CAR_Public/150521.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, May 21, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 101


                            Headlines


3M COMPANY: Sued Over Injuries From Asbestos-Containing Products
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
ACTIVE NETWORK: Removes "Mooney" Class Suit to S.D. California
AIG INC: Removes PIMCO Suit to Central District of California
ALBANY MOLECULAR: Defending Against "Gauquie" Class Action

ALLIED COLLECTION: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
AMC NETWORKS: Removes "Cho" Labor Suit to the C.D. California
ANZ BANK: Successful Appeal May Hamper Penalties Cases
ANZ BANK: Recent Ruling Favorable for Banks, Telecoms Sector
ARAMARK HEALTHCARE: Accused of Sexual Harassment in N.D. Illinois

ARAMARK UNIFORM: "Strickland" Suit Moved From Calif. to Kansas
ARCH AUTO PARTS: Violates Fair Labor Standards Act, Suit Claims
ATLANTIC CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
BERKSHIRE HILLS: Defending Against Shareholder Class Action
BIODELIVERY SCIENCES: Class Action Settlement Approved by Court

BOSCOV'S INC: Violates Disabilities Act in New Jersey, Suit Says
BP PLC: Plaintiffs Lawyers Fight Changes to Oil Spill Settlement
BULL HEAD: Faces "Hurley" Suit Over Violation of Disabilities Act
CANADA: Class Action Ruling Upholds Farmers' Marketing Freedom
CANADA: NFU Balks at Supreme Court's CWB Class Action Ruling

CANADA: First Nations Mull Residential School Class Action
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Ralphs" Suit in E.D. Missouri
CHINA XD: Named as Defendants in 2 Securities Class Actions
CLACKAMAS CTY, OR: Faces Suit Alleging Disabilities Act Violation

CRAIG'S CRUISERS: Faces "Gregory" Suit Alleging Bias Due to Sex
CYNOSURE INC: Second Circuit to Decide TCPA Case Based on Briefs
CYNOSURE INC: Massachusetts Case Over Merger Dismissed
DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of FDCPA
DOLLAR TREE: Case by Assistant Store Manager Still Pending

DOLLAR TREE: 2012 Case Proceeding to Liability Phase
DOLLAR TREE: October 26 Trial Date Set in 2013 Wage Suit
DOLLAR TREE: Discovery Has Not Commenced in 2014 Wage Case
DOLLAR TREE: Del. Chancery & Appellate Courts Refuse Injunction
DUN AND BRADSTREET: Faces "Thomas" Suit Alleging TCPA Violation

DYNAMIC PET: Faces "Reed" Suit in S.D. California Alleging Injury
E. W. SCRIPPS: Named as Defendant in "Goldfinger" Case
EHEALTH INC: Defending Against Two Class Actions
ELECTRICAL WORKERS UNION: Accused of Gender Bias and Retaliation
EMPIRE MANAGEMENT: Sued for Barring Black Renters

ENVIVIO INC: June 15 Settlement Claim Deadline Set
EXECUTIVE CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
FACEBOOK INC: Vienna Court Hears Privacy Suit
FALCON DRILLING: Fires Staff That Opposed Gender Bias, Suit Says
FANDUEL INC: Removes "Leung" Suit to California District Court

FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces Class Action Over Wrong Ram 1500 Axle
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Class Action Parties Settle Case
FOUNTAIN OF LIFE: Docs Show Leaders Took Part in Tax Lien Sales
FREDERIC WEINBERG: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

GLOBAL CASH: Continues to Defend Dollie Williams Case
GOLDMAN SACHS: Court of Appeals Reinstates MBS Fraud Suit
GOOGLE INC: Lieff Cabraser Seeks $81MM From No Poach Settlement
HALSTED FINANCIAL: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
HC2 HOLDINGS: No Responsive Pleading Filed by Defendants

HEALTHWAYS INC: Filed with FCC Petition for Retroactive Waiver
HI-TECH PHARMA: Court Rejects Contempt Order in Marketing Suit
INFINITE CARE: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Alleging WARN Act Violation
JAKKS PACIFIC: Court Dismissed Class Action Complaint
JOSE PALLETS: Faces "Sebastian" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA

JOURNAL COMMUNICATIONS: Defending Against 2nd Goldfinger Action
JP MORGAN: Accused of Harassment by Woman of Lebanese Origin
KEPRO ACQUISITIONS: Sued for Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
KEYPOINT GOVERNMENT: "Smith" Suit Moved From Calif. to Colorado
KIND LLC: Faces "Galvez" Class Suit in California District Court

LOCKHEED MARTIN: Accused of Bias and Retaliation in Colorado
LOWE'S HOME: Sued in Washington for Violating Disabilities Act
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Crawford" Product Liability Class Suit
LUNA INNOVATIONS: Class Actions Filed After Merger Announcement
M & T BANK: Accused of Age Discrimination and Retaliation in Pa.

MEDTRONIC SOFAMOR: Fails to Pay Equal Rates to Workers, Suit Says
METRO-NORTH COMMUTER: Sued Over Discriminatory Firing of Employee
NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
NEW ZEALAND: Class Suit Mulled Over Canterbury Earthquakes
NYU LANGONE: Accused of Employment Discrimination Due to Age

PACIFIC INVESTMENT: AIG Seeks Judgment Over Securities Claims
PACIFIC PREMIER: Plaintiffs' Counsel Want to Schedule Depositions
PETERBOROUGH REGIONAL: PHIPA Defense Fails to Avert Class Action
PETRO RIVER: No Timeline for Court to Rule in Class Action
PM REALTY: Removes "Branch" Employment Suit to C.D. California

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
RIVERSIDE, CA: Sued by Minors Alleging Violations of Civil Rights
ROBINSON SPORTS: Sued for Violating Disabilities Act in Florida
SALVATION ARMY: Accused of Bias Against Black/Latino/Female Staff
SALVATION ARMY: Accused of Sexual & Racial Discrimination in Cal.

SHELL OIL: Faces "Leonard" Suit Alleging Benzene-Related Injuries
SHOWTIME NETWORKS: "Gordon" Sues Over Mayweather-Pacquaio Fight
SIEMENS DEMAG: Discriminates Against Black Operator, Suit Claims
SKECHERS USA: "Bailey" Suit Consolidated in Toning Shoe MDL
SOUTHERN UNITED: Investigators to Probe Obama Care Funds Misuse

SPARK NETWORKS: "Kirby" Settlement Granted Final Court Approval
SPARK NETWORKS: Updates in Werner and Wright Cases
SPARK NETWORKS: Updates on Ben-Jacob, Gever and Korland Cases
SPECTRUM HUMAN: Accused of Racial Discrimination and Retaliation
SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Urges Dismissal of Shareholder Case

STAAR SURGICAL: To File Motion to Dismiss Edward Todd Complaint
SUNRISE CITY, FL: Police Dep't Faces "Nigro" Suit in S.D. Florida
SYMMETRY SURGICAL: Parties Settled Merger Class Action
SYNGENTA AG: Farmers' GMO Corn Suits Gathering Momentum
TAKATA CORP: "Shmil" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL

TAKATA CORP: "Taylor" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL
THURSTON CTY, NE: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of Civil Rights
TOYS R US: Judge Sends Dresser Case Back to Beaver County Court
TRICO BANCSHARES: Parties in Shareholder Suit in Settlement Talks
TRICO BANCSHARES: Filed Answer to Former Banker's Suit

TRICO BANCSHARES: Faces Class Action by Current Personal Banker
UBER TECH: Taxi Drivers Not Employees, Mass. Supreme Court Rules
UBER TECH: Legal Department Expands Following Lawsuits
UNITED TRANZACTIONS: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says
URANERZ ENERGY: Defending Against Suit Over Energy Fuels Merger

VISION FINANCIAL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
VIVINT SOLAR: Final Settlement Agreement to Occur Mid-2015
VIVINT SOLAR: Answersto Former Installation Technicians' Suit
VIVINT SOLAR: Plaintiffs Filed Amended Complaint in "Hyatt" Case
WALGREEN CO: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in Florida

WALGREEN CO: Fails to Provide Accessible Facilities, Suit Says
WORLD WRESTLING: Responds to Concussion Class Action


                            *********


3M COMPANY: Sued Over Injuries From Asbestos-Containing Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark D. Cashio and Kimberly W. Cashio v. 3M Company, et al., Case
No. 3:15-cv-00489 (M.D. Tenn., April 27, 2015) is an action for
injuries under the Tennessee Products Liability Act of 1978.

According to the complaint, Mr. Cashio worked with and around
asbestos-containing products manufactured, sold, supplied and
distributed by the Product Defendants in the 1960s and 1970s.  In
August 2014, he was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma,
allegedly resulting from his exposure to asbestos-containing
products designed, manufactured, distributed, installed or sold by
the Product Defendants.

3M Company is a Delaware corporation headquartered in St. Paul,
Minnesota.  The Product Defendants are or were engaged in the
business of designing, manufacturing, marketing, installing and
selling of asbestos-containing products throughout the United
States and the state of Tennessee.

The other Defendants are Avco Corporation and its Division,
Lycoming Engines Bell Helicopter Textron Inc.; CBS Corporation;
Cytec Industries, Inc. (Individually and as Successor-In-Interest
to Advanced Composites Group and American Cyanamid Company); Dana
Companies, LLC; Eaton Corporation (Individually and as Successor-
In-Interest to Cutler Hammer, Inc. and Eaton Aeroquip, Inc.);
General Dynamics Corporation (Individually and as Successor-In-
Interest to Convair Corp.); General Electric Company; Genuine
Parts Company; Georgia-Pacific LLC; Goodrich Corporation; Goodyear
Tire & Rubber Company (Individually and as Successor-In-Interest
to Goodyear Aerospace Corp.); Harco LLC (f/k/a Harco Laboratories,
Inc.); Henkel Corporation (Individually and as Successor-In-
Interest to Dexter Corporation and Dexter Hysol Aerospace, LLC);
Honeywell International, Inc.; Honeywell, Inc.; Imo Industries,
Inc. (Individually and as Successor-In-Interest to Adel
Fasteners); Lockheed Martin Corporation; Metlife, Inc.; Northrop
Grumman Corp., (Individually and as Successor-In-Interest to Ling-
Temco-Vought); Novartis Corporation (Individually and as
Successor-In-Interest to Ciba-Geigy Corporation); Parker Hannifan
Corporation (Individually and as Individually and as Successor-In-
Interest to Cleveland Wheels & Brakes, f/k/a Cleveland Aircraft
Products); Rockwell Automation, Inc. (Individually and as
Successor-In-Interest to Allen Bradley Company, Inc. and Rostone
Corporation); Schneider Electric USA, Inc. (Individually and as
Successor-In-Interest to Square D Company; The Boeing Company;
Transdigm Group, Inc. and its Division Adel Wiggins Group
(Individually and as Successor-In-Interest to Adel Precision
Products Corp.); Union Carbide Corporation; United Technologies
Corp., and its Division Pratt & Whitney.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kathryn E. Barnett, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN-NASHVILLE, PLLC
          810 Broadway, Suite 105
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 490-0944
          E-mail: kbarnett@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          J. Dennis Weitzel, Esq.
          Samuel D. Elswick, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          20 N. Orange Avenue, 16th Floor
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 841-9520
          E-mail: dweitzel@forthepeople.com
                  selswick@forthepeople.com


ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Warhol, On behalf of himself and all others Similarly
situated v. Accounts Receivable Services, LLC, Case No. 0:15-cv-
02331-SRN-JSM (D. Minn., May 4, 2015) seeks relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Mayer, Esq.
          MAYER BRAYER LLP
          5844 Columbus Avenue South
          Minneapolis, MN 55417
          Telephone: (612) 418-9764
          E-mail: mayerbrayer@gmail.com


ACTIVE NETWORK: Removes "Mooney" Class Suit to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Mooney, et al. v. The Active
Network, Inc., et al., Case No. 37-2014-00004713-CU-AT-CTL, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California (San Diego).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:15-cv-00942-AJB-WVG to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint alleges that Active
"automatically" enrolled them into a free trial of the Active
Advantage program "[u]nbeknownst" to them, and that Plaintiffs did
not knowingly consent to the use of their credit cards to pay for
Active Advantage memberships.  The Plaintiffs further allege that
they are "some of many thousands of similarly-situated Class
members across the State of California -- indeed, across the
entire United States -- who have been victimized by the deceptive
Active Advantage program."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steven L. Marchbanks, Esq.
          PREMIER LEGAL CENTER, A.P.C.
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1095
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 235-0137
          Facsimile: (619) 235-3300
          E-mail: steve@premierlegalcenter.com

               - and -

          Robert G. Loewy, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT G. LOEWY, P.C.
          1300 Bristol Street North, Suite 160
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 442-7103
          Facsimile: (949) 242-5105
          E-mail: rloewy@rloewy.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Daniel T. Pascucci, Esq.
          Jennifer B. Rubin, Esq.
          Wynter N. Lavier, Esq.
          MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C.
          3580 Carmel Mountain Road, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 314-1500
          Facsimile: (858) 314-1501
          E-mail: dpascucci@mintz.com
                  jrubin@mintz.com
                  wlavier@mintz.com

               - and -

          Evan S. Nadel, Esq.
          MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C.
          44 Montgomery Street, 36th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 432-6000
          Facsimile: (415) 432-6000
          E-mail: enadel@mintz.com


AIG INC: Removes PIMCO Suit to Central District of California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled Pacific Investment Management Company LLC, et
al. v. American International Group, Inc., Case No. 30-2015-
00779738-CU-SL-CXC, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Orange to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California (Southern Division -
Santa Ana).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:15-cv-
00687 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs excluded themselves from the settlement class in In
re American International Group, Inc. 2008 Securities Litigation,
No. 08-CV-4772, which recently settled after nearly seven years of
active litigation in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

Like the AIG Class Action, PIMCO's Complaint alleges that AIG made
false and misleading public statements about AIG's exposure to the
subprime mortgage market between 2006 and 2008 in violation of the
federal securities laws.  PIMCO's claims also substantially
overlap with claims asserted in, and arise out of the same nucleus
of operative facts as alleged in, nine other "opt-out" actions
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York brought by other similarly situated
investors, who excluded themselves from the AIG Class Action
settlement.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Blair A. Nicholas, Esq.
          Timothy A. DeLange, Esq.
          Dave Kaplan, Esq.
          Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq.
          Brandon Marsh, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 793-0070
          Facsimile: (858) 793-0323
          E-mail: blairn@blbglaw.com
                  timothyd@blbglaw.com
                  DavidK@blbglaw.com
                  Lucas.Gilmore@blbglaw.com
                  brandon.marsh@blbglaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joseph S. Allerhand, Esq.
          Robert F. Carangelo, Esq.
          Stacy Nettleton, Esq.
          WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
          767 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10153
          Telephone: (212) 310-8000
          Facsimile: (212) 310-8007
          E-mail: joseph.allerhand@weil.com
                  robert.carangelo@weil.com
                  stacy.nettleton@weil.com

               - and -

          Alan A. Greenberg, Esq.
          Bret D. Hembd, Esq.
          Adam Sechooler, Esq.
          GREENBERG GROSS LLP
          650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1750
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (949) 383-2800
          Facsimile: (949) 383-2801
          E-mail: AGreenberg@GGTrialLaw.com
                  BHembd@GGTrialLaw.com
                  ASechooler@GGTrialLaw.com


ALBANY MOLECULAR: Defending Against "Gauquie" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Albany Molecular Research, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a purported class
action lawsuit, John Gauquie v. Albany Molecular Research, Inc.,
et al., No. 14-cv-6637, was filed on November 12, 2014, against
the Company and certain of its current and former officers in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
The complaint alleges claims under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 arising from the Company's August 5, 2014 announcement of its
financial results for the second quarter of 2014, including that
the OsoBio New Mexico facility experienced a power interruption in
July 2014, which would have a material impact on the Company's
results.  The complaint alleges that the price of the Company's
stock was artificially inflated between August 5, 2014 and
November 5, 2014, and seeks certification as a class action,
unspecified monetary damages and attorneys' fees and costs.


ALLIED COLLECTION: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dov Spitezki, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Allied Collection Services of California,
L.L.C., and Law Offices of Robert L. Colcough, Case No. 1:15-cv-
02596 (E.D.N.Y., May 6, 2015) is brought over alleged violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          483 Chestnut Street
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516
          Telephone: (516) 791-4400
          Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


AMC NETWORKS: Removes "Cho" Labor Suit to the C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Cho v. AMC Networks Entertainment
LLC, Case No. BC575892, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-03099 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kathryn Teresa McGuigan, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Telephone: (213) 612-2500
          Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
          E-mail: kmcguigan@morganlewis.com


ANZ BANK: Successful Appeal May Hamper Penalties Cases
------------------------------------------------------
Australasian Lawyer reports that the successful appeal of the ANZ
bank class action could make penalties claims much harder, warns
lawyer.

Jenny Campbell -- Jenny.Campbell@allens.com.au -- partner at
Allens has told Australasian Lawyer that the recent decision in
the ANZ bank class action could throw a spanner in the works for
other class actions.

"I think that the decision will be a significant hurdle when it
comes to the other penalties cases that are said to be in the
works, for example utilities and telecommunications companies.
It's certainly going to make penalties claims much harder to bring
than was previously the case," she said.

A recent report by Allens found that class actions have become
increasingly common and that companies in Australia are more
likely to face class action litigation than in any other
jurisdiction, other than corporations operating in the United
States.

A report by Maurice Blackburn on the other hand, said that the
number of class actions in Australia remains low and steady.  It
concludes that there have only been 15 class actions in the
Federal Court every year since the inception of the regime,
amounting to just 0.3 per cent of the 5,000 matters filed in the
Court each year.

While there is debate around the direction that class action
numbers are trending in, both Allens and Maurice Blackburn agree
that the number of cases is not disproportionate to Australia's
population.

Allens' report found that the number of class actions in 2014 was
the highest it has ever been, however the same number was reached
in 2010.

The report attributes the occurrence of class actions in Australia
to a number of factors, including a focus on corporate governance
and the endorsement of various peak regulators on the importance
of class actions, the business opportunity for more firms to
develop class action practices and the facilitation of class
actions by the courts.

"There is a lot of debate about whether class actions in Australia
are out of control or not," said Mr. Campbell.  "My view is that
there is no doubt that we are seeing more class actions now than
ever before but we're not seeing the sort of explosion of class
actions that people were talking about five or six years ago.  I
don't think that the flood gates have opened."

While class actions have impacted companies of many industries,
Campbell anticipates further class actions in the banking and
finance sector.

"I do think that they have become quite a target for class
actions; the bank fees cases are the classic example of that but
we've also seen a number of class actions brought by investors
against banks and other financial services organizations," she
said.  "I think that banks, as very large commercial organizations
with deep pockets are going to be a sector of the market that the
class action promoters are always going to be focused on."


ANZ BANK: Recent Ruling Favorable for Banks, Telecoms Sector
------------------------------------------------------------
Darcy Wilson, Esq. of Lander & Rogers, in an article for Lexology,
reports that on 8 April 2015, the Full Federal Court, overturned a
2014 Federal Court decision which held late payment fees charged
by ANZ amounted to penalties.

The Court held that in evaluating whether a fee is 'extravagant
and exorbitant' the fee should be compared to the greatest
prospective loss that could conceivably flow from the breach,
assessed at the time of entering into the contract, as opposed to
a retrospective calculation of actual loss suffered.  In addition,
the Court held that a broader category of indirect loss can be
taken into account when estimating the loss that may flow from a
breach.

Although the case comes as a great relief to the banking and
telecommunications industries, it is likely the High Court will be
asked to hear the matter on appeal.

Facts

The class action against ANZ Bank, which began in 2013, challenged
the legality of various banking fees imposed on customers.

The fees in question included:

   -- late payment fees on consumer credit card accounts;

   -- honor, dishonor and non-payment fees charged to consumers
and business deposit accounts; and

   -- over-limit fees on consumer credit card accounts.

The main fees in contention were the late payment fees of $20 to
$35 incurred each time a customer failed to repay the minimum
amount on their credit card each month.  This fee was incurred
regardless of the lateness of payment and despite the direct loss
suffered by ANZ as a result of late payment being estimated at
first instance to be $0.50 to $5.00.

The main issue in contention is whether such fees are penalties
and thus unenforceable.

In February 2014, Justice Gordon of the Federal Court decided that
the late payment fees on consumer credit card accounts amounted to
penalties, as they were not a genuine pre-estimate of the loss ANZ
would suffer and were extravagant and unconscionable compared to
the loss actually suffered.

However, Justice Gordon found that the other fees charged were
justified by the provision of additional services by ANZ. For
example, in the case of over-limit fees, the customer was being
provided with an informal extension of credit, which warranted an
additional fee.  In the case of dishonor fees, Justice Gordon
found that these were in exchange for ANZ's services of
considering the customer's request for an informal overdraft.

Justice Gordon also rejected the contention that any of the fees
contravened statutory prohibitions on unconscionable or unfair
conduct.

Both parties appealed to the Full Federal Court.  ANZ appealed
against the decision that the late payment fees amounted to
penalties, and Paciocco appealed against the decision that the
other bank fees were not penalties and therefore valid.

Full Federal Court Decision

On April 8, 2015, the Full Federal Court overturned Justice
Gordon's decision in relation to the late payment fees, and
affirmed her decision in relation to the other fees.

Main findings

The late payment fees for credit cards were not extravagant,
exorbitant or unconscionable and therefore not a penalty.

In order to assess whether a fee is 'extravagant and exorbitant',
the loss needs to be assessed prospectively (ex ante) as opposed
to retrospectively (ex post) (discussed below under 'Method for
assessing extravagance').

In assessing that loss, the 'indirect consequences' incurred as a
result of a customer's failure to perform an obligation can also
be taken into account (discussed below under 'Consideration of
indirect consequences').

The Full Court confirmed Justice Gordon's decision that:

  -- the honor, dishonor, non-payment and over-limit fees
constituted genuine fees for services and were not penalties;

  -- none of the fees contravened statutory prohibitions on
unconscionable or unfair conduct; and

  -- the party claiming that a payment is a penalty has the onus
of proving extravagance and exorbitance, which was not achieved in
this case.

Method for assessing extravagance

One of the key reasons behind the findings was the method which
should be used to determine whether a fee is "extravagant and
exorbitant" compared to the loss suffered.

In her decision at first instance, Justice Gordon analyzed the
extravagance of the late payment fees on an ex post basis.  This
entailed a comparison of the fee with the actual loss suffered by
ANZ after the breaches occurred, which she estimated to be between
50 cents and $5.00.

However, the Full Court agreed with ANZ's argument that the
appropriate analysis should be ex ante.  This involves an
assessment of the greatest prospective losses that could
conceivably flow from the breach, assessed at the time of entering
into the contract.

The Full Court emphasized that the question of whether a fee is
extravagant or exorbitant and, therefore, a penalty, is distinct
from the question of the damage actually experienced due to a
failure to comply with obligations in a contract.  An ex post
enquiry is only appropriate to calculate the compensation due to
the penalized party after the fee has been found to be a penalty.

Consideration of indirect consequences

The Full Court also broadened the types of loss that could be
taken into account when engaging in an ex ante assessment of a
fee's extravagance or exorbitance.

At first instance, Justice Gordon only considered the direct loss
incurred by ANZ when a late payment was made.  The Full Court
engaged in a much broader assessment of the potential losses
suffered, by considering indirect consequences of a customer's
failure to make timely payment.

For example, the costs incurred by ANZ in maintaining a
collections department and in maintaining additional regulatory
capital in order to make up for late payments, were losses that
could be taken into account when assessing the reasonableness of
the fee.

After taking into account the costs associated with these indirect
consequences, the Full Court concluded that the late payment fees
were not penalties.

Implications

This decision will be welcomed by financial institutions and
telecommunications companies, which will feel vindicated in their
practice of charging such fees under contract.

On the other hand, the decision is a major setback for the class
action and the numerous other proceedings against banks and
telecommunication companies which have been stayed pending the
outcome of this test case.  If this decision stands, it will be a
significant obstacle for both current and future penalties class
actions.

It also begs the question of whether the restating of the penalty
doctrine in Andrews v ANZ (2012) 247 CLR 205 will have
the momentous impact on commercial contracts previously
predicted.

Bottom Line

Although financial institutions and telecommunications companies
are likely celebrating the victory, the 'bank fees' saga is far
from over.  Representatives for the class action have already
indicated that special leave will be sought to appeal to the High
Court.


ARAMARK HEALTHCARE: Accused of Sexual Harassment in N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Monica Dixon v. Aramark Healthcare Support Services, LLC, Case No.
1:15-cv-03918 (N.D. Ill., May 4, 2015) is brought under the Civil
Rights act of 1964 and the Illinois Whistleblower Act.

The Plaintiff is African American and female.  She alleges that
the Defendant summarily dismissed her allegations of sexual
harassment, failing to investigate, identify or discipline the
harassment, and additionally failing to prevent future harassment.

Aramark Healthcare Support Services, LLC is a national corporation
operating in Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christina A. Papavasiliou, Esq.
          CHRISTINA A. PAPAVASILIOU, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          180 N. LaSalle St., Suite 3700
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 379-9580
          Facsimile: (312) 264-0813
          E-mail: c_papav@yahoo.com


ARAMARK UNIFORM: "Strickland" Suit Moved From Calif. to Kansas
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Dwayne Strickland, et al. v.
Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-09851, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas (Kansas City).  The Kansas District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:15-cv-07823-DDC-KMH to the proceeding.

The collective action is brought for alleged failure to provide
overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          George P. Moschopoulos, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE MOSCHOPOULOS, APC
          34197 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 100
          Dana Point, CA 92629
          Telephone: (714) 904-1669
          Facsimile: (949) 272-0428
          E-mail: g.moschopoulos.esq@gmail.com
                  gestrada@rwillslawfirm.com

               - and -

          Rhonda H. Wills, Esq.
          Genevieve B. Estrada, Esq.
          WILLS LAW FIRM, PLLC
          1776 Yorktown, Suite 570
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 528-4455
          Facsimile: (713) 528-2047
          E-mail: rwills@rwillslawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kathryn M. Nazarian, Esq.
          Eric Meckley, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP
          One Market Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
          E-mail: knazarian@morganlewis.com
                  emeckley@morganlewis.com


ARCH AUTO PARTS: Violates Fair Labor Standards Act, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maurice Johnson, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Arch Auto Parts Holding Company Inc., Case
No. 1:15-cv-02512 (E.D.N.Y., May 1, 2015) alleges violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.


ATLANTIC CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Breeden, Individually, and on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Atlantic Credit & Finance Inc. and John Does
1-25, Case No. 3:15-cv-03106-MAS-DEA (D.N.J., May 4, 2015) accuses
the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BERKSHIRE HILLS: Defending Against Shareholder Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company is
defending against a shareholder class action related to the
Agreement and Plan of Merger.

Following the public announcement of the execution of the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated November 3, 2014 (the "Merger
Agreement"), by and among the Company and Hampden Bancorp, Inc.
("Hampden"), on or about February 11, 2015, Brian Levy, a
purported shareholder of Hampden, filed a shareholder class action
lawsuit in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
for Hampden County against Hampden, the Directors of Hampden and
the Company (the "Hampden shareholder litigation").  The Hampden
shareholder litigation purports to be brought on behalf of all of
Hampden's public stockholders and alleges that (i) the directors
of Hampden breached their fiduciary duties to it's stockholders
by, among other things, failing to take steps necessary to obtain
a fair and adequate price for Hampden's common stock, (ii) Hampden
and its directors failed to disclose material facts in its proxy
solicitation materials for its shareholder vote to approve the
transaction set forth in the Merger Agreement, and (iii) the
Company knowingly aided and abetted Hampden's directors' breach of
fiduciary duty.

Hampden, its Directors and the Company all deny and are vigorously
defending each of the allegations asserted in the Hampden
shareholder litigation.  Management of the Company believes the
Hampden shareholder litigation will not have any material adverse
effect on the financial condition or operations of the Company.


BIODELIVERY SCIENCES: Class Action Settlement Approved by Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
16, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a
settlement of class action lawsuits has been agreed upon by all
parties and approved by the Court.

On July 24, 2013 and August 5, 2013, purported class actions were
filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Florida (Tampa Division) against Accentia Biopharmaceuticals,
Inc., and several current and former directors and officers of
Accentia and its former subsidiary, Biovest International, Inc.
(collectively the Class Action), including Frank E. O'Donnell, Jr.
M.D., our Executive Chairman. The complaints allege that the
defendants violated federal securities laws by making or causing
Accentia and/or Biovest to make false statements, and by failing
to disclose or causing Accentia and/or Biovest to fail to disclose
material information, concerning the results of the clinical trial
of Biovest's cancer vaccine, BiovaxID, and status of its approval
by the FDA. Plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount on
behalf of shareholders who purchased common stock of Accentia or
Biovest during a defined time period. All defendants, including
Dr. O'Donnell, believe this litigation to be without merit, deny
any wrongdoing or liability and have vigorously defended the
alleged claims. A settlement of this matter, in which defendants
make no admissions of wrongdoing or liability, has been agreed
upon by all parties and approved by the Court.


BOSCOV'S INC: Violates Disabilities Act in New Jersey, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Clemente, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Boscov's, Inc. and Boscov's Department Store, LLC,
Case No. 1:15-cv-03127-RBK-KMW (D.N.J., May 1, 2015) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          1040 Kings Highway, North, Suite 601
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 795-7250
          E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com


BP PLC: Plaintiffs Lawyers Fight Changes to Oil Spill Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that plaintiffs lawyers have turned to the courts to fight changes
to the $9.2 billion Deepwater Horizon settlement that they warn
will leave out thousands of businesses suffering oil-spill losses.

Lead plaintiffs attorneys petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit last month to reverse changes to the way claim
amounts are calculated.  Those accounting changes were put into
place after that court agreed with BP PLC that the claims
administrator was using an accounting method that could have paid
thousands of businesses with no oil-spill losses. "What turns out
to be a technical accounting question that no one really had on
the horizon three years ago now is basically a sink-or-swim issue
for a significant number of claimants," said David Logan, a
professor at Roger Williams University School of Law.

The deadline is June 8 to file claims against the settlement,
which resolves economic damages incurred by businesses along the
Gulf of Mexico following the 2010 spill.  BP declined to comment
about the accounting change.

As of March 31, claims administrator Patrick Juneau had paid
nearly $5 billion on more than 84,000 claims for economic damages,
according to court papers.  The settlement compensates Gulf Coast
businesses that didn't suffer physical damages from oil but say
they have lost money, such as seafood producers, restaurants,
tourism shops and boat operators that volunteered in cleanup
efforts.  The specific identities of those companies making claims
for economic losses, including law firms that might be filing on
their own behalf, remain confidential. Some 60,000 claims remain
under review.  Of those, at least 20 percent could see their
damages significantly reduced or eliminated under the new policy,
according to a lawyer familiar with the case, speaking
anonymously.

On April 16, another plaintiffs lawyer, Brent Coon of Brent Coon &
Associates in Beaumont, Texas, who has more than 10,000 oil-spill
clients, cited the policy in asking the court to allow class
members to opt out of the settlement originally approved in 2012.
"It's been made so onerous now that most people can't qualify," he
said.

The plaintiffs' complaints reflect a shift from the past three
years, during which BP complained that some businesses received
"windfall" payments based on "fictitious losses."  In a flurry of
appeals before the Fifth Circuit, BP argued that the settlement
required claimants to prove the spill directly caused their
financial losses.  The court rejected BP's position, and the U.S.
Supreme Court denied its petition for review last year.

But BP won a small but significant debate over how to calculate
business losses -- the issue now at the heart of the plaintiffs
attorneys' appeal.  In 2013, the Fifth Circuit ruled, 2-1, that
Juneau's method was "completely disconnected from any reasonable
understanding of calculation of damages."  Under the old method,
businesses reported revenues during a three-month period after the
spill and subtracted expenses incurred during that period.  The
changes now require a business to subtract expenses actually
related to those revenues, regardless of when they were incurred.
Lead plaintiffs lawyers objected, arguing that the policy requires
additional documentation and accounting calculations that
specifically harmed businesses like construction, farming,
education and professional services including law firms that
attribute drops in work to the spill.  On March 31, U.S. District
Judge Carl Barbier sided with BP; plaintiffs lawyers have appealed
that ruling.

Co-lead plaintiffs counsel Steve Herman of Herman Herman & Katz in
New Orleans, wrote in an email to The National Law Journal that
the new system "strays from the settlement agreement's mandate
that all claimants be treated equally."  Mr. Coon said the change
is one of hundreds Mr. Juneau has implemented while determining
how much claimants get paid.  But it's significant enough to wipe
out awards for thousands of his clients, many of them in the
Florida Panhandle.  "It's more nails in the coffin for the
claimants, but it's probably the last nail for many of them."

BP, meanwhile, isn't done with its own challenges.  In an appeal
that goes before the Fifth Circuit on June 3, the company seeks to
recover hundreds of millions of dollars paid to businesses under
the old accounting method.  BP has challenged Judge Barbier's
Sept. 24 order refusing its restitution request.  "Hundreds of
millions of dollars were wrongly paid out because of a
misinterpretation of the settlement agreement that has since been
overturned," BP spokesman Geoff Morrell wrote in an email to the
NLJ.

In another appeal, BP seeks to reverse Judge Barbier's refusal
last year to grant access to information about businesses "for
identifying and preventing the payment of improper, duplicative
and fraudulent claims," Mr. Morrell wrote.  The Fifth Circuit
heard oral arguments on April 7.

"The more they go back and change the rules and add issues to be
considered in the administrative process, the less likely they'll
get the closure they're looking for," Mr. Logan said of the Fifth
Circuit, which for the most part has upheld the settlement.


BULL HEAD: Faces "Hurley" Suit Over Violation of Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fredkiey Hurley, individually v. Bull Head Tavern L.L.C. d/b/a
Dull's Head Tavern, a New York for profit corporation, Case No.
1:15-cv-03395-LGS (S.D.N.Y., April 30, 2015) seeks to recover
attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and costs incurred in
pursuing an action to enforce and obtain compliance with
provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Mr. Hurley suffers from a relatively rare genetic developmental
congenital disorder that he contracted at birth -- spina bifida
cystica with myelomeningocele.  He is permanently disabled and is
confined to a wheelchair.

The violative property is located in New York City, in New York
County.  Bull Head Tavern L.L.C., doing business as Bull's Head
Tavern, is the tenant on the Property operating this as food
service establishment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CANADA: Class Action Ruling Upholds Farmers' Marketing Freedom
--------------------------------------------------------------
CKRM reports that Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz says the Supreme
Court decision not to hear the appeal on the Canadian Wheat Board
upholds western Canadian farmers' right to marketing freedom.

Ritz says in a statement "the overwhelming majority of farmers
have embraced the new economic opportunities created by marketing
freedom."

Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board filed a class-action lawsuit
in 2012 over legislation that removed the marketing agency's
monopoly on western wheat and barley sales.  It sought leave to
appeal after a lower court struck down the main parts of the
class-action suit.


CANADA: NFU Balks at Supreme Court's CWB Class Action Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange Morning Post reports that The National Farmers Union
(NFU) is disappointed that the Supreme Court of Canada has refused
to hear the farmers' Class Action lawsuit stemming from the Harper
Government's dismantling of the single-desk Canadian Wheat Board
(CWB).  Had the case proceeded, the Supreme Court would have been
able to determine whether common law property rights apply to
collective interests in property, namely the assets farmers paid
for and added value to as a result of their management and
direction of the CWB.  The central question of the case was "Did
the federal government unlawfully expropriate a proprietary
interest of grain producers in the CWB by enacting the Marketing
Freedom for Grain Farmers Act in 2011?" The class action also
claimed that by dismantling the single desk CWB, the government
unjustly broke its trust and interfered with farmers' economic
relations.  The legal action also sought compensation for the
losses that resulted from the government's actions.

"The economic damage farmers have suffered since the Conservative
government destroyed the single desk Canadian Wheat Board is very
real," said Ian Robson, NFU Board member.  "Western farmers have
lost more than $7 billion dollars since August 1, 2012 -- the
equivalent of a full year's wheat and barley crop.  This is money
that is not being spent in rural communities, not being invested
in our farms, and not circulating in the Canadian economy.
Farmers worked long and hard to build the grain marketing system
we had, and which benefited the whole of Canada's economy.  It is
a shame that the Supreme Court of Canada will not be able to hold
the Harper government accountable for this damage."

"The Supreme Court's decision is disappointing, but worse is the
fact that farmers were forced to go through the judiciary to try
to have their voices heard when in the summer of 2011 it was
already clear that the majority of farmers supported the single
desk," added Matt Gehl, NFU Board member.  "By not holding a
farmer vote, as was required under the existing CWB legislation
and after promising to do so in the 2011 election campaign, the
federal government disregarded its duty to represent the people."

"Minister Ritz claimed the benefits of individual farmers selling
wheat and barley to the private grain company of their choice
would be felt immediately, yet the first three years have shown
massive losses for farmers," said Doug Scott, NFU Board member.
"With the CWB we got close to 100% of the full world price of
grain, and sometimes more.  Today, we are getting 60% if we are
lucky, and economists predict that will keep going down as grain
companies and railways flex their muscle.  There is no more final
payment -- what you get from the elevator is it.  The grain
company keeps the rest. If this is Gerry Ritz's idea of great
early results, I shudder to think about how bad it will be in a
decade."

"I think it was hard for people to realize just how fundamental
the CWB's single desk was.  Now that it is gone we are taking hard
lessons in transportation, quality, access to delivery and price,"
said Jan Slomp, NFU President.  "To bring order and prosperity
back to the prairie grain system, we need to reinstate the single
desk."


CANADA: First Nations Mull Residential School Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Geordon Omand, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that two
First Nations in British Columbia are looking to take the federal
government to court on behalf of all the former day students of
the country's notorious residential school system.

The Tk'emlups te Secwepemc and Shishalh bands are asking
permission from the Federal Court to launch a class-action suit
representing aboriginal children who attended residential schools
but returned to their families at night.

"Every single one of them has a story similar to the people who
resided in the schools," said former Shishalh chief turned
councillor, Garry Feschuk, a plaintiff in the case and whose wife
is a former day student.

"I really believe it's time that these people are heard and we
start to heal our people."

Three separate class-action suits are being considered by the
court: one for former day students, one for descendants of former
day students and one for bands impacted by members who attended
residential schools as day students.

The certification hearing was set to start on April 13 and was
scheduled to last for a week, the allegations of which have not
been proven in court.

Mr. Feschuk said he expects a decision to be reached by September.

In 2008, the Canadian government issued a formal apology for its
historic role in the residential school system, but that did not
include compensation for the day students who attended the schools
alongside live-in students.

The lawsuit alleges day students suffered the same loss of
cultural connection and language as their residential
counterparts, who did receive compensation.  It argues that the
program was an intentional element of Canada's education policy
and resulted in serious and life-long harm to survivors.

Mr. Feschuk estimated there are more than 300 former day students
belonging to the two representative bands, but he was unable to
provide an overall number for the entire country.

"It's taken a lot of work to get us to where we are today," said
Mr. Feschuk, adding that the legal process began more than three
years ago.

"I'm just hoping that in the end we can achieve the justice that
our people have been waiting for.  They've waited long enough."

Justice Sean Harrington will ultimately decide whether the two
bands should be allowed to speak for all of Canada's former
aboriginal day students.  That decision could then be appealed by
either side before going to trial, provided a negotiated, out-of-
court settlement isn't reached in the interim.


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Weiss, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Capital Management Services, L.P., Case No. 1:15-cv-
02600 (E.D.N.Y., May 6, 2015) accuses the Defendant of violating
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          483 Chestnut Street
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516
          Telephone: (516) 791-4400
          Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Ralphs" Suit in E.D. Missouri
------------------------------------------------------------
Anna E. Ralphs f/k/a Anna E. Juergens, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Charter Communications, Inc.
and Charter Communications Entertainment I, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-
00711-JAR (E.D. Mo., May 5, 2015) asserts claims for breach of
contract.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis J. Flynn, Esq.
          JEFFREY J. LOWE, P.C.
          8235 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 678-3400
          Facsimile: (314) 678-3401
          E-mail: casey@jefflowepc.com


CHINA XD: Named as Defendants in 2 Securities Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
China XD Plastics Company Limited said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the
Company and certain of its officers and directors have been named
as defendants in two putative securities class action lawsuits
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

These actions, which allege violations of Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) of the United States securities laws, were filed on
July 15, 2014 and July 16, 2014 and are captioned Yang v. Han, et
al., No. 14-cv-5308 (GBD) and Tompkins v. China XD Plastics
Company Ltd., et al., No. 14-cv-5359 (GBD), respectively.  On
November 21, 2014, the Court consolidated the actions and
appointed lead plaintiffs.  On February 17, 2015, the lead
plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint on behalf
of a class of all persons other than the defendants who purchased
the common stock of China XD Plastics Company Limited between
March 25, 2014 and July 10, 2014, inclusive.  Specifically, the
lead plaintiffs allege that the Company and two of its officers
made false or misleading statements and/or omitted material facts
in the Company's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013
and the Company's Form 10-Q for the first quarter ended March 31,
2014. They also assert that the individual defendants are liable
because they allegedly controlled the Company during the time the
allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions were made.
The lead plaintiffs seek damages in unspecified amounts.

"Based on our initial review of the complaints, the management
believes the lawsuits are without merit and intend to vigorously
defend against them," the Company said.


CLACKAMAS CTY, OR: Faces Suit Alleging Disabilities Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Updike, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Clackamas County, Case No. 3:15-cv-00723-SI (D. Or.,
April 29, 2015) is brought under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carl Lee Post, Esq.
          Daniel J. Snyder, Esq.
          John D. Burgess, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL SNYDER
          1000 S.W. Broadway, Suite 2400
          Portland, OR 97205
          Telephone: (503) 241-3617
          Facsimile: (503) 241-2249
          E-mail: carlpost@lawofficeofdanielsnyder.com
                  dansnyder@lawofficeofdanielsnyder.com
                  johnburgess@lawofficeofdanielsnyder.com


CRAIG'S CRUISERS: Faces "Gregory" Suit Alleging Bias Due to Sex
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Gregory v. Craig's Cruisers, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00473
(W.D. Mich., May 6, 2015) is brought for damages and injunctive
relief caused by Craig's Cruisers' discrimination on the basis of
sex against the Plaintiff in violation of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Elliott-Larsen Civil
Rights Act and the Michigan Work Opportunity Wage Act.

Ms. Gregory is a female resident of Wyoming, Michigan.  She was
hired by Craig's Cruisers on May 17, 2013.  She was pregnant at
the time of her demotion on December 6, 2013, and her subsequent
termination on December 13, 2013.

Craig's Cruisers is a Michigan corporation doing business in
Michigan, with its Grand Rapids facility located at 5730 Clyde
Park SW, in Wyoming, Michigan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicole M. Strickler, Esq.
          Katherine Maria Saldanha Olson, Esq.
          MESSER, STILP & STRICKLER, LTD.
          166 W. Washington Street, Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 334-3476
          Facsimile: (312) 334-3434
          E-mail: Strickler@messerstilp.com
                  olson@messerstilp.com


CYNOSURE INC: Second Circuit to Decide TCPA Case Based on Briefs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cynosure, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit has notified the parties in the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation that it will not hear
oral arguments and will decide the case based on the briefs.

The Company said, "In 2005, a plaintiff, individually and as
putative representative of a purported class, filed a complaint
against us under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA) in Massachusetts Superior Court in Middlesex County,
captioned Weitzner v. Cynosure, Inc., No. MICV2005-01778 (Superior
Court, Middlesex County), seeking monetary damages, injunctive
relief, costs and attorneys' fees. The complaint alleges that we
violated the TCPA by sending unsolicited advertisements by
facsimile to the plaintiff and other recipients without the prior
express invitation or permission of the recipients. Under the
TCPA, recipients of unsolicited facsimile advertisements are
entitled to damages of up to $500 per facsimile for inadvertent
violations and up to $1,500 per facsimile for knowing or willful
violations. Based on discovery in this matter, the plaintiff
alleges that approximately three million facsimiles were sent on
our behalf by a third party to approximately 100,000 individuals.
In January 2012, the court denied the class certification motion.
In November 2012, the court issued the final judgment and awarded
the plaintiff $6,000 in damages and awarded us $3,495 in costs.
The plaintiff appealed this decision, and oral argument on the
appeal was held in October 2013 before the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts Appeals Court. In March 2014, the appeals court
affirmed the lower court's ruling, and in April 2014 the plaintiff
filed a request for further appellate review by the Supreme
Judicial Court. On May 6, 2014, the Supreme Judicial Court issued
a Notice of Denial of Application for Further Appellate Review. No
further appeals are possible in Massachusetts. In addition, in
July 2012, the plaintiff filed a new purported class action, based
on the same operative facts and asserting the same claims as in
the Massachusetts action, in federal court in the Eastern District
of New York, captioned Weitzner, et al. v. Cynosure, Inc., No.
1:12-cv-03668-MKB-RLM (U.S District Court, Eastern District of New
York). In February 2013, that court granted our motion to dismiss
the plaintiff's claims. In March 2013, the plaintiff drafted a
motion seeking reconsideration of the court's judgment and
vacation of the court's order of dismissal. In April 2013, we
drafted a response opposing the plaintiff's motion. In August
2013, plaintiff filed its motion with the court, although the
deadline had been April 2013. We filed a letter with the court
objecting to this untimely motion and requesting sanctions. In
February 2014, the court denied plaintiff's motion and denied our
request for sanctions. On March 6, 2014, plaintiff filed an appeal
of the court's judgment entered on March 5, 2013. On July 23,
2014, the Second Circuit notified the parties that it will not
hear oral arguments and will decide the case based on the briefs."


CYNOSURE INC: Massachusetts Case Over Merger Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
Cynosure, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a Massachusetts federal
action related to a merger agreement has been dismissed.

The Company said, "On March 21, 2013, a putative stockholder class
action complaint, captioned Edgar Calin v. Palomar Medical
Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 13-1051 BLS1 (Superior Court,
Suffolk County), was filed against Palomar, its board of
directors, us and Commander Acquisition, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company and our wholly-owned subsidiary (Commander), in
Massachusetts Superior Court in Suffolk County. On April 9, 2013,
a second putative stockholder class action complaint, captioned
Vladimir Gusinsky Living Trust v. Palomar Medical Technologies,
Inc., et al., No. 13-1328 BLS1 (Superior Court, Suffolk County),
was filed against Palomar, its board of directors and us in
Massachusetts Superior Court in Suffolk County. On April 12, 2013,
a third putative stockholder class action complaint, captioned
Albert Saffer v. Palomar Medical Technologies, Inc. et al., No.
13-1385 BLS1 (Superior Court, Suffolk County), was filed against
Palomar, its board of directors, us and Commander in Massachusetts
Superior Court in Suffolk County, which we refer to collectively
with Edgar Calin and Vladimir Gusinsky Living Trust as the
Massachusetts State Actions. On April 23, 2013, each of the
plaintiffs in the foregoing suits filed an amended complaint. Each
amended complaint alleges that members of the Palomar board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
approval of the merger contemplated by the agreement and plan of
merger, dated as of March 17, 2013, by and among Palomar, us and
Commander, and that we and, with respect to the Calin and Saffer
suits, Commander, aided and abetted the alleged breach of
fiduciary duties. Each amended complaint alleges that the Palomar
directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
proposed transaction by, among other things, conducting a flawed
sale process and failing to maximize stockholder value and obtain
the best financial and other terms, and that the registration
statement filed by us is materially deficient. Each of these
plaintiffs seeks injunctive and other equitable relief, including
enjoining the defendants from consummating the merger, in addition
to other unspecified damages, fees and costs. The plaintiffs in
the Massachusetts State Actions moved to expedite the proceedings
on May 1, 2013 and moved to consolidate the actions on May 1,
2013. On May 13, 2013, each of the defendants in the Massachusetts
State Actions filed an opposition to expedite, an opposition to
consolidate and a cross motion to stay its respective action. On
May 16, 2013, each of the plaintiffs filed oppositions to
defendants' cross motion to stay. On May 17, 2013, the
Massachusetts Superior Court issued an order denying plaintiffs'
motion for expedited proceedings and granting defendants' cross
motion to stay the Massachusetts State Actions."

"On April 19, 2013, a fourth putative stockholder class action
complaint, captioned Gary Drabek v. Palomar Medical Technologies,
Inc. et al., No. 8491, (Del. Ch.) was filed against Palomar, its
board of directors, us and Commander in Delaware Chancery Court.
On May 1, 2013, a fifth putative stockholder class action
complaint, captioned Daniel Moore v. Palomar Medical Technologies,
Inc. et al., No. 8516, (Del. Ch.) was filed against Palomar, its
board of directors, us and Commander in Delaware Chancery Court.
Each of the foregoing lawsuits alleges that members of the Palomar
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection
with the approval of the merger and that we and Commander aided
and abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duties. Each complaint
alleges that the Palomar directors breached their fiduciary duties
in connection with the proposed transaction by, among other
things, conducting a flawed sale process and failing to maximize
stockholder value and obtain the best financial and other terms,
and that the registration statement filed by us is materially
deficient. Each of these plaintiffs seeks injunctive and other
equitable relief, including enjoining the defendants from
consummating the merger, in addition to other unspecified damages,
fees and costs. The plaintiff in the Drabek action moved to
expedite the proceedings on April 29, 2013, and the plaintiff in
the Moore action moved to expedite and moved for a preliminary
injunction on May 3, 2013. On May 7, 2013, the plaintiffs in the
Drabek and Moore actions jointly submitted a proposed order of
consolidation to consolidate the class actions as In re Palomar
Medical Technologies Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 8491-VCP,
which order was granted by the court on the same day.

"On May 28, 2013, a sixth putative stockholder class action
complaint, captioned Melvin Lax v. Palomar Medical Technologies,
Inc., et al., No. 13-11276 (D. Mass.) (Massachusetts Federal
Action), was filed against Palomar, its board of directors, us,
and Commander in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts. The lawsuit alleges that members of the Palomar
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection
with the approval of the merger, that we and Commander aided and
abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duties, and that the
defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder by issuing a
materially misleading Proxy Statement. Plaintiff seeks injunctive
and other equitable relief, including enjoining the defendants
from consummating the merger, in addition to other unspecified
damages, fees and costs. On August 5, 2013, the parties filed a
stipulation and joint motion to stay proceedings.

"On June 7, 2013, Palomar entered into a memorandum of
understanding, which we refer to as the Delaware Memorandum of
Understanding, with the Delaware plaintiffs regarding the
settlement of the Delaware putative stockholder class actions and,
on June 10, 2013, Palomar filed with the SEC a Current Report on
Form 8-K to supplement the Proxy Statement pursuant to the terms
of the Delaware Memorandum of Understanding.

"On June 14, 2013, Palomar entered into a memorandum of
understanding, which we refer to as the Massachusetts Memorandum
of Understanding, with the Massachusetts plaintiffs, pursuant to
which the plaintiffs in the Massachusetts state and federal
actions agreed to be bound by the terms of the Delaware Memorandum
of Understanding and on June 14, 2013, Palomar filed with the SEC
a Current Report on Form 8-K to supplement the Proxy Statement
pursuant to the terms of the Massachusetts Memorandum of
Understanding.

"The Delaware Memorandum of Understanding and the Massachusetts
Memorandum of Understanding contemplate that the parties will
enter into a stipulation of settlement. On May 1, 2014, we,
Palomar and the Delaware plaintiffs entered into a stipulation of
settlement. The stipulation of settlement was filed with the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware and the court approved the
form of notice for mailing to the former stockholders of Palomar.
Following notice, the court scheduled a hearing for July 21, 2014
at which the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware considered
the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement and
approved the settlement, resolved and released all claims that
were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the
proposed merger, the merger agreement, and any disclosure made in
connection therewith (but excluding claims for appraisal under
Section 262 of the Delaware General Corporation Law), and
dismissed the Delaware actions with prejudice. The court also
awarded the plaintiffs' counsel attorneys' fees and expenses in
the amount of $420,000 to be paid by Palomar or its successor. As
Palomar's successor, we paid through our insurance company the
attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware. In addition, also on May 1, 2014, we,
Palomar and the Massachusetts plaintiffs filed a joint stipulation
seeking dismissal of the Massachusetts State Actions, and the
court dismissed the Massachusetts State Actions with prejudice on
May 7, 2014. Finally, on July 16, 2014, the parties to the
Massachusetts Federal Action informed the court that if the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware approved the settlement
during the July 21, 2014 hearing, the plaintiff would dismiss the
Massachusetts Federal Action with prejudice and we will pay the
plaintiff an additional amount for his attorneys' fees and
expenses through our insurance company. The Massachusetts Federal
Action was dismissed on August 22, 2014.


DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Maldonado, Individually, and on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Diversified Consultants, Inc. and
John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:15-cv-03119-MAS-LHG (D.N.J., May 4,
2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DOLLAR TREE: Case by Assistant Store Manager Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that in 2011, an assistant
store manager and an hourly associate filed a collective action
against the Company alleging they were forced to work off the
clock in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and
state law. A federal judge in Virginia ruled that all claims made
on behalf of assistant store managers under both the FLSA and
state law should be dismissed. The court, however, certified an
opt-in collective action under the FLSA on behalf of hourly sales
associates. Approximately 4,300 plaintiffs remain in the case. In
March 2014, the court denied the Company's motion to decertify the
collective action and the case is now continuing.


DOLLAR TREE: 2012 Case Proceeding to Liability Phase
----------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that in 2012, a former
assistant store manager, on behalf of himself and those alleged to
be similarly situated, filed a putative class action in a
California state court, alleging the Company failed to provide
rest breaks to assistant store managers. The alleged time period
is July 13, 2008 to the present. Discovery is ongoing. The class
has been certified and the case is proceeding to the liability
phase.


DOLLAR TREE: October 26 Trial Date Set in 2013 Wage Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that in 2013, a former
assistant store manager on behalf of himself and others alleged to
be similarly aggrieved filed a representative Private Attorney
General Act ("PAGA") claim under California law currently pending
in federal court in California. The suit alleges that the Company
failed to provide uninterrupted meal periods and rest breaks;
failed to pay minimum, regular and overtime wages; failed to
maintain accurate time records and wage statements; and failed to
pay wages due upon termination of employment. Discovery has not
commenced. A trial date has been set for October 26, 2015.


DOLLAR TREE: Discovery Has Not Commenced in 2014 Wage Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that in May 2014, a former
assistant store manager filed a putative class action in a
California state court for alleged failure to provide meal
periods, overtime, timely payment of wages during employment and
upon termination, failure to provide accurate wage statements, as
well as for alleged failure to indemnify employees for business
expenses in violation of California labor laws. This matter is in
early stages of litigation. Discovery has not commenced and no
trial date has been set.


DOLLAR TREE: Del. Chancery & Appellate Courts Refuse Injunction
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that both the Delaware Court
of Chancery and the appellate court have refused to issue an
injunction against the Family Dollar shareholder vote in favor of
the merger.

In July and August 2014, several shareholders of Family Dollar
Stores, Inc. ("Family Dollar") filed class actions, now
consolidated into one class action, in Delaware chancery court
against Family Dollar's CEO and board members alleging breach of
fiduciary duty. Dollar Tree and Family Dollar were also named as
defendants for allegedly aiding and abetting the other defendants.
The claimed breach derives from the execution of the merger
agreement dated July 27, 2014, between Dollar Tree and Family
Dollar, which is alleged to offer unfair and inadequate
consideration for Family Dollar stock. The class action, among
other things, seek to prevent the merger, obtain higher merger
consideration or seek monetary damages. The Delaware Chancery
Court and appellate court refused to issue an injunction against
the Family Dollar shareholder vote in favor of the merger.


DUN AND BRADSTREET: Faces "Thomas" Suit Alleging TCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey A. Thomas, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Dun and Bradstreet Credibility Corp., Case
No. 2:15-cv-03194-BRO-GJS (C.D. Cal., April 28, 2015) alleges
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN AND BERNSTEIN LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: dhutchinson@lchb.com

               - and -

          Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN AND BERNSTEIN LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013-1413
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500
          Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
          E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com

               - and -

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


DYNAMIC PET: Faces "Reed" Suit in S.D. California Alleging Injury
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Khristie Reed, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Dynamic Pet Products and Frick's Meat Products, Inc.,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00987-WQH-DHB (S.D. Cal., May 1, 2015) asserts
injury-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy Gordon Blood, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON LLP
          701 B Street, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338-1100
          Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com


E. W. SCRIPPS: Named as Defendant in "Goldfinger" Case
------------------------------------------------------
The E. W. Scripps Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company was named as
defendant in the case Howard Goldfinger v. Journal Communications,
Inc., et al. (Case No. 2:15-cv-00012-JPS).

Members of the Board of Directors of Journal Communications, Inc.
("Journal"), and the parties to the Master Transaction Agreement,
including Journal and Scripps, were defendants in a class action
lawsuit filed in Circuit Court, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin
(Howard Goldfinger v. Journal Communications, Inc., et al.). The
plaintiff in the lawsuit alleged that the directors of Journal
breached their fiduciary duties to Journal shareholders in
connection with the Journal Transactions and that the other
parties to the lawsuit aided and abetted such alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty. The plaintiff alleged that the directors of
Journal breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things,
(i) agreeing to enter into the Master Transaction Agreement for
inadequate consideration, (ii) having certain conflicts of
interest, (iii) not negotiating a "collar" mechanism on the share
exchange ratio, and (iv) agreeing to certain deal protection
provisions, such as a termination fee, a "no-shop" provision, and
a "matching rights" provision. The plaintiff also challenged the
qualifications of Journal's financial advisor, Methuselah Advisors
LLC ("Methuselah"), and asserted that Methuselah has a conflict
because the founder and managing partner of Methuselah, who is the
lead investment banker at Methuselah for Journal in the Journal
Transactions, was employed by Lazard Fr‚res & Co. LLC ("Lazard")
prior to 2010 as a managing director, where he had responsibility
for Lazard's relationship with Scripps.

On August 29, 2014, the defendants filed Motions to Dismiss asking
the Circuit Court to dismiss the lawsuit. On November 12, 2014,
the Circuit Court entered an Order granting the defendants'
Motions to Dismiss and dismissing the lawsuit.

On January 6, 2015, the plaintiff in the above-referenced lawsuit
filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (Howard
Goldfinger v. Journal Communications, Inc., et al. (Case No. 2:15-
cv-00012-JPS)), naming Journal, the Board of Directors of Journal,
Scripps, and the other parties to the Master Transaction Agreement
as defendants. The plaintiff asserts disclosure claims under
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as well as state common law claims for breaches of fiduciary duty
and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint
seeks, among other remedies, injunctive relief enjoining the
Journal Transactions and damages. The outcome of this lawsuit is
uncertain. An adverse judgment for monetary damages could have an
adverse effect on the operations and liquidity of Journal and
Scripps. A preliminary injunction could delay or jeopardize the
completion of the Journal Transactions, and an adverse judgment
granting permanent injunctive relief could indefinitely enjoin
completion of the Journal Transactions. Journal, Scripps, and the
other defendants named in the lawsuit believe the claims asserted
are without merit and intend to continue to vigorously defend
against them.


EHEALTH INC: Defending Against Two Class Actions
------------------------------------------------
eHealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on January 26 and March
10, 2015, two purported class action lawsuits were filed against
the Company, its Chairman and chief executive officer, Gary L.
Lauer ("Mr. Lauer"), and its senior vice president and chief
financial officer, Stuart M. Huizinga ("Mr. Huizinga"), in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The Company said, "The complaints allege that the defendants made
false and misleading statements regarding our financial
performance, guidance and operations during alleged class periods
of October 31, 2014 to January 14, 2015 and June 5, 2014 to
January 14, 2015, respectively.  The complaints allege that we and
Messrs. Lauer and Huizinga violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  The complaints seek compensatory damages, attorneys'
fees and costs, rescission or a rescissory measure of damages,
equitable/injunctive relief and such other relief as the court
deems proper."

"We believe the lawsuits to be without merit and intend to
vigorously defend ourselves against them."


ELECTRICAL WORKERS UNION: Accused of Gender Bias and Retaliation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Krystyna Annunziata, Carmela Marino, Carol Pearson, and Rosemarie
Pelletier v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local
Union #363, Samuel Fratto, Case No. 1:15-cv-03363-VEC (S.D.N.Y.,
April 30, 2015) alleges that the Defendants have discriminated
against the Plaintiffs within the meaning of the Equal Pay Act of
1963, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as
amended by the EPA, by providing them with lower pay than
similarly situated male colleagues on the basis of their gender,
female.

IBEWLU363 is a local labor union located in the state of New York.
Samuel Fratto is the Business Manager of IBEWLU363 and is a
resident of New York State.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Susan Kaplan, Esq.
          THE KAPLAN LAW OFFICE
          30 Wall St., 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (347) 683-2505
          Facsimile: (212) 898-1231
          E-mail: skaplan@lawkaplan.com


EMPIRE MANAGEMENT: Sued for Barring Black Renters
-------------------------------------------------
ERASE Racism, Inc.; Fair Housing Justice Center, Inc.; Lisa
Darden; John-Martin Green; Bianca Jones; Claude Jay Jones;
Adrienne Williams; L.B. Williams; and Angela Scott v. Empire
Management America Corporation, Square Realty Group LLC, and John
Doe aka Mike, Case No. 1:15-cv-03376-NRB (S.D.N.Y., April 30,
2015) alleges that in 2014, Mayfair Garden's building
superintendent repeatedly placed discriminatory barriers in the
path of African Americans, who inquired about apartments for rent.

According to the complaint, the building superintendent lied about
whether apartments were available to rent, what date they were
available to rent, how many apartments were available to rent,
whether the apartments were vacant and could be shown, and what
process was required to rent an apartment.  By these actions, the
Plaintiffs allege, the Defendants are denying African American
renters the opportunity to live in a Suffolk County community with
good public schools and access to employment opportunities,
government services, retail stores (including the Mayfair Shopping
Center), and recreational amenities.

Mayfair Garden Apartments is a 107-unit rental complex located in
Commack, New York, in Suffolk County.  The Defendants are the
owner, management company, and building superintendent of Mayfair
Garden Apartments.

ERASE Racism, Inc. is a non-profit organization dedicated to
exposing and eliminating racial disparities, particularly in the
areas of housing, community development, public education, and
health.  FHJC is a non-profit New York City-based organization
dedicated to ensuring that all people have equal access to housing
opportunities in the New York City region by eliminating housing
discrimination and creating open, accessible, and inclusive
communities.  The Individual Plaintiffs are African Americans and
are residents of New York.

Empire Management is a New York corporation headquartered in
Manhattan, New York.  Empire Management provided rental management
services to Mayfair Garden Apartments at all times relevant to
this complaint.  Square Realty is a New York corporation
headquartered in Manhattan.  Square Realty has been the owner and
lessor of Mayfair Garden Apartments during relevant times.  John
Doe is a white man, who worked as the building superintendent for
Mayfair Garden and used the name "Mike."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Diane L. Houk, Esq.
          Theodor O. Oxholm, Esq.
          EMERY CELLI BRlNCKERHOFF & ABADY LLP
          600 Fifth Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 763-5000
          Facsimile: (212) 763-5001
          E-mail: dhouk@ecbalaw.com
                  toxholm@ecbalaw.com


ENVIVIO INC: June 15 Settlement Claim Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------
The Shareholders Foundation on April 13 disclosed that a deadline
is coming up on June 15, 2015 in the settlement reached in the
securities class action lawsuit filed on behalf of investors who
purchased shares of Envivio Inc. between April 24, 2012 and
October 5, 2012.

Investors who purchased a significant amount of shares of Envivio
between April 24, 2012 and October 5, 2012, have certain options
and should contact the Shareholders Foundation by email at
mail@shareholdersfoundation.com or call +1(858) 779 - 1554.

The settlement proof of claim form or detailed settlement notice
for the settlement in the Envivio Inc. Investor Securities Class
Action Lawsuit can be downloaded at: http://bit.ly/1Ag58Wk

In order to submit a claim an investor has to submit the claim
proof to the class action claim administrator in a timely manner.
The deadline to submit the proof with the class administrator is
June 15, 2015.  The class action administrator for this case is
Gilardi & Co. LLC.

The lawsuit was originally filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Mateo the against
Envivio over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws in
connection with certain allegedly false and misleading statements
made in connection with the initial public offering on April 24,
2012.  The plaintiff alleges that Envivio and certain of its
officers and directors violated Federal Securities Laws by issuing
a false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus
issued in connection with Envivio's April 24, 2012 initial public
offering.  The plaintiff says that the prospectus represented
Envivio's revenue for fiscal years ended January 31, 2010, 2011
and 2012 of $16.3 million, $30 million and $50.6 million
respectively.

Shortly after the IPO shares of Envivio reached on April 30, 2012
as high as $9.25 per share.

However, then on, August 13, 2012, Envivio disclosed that it
expects revenue for the quarter ending July 31, 2012 to be in the
range of $10 million to $11 million, as compared to its previous
guidance of $17 million to $18 million.

Shares of Envivio Inc, declined from $6.34 per share on August 6,
2012, to $2.48 per share on August 14, 2012.

On September 6, 2012, after the market closed, Envivio announced
its results for its fiscal 2012 second quarter and issued its
guidance for its fiscal 2012 third quarter.  NASDAQ: ENVI shares
declined from $2.68 per share to $2.22 per share on September 7,
2012.

Those who purchased shares of Envivio have certain options and
should contact the Shareholders Foundation.

Contact:

Shareholders Foundation, Inc.
Michael Daniels
3111 Camino Del Rio North - Suite 423
92108 San Diego
Phone: +1-(858)-779-1554
Fax: +1-(858)-605-5739
mail@shareholdersfoundation.com


EXECUTIVE CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paulette Guillaume and Donald Guillaume, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Executive Credit Management,
Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:15-cv-03131-CCC-MF (D.N.J.,
May 4, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


FACEBOOK INC: Vienna Court Hears Privacy Suit
---------------------------------------------
Culver Stinso, writing for US Markets Daily,, reports that
Facebook Inc.'s legal fight in Europe entered yet another stage on
April 13 when Vienna district court took up a civil suit filed
against the US Company by an Austrian privacy campaigner.  The
suit jointly filed by Max Schrems, an Austrian law student, and
privacy campaigner, along with 25,000 users accuses Facebook of
tracking their data in violation of Austrian and EU privacy laws.

The first hearing on April 13 would be on the technicalities of
the petition as whether the Vienna court is entitled to take up
the case and whether the complaint is permissible as a class-
action suit.

In the meanwhile, the Vienna court instructed Facebook to bring
forward translations of documents of representatives of the
plaintiff before it within a period of three weeks.  The court
also asked the applicant's lawyers to be ready with their
responses within three weeks' time.

A similar case has already been brought out against the US
multinational before the Dublin's European Court of Justice from
where Facebook operates its accounts outside US and Canada.

Although class-action lawsuits are unprecedented in nature, still
they are not unheard of in Austrian courts.

If the charges are proved in this civil case, then Facebook will
be required to cough up a hefty compensation of EUR10 million to
the aggrieved parties. Schrems claims that though the case
restricts the participation of 25,000 users, still 50,000 people
are ready to lend their voice in support of his mission.

However, the prominent social networking site questions the
interference of the court, citing European procedural laws and
argues that the suit is not admissible in Irish courts.

On the other hand, the defense lawyer representing Schrems
counteracted saying that his plaintiff has every right to approach
the court as a customer complainant in his native land.

It is not the first time that Facebook Inc. was caught on a wrong
foot.  At the first occurrence, the Irish Data Protection
Commission (IDPC) admonished the globally premier social
networking site to show compliance with regional data protection
requirements after having audited its practices in 2011 and 2012.

Further, Belgium's data protection authority that is commissioned
by Facebook exposed chinks in the social networking site's
modified privacy policy, blaming it for not taking prior consent
from the users before making use of their data.


FALCON DRILLING: Fires Staff That Opposed Gender Bias, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lindsey D. Hart v. Falcon Drilling Company, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-
00569-AJS (W.D. Pa., April 30, 2015) alleges that the Plaintiff
was subjected to discrimination in pay and other terms and
conditions of her employment and ultimately terminated: (1)
because of her gender, and (2) because she opposed conduct that is
unlawful under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pennsylvania
Human Relations Act.

Falcon Drilling Company, LLC is a limited liability company
headquartered in Indiana, Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Emily E. Town, Esq.
          Maureen Davidson-Welling, Esq.
          STEMBER COHN & DAVIDSON-WELLING, LLC
          The Hartley Rose Building
          425 First Avenue, 7th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 338-1445
          Facsimile: (412) 338-1446
          E-mail: etown@stembercohn.com
                  mdavidsonwelling@stembercohn.com


FANDUEL INC: Removes "Leung" Suit to California District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Leung v. Fanduel, Inc., Case No.
CIV DS 1503519, was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of San Bernardino, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California (Eastern Division - Riverside).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-00835 to the
proceeding.

The complaint alleges that FanDuel engages in deceptive marketing
campaigns that suggest that its fantasy sports are the leader in
one day fantasy sports game play.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark A. Milstein, Esq.
          MILSTEIN ADELMAN, LLP
          2800 Donald Douglas Loop North
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: (310) 396-9600
          Facsimile: (310) 396-9635

               - and -

          Sarah L. Gough, Esq.
          FLAHERTY HENNESSEY, LLP
          8055 West Manchester Street, Suite 420
          Playa Del Rey, CA 90293
          Telephone: (310) 305-1280
          Facsimile: (310) 305-1210
          E-mail: sarah@FHAttorneys.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Katherine Robison, Esq.
          ZWILLGEN LAW, LLP
          915-2 Battery Street, 2d Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 590-2340
          Facsimile: (415) 445-0908
          E-mail: kat@zwillgen.com


FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces Class Action Over Wrong Ram 1500 Axle
----------------------------------------------------------
Larry P. Vellequette, writing for Automotive News, reports that a
South Carolina man has filed a lawsuit seeking class-action status
against Fiat Chrysler after discovering that the Ram 1500 he
bought last year didn't have the heavy-duty axle for which he had
paid extra.

The suit was filed on April 6 in U.S. District Court in South
Carolina.  Robert Besley Jr. bought a 2014 Ram 1500 Big Horn
pickup from Triangle Dodge-Chrysler-Jeep-Ram in Graniteville,
S.C., in January 2014.

According to the vehicle's Monroney sticker, the pickup came with
an optional heavier-duty rear axle that had a ratio of 3.55-to-1,
instead of the pickup's standard 3.21-to-1 rear axle.

In general, the higher the axle ratio, the more torque is
available at the rear wheels and the better a vehicle is at
towing, though fuel economy is decreased.  According to Ram's
consumer website, ramtrucks.com, the 3.55-to-1 axle ratio is a $50
option on a 2015 Ram 1500 Big Horn pickup.

After owning his pickup for nine months, Mr. Besley was notified
by FCA that his Monroney sticker was wrong, and that his pickup
instead had a 3.21-to-1 rear axle ratio. According to the suit,
the automaker offered Mr. Besley "750 Mopar dollars" that could be
used to buy service or accessories.  The suit says that the
automaker at no time "offered a complimentary replacement of his
rear axle."

The suit seeks punitive and other damages from FCA.

Mike Palese, a spokesman for FCA, said the company had not yet
been served with the lawsuit and therefore couldn't comment on the
allegations.  Another spokesman for FCA declined to say how many
2014 Ram pickups had different axles from those described on their
Monroney stickers.


FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shoshie Steinwurzel, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-02551 (E.D.N.Y., May 5, 2015) accuses the Defendant of
violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Class Action Parties Settle Case
--------------------------------------------------
Flagstar Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Bank and its
subsidiary, Flagstar Reinsurance Company, were named in May 2012
as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit alleging a
violation of Section 2607 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act ("RESPA"). The Court granted summary judgment on June 26,
2014, and dismissed the case. Rather than proceed with an appeal,
the parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle the
matter. Management does not believe that the settlement amount
will be material to the Company's results of operations.


FOUNTAIN OF LIFE: Docs Show Leaders Took Part in Tax Lien Sales
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Shea, writing for NJ.com, reports that court records show
that Fountain Of Life leaders were regulars at tax lien sales all
over New Jersey for years.

The church leaders included David Boudwin, who is the current
executive pastor of the church, Susan Esposito, CEO of the
church's Fountain Foundation and Paul Graban, a longtime senior
pastor who celebrated his 90th birthday last year.

One of their companies, SME Mercer Inc., was snared in a massive
federal probe of tax sale certificates in New Jersey that saw
several people and companies indicted on charges they violated a
federal anti-trust law.

The case alleged that the defendants conspired starting in the
late 1990s to eliminate the competitive nature of the public bids
so they could decide who would win the auctions and at what
interest rate.  Defendants were charged in relation to acts
committed from 2003 to 2009, court documents said.

Mercer SME Inc. pleaded guilty to a federal crime in 2012 and the
corporation was sentenced in April 2013 to two years probation and
a $15,000 fine.  Ms. Esposito was Mercer SME's president, and she
signed the guilty plea agreement.

A class action lawsuit, brought by affected homeowners and
resulting from the criminal investigation, targeted SME, which as
since settled their portion for $250,000, a Fountain of Life
spokeswoman said.

The civil lawsuit alleges Fountain of Life would purchase tax sale
certificates at public auctions, assign them to "shell"
corporations like Mercer SME, "in order to hide from the public
the fact that it was involved."

The church, through a spokesperson, disputes the term "shell"
company.  The company was established as a corporation to invest
the endowment of the non-profit Life Center Academy, which is a
private school, according to the church.  It would have been
irresponsible to allow a non-profit to assume investment
liability, a church spokesperson said.

It is unclear from the criminal and civil court documents how many
homes the Fountain Of Life companies took to foreclosure.


FREDERIC WEINBERG: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Josephine T. Bellum and Karen A. Bistek, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. The Law Offices of Frederic I.
Weinberg & Associates, P.C., Case No. 2:15-cv-02460-CDJ (E.D. Pa.,
May 4, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Deborah R. Gross, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES BERNARD M. GROSS, PC
          100 Penn Square East
          John Wanamaker Bldg., Suite 450
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 561-3600
          Facsimile: (215) 561-3000
          E-mail: debbie@bernardmgross.com


GLOBAL CASH: Continues to Defend Dollie Williams Case
-----------------------------------------------------
Global Cash Access Holdings, Inc. continues to vigorously defend
the case Dollie Williams, et al., v. Macon County Greyhound Park,
Inc., et al., the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

Dollie Williams, et al., v. Macon County Greyhound Park, Inc., et
al., a civil action, was filed on March 8, 2010, in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Eastern
Division, against Multimedia Games and others. The plaintiffs, who
claim to have been patrons of VictoryLand, allege that Multimedia
Games participated in gambling operations that violated Alabama
state law by supplying to VictoryLand purportedly unlawful
electronic bingo machines played by the plaintiffs, and the
plaintiffs seek recovery of the monies lost on all electronic
bingo games played by the plaintiffs in the six months prior to
the filing of the complaint under Ala. Code Sec. 8-1-150(A). The
plaintiffs have requested that the court certify the action as a
class action. On March 29, 2013, the court entered an order
granting the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On April
12, 2013, the defendants jointly filed a petition with the
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals seeking permission to appeal the
court's ruling on class certification. On June 18, 2013, the
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals entered an order granting the
petition to appeal. Following briefing and oral argument, on April
2, 2014, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals entered an order
reversing the district court's ruling on class certification and
remanding the case to the district court. The Company continues to
vigorously defend this matter. Given the inherent uncertainties in
this litigation, however, the Company is unable to make any
prediction as to the ultimate outcome.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Court of Appeals Reinstates MBS Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Joel Stashenko, writing for Law.com, reports that the Court of
Appeals on May 7 reinstated a fraud action against Goldman Sachs &
Co. for allegedly inducing an insurer to cover a mortgage-backed
security that was designed to fail.

The 5-2 majority reversed a finding by the Appellate Division,
First Department, which found in 2013 that ACA Financial Guaranty
Corp. failed to establish that it justifiably relied on
misrepresentations by Goldman to sustain causes of action for
fraud in the inducement and for fraudulent concealment.

The Court of Appeals also issued rulings on May 7 on whether
judges can compel prosecutors to call witnesses or take other
actions within their discretion under threat of contempt and
whether a nolo contendre plea in another state is equivalent to a
guilty plea in New York.

Concerning the ACA fraud action, the court said that when weighing
a justifiable reliance allegation, a plaintiff should consider if
it had the means to gauge whether representations were reliable
and whether the plaintiff had hints of its falsity.

Using that standard, ACA had adequately alleged justifiable
reliance at the pleading stage of the case, the court said in an
unsigned memorandum decision in ACA Financial Guaranty Corp. v.
Goldman Sachs & Co., 49.

Alternately, the court found that Goldman Sachs and its co-
defendant, Paulson & Co., did not produce evidence to conclusively
show ACA Financial's lack of justifiable reliance, as required by
CPLR 3211[a][1].

The court also noted that issues about whether justifiable or
reasonable reliance was present are "not generally a question to
be resolved as a matter of law on a motion to dismiss," citing DDJ
Mgt., LLC v. Rhone Group LLC, 15 NY3d 147 (2010).

Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman and Judges Eugene Pigott Jr., Jenny
Rivera, Leslie Stein and Eugene Fahey were in the majority.

Judge Susan Phillips Read, in a dissent joined by Judge Sheila
Abdus-Salaam, said ACA did not comply with a well-established
principle of fraud jurisprudence that was articulated by the Court
of Appeals in a seminal 1892 ruling.

In Schumaker v. Mather, 133 NY 590, the court said a party could
not claim it was induced to enter a transaction by
misrepresentation if it had the "means available to him of
knowing, by the exercise of ordinary intelligence, the truth or
the real quality of the subject of the representation."

Here, the dissenters said, "ACA manifestly took no step" to
safeguard its interests, thereby negating its justifiable reliance
claim.

"Savvy commercial and financial players and inventive lawyers
abound in New York," Judge Read wrote.  "Our venerable rule . . .
is designed to make sure that the courts 'reject the claims of
plaintiffs who have been so lax in protecting themselves that they
cannot fairly ask for the law's protection' and 'may truly be said
to have willingly assumed the business risk that the facts may not
be as represented' [quoting DDJ Mgt.]."

The ACA-Goldman dispute dates back to 2007, when hedge fund
Paulson & Co. asked Goldman to package residential mortgages into
a security known as a collateralized debt obligation.  The
obligation was called ABACUS.

ACA agreed to insure ABACUS but said it did not know that Paulson
intended to take a "short" position on the obligation, thereby
exposing the insurer to substantial liability that ACA said it
never would have assumed had it known the true intentions behind
ABACUS' creation.

ABACUS investors lost nearly all their money amid the collapse of
the mortgage-backed securities market in the late 2000s, while
Paulson made about $1 billion by shorting ABACUS.

In 2010, Goldman agreed to pay the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission $515 million to settle a complaint over ABACUS.
Goldman acknowledged as part of the settlement that it was a
"mistake" to have marketed ABACUS to investors without disclosing
that Paulson had helped create it and was taking a short position
on it.

The dissenters on May 7 said ACA failed to take an "obvious and
easy step" to avoiding what it claims was fraud by simply asking
Paulson what its investment position was in ABACUS.

The majority decision reversed the First Department's 3-2 ruling
dismissing the fraud action against Goldman and Paulson (NYLJ, May
15, 2013).

Sullivan & Cromwell partner Richard Klapper argued for Goldman.

Marc Kasowitz -- mkasowitz@kasowitz.com -- a partner at Kasowitz
Benson Torres & Friedman, represented ACA.  He called the May 7
ruling "correct and well-grounded" and said the complaint seeks
$120 million due to the alleged fraud.

"ACA looks forward to proceeding in the case against Goldman Sachs
and Paulson & Co.," he said.

Compelling Prosecution

Also on May 7, the Court of Appeals sided with Albany County
District Attorney P. David Soares in what became a protracted
dispute with Albany City Court Judge William Carter over the
disorderly conduct prosecutions of Occupy Albany demonstrators in
2012.

The 6-0 court said judges may not compel prosecutors to call
witnesses or take other actions within the district attorneys'
discretion under threat of the court's power of contempt.

"Any attempt by the judge here to compel prosecution through the
use of his contempt power exceeded his jurisdictional authority,"
the court said in an unsigned memorandum ruling in Matter of
Soares v. Carter, 70.  "It is within the sole discretion of each
district attorney's executive power to orchestrate the prosecution
of those who violate the criminal laws of this state."

Mr. Soares, who said he agreed with the economic equality goals of
the protesters, declined to prosecute four demonstrators while
Judge Carter said their sentences should include a community
service component.  The two sides went to court after the
prosecutions of the demonstrators stalled in late 2012 and early
2013.

Judges Lippman, Read, Pigott, Rivera, Abdus-Salaam and Fahey
joined in the decision.  Judge Stein, who was on the Third
Department panel that also backed mr. Soares' authority to
prosecute the cases as he saw fit (NYLJ, Jan. 24, 2014), took no
part.

Christopher Horn, a special prosecutor to Mr. Soares, argued for
the district attorney.  James Knox of the E. Stewart Jones Hacker
Murphy firm in Troy represented Mr. Carter after Attorney General
Eric Schneiderman's office recused itself, citing a conflict of
interest.

Mark Mishler of Albany represented the Occupy Albany protesters.

Nolo Contendre Pleas

In another ruling, the court unanimously found in Matter of
Kasckarow v. Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders of State of New
York, 56, that the entry of a nolo contendere plea in another
jurisdiction is a prior conviction for purposes of New York state
sentencing statutes and mandatory listing on the state's sex
offender registry.

Daniel Kasckarow had disputed his inclusion on the registry when
he moved to New York, arguing that his plea in Florida to sexual
battery on a child under 16 was not the equivalent of a conviction
qualifying him for the sex offender list.  Mr. Kasckarow entered
the nolo contendere plea in response to a charge that he had
consensual sex with a minor in 1997 in Florida when he was 18 and
the girl was 15 (NYLJ, Nov. 1, 2011).

The court said it decided as early as People v. Daiboch, 265 NY
125 (1934), that nolo contendere pleas, while not recognized in
New York state, may be seen as the equivalent of a criminal
conviction when made in other states.

Lippman, Read, Pigott, Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein and Fahey
joined in the decision.

Assistant Solicitor General Claude Platton argued for the state.
Anna Pervukhin of Appellate Advocates represented Kasckarow.


GOOGLE INC: Lieff Cabraser Seeks $81MM From No Poach Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that  claiming a
recent $415 million settlement may be the largest payout of its
kind, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein and other plaintiffs
lawyers in the Silicon Valley "no-poach" litigation have asked for
an $81 million slice of the recovery.

The fee request represents less than 20 percent of the total
settlement fund, but amounts to approximately four times the
estimated billings, or lodestar, calculated by four plaintiffs
firms for their work on the case since 2011.

In court papers filed on May 7, the firms urge U.S. District Judge
Lucy Koh to award fees that reflect their "landmark" results.
"After several years of litigation against well-funded defendants,
who are among the largest and wealthiest companies in the United
States, class counsel obtained one of the largest monopsony wage
settlements ever approved," wrote Joseph Saveri of Joseph Saveri
Law Firm, who shared the lead counsel role with Lieff Cabraser.
Judge Koh preliminarily approved a $415 million deal in March to
resolve claims that Google Inc., Apple Inc., Adobe Systems Inc.
and Intel Corp. suppressed worker wages by agreeing not to recruit
each other's employees.  She had rejected an earlier deal as too
low, but signed off when both sides upped the recovery by $90
million. Plaintiffs lawyers say the average class member will
receive $5,000.

Girard Gibbs partner Daniel Girard, who represented named
plaintiff Michael Devine when he objected to the first settlement,
is seeking $4.5 million for his work in negotiating the extra
payout.

Lieff Cabraser, which had 25 lawyers who put in some time on the
case, calculated its lodestar at $11.5 million.  The firm's lead
lawyer on the litigation, Kelly Dermody, indicated she personally
worked more than 2,200 hours at a would-be billing rate of $800 an
hour.  Mr. Saveri, who used an hourly billing rate of $960, said
his firm's investment of attorney hours came to $6.5 million.
Berger & Montague reported a $1.38 million lodestar and Grant &
Eisenhofer calculated its billings as $1.43 million.

Mr. Girard may face the toughest fight getting Judge Koh to sign
off on his requested fees.

Judge Koh seemed skeptical of Mr. Girard's fee request during a
settlement hearing in March, asking him if he expected a windfall
for "doing two briefs and appearing at two hearings."

But Mr. Girard hasn't backed down.  In his brief, Mr. Girard
estimates a lodestar of $518,919 for 916 hours spent on the
litigation, and asked Judge Koh to multiply that base almost nine
times.  He conceded the multiplier is "on the high end of
multipliers typically awarded by courts," but argued it is "far
from unprecedented."

Mr. Girard claims his firm put its reputation on the line in
exchange for a minimal chance of success.

"Representing an objector to a settlement, much less an objecting
class representative," he wrote, "is anathema to many lawyers in
this field, and often to courts as well."

In its brief on May 7, Ms. Dermody's team referenced six other
cases that involved antitrust claims brought by employees.  Before
this case, the largest recovery on record was $73 million, the
lawyers wrote.  And this case was more challenging, they said,
because plaintiffs didn't claim their employers directly attempted
to suppress their wages.

"The result of these efforts is an historic recovery for a wage-
suppression case," Ms. Dermody's team wrote.

Mr. Saveri seemed worried that Judge Koh might consider
discounting her fee award because the first settlement fell flat.
"This event is no different than any setback that counsel
encounter in prosecuting cases of this magnitude," he wrote,
"where counsel rebound using the work they have performed in the
litigation and their professional expertise."

Mr. Saveri also pointed out class counsel opted not to seek fees
based on the additional $90 million.  The fee request amounts to
19.5 percent of the total recovery.

Judge Koh is set to hear fee arguments and consider final approval
of the settlement July 9.


HALSTED FINANCIAL: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gabriel Acevedo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Halsted Financial Services, LLC and John Does 1-25,
Case No. 2:15-cv-03124-ES-MAH (D.N.J., May 4, 2015) is brought
over alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HC2 HOLDINGS: No Responsive Pleading Filed by Defendants
--------------------------------------------------------
No responsive pleading has been filed yet by the defendants in a
class action lawsuit filed against HC2 Holdings, Inc., the Company
said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014.

On November 6, 2014, a putative stockholder class action complaint
challenging the buyout by HC2 Holdings, Inc. of the noncontrolling
interest in Schuff International, Inc. ("Schuff International")
was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
captioned Mark Jacobs v. Philip A. Falcone, Keith M. Hladek, Paul
Voigt, Michael R. Hill, Rustin Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda, Phillip O.
Elbert, HC2 Holdings, Inc., and Schuff International, Inc., Civil
Action No. 10323 (the "Complaint"). On November 17, 2014, a second
lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, captioned Arlen Diercks v. Schuff International, Inc.
Philip A. Falcone, Keith M. Hladek, Paul Voigt, Michael R. Hill,
Rustin Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda, Phillip O. Elbert, HC2 Holdings,
Inc., Civil Action No. 10359. The Complaints allege, among other
things, that in connection with the buyout, the individual members
of the Schuff International board of directors and HC2 Holdings,
the controlling stockholder of Schuff, breached their fiduciary
duties to members of the plaintiff class. The Complaints seek a
rescission of the buyout and/or compensatory damages, as well as
attorney's fees and other relief. On February 19, 2015, the court
consolidated the actions (now designated as Schuff International,
Inc. Stockholders Litigation) and appointed lead plaintiff and
counsel. No responsive pleading has been filed yet by the
defendants.

"We believe that the allegations and claims set forth in the
Complaint are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously,"
the Company said.


HEALTHWAYS INC: Filed with FCC Petition for Retroactive Waiver
--------------------------------------------------------------
Healthways, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company filed with
the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") a Petition for
Retroactive Waiver related to the Junk Fax Prevention Act
Lawsuits.

On September 16, 2014, Healthways and its wholly owned subsidiary,
Healthways WholeHealth Networks, Inc. ("HWHN"), were named in a
putative class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles, seeking damages and other
relief relating to alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"), as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act
("JFPA"), in connection with faxes allegedly transmitted to
members of HWHN's network of complementary and alternative care
practitioners. The JFPA prohibits sending an "unsolicited
advertisement" to a fax machine and requires the sender to provide
a notice to allow a recipient to "opt out" of future fax
transmissions (including, pursuant to rules promulgated by the
FCC, those sent with the prior express invitation or permission of
the recipient). The complaint seeks damages in excess of $5
million. The case has been removed to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division
("California Matter").

On December 22, 2014, HWHN was also named in a putative class
action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division ("Illinois
Matter"), seeking damages and other relief relating to alleged
violations of the TCPA, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act, and Illinois common law in connection with
faxes allegedly sent to members of HWHN's network of complementary
and alternative care practitioners. The complaint seeks damages in
an unstated amount.

"We deny the claims and intend to vigorously defend these
actions," the Company said.

In connection with these actions, on March 2, 2015, Healthways and
HWHN filed with the FCC a Petition for Retroactive Waiver ("Waiver
Petition") of the FCC's regulation that requires advertising faxes
sent with the prior express invitation or permission of the
recipient to include an "opt-out" notice. The FCC has previously
granted retroactive waivers of that regulation to several
petitioners who were facing lawsuits alleging that the petitioners
failed to include the "opt-out" language in fax advertisements
sent with the prior express invitation or permission of the
recipients.

"We cannot predict whether the FCC will grant our Waiver Petition
or, if granted, the impact on the California Matter or the
Illinois Matter," the Company said.


HI-TECH PHARMA: Court Rejects Contempt Order in Marketing Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alyson M. Palmer, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal
appeals court panel has given a do-over to a Norcross company hit
with a $40 million contempt order over its marketing of dietary
supplements.

The decision vacated a ruling from a year ago, when Senior U.S.
District Judge Charles Pannell Jr. issued the sanction against
Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals and two top executives after concluding
that the company's marketing of four weight-loss supplements had
violated a prior injunction.  On May 5, a panel of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit said the Hi-Tech defendants
should get a new chance to back up their marketing claims with
evidence that Pannell had rejected on the theory that he already
had decided such evidence wasn't sufficient.

Judge Pannell last year said consideration of the evidence was
barred under the doctrine of collateral estoppels -- which forbids
a party's attempt to relitigate an issue that has already been
decided against it -- but the Eleventh Circuit panel said Pannell
had misapplied that concept.

The fight over sanctions is the latest installment in Hi-Tech's
battle with the Federal Trade Commission.  The FTC on May 6 issued
a statement through a spokesman saying it was "reviewing the
decision and will take appropriate action in the district court."

King & Spalding partner Merritt McAlister, who argued the appeal
for Hi-Tech and its CEO last month, said, "This is a clean slate,
a chance to present the evidence that we thought we should have
been able to present all along . . . We just really want an
opportunity to be heard, frankly, and that's what we have now."

Part of a series of civil and criminal matters, the case decided
by the Eleventh Circuit was initiated by the FTC in 2004.  The FTC
alleged that Hi-Tech's statements in magazines and flyers --
including a claim that one diet supplement was "an effective
treatment for obesity" -- were false and unsubstantiated.

In 2008, Judge Pannell found that Hi-Tech's advertising had
violated the Federal Trade Commission Act and levied a $15.8
million regulatory fine.  He also prohibited Hi-Tech, as well as
company CEO Jared Wheat and senior vice president of sales Stephen
Smith, from making certain claims about any product's
effectiveness as a weight-loss product unless they had "competent
and reliable scientific evidence that substantiates the
representation."  Judge Pannell issued a separate injunction
against Dr. Terrill Mark Wright, a physician endorsing Hi-Tech
products.  The Hi-Tech defendants appealed the injunctions, but a
separate Eleventh Circuit panel upheld them in a one-sentence
ruling.

In 2011, the FTC initiated contempt proceedings against Hi-Tech,
Messrs. Wheat, Smith and Wright, alleging their claims about
various Hi-Tech supplements had violated the terms of the
injunctions.  The defendants tried to show that they had
scientific evidence to back up their marketing claims, but Pannell
refused to consider the defendants' expert testimony on what
adequately substantiates the sort of claims the defendants made.
The judge said the standard of requiring clinical trials to back
up statements about the products had been settled at the time he
issued his 2008 injunction and thus the relitigation was barred by
collateral estoppel.

Judge Pannell said his $40 million contempt sanction represented
gross revenues from the sale of the supplements from Jan. 1, 2009,
through Aug. 31, 2013, and was intended to repay consumers who may
have been swayed by deceptive claims.  He also ordered the
defendants to recall four supplements marketed either as
facilitating rapid weight loss or as a remedy for erectile
dysfunction from stores.  In addition, Judge Pannell issued a
$120,000 sanction against Dr. Wright for violating the injunction
against him.

Last fall, while the Hi-Tech defendants appealed the sanctions,
Judge Pannell decided that the company's compliance with the
recall order was insufficient and ordered Messrs. Wheat and Smith
jailed.  He ordered their release in November after the FTC filed
a report saying the defendants had substantially complied with the
judge's order.

Appealing the monetary sanction, the defendants argued that the
district court judge was holding them to a standard that wasn't
found in the language of the injunction he said they violated.
The FTC defended the sanction by contending that Hi-Tech made only
minor changes to its advertisements following Judge Pannell's 2008
rulings even though the defendants clearly knew they would now
need to have placebo-controlled testing to support their marketing
claims.

The panel of Judges Gerald Tjoflat and William Pryor Jr. and
visiting Senior Fifth Circuit Judge Rhesa Barksdale vacated
Pannell's ruling holding Hi-Tech, Messrs. Wheat, Smith and Wright
in contempt.  Judge Pryor wrote that the panel was not deciding
whether Pannell had erred in holding the Hi-Tech defendants to a
higher standard for substantiating their product claims than was
required by the injunctions -- just that the district judge had
erred in saying collateral estoppel barred the defendants from
presenting their evidence.

One requirement for applying collateral estoppel to bar further
litigation, Judge Pryor explained, is that the issue at stake is
identical to the one involved in the prior litigation.  He said
the Hi-Tech defendants could easily show that Pannell hadn't
previously decided the level of substantiation the injunctions
required for the product representations at issue in the contempt
proceedings.  First, Judge Pryor said, the products at issue when
the injunctions were issued, though also weight-loss products,
were different from those at issue in the contempt proceedings, as
were the product representations.

Moreover, Judge Pryor said, Judge Pannell had said the "competent
and reliable scientific evidence" standard imposed by the
injunctions was "context specific" and the nature of scientific
studies needed to substantiate a claim would vary depending on the
circumstances.

"That the representations at issue in the previous litigation
involved different products, referenced other weight-loss products
by name and were far more specific than those at issue in the
contempt proceedings accordingly 'alters the legal inquiry,'" said
Judge Pryor, citing a pair of Eleventh Circuit cases.  "The issue
decided in the previous litigation is not 'identical' to the issue
the district court prevented the defendants from litigating in the
contempt proceedings."

Atlanta lawyer E. Vaughn Dunnigan, who represented Smith on the
appeal, said she was happy the court had accepted what she called
a "very logical" argument.

"Next, we'll go back to the district court and be allowed to
present the evidence that in fact Hi-Tech does have substantiation
for the claims it was making about its products and was not in
contempt of the judge's order," Mr. Dunnigan said.

"Hi-Tech's plan was always to comply with the injunction," she
added.

The case is Federal Trade Commission v. Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals,
No. 14-13131.


INFINITE CARE: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Alleging WARN Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Rodriguez, La'Quisha Harris and Ashley White, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. Infinite Care, Inc.,
Julio Miranda, Gary Charnis and Luis Londono, Case No. 2:15-cv-
02492-HB (E.D. Pa., May 5, 2015) is brought under the Worker
Adjustment & Retraining Notification Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Ronald Miller, Esq.
          MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
          170 S. Independence Mall W, Suite 400 E
          Philadelphia, PA 19106-3337
          Telephone: (215) 922-5805
          E-mail: mmiller@margolisedelstein.com


JAKKS PACIFIC: Court Dismissed Class Action Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------
A U.S. court has dismissed a complaint without prejudice against
Jakks Pacific, Inc., the Company said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

On July 25, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California captioned Melot v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et al., Case No.
CV13-05388 (JAK) against Stephen G. Berman, Joel M. Bennett
(collectively the "Individual Defendants"), and the Company
(collectively, "Defendants"). On July 30, 2013, a second purported
class action lawsuit was filed containing similar allegations
against Defendants captioned Dylewicz v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et
al., Case No. CV13-5487 (OON). The two cases (collectively, the
"Class Action") were consolidated on December 2, 2013 under Case
No. CV13-05388 JAK (SSx) and lead plaintiff and lead counsel
appointed. On January 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed a consolidated
class action complaint (the "First Amended Complaint") against
Defendants which alleged that the Company violated Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by making false and/or misleading statements concerning
Company financial projections and performance as part of its
public filings and earnings calls from July 17, 2012 through July
17, 2013. Specifically, the First Amended Complaint alleged that
the Company's forward looking statements, guidance and other
public statements were false and misleading for allegedly failing
to disclose (i) certain alleged internal forecasts, (ii) the
Company's alleged quarterly practice of laying off and rehiring
workers, (iii) the Company's alleged entry into license agreements
with guaranteed minimums the Company allegedly knew it was unable
to meet; and (iv) allegedly poor performance of the Monsuno and
Winx lines of products after their launch. The First Amended
Complaint also alleged violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act by Messrs. Berman and Bennett. The First Amended Complaint
sought compensatory and other damages in an undisclosed amount as
well as attorneys' fees and pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended
Complaint on February 17, 2014, and the motion was granted, with
leave to replead. A Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") was filed on
July 8, 2014 and it set forth similar allegations to those in the
First Amended Complaint about discrepancies between internal
projections and public forecasts and the other allegations except
that the claim with respect to guaranteed minimums that the
Company allegedly knew it was unable to meet was eliminated. The
foregoing is a summary of the pleadings and is subject to the text
of the pleadings which are on file with the Court. Briefing was
completed with respect to a motion to dismiss the SAC and oral
argument was held on October 6, 2014 with respect to that motion.
On March 2, 2015, the Court granted that motion and dismissed the
complaint without prejudice to Plaintiff filing by March 23, 2015
an amended pleading setting forth an actionable misstatement (the
"Dismissal Order").

The Company said, "The Dismissal Order is not a final judgment,
and if an amended pleading is filed we cannot assure you as to the
outcome of the matter, or that an adverse decision in such action
would not have a material adverse effect on our business,
financial condition or results of operations."


JOSE PALLETS: Faces "Sebastian" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Sebastian v. Jose Pallets, Inc. and Guadalupe Mancilla,
Case No. 1:15-cv-03888 (N.D. Ill., May 3, 2015) seeks relief under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JOURNAL COMMUNICATIONS: Defending Against 2nd Goldfinger Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Journal Communications, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company is
defending against a second Howard Goldfinger class action.

The Company said, "Members of our Board of Directors, and the
parties to the Master Agreement, including us and Scripps, were
defendants in a class action lawsuit filed in Circuit Court,
Milwaukee County, Wisconsin (Howard Goldfinger v. Journal
Communications, Inc., et al.).  The plaintiff in the lawsuit
alleged that our directors breached their fiduciary duties to our
shareholders in connection with the transactions and that the
other parties to the lawsuit aided and abetted such alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty.  The plaintiff alleged that our
directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things,
(i) agreeing to enter into the Master Agreement for inadequate
consideration, (ii) having certain conflicts of interest, (iii)
not negotiating a "collar" mechanism on the share exchange ratio,
and (iv) agreeing to certain deal protection provisions, such as a
termination fee, a "no-shop" provision, and a "matching rights"
provision.  The plaintiff also challenged the qualifications of
our financial advisor and asserted that it has a conflict because
the founder and managing partner, who is the lead investment
banker for us in the transactions, was employed by Lazard Fr‚res &
Co. LLC ("Lazard") prior to 2010 as a managing director, where he
had responsibility for Lazard's relationship with Scripps. On
August 29, 2014, the defendants filed Motions to Dismiss asking
the Circuit Court to dismiss the lawsuit. On November 12, 2014,
the Circuit Court entered an Order granting the defendants'
Motions to Dismiss and dismissing the lawsuit."

"On January 6, 2015, the plaintiff in the above-referenced lawsuit
filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (Howard
Goldfinger v. Journal Communications, Inc., et al. (Case No. 2:15-
cv-00012-JPS)), naming us, our Board of Directors, Scripps, and
the other parties to the Master Agreement as defendants. The
plaintiff asserts disclosure claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as state common
law claims for breaches of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting
breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint seeks, among other
remedies, injunctive relief enjoining the transactions and
damages.  On February 6, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion to
permit expedited discovery and to set a briefing scheduling on a
future motion for preliminary injunction.  On February 11, 2015,
the defendants filed Motions to Dismiss asking the Court to
dismiss the lawsuit, and on February 12, 2015, the defendants
filed oppositions to the plaintiff's expedited discovery motion.
Both the plaintiff's expedited discovery motion and the
defendants' Motions to Dismiss are currently pending.  The outcome
of this lawsuit is uncertain. An adverse judgment for monetary
damages could have an adverse effect on the operations and
liquidity of us and Scripps.  A preliminary injunction could delay
or jeopardize the completion of the transactions, and an adverse
judgment grating permanent injunctive relief could indefinitely
enjoin completion of the transactions.  We, Scripps, and the other
defendants named in the lawsuit believe the claims asserted are
without merit and intend to continue to vigorously defend against
them."


JP MORGAN: Accused of Harassment by Woman of Lebanese Origin
------------------------------------------------------------
Bianca Berry v. JP Morgan & Co Incorporated, JP Morgan Corporate
Finance and Venture Capital Private Investors Business Trust, JP
Morgan Chase & Co, and JP Morgan Chase National Corporate
Services, Case No. 2:15-cv-11521-VAR-APP (E.D. Mich., April 27,
2015) alleges that the Defendants retaliated against the Plaintiff
for her complaints of racial, religious and national origin
harassment by terminating her employment, in violation of the
Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act.

Ms. Berry is a Muslim Arabic woman of Lebanese origin.

JP Morgan & Co Incorporated is a Delaware corporation conducting
business in the state of Michigan as Chase Bank.  JP Morgan
Corporate Finance and Venture Capital Private Investors Business
Trust is a Delaware statutory trust conducting business in
Michigan as Chase Bank.  JP Morgan Chase & Co is a Delaware
corporation.  JP Morgan Chase National Corporate Services, Inc, is
a foreign profit corporation with a registered office in Bingham
Farms, Michigan.

The Defendants operate banking facilities, including a facility in
Dearborn Heights, Michigan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Caitlin E. Malhiot, Esq.
          Maia E. Johnson, Esq
          GOLD STAR LAW, P.C.
          2701 Troy Center Dr., Suite 400
          Troy, MI 48084
          Telephone: (248) 275-5200
          Facsimile: (248) 817-2765
          E-mail: cmalhiot@goldstarlaw.com
                  mjohnson@goldstarlaw.com


KEPRO ACQUISITIONS: Sued for Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Diamond, on behalf of himself and all similarly-situated
individuals v. Kepro Acquisitions, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-01085-
CEH-EAJ (M.D. Fla., May 6, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KEYPOINT GOVERNMENT: "Smith" Suit Moved From Calif. to Colorado
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Smith v. Keypont Government
Solutions, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-0-0429, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (Denver).  The
Colorado District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-00865-REB-
KLM to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff filed the Collective Action Complaint on behalf of a
proposed nationwide Collective of independent contractor
investigators, alleging overtime violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, arising from the Defendant's alleged
misclassification of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
investigators as independent contractors instead of as employees.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin T. Barnes, Esq.
          Gregg Lander, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES
          5670 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1460
          Los Angeles, CA 90036-5664
          Telephone: (323) 549-9100
          Facsimile: (323) 549-0101
          E-mail: barnes@kbarnes.com
                  lander@kbarnes.com

               - and -

          Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
          Joshua Konecky, Esq.
          Nathan Piller, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com
                  jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com
                  npiller@schneiderwallace.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Karin M. Cogbill, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          50 W. San Fernando, 15th Floor
          San Jose, CA 95113
          Telephone: (408) 998-4150
          Facsimile: (408) 288-5686
          E-mail: kcogbill@littler.com

               - and -

          Jennifer S. Harpole, Esq.
          Margaret Parnell Hogan, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
          1900 16th Street, Suite 800
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 629-6200
          Facsimile: (303) 629-0200
          E-mail: jharpole@littler.com
                  mphogan@littler.com


KIND LLC: Faces "Galvez" Class Suit in California District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mayra Galvez and Chris C. Galvez, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. KIND LLC d/b/a KIND Foods LLC,
Case No. 2:15-cv-03082 (C.D. Cal., April 24, 2015) asserts fraud-
related claims.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
          SCOTT AND SCOTT LLP
          4771 Cromwell Ave.
          Los Angeles, CA 90027
          Telephone: (213) 985-1274
          Facsimile: (213) 985-1278
          E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com


LOCKHEED MARTIN: Accused of Bias and Retaliation in Colorado
------------------------------------------------------------
Litha Peneaux v. Lockheed Martin Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-
00874 (D. Colo., April 24, 2015) is brought for discrimination and
retaliation in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the
Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Family Medical Leave Act.

The action is an employment discrimination and retaliation case
brought by Ms. Peneaux, a Native American woman, who was a highly
successful Lockheed employee for over 13 years and who had worked
her way up into the Drafting Department Lead position during her
tenure.  Shortly before she was fired, Ms. Peneaux alleges that
she began experiencing different and worse treatment by her new
male manager compared with her similarly situated male colleagues,
and she observed his bias against other women as well.

Lockheed is a Maryland corporation licensed to and doing business
in the state of Colorado during all relevant time periods.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Diane S. King, Esq.
          Kimberly J. Jones, Esq.
          KING & GREISEN, LLP
          1670 York Street
          Denver, CO 80206
          Telephone: (303) 298-9878
          Facsimile: (303) 298-9879
          E-mail: king@kinggreisen.com
                  jones@kinggreisen.com


LOWE'S HOME: Sued in Washington for Violating Disabilities Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Molinari v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC d/b/a Lowe's Home
Improvement, a Washington Corporation, Case No. 3:15-cv-05295
(W.D. Wash., May 5, 2015) seeks to redress the alleged deprivation
and interference with rights secured through the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the Washington Law against Discrimination, to
correct unlawful employment practices by Lowe's and to provide
appropriate relief to the Plaintiff.

Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, doing business as Lowe's Home
Improvement, is a North Carolina corporation doing business in the
state of Washington.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott C. G. Blankenship, Esq.
          Paul S. Woods, Esq.
          THE BLANKENSHIP LAW FIRM, P.S.
          1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3250
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 343-2700
          Facsimile: (206) 343-2704
          E-mail: sblankenship@blankenshiplawfirm.com
                  pwoods@blankenshiplawfirm.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Crawford" Product Liability Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Crawford, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Lumber Liquidators Leasing,
LLC, Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. and Lumber Liquidators
Services, LLC, Case No. 0:15-cv-60891-JIC (S.D. Fla., April 27,
2015) asserts product liability claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cullin Avram O'Brien, Esq.
          CULLIN O'BRIEN LAW, P.A.
          6541 NE 21st Way
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308
          Telephone: (561) 676-6370
          Facsimile: (561) 320-0285
          E-mail: cullin@cullinobrienlaw.com


LUNA INNOVATIONS: Class Actions Filed After Merger Announcement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Luna Innovations Incorporated said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that three separate
putative class action complaints were filed on behalf of API
stockholders after the merger announcement.

The Company said, "On January 30, 2015, we, Advanced Photonix,
Inc., a Delaware corporation ("API"), and API Merger Sub, Inc., a
Delaware corporation and our wholly owned subsidiary ("API Merger
Sub"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger and
Reorganization (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which API
Merger Sub will merge with and into API (the "Merger"), with API
surviving as our wholly owned subsidiary."

The Company said, "After our announcement of the Merger with API,
three separate putative class action complaints were filed on
behalf of API stockholders against members of the API board of
directors, API, Luna, and API Merger Sub. Two actions were filed
in the Circuit Court for the County of Washtenaw of the State of
Michigan (captioned Clark v. Advanced Photonix, Inc., Case No. 15-
169-CB and Panzer v. Advanced Photonix, Inc., Case No. 15-214-CB)
and one action was filed in the Court of Chancery for the State of
Delaware (captioned Henderson v. Advanced Photonix, Inc., C.A. No.
10715) (collectively, the "Stockholder Litigation") In general,
and to date, the plaintiffs in the Stockholder Litigation allege
that the API's directors breached its fiduciary duties to API's
stockholders by, among other things, agreeing to sell API to Luna
at an inadequate price, implementing an unfair process, agreeing
to certain provisions of the Merger Agreement that are alleged to
favor Luna and deter alternative bids, and/or by omitting material
information from the Registration Statement on Form S-4 that we
filed with the SEC in connection with the Merger. The complaints
have also generally alleged that API and Luna aided and abetted
the API director's breaches of fiduciary duties. The existing
complaints seek, among other things, an injunction against the
consummation of the Merger and an award of costs and expenses,
including a reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees.
We intend to defend ourselves vigorously in these actions."


M & T BANK: Accused of Age Discrimination and Retaliation in Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
William Chandlee v. M & T Bank Corporation, d/b/a M & T Bank, Case
No. 2:15-cv-02458-ER (E.D. Pa., May 4, 2015) is brought for age
discrimination, sex discrimination, and retaliation to wit:
wrongful discharge, disparate treatment, denial of benefits.

M & T Bank is a corporation doing business in Pennsylvania with an
office located in Havertown, Pennsylvania.  The Defendant provides
financial and banking services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shelly Farber, Esq.
          FARBER AND FARBER LAW OFFICES
          West Chester Pike, Suite 100
          Broomall, PA 19008
          Telephone: (610) 356-3900
          Facsimile: (610) 356-3952
          farberandfarber@gmail.com


MEDTRONIC SOFAMOR: Fails to Pay Equal Rates to Workers, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paula Dimopoulos v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-02288 (W.D. Tenn., April 29, 2015) is an action for
declaratory and monetary relief caused by, among other things, the
Defendant's failure to pay Dr. Dimopoulos at a rate less than that
paid to male employees for equal work in violation of the Equal
Pay Act.

Dr. Dimopoulos was an employee of Medtronic as a Program Director,
Global Medical Affairs, from July 2011 through June 2014.

Medtronic is was the Plaintiff's employer and was doing business
in Memphis, Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Heather Moore Collins, Esq.
          COLLINS LAW FIRM
          2002 Richard Jones Rd., Suite 200-B
          Nashville, TN 37215
          Telephone: (615) 724-1996
          Facsimile: (615) 691-7019
          E-mail: heather@hmcollinslaw.com


METRO-NORTH COMMUTER: Sued Over Discriminatory Firing of Employee
-----------------------------------------------------------------
William Sanchez v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company, Case No.
1:15-cv-03413-VEC (S.D.N.Y., May 1, 2015) seeks redress for the
alleged unlawful discriminatory termination of the Plaintiff's
employment, in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law,
the Local Civil Rights Restoration Act of 2005 and other laws.

Mr. Sanchez is a resident of the County of Orange in the state of
New York.  He is a Hispanic male.  He was a Metro-North employee
for approximately 13 years prior to his termination in May 2013.

Metro-North is a public-benefit corporation that is a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Metropolitan Transit Authority, a Public
Authority of the state of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven Seltzer, Esq.
          Paul J. Sagar, Esq.
          YUEN ROCCANOVA SELTZER P.C.
          11 Hanover Square, 13th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 608-1178
          Facsimile: (212) 608-2913
          E-mail: sseltzer@yrsslaw.com
                  psagar@yrsslaw.com


NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Smith, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. National Enterprise Systems Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-00451-D
(W.D. Okla., April 28, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Russell S. Thompson, IV, Esq.
          WEISBERG & MEYERS LLC
          5025 N Central Ave., Suite 602
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: (850) 867-8701
          E-mail: rthompson@consumerlawinfo.com


NEW ZEALAND: Class Suit Mulled Over Canterbury Earthquakes
----------------------------------------------------------
Jenee Tibshraeny, writing for Interest.co.nz, reports that a
lawyer and a litigation funder are looking to organize group legal
action against insurers in the wake of the 2010/11 Canterbury
earthquakes.

A partner at Shieff Angland Lawyers, Kalev Crossland --
kalev.crossland@shieffangland.co.nz -- and Bruce Sheppard, a
director of litigation funders LPF Group and best known as founder
of the New Zealand Shareholders' Association, are planning to help
property owners sue their insurers.  A meeting at the Transitional
Cathedral in Christchurch was scheduled for April 17 to explain
how group litigation may unfold.

Mr. Crossland says from there he'll look at inviting people to
register their interest and explain their cases online.  He and
Sheppard will then assess the best way of tackling the issue.  He
says he may be able to categorize property owners' cases so
there's three or four different groups of class-type action.

Or if there are less similarities between cases, he can file them
individually and get the court to process them together as a
consolidated action.

"It's about trying to make efficient use of the court resources",
he says.

"By getting people together and sharing the knowledge, you can
level the playing field.

"Insurance companies sometimes rely on the fact they can pick off
individuals separately, tie them up with confidentiality clauses
and take advantage of them when they really need the cash."

The Insurance Council of New Zealand has declined to comment on
Mr. Crossland and Sheppard's proposed legal action.

'Sue to show you mean business'

So why would property owners join the group rather than settle
their disputes with their insurers themselves? Cost.

Mr. Crossland can't comment on the specifics of how any group
action will be funded, but says it will potentially come at no
cost to claimants.

"To get people around the table, you need to sue to show you mean
business.  For many people that's not possible because it's a
scary proposition having to commit thousands of dollars to a
lawyer on an individual basis.  But if you get everyone together,
it's not going to cost you anything other than an amount at the
end of the process", Mr. Crossland says.

"The beauty of litigation funding is that the lawyers work hard in
the knowledge that the litigation funder is paying, so you have a
separation and perhaps more objectivity is brought to bear."

He believes the issue of "good faith" could be the basis for a
strong case against insurers.

"When customers pay a premium, they do so in good faith; they pay
their premiums in the knowledge they will have their claim
progressed and settled in a reasonable period of time with as
little stress and fuss as possible . . . that certainly hasn't
happened and problems are continuing."

Mr. Crossland believes insurers are often not acting in good faith
in the following four ways:

     1. Some insurers are taking advantage of their clients' lack
of insurance knowledge and not disclosing all the benefits they
may be entitled to when making claims.

     2. Some insurers are using the scale of the damage caused by
the quakes as an excuse not to settle claims promptly.  Mr.
Crossland says insurers should have plans in place to increase
their staffing levels and expand their resources in the event of a
disaster.

     3. Some insurers are making their clients pick up the costs
of assessing their claims by paying for their own structural
engineers, surveyors and so on.  Mr. Crossland says anecdotal
evidence suggests insurers have entered into exclusive
arrangements with specific assessors and builders whose driving
imperative is cost, so clients have to employ their own
professionals.

     4. Some insurers aren't taking their clients' economic and
economical vulnerability into account when reaching settlements.

Mr. Crossland says he'd like to find out exactly what training
insurers' receive when it comes to acting in good faith.

Representative action

In an article released by Simpson Grierson in 2011, partner
John Shackleton explains that while class action cannot be brought
in New Zealand, group litigation can in certain circumstances.

"One party can sue or be sued on behalf of other parties with the
same interest in a proceeding, either with the consent of the
other parties, or, as directed by the court.

"Representative actions have developed to further the objectives
of the High Court Rules -- to ensure the just, speedy and
inexpensive determination of proceedings.

"For example, a representative action can avoid a defendant having
to face a multitude of claims based on the same subject matter.

"Courts have taken a wide and flexible approach when deciding
whether parties have the "same interest" in a proceeding and have
allowed representative actions in a range of circumstances."

In regard to funding, Mr. Shackleton writes:

"Third party litigation funding involves a party, unrelated to the
proceeding paying the costs of litigation.  If that litigation is
successful, the third party recovers a portion of any judgment or
settlement reached.

"Third party litigation funders do not come without their own
issues; they are not subject to the same obligations of client
care and conduct and duties to the court as counsel in New
Zealand."


NYU LANGONE: Accused of Employment Discrimination Due to Age
------------------------------------------------------------
Memoris Pitter Green v. NYU Langone Medical Center, Case No. 1:15-
cv-03328-LTS (S.D.N.Y., April 29, 2015) is brought to remedy
alleged discrimination and retaliation in the terms, conditions
and privileges of the Plaintiff's employment on the basis of age
in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Act
of 1866, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the New
York State Human Rights Law.

Ms. Pitter-Green, is a 59 year-old Black female of West Indian
descent.  She is a resident of the Bronx County in New York.  At
all time relevant to this action, she was employed by NYU as a
Phlebotomist.

NYU is a hospital corporation chartered and licensed by the state
of New York and operates a hospital located at 530 First Avenue,
in New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cheryl A. Harris, Esq.
          HARRIS LAW, PLLC
          11 Broadway, Suite 615
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 785-4001
          Facsimile: (646) 964-6670
          E-mail: charris@harrislawpllc.com


PACIFIC INVESTMENT: AIG Seeks Judgment Over Securities Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc. v. Pacific Investment
Management Company LLC, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-03339-UA
(S.D.N.Y., April 29, 2015) is brought for declaratory relief
against Pacific Investment Management Company LLC and 63 related
PIMCO funds.

AIG seeks entry of an order and judgment declaring that any claims
by PIMCO against AIG under the Securities Act of 1933 stemming
from their alleged purchase of AIG securities in six offerings
between October 18, 2006, and May 12, 2008, are time-barred by the
three-year statute of repose set forth in the
Securities Act, which expired three years after each offering and
no later than May 12, 2011.

PIMCO were members of the putative class in In re American
International Group, Inc. 2008 Securities Litigation, No. 08-CV -
4772, that was pending in this Court for nearly seven years prior
to its recent settlement.  Pursuant to this Court's Order
preliminarily approving the Class Action settlement on October 7,
2014, PIMCO opted-out of the settlement class on January 5, 2015.

Nearly a week after final approval of the Class Action settlement,
on March 27, 2015, PIMCO filed a complaint in state court in
Orange County, California, asserting a single cause of action
under the Securities Act arising from their alleged purchase of
AIG securities in six offerings between October 18, 2006, and May
12, 2008.  See Pacific Investment Management Company LLC, et al.
v. American International Group, Inc., No. 30-2015-00779738-CU-SL-
CXC (Cal. Sup. Ct. Orange Cnty. Mar. 27, 2015).

The allegations in the California Action are substantively the
same as those in the Class Action, as well as nine individual
actions, also pending in this Court, brought by other investors
who also elected to exclude themselves from the settlement class.
Like the Class Action and Opt-Out Action complaints, the
California Action alleges that AIG made false and misleading
statements in SEC filings, press releases and investor calls
regarding AIG's exposure to the subprime mortgage market between
2006 and 2008.

The Plaintiff contends that PIMCO took no action to preserve their
claims against AIG prior to the expiration of the Securities Act's
repose period.

AIG is a Delaware corporation having its principal executive
offices in New York City.  AIG is a leading international
insurance organization serving customers in more than 100
countries and jurisdictions.  AIG companies serve commercial,
institutional, and individual customers through one of the most
extensive worldwide property-casualty networks of any insurer.
AIG companies are also leading providers of life insurance and
retirement services in the United States.

Pacific Investment Management Company LLC is a global investment
solutions provider headquartered in Newport Beach, California,
that manages investments for various entities and individuals,
including public and private pension and retirement plans,
companies, central banks, educational institutions, financial
advisors, foundations, and endowments.  Pacific Investment
Management Company LLC manages and advises various funds also
named as Defendants herein.

The other Defendants are PIMCO CALIFORNIA INTERMEDIATE MUNICIPAL
BOND FUND; PIMCO FUNDS: PIMCO CALIFORNIA SHORT DURATION MUNICIPAL
INCOME FUND; PIMCO COMBINED ALPHA STRATEGIES MASTER FUND LDC;
PIMCO GLOBAL CREDIT OPPORTUNITY MASTER FUND LDC; PIMCO FUNDS:
PRIVATE ACCOUNT PORTFOLIO SERIES HIGH YIELD PORTFOLIO; PIMCO
FUNDS: PRIVATE ACCOUNT PORTFOLIO SERIES INVESTMENT GRADE CORPORATE
PORTFOLIO; PIMCO FUNDS: PRIVATE ACCOUNT PORTFOLIO SERIES MORTGAGE
PORTFOLIO; PIMCO ABSOLUTE RETURN STRATEGY II TRUST, A SUB-TRUST OF
PIMCO CAYMAN UNIT TRUST; PIMCO ABSOLUTE RETURN STRATEGY II MASTER
FUND LDC; PIMCO ABSOLUTE RETURN STRATEGY III MASTER FUND LDC;
PIMCO ABSOLUTE RETURN STRATEGY V MASTER FUND LDC; PIMCO BERMUDA
TRUST: PIMCO EURO TOTAL RETURN FUND; PIMCO BERMUDA TRUST II: PIMCO
BERMUDA GLOBAL AGGREGATE EX-JAPAN BOND FUND (M); PIMCO BERMUDA
TRUST II: PIMCO BERMUDA U.S. HIGH YIELD FUND II (M); PIMCO BERMUDA
TRUST II: PIMCO BERMUDA JGB FLOATER FOREIGN STRATEGY FUND; PIMCO
BERMUDA TRUST IV: PIMCO BERMUDA GLOBAL BOND EX-JAPAN FUND; PIMCO
BERMUDA TRUST IV: PIMCO GLOBAL HIGH YIELD STRATEGY FUND; PIMCO
BERMUDA TRUST II: PIMCO BERMUDA U.S. HIGH YIELD FUND (M); PIMCO
CAYMAN TRUST: PIMCO CAYMAN AUSTRALIAN MULTI-SECTOR FUND; PIMCO
CAYMAN TRUST: PIMCO CAYMAN FOREIGN BOND FUND; PIMCO CAYMAN TRUST:
PIMCO CAYMAN GLOBAL AGGREGATE EX-JAPAN (YEN-HEDGED) BOND FUND II;
PIMCO CAYMAN TRUST: PIMCO CAYMAN GLOBAL AGGREGATE BOND FUND; PIMCO
CAYMAN TRUST: PIMCO CAYMAN GLOBAL AGGREGATE EX-JAPAN BOND FUND;
PIMCO CAYMAN TRUST: PIMCO CAYMAN GLOBAL AGGREGATE EX-JAPAN INCOME
FUND; PIMCO CAYMAN TRUST: PIMCO CAYMAN GLOBAL CREDIT ALPHA FUND;
PIMCO CAYMAN TRUST: PIMCO CAYMAN GLOBAL EX-JAPAN (YEN-HEDGED) BOND
FUND; PIMCO CAYMAN TRUST - PIMCO CAYMAN GLOBAL HIGH INCOME FUND;
PIMCO CAYMAN TRUST: PIMCO CAYMAN GLOBAL HIGH INCOME (YEN-HEDGED)
FUND; PIMCO CAYMAN TRUST: PIMCO CAYMAN U.S. BOND FUND; PIMCO
CAYMAN TRUST: PIMCO CAYMAN U.S. TOTAL RETURN FUND; PIMCO FUNDS:
PIMCO CONVERTIBLE FUND; PIMCO FUNDS: PIMCO FLOATING INCOME FUND;
PIMCO FUNDS: PIMCO FOREIGN BOND FUND (UNHEDGED); PIMCO FUNDS:
PIMCO FOREIGN BOND FUND (U.S. DOLLAR-HEDGED); PIMCO FUNDS: PIMCO
FUNDAMENTAL INDEXPLUS(R) AR FUND; EQUITY TRUSTEES LIMITED AS
RESPONSIBLE ENTITY FOR PIMCO GLOBAL BOND FUND; PIMCO FUNDS: PIMCO
GLOBAL BOND FUND (UNHEDGED); PIMCO FUNDS: PIMCO GLOBAL BOND FUND
(U.S. DOLLARHEDGED); PIMCO BERMUDA TRUST IV: PIMCO GLOBAL BOND
STRATEGY FUND; PIMCO FUNDS: PIMCO HIGH YIELD FUND; PIMCO FUNDS:
PIMCO HIGH YIELD MUNICIPAL BOND FUND; PIMCO FUNDS: PIMCO
INVESTMENT GRADE CORPORATE BOND FUND; PIMCO FUNDS: PIMCO LONG
DURATION TOTAL RETURN FUND; PIMCO FUNDS: PIMCO MORTGAGE-BACKED
SECURITIES FUND; PIMCO FUNDS: PIMCO REAL RETURN ASSET FUND; PIMCO
FUNDS: PIMCO REAL RETURN FUND; PIMCO FUNDS: PIMCO SMALL CAP
STOCKSPLUS(R) AR STRATEGY FUND; PIMCO FUNDS: PIMCO STOCKSPLUS(R)
LONG DURATION FUND; PIMCO FUNDS: PIMCO STOCKSPLUS(R) ABSOLUTE
RETURN FUND; PIMCO FUNDS: PIMCO STOCKSPLUS(R) AR SHORT STRATEGY
FUND; PIMCO FUNDS: PIMCO TOTAL RETURN FUND; PIMCO VARIABLE
INSURANCE TRUST: PIMCO GLOBAL BOND PORTFOLIO (UNHEDGED); PIMCO
VARIABLE INSURANCE TRUST: PIMCO HIGH YIELD PORTFOLIO; PIMCO FUNDS:
GLOBAL INVESTORS SERIES PLC, GLOBAL BOND EX-US FUND; PIMCO FUNDS:
GLOBAL INVESTORS SERIES PLC, GLOBAL BOND FUND; PIMCO FUNDS: GLOBAL
INVESTORS SERIES PLC, GLOBAL HIGH YIELD BOND FUND; PIMCO FUNDS:
GLOBAL INVESTORS SERIES PLC, GLOBAL INVESTMENT GRADE CREDIT FUND;
PIMCO FUNDS: GLOBAL INVESTORS SERIES PLC, HIGH YIELD BOND FUND;
FIXED INCOME SHARES: SERIES C; FIXED INCOME SHARES: SERIES M;
PIMCO CORPORATE & INCOME OPPORTUNITY FUND; PIMCO CORPORATE &
INCOME STRATEGY FUND;ú AND PIMCO HIGH INCOME FUND,

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph S. Allerhand, Esq.
          Robert F. Carangelo, Esq.
          Stacy Nettleton, Esq.
          WElL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
          767 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10153
          Telephone: (212) 310-8000
          Facsimile: (212) 310-8007
          E-mail: joseph.allerhand@weil.com
                  robert.carangelo@weil.com
                  stacy.nettleton@weil.com


PACIFIC PREMIER: Plaintiffs' Counsel Want to Schedule Depositions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that after a lengthy
period of inactivity, the Bank was contacted by plaintiffs'
counsel in a class action to schedule depositions and discovery,
and prepare the case to go to trial in 2015.

In February 2004, the Bank was named as a defendant in a class
action lawsuit entitled "James Baker v. Century Financial, et al,"
which alleged violations of the Missouri Second Mortgage Loan Act
(the "MSMLA") by the Bank's predecessor, Life Bank.  The lawsuit
alleged that Missouri homeowners were charged closing costs and
related fees exceeding the amount permitted by the MSMLA.  While
Life Bank did not originate these mortgages, it did ultimately own
and service them for a period of time, which plaintiffs allege
creates potential liability under the MSMLA.  The class action
lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri in
2000.  The lawsuit seeks restitution of all improperly-charged
closing fees and costs, prejudgment interest on improperly-charged
closing fees and costs, restitution of all interest payments made
by the homeowners, prejudgment interest on all interest paid by
the homeowners, attorney's fees, and punitive damages.  In March
2005, the Bank's motion to dismiss based on statute of limitations
arguments was denied by the trial court without a written opinion.
In August 2006, the Bank's "preemption" motion -- claiming that
federal law preempted and superseded the MSMLA as to these loans
-- was also denied without a written opinion.  The Bank answered
plaintiffs' complaint, and the parties have exchanged and answered
discovery requests.

After a lengthy period of inactivity, the Bank was contacted by
plaintiffs' counsel to schedule depositions and discovery, and
prepare the case to go to trial in 2015.  The Board of Directors
of the Company determined to establish a $1.7 million reserve
related to the lawsuit during the fourth quarter of 2014, which
the Board of Directors believes to be a reasonable estimate of the
Company's exposure as of December 31, 2014.


PETERBOROUGH REGIONAL: PHIPA Defense Fails to Avert Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy G. Hulton, Esq. of Dickinson Wright PLLC, in an article for
Lexology, reports that back in 2012, the Ontario Court of Appeal
recognized the tort of invasion of privacy -- fast forward to the
recent string of privacy breaches of personal information held by
health care facilities in Ontario.  Along comes Hopkins v Kay,
2014 ONSC 321 (CanLII), where patients from the Peterborough
Regional Health Centre (the "Hospital") have launched a $5.6
million class action lawsuit against the Hospital alleging that
approximately 280 patient records were intentionally and
unlawfully accessed and disseminated to third parties without the
patients' consent.

The Hospital, in response, brought a motion to strike the
plaintiffs' claim on the basis that it did not disclose a cause of
action, arguing that the claim was precluded by the Personal
Health Information Protection Act, 2004, SO 2004, c 3, Sch A
("PHIPA") because the legislature intended PHIPA to be a
comprehensive code that displaces any common law cause of action,
including intrusion upon seclusion (aka the tort of breach of
privacy).  The Hospital's position is that the plaintiffs' only
recourse is a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the Hospital's
motion to strike, concluding that it was not plain and obvious
that the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, and the
Hospital launched an appeal of this decision.

The Ontario Court of Appeal subsequently held that the Hospital
cannot escape from the proposed class action proceeding on the
basis of the provisions of PHIPA.

The proposed class action was launched by a former patient whose
records were improperly accessed.  Her claim was based on the
common law tort of intrusion upon seclusion, a claim recognized by
Ontario courts in Jones v. Tsige, 2012 ONCA 32, 108 O.R. (3d) 241.

The representative plaintiff, Erkenraadje Wensvoort, claims that
she attended the Hospital on several occasions for treatment of
injuries inflicted by her ex-husband.  She eventually left her
husband, but still feared for her safety.  Along with two hundred
eighty other patients, the plaintiff received two notices from the
Hospital notifying her that the privacy of her personal health
information had been breached. The plaintiff was afraid that her
ex-husband had paid someone to access her records in order to try
to find her.

Ms. Wensvoort initially relied on breaches of PHIPA to assert a
cause of action, but she later amended her statement of claim to
contain only the common law cause of action identified in Jones v.
Tsige for intrusion upon seclusion.

PHIPA is an Ontario law that governs the collection, use and
disclosure of personal health information. It also provides rules
to protect the confidentiality of that information and the privacy
of individuals, while facilitating the effective provision of
health care.

PHIPA provides that an individual may make a complaint to
Ontario's Information and Privacy Commission for contravention of
the Act and the Commissioner has powers to make a variety orders
to ensure compliance with the Act.

The Court also noted that:

The possibility of recovering damages as a result of a breach of
PHIPA is the subject of s. 65:

     (1) If the Commissioner has made an order under this Act that
has become final as the result of there being no further right of
appeal, a person affected by the order may commence a proceeding
in the Superior Court of Justice for damages for actual harm that
the person has suffered as a result of a contravention of this Act
or its regulations.

     (2) If a person has been convicted of an offence under this
Act and the conviction has become final as a result of there being
no further right of appeal, a person affected by the conduct that
gave rise to the offence may commence a proceeding in the Superior
Court of Justice for damages for actual harm that the person has
suffered as a result of the conduct.

     (3) If, in a proceeding described in subsection (1) or (2),
the Superior Court of Justice determines that the harm suffered by
the plaintiff was caused by a contravention or offence, as the
case may be, that the defendants engaged in wilfully or
recklessly, the court may include in its award of damages an
award, not exceeding $10,000, for mental anguish.

The Court of Appeal pointed out that PHIPA does not allow the
Commissioner to award damages, and instead requires individuals to
bring an action in Superior Court to seek compensation for any
harm caused. The Court found that this undermines the argument
that the legislature intended to exclude courts from resolving
disputes governed by PHIPA.

The Court ultimately concluded that PHIPA does not confer
exclusive jurisdiction on the Commissioner to resolve all disputes
over misuse of personal health information, holding:

PHIPA's highly discretionary review procedure is tailored to deal
with systemic issues rather than individual complaints.  There is
no basis to exclude the jurisdiction of the Superior Court from
entertaining a common law claim for breach of privacy and, given
the absence of an effective dispute resolution procedure, there is
no merit to the suggestion that the court should decline to
exercise its jurisdiction.

The health care community needs to be even more vigilant in its
efforts to protect the privacy of health information, now that
Hopkins has thrown the doors wide open to tort claims against
custodians of health information for privacy breaches.


PETRO RIVER: No Timeline for Court to Rule in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Petro River Oil Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2015, that there is no specific
timeline by which the court must render a ruling in a class action
lawsuit.

On August 11, 2014, Martha Donelson and John Friend amended their
complaint in an existing lawsuit by filing a class action
complaint styled: Martha Donelson and John Friend, et al. v.
United States of America, Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Indian Affairs and Devon Energy Production, LP, et al., Case No.
14-CV-316-JHP-TLW, United States District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma (the "Proceeding").  The plaintiffs added as
defendants twenty-seven (27) specifically named operators,
including the Company, as well as all Osage County lessees and
operators who have obtained a concession agreement, lease or
drilling permit approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs ("BIA")
in Osage County allegedly in violation of National Environmental
Policy Act ("NEPA").  Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that
the BIA improperly approved oil and gas leases, concession
agreements and drilling permits prior to August 12, 2014, without
satisfying the BIA's obligations under federal regulations or
NEPA, and seek a determination that such oil and gas leases,
concession agreements and drilling permits are void ab initio.
Plaintiffs are seeking damages against the defendants for alleged
nuisance, trespass, negligence and unjust enrichment.

On October 7, 2014 Spyglass, along with other defendants, filed a
motion to dismiss the August 11, 2104 Proceeding on various
procedural and legal arguments.  Plaintiffs filed their response
to the motion to dismiss on October 27, 2014.  Spyglass filed its
reply brief on November 10, 2014 and the plaintiffs were granted
leave until November 19, 2014 to file a surreply to Splyglass's
reply brief.  Once the briefing cycle concluded on November 19,
2014, the motion to dismiss became ripe for determination by the
court.  Oral arguments may be ordered by the court.  There is no
specific timeline by which the court must render a ruling.


PM REALTY: Removes "Branch" Employment Suit to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Branch v. PM Realty Group LP, Case
No. BC575759, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California (Western Division -
Los Angeles).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-
03303 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges employment discrimination.

The Defendants are represented by:

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


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Frund, Individually, and on behald of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC
and John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:15-cv-03117-MCA-JBC (D.N.J.,
May 4, 2015) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RIVERSIDE, CA: Sued by Minors Alleging Violations of Civil Rights
-----------------------------------------------------------------
P. H., J. H., K. H., A.1. H. and A.2. H., Minors, by and through
their guardian ad litem, and all others similarly situated v.
County of Riverside, a public entity; Dori Covarrubias, an
individual; Karin Atkins, an individual; and Does, 1 through 10,
inclusive, together with all others similarly situated, Case No.
5:15-cv-00890-JGB-DTB (C.D. Cal., May 6, 2015) is brought over
alleged violations of the Civil Rights Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dennis B. Atchley, Esq.
          Stephen D. Daner, Esq.
          Shawn A. McMillan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SHAWN A. MCMILLAN APC
          4955 Via Lapiz
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (858) 646-0069
          Facsimile: (206) 600-4582
          E-mail: dbalaw@yahoo.com
                  steve.mcmillanlaw@gmail.com
                  attyshawn@netscape.net

               - and -

          Mark Daniel Ankcorn, Esq.
          ANKCORN LAW FIRM PC
          11622 El Camino Real, Suite 100
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (619) 870-0600
          Facsimile: (619) 684-3541
          E-mail: mark@ankcorn.com


ROBINSON SPORTS: Sued for Violating Disabilities Act in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andres Gomez, On behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Robinson Sports, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Case No.
1:15-cv-21538-CMA (S.D. Fla., April 24, 2015) is brought over
alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian Tse-Hua Ku, Esq.
          Louis I. Mussman, Esq.
          KU & MUSSMAN PA
          6001 NW 153 Street, Suite 100
          Miami Lakes, FL 33014
          Telephone: (305) 891-1322
          Facsimile: (305) 891-4512
          E-mail: brian@kumussman.com
                  louis@kumussman.com


SALVATION ARMY: Accused of Bias Against Black/Latino/Female Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David N. Brodmann v. Salvation Army, Inc., a California
corporation; Mark Nelson, an individual; and, Does 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 5:15-cv-00834-SJO-MRW (C.D. Cal., April 27,
2015) alleges that the Salvation Army operated a business rife
with sexual harassment and a uniquely atrocious type of
discrimination towards African-American, Latino and female
employees.

According to its Web site, the Salvation Army is an international
Christian organization and part of the Universal Christian Church
whose message is based on the Bible and rooted in the Christian
faith of its members.  Defendant Mark Nelson was employed by the
Salvation Army and was an officer in the Salvation Army.  The
Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Doe
Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory M. Garrison, Esq.
          Julia M. Williams, Esq.
          TEEPLE HALL, LLP
          9255 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 500
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (858) 622-7878
          Facsimile: (858) 622-0411
          E-mail: greg@teeplehall.com
                  julia@teeplehall.com


SALVATION ARMY: Accused of Sexual & Racial Discrimination in Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David N. Brodmann v. Salvation Army, Inc., a California
corporation; Mark Nelson, an individual; and, Does 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-03137 (C.D. Cal., April 27, 2015)
alleges that Defendant Mark Nelson created a hostile work
environment through illegal sexual and racial discrimination.

According to its Web site, the Salvation Army is an international
Christian organization and part of the Universal Christian Church
whose message is based on the Bible and rooted in the Christian
faith of its members.  Defendant Mark Nelson was employed by the
Salvation Army and was an officer in the Salvation Army.  The
Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Doe
Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory M. Garrison, Esq.
          Julia M. Williams, Esq.
          TEEPLE HALL, LLP
          9255 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 500
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (858) 622-7878
          Facsimile: (858) 622-0411
          E-mail: greg@teeplehall.com
                  julia@teeplehall.com


SHELL OIL: Faces "Leonard" Suit Alleging Benzene-Related Injuries
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wilson Joseph Leonard, Jr., Individually, and Betty Leonard,
Individually v. Shell Oil Company, Shell Chemical LP, d/b/a Shell
Chemical Company Chevron USA, Inc. f/k/a Gulf Oil Corporation,
Texaco, Inc., The Dow Chemical Company, Case No. 2:15-cv-01390-
ILRL-KWR (E.D. La., April 29, 2015) alleges that Mr. Leonard was
exposed to high levels of benzene from products manufactured,
distributed or sold by the Defendants.

Benzene has been recognized as a carcinogen known to cause
leukemia, according to the complaint.  The Plaintiffs contend that
through industry and medical studies unknown to the Plaintiffs,
the Defendants knew or should have known of the health hazards
inherent in the products they manufactured, distributed, sold,
supplied, owned, transported, or used.  The Plaintiffs add that
the actions or inactions of the Defendants constitute gross
negligence and demonstrate a reckless disregard for the rights and
safety of others.

The Defendants are incorporated under the laws of Delaware and
Pennsylvania, with their principal places of business in Texas,
California and Michigan.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          L. Eric Williams, Jr., Esq.
          WILLIAMS LAW OFFICE, LLC
          433 Metairie Rd., Suite 401
          Metairie, LA 70005
          Telephone: (504) 832-9898
          Facsimile: (504) 832-9811
          E-mail: eric@amlbenzene.net

               - and -

          Mickey P. Landry, Esq.
          Frank J. Swarr, Esq.
          Philip C. Hoffman, Esq.
          Amanda J. Ballay, Esq.
          Matthew C. Clark, Esq.
          LANDRY & SWARR, L.L.C.
          1010 Common Street, Suite 2050
          New Orleans, LA 70112
          Telephone: (504) 299-1214
          Facsimile: (504) 299-1215
          E-mail: mlandry@landryswarr.com
                  fswarr@landryswarr.com
                  phoffman@landryswarr.com


SHOWTIME NETWORKS: "Gordon" Sues Over Mayweather-Pacquaio Fight
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allan H. Gordon and Seth J. Lamb, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Showtime Networks Inc., Home Box
Office, Inc., Mayweather Promotions, LLC, Top Rank, Inc., Michael
Koncz, Robert Arum, Todd Duboef and Emmanuel D. Pacquaio, Case No.
2:15-cv-02511-JHS (E.D. Pa., May 6, 2015) arises from the
May 2 "Fight of the Century" boxing match between Messrs.
Mayweather and Pacquaio.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Marc A. Goldich, Esq.
          SHELLER, P.C.
          1528 Walnut Street, 4th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 790-7300
          E-mail: mgoldich@sheller.com


SIEMENS DEMAG: Discriminates Against Black Operator, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barry Murphy v. Siemens Demag Delaval Turbomachinery, Inc., Case
No. 3:15-cv-02911 (D.N.J., April 24, 2015) alleges that the
Defendant violated the Plaintiff's Civil Rights and discriminated
against him on the basis of his race.

Mr. Murphy is a resident of Willingboro, New Jersey.  He is
African-American.  He was hired by the Defendant in June 1966 as a
radial drill press operator.  According to the complaint, Mr.
Murphy has been a satisfactory employee of the Defendant for over
four decades and is extremely experienced in his work.

Siemens Demag Delaval Turbomachinery, Inc. is a duly organized
corporation regularly conducting business in the state of New
Jersey, with a place of business in Hamilton, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard L. Frankel, Esq.
          BROSS & FRANKEL, P.A.
          102 Browning Lane, Bldg. C-1
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
          Telephone: (856) 795-8880
          Facsimile: (856) 795-1242
          E-mail: rich@ltdbenefitslaw.com

               - and -

          Kelly A. Ohlert, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF KELLY A. OHLERT, ESQ., LLC
          17 E. Germantown Pike, 2nd Floor
          Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462
          E-mail: kelly@ohlertlaw.com


SKECHERS USA: "Bailey" Suit Consolidated in Toning Shoe MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled Bailey v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., et al., Case
No. 2:15-cv-01352, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Kentucky (Louisville).  The Kentucky
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-00342-TBR to the
proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known as
In re: Skechers Toning Shoe Product Liability Litigation, MDL No.
3:11-md-02308-TBR-LLK.

The Plaintiffs in the litigation allege, among other things, that
Skechers intentionally made numerous misrepresentations, and
continues to make those representations, regarding the efficacy
and health benefits of its toning shoes, including Skechers Shape-
ups and Tone-ups.

Skechers is a shoe company that manufactures toning shoes,
including Skechers Shape-ups and Tone-ups.  Skechers markets and
promotes its toning shoes as footwear that will provide countless
health benefits including improved cardiac function and orthopedic
benefits.  Skechers markets and promotes its toning shoes to be
worn in place of other athletic shoes during daily activities,
exercise routines, and in the workplace.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard W. Schulte, Esq.
          WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC
          812 E. National Road
          Dayton, Ohio 45377
          Telephone: (937) 435-7500
          Facsimile: (937) 435-7511
          E-mail: rschulte@yourlegalhelp.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael D. Eagen, Esq.
          Susan D. Solle, Esq.
          Katrina R. Atkins, Esq.
          DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
          255 East Fifth Street, Suite 1900
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 977-8578
          Facsimile: (513) 977-8141
          E-mail: michael.eagen@dinslaw.com
                  susan.solle@dinsmore.com
                  katrina.atkins@dinslaw.com


SOUTHERN UNITED: Investigators to Probe Obama Care Funds Misuse
---------------------------------------------------------------
Connor D. Wolf, writing for The Daily Caller, reports that
according to a letter made public, federal investigators are
looking into whether Obamacare funds were misused to benefit a
union.  The letter, which was obtained by The Daily Caller News
Foundation, says the Office of Inspector General has been
investigating whether Southern United Neighborhoods and its sub
grantee, United Labor Unions Local 100, purposely misused federal
funds from the Obamacare Navigator program to recruit members.
The program was designed to help people enroll in Obamacare.

"Your request as to the disposition of your complaint poses a
question, which is outside the scope of the Freedom of Information
Act, through which individuals may request records," the letter
noted.  "However, we conducted a search for records relative to
your request and were informed there was an open and ongoing
investigation concerning this matter."

Back in September, after conducting its own research, the group
Cause of Action wrote to the OIG asking to investigate whether SUN
and Local 100 misused the federal funds.  CoA took notice after a
court case involving an individual who claimed he was owed
overtime by SUN and ULU.

"On June 16, 2014, plaintiffs Cedric Anthony ('Anthony') filed a
class action lawsuit seeking damages for unpaid overtime against
SUN and ULU under the Fair Labor Standards Act," a letter from CoA
detailed.

"Anthony alleges he was initially employed by SUN as an ACA
federal navigator, visiting community events and enrolling
individuals in healthcare," the letter continued.  "In addition to
these duties at SUN, Anthony alleges that he was directed to
recruit members for the ULU by visiting schools to register
cafeteria workers for the union."

"SUN and ULU admit that Anthony was employed by ULU," the letter
added.  "They deny, however, that Anthony was employed by SUN."

On Nov. 6, 2014, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation of
Dismissal with Prejudice which effectively closed the case.  The
Joint Stipulation meant questions raised in the case in regards to
misuse of funds were not answered, prompting the need for a
federal investigation.

"Cause of Action uncovered that ObamaCare navigator funds were not
only funneled to an ACORN-related entity, but were potentially
misused to support union activities at the behest of ACORN founder
Wade Rathke," CoA President Dan Epstein told The DCNF.

"On the basis of Cause of Action's request for an investigation,
the Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human
Services disclosed that there is 'an open and ongoing
investigation' concerning the use of the navigator funds," he
continued.  "It's encouraging to hear that HHS is conducting a
probe to ensure taxpayer dollars are used appropriately, and not
to enrich ACORN's political interests."

Republican Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch recently
estimated the administration spent over $120 million on the
Navigator program for the 2014 and 2015 open enrollment periods.

SUN and Local 100 did not respond to requests for comment from The
DCNF.


SPARK NETWORKS: "Kirby" Settlement Granted Final Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Spark Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the court granted final
approval to the settlement in the case Kirby, et al. v. Spark
Networks USA, LLC.

On October 16, 2012, Kristina Kirby, Christopher Wagner and Jamie
Carper (collectively referred to as "Plaintiffs"), on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, filed a putative
class action Complaint in the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of Los Angeles alleging claims against Spark
Networks USA, LLC for violations of California Business &
Professions Code section 17529.5. Plaintiffs allege that certain
e-mail communications advertising websites of Spark Networks USA,
LLC and received by Plaintiffs violate a California statute
prohibiting false and deceptive e-mail communications (namely,
California Business & Professions Code section 17529.5).
Plaintiffs generally allege that they seek damages in excess of
$25,000. The e-mail publishers responsible for distributing the e-
mails at issue in this litigation have agreed to furnish a
complete defense to Spark, through counsel at their own expense,
pursuant to contractual indemnification provisions. The parties
reached a settlement to resolve the action on a classwide basis
and the settlement agreement includes a full release of Spark and
the publishers.  The parties filed the necessary approval
paperwork with the court, which granted final to the settlement on
February 24, 2015.  The court entered final judgment on March 2,
2015 regarding all claims pursuant to its final approval order.
The Company recorded an accrual at December 31, 2014 for the cost
related to resolving this matter.


SPARK NETWORKS: Updates in Werner and Wright Cases
--------------------------------------------------
Spark Networks, Inc., in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, provided updates on the case
Werner, et al. v. Spark Networks, Inc. and Spark Networks USA, LLC
and Wright, et al. v. Spark Networks, Inc., Spark Networks USA,
LLC, et al.

On July 19, 2013, Aaron Werner, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated individuals, filed a putative Class Action
Complaint (the "Werner Complaint") in the Superior Court for the
State of California, County of Los Angeles against Spark Networks,
Inc. and Spark Networks USA, LLC (collectively "Spark Networks").
The Werner Complaint alleges that Spark Networks' website
ChristianMingle.com violates California's Unruh Civil Rights Act
(the "Unruh Act") by allegedly discriminating on the basis of
sexual orientation. The Werner Complaint requests the following
relief: an injunction, statutory, general, compensatory, treble
and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, pre-judgment
interest, and an award for any other relief the Court deems just
and appropriate. On December 23, 2013, Richard Wright, on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated individuals, filed a
putative Class Action Complaint (the "Wright Complaint") in the
Superior Court for the State of California, County of San
Francisco against Spark Networks, Inc. The Wright Complaint
alleges that Spark Networks' commercial dating services including
ChristianMingle.com, LDSSingles.com, CatholicMingle.com,
BlackSingles.com, MilitarySinglesConnection.com and
AdventistSinglesConnection.com violate the Unruh Act by allegedly
intentionally and arbitrarily discriminating on the basis of
sexual orientation. The Wright Complaint requests the following
relief: a declaratory judgment, a preliminary and permanent
injunction, statutory penalties, reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs, pre-judgment interest, and an award for any other relief
the Court deems just and appropriate. Management believes the
likelihood of a material adverse outcome is remote and no accrual
has been recorded for any potential loss as of December 31, 2014.


SPARK NETWORKS: Updates on Ben-Jacob, Gever and Korland Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
Spark Networks, Inc., in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, provided updates on the case
Ben-Jacob vs. Spark Networks (Israel) Ltd., Gever vs. Spark
Networks (Israel) Ltd. and Korland vs. Spark Networks (Israel)
Ltd.

Three class action law suits have been filed in Israel alleging
violations of the Israel Consumer Protection Law of 1981. Spark
was served with a Statement of Claim and a Motion to Certify it as
a Class Action in the Ben-Jacob action on January 14, 2014. The
plaintiff alleges that Spark Networks (Israel) Ltd. ("Spark
Networks") refused to cancel her subscription and provide a refund
for unused periods and claims that such a refusal is in violation
of the Consumer Protection Law. Spark Networks was served with a
Statement of Claim and a motion to Certify it as a Class Action in
the Gever action on January 21, 2014. The plaintiff alleges that
Spark Networks renewed his one month subscription without
receiving his positive agreement in advance and claims that such
renewal is prohibited under the Consumer Protection Law. Spark
Networks was served with a Statement of Claim and a Motion to
Certify it as a Class Action in the Korland action on February 12,
2014. The plaintiff alleges that Spark Networks refused to give
her a full refund and charged her the price of a one month
subscription to the JDate website in violation of the Consumer
Protection Law. In each of these three cases, the plaintiff is
seeking personal damages and damages on behalf of a defined group.
On May 8, 2014, the Court granted Spark Networks' motion to
consolidate all three cases. All three cases are now consolidated
and will be litigated jointly. Spark Networks' combined response
to their motions to certify the classes was filed November 1, 2014
and the plaintiffs responded to the combined response. The parties
had a hearing before the judge on December 24, 2014.  Following
the hearing the judge ordered that the pleadings filed by the
parties be transferred to the Israel Consumer Council ("ICC") so
that the ICC can provide its position as to the parties
allegations within 90 days.


SPECTRUM HUMAN: Accused of Racial Discrimination and Retaliation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy M. Martin v. Spectrum Human Services, Inc., Spectrum
Community Services, Sharon Blain, and Delissa Payne, Case No.
1:15-cv-00453 (W.D. Mich., April 29, 2015) seeks damages for
alleged racial discrimination and retaliation in violation of both
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil
Rights Act.

Tracy Martin is an African American female and a resident of the
City of Kentwood, County of Kent, state of Michigan.

Spectrum Human Services, Inc. is a domestic nonprofit corporation
organized in Michigan.  Spectrum Community Services is a Michigan
domestic nonprofit corporation and is an affiliate of Spectrum
Human Services.  The Individual Defendants are managers, officers
or agents of the Corporate Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christine A. Yared, Esq.
          CHRISTINE A. YARED, PLC
          2503 Mason Ridge Court NE
          Grand Rapids, MI 49525
          Telephone: (616) 363-9041
          E-mail: cayared@comcast.net


SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Urges Dismissal of Shareholder Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company has
filed a reply in support of its motion to dismiss the Shareholder
Litigation.

John Perry v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. (Filed March
14, 2013 in United States District Court, District of Nevada; Case
Number 2:2013-cv-00433-LDG-CWH. This putative consolidated class
action raises substantially identical claims and allegations
against defendants Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Dr. Rajesh C.
Shrotriya, Brett L. Scott, and Joseph Kenneth Keller. The alleged
class period is August 8, 2012 to March 12, 2013. The lawsuits
allege a violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 against all defendants and control person liability, as a
violation of Section 20(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
against the individual defendants. The claims purportedly stem
from the Company's March 12, 2013 press release, in which it
announced that it anticipated a change in ordering patterns of
FUSILEV. The complaints allege that, as a result of the March 12,
2013 press release, the Company's stock price declined. The
complaints further allege that during the putative class period
certain defendants made misleadingly optimistic statements about
FUSILEV sales, which inflated the trading price of Company stock.
The lawsuits seek relief in the form of monetary damages, costs
and fees, and any other equitable or injunctive relief that the
court deems appropriate.

On March 21, 2014, the Court entered an order appointing Arkansas
Teacher Retirement System as lead plaintiff. On May 20, 2014,
Arkansas Teacher Retirement System filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint.

"On July 18, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended class action complaint. On September 19, 2014, Arkansas
Teacher Retirement System filed an opposition to our motion to
dismiss. On October 17, 2014, we filed a reply in support of our
motion to dismiss," the Company said.


STAAR SURGICAL: To File Motion to Dismiss Edward Todd Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Staar Surgical Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended January 2, 2015, that the Company intends to
file a motion to dismiss the complaint in the case by Edward Todd.

On July 8, 2014, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed by Edward Todd against STAAR and three officers in the
federal court located in Los Angeles, California. The plaintiff
claims that STAAR made misleading statements to and omitted
material information from our investors between February 27, 2013
and June 30, 2014 about alleged regulatory violations at STAAR's
Monrovia manufacturing facility. On July 21, 2014, the Company was
served with the Complaint. Although the ultimate outcome of this
action cannot be determined with certainty, the Company believes
that the allegations in the Complaint are without merit. The
Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. The
Company intends to file a motion to dismiss the complaint, when
appropriate, in the ongoing proceeding. On October 20, 2014,
plaintiff amended its complaint, dismissed two Company officers,
added one other officer, and reduced the alleged Class Period to
November 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014.


SUNRISE CITY, FL: Police Dep't Faces "Nigro" Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Carol Nigro, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Officer E. Carrasquillo, City of Sunrise Police
Department, Individually and in his Official Capacity, Case No.
0:15-cv-60919-JIC (S.D. Fla., April 30, 2015) seeks relief under
the Civil Rights Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cullin Avram O'Brien, Esq.
          CULLIN O'BRIEN LAW, P.A.
          6541 NE 21st Way
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308
          Telephone: (561) 676-6370
          Facsimile: (561) 320-0285
          E-mail: cullin@cullinobrienlaw.com


SYMMETRY SURGICAL: Parties Settled Merger Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Symmetry Surgical Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that parties settled a class
action suit prior to the consummation of the merger transaction,
for no additional consideration and a few additional disclosures
filed in a Form 8-k, although left the issue of a claim for fees
and costs for resolution at a later time, either through agreement
or via a court hearing.

On September 29, 2014, a purported class action complaint
challenging the company's former parent's merger and the Company's
spin-out as a stand-alone public company was filed by Resolution
Partners, an alleged stockholder of SMI, and all others similarly
situated, in the Kosciusko Circuit Court in the state of Indiana.
The complaint named as defendants Symmetry Medical Inc. ("SMI"),
the members of the board of directors of SMI, Genstar Capital LLC,
Tecomet's sponsor ("Genstar"), Tecomet, Holdings and TecoSym Inc.
The complaint generally alleges, among other things, that the
members of the SMI board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties to Resolution Partners and SMI stockholders during merger
negotiations and by entering into the Merger Agreement and
approving the Merger, and that Genstar and Tecomet allegedly aided
and abetted such alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.

The complaint further alleges that the joint proxy
statement/prospectus filed by Symmetry Surgical with the SEC on
September 5, 2014, which contained the preliminary proxy statement
of SMI, was misleading or omitted certain allegedly material
information. The complaint sought, among other relief, injunctive
relief enjoining consummation of the Merger, compensatory and/or
rescissory damages in an unspecified amount and costs and fees.

The parties settled the suit prior to the consummation of the
transaction, for no additional consideration and a few additional
disclosures filed in a Form 8-k, although left the issue of a
claim for fees and costs for resolution at a later time, either
through agreement or via a court hearing. The Company has agreed
with SMI to share equally in any fee award, up to 50% of the
remaining insurance deductible. The Company does not believe this
will have a significant impact on its financial position, results
of operations or cash flows.


SYNGENTA AG: Farmers' GMO Corn Suits Gathering Momentum
-------------------------------------------------------
Orlan Love, writing for The Gazette, reports that it would be hard
not to notice all the "Iowa Corn Lawsuit" advertisements popping
up recently on websites accessed by Iowans.

Click on one, and you will be informed that thousands of farmers
and corn sellers are filing lawsuits against the multinational
biotech company Syngenta, which introduced a genetically modified
corn seed, Agrisure Viptera, long before it had secured approval
from U.S. trade partner China.

The lawsuits seek to compensate farmers for alleged financial
losses suffered when corn prices fell following China's rejection
of more than 1 million tons of U.S. corn after it found traces of
the Syngenta trait commingled with most shipments.

"Syngenta believes the lawsuits have no merit," company spokesman
Paul Minehart said.

The company commercialized Agrisure Viptera is in full compliance
with regulatory and legal requirements, he said.

China's ban on U.S. corn from November 2013 through December 2014
-- "is absolutely a factor in lower corn prices" during that
period, said Solon farmer Ed Ulch, who has signed up to
participate in the lawsuits.

"Everyone I know will be signing up (for the lawsuit) except
Syngenta dealers," Mr. Ulch said.

Mr. Ulch hopes the lawsuits will send a message to Syngenta to be
more responsible in its introduction of new products

Linn County farmer Curt Zingula said he has not yet signed on as a
plaintiff but intends to.

Mr. Zingula said he knew at the time that the loss of the China
market adversely would affect grain prices.

"I figured I was going to be a victim," he said.

Though the lawsuits hold promise for recovery, Mr. Zingula added
he remains skeptical that they will succeed.

The biggest hurdle, he said, will be "nailing down how much of the
decline in corn prices can be attributed to the loss of the China
market."

The National Grain & Feed Association estimates damages suffered
by U.S. farmers and grain exporters from the drop in corn prices
exceed $1 billion.

Grain exporters Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland and Trans Coastal
Supply have all filed individual lawsuits against Syngenta seeking
damages linked to China's rejection of shipments, and several law
firms are recruiting individual farmers as plaintiffs, including
Des Moines lawyer Jeff Link, whose "Iowa Corn Lawsuit" ads have
yielded 700 Iowa clients in recent weeks.

"The number is going up every day.  We signed up 50 in the last
two days," Mr. Link said.

Mr. Link said the lawsuit "has nothing to do with whether
genetically modified products are good or bad."  His clients, he
said, are seeking damages from a company that "shifted all the
risk inherent in introducing a new GMO product from itself to the
backs of farmers."  Link acknowledges that several factors,
including prospective corn surpluses, caused the decline in corn
prices in 2013.

"But Syngenta's actions contributed in a significant way," he
said.

Link said he is working with Texas attorney Mikal Watts, who has
filed more than 3,000 individual lawsuits against Syngenta.  As
with Watts, Link said he will file his claims in Minnesota state
court.  Rather than consolidating the individual suits in a class
action, Link said they would be combined in a single civil action,
known as a mass tort.

Critical advances

Roger Zylstra, chairman of the Iowa Corn Growers Association board
of directors, said he believes the basis of the lawsuits is
"totally misguided."

Mr. Zylstra, who will not participate in the lawsuits, said
technological advances are critical to agriculture's future
success and that trading partners should not exercise undue
influence over their introduction.

Though Syngenta had not secured China's approval when it
introduced the Viptera seeds, "China was not a major importer of
corn at the time," said Mr. Zylstra, who farms near Lynnville.

Moreover, he said, "Corn prices were already going down (because
of anticipated surpluses and other factors) before the Chinese
embargo took effect."

The U.S. Department of Agriculture approved Agrisure Viptera,
which was genetically altered to contain a protein that kills
common corn pests such as earworms and cutworms, in 2010.  The
company began selling it to farmers in 2011.  The trait had been
approved "in the key import markets recommended at the time by the
National Corn Growers Association and other industry
associations," according to a Syngenta website.  That website also
noted that Monsanto and Dow have launched U.S.-approved corn
traits in the United States without first securing Chinese import
approval.

The website also cited the USDA statement that the commodity price
of corn declined 32 percent -- from $6.79 to $4.63 a bushel --
between July and October 2013 -- before China's rejection of U.S.
corn a month later.

Des Moines attorney Link said he sees strong parallels between the
Syngenta case and an earlier case in which his Watts, his Texas
colleague, helped negotiate a $750 million settlement in 2011 with
Bayer Crop Sciences for U.S. rice farmers harmed by the reduction
of rice prices caused by contamination of the supply by GMO rice.

It was not as if no one foresaw the problem.

Out of concern that the lack of Chinese import approval could
disrupt trade, Bunge North America, a grain shipment company with
scores of facilities including grain terminals at McGregor and
Burlington, refused to accept Viptera corn in the summer of 2011.

Syngenta sued Bunge, asserting that its reputation and good will
with clients would be threatened if Bunge persisted in its
refusal.

A federal-district court rejected Syngenta's request for an
injunction forcing Bunge to accept Viptera corn, stating that its
refusal was a legitimate and reasonable business decision.

Bunge's position generally was upheld in succeeding court clashes
before both sides agreed to dismiss the case just before China's
import approval in December.


TAKATA CORP: "Shmil" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Shmil v. Takata Corporation, et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01634, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami).  The
Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-21609-FAM
to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is included in the multidistrict litigation known as
In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1:15-
md-02599-FAM.

The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from
allegations that certain Takata-manufactured airbags are defective
in that they can violently explode and eject metal debris,
resulting in injury or even death.  The Plaintiffs allege that
Takata and the various motor vehicle manufacturer defendants
became aware of the defect years ago, but concealed their
knowledge from safety regulators and the public.


TAKATA CORP: "Taylor" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Taylor v. Takata Corporation, et
al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00303, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami).  The
Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-21611-FAM
to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is included in the multidistrict litigation known as
In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1:15-
md-02599-FAM.

The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from
allegations that certain Takata-manufactured airbags are defective
in that they can violently explode and eject metal debris,
resulting in injury or even death.  The Plaintiffs allege that
Takata and the various motor vehicle manufacturer defendants
became aware of the defect years ago, but concealed their
knowledge from safety regulators and the public.


THURSTON CTY, NE: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of Civil Rights
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Parker and Gloria J. Payer, and those Similarly Situated v.
Thurston County, Nebraska, Caroline Frenchman, Darren Wolf,
Georgia Maymberry, Leonard Peters, Greg Jump, Dan Trimble, Mark
English, The Village of Walthill, an Entity within the Omaha
Reservation and within Thurston County, Nebraska, Mike Grant, Gwen
Porter, Vida Stabler, Drew Kingare, Michael Sr. Wolfe, Earlene
Hradec, Randy Urbanec, Douglas L. Luebe, Nora H. Goll, Shelly
Perez and State of Nebraska, Case No. 8:15-cv-00159-TDT (D. Neb.,
May 1, 2015) seeks relief under the Civil Rights Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul W. Madgett, Esq.
          PAUL MADGETT
          1111 South 90th Street
          Omaha, NE 68154
          Telephone: (402) 594-6545
          E-mail: paulwayne41@yahoo.com


TOYS R US: Judge Sends Dresser Case Back to Beaver County Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a federal judge has ruled that a suit against Toys R Us, Babies R
Us and others involving two children who were killed by a falling
dresser can be sent back from federal court to the Beaver County
Court of Common Pleas.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy of the Western District of
Pennsylvania granted plaintiff Deborah DeCostro's motion to remand
based on a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.  Prior to
Ms. DeCostro's motion, defendants Toys R Us, Babies R Us and
former assistant store manager Michael Blain filed a notice of
removal to federal court.

Ms. DeCostro, a lawyer who administers the estates of Ryeley E.
Beatty and Brooklyn N. Beatty, sued Baby Cache Inc. along with the
other defendants after a dresser purchased from the defendants
tipped over and asphyxiated Brooklyn and Ryeley, who died at ages
2 and 3, respectively.

According to Judge Eddy's memorandum, the defendants argued that
DeCostro had no standing to bring Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) claims against Mr. Blain -- who
the defendants claim was fraudulently joined in the suit to
circumvent diversity jurisdiction -- because DeCostro was not the
purchaser of the dresser.

However, Judge Eddy said Ms. DeCostro had a right to make those
claims as a representative of the deceased plaintiffs.

"Defendants do not cite any case law holding that a representative
of minor decedents may not bring a UTPCPL claim solely as a legal
representative of the minor decedents' estates," Ms. Eddy said.
"The complaint alleges that the dresser was purchased on behalf of
the minor decedents and in justifiable reliance of the alleged
misrepresentations made by Blain.  The minor decedents were
incapable of purchasing this equipment for themselves at the time
of the sale and plaintiff DeCostro is bringing this action on
their behalf solely in a representative capacity."

The plaintiffs' motion to remand, highlighted in Judge Eddy's
opinion, said that the dresser was sold to the children's mother
and grandmother by Mr. Blain, who "misrepresented the condition of
the subject dresser as meeting all applicable safety standards
thereby through deceptive means inducing the minor decedents'
mother and grandmother into purchasing the subject dresser for
them."

"Additionally," the motion continued, "it is alleged that
defendant Blain sold the dresser at a reduced price as a floor
model when in fact the price had been reduced because the dresser
lacked appropriate labels, warnings, and anchoring devices."

Mr. Blain's alleged conduct, Ms. DeCostro claimed, amounted to
unfair business practices under the UTPCPL because the deceased
minors' mother and grandmother relied on Mr. Blain's description
of the dresser when deciding to purchase it.

In opposition, the defendants argued that Ms. DeCostro failed to
put forth a "viable" UTPCPL claim.  However, Judge Eddy said
viability had nothing to do with joinders.

Judge Eddy cited the guidelines governing joinders, which stated
that joinders are fraudulent only when "there is no reasonable
basis in fact or colorable ground supporting the claim against the
joined defendant, or no real intention in good faith to prosecute
the action against the defendants or seek a joint judgment."

"In other words," Judge Eddy said, "the court need only assess
whether the plaintiff's claims are 'wholly insubstantial or
frivolous.'"

Based on that reasoning, Judge Eddy said the defendants failed to
meet the burden of proving that Ms. DeCostro had no standing to
file suit, nor did they prove that a representative of deceased
minors cannot bring a claim under the UTPCPL.

"Accordingly, the court finds that Blain was not fraudulently
joined in this matter," Judge Eddy said.  "Whether plaintiffs have
stated a claim against Blain for violation of the UTPCPL is not
for this court to decide, as the court finds that it lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction to make such a determination."

Kelly M. Tocci of McMillen, Urick, Tocci, Fouse & Jones in
Aliquippa represented Ms. DeCostro and said the next step is to
get the case under way.

"We don't even have an actual answer to the complaint from the
defendants yet, so they'll respond and then we'll get into
discovery," Ms. Tocci said.

Thomas P. Birris of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin
represented Baby Cache, and Judith A. Moses of Cipriani & Werner
in Pittsburgh represented Toys R Us, Babies R Us and Blain. None
of the attorneys returned calls seeking comment.


TRICO BANCSHARES: Parties in Shareholder Suit in Settlement Talks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TriCo Bancshares said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the parties in a
shareholder class action lawsuit will negotiate in good faith and
use their reasonable best efforts to enter into a stipulation of
settlement.

On January 24, 2014, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed against TriCo, North Valley Bancorp and certain other
defendants in connection with TriCo entering into the merger
agreement with North Valley Bancorp. The lawsuit, which was filed
in the Shasta County, California Superior Court, alleges that the
members of the North Valley Bancorp board of directors breached
their fiduciary duties to North Valley Bancorp shareholders by
approving the proposed merger for inadequate consideration;
approving the transaction in order receive benefits not equally
shared by other North Valley Bancorp shareholders; entering into
the merger agreement containing preclusive deal protection
devices; and failing to take steps to maximize the value to be
paid to the North Valley Bancorp shareholders. The lawsuit alleges
claims against TriCo for aiding and abetting these alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties. The plaintiff seeks, among other
things, declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties injunctive relief prohibiting
consummation of the merger, rescission, attorneys' of the merger
agreement, fees and costs, and other and further relief.

On July 31, 2014 the defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the plaintiffs regarding the settlement of this
lawsuit. In connection with the settlement contemplated by the
memorandum of understanding and in consideration for the full
settlement and release of all claims, TriCo and North Valley
Bancorp agreed to make certain additional disclosures related to
the proposed merger, which are contained in a Current Report on
Form 8-K filed by each of the companies. The memorandum of
understanding contemplates that the parties will negotiate in good
faith and use their reasonable best efforts to enter into a
stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement will be
subject to customary conditions, including court approval
following notice to North Valley Bancorp's shareholders.

In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of
settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the court will
consider the settlement. There can be no assurance that the
parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or
that the court will approve the settlement even if the parties
were to enter into such stipulation. In such event, the proposed
settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may
be terminated.


TRICO BANCSHARES: Filed Answer to Former Banker's Suit
------------------------------------------------------
TriCo Bancshares said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a former Personal Banker
at one of the Bank's in-store branches filed on September 15,
2014, a Class Action Complaint against the Bank in Butte County
Superior Court, alleging causes of action related to the
observance of meal periods. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class
of "current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt 'personal
bankers', or employees with the same or similar job duties,
employed by Defendants within the State of California during the
preceding four years." The Bank filed an Answer to the Complaint
on November 6, 2014, denies the charges, and the Bank intends to
vigorously defend the lawsuit against class certification and
liability.


TRICO BANCSHARES: Faces Class Action by Current Personal Banker
---------------------------------------------------------------
TriCo Bancshares said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on January 20, 2015, a
current Personal Banker at one of the Bank's in-store branches
filed a First Amended Complaint against Tri Counties Bank and
TriCo Bancshares, dba Tri Counties Bank, in Sacramento County
Superior Court, alleging causes of action related to wage
statement violations. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of
current and former exempt and non-exempt employees who worked for
the Bank "during the time period beginning October 18, 2013
through the date of the filing of this action". The Company and
the Bank have not yet responded to the First Amended Complaint,
deny the charges, and intend to vigorously defend the lawsuit
against class certification and liability.


UBER TECH: Taxi Drivers Not Employees, Mass. Supreme Court Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marlisse Silver Sweeney, writing for Law.com, reports that last
year's big driver-as-employee-versus-independent-contractor debate
focused on Uber and Lyft.  This year, it's widening to yellow
cabs.  According to Jessica Catlow -- JCatlow@mintz.com -- of
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, the Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court, the state's highest court, recently was
called on to decide whether taxi drivers were independent
contractors.

"Rather than the medallion owners and dispatchers establishing a
series of rules governing how the drivers operated the cars and
picked up passengers, all parties operated under a detailed regime
of regulations governing the Boston taxicab industry," explains
Ms. Catlow.  In this case, the drivers leased medallions (a form
of taxi license) from the owners under an agreement dictating that
they were independent contractors. However, the taxi drivers
claimed they were improperly classified.

The court disagreed with the drivers, explaining they met the
three-part test for independent contractors under state law, which
required them to be (1) free from control and direction; (2)
provide services outside the usual course of the employer's
business; and (3) engage in an independently established trade or
occupation.  But don't let this decision act as the bible on the
matter.  Ms. Catlow notes the "employee/independent contractor
dichotomy contains much gray," and businesses must make the
classification call based on their own unique facts.


UBER TECH: Legal Department Expands Following Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------
David Ruiz, writing for The Recorder, reports that expanding to
more than 300 cities throughout 57 countries requires a little
legal work. So does raising a couple billion dollars.  To carry
that load, ride-hailing service Uber has built a 43-lawyer legal
department almost overnight.  Thirty-three of the company's 36
U.S.-based lawyers have joined since Jan. 1, 2014, according to a
Recorder analysis of bar records and LinkedIn profiles.  The 70-
person department includes 20 paralegals and seven admins.

The company's longest serving lawyer, general counsel Salle Yoo,
has her hands full.  The private company's disruption of regulated
taxi businesses, controversies over its handling of customer data
and security, and its independent contractor model have all drawn
regulatory scrutiny -- and lawsuits.  In the last year, Ms. Yoo
has hired a pair of lieutenants, one for corporate work, another
for litigation. Earlier this year, Uber brought in a former
federal prosecutor to serve as chief security officer.  Both Ms.
Yoo and the new CSO, Joe Sullivan, report in to CEO Travis
Kalanick.

"Growing from zero to 30 or more in a matter of months, the
challenge there is certainly hiring," said DLA Piper of counsel
Dan Cooperman -- dan.cooperman@dlapiper.com -- who previously
served as general counsel to Oracle Corp. and Apple Inc.  "When
you get an avalanche of matters at one time, the first thing you
need to do is hire outside counsel, but that's only an immediate
solution.  It's not a long term one."

In July 2014, Uber brought aboard former Covington & Burling
lawyer Todd Hamblet to manage the company's corporate deals,
according to an individual who works with Mr. Hamblet.  In
December, Uber raised an additional $1.2 billion in funding with
help from Fenwick & West, putting the company's value at around
$40 billion.

At the start of this year, the company brought in Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher alumnus Lindsey Blenkhorn Haswell to help manage
litigation, said a separate individual who serves as outside
counsel to the company.  Uber is a defendant in 31 cases across
the United States.  It's turned to a wide array of firms for those
matters, including Gibson Dunn, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan,
Littler Mendelson, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Irell & Manella, Locke
Lord, Reed Smith, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, Davis Wright
Tremaine and Clarence Dyer & Cohen.

Mr. Cooperman said that retaining a smattering of firms is normal
for a young company facing an "explosion" of work for the first
time, especially in Silicon Valley.

"Trying out a lot of different approaches to your outside counsel
and having quite a number of firms is very natural and
appropriate," Mr. Cooperman said.  "Over time the lawyers in the
company will identify specific skills and gravitate to a select
few firms, but in the moment, there will be a lot of movement."

Already, the company seems to be gravitating toward Gibson Dunn
for headline-grabbing matters.  In April it dropped a Morgan Lewis
& Bockius team for Gibson Dunn in a Northern District wage-and-
hour class action challenging the classification of drivers as
independent contractors.  It also hired Gibson Dunn to defend a
suit filed by a customer allegedly raped by an Uber driver in
India.

In hiring Sullivan, Uber's new chief security officer, the company
called it a key step in ensuring the safety of its customers and
their data.

Sullivan previously worked as associate general counsel at both
Facebook and PayPal, and served as an assistant United States
attorney in the Northern District of California.

GROWTH CURVE

Ms. Yoo started her career at Davis Wright & Tremaine, in 1999,
and initially handled regulatory matters for energy clients at the
California Public Utilities Commission.  She moved on to
litigation -- and that combination of experience as well as her
familiarity with the CPUC, made her an ideal candidate when Uber
looked to make its first legal hire.  Uber had tangled with the
CPUC since it was launched in 2010, and Davis Wright was its
counsel.

"They were looking for her, exactly her," said Stephen Greenwald,
a Davis Wright partner who headed the energy group where Ms. Yoo
practiced.  Shortly after Ms. Yoo was hired, the CPUC fined Uber
and other ride-hailing services $20,000 for illegally operating in
California.  By the following year, the CPUC officially authorized
ridesharing services, though Uber continued to challenge its
authority to regulate it at all.

At Davis Wright, Ms. Yoo was known for organizing a series of
speakers on a wide range of topics.  The San Francisco Chronicle's
architecture critic, John King, was one.  She also invited
politicians, including current S.F. supervisor David Chiu, and
John Burton, the California Democratic Party chairman.
Ms. Yoo, who speaks Korean, has also been a diversity advocate,
both at her firm and at Uber.

Uber declined to make Ms. Yoo available for an interview.
Last year, a Recorder analysis of diversity efforts at tech
companies found that Uber, and Ms. Yoo, were known for seeking out
diverse lawyers as outside counsel.

Fenwick & West partner Gordon Davidson praised Ms. Yoo for her
ability to quickly grow the department.  "Litigators are very good
at being calm in a crisis and sorting out what's important and
what isn't," Davidson said.

Ms. Yoo's hires have come from a variety of firms and companies.
She has taken three lawyers from her alma mater and another three
from Covington & Burling.  The Covington lawyers all have a
corporate background.  Aaron Melville, managing counsel for
transaction and product, joined Uber from The Walt Disney Co. and
Josh Andrews, senior counsel in the same department, came from
Lucasfilm Ltd.

The average in-house Uber attorney in California has a little more
than nine years of experience under their belt, and few recent
grads are in the department.  Part of the headache of moving into
so many countries is that local legal counsel is needed for many
jurisdictions.  DLA Piper's Cooperman said Uber's next biggest
hurdle will be coordinating and figuring out all the legal issues
caused by their rapid expansion outside of the United States.

"It's not only a challenge because of the volume of the issues,
but the relevant, governing law will require hiring outside
counsel for help," Mr. Cooperman said.  "Uber will also have to
hire its own people in the jurisdictions where it's doing
business."

According to LinkedIn, several attorneys have worked for Uber in
the company's Amsterdam office.  According to the company's
website, it is currently looking for an associate general counsel,
two corporate counsel, one privacy counsel and one senior
transactional counsel for that office, which seems to serve as a
hub for other international operations. (According to an Uber
court filing in April, users of Uber's app in India are
contracting with Uber's Netherlands-based affiliate, Uber B.V.).
The company also has listings for counsel in China, Brazil, Mexico
and India.

Keeping up with Uber's scale may be Ms. Yoo's biggest challenge.
"When you're confronted with challenges of growth, just know that
you're going to make mistakes," Mr. Cooperman said.  "But the
biggest mistake is inaction.  You don't have the luxury of taking
your time."

Morgan Lewis partner Joan Haratani said she got to know Ms.  Yoo
through their work advancing minority representation, and called
her a role model for younger lawyers.  "I do litigation, and
regulation work uses a different part of my brain," she said.
"It's like saying you do people medicine and also veterinary
medicine."


UNITED TRANZACTIONS: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John C. Pawlowski, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. United Tranzactions, LLC and Janet Eden,
Case No. 2:15-cv-02330-MAK (E.D. Pa., April 28, 2015) seeks relief
over alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David A. Searles, Esq.
          John Soumilas, Esq.
          Lauren KW Brennan, Esq.
          James A. Francis, Esq.
          FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
          Land Title Building, 19th Floor
          100 South Broad Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19110
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600
          Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
          E-mail: dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
                  lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com


URANERZ ENERGY: Defending Against Suit Over Energy Fuels Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Uranerz Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on January 6, 2015,
January 9, 2015, January 13, 2015, January 14, 2015, January 15,
2015, January 15, 2015, January 16, 2015, January 20, 2015 January
21, 2015, and February 9, 2015, ten putative class action
complaints captioned William Barrett v. Uranerz Energy Corp. et
al., Case No. A-15-711942-C; Eric Foreman v. Uranerz Energy Corp.
et al., Case No. A-15-712125-C; Chester Travirca v. Uranerz Energy
Corp. et al., Case No. A-15-712318-C; Frances Heims v. Uranerz
Energy Corp. et al., Case No. A-15-712379-C; Howard H. Bouch v.
Uranerz Energy Corp. et al., Case No. A-15-712441-B; Harry
Toderash v. Dennis Higgs et al., Case No. A-15-712433-C; Bernard
Stern v. Uranerz Energy Corp. et al., Case No. Case No. A-15-
712618-B; David R. Lang v. Uranerz Energy Corp. et al., Case No.
CV15-00115, Richard Herman Zimmer v. Uranerz Energy Corp. et al.,
Case No. A-15-712718-B and Gerald Lee Prewitt v. Uranerz Energy
Corp. et al., Case No. A-15-713683-C, respectively, were filed on
behalf of an alleged class of Uranerz stockholders in the District
Court, Clark County, Nevada (except for the Lang action, which was
filed in the District Court, Washoe County, Nevada).

The Company said, "The complaints name as defendants Uranerz
(except for the Toderasch action, which does not name Uranerz),
all members of our Board of Directors, Energy Fuels, Inc., and EFR
Nevada Corp (except for the Foreman action, which does not name
EFR Nevada Corp.). Each of the complaints alleges that the members
of our Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to our
stockholders in connection with the Merger and that Uranerz,
Energy Fuels, Inc. and EFR Nevada Corp. aided and abetted the
Directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. Plaintiffs claim
that the Merger is proposed at an unfair price and involves an
inadequate and unfair sales process, self-dealing, and
unreasonable deal-protection devices. The complaints seek
injunctive relief, including to enjoin or rescind the Merger,
damages, and an award of unspecified attorneys' and other fees and
costs, in addition to other relief. We believe that the claims
asserted in the complaints have no merit, and we and all of the
members of the Board of Directors intend to defend vigorously
against them."


VISION FINANCIAL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rivka Mandel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Vision Financial Corp., Case No. 1:15-cv-02595-RRM-RML
(E.D.N.Y., May 6, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Palace, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID PALACE
          383 Kingston Avenue, #113
          Brooklyn, NY 11213
          Telephone: (347) 651-1077
          Facsimile: (347) 464-0012
          E-mail: davidpalace@gmail.com


VIVINT SOLAR: Final Settlement Agreement to Occur Mid-2015
----------------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company anticipates
final court approval of the settlement agreement to occur sometime
mid-2015.

The Company said, "In December 2013, one of our former sales
representatives, on behalf of himself and a purported class, filed
a complaint for unspecified damages, injunctive relief and
restitution in the Superior Court of the State of California in
and for the County of San Diego against Vivint Solar Developer,
LLC, one of our subsidiaries, and unnamed John Doe defendant
alleging violations of the California Labor Code and the
California Business and Professions Code and seeking penalties of
an unspecified amount, interest on all economic damages and
reasonable attorney's fees and costs. In addition, the complaint
requests an injunction, which would enjoin us from similar
violations of California's Labor Code and Business and Professions
Code, and restitution of costs to the plaintiff and purported
class members under California's unfair competition law."

"In January 2014, we filed an answer denying the allegations in
the complaint and asserting various affirmative defenses. In late
2014, the parties agreed to terms of settlement to resolve this
case, depending on class participation. The final settlement
agreement is subject to court approval, which we anticipate to
occur sometime mid-2015. We have recorded a $0.4 million reserve
related to this proceeding in our condensed consolidated financial
statements."


VIVINT SOLAR: Answersto Former Installation Technicians' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company has filed an
answer to the amended complaint filed by former installation
technicians.

The Company said, "In September 2014, two of our former
installation technicians, on behalf of themselves and a purported
class, filed a complaint for damages, injunctive relief and
restitution in the Superior Court of the State of California in
and for the County of San Diego against us and unnamed John Doe
defendants. The complaint alleges certain violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code based on, among other things, alleged improper classification
of installer technicians, installer helpers, electrician
technicians and electrician helpers, failure to pay minimum and
overtime wages, failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, and failure to provide wages on termination."

"In December 2014, the original plaintiffs and three additional
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with essentially the same
allegations. On February 5, 2015, we filed an answer to the
amended complaint, denying liability and asserting a number of
defenses. We believe that we have strong defenses to the claims
asserted in this matter, and we intend to defend the case
vigorously. Although we cannot predict with certainty the ultimate
resolution of this suit, we do not believe this matter will have a
material adverse effect on our business, results of operations,
cash flows or financial condition."


VIVINT SOLAR: Plaintiffs Filed Amended Complaint in "Hyatt" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that plaintiffs have filed a
consolidated amended complaint in the case Hyatt v. Vivint Solar,
Inc. et al.

The Company said, "Beginning in November 2014, two putative class
action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against us, our directors, certain
of our officers and the underwriters of our initial public
offering of common stock alleging violation of securities laws and
seeking unspecified damages. In January 2015, the Court ordered
these cases to be consolidated into the earlier filed case, Hyatt
v. Vivint Solar, Inc. et al., 14-cv-9283 (KBF). The plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended complaint in February 2015. We
believe this lawsuit is without merit, and we intend to defend the
case vigorously. We are unable to estimate a range of loss, if
any, that could result were there to be an adverse final decision.
If an unfavorable outcome were to occur in this case, it is
possible that the impact could be material to our results of
operations in the period(s) in which any such outcome becomes
probable and estimable."


WALGREEN CO: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
James Mears, individually v. Walgreen Co., Case No. 0:15-cv-60883-
DMM (S.D. Fla., April 24, 2015) is an action for injunctive
relief, declaration or rights, attorneys' fees, litigation
expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities
Act and pertains to five separate properties owned, operated, or
controlled by the Defendant.

Mr. Mears is a resident of Broward County, Florida.  He is
wheelchair bound, and suffers from severe lymphedema and
osteoarthritis that has rendered him unable to ambulate without a
motorized device.

Walgreen Co. is a corporation authorized to do business in
Florida.  Walgreen owns, leases, leases to, or operates places of
public accommodation.  The Florida properties at issue are located
in Coral Springs, Fort Lauderdale, Weston, and Plantation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel B. Reinfeld, Esq.
          DANIEL B. REINFELD PA
          2450 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 706
          Hollywood, FL 33020
          Telephone: (954) 923-6110
          Facsimile: (954) 628-5054
          E-mail: dan@reinfeldlaw.com


WALGREEN CO: Fails to Provide Accessible Facilities, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
James Mears, individually v. Walgreen Co., Case No. 0:15-cv-60881-
JIC (S.D. Fla., April 24, 2015) alleges that the Defendant has
discriminated, and continues to discriminate, against the
Plaintiff, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act by
failing, inter alia, to have accessible facilities.

Mr. Mears is a resident of Broward County, Florida.  He is
wheelchair bound, and suffers from severe lymphedema and
osteoarthritis that has rendered him unable to ambulate without a
motorized device.

Walgreen Co. is a corporation authorized to do business in
Florida.  Walgreen owns, leases, leases to, or operates places of
public accommodation.  The Florida properties at issue are located
in Coral Springs, Fort Lauderdale, Weston, and Plantation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel B. Reinfeld, Esq.
          DANIEL B. REINFELD PA
          2450 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 706
          Hollywood, FL 33020
          Telephone: (954) 923-6110
          Facsimile: (954) 628-5054
          E-mail: dan@reinfeldlaw.com


WORLD WRESTLING: Responds to Concussion Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Jay Anderson, writing for What Culture, reports that with news of
a class action lawsuit launched by three former wrestlers (Luther
Reigns, Ryan Sakoda, and Big Russ McCullough) against the WWE over
brain injuries and accusing the company of concealing evidence
regarding concussions making the rounds, legal counsel for the
wrestling promotion has responded -- both officially, and less
than officially.

In an official statement posted to WWE.com, Jerry McDevitt, WWE's
outside legal counsel, stated;

"This lawsuit is virtually identical to one filed by the same
lawyers in Oregon, neither of which have any merit.  WWE has never
concealed any medical information related to concussions, or
otherwise, from our Talent.  WWE was well ahead of sports
organizations in implementing concussion management procedures and
policies as a precautionary measure as the science and research on
this issue emerged.  We will vigorously contest this lawsuit."

The reference to the Oregon case is interesting.  In that case,
which has yet to be resolved, former WWF wrestler Billy Jack
Haynes, who was with the company for a couple of years in the mid
to late 80s, claimed the promotion did not warn wrestlers about
the dangers of concussions to workers, and that he contracted
Hepatitis C while wrestling with the company.  At the time, the
WWE responded by saying that it was impossible to know when
Mr. Haynes contracted Hep C, and that they blood test and complete
physicals for wrestlers twice yearly.

It should be noted that it is not uncommon for multiple lawsuits
to be filed when dealing with class actions.  The UFC is currently
facing a class action regarding fighter pay in which there are no
less than five separate suits filed with eleven fighters
represented between them.

In regards to the latest WWE lawsuit, Mr. McDevitt also spoke to
TMZ, and gave a less official response, saying that lesser known
wrestlers long done with the company are "being targeted by
attorneys who tell them there's hundreds of thousands of dollars
they can make by joining a class action suit like this."  He went
on to state that "We know these claims are fraudulent, and will
fight them."

Other complaints from Mr. McDevitt include the belief that
wrestlers never complained about brain damage or dementia before
lawyers started contacting them, and that the suit spends more
time talking about Chris Benoit than the three men behind it.

"What was done specifically to them? There are almost no details
as to what they actually suffered as a result of working with
WWE."

The fact is, however, that the Chris Benoit incident will play a
factor in this, should it go to trial.  Post-mortem, Mr. Benoit
was found to have damage to all four lobes of the brain and the
brain stem. He was described by a leading neurosurgeon as having
the brain of a 80 year old Alzheimer's patient. Of course, there
was no complaint about brain damage or dementia from Mr. Benoit
because it wasn't discovered until after his death.  There's also
the fact that as contract workers, most of the wrestlers in the
WWE aren't about to speak out too loudly, for fear of losing their
jobs and/or being blackballed in the industry.

Concussion concern has hit almost every major contact sport of the
years.  The NHL has brought in rules to deal with hits to the
head, hits from behind, and technology behind protective equipment
like helmets has improved over the years.  The NFL is probably the
biggest example of concussion and brain damage effects in pro
sports.  They were sued in a class action representing over 4,500
former players over what they knew about the effects to players
and when they knew it.  They chose to settle in 2013 for $765
million dollars rather than risk even more by losing at trial.
Despite the WWE being a billion dollar company, the NFL makes them
look like a small outfit -- when combined its franchises are worth
roughly 45 billion dollars.  Don't think for a second that there
isn't a legit threat brewing here.  Besides the Benoit factor,
there will be a serious look at WWE medical practices (remember CM
Punk's claims?). Is checking out a fighter twice a year
sufficient? MMA fighters do medicals every single fight.  The
impact of chair shots, blows to the head, bumps off the ropes and
through tables, while not as visually gory as a UFC bout, are just
as concerning.  Consider how many bouts a pro wrestler is involved
in over just a six month span.  They generally work more than
athletes in almost any over comparable league, and while the
results are fixed, the damage taken in pro wrestling is all too
real.

There's a good chance that a few more ex-WWE employees will join
in on this suit before all is said and done, and while they're
downplaying it publicly, there's a very real chance this suit
could drag on for some time.


                            *********

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  * * *