defend them
vigorously.


BDJVEGAN1 INC: Faces "Rosas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Rosas and Martin Rosas Flores, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Bdjvegan1, Inc. d/b/a blossom du
Jour, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-03511 (S.D.N.Y., May 5, 2015), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Bdjvegan1, Inc. owns and operates a vegan restaurant located at
165 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, New York 10023.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BILBOA REST: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Cruz Martinez and Luiz Raphael Alatorre, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated v. Bilboa Rest. Corp. d/b/a
Francisco's Central Vasco, Francisco Quintana, Javier Quintana and
Franky Quintana, Case No. 1:15-cv-03513-PAC (S.D.N.Y., May 5,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 159 West
23rd Street, New York, New York 10011.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CAPITOL VIEW: D.C. Home Health Workers File Wage Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Perry Stein, writing for The Washington Post, reports that D.C.
home health-care workers filed a class action lawsuit against four
agencies on April 8, alleging that they were cheated out of wages
and denied overtime and sick pay.  The suit against four local
agencies -- Capitol View Home Health Agency, Human Touch, T&N
Nursing and VMT Home Health -- comes a week before home health-
care workers and other low-wage workers across the country are
expected to rally for a $15 wage on April 15 as part of the "Fight
for 15 movement."

The suit, filed in D.C. Superior Court, argues the agencies
violated labor laws over a span of three years, paying workers
below D.C.'s living wage, which was $13.60 in 2014. Employees of
D.C. government contractors are required to earn this living wage
-- a wage that's considerably higher than the city's minimum wage
of $9.50 per hour.

This is the second lawsuit of its kind. In December, D.C.'s
health-care workers filed suit against three other home-care
agencies, similarly alleging that workers weren't paid for all of
their time and were not provided sick days.

T&N Nursing and VMT Home Health both were part of a federal
investigation that discovered that D.C. operators of home-care
agencies and personal assistants were operating a Medicaid scheme,
stealing tens of millions of taxpayer dollars.  Because of the
revelations, these two agencies were cut off from Medicaid funding
and it's during this time that many home health-care workers say
they weren't paid.

"I can't pay rent and support my family when my employer is
stealing my already-meager wages," plaintiff Stephanie Johnson, an
employee of VMT Home Health, said in a press release.  "For too
long we've been taken advantage of by these agencies, and it's
time that we receive the pay that we've worked hard for."

Capitol Home Health Agency declined to comment.  The other
agencies did not return requests for comment.

Claims lodged by home health care workers are growing across the
country.  The demand for home health-care workers is fast growing
as baby boomers grow older.  The Bureau of Labor Statistics
expects the country will need an additional 1 million such workers
by 2022.  According to a recent report from the National
Employment Law Project, the nation's 2 million home health-care
workers had an average annual salary of $18,598 in 2013, compared
to the national average of $46,440 for salaried workers that year.

With help from the Service Employees International Union 1199,
D.C.'s home health care workers are in the process of trying to
organize. U.S. Labor Secretary Thomas Perez spoke to hundreds of
the city's workers at a town hall style rally last month, urging
them to fight for higher wages.

There are an estimated 6,000 home health care workers working in
D.C. and advocates say they could be owed up to $150 million in
damages.


CARPENTER TECHNOLOGY: Faces "Kieffer" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jan Kieffer, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
Carpenter Technology Corporation, Case No. 5:15-cv-02493 (E.D.
Pa., May 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Carpenter Technology Corporation is a manufacturer of stainless
steel, titanium, and other specialty metals and engineered
products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel Horowitz, Esq.
      SWARTZ SWIDLER LLC
      1101 Kings Highway, North, Suite 402
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08032
      Telephone: (856) 685-7420
      Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
      E-mail: dhorowitz@swartz-legal.com


CENTENE COMPANY: Faces "Walther" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Sybilla Walther, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals v. Centene Company of Texas, L.P., Case No.
1:15-cv-00368 (W.D. Tex., May 5, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Centene Company of Texas, L.P. is a multi-line healthcare
enterprise that provides programs and related services to a number
of under-insured and uninsured individuals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
      DUNHAM & JONES, P.C.
      1800 Guadalupe St.
      Austin, TX 78701
      Telephone: (512) 777-7777
      Facsimile: (512) 499-0975
      E-mail: doug@dunhamlaw.com


CHARLESTON GAS: Recalls Outdoor Gas Lightning Fixtures
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 1, 2015
Posting date: May 1, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Unauthorized products
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-53147

This recall involves certain Charleston and Faubourg outdoor gas
lighting fixtures, some of which may be custom made by the
manufacturer.  The products may display unauthorized CSA Group US
and Canada Certification Marks and/or outdated CSA file numbers on
the fixture label.  Note that there may be different label
variations.

The affected gas lighting fixtures are advertised with an
unauthorized CSA Certification Mark and have not been evaluated by
CSA Group.  It is unknown if these products are in compliance with
the appropriate safety standard.

Neither Health Canada nor CSA Group has received any reports of
consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these
lighting fixtures.

The number sold is unknown.

The time period sold is unknown, but the affected units are
advertised for sale on the manufacturer's websites at the
following addresses: http://charlestonlighting.com,
http://charlestonlighting.com/faubourglighting,and
http://charlestonlighting.com/charlestongaslight.

Manufactured in the United States.

Manufacturer: Charleston Gas Light, Inc.
              Charleston
              South Carolina
              UNITED STATES

Manufacturer: Charleston Lighting & Manufacturing Inc.
              Mobile
              Alabama
              UNITED STATES

Manufacturer: Faubourg Lighting Incorporated
              Hazlehurst
              Mississippi
              UNITED STATES

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/53GokQ


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Supreme Court Won't Revive Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Perlman and Matt Fair, writing for Law360, report that the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court on April 8 refused to revive a putative
class action accusing a company serving as a middleman between
landowners and drilling companies of violating securities laws and
practicing law without a license by offering investment advice on
lease deals without the proper authority.

The court rejected the landowners' appeal without comment,
allowing to stand the Pennsylvania Superior Court's September
ruling that the gas leases Co-eXprise Inc. had negotiated with
Chesapeake Energy Corp. on behalf of landowners did not qualify as
securities or require a lawyer.

In the Superior Court's opinion, the judges wrote "the mere fact
that a company utilizes documents prepared by lawyers and relies
upon the opinion of lawyers," does not mean it's practicing law.

An attorney for Co-eXprise said the latest ruling is an
affirmation that his clients have always acted in good faith and
that the suit represented little more than an attempt by the
plaintiffs to avoid payment.

"Based on the decisions by all three courts, it's clear the
Co-eXprise's businesses practices have always been above board,"
John Gisleson -- jgisleson@morganlewis.com -- of Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP said.  "It's disappointing that in essence what the
plaintiffs were trying to do was get the benefit of Co-eXprise's
services without paying for them."

The Superior Court ruling stated that the leases did not qualify
as securities because they were signed for the direct acquisition
of subsurface rights by Chesapeake and not for the purposes of
speculation by the company, and so Co-eXprise was not required to
be registered with the state to provide investment advice.

The landowners' Pennsylvania Supreme Court appeal sought to have
that ruling overturned, saying it neglected an amendment to state
securities law that was more expansive, David McGowan of Caroselli
Beachler McTiernan & Conboy LLC said after the April 8 denial.

"We felt the Superior Court improperly applied the law rather than
the amendment," Mr. McGowan said.

The amended version extends the state's definition of a security
to include oil and gas leases, but it had never been tested in
court, he added.

"We thought that it was an important expansion of the law that had
never been tested," Mr. McGowan said.  "We were looking to seek
the application of a law that really is an open book."

The Securities Act violations were among a slew of claims leveled
against Co-eXprise by three landowners who said they were
subjected to unclear contract terms and other violations when they
signed an agreement allowing the company to solicit bids on their
behalf from oil and gas companies hoping to lease their
properties.

According to the Superior Court opinion, Co-eXprise solicited
landowners to pool their interests and allow the company to seek
competitive bids with oil and gas exploration companies for
drilling rights on their behalf. In exchange they would pay a fee.

The plaintiffs -- Nancy and Daniel Lenau and Kathleen Trieschock
-- had argued that Co-eXprise's contract had not made it clear
what the fee was or how it would be collected.

The suit also accused the defendant of unauthorized practice of
law for working on behalf of landowners in a field that requires a
specialized understanding of complicated legal principles.

"These leases are complex legal instruments," Mr. McGowan said on
April 8.  "Lawyers should be involved.  These companies just
aren't qualified."

The court disagreed, ruling that Co-eXprise's reliance on
documents and opinions prepared by lawyers did not mean that it
broke the rules.

The plaintiffs are represented by Daniel Bricmont and David
McGowan of Caroselli Beachler McTiernan & Conboy LLC.

Co-eXprise is represented by John Gisleson of Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP.

The case is Nancy Lenau et al. v. Co-eXprise Inc., case number 780
WDA 2013, in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.


CIVIA CYCLES: Recalls Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 30, 2015
Posting date: April 30, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Sports/Fitness
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fall Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-53145

This recall involves all Civia Hyland bicycles sold with the
fenders as original equipment and Civia Hyland aluminum bicycle
fenders sold separately as aftermarket sets.  The recalled bicycle
fenders are round, size 700c x 35mm and have the Civia logo on the
front and rear sides of each fender.

The fender sets came in black, blue, green, olive, red and silver.
Hyland bicycles came in blue, green, olive and red. The bicycles
have Hyland on the top tube, Civia on the down tube and the Civia
logo on the seat tube.

The fender mounting bracket can break or bend, posing a fall
hazard to the rider.

Neither Health Canada nor Civia Cycles has received any reports of
consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of this product.

Approximately 21 recalled units were sold in Canada.

The recalled bicycles were sold between May 2008 and November
2011.

Manufactured in Taiwan.

Manufacturer: Ching Chern Industrial Co. Ltd.
              Changhua County
              TAIWAN, PROVINCE OF CHINA

Distributor: Civia Cycles
             Bloomington
             Minnesota
             UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately stop riding bicycles with the
recalled fenders and contact an authorized Civia Cycles dealer to
receive a $60 credit.

For additional information, consumers may contact Civia Cycles
toll free at 1-877-311-7686, from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. CT,
Monday through Friday. Consumers may also visit Civia Cycles'
website and click on Hyland Fender Recall for more information.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/n12bDs


CREST FOAM: Settles Polyurethane Foam Price Fixing Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Chavez, writing for The Blade, reports that seven defendants
in what has been called one of the largest class-action lawsuits
in American legal history have reached a settlement with one of
the three plaintiff classes involved in the lawsuit in U.S.
District Court in Toledo.

The case involves allegations of price fixing by seven defendant
companies that manufacture polyurethane foam.

As a result of the settlement, which occurred March 24 but whose
details have yet to be announced, trials to hear complaints by the
other two plaintiff classes have been scheduled for later this
year.  Judge Jack Zouhary is presiding over the case.

The case of Ace Foam Inc. et al vs. Crest Foam Industries et al
began in 2010. An eighth defendant firm, Vitafoam Inc. of Toronto,
was involved but it acknowledged its role in the alleged price-
fixing and has already settled with all the plaintiffs.

Polyurethane foam is widely used as insulation and cushioning in a
variety of products including packaging, flooring, bedding, and
vehicles.

Following a raid of several major foam makers' offices in 2010 by
the FBI and the European Commission, a number of class action
lawsuits were filed across the county.  These foam antitrust class
action lawsuits eventually were consolidated into one case and
assigned to Judge Zouhary.

Collectively, the plaintiffs were seeking $9 billion and overall
the classes reportedly could represent hundreds of millions of
class members ranging from other manufacturers that use foam in
products to people and companies which purchase foam products.

The defendants are accused of violating the federal Sherman and
Clayton Antitrust Acts by conspiring to coordinate the timing and
amount of price increases on polyurethane foam through phone
calls, letters, and in-person meetings.  The price fixing occurred
in the United States and Canada and allegedly began in January,
1999.

In their complaints, the plaintiffs said the companies used
several tactics to coordinate price increases and control the
market.  The defendants divided up customers among themselves and
agreed not to encroach on each others' markets and shared draft
copies of price announcement letters before sending them out to
customers.  To avoid detection, the producers would not use their
full names in correspondence, using initials or first names only.

Additionally, the foam manufacturers would meet secretly at
industry trade conventions to discuss price fixing.  Trade
association meetings were nothing more than "meet-and-greet"
sessions with competitors in order to fix prices and divide up
customer territory, one plaintiff asserted in a 2010 lawsuit.

Investigators learned of the conspiracy in February, 2010, when
Vitafoam approached the U.S. Justice Department and admitted to
illegally fixing prices in exchange for leniency.  Vitafoam said
it learned of the conspiracy in 2008.

After the lawsuits were filed they were consolidated by the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, which is made up of
seven judges, and assigned to Toledo because of its convenient
location for all the parties and its proximity to Detroit Metro
Airport.  Since 2010 under Judge Zouhary the class action suit
mostly has been a long series depositions, discovery, the class
certification process, and challenges by the defendants.

Only one court hearing involving all the parties has taken place:
the hearing to approve the settlement.  It occurred late last
month in Cleveland because the Toledo courtroom was thought to not
be big enough.

The three classes of plaintiffs in the case are the Direct
Purchase class, which are companies who buy foam to make products
sold to consumers; the Indirect Purchaser class, which is any
person or entity who bought products with foam in them; and the
Direct Action Plaintiffs, which are large buyers of foam, such as
Sealy Mattress Co. and General Motors Co., whose claims are big
enough to allow them to bring their own lawsuits.

The recent settlement was with the Direct Purchase class. Three of
the seven defendants earlier agreed to pay a collective $156
million to the class.  It has not been disclosed how much the four
who settled agreed to pay.

Meanwhile, as a result of the settlement, a trial involving the
direct action plaintiffs has been set for Aug. 18 and the trial
for the indirect purchaser class will be Oct. 15.

Toledo attorney Rick Kerger, who is representing indirect
purchasers, said the settlement came after the U.S. Supreme Court
on March 2 declined to review the class certification in the case.
The defendants had challenged the certification, losing in
district court a year ago and in the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals in November.

Mr. Kerger said it is typical in class-action suits for the direct
purchase class to proceed first because the liabilities are clear
and the damages pre-determined.

"It's all about certification.  If [the direct purchasers] don't
get class certified, it's likely no one else will," he said.

Conversely, if the first class of plaintiffs lose their case, it's
unlikely the other classes will win, he added.


DOLLAR THRIFTY: Balks at Class Cert. Bid in Add-On Fees Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Chiem and Gavin Broady, writing for Law360, report that
Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group Inc. on April 3 blasted a putative
class action in California accusing it of duping consumers into
buying add-on insurance for car rentals, saying it should be
leveled because a nearly identical suit in Colorado was doomed by
its lack of commonality.

Dollar balked at a class certification bid from plaintiffs
Sandra McKinnon and Kristen Tool in their 2012 suit accusing
Dollar employees of scheming to dupe renters into paying for
collision damage waivers and insurance policies in rental
contracts despite having specifically declined those policies,
saying the circumstances in the rental transactions are
overwhelmingly individualized and varied.

The car rental company also argues that the plaintiffs' class
definitions are hopelessly broad and a Colorado federal court
already killed a class certification bid in a nearly identical
suit called Friedman v. Dollar Thrifty in January for lack of
commonality, according to its brief opposing the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

"As the Friedman court held when rejecting a virtually identical
motion earlier this year, this case involves more than a million
'face-to-face individualized transactions in which customers with
varying circumstances, preferences, and levels of knowledge about
the [products] engaged with thousands of Dollar agents' in
interactions that 'likely differed as to what was told [to] or
understood by [each] consumer," Dollar said.

The putative class action centers on customers' in-person dealings
with Dollar representatives in two different states in purchasing
one of three different optional products: loss damage waiver,
supplemental liability insurance, or a roadside assistance service
called RoadSafe when they rented cars from Dollar, according to
the brief.

"Plaintiffs seek to define classes encompassing all purchasers of
three different products (LDW, SLI, and RoadSafe) in two different
states (California and Oklahoma), but cannot find any common
thread to tie those individualized transactions together," Dollar
said.

The plaintiffs claimed that Dollar employees schemed to charge
customers for policies that they did not want by using trickery
and fraud, including telling customers that initialing certain
sections of a rental agreement will waive coverage when doing so
actually accepts the policy charges, according to court records.

Dollar asserts that there is no uniform script dictating how its
employees were to tell customers about the optional add-on
products, and the company's own sales data shows a wide variation
in the sales of the three add-on products indicating that
different consumers respond differently to the information they
receive about the products, according to the brief.

"Plaintiffs' other main tactic is to pack a list of allegations
into an amorphous 'scheme' -- attacking everything from Dollar's
website, to its sales commission structure, to the way it folds
customers' papers -- and argue that the court can adjudicate the
'scheme' on a class-wide basis," Dollar argued.  "But rather than
supporting their motion, plaintiffs' kitchen-sink approach only
confirms that individualized issues defeat certification."

The plaintiffs are represented by Alan M. Mansfield, Joe R.
Whatley Jr., Patrick J. Sheehan and S. Scott Garrett of Whatley
Kallas LLP.

Dollar Thrifty is represented by Ross S. Bricker --
rbricker@jenner.com -- and John F. Ward Jr. of Jenner & Block LLP
and Kenneth E. Keller and Tracy M. Clements of Keller Sloan Roman
& Holland LLP.

The case is McKinnon et al. v. Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group
Inc. et al., case number 3:12-cv-04457 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.


DUNCAN BURCH: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Perez, and Eleni Maiden, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Duncan Burch, Inc., d/b/a
Michael's International, Steven Craft, Bert Stair, Eugene
LeClaire, Case No. 4:15-cv-01202 (S.D. Tex., May 5, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Defendants own and operate an adult entertainment club in
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES LLP
      711 W Alabama Street
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      E-mail: gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over Improper Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that an E*TRADE client since 2006 is
bringing a class-action lawsuit against the brokerage firm,
alleging "improper practices."

In a lawsuit filed on March 25, Ty Rayner and other parties in the
class action sued E*TRADE Financial Corp. and E*TRADE Securities
LLC, seeking "redress for E*TRADE's breach of its duty of 'best
execution' when routing a specific type of investment trade for
execution on behalf of its customers, known as a 'non-directed,
standing limit order,' " the lawsuit said.

The plaintiff seeks a jury trial in pursuit of undisclosed
declaratory and injunctive relief.

The plaintiff is represented by Timothy Blood -- tblood@bholaw.com
-- of Blood, Hurst and O'Reardon LLP of San Diego.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California-San
Jose Division, case no. 5:15-CV-01384


EBAY INC: Faces Class Action Over Final Value Fees
--------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a class action lawsuit is taking aim
at eBay's final value fees.

According to action filed Feb. 13 in California Superior Court for
Santa Clara County, Joel Duncan and other unnamed plaintiffs are
suing eBay, Inc. for unjust enrichment, breach of contract and for
violating the state's Business and Professions Code.

The lawsuit was recently removed to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California under the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005.

The plaintiffs seek a jury trial and undisclosed damages.

Mr. Duncan and the other plaintiffs are represented by Robert
Thompson and the Thompson Law Offices of Burlingame, Calif.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case
number 5:15-cv-01332


ENTERPRISE DRILLING: Faces "Willis" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Willis, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Enterprise Drilling Fluids, Inc., Berry
Petroleum Company, LLC, Linn Operating, Inc., and Does 1
through 10, Case No. 1:15-cv-00688-JLT (E.D. Cal., May 5, 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 drilling fluids company that
produces and develops oil and natural gas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter R. Dion-Kindem, Esq.
      PETER R. DION-KINDEM, P.C.
      21550 Oxnard St., Suite 900
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367
      Telephone: (818) 883-4900
      Facsimile: (818) 883-4902
      E-mail: peter@dion-kindemlaw.com

         - and -

      Lonnie C. Blanchard III, Esq.
      THE BLANCHARD LAW GROUP, APC
      3311 East Pico Boulevard
      Los Angeles, CA 90023
      Telephone: (213) 599-8255
      Facsimile: (213) 402-3949
      E-mail: lonnieblanchard@gmail.com

         - and -

      Jeffrey D. Holmes, Esq.
      HOLMES LAW GROUP, APC
      3311 East Pico Boulevard
      Los Angeles, CA 90023
      Telephone: (310) 396-9045
      Facsimile: (970) 497-4922
      E-mail: jeffholmesjh@gmail.com


ENTERPRISE DRILLING: Faces "Willis" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Willis, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Enterprise Drilling Fluids, Inc., Berry
Petroleum Company, LLC, Linn Operating, Inc., and Does 1
through 10, Case No. 2:15-at-00535 (E.D. Cal., May 5, 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 drilling fluids company that
produces and develops oil and natural gas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter R. Dion-Kindem, Esq.
      PETER R. DION-KINDEM, P.C.
      21550 Oxnard St., Suite 900
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367
      Telephone: (818) 883-4900
      Facsimile: (818) 883-4902
      E-mail: peter@dion-kindemlaw.com

         - and -

      Lonnie C. Blanchard III, Esq.
      THE BLANCHARD LAW GROUP, APC
      3311 East Pico Boulevard
      Los Angeles, CA 90023
      Telephone: (213) 599-8255
      Facsimile: (213) 402-3949
      E-mail: lonnieblanchard@gmail.com

         - and -

      Jeffrey D. Holmes, Esq.
      HOLMES LAW GROUP, APC
      3311 East Pico Boulevard
      Los Angeles, CA 90023
      Telephone: (310) 396-9045
      Facsimile: (970) 497-4922
      E-mail: jeffholmesjh@gmail.com


EZAKI GLICO: Pretz Recalled in Canada Due to Undeclared Milk
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 1, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, Possibly
National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail

Industry is recalling various Ezaki Glico brand Pretz from the
marketplace because they may contain milk which is not declared on
the label. People with an allergy to milk should not consume the
recalled products described below.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled
products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There has been one reported reaction associated with the
consumption of these products.

This recall was triggered by a recall in another country. The
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If
other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

  Brand name   Common name  Size   Code(s) on product  UPC
  ----------   -----------  ----   ------------------  ---
Ezaki Glico    Pretz -      55 g   All codes where     4 901005-
               "Ramen              milk is not         102583
               flavour"            declared on the
               (Japanese           label
               characters
               only)
Ezaki Glico    Pretz -      55 g   All codes where     4 901005-
               "Scallop            milk is not         102620
               flavour"            declared on the
               (Japanese           label
               characters
               only)
Ezaki Glico    Pretz -      25 g   All codes where     4 901005-
               "Mild Salad         milk is not         100824
               flavour"            declared on the
               (Japanese           label
               characters
               only)


FACEBOOK INC: Privacy Class Action Begins in Vienna
---------------------------------------------------
Deutsche Welle reports that an Austrian man, along with 25,000
fellow plaintiffs, has sued Facebook for privacy breaches.  He has
criticized the lackadaisical approached US tech companies have
towards European law.

Max Schrems, the Austrian law graduate spearheading a class action
lawsuit against Facebook for alleged privacy breaches, said ahead
of the preliminary hearing in Vienna on April 9 said he hoped to
send a message to US-based online companies who think "you can do
anything you want in Europe."

The 27-year-old accused the social networking site of taking a
"Wild West" approach to data protection Mr. Schrems and 25,000
other Facebook users are suing the website for a range of rights
violations, from the "illegal" tracking of their data under EU law
to Facebook's involvement in the PRISM data collection program of
the United States National Security Agency (NSA).

"Basically we are asking Facebook to stop mass surveillance, to
(have) a proper privacy policy that people can understand, but
also to stop collecting data of people that are not even Facebook
users," Mr. Schrems told French news agency AFP.

Mr. Schrems has brought the case against the company's European
headquarters in Dublin, which registers all account outside the
United States and Canada -- amounting to about 80 percent of
Facebook's 1.35 billion users.  The case was filed in Vienna, as
all EU countries are compelled to enforce court rulings from any
other member state.

The judges will also rule on Facebook's claim that the suit is
inadmissible under Austrian law, an objection described by
Schrems' lawyer as without "any substance."

Fighting for "fundamental rights"

The plaintiffs are asking for 500 euros ($540) each in damages --
a symbolic amount, as per Schrems' explanation, the case is not
about getting rich, but rather "about the principle that
fundamental rights have to be applied."

The suit has garnered a huge amount of interest from all over the
world.  Within days of launching the case last August, Mr. Schrems
was overwhelmed by the thousands of people from Europe, Asia,
Latin American and Australia who wanted to take part.  In the end,
he limited the number to 25,000 participants, but a further 55,000
have already registered to join the proceedings at a later stage.
The case landed in the European Court of Justice (ECJ) after the
Irish authorities refused to open a probe into the alleged
violations.  The ECJ's decision, which is expected in 2016, could
have far-reaching implications for American tech companies
operating in Europe.


FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Tag Suggestions Feature
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mary-Ann Russon, writing for International Business Times,
reports that Facebook is facing a class action lawsuit regarding
its Tag Suggestions feature in the US, as a man has alleged that
obtaining biometric information about users without their
permission violates Illinois state law.

The plaintiff Carlo Licata, from Chicago, Illinois, claims that he
and other citizens in the state have had their rights violated by
Facebook's Tag Suggestions feature, which uses facial recognition
technology to automatically scans its users' faces and find
possible matches in new photos any user uploads to the website.

According to Mr. Licata, this is in direct violation of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), which was
passed into law in 2008 in order to protect citizens because
Chicago and other locations in the state were being used by
biometrics startups to test out the technology for use in security
and financial transactions.

The law requires companies to obtain the explicit consent of
Illinois citizens before they can collect their biometric facial
recognition data.

The plaintiff filed a civil complaint with the Cook County court
on 1 April and wants the courts to find Facebook in violation of
Illinois law, stop the social media giant's collection of
biometric data, make sure the biometric data is permanently
destroyed, and award damages to the proposed class.

The complaint states:

Unfortunately, Facebook actively conceals from its users that its
Tag Suggestion feature actually uses proprietary facial
recognition software to scan their uploaded photographs, locate
their faces, extract unique biometric identifiers associated with
their faces, and determine who they are.

For instance, Facebook doesn't disclose its wholesale biometrics
data collection practices in its privacy policies, nor does it
even ask users to acknowledge them. Instead, Facebook merely hints
at the underlying functionality behind Tag Suggestions -- only
describing the feature's use of facial recognition software on
remote sections of its website.

With millions of its users in the dark about the true nature of
this technology, Facebook secretly amassed the world's largest
privately held database of consumer biometrics data.

Mr. Licata also points out in his complaints that the US Federal
Trade Commission (FTC) released a Best Practices guide which
necessitates that "companies provide consumers with the option to
affirmatively consent to the collection of their biometric
identifiers before ever scanning and extracting biometric data
from digital photographs".

Outside Europe, in 2012 Facebook was subject to an investigation
by the European Commission over facial cognition, and eventually
had to turn the service off completely in the continent.

However, the function still works if someone in Europe uploads a
photo of a friend in the US, and that person has enabled tag
suggest functionality on their profiles.

Facebook told the Chicago Tribune that the class action lawsuit
"is without merit" but has yet to formally respond to the
complaint.


FLOWER FOODS: Faces class Action Over Independent Contractors
-------------------------------------------------------------
James McCarthy, writing for Mainebiz, reports that Flower Foods
Inc., the nation's second largest bakery and the owner of Lepage
Bakeries in Lewiston, faces a potential class-action lawsuit by
200 workers in North Carolina who were granted legal standing as a
"class" in a recent decision by a federal court.

The March 24 order by the U.S. District Court for the Western
District in North Carolina could have ramifications nationwide,
because Flowers Foods operates 34 bakeries and distribution
centers in 36 states across the eastern and southern United
States, said Shawn J. Wanta -- sjwanta@baillonthome.com -- an
attorney and partner with Minneapolis-based Baillon Thome Jozwiak
& Wanta LLP, which represents employees and consumers in class
actions and complex litigation nationwide.

"It's a significant ruling," Mr. Wanta told Mainebiz in a phone
interview on April 7.  "Flowers Foods uses the same distribution
model throughout the Flowers' network of bakeries.  What the court
found is that there is enough commonality in the design of the
distribution model for this [lawsuit] to proceed as a class
action."

At issue in the lawsuit, Mr. Wanta said, is Flowers Foods'
practice of classifying distributors of its bakery products as
independent contractors, as opposed to employees.  In doing so, he
said, the company and its regional distribution centers have been
able to avoid paying wages (including overtime), pensions and
other benefits to those workers.  The North Carolina plaintiffs
his firm represents, he said, allege that in doing so Flowers
Foods is violating the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and North
Carolina's wage and hour laws.

The court's ruling, he said, now gives those workers the
opportunity to proceed with a class-action lawsuit instead of
filing individual claims.  He anticipates the court ruling will
pave the way for "hundreds of distributors" of Flowers Foods
products nationwide to file similar claims under state and federal
laws on a class-wide basis without having to bear all the costs
and risks associated with individual litigation.

"North Carolina is a test case," Mr. Wanta said.  "The U.S.
Department of Labor is paying a lot of attention to how employers
classify workers." He noted that last September the Department of
Labor awarded $10.2 million to fund worker misclassification
detection enforcement activities in 19 state unemployment
insurance programs.

An attorney with the Atlanta law firm representing Flowers Foods
in the North Carolina case did not respond by press time to
several questions posed by Mainebiz, including whether the company
plans to file an appeal and whether it disputes Wanta's assertion
that the case has legal ramifications for Lepage Bakeries and
other regional distributors of Flowers Foods products.

However, in documents on file at the U.S. District Court in
western North Carolina, Flowers Foods' attorneys admit the company
through its regional distributor in North Carolina "contracts with
independent contractor distributors to sell and distribute fresh
baked goods to customers (including grocery stores, mass
retailers, fast food chains, cash accounts and others)" and that
those contractors are "responsible for merchandising the products
and engaging in other promotional, marketing and other sales
activities, including but not limited to use of displays, to
increase their own sales."  It also admits those distributors did
not receive overtime pay, but denies the allegations that those
workers are employees and therefore entitled to hourly wages and
other benefits.  It also disputed arguments that the plaintiffs
were entitled to legal standing as a class, rather than as
individuals.

"We see this as an employees' rights case," Mr. Wanta said, noting
that if the class-action lawsuit against Flowers Foods succeeds,
the bakery may be required to change its distribution model to
comply with federal and state employment laws.  "This is a
significant victory for distributors who have been denied the
benefits and privileges of employment, despite being treated as
employees for years."

Flowers Foods, based in Thomasville, Ga., reported $3.75 billion
in sales in 2014, according to the company's website.  In May 2012
it purchased Lepage Bakeries for $370 million in cash and stock,
noting in a company press release that Lepage had 550 "experienced
team members" and would help expand Flowers Foods' market from 64%
to 70% of the U.S. population.  Flowers' brands include Wonder,
Sunbeam, Country Kitchen and Mrs. Freshley's, among others.


FLY & FORM: Faces "Obando" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Salvador Jarquin Obando and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Fly & Form, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
21690-UU (S.D. Fla., May 4, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in
excess of 40 hours weekly.

Fly & Form, Inc. is a concrete contractor that regularly transacts
business within Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jamie Harrison Zidell, Esq.
      J H ZIDELL PC
      6310 LBJ Freeway, Suite 112
      Dallas, TX 75240
      Telephone: (972) 233-2264
      Facsimile: (972) 386-7610
      E-mail: zabogado@aol.com


FRAC TECH: Sued in Texas Over Failure to Provide Layoff Notice
--------------------------------------------------------------
William McDaniel, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Frac Tech Services International, Inc., Case No. 4:15-
cv-01195 (S.D. Tex., May 5, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to provide the Plaintiff and the Class
Members 60 days' advance written notice in connection with recent
a Mass Layoff and Plant Closing at Bryan, Texas site of
employment.

Frac Tech Services International, Inc. owns and operates a well
completion company in North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FRANKLIN CORPORATION: Recalls Reclining Furniture
-------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Franklin Corporation, of Houston, Miss., announced a voluntary
recall of about 81,000 Power reclining furniture. Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product. The switch used to operate the reclining function can
overheat, posing a fire hazard to consumers.

This recall involves power reclining furniture with rectangular
power switches. The black plastic switches measure 1 3/8 inches by
3 inches and are installed either on the arm, console or side of
various styles of reclining chairs, sofas and sectionals.
Furniture with the rectangular power switches was sold under the
name, Franklin Corporation or one of eight private labels,
including Big Sandy Superstore, Cardi's Furniture, Cimarron
Lumber/Sutherland's, The Great American Home Store, Levin
Furniture, Overstock.com, Raymour & Flanigan and Slumberland
Furniture. A label on the underside of the footrest lists the
retailer or private label name and the product style number and,
if applicable, the basic change (BC) number. Style and BC numbers
included in the recall are:

   Style Number
   ------------
    41385
    43085
    57285
    41386
    43086
    57286
    42085
    48285
    59785
    42086
    48286
    59786
    42886

   Basic Change (BC) Number
   ------------------------
    05    44    AI
    23    46    AQ
    24    47    AR
    25    51    AX
    27    88    AY
    28    AE    BM
    29    AF    BN
    35    AG    BO
    40    AH

Power reclining furniture with a black plastic oval switch is not
affected by this recall.

Franklin has received two reports of switches igniting and three
reports of switches smoking on showroom samples, resulting in
minor property damage to the flooring. No injuries have been
reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/Assk07

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
furniture stores nationwide and online from October 2013 to
December 2014 for between $400 and $4,000.

Consumers should immediately unplug the recalled units and contact
Franklin for a replacement operating switch.


FREDDYS ON U: Faces "Calderon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Calderon, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
cashiers, cleaners, and stock workers employed by Defendants v.
Freddys On U Inc., Makolet Yerushalim, Inc., Mr. Nutz, Inc.,
Freddy "Doe", and Ellie "Doe", Case No. 1:15-cv-02533 (E.D.N.Y.,
May 5, 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 three supermarkets all located at
702 Avenue U, Brooklyn, New York, 11223.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
      225 Broadway, Suite 307
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 323-6980
      Facsimile: (212) 233-9238
      E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com


FREEMAN BEAUTY: Faces Class Action Over Skin Care Product
---------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a class action suit seeking redress
for various California law violations has been brought against the
maker of the skincare product called "eclos."

According to a lawsuit filed on Feb. 9 in U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California's Western Division, Geri
Marshall and other unnamed plaintiffs are filing a class action
against PH Beauty Labs Inc., doing business as Freeman Beauty, and
20 unnamed defendants.

In a recent action, the defendants are seeking to move the case
from Los Angeles County Superior Court to U.S. District Court.
According to the original lawsuit, the plaintiff is bringing this
class action due to the defendants' alleged violations of the
California Unfair Competition Law, the California False
Advertising Law, the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and
the California Commercial Code.

The plaintiffs seek undisclosed damages and the removal of the
company's products if the alleged problems are not corrected.

The plaintiffs are represented by attorney Jack Fitzgerald of San
Diego.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California-Western
Division, case no. 2:15-CV-02101


FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Focus Vehicle Warranty
----------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that class
action status is being sought for a lawsuit against Ford Motor Co.
over a type of transmission that renders Ford Focuses from 2011 to
2015 "virtually inoperable," the lawsuit said.

In the lawsuit, filed on Feb. 20 in a California state court,
Kevin and Andrea Klipfel and other unnamed plaintiff, are suing
Ford Motor Co., plus 10 unnamed individual defendants. The
plaintiffs are seeking a jury trial to hear its allegations that
Ford violated the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the
Unfair Competition Law, the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act,
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and express warranty guarantees
under the California Commercial Code.

Damages also are being sought over the alleged unjust enrichment
of Ford in the process. The lawsuit was removed to U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on March 23.

The lawsuit said that "an 'automated manual' transmission, i.e.
the PowerShift transmission, should have the convenience of an
automatic transmission without sacrificing the fuel efficiency and
shift speed of a manually shifted vehicle.  In practice, however,
Ford's PowerShift transmission is plagued by numerous problems and
safety concerns, rendering the vehicle virtually inoperable," the
plaintiffs claim.

The plaintiffs allege that these transmissions contain "one or
more design and/or manufacturing defects that cause, among other
problems, transmission slips, bucking, kicking, jerking, harsh
engagement, premature internal wear, sudden acceleration, delay in
downshifts, delayed acceleration, difficulty stopping the vehicle
and, eventually, transmission failure."

The plaintiffs are seeking undisclosed damages and are represented
by Capstone Law APC in Los Angeles.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California-Western
Division case number 2:15-cv-02140


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Faces Class Action Following Louisville Fire
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Glowicki, writing for The Courier-Journal, reports that a
resident who lives near General Electric Appliance Park has filed
a lawsuit claiming the company was negligent in storing flammable
material in its warehouse.

The lawsuit, filed on April 6 in Jefferson Circuit Court, claims
residents affected by the imposed shelter-in-place order suffered
harm from the "noxious plumes of black smoke" and "excessive
amounts of particulate matter," the suit reads.

Plaintiff Alex Ruiz, who lives 1.5 miles away from the building
that caught fire on April 3 and continued to burn into April 6,
seeks a class action lawsuit on behalf of all who live within the
shelter-in-place order and anyone else who was affected by the
"smoke, soot, ashes or other physical remnants" of the fire,
according of the suit.

The nuisance of the "toxic and hazardous substances and fumes" in
air and water and the shelter-in-place order have "negatively
affected the life and health" of Ruiz, according to the suit.

Derby Industries, which leases space from General Electric, is
also named in the suit.

Mr. Ruiz -- represented by attorneys Jasper Ward IV --
jward@jenner.com -- and Alex Davis -- is seeking compensatory and
punitive damages as well as a jury trial.


GOLD BUYER: Faces "Stover" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Robin Stover, on her own behalf and others similarly situated v.
Gold Buyer of Orange Park, Inc., Saqib Saddiq, and Rohan P. Shan,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00556-BJD-MCR (M.D. Fla., May 4, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are in the business of buying and selling gold
items.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yolando Ann-Marie Hewling, Esq.
      FARAH & FARAH, PA
      3rd Floor, 10 W Adams St
      Jacksonville, FL 32202
      Telephone: (904) 807-3103
      Facsimile: (904) 358-5302
      E-mail: yhewling@farahandfarah.com


GOLDEN HARMONY: Faces "Armendariz" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mercedes Armendariz, on behalf of herself and of all other
similarly situated v. Golden Harmony, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00949
(D. Colo., May 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Golden Harmony, Inc. owns and operates a home health care facility
with its principal place of business located at 14704 East 2nd
Avenue, Suite 200, Aurora, CO 80011.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Hess Turner, Esq.
      BUESCHER, KELMAN, PERERA & TURNER, P.C.
      600 Grant Street, Suite 450
      Denver, CO 80203
      Telephone: (303) 333-7751
      Facsimile: (303) 333-7758
      E-mail: aturner@laborlawdenver.com


GOLDEN KRUST: Recalls Shrimp and Soya Patties Due to Eggs
---------------------------------------------------------
Golden Krust Caribbean Bakery & Grill of Bronx, NY is recalling
6,188 cases of Shrimp and Soya Patties, Net Wt. 17.2 lbs, due to
an undeclared egg allergen. People who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to eggs run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume these products.

The Shrimp and Soya Patties were distributed directly to Golden
Krust stores in the Northeast, through a distributor for Golden
Krust stores in FL and GA and three other distributors.

Product cases are marked on the side with the following expiration
dates: 1/24/2015 through 2/26/2016. Each bulk case contains 50
individual frozen pieces lined with parchment paper.

Golden Krust has not received any reports of adverse reactions due
to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury
or illness should contact a healthcare provider.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that product
containing egg was distributed in packaging that did not reveal
the presence of the egg.

Consumers with known egg allergies who have any remaining
aforementioned product with the expiry dates listed should not
consume it, but rather discard it. Consumers with questions may
call the Golden Krust Consumer Response Hotline at 855-565-0561,
which is available 8:00 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. (EST) Monday - Friday or
via email at consumerresponse@goldenkrustbakery.com.


GOOGLE INC: Can't Dismiss App Users' Privacy Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Joe Van Acker and Allison Grande, writing for Law360, report that
Google Inc. can't dismiss a proposed class action accusing the
company of breaching its contract with users by giving their data
to third parties because that information has an "objectively
quantifiable value," the plaintiffs told a California federal
judge on April 3.

The plaintiffs pointed to the Ninth Circuit's 2014 ruling in
Robertson v. Facebook Inc. to show that personal data has value
that's lost when it's given away without authorization, and
rejected Google's argument that they had "pled their way out of
court" by altering their claims connecting the dissemination of
their information to decreased battery power and bandwidth.

"Google's motion studiously ignores the proverbial elephant in the
room," the plaintiffs said.  "Google has disclosed plaintiffs'
personal identifying information to third party application
developers which, under Robertson, requires denial of Google's
motion."

In July, Judge Paul S. Grewal had narrowed the suit to just two
claims under California law: one for breach of contract and
another for fraud.  The judge also warned that "any future
dismissal would likely be with prejudice."

The plaintiffs then filed their consolidated third amended
complaint in February, which maintained that Google passed along
Android users' information that it obtained when processing
payments for apps, including names, email addresses and
geographical locations.

Google then moved for a dismissal in March, arguing that the
plaintiffs' had withdrawn a crucial element of their case, namely
the depletion of their batteries and bandwidth, which the company
said was the only thing that gave the plaintiffs standing.

The plaintiffs countered on April 3 that they had done no such
thing, stating that their latest amendments only altered the class
period and removed allegations relating to Google's use of
personal information about users who downloaded free apps.

The plaintiffs pointed to a portion of the Ninth Circuit's
decision in Robertson that concluded a district court had erred in
dismissing state law claims for breach of contract and fraud
because the plaintiffs in that case were harmed by losing the
sales value of their data and also by Facebook's dissemination of
the data.

An expert calculated that the Android users' financial damages for
their lost bandwidth was small, about $0.068 per megabyte, but
that amount isn't too small because of the systemic nature of
Google's conduct, the plaintiffs said.

The plaintiffs argued that they lost the sales value of their
personal information when Google gave it away and said that loss
can be traced to Google because the company designed and
implemented the app purchase process.

Google had referred to the amended complaint as "a masterpiece of
semantic gymnastics," arguing that the plaintiffs had attempted to
define a "disclosure" as the possibility that an app developer
could get information about a specific transaction from Google's
servers, and claiming that the complaint never actually alleged
any data transmission on the company's part.

That "narrow understanding" of the term is meritless, the
plaintiffs argued, because Google's transmission of the users data
to its servers was part of the purchase process for which Google
was responsible.

"On Google's reasoning, there is no actionable disclosure unless
the developer not only receives access to purchasers' information,
but actually reads it -- as though, to constitute disclosure,
publication on a billboard or in a newspaper would not suffice,
because it may be that no one ever looks up at the billboard or
turns to that page of the newspaper," the plaintiffs said.

The plaintiffs are represented by solo practitioner Martin Stuart
Bakst, Kyle J. McGee, James J. Sabella, Sarah Nicole Westcot and
Diane Zilka of Grant & Eisenhofer PA, Lawrence Timothy Fisher,
Yeremey O. Krivoshey and Annick Marie Persinger of Bursor & Fisher
PA, and Mark C. Gardy, James S. Notis, Kelly A. Noto, Jennifer
Sarnelli and Orin Kurtz of Gardy & Notis LLP.

Google is represented by Michael H. Page -- mpage@durietangri.com
-- Joshua H. Lerner -- jlerner@durietangri.com -- and Sonali D.
Maitra -- smaitra@durietangri.com -- of Durie Tangri LLP.

The case is In re: Google Inc. Privacy Policy Litigation, case
number 5:12-cv-01382, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


GRADY COUNTY, GA: Settles Class Action; Sept. 12 Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Murphy, writing for Thomasville Times-Enterprise, reports
that people in Grady County who paid administrative costs as part
of their misdemeanor sentence in Grady County State Court on or
after Sept. 24, 2011 are eligible to receive $100 in damages and a
refund of the those administrative costs, up to $700, as terms of
a proposed settlement agreement for the class-action lawsuit
against Grady County and its former State Court judge, J. William
(Bill) Bass Sr.

The lawsuit was filed against Grady County and Judge Bass,
alleging that Bass unlawfully imposed administrative costs on
certain defendants and the county received and retained funds as a
result of the payment of those costs.

This settlement was reached in March and preliminarily approved by
Judge W. Louis Sands. Letters will soon be going to those
identified as potential members of the class with instructions.

Reportedly, there are fewer than 400 people who will be eligible
for a return of all or part of the administrative costs.

Basically, those individuals are given four options: they can
ignore the suit; they can make a claim for what they are entitled
under the preliminary settlement; they can opt out of the class-
action and pursue legal action separately or they can object to
the preliminary settlement.  A final hearing on the suit is
scheduled for Sept. 12.

The preliminary settlement included a denial of "any unlawful or
wrongful conduct" by Bass and Grady County.

Judge Bass' attorney, James L. Elliott said, "There was no finding
and will not be any finding, of any wrongdoing on the part of
Judge Bass or Grady County.  This settlement is a compromise of
disputed claims.  If you read all the court papers, you will see
that Bass formally and unequivocally denied those charges."
Mr. Elliott continued, "There was never any claim that Judge Bass
received or kept any money.  There is no evidence of that and he
did not receive any."

"He believes he acted lawfully and properly," said Mr. Elliott.
In an exclusive interview with the Times-Enterprise on April 6,
Judge Bass said, "Allegations in the lawsuit are that I added
administrative cost to fines.  That is patently untrue."

He continued, "I announced the fines in open court.  To the best
of my knowledge, every fine was in the amount allowed by law for
misdemeanor courts.  In paperwork placed to the clerk, I allocated
the fine to an amount on which state court surcharges should be
levied and a separate amount which was restitution to the county
for the costs of operating the court.  That is very clear to
anyone who has looked at the transcripts of those cases."


HONOKA'A HIGH: Teachers' Union Files Class Action v. Principal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Keoki Kerr, writing for HawaiiNewsNow, reports that the state put
a controversial Big Island principal on "temporary leave" on
April 8, just a day before a planned sign-waving campaign against
her.

Marcella McClelland has been the principal of the 650-student
Honoka'a High and Intermediate School for two years.  The
teachers' union filed a rare "class-action" grievance against her,
claiming she demoted respected veteran teachers and replaced them
with inexperienced ones.  Concerned teachers, parents and others
have collected signatures from more than 1,000 people calling for
her removal.

In a statement on April 8, the Department of Education said
McClelland has been put on leave because it's in the "best
interest of the principal, school and employees."  Ms.
McClelland's critics planned a sign waving campaign for an hour
before and after school on April 9.  A community meeting to
discuss the situation had been scheduled at the Honoka'a People's
Theatre.  On April 6, Ms. McClelland walked out of a School
Community Council meeting at the school as parents tried to ask
her questions.

"I'm done.  Thank you very much.  I'm sorry, you don't get to talk
to me that way," Ms. McClelland said as she packed up her papers
and left the room.

Kim Erb, the parent of a Honoka'a high student, questioned
McClelland about allegations she's demoting respected veteran
teachers and replacing them with inexperienced ones.

"Why do we have four to five teachers that are not licensed in
this state to teach at this high school? Why do you have several,
three to four teachers from Waimea Elementary who are elementary
teachers teaching high school students that are not highly
qualified?" Ms. Erb asked, as McClelland departed.

Outspoken teachers have filed union grievances saying they're
being punished for speaking out.  In one case, a veteran science
department chair in the high school is being replaced by an
elementary teacher who's not licensed to teach high schoolers,
teachers said.

The Hawaii State Teachers Association, union for the public school
teachers, has filed two grievances for individual teachers and a
third more significant class-action grievance on behalf of many
teachers at the school, an HSTA spokeswoman said.

The class-action grievance came after McClelland sent out
tentative teacher assignments for the next academic year in
February.  Her plan has the veteran automotive shop teacher
transferring to teach art, a science teacher transferring to teach
physical education and elimination of the special education
department head's post, teachers said.

Approximately one third of the school's core academic classes are
being taught by unlicensed teachers or those not certified to
teach in their disciplines said Miles Okumura, a Honoka'a teacher
who has filed a grievance.

Ms. Okumura, who teaches in the school's at-risk student program,
said the principal wants to transfer him to teach special
education students, even though he is not certified in special
education.

In March, the Honoka'a school council, made up of teachers,
parents and community members, asked McClelland to explain several
projects that they had never approved.  They included $11,000
spent on flat-screen televisions installed in classrooms and the
hiring of a part-time teacher to clean up the 11-acre school farm
even though no routine student agriculture projects are underway
there.

"We do now have some classes being taken down to the farm by their
teachers to do activities at the farm and see what's going on down
there," Ms. McClelland told the meeting.

But at the School Community Council meeting April 6, she said she
didn't have a lot of specific answers about spending, partly
because she was sick for much of March and her husband suffered a
heart attack two weeks prior.

"I have not been well, and my husband.  I'm going to let you know
that we are behind on some of the things we need to do and we need
to move forward," McClelland told the panel.

Council members complained McClelland repeatedly has refused to
answer basic budget and policy questions.

Dena Ramirez, whose child graduated from the school recently and
is a community representative on the school council complained:
"And it seems to get tabled and so again, I can never really get
any answers as to how the current year is going."

Ivy Tabac, whose daughter graduated from Honoka'a last year, said
the principal has not been good at communicating with parents or
faculty.

"She doesn't like anybody questioning her. She doesn't ask for
opinions, which that's what the school community council is
about," Ms. Tabac said.

Some parents and teachers at Honoka'a said she's definitely not
living up to the school's values of "do the right thing" and "work
together."


HORIZON HEALTHCARE: Judge Tosses Data Breach Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Y. Peter Kang and Jeff Sistrunk, writing for Law360, report that a
New Jersey federal judge tossed a putative class action against
Horizon Healthcare Services Inc. alleging the company failed to
protect nearly 840,000 customers' personal information following
the theft of two company laptops in late 2013, ruling that
plaintiffs did not demonstrate they suffered harm due to the
breach.

Four policyholders in the consolidated case allege that Horizon,
which does business as Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of
New Jersey, failed to implement new security measures after a
previous data security breach in 2008.  As a result, two laptops
stolen from Horizon's Newark headquarters did not have safeguards
in place to protect members' personally identifiable information
-- including dates of birth, addresses and Social Security numbers
-- and personal health information.

U.S. District Judge Claire C. Cecchi said in the March 31 opinion
that the Eleventh Circuit case cited by the plaintiffs, Resnick v.
AvMed Inc., differed from the instant case since plaintiffs did
not allege injuries such as identity theft or fraud suffered as a
result of the data breach.

"In stark contrast, neither [plaintiffs] Diana nor Pekelney nor
Meisel allege that they were careful in guarding their sensitive
information, that they suffered any monetary losses like those
alleged in Resnick, or that they have sustained any other injuries
such as identity theft, identity fraud, medical fraud, or
phishing," the judge wrote in the 16-page opinion.  "Thus, Diana,
Pekelney, and Meisel have not alleged an 'economic injury'
sufficient for standing."

Judge Cecchi also rejected plaintiffs' alleged violations of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act on the grounds of "imminent risk of
future harm," saying they did not allege any post-breach misuse of
compromised data.

"Plaintiffs' future injuries stem from the conjectural conduct of
a third party bandit and are therefore inadequate to confer
standing," the judge wrote.

The judge dismissed the case without prejudice but gave leave for
plaintiffs to file an amended complaint within 30 days.

The plaintiffs had claimed that Horizon failed to heed government
warnings following a similar incident in January 2008 in which a
different laptop holding personal information for 300,000
policyholders was stolen from an employee's residence.

That theft prompted a government inquiry into the insurer's
practices, and Horizon claimed it would encrypt all of its desktop
and laptop computers and portable media devices, according to the
complaint. But the insurer did not implement the promised changes,
the complaint alleged.

The plaintiffs are represented Joseph J. DePalma and Jeffrey Alan
Shooman of Lite Depalma Greenberg LLC, Philip A. Tortoreti of
Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer PA, David A. Straite of Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer LLP and William J. Pinilis of PinilisHalpern LLP.

Horizon is represented by David Jay -- jayd@gtlaw.com -- and
Philip R. Sellinger -- sellingerp@gtlaw.com -- of Greenberg Taurig
LLP.

The case is In re: Horizon Healthcare Services Inc. Data Breach
Litigation, case number 2:13-cv-07418, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey.


IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jeremias, Roger Mariani, and Michael Rubin, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. iDreamsky
Technology Limited, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-03484-UA (S.D.N.Y.,
May 5, 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.

iDreamsky Technology Limited is a Bermuda holding company that
develops mobile games.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Harry Weiss, Esq.
      Mark David Smilow, Esq.
      WEISS & LURIE
      551 Fifth Ave,
      New York, NY 10176
      Telephone: (212) 682-3025
      Facsimile: (212) 682-3010
      E-mail: jweiss@weisslawllp.com
              msmilow@weisslawllp.com


IKEA CANADA: Recalls Sultan Crib Mattresses
-------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 30, 2015
Posting date: April 30, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-53143

IKEA SULTAN crib mattresses include the following models:

   Model     Article Number
   -----     --------------
   BLUNDA    90031059
   DROMMA    82034
   SNARKA    40098938
   SUSSA     60099461

The product name and date stamp are found on a label sewn onto the
mattress.

IKEA SULTAN crib mattresses are designed to be used with IKEA
cribs to ensure a snug fit and safe sleeping environment for your
baby.  In some cases, a gap between the mattress and the side or
end of the crib that is greater than 3 cm can occur, posing an
entrapment hazard for an infant.

Neither Health Canada nor IKEA Canada has received any consumer
reports of incidents or injuries related to the use of the SULTAN
crib mattress.

IKEA Canada has received 1 report in the US of a potential gap
created between the SULTAN mattress and the end of the crib,
posing a safety hazard for infants.

Approximately 44,373 SULTAN crib mattresses have been sold at IKEA
stores across Canada and online at http://www.ikea.com/ca/en.

The SULTAN crib mattresses were sold between 2007 and 2010 in
Canada.

Manufactured in Mexico, China and the United States.

Manufacturer: IKEA Canada Limited Partnership
              Burlington
              Ontario
              CANADA
Consumers should check the gap between the IKEA SULTAN crib
mattress and the side and end of the crib. If the gap is greater
than 3 cm, consumers should immediately stop using the affected
product and return it to any IKEA store for an exchange or a full
refund.

Let new mattresses air for 72 hours after unpacking. It takes 3-4
days for the mattress to assume its proper shape and volume,
Remove all bedding, for example fitted sheets,
Push the mattress into one of the corners of the crib and measure
the gap between the mattress and the crib's side and end using a
measuring tape. Any gap should be less than 3 cm.
For more information, consumers may contact IKEA Canada by
telephone toll-free at 1-800-661-9807 or visit IKEA's website.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/KWKhJf


INSULET CORPORATION: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joanne G. Murphy, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Insulet Corporation, Duane Desisto, Patrick
J. Sullivan, Allison Dorval, and Brian Roberts, Case No. 1:15-cv-
11782 (D. Mass., May 5, 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.

Insulet Corporation is a Delaware corporation that is engaged in
the development, manufacturing and sale of its proprietary OmniPod
Insulin Management System, an insulin infusion system for people
with insulin-dependent diabetes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
      Mark A. Delaney, Esq.
      BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
      155 Federal Street, Suite 400
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (617) 398-5600
      Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
      E-mail: Jason@blockesq.com
              Mark@blockesq.com

         - and -

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      Casey E. Sadler, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 432-1495
      E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
              rprongay@glancylaw.com
              csadler@glancylaw.com

         - and -

      Howard G. Smith, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
      3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
      Bensalem, PA 19020
      Telephone: (215) 638-4847
      Facsimile: (215) 638-4867
      E-mail: hsmith@howardsmithlaw.com


INVIVO THERAPEUTICS: Judge Tosses Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael Mello, writing for Law360, reports that a Massachusetts
federal judge on April 3 threw out a putative class action against
a biotechnology firm accused of deceiving investors about the
timeline for human testing on a spinal cord treatment, saying the
plaintiffs failed to make an actionable claim.

U.S. District Court Judge Richard G. Stearns granted InVivo
Therapeutics Holdings Corp.'s motion to dismiss the proposed
securities class action, ruling the company's press releases
regarding the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's oversight of an
experimental treatment did not misrepresent the situation to
investors.


JBRE GA: Faces "Kobelt" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Kobelt, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. JBRE GA LLC d/b/a Just Brakes and Erik Passaro, Case No. 1:15-
cv-01550-ODE (N.D. Ga., May 5, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked
in excess of 40 per week.

The Defendants own and operate Just Brakes service center located
at 2653 Cobb Pkwy., S.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30339.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dustin Lee Crawford, Esq.
      John Lawrence Mays, Esq.
      MAYS & KERR, LLC
      Suite 202, North Tower
      235 Peachtree Street N.E.
      Atlanta, GA 30303
      Telephone: (404) 410-7998
      E-mail: dustin@maysandkerr.com
              john@maysandkerr.com


KEHE DISTRIBUTORS: Supreme Court Declines to Review FLSA Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin McGowan, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that denying a
petition filed by a specialty food provider, the U.S. Supreme
Court April 6 declined to review a federal appeals court ruling
that employees' rights to pursue a Fair Labor Standards Act
collective action can't be waived in a separation agreement that
lacks an arbitration clause.

Without comment, the justices left intact a U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit decision that sales representatives
terminated by KeHE Distributors LLC during a corporate
restructuring could pursue an FLSA collective action for overtime
pay even if they had signed separation agreements that included
collective action waivers (761 F.3d 574, 23 WH Cases2d 16 (6th
Cir. 2014).

The Sixth Circuit's ruling that workers can't waive FLSA
collective actions conflicts with the decisions of seven other
federal appeals courts as well as the Supreme Court, KeHE
Distributors argued in seeking review.

The Sixth Circuit misread those decisions as resting on the
Federal Arbitration Act, when those courts actually held the FLSA
creates no substantive right to collective lawsuits that employees
can't waive in exchange for monetary consideration, KeHE said.

Opposing review, the former employees said no circuit split exists
because all the cases cited by KeHE involve collective action
waivers in arbitration agreements that foreclose class claims in
arbitration.  Courts enforced those class action waivers to
vindicate an "emphatic federal policy in favor of arbitral dispute
resolution," a factor not present in the KeHE separation
agreements, the former employees said.

The Sixth Circuit also erred by reversing summary judgment for
KeHE on whether its former employees fall within the FLSA's
"outside sales employee" exemption, the company said.  Instead,
the appeals court said triable issues remained on whether the
company representatives actually made sales and if making sales
was their primary duty.

The Sixth Circuit reasoned the former employees don't necessarily
fall within the FLSA's outside sales exemption because they merely
were replenishing inventory within the retail stores served by
KeHE rather than single-handedly making new sales and increasing
KeHE's sales volume.

But such a restrictive reading of the outside sales exemption
can't be squared with the statute, Labor Department regulations or
the Supreme Court decision in Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham
Corp., 132 S. Ct. 2156, 19 WH Cases2d 257 (2012), KeHE said.

The notion that sales employees must always be making new sales or
not acting as part of a team involved in sales to fall within the
FLSA exemption runs counter to modern-day workplace realities,
KeHE said.

Resolve Conflicts, Petitioner Urges

The Sixth Circuit's "refusal to enforce a bargained-for agreement"
between an employer and its employees to pursue any FLSA claim
only on an individual basis conflicts with contrary decisions from
the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth and Eleventh
circuits, KeHE said.

Those courts all have held the FLSA doesn't provide for a "non-
waivable, substantive right" to bring collective actions, KeHE
said. Rather, the other circuits have agreed FLSA Section 16,
which provides for collective actions, is a procedural device that
individuals may waive for valid consideration, such as the bonuses
paid to KeHE employees who signed the separation agreements
containing the waiver, the company said.

The Sixth Circuit reasoned the other circuit decisions all
involved class and collective action waivers contained in
arbitration agreements, bringing the Federal Arbitration Act into
play.

But the other circuits' decisions turned on interpretation of the
FLSA, not the Federal Arbitration Act, KeHE said.  Those courts
found nothing "in the text, legislative history or purpose of the
FLSA" to suggest Congress "intended to confer a non-waivable
right" to class litigation of FLSA claims, the company said.

"Moreover, none of the [other circuits'] decisions turns on
anything unique about arbitration," KeHE said.

High Court Precedent Invoked

The Sixth Circuit decision also conflicts with Supreme Court
precedent, including AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct.
1740 (2011), that courts must place arbitration agreements "on the
same footing" as other contracts and enforce them according to
their terms, KeHE said.

"Contrary to the Sixth Circuit's reasoning, therefore, arbitration
agreements are not special," KeHE said.  "They are like any other
contract."

The Supreme Court reaffirmed in American Express Co. v. Italian
Colors Restaurant, 133 S. Ct. 2304 (2013), that waiver isn't
precluded simply because a statute permits a class or collective
action, KeHE said.

In addition, several federal courts correctly have said if an
individual can opt into an FLSA collective action, surely a worker
also can choose to waive participation in group lawsuits under the
statute, KeHe said.

Individualized litigation won't preclude effective vindication of
an employee's FLSA rights, KeHE said.  But even if the expense of
pursuing an individual FLSA claim were high, Italian Colors
establishes "the fact that it is not worth the expense involved in
pursuing a statutory remedy does not constitute the elimination of
the right to pursue that remedy," KeHE said.

The court's failure to grant review likely will have "an
immediate, negative impact on employer-employee relations," KeHE
warned.  If the Sixth Circuit decision remains intact, affected
employers and employees would have to agree to arbitration and
entirely abandon the judicial forum in order to secure an
effective waiver of FLSA collective actions, the company said.

"But while some employers have chosen to implement an arbitration
program, others -- for reasons such as avoiding costly arbitrator
fees and retaining full appellate rights -- still prefer to have
their disputes resolved in court," KeHE said.  "Likewise, many
employees prefer a judicial forum."

"And, whatever choice they make, employers and employees have a
strong interest in having their choice of forum respected and
enforced," the company said.

Cardelle B. Spangler of Winston & Strawn LLP in Chicago was
counsel of record for KeHE Distributors.

No Basis for Review

Opposing review, the former employees said the Sixth Circuit
correctly decided both the waiver issue and the outside sales
exemption issue.  In addition, the interlocutory nature of the
appeals court ruling counsels against Supreme Court review, the
former employees said.

Contrary to KeHE, the former employees said the Sixth Circuit
creates no circuit conflict because all the decisions cited by the
company "arose in the context of an arbitration agreement that
specifically excluded collective actions in the arbitration
context."

Those other circuits relied upon the federal policy favoring
arbitration to uphold the collective action waivers, not a holding
that the FLSA permits such waivers even when no arbitration
agreement is involved, the former employees said.

"The Sixth Circuit recognized it was the first circuit to address
the collective action waiver outside the arbitration context," the
former employees said.  "Tellingly, KeHE does not argue otherwise.
In sum, no circuit split exists, and review should be denied."

The Sixth Circuit also didn't err in finding that the former sales
employees don't necessarily fall within the FLSA's outside sales
exemption, the ex-employees said.

Rather, the appeals court permissibly found that when employees
spend a "vast majority" of their time performing promotional work,
an issue arises whether such work was "incidental" to "their own
sales" or to sales made by others, the former employees said.

The Sixth Circuit found sufficient evidence to suggest KeHE
account managers were "making the sale" in determining the items
that could be sold to specific retail customers, the price of
those items and the sales volume, the former employees said.

The Supreme Court's decision in Christopher, which found
pharmaceutical sales representatives did fall within the outside
sales exemption, can be distinguished, the former KeHE employees.

KeHE provides no support for its argument the Sixth Circuit's
decision regarding the exemption "destroys the predictability of
employee classifications for sales departments in other
companies," the former employees said.

The justices should decline to review an interlocutory ruling in a
fact-specific case, the former employees said.

Robert A. Bunda of Bunda Stutz & DeWitt PLL in Perrysburg, Ohio,
was counsel of record for the former employees.


KRAFT FOODS: Consumers Seek to Certify False Ad Action
------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Siegal, writing for Law360, reports that purchasers of
Kraft Foods Group Inc. "natural" fat-free cheddar cheese on
April 6 urged a California federal judge to certify their false
advertising class action, arguing the question of whether the
company deceived consumers by putting artificial coloring in the
cheese applies uniformly to the entire class.

At a hearing in Los Angeles, Ryan J. Clarkson of Clarkson Law
Firm, representing the plaintiffs, urged U.S. District Judge John
A. Kronstadt to certify a class that could encompass more than a
million Californian purchasers of a Kraft fat-free shredded
cheddar cheese, per court documents.  Mr. Clarkson said that the
class should be certified because the question of whether Kraft's
labeling the cheese as "natural" deceived consumers applies
uniformly to all potential class members.

Mr. Clarkson also urged Judge Kronstadt to certify the class as to
its claim for injunctive relief under California's consumer
protection laws, arguing that even the class representatives are
no longer at risk of being deceived by the product at issue, they
have standing.

"If either class representative wanted to purchase another,
similar product . . . there would be no reliability in the
purchase decision," he said.

The suit, filed by named plaintiffs Claudia Morales and Mocha
Gunaratna in Los Angeles Superior Court on May 7, was removed to
federal court on June 6.  Ms. Morales and Ms. Gunaratna allege
that the food giant's "Kraft Natural Cheese -- Shredded Cheese --
Cheddar Fat Free" product contains artificial colorings, in
contradiction of the "natural" term with which it is labeled.

This artificial health coloring poses health concerns for certain
consumers, as it could cause hyperactivity in children or allergic
reactions, according to the complaint.

The suit contends that Kraft has sold hundreds of thousands of
units of the cheese, and that the putative class of purchasers of
the fat-free cheddar cheese numbers in the "many thousands."

Plaintiffs allege violations of California's false and misleading
advertising law and its Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and seek
restitutionary damages and an injunction against Kraft from using
the allegedly misleading labeling.

In September, Kenneth K. Lee of Jenner & Block LLP, representing
Kraft, urged Judge Kronstadt to dismiss the suit with prejudice,
arguing that the case is clearly distinguishable from other recent
false ad class actions against food makers who advertise products
as "all natural."  Mr. Lee said the suit fails even at the
pleading stage because federal guidelines clearly delineate
"natural" cheese as cheese made from a single milk, as
distinguished from processed cheese with multiple ingredients,
nothing more.

Judge Kronstadt did dismiss the suit, but granted leave to amend,
and the plaintiffs' second amended complaint was able to move past
the dismissal stage by appending specific examples of the
allegedly misleading labeling, according to court filings.

On April 6, Dean Panos -- dpanos@jenner.com -- of Jenner & Block
argued to Judge Kronstadt that a case about "natural cheese" is
simply unworkable, as compared to the "all natural" class actions
cited as examples by the plaintiffs, because "natural cheese" is a
term of art, not a marketing term, making it too difficult to
ascertain which class members actually relied on that term in
making their purchase and thus assess damages by applying a
monetary value to the alleged deception.

"It is at this point in the proceedings you need to show evidence
of a damages model, not at some later point," he said.

Judge Kronstadt said he would issue a written ruling.

The plaintiffs are represented by Paul D. Stevens and Shireen
Mohsenzadegan ofMilstein Adelman LLP and Ryan J. Clarkson of
Clarkson Law Firm.

Kraft is represented by Kenneth K. Lee -- KLee@jenner.com --
Kelly M. Morrison and Dean N. Panos of Jenner & Block LLP.

The case is Claudia Morales et al. v. Kraft Foods Group Inc., case
number 2:14-cv-04387, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.


LENOVO INC: Faces Wu et al Class Action Over Superfish Software
---------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a class action lawsuit was filed March
17 against computer company Lenovo Inc., and software maker
SuperFish Inc., for alleged invasion of privacy.

According to a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, Ivan Wu, Patrick Johnson,
Michael Reinert and other unnamed plaintiffs say Superfish's
software enables other entities to monitor a user's communications
with minimal effort.  They seek damages in "connection with the
marketing and sale of certain Lenovo computers containing software
that monitors user activity and intercepts, decrypts, changes and
otherwise manipulates user data in an insecure manner that exposes
users to significant data security risks, for fraudulent
advertising purposes without the knowledge or consent of users."

The plaintiffs, who are seeking undisclosed punitive damages, are
represented by Matthew Wetherington -- Matt@WernerLaw.com -- and
Adam Hoipkemier of the Werner Law Firm of Atlanta.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
case number is 5:15-CV-10


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Condra" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jerome Condra, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00278-JAG
(E.D. Va., May 5, 2015), alleges that the Defendants manufactured,
labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that fails to comply with
relevant and applicable formaldehyde standards. The Chinese
Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive levels of formaldehyde,
which is categorized as a known human carcinogen by the United
States National Toxicology Program and the International Agency
for Research on Cancer.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey A. Breit, Esq.
      Michael F. Imprevento, Esq.
      John W. Drescher, Esq.
      BREIT DRESCHER IMPREVENTO, P.C.
      Towne Pavilion Center II
      600 22nd Street, Suite 402
      Virginia Beach, VA 23451
      Telephone: (757) 622-6000
      Facsimile: (757) 670-3939
      E-mail: jbreit@bdbmail.com
              mimprevento@breitdrescher.com
              jdrescher@breitdrescher.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Peterman" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Peterman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No. 0:15-cv-
02406-DWF-SER (D. Minn., May 5, 2015), alleges that the Defendants
manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that fails to
comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde standards. The
Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive levels of
formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human carcinogen by
the United States National Toxicology Program and the
International Agency for Research on Cancer.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
      LARSON KING, LLP
      30 E 7th St Ste 2800
      St Paul, MN 55101-4922
      Telephone: (651) 312-6500
      Facsimile: (651) 312-6615
      E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com


MEMPHIS, TN: More Women Join Class Action Over Untested Rape Kits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kontji Anthony, writing for WMC, reports that the list of women
suing the City of Memphis over untested rape kits is growing.

Three women started a class action lawsuit against the government
for failing to test rape kits, which they say allowed their
rapists to continue operating freely.

Now, the WMC Action News 5 Investigators have learned more than
two dozen women are part of the lawsuit.

"We have approximately 25 plaintiffs right now, and we're adding
more," plaintiffs' attorney Daniel Lofton told WMC Action News 5.

Mr. Lofton says the failure to test the rape kits was bad enough.

Now, he says the city is refusing to cooperate by withholding
requested documents and delaying closure once again for his
clients.

A lawsuit filed in August 2014 requested 29 sets of documents.
Court documents show the City of Memphis called the request
"overly broad and unduly burdensome."

The city went on to say that the information Lofton requested
would not yield any admissible evidence.

Mr. Lofton says in November, he filed another request for just one
piece of evidence: the city's rape kits testing policies and
procedures.

Mr. Lofton says the city has not responded up to now.

"They don't tell us what was the rule, what was the standard, how
did you use rape kit evidence?" Mr. Lofton said.

Mr. Lofton says the basis of their defense is that they followed
the rules in place, but four months later the city has not shown
the court the actual rules.  He questions if there were ever any
rules and procedures at all.

So far, 12,374 rape survivors turned over sexual assault kits to
investigators, but those kits sat on shelves, untested for
decades.

Nearly 6,700 kits remain untested, and it's unclear when the
women's lawsuit will be heard in court.

WMC Action News 5's Kontji Anthony reached out to the City of
Memphis.  The communications office has not yet responded to her
requests for comment on this story.


MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Must Face Leaky AC Class Action, Judge Rules
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aebra Coe and Beth Winegarner, writing for Law360, report that a
California federal judge on April 7 refused to throw out a
proposed class action claiming Mercedes-Benz USA LLC sold Sprinter
vans with air conditioning units it knew would leak and cause
water damage, saying the plaintiffs properly pled their product
liability and consumer protection claims.

Despite saying he was inclined to side with the carmaker at a
hearing earlier this week, U.S. District Court Judge Thelton E.
Henderson issued an order keeping the suit largely intact and
dismissed a lone claim, actual fraud, without prejudice.  Judge
Henderson rejected Mercedes' argument that the plaintiffs have
improperly suggested the vans should operate properly "forever."

"Defendant argues that UCL claims do not apply to defects that
arise outside of the warranty period," Judge Henderson said.
"Plaintiff is not complaining that the vans failed to 'last
forever,' which is the problem with post-warranty defect claims
under the UCL.  Instead, plaintiff complains that the vans failed
to operate properly from the beginning."

Digby Adler, a van rental and leasing company, seeks to represent
a class of consumers who purchased Mercedes' Sprinter 2500 and
Sprinter 3500 vans with roof air conditioning units.

The company claims it bought 98 vans from the automaker and the
majority of them sprung leaks that damaged the interior of the
vehicles as well as expensive cargo, which for Digby Adler
includes valuable musical instruments that belong to the touring
musicians that rent the vans.

The plaintiff claims that it communicated with Mercedes about the
leaky units, and was told that the company had issued a "fix" that
would resolve the leaks. It surmised that Mercedes was "on top of
the problem" and continued to purchase the vans, only to discover
more leaks, according to the complaint.

Judge Henderson found Tuesday that the complaint adequately
alleges a substantial consumer injury as required under
California's Unfair Competition Law.

"Plaintiff alleges that at least 83 of the 98 vans it purchased
have experienced leaks in and around the AC unit," he said.  "This
number represents a significant portion of the purchased vans, and
suggests that a sizeable portion of vans purchased by other
consumers likely contain the same defect, resulting in similarly
substantial injuries."

"We're happy to move forward on the merits of the case and seek
relief for people who bought a Sprinter van with a leaky AC unit,"
said counsel for the plaintiffs, Steven A. Kronenberg of The Veen
Firm.

The second amended complaint, filed last September, includes
claims for product liability, fraud and violations of California's
Unfair Competition Law. The plaintiffs also seek a court ruling
that outlines the "rights, remedies and obligations of the
parties," according to the complaint.

Only the fraud claim was tossed on April 7, but the plaintiffs
have the opportunity by the end of the month to amend it.

The plaintiffs are represented by William L. Veen, Anthony L.
Label and Steven A. Kronenberg of The Veen Firm and Jonathan E.
Gertler -- jon@chavezgertler.com -- Dan L. Gildor and Samuel P.
Cheadle of Chavez & Gertler LLP.

Mercedes is represented by Troy Masami Yoshino, Eric J. Knapp and
Steven Edward Swaney of Carroll Burdick & McDonough LLP.

The case is Digby Adler Group LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA LLC, case
number 3:14-cv-02349, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

                           *     *     *

Beth Winegarner, writing for Law360, earlier reported that a
California federal judge said on April 6 that he'd likely throw
out a proposed class action claiming that Mercedes-Benz USA LLC
sold Sprinter vans with air conditioning units it knew would leak
and cause water damage, saying that he didn't think the
plaintiffs' claims are specific enough.

Mercedes argued in its motion that the lead plaintiff, Digby Adler
Group LLC, didn't point to any misstatements on the part of
Mercedes that were made with the intention of selling more
vehicles.  Before hearing arguments on April 6, U.S. District
Court Judge Thelton E. Henderson said he was inclined to side with
the carmaker.

"It seems abundantly clear to me -- but maybe 'abundantly' is too
strong a word -- that the plaintiffs haven't pled with sufficient
specificity," he said.

Digby Adler, a van rental and leasing company, seeks to represent
a class of consumers who purchased Mercedes' Sprinter 2500 and
Sprinter 3500 vans with roof air conditioning units.  The
plaintiff claims that it communicated with Mercedes about the
leaky units, and was told that the company had issued a "fix" that
would resolve the leaks.  It surmised that Mercedes was "on top of
the problem" and continued to purchase the vans, only to discover
more leaks, according to the complaint.

"The plaintiff has pleaded a prima facie case of harm," argued
Dan Gildor -- dan@chavezgertler.com -- of Chavez & Gertler LLP, an
attorney for Digby Adler. "Mercedes knowingly installed defective
air conditioning units and should be made to answer for that
harm."

Mercedes was aware of the leaks, and that the plaintiffs had
concerns about them, Mr. Gildor said.

"They seem to be retreating back to their nondisclosure theory,
which they abandoned in an earlier complaint," argued
Steven Swaney of Carroll Burdick & McDonough LLP, an attorney for
Mercedes.

Mr. Swaney also took issue with Digby Adler's failure to state
when it purchased the vehicles at issue, saying that Mercedes
can't figure out whether any of those vans were purchased under
false pretenses if it doesn't know when they were sold.

Mr. Swaney urged Judge Henderson to throw out the plaintiffs'
claim that Mercedes violated California's Unfair Competition Law,
saying that it's not enough to argue that it was unfair for
Mercedes to sell vans it knew had a defect.

It's been said in other cases that "it's not unfair to sell a
vehicle where a part may fail outside the warranty period;
components have a certain useful life," Mr. Swaney argued.

Mr. Gildor rejected that argument, saying that the plaintiffs
aren't trying to bring a case about whether Mercedes is obligated
to provide products that last forever.  "It's about whether
they're obligated to provide products that work," he argued.

Judge Henderson took the arguments under submission and said he'd
issue a ruling.


NEWMAR: Recalls Multiple Motorhome Models
-----------------------------------------
Starting date: April 28, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motorhome
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Suspension
Units affected: 3
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015180TC
ID number: 2015180

On certain motorhomes, the tag axle suspension hangers may move
allowing the tag axle assembly to shift off center without
warning, which could cause vehicle instability, increasing the
risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property.
Correction: Dealers will weld the tag axle suspension hangers to
the chassis frame.

   Make    Model                           Model year(s) affected
   ----    -----                           ----------------------
   NEWMAR  KOUNTRY AIRE CLASS A MOTORHOME  2015
   NEWMAR  ESSEX CLASS A MOTORHOME         2015


NORTEK INC: Recalls Cleaning Products Due to Non-compliance
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 4, 2015
Posting date: May 4, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Chemicals
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Labelling and Packaging
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-53249

This recall involves Aqua-Tek Aluma-Brite, Hull Cleaner
Professional and Ultra Hull Cleaner products sold in 4 L
containers without child-resistant closures. These products do not
have a UPC.

The recalled products do not meet the child-resistant packaging
requirements for consumer chemical products required by the
Consumer Chemicals and Containers Regulations, 2001 under the
Canada Consumer Product Safety Act. The lack of child-resistant
packaging could result in unintentional exposure to this product
and lead to serious illnesses, injuries and death.

Neither Health Canada nor Nortek Inc. has received any reports of
consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these
products.

Approximately 460 units of the Aluma-Brite 4 L were sold in Canada
from September 2009 to October 2013.

Approximately 432 units of Hull Cleaner Professional 4 L were sold
in Canada from July 2010 to September 2013.

Approximately 88 units of Ultra Hull Cleaner 4 L were sold in
Canada from July to October 2013.

The recalled products were sold in Canada from May 2009 to October
2013.

Manufactured in Canada.

Manufacturer: Nortek Inc.
              Toronto
              Ontario
              CANADA

Distributor: KemFix Inc.
             Ste Julie
             Quebec
             CANADA

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/jMlxka


NORTEK INC: Recalls Aqua-Tek Mega Clean Products
------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 4, 2015
Posting date: May 4, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Chemicals
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Labelling and Packaging
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-53253

This recall involves Aqua-Tek Mega Clean products sold in a white
1 L bottle with a spray trigger with UPC 69687 15200, and Aqua-Tek
Mega Clean products sold in a 4 L with no UPC.

This recall does NOT apply to Mega Clean products sold in 20 L
pails.

The recalled products do not meet the child-resistant packaging
requirements for consumer chemical products required by the
Consumer Chemicals and Containers Regulations, 2001 under the
Canada Consumer Product Safety Act. The lack of child-resistant
packaging could result in unintentional exposure to this product
and lead to serious illnesses, injuries and death.

Neither Health Canada nor Nortek Inc. has received any reports of
consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these
products.

Approximately 13,800 units of the Mega Clean 1 L with the spray
trigger were sold in Canada from May 2009 to January 2014.

Approximately 912 units of the Mega Clean 4 L were sold in Canada
from Oct 2009 to September 2013.

The recalled products were sold in Canada from May 2009 to January
2014.

Manufactured in Canada.

Manufacturer: Nortek Inc.
              Toronto
              Ontario
              CANADA

Distributor: KemFix Inc.
             Ste Julie
             Quebec
             CANADA

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/Uu8X1B


O'RYAN PRODUCTION: Faces "Haynes" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kerry S. Haynes, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. O'Ryan Production and Exploration, Ltd. d/b/a o'Ryan
Drilling, Case No. 1:15-cv-00367 (W.D. Tex., May 5, 2015), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

O'Ryan Production and Exploration, Ltd. is a Texas corporation
with a principal place of business at Odessa, Texas that is
engaged in oil drilling business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PACIFIC COAST: Scott+Scott Files Amended IPO Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
On April 3, 2015, Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP filed a
consolidated amended class action lawsuit against Pacific Coast
Oil Trust and certain of its executives and directors and each of
the investment banks that acted as underwriters in connection with
PCOT's May 2, 2012 Initial Public Offering and PCOT's September
19, 2013 Secondary Offering.  The class action, filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California - County of Los Angeles,
alleges that PCOT's IPO and Secondary Offering Registration
Statements contained materially incorrect or misleading statements
and/or omitted material information that was required to be
disclosed.

PCOT is a Delaware statutory perpetual royalty trust formed by
Pacific Coast Energy Company to own net profits and royalty
interests in California onshore oil and gas properties located in
the Santa Maria and Los Angeles Basins.

The Amended Complaint alleges that PCOT mistated: (1) the level
and predictability of cash distributions that would be paid to
unitholders; (2) the need for capital expenditures; (3) that the
interests of PCEC and unitholders were aligned when, in fact,
PCEC's overriding interest was to limit capital expenditures along
with operating costs; and (4) that PCEC was able to and would use
its technical and operational expertise to manage and control the
timing of expenses and capital expenditures for the benefit of
unitholders.

What You Can Do

If you are a PCOT unitholder that purchased in the IPO, or are a
PCOT unitholder who purchased in the Secondary Offering on
September 19, 2013, you may have additional rights.  If you wish
to discuss this action, or have questions about this notice or
your legal rights, please contact attorney Joseph Halloran at
(646) 582-0121 or via email at jhalloran@scott-scott.com.

              About Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP

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


PAINTING SPECIALIST: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Medina, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216 (b) v. Painting Specialist and Sheldon Publicover, Case No.
3:15-cv-01404 (N.D. Tex., May 5, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Painting Specialist offers a full range of services in
residential, commercial, and industrial painting.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Proceedings Over NIS 343MM Claim Resumed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on April
12, 2010, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a class
action were filed against the Company. The claim alleges that the
Company charges its subscribers for certain content services
without their consent. If the claim is recognized as a class
action, the total amount claimed from the Company is estimated by
the plaintiffs to be approximately NIS 343 million. The parties
have failed to reach a settlement agreement and proceedings have
resumed.


PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs in Contract Breach Suit Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that plaintiffs
in a breach of contract action filed an appeal with the Supreme
Court.

On May 23, 2010, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company and all other cellular
operators. The claim alleges that the Company, as well as the
other defendants, is breaching its contractual and/or legal
obligation to erect cellular sites in the appropriate scope,
quantity and coverage in order to provide cellular services in the
required and appropriate quality. The plaintiffs claimed that this
omission also causes, inter alia, monetary damages caused to
consumers as a result of lack of sufficient coverage, including
call disconnections, insufficient voice quality etc., as well as a
significant increase in the non-ionized radiation that the public
is exposed to mainly from the cellular telephone handset.

In addition, it is claimed that the Company and the other
defendants are breaching their contractual and/or legal obligation
to ensure and/or check and/or repair and/or notify the consumer,
that after repair and/or upgrade and/or exchange of cellular
handsets, the handsets may emit radiation in levels that exceed
the levels of radiation as set forth by the manufacturer in the
handset data and even exceeds the maximum permitted levels set
forth by law. In addition, it was claimed that the Company and the
other defendants do not fulfill their obligation to caution and
warn the consumers of the risks involved in holding the handset
and the proximity of the handset to the body while carrying it and
during a phone call. In addition, it was claimed that if the
handsets marketed by the Company and the other defendants emit
non-ionizing radiation above the permitted level, at any distance
from the body, then the marketing and sale of such handsets is
prohibited in Israel. If the claim is recognized as a class
action, the total amount claimed from the Company is estimated by
the plaintiffs to be approximately NIS 3.677 billion.

In November 2013 the parties filed a request to approve a
settlement agreement and in February 2014 the parties filed a
request to approve a revised settlement agreement. The settlement
agreement also includes a claim and a motion to certify the claim
as a class action. In July 2014, the court approved the settlement
agreement and in October 2014 the plaintiffs filed an appeal with
the Supreme Court.


PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: NIS405MM Claim Not Yet Certified as Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on
September 7, 2010, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company. The claim alleges
that the Company unlawfully charges its customers for services of
various content providers, which are sent through text messages
(SMS). If the claim is recognized as a class action, the total
amount claimed from the Company is estimated by the plaintiffs to
be approximately NIS 405 million. The claim has not yet been
certified as a class action.


PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Accessories Case Plaintiffs File Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that plaintiffs
in the case related to the supply of accessories that are intended
for carrying cellular handsets have filed an appeal with the
Supreme Court.

On June 6, 2011, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company and the three other
cellular operators. The claim alleges that the Company sell or
supply accessories that are intended for carrying cellular
handsets on the body, in a manner that contradicts the
instructions and warnings of the cellular handset manufacturers
and the recommendations of the Ministry of Health, all this
without disclosing the risks entailed in the use of these
accessories when they are sold or marketed. If the claim is
recognized as a class action, the total amount claimed from the
Company is estimated by the plaintiffs to be approximately NIS
1,010 million. On November 7, 2013, the parties filed a request to
approve a settlement agreement and on February 5, 2014, the
parties filed a request to approve a revised settlement agreement.
The settlement agreement also includes a claim and a motion to
certify the claim as a class action. In July 2014 the court
approved the settlement agreement and in October 2014 the
plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.


PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Back Up Service Plaintiff Files Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the
plaintiff in a case over subscription of content back up service
for cellular handsets without informing them, filed an appeal with
the Supreme Court.

On October 5, 2011, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company. The claim alleges
that the Company enables its customers to subscribe to a content
back up service for cellular handsets without informing them in
cases in which the handset does not support the service or only
partially supports such service. If the claim is recognized as a
class action, the total amount claimed from the Company is
estimated by the plaintiffs to be approximately NIS 117 million.
In November 2014 the claim was dismissed and in January 2015 the
plaintiff filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.


PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: PWDs Claim in Preliminary Stage
-------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on
February 6, 2012, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company and other cellular
operators. The claim alleges that the Company, as well as the
other defendants does not comply with the requirements set by the
Equal Rights for People with Disabilities (Accessibility to
Telecommunications Services and Telecommunications Devices)
Regulations of 2009. If the claim is recognized as a class action,
the total amount claimed from the Company is estimated by the
plaintiffs to be approximately NIS 120 million. The claim is still
in its preliminary stage of the motion to be certified as a class
action.


PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: No Discounts Case in Preliminary Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on June
23, 2013, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a class
action were filed against the Company. The claim alleges that the
Company acted unlawfully by not offering its customers discounted
cellular tariff plans which are offered under the 012 mobile brand
and by charging its customers that transferred to a plan under the
012 mobile brand a payment for a new SIM card. If the claim is
recognized as a class action, the total amount claimed from
Partner is estimated by the plaintiff to be NIS 232 million.  The
claim is still in its preliminary stage of the motion to be
certified as a class action.


PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Increased Tariffs Case in Initial Stage
---------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on
November 13, 2013, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company. The claim alleges
that the Company increased tariffs for its subscribers not in
accordance with their agreements. If the claim is recognized as a
class action, the total amount claimed from Partner is estimated
by the plaintiff to be NIS 150 million. The claim is still in its
preliminary stage of the motion to be certified as a class action.


PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Case Over Refunds in Preliminary Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on
December 2, 2013, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company. The claim alleges
that the Company did not fulfill its commitment regarding the
grant of refunds for cellular equipment starting from the first
month of the customer agreement and that the Company unlawfully
charged its customers for the Orange2 service, and thereby
breached the agreements with its customers and the provisions of
its license, and profited unlawfully. If the claim is recognized
as a class action, the total amount claimed from Partner is
estimated by the plaintiff to be NIS 603 million. The claim is
still in its preliminary stage of the motion to be certified as a
class action.


PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Internet Service Case in Initial Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on April
1, 2014, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a class
action were filed against the Company. The claim alleges that the
Company charged its customers for cellular internet services
abroad not in accordance with the subscriber agreement. If the
claim is recognized as a class action, the total amount claimed
from Partner is estimated by the plaintiff to be approximately NIS
2 Billion. The claim is still in its preliminary stage of the
motion to be certified as a class action.


PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Cellular Operators Suit in Initial Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on July
15, 2014, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a class
action were filed against the Company and against additional
cellular operators and content providers. The claim alleges that
the cellular operators, including the Company, breached legal
provisions and provisions of their licenses and thereby created a
platform that led to the customers' damages alleged in the claim.

If the lawsuit is recognized as a class action the total amount
claimed against all of the defendants is estimated by the
plaintiff to be approximately NIS 300 million. The claim is still
in its preliminary stage of the motion to be certified as a class
action.


PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Revised Deal Filed in Call Charges Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on April
22, 2009, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a class
action were filed against the Company. The claim alleges that the
Company charges certain subscribers for certain calls not
according to their rate plan. If the claim is recognized as a
class action, the total amount claimed from the Company is
estimated by the plaintiffs to be approximately NIS 187 million.
The Parties filed a number of settlement agreements which were
submitted for the court's approval and the latest revised
settlement agreement was filed on June 12, 2014.


PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Revised Deal in Calling Cards Case Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on
February 15, 2012, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against 012 Smile and other
telecommunication operators. The claim alleges that the defendants
misled the purchasers of prepaid calling cards designated for
international calls with respect to certain bonus minutes. The
total amount claimed against 012 (and against each of the other
defendants) if the claim is recognized as a class action is
estimated by the plaintiff to be NIS 2.7 billion. On May 26, 2013,
the court approved a settlement agreement filed by the parties and
regarding an additional lawsuit, dealing with similar issues. The
parties submitted a revised settlement agreement in December 2014
that was approved by the court in January 2015.


PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Revised Deal in Telephony Case Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that during
2008, several claims and motions to certify the claims as class
actions were filed against several international telephony
companies including 012 Smile. The plaintiffs allege that with
respect to prepaid calling card services, the defendants misled
the consumers regarding certain issues, charged consumers in
excess, and formed a cartel that arranged and raised the prices of
calling cards. On November 3, 2010, the court granted the
plaintiffs' request and certified the lawsuit as a class action
against all of the defendants. The total amount of damages claimed
by the plaintiff against 012 Smile is approximately NIS 128
million. On May 26, 2013, the court approved a settlement
agreement filed by the parties regarding an amended request and
regarding an additional lawsuit, dealing with similar issues in an
amount of NIS 2.7 billion.  The parties submitted a revised
settlement agreement in December 2014 that was approved by the
court in January 2015.


PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Claim Over Incorrect Charges Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on January
9, 2012, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a class
action were filed against the Company. The claim alleges that the
Company did not comply with the provisions of the Israeli Consumer
Protection Law and its license with respect to the manner of
handling customer complaints regarding incorrect charges and that
as a result the group members suffered non pecuniary damages as a
result of anguish and a waste of their time. If the claim had been
recognized as a class action, the total amount claimed from the
Company is estimated by the plaintiffs to be approximately NIS 392
million. The claim was dismissed in February 2015.


PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: VAT Charges Plaintiff Files Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on July
14, 2010, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a class
action were filed against the Company. The claim alleges that
Partner is breaching its contractual and/or legal obligation
and/or is acting negligently by charging V.A.T for roaming
services that are consumed abroad. If the claim is recognized as a
class action, the plaintiff demands to return the total amount of
V.A.T that was charged by Partner for roaming services that were
consumed abroad The plaintiff also pursues an injunction that will
order Partner to stop charging V.A.T for roaming services that are
consumed abroad. In August 2014 the claim was dismissed and in
October 2014 the plaintiff filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.


PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Appeal in Rounding Up Charges Case Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on August
21, 2011, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a class
action were filed against the Company and two other cellular
operators. The claim alleges that Partner charges its customers
for calls executed abroad by rounding up the actual duration of
the call based on an interval that differs from that set out in
its licenses. If the claim is recognized as a class action, the
total amount claimed from Partner is estimated by the plaintiff to
be at least the amount within the authority of the District Court
in Israel, which is NIS 2.5 million. On September 6, 2012, the
court dismissed the claim and the request. In November 2012 the
plaintiff submitted an appeal to the Supreme Court in Jerusalem.
In January 2015 the appeal was dismissed.


PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Unified Tariff Case in Preliminary Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on August
8, 2012, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a class
action were filed against 012 Smile and another Internet Service
Provider to the Central District Court in Israel. The claim
alleges that the defendants breached certain provisions of their
licenses by not offering their services at a unified tariff to all
customers. The total amount claimed against 012 Smile if the
lawsuit is recognized as a class action was not stated by the
plaintiff. The Company is unable, to evaluate, with any degree of
certainty, the probability of success of the lawsuit or the range
of potential exposure, if any. The claim is still in its
preliminary stage of the motion to be certified as a class action.


PURINA: Beneful Dog Food Contains Toxins, Scientist Says
--------------------------------------------------------
Jackie Callaway, writing for ABC Action News, reports that a
scientist involved in testing that concluded one of the most
popular dog foods on the market contained toxins is defending the
test and its results.

The study published by the Association for Truth in Pet Food
tested multiple brands for mycotoxins.

The results were that Purina's Beneful dog food contained a
dangerous amount of mycotoxins, which are a group of toxins
produced by fungus that occurs in grains.

A class action lawsuit against Purina cites the test results along
with 3,000 pet owners who claim Beneful was to blame for sickening
or killing their dogs.

The validity of the results was challenged by multiple experts who
questioned the methods used for collecting the samples.

One of the scientists with INTI released a statement on April 3
defending the test.

In an email Dr. Gary Pusillo wrote:

"I am a full member of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences
and in 2012, I received the General Achievement Award.  The field
of forensics is governed by a specific set of scientific and
ethical guidelines that surpass scientists not bound by the
forensic community.

The samples received by our professionals at INTI were processed
according to procedures defined according to the type of
investigations that are requested.  All products came "as is" from
the store they were purchased.  Each product was photographed and
given an identification number to prevent laboratory bias for a
specific brand of product.

The only person allowed to send proper representative samples was
a trained research scientist with a BS, MS and PhD.

I have over 29 years of experience in evaluating animal feed and
health claims and I am qualified to testify as an expert witness
in almost every state and in federal courts.

Alltech's comments do not indicate the exhaustive conversation our
head researcher Dr. Tsengeg Purevjav had with Alltech scientists
regarding the scope and required accuracy of the tests that were
under consideration.

All sample sizes were done with the full direction of Alltech
Scientists.  At no time was INTI Service or Dr. Purevjav contacted
by Alltech to indicate the samples were too small or not handled
properly.  At no time did Alltech Scientists ask for additional
samples or any other information except to get their invoice paid.

The results of the tests conducted by Alltech were reviewed in
phone conversations between Dr. Purevjav and Alltech scientists.
In addition, all Alltech supplied documents were used before,
during and after direct contact with Alltech Scientists.

The presenter at the 2015 Midwest Animal Science meetings in Des
Moines on March 17 contradicted  what Alltech told you: "It is not
intended to be representative of a toxicological risk."

Meanwhile Purina calls the lawsuit baseless.


RETROPHIN INC: Initial Pretrial Conference Scheduled in April
-------------------------------------------------------------
An initial pretrial conference was scheduled for April 23, 2015,
in the consolidated actions filed against Retrophin, Inc., the
Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 11, 2015, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014.

On October 20, 2014, a purported shareholder of the Company filed
a putative class action complaint in federal court in the Southern
District of New York against the Company, Mr. Shkreli, Marc
Panoff, and Jeffrey Paley (Kazanchyan v. Retrophin, Inc., Case No.
14-cv-8376). On December 16, 2014, a second, related complaint was
filed in the Southern District of New York against the same
defendants (Sandler v. Retrophin, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-9915). The
complaints assert violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with defendants'
public disclosures during the period from November 13, 2013
through September 30, 2014.

In December 2014, plaintiff Kazanchyan filed a motion to appoint
lead plaintiff, to approve lead counsel, and to consolidate the
two related actions. On February 10, 2015, the Court consolidated
the two actions, appointed lead plaintiff, and approved lead
counsel. Lead plaintiff's filed a consolidated amended complaint
on March 4, 2015. An initial pretrial conference was scheduled for
April 23, 2015.


RJ REYNOLDS: Ruling Setback to Florida Tobacco Plaintiffs
---------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Dye, writing for Reuters, reports that a U.S. appeals
court ruling on April 8 could make it more difficult for smokers
suing tobacco companies in Florida to prove claims that cigarettes
are dangerous and that tobacco companies were negligent.

The ruling by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reverses more
than $800,000 in damages from R.J. Reynolds and Altria Group Inc
unit Philip Morris USA Inc awarded in 2013 to Earl Graham, whose
wife Faye, a longtime smoker, died in 1993 of lung cancer.

More broadly, the court said smokers who, like Graham, were
originally part of a massive class action in Florida against the
tobacco companies could not rely on findings from the class action
trial to prove claims that cigarettes are defective and tobacco
companies were negligent.

That class action, Engle v. Liggett, resulted in a $145 billion
award, which was overturned.  But the Florida Supreme Court in
2006 said smokers could use findings from the trial in their
individual lawsuits.  Thousands of lawsuits, known as the Engle
progeny, were filed in Florida federal and state courts, resulting
in multiple multimillion-dollar verdicts against tobacco
defendants.

In appealing the Graham verdict, R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris
said it was unfair to allow Engle progeny plaintiffs to hold
tobacco companies liable based on the class action jury findings,
which have been applied across the board to many cigarette brands
and makers.

The 11th Circuit agreed, saying Florida courts had interpreted
those findings with such "unprecedented breadth" that it created a
legal duty that was the "functional equivalent of a flat ban" on
tobacco, which the U.S. Congress had expressly declined to impose.
Plaintiffs bringing strict liability and negligence claims against
the tobacco companies must build cases based on their specific
injury rather than the inherent risks of smoking, the 11th Circuit
held.

The decision will not affect claims alleging that companies
conspired to cover up the dangers of smoking, the ruling said.

Philip Morris declined to comment.  Lawyers for the plaintiff and
R.J. Reynolds could not immediately be reached for comment.

Tobacco companies said in February that they will pay $100 million
to settle most federal smoking lawsuits.  Thousands of cases
remain pending in state court.  While the 11th Circuit's ruling
will not have an immediate effect there, Florida state appeals
courts have often looked to that court for guidance in ruling on
similar issues.

The case is Graham v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 11th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals, No. 13-14590.


RUI CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Mejia" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Ramon Mejia, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated v. Rui Credit Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-03482-RJS
(S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant form engaging
in abusive, deceptive and unfair acts and practices of collecting
debt.

Rui Credit Services, Inc. is a debt collector that uses mail and
other means to collect consumer debts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Novlette Rosemarie Kidd, Esq.
      FAGENSON & PUGLISI
      450 Seventh Avenue
      New York, NY 10123
      Telephone: (212) 268-2128
      Facsimile: (212) 268-2127
      E-mail: nkidd@fagensonpuglisi.com


SAXON MORTGAGE: Homeowners Seek Approval for Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Dena Aubin, writing for Reuters, reports that homeowners accusing
Saxon Mortgage Services of improperly denying their requests for
mortgage modifications have urged a federal judge to let them sue
as a group, saying Saxon committed the same misconduct against
every member of the proposed class.

Contrary to arguments made by Saxon, a class action is the best
way for homeowners to pursue their claims because they are ill-
equipped as individuals to take on such complex and costly
litigation, lawyers at Berger & Montague and the law office of
Ann Miller said in a brief filed on April 1.


SCOUT DOWNHOLE: "Thompson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Thompson & Patrick Wood, individually and for others
similarly situated v. Scout Downhole, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-01197
(S.D. Tex., May 5, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Scout Downhole, Inc. is an oilfield services company that provides
drilling services, equipment rental, repair and maintenance, and
consulting services for oil, gas and geothermal wells.

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


SIMPLE SIMON: Recalls Lobster Mac-n-Cheese Due to Eggs
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 29, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Egg
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Simple Simon Pies
Distribution: Alberta, Possibly National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9802

Simple Simon Pies is recalling Simple Simon Meals brand Lobster
Mac-n-Cheese from the marketplace because it contains egg which is
not declared on the label. People with an allergy to egg should
not consume the recalled products described below.

What you should do
Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

If you have an allergy to egg, do not consume the recalled
products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of these products.

This recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
(CFIA) inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If
other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

  Brand name   Common name  Size   Code(s) on product  UPC
  ----------   -----------  ----   ------------------  ---
Simple Simon   Lobster      300 g   All codes where    0 62375-
Meals          mac-n-cheese         egg is not         05075 2
                                    declared on the
                                    label
Simple Simon   Lobster      850 g   All codes where    6 23750-
Meals          mac-n-cheese         egg is not         50257 2
                                    declared on the
                                    label
Simple Simon   Lobster      N/A     All packages where None
Meals          mac-n-Cheese         egg is not
                                    declared on the label

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/KUXA7z


SNOW PEAK: Recalls Japanese Axes Due to Laceration Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Snow Peak USA, of Portland, Ore., announced a voluntary recall of
about 220 Japanese Axe M. Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The handle of the axe can crack, allowing the axe head to come
loose, posing a laceration or impact hazard to the user or
bystanders.

The recalled Japanese Axe M has item number R-061 printed on the
back page of the included manual. The black axe head measures 5-
3/4 inches high by 4 inches wide and weighs 2 pounds. The axe
handle measures 14 inches long and is made of a light colored
maple. A small black snow flake (asterisk) is burnt into the
handle near the hole at the end of the handle. The handle has a
small hole near the end, which is used for hanging the axe. The
axe was sold with a white leather holder for the axe head that
attaches with a snap strap.

The firm has received three reports of a cracked handle or loose
head on the axe. No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/xBP8Gv

The recalled products were manufactured in Japan and sold at
Outdoor equipment retail stores including Adventure 16,
Backcountry Gear LTD, Camp Saver, Snow Peak Portland Store, UTE
Mountaineer, and online at www.snowpeak.com from December 2013
through August 2014 for about $160.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled Japanese Axe
M and return it to the Snow Peak's Portland retail store or
contact Snow Peak for a free replacement axe.


SONUS NETWORKS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights firm, on April 6
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Sonus Networks, Inc. securities between October 23,
2014 and March 24, 2015.  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Sonus investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Sonus class action, go to the website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-558.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.  The suit is pending in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey.

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

The lawsuit alleges that Sonus made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company would
be unable to close certain orders in the first quarter of 2015;
and (2) the Company was experiencing longer decision cycles from
its customers.  When the true details entered the market, the suit
claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
June 5, 2015.  If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-558.htmlor to discuss your rights
or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip
Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com

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


SONUS NETWORKS: To Defend Shareholder Class Action Vigorously
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sonus Networks, Inc. on April 8 disclosed that a purported
shareholder class action was filed against it and two of its
officers in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey.  The plaintiff claims to represent purchasers of
Sonus' common stock during the period from October 23, 2014 to
March 24, 2015 and seeks unspecified damages.  The principal
allegation contained in the Complaint is the claim that the
defendants purportedly made misleading forward-looking statements
concerning Sonus' fiscal first quarter 2015 financial performance.
Sonus believes that it and the individual defendants have
meritorious defenses to the allegations made in the Complaint and
intends to contest the lawsuit vigorously.


SONY CORP: June 29 PlayStation Settlement Claims Filing Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicolo Parungo, writing for International Business Times, reports
that buyers who felt that Sony falsely advertised the PlayStation
Vita when it first came out are about to hear some good news,
courtesy of the Federal Trade Commission, or the FTC.  Anyone who
bought a PlayStation Vita before the June of 2012 is entitled to
get a certain amount of freebies, thanks to a successful class
action settlement by the FTC.

Potential members of this class action against Sony would have
received an email that steered them to a site called Vita Claims,
where they would receive details on what some of the free things
are, as well as a form to sign so they could be eligible of the
freebies.  Those who did not receive the email can either check
their spam inbox to see if the email is there or simply click on
the Vita Claims link above.

Members will be given a number of options as to what their form of
compensation will be.  They can choose to have a $25 check from
Sony, $25 worth of credit for the PSN Store, or one of three
bundle games that will not just be for the PlayStation Vita, but
also for the PlayStation 3.

A report from Polygon has detailed the games that are available in
the three game bundles. The action adventure bundle contains the
"God of War Collection" for both PS3 and Vita, "Beyond: Two
Souls," the "Twisted Metal" reboot that came out for the PS3 and a
Vita exclusive title called "Unit 13."  The bundle has a regular
retail price of $92.95.

Another bundle available is called the family friendly bundle.
This package includes "Little Big Planet 2" and "The Puppeteer"
for the PlayStation 3, along with "Uncharted: Golden Abyss" and
"ModNation Racers: Road Trip" for the PlayStation Vita.  This
bundle has a retail package of $100.46.

The last bundle, dubbed, as the variety pack is an amalgam of the
previous bundles.  This package includes the "God of War
Collection" and "Little Big Planet 2" for PlaySattion 3, along
with "ModNation Racers: Road Trip" and "Unit 13" for the Vita.
The final bundle has a retail price of $66.46.

Members of this class action settlement must finish filing their
forms in Vita Claims by June 29; otherwise they will not be able
to get their free compensations.  No specified date was given as
to when the free money or free bundles will arrive, though they
should be expected to hit around six months or so.


SPRINT CORP: Settles Securities Class Action for $131MM
-------------------------------------------------------
Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the
nation's third-largest wireless service provider, Sprint Corp.,
has agreed to pay out $131 million to settle a class action
lawsuit filed against it for allegedly defrauding investors.

The initial complaint in the securities class action was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas at Kansas City
in March 2009.  Sprint is headquartered in Overland Park, Kan.

In June 2009, the federal court appointed PACE Industry Union-
Management Pension Fund, Skandia Life Insurance Company and the
West Virginia Investment Management Board the lead plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs -- those persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the common stock of Sprint Nextel Corp. between Oct. 26,
2006 and Feb. 27, 2008 -- allege Sprint and some of its executives
issued "materially false and misleading" statements regarding the
company's business and financial results.

As a result of those false statements, Sprint stock traded at
artificially inflated prices, the class argues.

The all-cash settlement was filed.  The deal still requires court
approval.

The company, while agreeing to settle, still denies all of the
claims alleged by the plaintiffs.

"Defendants believe that the evidence developed to date supports
their position that they acted properly at all times and that the
litigation is without merit," according to a 28-page stipulation
of settlement, filed March 30.  "In addition, defendants maintain
that they have meritorious defenses to claims alleged in the
action."

However, Sprint noted that continuing to litigate the case would
be "protracted and expensive."

"Defendants also have taken into account the uncertainty and risks
inherent in any litigation, especially in complex cases such as
the litigation," according to the filing.  "Defendants have,
therefore, determined that it is desirable and beneficial to them
that the litigation be settled in the manner and upon the terms
and conditions set forth in this stipulation."

Though they believe their claims have merit, the plaintiffs agree
the expense and length of continued proceedings also is too much.

"Lead plaintiffs and their counsel believe that the settlement set
forth in the stipulation confers substantial benefits upon the
class," according to the filing.

Sprint could not be reached for additional comment.


SUN RICH: Recalls Sliced Apple Products Due to Listeria
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 29, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Sun Rich Fresh Foods Inc.
Distribution: Possibly National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail

Sun Rich Fresh Foods Inc. is recalling sliced apples and products
containing sliced apples produced in its Brampton, Ontario
facility from the marketplace due to possible Listeria
monocytogenes contamination. Consumers should not consume and
distributors, retailers and food service establishments such as
hotels, restaurants, cafeterias, hospitals and nursing homes
should not sell or use the recalled products described below.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home or
establishment. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned
to the location where they were purchased.

Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include
vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache
and neck stiffness. Pregnant women, the elderly and people with
weakened immune systems are particularly at risk. Although
infected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-like
symptoms, the infection can lead to premature delivery, infection
of the newborn or even stillbirth. In severe cases of illness,
people may die.

There has been one reported illness associated with the
consumption of these products.

This recall was triggered by Canadian Food Inspection Agency
(CFIA) test results. The CFIA is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If
other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

  Brand name  Common name   Size  UPC             Additional info
  ---------   ----------    ----  ---             ---------------
  Sun Rich    Apple Slices  57 g  0 60243 00453 1 Best Before (up
                                                  to and
                                                  including)
                                                  2015 MA 17
  Sun Rich    Apple Slices  3 lb  0 60243 00508 8 Best Before (up
                                                  to and
                                                  including)
                                                  2015 MA 17
  Sun Rich   Apple Slices   595 g 0 60243 01239 0 Best Before (up
                                                  to and
                                                  including)
                                                  2015 MA 17
  Sun Rich   Apple Slices   3 lb  0 60243 00458 6 Best Before (up
                                                  to and
                                                  including)
                                                  2015 MA 17
  Sun Rich   Apple Slices   3 lb  0 60243 00509 5 Best Before (up
                                                  to and
                                                  including)
                                                  2015 MA 17
  Sun Rich   Fruit Medley   1.05  0 60243 01150 8 Best Before
                            kg                    to and
                                                  including)
                                                  2015 MA 17
Sun Rich    Waldorf Salad  10    0 60243 01295 6 Best Before
             Kit            lbs                   to and
                                                  including)
                                                  2015 MA 10
  Sun Rich    Apple Slices   57 g 0 60243 01359 5 Best Before
                                                  to and
                                                  including)
                                                  2015 MA 17
  Sun Rich     Apple Slices  57 g 0 60243 01406 6 Best Before
               with Grapes                        to and
                                                  including)
                                                  2015 MA 17
  Shoppers     Apples and    284  0 60243 01398 4 Best Before
  Drug Mart    Grapes        g                    (up to and
                                                  including)
                                                  2015 MA 01
  Starbucks   Starbucks      170  7 62111 93198 6 Best Before
              Seasonal Fruit g                    (up to and
              Salad                               including)
                                                  2015 MA 02
  Subway      Apples         68 g 8 25146 01418 3 Best Before (up
                                                  to and
                                                  including)
                                                  2015 MA 14

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/UU140P


SUN RICH: Issues Corrected Recall Notice
----------------------------------------
Starting date: April 30, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Correction - Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Sun Rich Fresh Foods Inc.
Distribution: Possibly National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail

The Food Recall warning issued on April 29, 2015 has been amended
to correctly identify the products recalled by Sun Rich Fresh
Foods Inc. The corrections for these products are marked by an
asterisk (*) below. Please note that the Starbucks product has
been removed from this recall.

Sun Rich Fresh Foods Inc. is recalling sliced apples and products
containing sliced apples produced in its Brampton, Ontario
facility from the marketplace due to possible Listeria
monocytogenes contamination. Consumers should not consume and
distributors, retailers and food service establishments such as
hotels, restaurants, cafeterias, hospitals and nursing homes
should not sell or use the recalled products described below.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home or
establishment. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned
to the location where they were purchased.

Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include
vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache
and neck stiffness. Pregnant women, the elderly and people with
weakened immune systems are particularly at risk. Although
infected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-like
symptoms, the infection can lead to premature delivery, infection
of the newborn or even stillbirth. In severe cases of illness,
people may die.

There has been one reported illness associated with the
consumption of these products.

This recall was triggered by Canadian Food Inspection Agency
(CFIA) test results. The CFIA is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If
other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

Brand name  Common name   Size  UPC              Additional info
---------   ----------    ----  ---              ---------------
  Sun Rich    Apple Slices  57 g  0 60243 00453 1 Best Before (up
                                                  to and
                                                  including)
                                                  2015 MA 17
  Sun Rich    Apple Slices  3 lb  0 60243 00508 8 Best Before (up
                                                  to and
                                                  including)
                                                  2015 MA 17
  Sun Rich   Apple Slices   595 g 0 60243 01239 0 Best Before (up
                                                  to and
                                                  including)
                                                  2015 MA 17
  Sun Rich   Apple Slices   3 lb  0 60243 00458 6 Best Before (up
                                                  to and
                                                  including)
                                                  2015 MA 17
  Sun Rich   Apple Slices   3 lb  0 60243 00509 5 Best Before (up
                                                  to and
                                                  including)
                                                  2015 MA 17
  Sun Rich   Fruit Medley   1.05  0 60243 01150 8 Best Before
                            kg                    to and
                                                  including)
                                                  2015 MA 17
Sun Rich    Waldorf Salad  10    0 60243 01295 6 Best Before
             Kit            lbs                   to and
                                                  including)
                                                  2015 MA 10
  Sun Rich    Apple Slices   57 g 0 60243 01359 5 Best Before
                                                  to and
                                                  including)
                                                  2015 MA 17
  Sun Rich     Apple Slices  57 g 0 60243 01406 6 Best Before
               with Grapes                        to and
                                                  including)
                                                  2015 MA 17
  Shoppers     Apples and    284  0 60243 01398 4 Best Before
  Drug Mart    Grapes        g                    (up to and
                                                  including)
                                                  2015 MA 01

  *Subway      Apples        68 g 8 25146 01418 3 Best Before (up
                                                  to and
                                                  including)
                                                  2015 MA 14
*The consumer package may not display the UPC code on individual
bags. The master carton may display a code of (01) 30825146031272.
Best Before (up to and including)
2015 MA 14 *

Starbucks*
(REMOVED FROM RECALL)   Starbucks Seasonal Fruit Salad *
(REMOVED FROM RECALL)   170 g *
(REMOVED FROM RECALL)   7 62111 93198 6 *
(REMOVED FROM RECALL)   *This product does not contain apples
affected by this recall and as such is excluded from the recall.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/kW1xRX


TAM ENTERPRISES: Faces "Duncan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Duncan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TAM Enterprises, Inc. and Anthony Lasaponara, case No.
1:15-cv-03500 (S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

TAM Enterprises, Inc. is in the water and wastewater excavation,
industrial tank pumping, video inspection, infrastructure
rehabilitation and emergency utility services business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TEVA PARENTERAL: Recalls Adrucil(R) Injections Due to Silicone
--------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Parenteral Medicines announced a voluntary recall of eight
lots of Adrucil(R) (fluorouracil injection, USP) 5 g/100 mL (50
mg/mL) due to the potential presence of particulate matter
identified as aggregate of silicone rubber pieces from a filler
diaphragm and fluorouracil crystals. The recalled lots are as
follows:

  Lot #    Exp. Date  Vial    NDC# individual   NDC# carton of 5
  -----    ---------  Size    ---------------   ----------------
                      ----
31317858B  11/2015    100 mL  0703-3019-11      0703-3019-12
31317899B  12/2015    100 mL  0703-3019-11      0703-3019-12
31317906B  12/2015    100 mL  0703-3019-11      0703-3019-12
31317958B  12/2015    100 mL  0703-3019-11      0703-3019-12
31317959B  12/2015    100 mL  0703-3019-11      0703-3019-12
31318103B  12/2015    100 mL  0703-3019-11      0703-3019-12
31318137B  12/2015    100 mL  0703-3019-11      0703-3019-12
31318533B  7/2016     100 mL  0703-3019-11      0703-3019-12

Administration of an intravenous product with particulate matter
has the potential to result in inflammation, allergic reactions,
or blockage of blood vessels, leading to tissue death, which may
be life-threatening if vital organs are affected. To date, Teva
has not received any reports of adverse events related to this
recall.

Adrucil(R) Injection is used in the palliative management of
carcinoma of the colon, rectum, breast, stomach and pancreas and
is packaged in pharmacy bulk packages. The pharmacy bulk package
has five 5 g/100ml vials per shelf pack. Individual Adrucil(R) 5
g/100 ml vials have the NDC code 0703-3019-11 and the pharmacy
shelf pack has the NDC code 0703-3019-12. The Adrucil(R) 5 g/100
ml vial can be further identified by the statement on the label in
red that states "PHARMACY BULK PACKAGE NOT FOR DIRECT INFUSION".
Adrucil(R) 5 g/100 ml vials were distributed in the United States.
Teva has distributed this product through the normal distribution
chain of wholesalers, retailers, and pharmacies.

Teva has notified its direct customers by mail and has issued an
Urgent Drug Recall Letter to direct customers. Teva is arranging
for impacted product to be returned to Inmar. Anyone with an
existing inventory of the recalled lots should stop use and
distribution, and quarantine the product immediately. Customers
should notify all users in their facility. Customers who have
further distributed the recalled product should notify any
accounts or additional locations which may have received the
recalled product and instruct them if they have redistributed the
product to notify their accounts, locations or facilities to the
user level.

For medical related questions please contact Medical Information
at 888-838-2872, option 3, then option 4. If a customer service
related question, please contact Teva Customer Service at 800-545-
8800 Monday - Friday; 8:00 - 5:00 EST. Consumers should contact
their physician or healthcare provider if they have experienced
any problems that may be related to taking this drug product. Teva
Parenteral Medicines is voluntarily recalling the aforementioned
product lots with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration.

Adverse events that may be related to the use of this product may
be reported to FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting Program
either online, by regular mail or by fax:

Online: http://www.fda.gov/MedWatch/report.htm
Regular Mail: use postage-paid, pre-addressed Form FDA 3500
available at:
http://www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm
Mail to address on the pre-addressed form.
Fax: 1-800-FDA-0178

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm445585.htm


TOP RANK: Faces "Gomez" Suit in Illinois Over Pacquiao's Injury
---------------------------------------------------------------
David P. Gomez, Peter Gomez, Susan Medina, and Robert Martinez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Top Rank, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-03982 (N.D. Ill., May 5,
2015), is an action for damages as a proximate result of the
Defendants' failure to disclose the Nevada Athletic Commission the
injuries suffered by Pacquiao prior to the fight between Manny
Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather held May 2, 2015.
Top Rank, Inc. is a Nevada corporation that operates a boxing
promotions company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert R. Duncan, Esq.
      DUNCAN LAW GROUP, LLC
      22 W. Washington, 15th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 262-5841
      Facsimile: (312) 854-8001
      E-mail: rrd@duncanlawgroup.com

         - and -

      Thomas Cusack Cronin, Esq.
      CRONIN & CO., LTD.
      161 N. Clark Street, Suite 2550
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 201-7100
      E-mail: tcc@cronincoltd.com

         - and -

      Michael S. Agruss, Esq.
      AGRUSS LAW FIRM LLC
      4619 N. Ravenswood Ave., Suite 303A
      Chicago, IL 60640
      Telephone: (312) 224-4695
      Facsimile: (312) 253-4451
      E-mail: michael@agrusslawfirm.com


TOP RANK: Faces Mahoney Suit in C.D. Cal. Over Pacquiao's Injury
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Mahoney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Emmanuel Pacquiao, Top Rank Inc., Michael Koncz,
Robert Arum, Todd Duboef, Does 1-100, Case No. 2:15-cv-03376 (C.D.
Cal., May 5, 2015), is an action for damages as a proximate result
of the Defendants' failure to disclose the Nevada Athletic
Commission the injuries suffered by Pacquiao prior to the fight
between Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather held May 2, 2015.

Emmanuel Pacquiao is a Filipino world champion professional boxer
who has won eight world championships.

Top Rank, Inc. is a Nevada corporation that operates a boxing
promotions company.

Robert Arum and Todd Duboef are officers and directors of Top
Rank, Inc.

Michael Koncz is the advisor of Defendant Pacquiao.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TOP RANK: Faces "Sirota" Suit in Illinois Over Pacquiao's Injury
----------------------------------------------------------------
Howard B. Sirota, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Emmanuel D. Pacquiao and Top Rank, Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-03370 (C.D. Cal., May 5, 2015), is an action for damages
as a proximate result of the Defendants' failure to disclose the
Nevada Athletic Commission the injuries suffered by Pacquiao prior
to the fight between Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather held May
2, 2015.

Emmanuel D. Pacquiao is a Filipino world champion professional
boxer who has won eight world championships.

Top Rank, Inc. is a Nevada corporation that operates a boxing
promotions company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert S. Green, Esq.
      James Robert Noblin, Esq.
      GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
      700 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 275
      Larkspur, CA 94939
      Telephone: (415) 477-6700
      Facsimile: (415) 477-6710
      E-mail: gnecf@classcounsel.com

         - and -

      William B. Federman, Esq.
      FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
      10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
      Oklahoma City, OK 73120
      Telephone: (405) 235-1560
      Facsimile: (405)239-2112
      E-mail: WBF@federmanlaw.com


TOP RANK: Faces "Vanel" Suit in Illinois Over Pacquiao's Injury
---------------------------------------------------------------
Staphane Vanel and Kami Rahbaran, on behalf of themselves and the
Putative class v. Emmanuel Pacquiao, Top Rank Inc., Michael Koncz,
Robert Arum, Todd Duboef, Does 1-10 and ABC Corps 1-10, Case No.
2:15-cv-00842 (D. Nev., May 5, 2015), is an action for damages as
a proximate result of the Defendants' failure to disclose the
Nevada Athletic Commission the injuries suffered by Pacquiao prior
to the fight between Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather held May
2, 2015.

Emmanuel Pacquiao is a Filipino world champion professional boxer
who has won eight world championships.

Top Rank, Inc. is a Nevada corporation that operates a boxing
promotions company.

Robert Arum and Todd Duboef are officers and directors of Top
Rank, Inc.

Michael Koncz is the advisor of Defendant Pacquiao.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandon B. McDonald, Esq.
      McDONALD LAW OFFICES, PLLC
      2505 Anthem Village Drive, Ste. E-474
      Henderson, NV 89052
      Telephone: (702) 385-7411
      Facsimile: (702) 992-0569
      E-mail: Brandon@mcdonaldlawyers.com


UNIFIED SCHOOL: Faces "Arroyo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Angelica Arroyo, Maria Arreola and Lindsay Rayburn on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. Unified School
District 457, Case No. 6:15-cv-01140 (D. Kan., May 5, 2015), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Unified School District 457 operates Garden City public schools in
Garden City, Kansas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Randall K. Rathbun, Esq.
      DEPEW GILLEN RATHBUN & MCINTEER, LC
      8301 East 21st Street North, Suite 450
      Wichita, KS 67206-2936
      Telephone: (316) 262-4000 ext 108
      Facsimile: (316) 265-3819
      E-mail: randy@depewgillen.com


UNION PACIFIC: Illegally Uses Railroad Subsurface, Action Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shelby Phillips, III, Katherine A. Phillips, and manuel
Pastran, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, successor to southern
Pacific Transportation Company, et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-00718
(C.D. Cal., May 5, 2015), asserts that the Defendant installed,
maintained, leased, and operated a pipeline underneath its
Railroad's right-of-way without seeking and obtaining an easement
or other right to use the subsurface of Plaintiffs' or Class
members' land.

Union Pacific Railroad Company is a Delaware corporation that
operates North America's premier railroad franchise, covering 23
states in the western two-thirds of the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason S. Hartley, Esq.
      STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
      550 West C Street, Suite 1750
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 400-5822
      Facsimile: (619) 400-5832
      E-mail: hartley@stuevesiegel.com

         - and -

      Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
      Barrett J. Vahle, Esq.
      Ethan M. Lange, Esq.
      STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
      460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
      Kansas City, MO 64112
      Telephone: (816) 714-7100
      Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
      E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
              vahle@stuevesiegel.com
              lange@stuevesiegel.com

         - and -

      Thomas S. Stewart, Esq.
      Elizabeth G. McCulley, Esq.
      STEWART,WALD &MCCULLEY, LLC
      9200 Ward Parkway, Suite 550
      Kansas City, MO 64114
      Telephone: (816) 303-1500
      Facsimile: (816) 527-8068
      E-mail: stewart@swm.legal
              mcculley@swm.legal


UNITED STATES: Employees File FLSA Class Action Over Shutdown
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Lowrey, writing for WDTN, reports that long after
government employees returned to work, the effects of shutdown
remain fresh in the minds of those affected.

A class action lawsuit is being filed against the federal
government.  It claims the government violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act requiring compensation on regularly scheduled
paydays.

"Any time you disrupt a regular pay cycle, it's going to take a
long time to catch back up," said Vice President for A.F.G.E.
Local 3448. "

Hanna, who works the Social Security Office in Springfield, said
he knows all too well the constraints brought on by the partial
government shutdown.

The 16 days it took for a new budget to be passed were certainly
not easy.

"That was the biggest part was always the uncertainty," said
Hanna.  "We knew that you should get paid. There was not a
guarantee that you would based on the political climate. You just
never know."

It forced many government employees to cut back in order to pay
bills.

A recent study completed by the National Bureau of Economic
Research shows the impact sequestration had on government
employees.

The nonprofit, nonpartisan organization said the average paycheck
for an employee was forty percent below normal during the
shutdown.

In an effort to save money, families more strapped for cash relied
on credit cards to pay bills as opposed to delaying payments. For
those people, the study shows it took up to six months for them to
pay off those balances.

"Part of the situation, too, is when you go into work and not
knowing when you are going to be paid, there's not many employers
who have that option available to them," said Hanna.

There are certain criteria which must be met in order to a part of
the class action lawsuit:

You must a federal employee.

You must be classified as "non-exempt" under the FLSA.

You must be deemed an "excepted" employee.

You worked for any amount of time between October 1 and October 5,
2013.

You were not paid for work between October 1 and October 5, 2013
on your regularly scheduled payday.

There has not been a ruling whether or not the government is
liable for "liquidated damages."  If the government is found
liable, employees in the class action lawsuit could be rewarded
double the amount of minimum wages and overtime wages during the
time between September 29 and October 5, 2013.


UNITED STATES: Faces Class Suit Over Delayed Veterans' Benefits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Veterans Legal Services Clinic at Yale Law School filed a
lawsuit on April 6 on behalf of a Marine Corps veteran and
thousands of other veterans seeking to compel the Secretary of
Veterans' Affairs to decide initial disability compensation
appeals that have been pending more than one year.  The lawsuit
specifically involves cases in which veterans are facing a medical
or financial hardship.

Marine Corps veteran, Conley Monk, Jr., is named a plaintiff in
the lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims (CAVC).  Mr. Monk, students from the Veterans
Clinic, and Senator Richard Blumenthal '79 held a press conference
on April 6 to announce the lawsuit and detail how these long
delays can have harmful impacts on the lives of many veterans
around the country.

Today, hundreds of thousands of veterans await a decision from the
U.S. Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) on their applications
for disability benefits arising from service-connected injuries,
according to the lawsuit.  Delays are endemic in the VA system,
but according to VA's statistics, the greatest delays of all
involve initial administrative appeals, which can take years for
VA to adjudicate.  For elderly veterans, or veterans struggling
with serious medical or financial problems, the years spent
waiting for the VA to process their initial appeals impose
enormous hardship, students from the clinic said.

"It's frustrating to be stuck in limbo.  It has been nearly two
years since I began my initial appeal by filing a Notice of
Disagreement and electing a Decision Review Officer hearing in
July 2013, and the VA has still not decided my case," said Conley
Monk, the Vietnam combat veteran who is filing the lawsuit.
"While waiting on the VA, my house burned down, and I've had
significant medical problems, including a botched VA surgery. It's
been hard to make ends meet to get treated for my diabetes and
PTSD."

"I strongly support action to reform this broken appeals system
because justice delayed for these veterans is justice denied,
unconscionably and unacceptably," explained Senator Blumenthal (D-
CT), ranking member on the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
"I hear from hundreds of veterans whose benefit appeals have
languished for months, even years.  The VA needs to improve and
enhance its processing of appeals from denial of critical benefit
applications. I support more resources and additional staff who
will expedite these benefit applications and appeals."

"Mr. Monk brings this suit for himself and thousands of other
veterans pursuing an initial appeal who do not have the resources
to file a federal lawsuit to compel the VA to act," said Julia Shu
'16, a law student intern in the Clinic.  "The only legal option
for a veteran whose initial appeal languishes in the VA system is
expensive and time-consuming.  Each veteran must retain legal
counsel and apply individually to CAVC to request a court order
that the VA decide his or her case.  System-wide delays persist
when the CAVC does not resolve an issue for all affected veterans
in one decision."

"This lawsuit is novel because judges of the Court have repeatedly
recognized their power to adjudicate a class action-type case, but
in the history of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims,
they have yet to do so," said Will Hudson '17, also a law student
intern.  "This is an appropriate case to recognize the first
collective action and to bring relief to these veterans who should
not be expected to wait any longer."

The plaintiffs in this case are represented by law student interns
William Hudson and Julia Shu, and supervising attorney Michael
Wishnie of the Veterans Legal Services Clinic at Yale Law School.
The clinic, founded in the fall of 2010, represents individual
veterans and veterans' organizations on a range of matters.  It is
one of a small number of clinics in the country dedicated solely
to serving veterans and their organizations.


UNITED STATES: Class Certification in Foreign Service Suit Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Passman & Kaplan on April 8 disclosed that on February 19, 2015,
the EEOC's Office of Federal Operations (OFO) issued its decision
in Meyer et al. v. Department of State, EEOC Request No.
0520140506.OFO upheld class certification for a claim against the
State Department of alleged disability discrimination in hiring
for Foreign Service positions.

Class action discrimination complaints procedurally differ from
individual discrimination complaints.  As the EEOC explains:

For class complaints, there is a four-stage process. The first
stage is the establishment of a class complaint.  At this stage,
the class agent is required to seek counseling from an agency EEO
Counselor. The second stage is a determination from a commission
administrative judge, subject to agency final action, as to
whether to certify the complaint as a class action.  The third
stage, assuming that the complaint has been certified as a class
action, involves a recommended decision from an administrative
judge on the merits of the class complaint, subject to final
agency action in the form of a final decision. The fourth stage,
where there has been a finding of class-based discrimination, is
the determination of the claims for relief of the individual class
members. MD-110, Ch. 8, Sec. I.

The Meyer class action claims that the department engaged in
disability discrimination in hiring for career Foreign Service
positions-specifically, that it allegedly either refused to hire
disabled individuals who did not receive a "Class 1-Unlimited
Clearance for Worldwide Assignment" medical clearance, or else
delayed the applicants' appointments pending successful receipt of
an agency waiver of this "Class 1" clearance.  This policy
allegedly violated the Rehabilitation Act by failing to conduct
any individualized assessment of possible reasonable accommodation
for the applicants' disabilities, covering all such "Class 1"
clearance denials from October 2006 to present.

The OFO's decision concludes the second stage of its class claim
process.  Class agency Meyer initiated an individual EEO complaint
in November 2006, and then moved for class certification in 2008.
An EEOC administrative judge certified the class.  In 2010, the
agency issued its final decision rejecting class certification.
Meyer then appealed to OFO.  In a decision issued by the Executive
Secretariat (i.e. issued directly by the Commissioners of the EEOC
rather than by OFO staff), the EEOC reversed the agency's final
decision and certified the class.  Meyer et al. v. Dept. of State,
EEOC Appeal No. 0720110007 (June 6, 2014).  The agency then
requested reconsideration.  On request for reconsideration, OFO
affirmed the earlier decision, finding that the agency had raised
no new arguments warranting reconsideration.OFO accordingly
remanded the case to an administrative judge for the third stage
(merits determination).

The class in Meyer is represented by Passman & Kaplan Founding
Principal Joseph V. Kaplan and by Bryan Schwartz Law.


US STEEL: Attorney Seeks Residents for Home Toxins Testing
----------------------------------------------------------
Mike Jones, writing for Observer-Reporter, reports that a West
Virginia attorney overseeing the cleanup of toxins found inside
houses in Spelter, W.Va., where a zinc plant operated for nearly a
century, is looking for residents living near the former U.S.
Steel plant in Donora who want testing to be performed in their
homes.

Attorney Michael Jacks visited Donora in March after researching
the borough's deadly smog event in 1948 and began looking into the
history of the plant's zinc spelter furnace.

"I'm not sure if there is any basis for concern in Donora, but I
would like to research it," Mr. Jacks said.

Mr. Jacks is looking for 10 to 20 volunteers living within a mile
of where the plant was once located at the current Donora
Industrial Park along the Monongahela River to have testing
performed inside their homes and pull small soil core samples for
examination.  An independent contractor would take "wipes" of
surfaces in a home's attic and basement before the sample would be
tested for heavy metals such as zinc, cadmium, arsenic and lead.

"They're called heavy metals for many reasons," Mr. Jacks said.
"Once they're out in the environment, they don't move around very
much."

The results of the "research phase" could result in a more
extensive investigation, Mr. Jacks said.  He added it's too early
to determine whether a class-action lawsuit could follow.

U.S. Steel operated a zinc works in Donora for four decades before
the plant was closed and eventually demolished in the 1960s and
absorbed into the then-new Donora Industrial Park.  The zinc mill
was announced in 1915, and it soon became the world's largest such
manufacturing plant.

The plant would go on to make Donora a symbol for environmental
efforts after a deadly smog over a Halloween weekend killed more
than 20 people in the borough and nearby Webster, spurring the
nation's first clean-air legislation.

Mr. Jacks met with Donora Historical Society in March to discuss
testing homes and soil for toxins in the Donora area, said the
society's archivist, Brian Charlton.

"Our interest is purely scientific and historic," Mr. Charlton
said.

Donora Mayor Don Pavelko said he was unaware of the testing, but
he was interested to learn more about the study.

The attorney is currently overseeing a $70 million class-action
settlement with DuPont in Spelter, W.Va. -- located about 35 miles
southwest of Morgantown -- to have toxins removed from homes and
perform ongoing medical examinations.  DuPont operated the zinc
plant in that area from 1915 until 2001, prompting a lawsuit that
lasted for nearly seven years before it was settled in 2011.

More than 6,000 people are involved in the ongoing medical
screenings there, with another 1,200 residents filing claims to
have their properties cleaned.

"I don't know if houses in Donora would also contain similar
hazardous dust, but I think it is possible," Mr. Jacks said.
Any residents who are interested in having their homes tested can
call Jacks at 304-622-7443 or email him at mjacks@gtandslaw.com


                            *********

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  * * *